How did the ( Illusion ) the sense of separation start?

[Mellowmarsh]

14 minutes ago, enchanted said:

You can't answer this question with words because words themselves are a result of a paradigm where things are distinct in the world. 

And you can’t say “distinct”  without using the word. 
 

Questions can only arise to the sense of a separate self anyway. So the onus is on the one who created the question to answer to it’s own created question. 

[Breakingthewall]

1 hour ago, Grateful Dead said:

Yes, but what you are overlooking is the fundamental reality of what the stone truly is. If we turn again to quantum physics, we see that the stone, the light, and your eye are not separate entities. They are all entanglements within a single quantum field. The transmission of information, then, is simply the way this unified field interacts with itself, what I refer to as "dreaming."

Dreaming implies a dreamer. A god who's bored and dreams the reality out love, you know that right? Then you are alone, etc etc. But if there is not a dreamer, where is the point of using the word dream? You could use the word structure, stable pattern that emerges from the unlimited, but dream always implies that you are the producer of the reality , and this is confusing, because you are the structure. Without structure there is not a you. 

1 hour ago, Grateful Dead said:

The brain has evolved to filter these signals, enabling you to navigate your daily life. Whether it is a dream constructed from memories or your everyday reality created by sensory input, the perception of distinct, solid objects is always a filtering function of your nervous system. At the fundamental level, there is no boundary between the stone and the eye. So even quantum physics denies that reality. 

The brain construct a reality based in the interaction between you and the exterior. That reality is the reality in a level, its the reality expressed as a mind . It's not a dream, it's the reality, there is not another reality more real. The mind is made of real procces, same than anything else. Using the word dream or illusion you imply that there in another reality more real and it isn't, this is the reality. 

1 hour ago, Grateful Dead said:

From my perspective, it is the exact opposite of escapism. It means that everything is connected,

Of course it is, but a dream Is a word to define the creation of your brain based in memories and residual activity in opposition with the fresh direct perception of the awoken state. And this is not the case, the mental activity is the reality expressed as mental activity, there is not another reality more real, there is more depth of perception in this exact reality, until you perceive the absolute source, that is exactly this, but filtered of veiled by the structure of the experience 

Seems that I'm arguing just for argue, but I do because I see the hindrance of the idea dream and illusion. 

[Mellowmarsh]

36 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

You think creation happens, but you don't see yourself as a creator.  

I see myself as a real created fictional character, yes. 

[Mellowmarsh]

15 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Dreaming implies a dreamer. A god who's bored and dreams the reality out love, you know that right? Then you are alone, etc etc. But if there is not a dreamer, where is the point of using the word dream? You could use the word structure, stable pattern that emerges from the unlimited, but dream always implies that you are the producer of the reality , and this is confusing, because you are the structure. Without structure there is not a you. 

The brain construct a reality based in the interaction between you and the exterior. That reality is the reality in a level, its the reality expressed as a mind . It's not a dream, it's the reality, there is not another reality more real. The mind is made of real procces, same than anything else. Using the word dream or illusion you imply that there in another reality more real and it isn't, this is the reality. 

Of course it is, but a dream Is a word to define the creation of your brain based in memories and residual activity in opposition with the fresh direct perception of the awoken state. And this is not the case, the mental activity is the reality expressed as mental activity, there is not another reality more real, there is more depth of perception in this exact reality, until you perceive the absolute source, that is exactly this, but filtered of veiled by the structure of the experience 

Seems that I'm arguing just for argue, but I do because I see the hindrance of the idea dream and illusion. 

The knowledge of what is real and unreal is determined by their distinction. How else would you know the difference between what’s real and unreal? 
 

What does REAL actually mean to you Breakingthewall? Will you say in no more than 6 or 10 words, what real means to you personally. Thanks for not writing a book in your reply. It’s starts to get too heavy. Let’s keep it simple.
 

 

Edited 4 hours ago by Mellowmarsh

[Joseph Maynor]

20 minutes ago, Mellowmarsh said:

I see myself as a real created fictional character, yes. 

