The Biggest "Blunder" Of Reality That Everyone Overlooks

[Mellowmarsh]

19 minutes ago, Princess Arabia said:

There's no awareness in me. Ideas are not in me. "Ideas in me that is awareness" can't be because awareness is supposed to be aware of ideas. You say we all see the same things but I guess except for the blind. Their shit's out of luck.

You say boundless awareness then say they don't exist outside of awareness. Doesn't exist inside either if it's boundless because there is no outside or inside boundlessness. "Within boundless awareness" is a contradiction. Awareness cannot be infinitely boundless and also BE AWARE OF anything....that's not infinite. Awareness cannot be everything and also be AWARE OF ANYTHING. It also cannot be one with because that's separation that became one. ONE WITH implies two. 

Your whole narrative is flawed but it's OK, it's this awareness thing that gets people. No such thing. 

No one knows this.

[Princess Arabia]

5 minutes ago, Mellowmarsh said:

No one knows this.

Correct. There's no one to know anything.

[Mellowmarsh]

10 minutes ago, Princess Arabia said:

No explanation in this thread explained how seeing the same things is possible from different bodies without splitting reality into pieces. 

That’s due to the solipsistic nature of reality.

Nothing can prove or disprove reality exists. 

No two minds ever met. No two things ever touch.

I cannot prove your consciousness, I accept that on faith. Now you might argue that my consciousness could be an illusion of yours, but I know this to be false. Unless our consciousnesses merge by some means, I cannot prove mine to you, and you cannot prove yours to me. Or, more accurately, I cannot prove yours to me, and you cannot prove mine to you.

[Mellowmarsh]

8 minutes ago, Princess Arabia said:

Correct. There's no one to know anything.

And yet there is one to know there is no one to know anything. 

[Nemra]

There could be a more radical answer that came to my mind just now: if reality is imaginary, then a person is imagined in such a way that what you both see is the same thing.

However, I say this with very little confidence, because recently I’ve had only a few glimpses of reality being imaginary—literally.

Edited 10 hours ago by Nemra

[Princess Arabia]

9 minutes ago, Nemra said:

There could be a more radical answer that came to my mind just now: if reality is imaginary, then a person is imagined in such a way that what you both see is the same thing.

However, I say this with very little confidence, because recently I’ve had only a few glimpses of reality being imaginary—literally.

Reality is not imaginary. You are. There just can't be a real entity that can realize an imaginary reality. 

[Princess Arabia]

28 minutes ago, Mellowmarsh said:

And yet there is one to know there is no one to know anything. 

There is no one to know anything. Knowing is knowing that's it. No one there TO know.

[Princess Arabia]

35 minutes ago, Mellowmarsh said:

Now you might argue that my consciousness could be an illusion of yours,

I will not argue such thing either way because I have no consciousness that can even be an illusion. There is no one to have consciousness.

 

38 minutes ago, Mellowmarsh said:

I cannot prove mine to you, and you cannot prove yours to me. Or, more accurately, I cannot prove yours to me, and you cannot prove mine to you.

Exactly. 

[samijiben]

1 hour ago, Princess Arabia said:

Another got no where post. Not many will attempt these notions because it imply no one there that's seeing anything and the senses are imaginary and perception is an illusion so is perspectives, consciousness and awareness. These are, don't get me wrong but they are for no one. No one owns anything. No one owns eyes. Those eyes are decorations , they see nothing. Seeing is just happening. I'm still waiting for an explanation to change my illusory perspective. No explanation in this thread explained how seeing the same things is possible from different bodies without splitting reality into pieces. 

No, actually, you are asking nonsense question, Princess. 

If I said, blahblahblah, look at my toes, now look at my arse, now scratch it while doing a backflip and EXCALIM "OM MANI PADME HUM!"

And this is not even to mention you are expecting an answer?? And have audacity to say other people response not logical enough???

Your op didnt even pose a proper question. You just said, look here, look there, now abracadabra whizzlepop, what happened? Explain me that.

No! No one gonna explain you that! You are fknnnn insane! Insane! If you are not joking, and seriously looking for an explanation for whatever the fuck kind lf question you hopefully don't still have, then 1st place to look is psychiatrist office.

All the best, Princess. 

 

[Nemra]

18 minutes ago, Princess Arabia said:

Reality is not imaginary. You are. There just can't be a real entity that can realize an imaginary reality. 

I'm not saying that as a human I'm imagining reality. I just had a few glimpses that physical reality, as in any object that is being experienced, is somehow imaginary.

