The Biggest "Blunder" Of Reality That Everyone Overlooks

[Natasha Tori Maru]

46 minutes ago, Nemra said:

A possible rephrasing could be: How is it possible that a thing within my experience can be referred or pointed to both by me and by other things within that same experience?

By shared context?

[Princess Arabia]

12 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

My brain is exploding 🤯 

Lol, mine too. 

[Princess Arabia]

59 minutes ago, Nemra said:

A possible rephrasing could be: How is it possible that a thing within my experience can be referred or pointed to both by me and by other things within that same experience?

This is pretty much it; except the word experience, i think, puts the question in a different context and now gives room for interpretations and references to one experiencing an object rather than just the raw seeing of it. I like the way you rephrased it, though.

[Princess Arabia]

What I'm trying to get at in this thread is showing "non-separation". Showing how seeing, for example, is Absolute all on its own. You're not seeing, I'm not seeing, it's just seeing.

Edited September 5 by Princess Arabia

[Nemra]

24 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

By shared context?

With whom is the context shared if others’ experience is non-existent for you?

[UnbornTao]

2 minutes ago, Princess Arabia said:

What I'm trying to get at in this thread is showing "non-separation". Showing how seeing, for example, is Absolute all on its own. You're not seeing, I'm not seeing, it's just seeing.

How is seeing absolute? So, in your view, perception is direct? 

[Nemra]

3 minutes ago, Princess Arabia said:

What I'm trying to get at in this thread is showing "non-separation". Showing how seeing, for example, is Absolute all on its own. You're not seeing, I'm not seeing, it's just seeing.

Whatever you are, you are seeing a thing.

It is not that your body or another’s body is doing the seeing, because they themselves are seen by you.

[Nemra]

39 minutes ago, Nemra said:

1 hour ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

By shared context?

With whom is the context shared if others’ experience is non-existent for you?

@Natasha Tori Maru, I think this is a question of why things are the way they are—a question to which I don’t have a deeper answer.

Edited September 6 by Nemra

[Natasha Tori Maru]

42 minutes ago, Nemra said:

@Natasha Tori Maru, I think this is a question of why things are the way they are—a question to which I don’t have a deeper answer.

I agree, which is why it started banging around in my head without an answer 😀

[Princess Arabia]

1 hour ago, UnbornTao said:

How is seeing absolute? So, in your view, perception is direct? 

Everything is Absolute. Infinite. Perception is illusion. My hand is Absolute, my toes are Absolute, a cup, a tree a rose, a cat a dog, all Absolute in their own right. They only appear separate and finite to the observer. That's an illusion. There's nothing that isn't Absolute. Absolute is all there is. Relativity is illusion. It's not really happening. I mean to show this in this thread but no one seems to be getting it. I couldn't see the same thing you're seeing or hearing if those senses weren't Absolute. 

 

[Natasha Tori Maru]

1 hour ago, Princess Arabia said:

 I couldn't see the same thing you're seeing or hearing if those senses weren't Absolute. 

I think maybe there is some confusing stuff going on for me here. There definitely needs to be some clarity around when we are speaking from the Absolute and the relative. It seems to me there is flip flopping between the two in an attempt to raise a concept. I could be wrong.

How can senses be absolute? 

Take awareness of sense perception. 

• When seeing the cow - if we both perceive it with the eyes - each pair of eyes detect different light waves in the retina, not the exact same light bouncing off the cow.
• When smelling the cow, neither of us can detect the exact same particles of scent at the same time - both noses interact with different particles.
• When hearing the moo from the cow - each pair of ears here a different part of the wavelength of the sound as it transverses the medium to our ears.
• When tasting the cow - we each cannot lick its arse at precisely the same spot at the same time. We lick the particles and experience different particles each.
• When touching the cow, we cannot each touch the same part of the fur of the cow at the same time. It is always a different part of the cow.

So we cannot, in fact, sense the cow at the same time. We are only AGREEing there is a concept of a cow. Mental agreement. 

All we seem to be doing is agreeing on the fact there is a 'cow' as a concept. The sound, the vision, the touch and taste/smell all come together and we call that a 'cow'. You can see here there is an ontological claim that materialism makes to the cow existing. We are sort of brainwashed into believing in the cow ay? From birth.

If we try to extrapolate to the Absolute? There is just awareness of stuff we call cow. You and I, we each perceive a 'cow' with senses and thought definition. Behind us is awareness. That is all. Empty awareness. Subject.

If we say this awareness (or consciousness) is shared, then it follows there are an infinity of cow perceptions (because we cannot sense the EXACT SAME cow as per above). Infinite projections or spotlights, all slightly different, all projecting parts that make up what we call 'cow'. If we go further and render this as an illusion - and we are the same awareness, we all agree to perceive in such a way to see a cow in a cohesive conceptual manner. So, the illusion is real because each awareness (that is one) all agree there is a cow. Because there is no other to disagree there is a cow. It's just one. Awareness/consciousness is all one and it doesn't disagree.

So, the cow is projected into existence as perception in a million different forms / perspectives / frames from the single awareness, each with its own unique sense perception and mind. Each consciousness sees a different part of the illusion that comes together as the reality of the 'cow' and doesn't disagree with itself as to the cow existing because... it's one. No one to disagree...

All partake in the illusion of matter and time.

Fuck I dunno lol 

Edited September 6 by Natasha Tori Maru

[Princess Arabia]

@Natasha Tori Maruok. I rest my case. Too much going on there. 

[Natasha Tori Maru]

@Princess Arabia

By no means was I trying to argue a case etc - I really appreciate the topic because it made me really dive into the whole thing

I like the open ended nature of a lot of what you raise on the forum, because in trying to grasp the concept, I become aware of assumptions I make myself!