The question is who is the creator?  

[Schizophonia]

36 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Dreaming implies a dreamer. A god who's bored and dreams the reality out love, you know that right? Then you are alone, etc etc. But if there is not a dreamer, where is the point of using the word dream? You could use the word structure, stable pattern that emerges from the unlimited, but dream always implies that you are the producer of the reality , and this is confusing, because you are the structure. Without structure there is not a you. 

The brain construct a reality based in the interaction between you and the exterior. That reality is the reality in a level, its the reality expressed as a mind . It's not a dream, it's the reality, there is not another reality more real. The mind is made of real procces, same than anything else. Using the word dream or illusion you imply that there in another reality more real and it isn't, this is the reality. 

Of course it is, but a dream Is a word to define the creation of your brain based in memories and residual activity in opposition with the fresh direct perception of the awoken state. And this is not the case, the mental activity is the reality expressed as mental activity, there is not another reality more real, there is more depth of perception in this exact reality, until you perceive the absolute source, that is exactly this, but filtered of veiled by the structure of the experience 

Seems that I'm arguing just for argue, but I do because I see the hindrance of the idea dream and illusion. 

God cannot "get bored" since that is an egotistical property.

[Breakingthewall]

31 minutes ago, Mellowmarsh said:

What does REAL actually mean to you Breakingthewall? Will you say in no more than 6 or 10 words, what real means to you personally. Thanks for not writing a book in your reply. It’s starts to get too heavy. Let’s keep it simple.

 

Real is that you are. 

(The previous introduction was because I thought you was the other user, sorry)

Edited 3 hours ago by Breakingthewall

[Mellowmarsh]

29 minutes ago, Sugarcoat said:

Ive heard this thing before where people say that it's the labelling creating the identity and I dont agree. It's not like a child starts feeling like they exist because the parent says their name and refers to them as someone. If it were that way, then it would be like a very weak self that would be easy to breakthrough and more people would be enlightened lol. The labeling can't cause this entire sense of being here separate from the world over there, the labels are not that powerful. 

It’s entirely your prerogative to say whatever you want,  if it’s what’s being perceived there in your mind. 
 

I just personally think all the trouble started when the parents gave their offspring a name. That’s when the separation started. But that’s just my belief, I’m not expecting anyone to agree with me. Others can think for themselves of course, and it won’t change my mind one iota.  It’s a human activity, naming creates known objects. So it’s normal anyway. If we were all conceptually mute like the rest of nature, then what the hell is separation anyway? What does a planet know about separation?
The fiction of separation is real for the human mind because the human mind was the phenomenon that created it with their conceptual language.

 

 

 

[Breakingthewall]

4 minutes ago, Schizophonia said:

God cannot "get bored" since that is an egotistical property.

I said if ironic, like saying, it's the consequence of this line of thought. . Sorry for not explaining it literally, I thought it was clear 

[Schizophonia]

1 minute ago, Breakingthewall said:

I said if ironic, like saying, it's the consequence of this line of thought. . Sorry for not explaining it literally, I thought it was clear 

Oh ok.

To be honest, I skimmed it, so it might be my fault.

[Mellowmarsh]

1 minute ago, Breakingthewall said:

If long explanation it's to much for your mental level I will try to adapt it for people of your condition. Lets go. Are you ready? 

Real is that you are. 

Okay, so you is real, but where is this real you when you die? Is a dead “ you” real too?

 

 

[Mellowmarsh]

Spoiler

 

 

Joseph you’ve already answered your question. 

[Breakingthewall]

15 minutes ago, Mellowmarsh said:

Okay, so you is real, but where is this real you when you die? Is a dead “ you” real too?

 

 

Sure if I die you are still alive, and you could say that you are in my place. We are the same fact, the reality recognizing itself. The content can change , but the fact is always the same. Anyway, what is called enlightenment is not being absolutely empty of content nailed in the fact of consciousness, it's being open to the nature of the source, it's another step

[Sugarcoat]

29 minutes ago, Schizophonia said:

Oh ok.