Anyways.

Edited 10 hours ago by Nemra

[Princess Arabia]

6 minutes ago, samijiben said:

No, actually, you are asking nonsense question, Princess. 

If I said, blahblahblah, look at my toes, now look at my arse, now scratch it while doing a backflip and EXCALIM "OM MANI PADME HUM!"

And this is not even to mention you are expecting an answer?? And have audacity to say other people response not logical enough???

Your op didnt even pose a proper question. You just said, look here, look there, now abracadabra whizzlepop, what happened? Explain me that.

No! No one gonna explain you that! You are fknnnn insane! Insane! If you are not joking, and seriously looking for an explanation for whatever the fuck kind lf question you hopefully don't still have, then 1st place to look is psychiatrist office.

All the best, Princess. 

 

Thanks. Making my point. 

[Princess Arabia]

7 minutes ago, Nemra said:

I'm not saying that as a human I'm imagining reality. I just had a few glimpses that physical reality, as in any object that is being experienced, is somehow imaginary.

Anyways.

Ok. Both are. There are no actual objects and there is no actual subject. It's not even imaginary, it's just not there.

[UnbornTao]

Well, you are conscious, and you say that you exist - so the question is, what's that about? Who are you? Stay open and keep at it until you reach an experiential realization or insight. Trying to figure it out is not the same as contemplating it.

Otherwise, believing in notions is just that - and they simply contradict what seems to be your current experience: being a self, having a pretty solid sense of yourself. That's perfectly fine too. Just don't mistake adopting lofty ideas, such as "no-self," for a conscious experience of the matter.

[Natasha Tori Maru]

1 hour ago, Princess Arabia said:

Another got no where post. Not many will attempt these notions because it imply no one there that's seeing anything and the senses are imaginary and perception is an illusion so is perspectives, consciousness and awareness. These are, don't get me wrong but they are for no one. No one owns anything. No one owns eyes. Those eyes are decorations , they see nothing. Seeing is just happening. I'm still waiting for an explanation to change my illusory perspective. 

One could argue seeing or experiencing the same thing is an assumption. We do not actually experience the same thing when, for example, you and I sit and watch a lamp. Each sees different light, different angles. We just share the 'thinking' minds label and context as a descriptor for experience, as a mutual agreement. It's all conceptual. All arising from the social doman.

You could argue we never see or experience the same thing. We agree for the sake of simplicity and cohesion. Is experience still shared, in this case? 

1 hour ago, Princess Arabia said:

 No explanation in this thread explained how seeing the same things is possible from different bodies without splitting reality into pieces. 

Isn't this the paradox? Indras net. One and seperate as a hologram? 

Just random ideas 🙃 

[Nemra]

17 minutes ago, Princess Arabia said:

Ok. Both are. There are no actual objects and there is no actual subject. It's not even imaginary, it's just not there.

By "object" I mean what is literally appearing, like the phone or computer that you are using. You wouldn't talk about it if it didn't appear. And I'm saying that it is somehow being imagined.

But I'll stop here.

Edited 10 hours ago by Nemra

[Princess Arabia]

18 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

Trying to figure it out is not the same as contemplating it.

I'm not really trying to figure it out and I've already did the contemplations. No one is there seeing anything. This thread wasn't for me to get an answer to but to see if anyone could possibly explain this without illusion and fantasies. No one could and never will without denying their self.

Edited 9 hours ago by Princess Arabia

[Princess Arabia]

17 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

One could argue seeing or experiencing the same thing is an assumption. We do not actually experience the same thing when, for example, you and I sit and watch a lamp.

Yeah, but I'm not referring to EXPERIENCING a thing. Just the raw seeing of it. 

[Mellowmarsh]

58 minutes ago, Princess Arabia said:

There is no one to know anything. Knowing is knowing that's it. No one there TO know.

There is no such one as a no one. One is one, and cannot not be one.

[Princess Arabia]

19 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

You could argue we never see or experience the same thing.

I see a boat you won't see an orange, you'll also see a boat. The experience of seeing the boat is a different matter which i'm not referring to in the OP, just the raw seeing of it. How can I see a boat and you see a boat with different sets of eyes and different bodies if we are separate. I say there's no one actually in these bodies seeing anything and it's just seeing happening. No one seems to be getting this. You mentioned experiencing things the same when i didn't even mention experiencing anything.

[Princess Arabia]

6 minutes ago, Mellowmarsh said:

There is no such one as a no one. One is one, and cannot not be one.

Ok. Word semantics at play.