[Princess Arabia]

1 hour ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

@Princess Arabia

By no means was I trying to argue a case etc - I really appreciate the topic because it made me really dive into the whole thing

I like the open ended nature of a lot of what you raise on the forum, because in trying to grasp the concept, I become aware of assumptions I make myself!

No, I didn't mean it as you were arguing a case. It was a figure of speech. Just seemed like a lot to unfold. I just see it simply as seeing is the case with no one doing the seeing.

My cat and I jumped earlier from hearing a loud noise outside. She jumped and I jumped. She looked outside, I looked outside. Someone just dropped a trash can and it made a loud noise. 

She has cat ears, I have human ears. She has a cat body and I have a human body. We both heard the same noise at the same time. How's that. That's the point i'm trying to raise here. Not perceptions or translations, just the raw sound of the noise heard by two entirely different species. The sense perceptions seems to not be owned as in my ears that hears. No one hears, it's just hearing happening. Hearing is what's happening but without anyone doing the hearing. That's my point. This is my body and that's her body, but we hear the same things through different bodies. Insert any circumstance and any sense except the feeling sense. She cannot even see herself in the mirror. I already tested that but she can see me. Weird.

Edited September 6 by Princess Arabia

[Mellowmarsh]

10 hours ago, Princess Arabia said:

You're not seeing, I'm not seeing, it's just seeing.

Empty seeing 💡? is there anything that seeing sees, is seen?

Edited September 6 by Mellowmarsh

[Mellowmarsh]

9 hours ago, Princess Arabia said:

Everything is Absolute. Infinite. Perception is illusion. My hand is Absolute, my toes are Absolute, a cup, a tree a rose, a cat a dog, all Absolute in their own right. They only appear separate and finite to the observer. That's an illusion. There's nothing that isn't Absolute. Absolute is all there is. Relativity is illusion. It's not really happening. I mean to show this in this thread but no one seems to be getting it. I couldn't see the same thing you're seeing or hearing if those senses weren't Absolute. 

 

We are the absolute.

That's why we cannot feel another bodies pain or pleasure because there is no other body. All other apparent bodies are relative appearances within only the absolute. Absolute seeing is absolute knowing of every appearance. Pain and pleasure being appearances. While seeing/ awareness never appears because it’s everywhere at once, only once, in other words infinity. Infinite.
 

What do you think?

 

Im still trying to put into words why we don’t experience other people’s pain or pleasure 

 

 

Edited September 6 by Mellowmarsh

[UnbornTao]

13 hours ago, Princess Arabia said:

Everything is Absolute. Infinite. Perception is illusion. My hand is Absolute, my toes are Absolute, a cup, a tree a rose, a cat a dog, all Absolute in their own right. They only appear separate and finite to the observer. That's an illusion. There's nothing that isn't Absolute. Absolute is all there is. Relativity is illusion. It's not really happening. I mean to show this in this thread but no one seems to be getting it. I couldn't see the same thing you're seeing or hearing if those senses weren't Absolute. 

Yes, an absolute is absolute - but do we really grasp that as itself? Or is it merely intellect? Either way, this is the problem of conflating these domains. A thing gets to exist thanks to its being limited. So when you say something like my hand, that's a particular, and this is what we call relative. Your toes aren't a cup, or a cat, or joy - they're that particular thing. Otherwise, there would be no need to distinguish it from what it is not.

So here's a new thought: We live in the relative. The relative is everything. Everything you experience is relative. A thing exists in relation to what is not that thing. And then we have the so-called absolute as a possibility for us to realize. 

Perceiving may well be impersonal, so the fact that it occurs shouldn't be extrapolated into some observer lurking behind it. We could take a deeper approach here, but with this medium it is tricky. What is experience? What is self?

Edited September 6 by UnbornTao

[Princess Arabia]

30 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

Yes, an absolute is absolute, but do we really grasp that as itself? Or it's merely intellect? Either way, this is the problem of conflating these domains. A thing gets to exist thanks to it being limited. So when you say something like my hand, that's a particular thing, and this is what we call relative. Certainly your toes aren't a cup, or a cat, or joy - they're that particular thing. Otherwise, there would be no need to make it distinct from what it is not. This wouldn't be useful for our survival. 

So, a new thought: We live in the relative. The relative is everything.  Everything you experience is relative. A thing exists relative to what is not that thing. And, some possibility we call "the absolute" stands in the corner.

Perception may well be impersonal, so the fact that it is occurring shouldn't be extrapolated as some observer being behind it. I think we could take a deeper approach for this but it's tricky with this medium. What's experience? What's self? 

Yes, fine. No need to have a forum on spirituality if we're going to discuss what is seemingly appearing to happen. Ok. The dog is choking. The cat is eating. I'm going to work. My car needs fixing. I am not my toe. All relatively experienced. So what. Why discuss that on a forum of this nature. I say what I say because that's actually the case without the stories, ideas, concepts and abstractions from the dream of the separate self. It's more exciting and real than the made up stories of the I AM, in my opinion, so it's worth talking about instead of dead stories that isn't even happening in the first place.

It's not even about grasping or intellect. It's the Absolute appearing as that in ether case. So it really doesn't matter if the "person" says they've grasped it or seems to be intellectualizing. In both cases it's still Absolute as both and is impossible to grasp and is seeming to be intellectualized but not really.

[Princess Arabia]

4 hours ago, Mellowmarsh said:

Empty seeing 💡? is there anything that seeing sees, is seen?

Exactly. It's all empty. Seeing sees emptiness. Emptiness is seeing nothing. Nothing is being seeing.

Edited September 6 by Princess Arabia

[Mellowmarsh]

Just now, Princess Arabia said:

Exactly. It's all empty. Seeing sees emptiness.

Wow, just wow. 
 

This is taking the breath out of me. 😉