To be honest, I skimmed it, so it might be my fault.

AHHAAHHh you skim like me. Ok I do stop and read stuff too but I skim a lot too. Im writing this because ive wondered how much people actually stop and read things vs skimming. Its sound like basic topic but genuinely ive thought about this

 

Edited 3 hours ago by Sugarcoat

[Sugarcoat]

33 minutes ago, Mellowmarsh said:

It’s entirely your prerogative to say whatever you want,  if it’s what’s being perceived there in your mind. 
 

I just personally think all the trouble started when the parents gave their offspring a name. That’s when the separation started. But that’s just my belief, I’m not expecting anyone to agree with me. Others can think for themselves of course, and it won’t change my mind one iota.  It’s a human activity, naming creates known objects. So it’s normal anyway. If we were all conceptually mute like the rest of nature, then what the hell is separation anyway? What does a planet know about separation?
The fiction of separation is real for the human mind because the human mind was the phenomenon that created it with their conceptual language.

 

 

 

So a person that somehow hypothetically was born isolated on an island, dont you think they'd still feel like they are separate from the nature there and when they look around they feel they are perceiving foreign objects and animals etc? 
 

 

Edited 3 hours ago by Sugarcoat

[Joseph Maynor]

15 minutes ago, Mellowmarsh said:

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

Joseph you’ve already answered your question. 

No.  I'm asking you.  You deflected. 

[Grateful Dead]

50 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Dreaming implies a dreamer. A god who's bored and dreams the reality out love, you know that right? Then you are alone, etc etc. But if there is not a dreamer, where is the point of using the word dream? You could use the word structure, stable pattern that emerges from the unlimited, but dream always implies that you are the producer of the reality , and this is confusing, because you are the structure. Without structure there is not a you. 

That is not how I see it. From my perspective, God has nothing to do with the dream. God is real and eternally unchanging.

I view it this way: the dream came into existence, so to speak, through God's creation (you and I), which wanted to cut itself off from God in order to become the Source itself, and thus be separate from and independent of God. You could also say that the dream was created to escape the infinite, structureless unity of God.

51 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Using the word dream or illusion you imply that there in another reality more real

Yes, that is kind of what I mean. But I dont describe it as another reality, but rather as the only reality. You cannot compare it to this world; yet, in comparison to this world, this world is unreal, an illusion, a fleeting dream. 

You cannot see it with your eyes; for that, you must leave the world completely. You can prepare yourself for it as best you can, but in the end, it depends on the grace of God. That is my experience anyway.

52 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Of course it is, but a dream Is a word to define the creation of your brain based in memories and residual activity in opposition with the fresh direct perception of the awoken state.

there is more depth of perception in this exact reality, until you perceive the absolute source, that is exactly this, but filtered of veiled by the structure of the experience

The word dream can be used to describe an experience evoked by psychological activity during sleep. In this context, I am referring to the dream of separation. 

You can transcend the depth of perception within a dream, on that point, I agree; to me, that signifies being awake within the dream. It is the best state you can attain through the exercise of your will.

1 hour ago, Breakingthewall said:

Seems that I'm arguing just for argue, but I do because I see the hindrance of the idea dream and illusion. 

I don't mind it when someone argues against me. It allows me to refine my perspective and helps me internalize it more deeply. And if there happens to be a gap or a flaw in my view, I want to know about it.

[Mellowmarsh]

1 minute ago, Joseph Maynor said:

No.  I'm asking you.  You deflected. 

I agreed with you, that’s not deflection. 

[Joseph Maynor]

1 minute ago, Mellowmarsh said:

I agreed with you, that’s not deflection. 

I'm asking what does Jane think.  

[Schizophonia]

14 minutes ago, Sugarcoat said:

AHHAAHHh you skim like me. Ok I do stop and read stuff too but I skim a lot too. Im writing this because ive wondered how much people actually stop and read things vs skimming. Its sound like basic topic but genuinely ive thought about this

 

"orkar inte" 😹