RMQualtrough

Perceiver and Perceived. Or just Perceived?

30 posts in this topic

This seems to come down to how one interprets the "foreground".

What I mean is, if in your mind you imagine a man as vividly as you can, then have that man point towards you, invariably we all imagine that man to be pointing directly into the foreground at "us".

The question then is, do you interpret there to be a foreground (which is made of literal nothing), or for there to BE no foreground and instead only the image of the man?

I think this is where people differ on the subject/object vs no subject/object interpretation... My own experience was one of perceived distance from the object and a subject which has a substance of total nothing. I did not feel to be the image and all elements of "I" did not feel to be me anymore. I felt to be a foreground of nothing.

How do you interpret this and why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's just one thing and God is never able to accept it, or God gets carried kicking and screaming into the infinite love singularity and impermanence and true self love wins in the end. Infinite exploration. Or it's eternal recurrence. I have no fucking clue, only time will tell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is truly no perceiver, no perceived. Perception, subject, object are appearance. The ‘intellectual’ & the ‘interpretations’ are assumption & are illusory (via thought attachment / the separate self) and is what suffering is. 

 


MEDITATIONS TOOLS  ActualityOfBeing.com  GUIDANCE SESSIONS

NONDUALITY LOA  My Youtube Channel  THE TRUE NATURE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perceived  and perceived are One. 

Judger and judged are One. 

This  is immortal/eternal. 

GOD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Zeroguy said:

Perceived  and perceived are One. 

Judger and judged are One. 

This  is immortal/eternal. 

GOD

Do you think the unification encompasses perceiver and perceived, or is there only perceived. That's the difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, RMQualtrough said:

Do you think the unification encompasses perceiver and perceived, or is there only perceived. That's the difference.

 

19 minutes ago, Nahm said:

‘Unification’ is spiritual conjecture & creates confusion, as it is an assumption. 

Drop all concepts, explanations. Truth is direct without all human tries to explain it. 

GOD /ACTUAL INFINITE LOVE

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My dog is me. Truth can and is down to earth too. Same as profound dmt trip. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Nahm said:

‘Unification’ is spiritual conjecture & creates confusion, as it is an assumption. 

Which part is the assumption? Everyone does know of form, but the "foreground" (which is formless), is that nothingness or literally non-existent period? Because it can be experienced and hence isn't assumption, but I think it could be experienced differently.

My experience was of separation from form, and what remained as nothingness back and away from form which I then was. But it had no elements of me as any me/I was an appearance of form; I just say me/I because it's the only way it makes sense... But I can see people might also say there IS no perceiver.

My own experience, I might say perceiver is nothingness, perceived is impermanent nothingness-appearing-as-somethingness, and the two together is contained as a singular eternal unit. But some will say there is only one side of the two, rather than two sides of one coin... Both are nondual but it differs here and I wonder how people have experienced it themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@RMQualtrough Different people perceive it in different ways. 

The classic perceiver/perceived duality is how one perceive it before a realization has happened.

And after realization it's experienced as perceiver and perceived is the same (oneness).

Then full circle back into duality. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, RMQualtrough said:

Which part is the assumption?

There are two which could be unified. 

18 minutes ago, RMQualtrough said:

Everyone does know of form, but the "foreground" (which is formless), is that nothingness or literally non-existent period?

That’s also an assumption. There is no such direct experience of what everyone knows, nor even of what a you knows. Non-existence is a thought with no actuality, like unicorn. Nothing is not experience or an experience. 

Bring to mind the thought of a Starbucks Pumpkin Spice Latte, and notice there is no taste, only the thought. Then imagine upon tasting it, it is revealed there is no Starbucks, no latte, no taste. 

18 minutes ago, RMQualtrough said:

Because it can be experienced and hence isn't assumption, but I think it could be experienced differently.

Only ‘the separate self’ (thoughts) claim nothing can be experienced. The mind can not go where it has not been. 

18 minutes ago, RMQualtrough said:

My experience was of separation from form, and what remained as nothingness back and away from form which I then was. But it had no elements of me as any me/I was an appearance of form; I just say me/I because it's the only way it makes sense... But I can see people might also say there IS no perceiver.

My own experience, I might say perceiver is nothingness, perceived is impermanent nothingness-appearing-as-somethingness, and the two together is contained as a singular eternal unit. But some will say there is only one side of the two, rather than two sides of one coin... Both are nondual but it differs here and I wonder how people have experienced it themselves.

The separate self ‘hides’ in the claiming of experience, my, mine, etc. 


MEDITATIONS TOOLS  ActualityOfBeing.com  GUIDANCE SESSIONS

NONDUALITY LOA  My Youtube Channel  THE TRUE NATURE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Nahm The assumption I am indeed making, is just giving the benefit of the doubt that this in front of my eyes is not the only "this". I.e. you aren't an NPC. I'm sure you understand what I mean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Nahm To not talk as a separate self would just turn conversation into incomprehensible babble and extreme semantic difficulty.

I don't find that helpful, you would literally never be able to have any discussion if we had to be that regimented... It is useful and we can understand what is meant when I say what I am seeing vs what you are seeing. I am making an assumption that you are seeing and you do know what is meant by that.

So I am assuming something which isn't the typical form of Solipsism where the sight of your screen as you read this isn't happening at all.

Barring that assumption and agreeing to not be semantic-Nazis, nothingness is not necessarily an assumption. Depending on how you experience what I mention, since I seemed to experience being nothingness. Others will have the same experience but for them it shows there IS no perceiver, not merely that the perceiver is nothingness/void. I'm wondering how and why people arrive at which conclusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, RMQualtrough said:

@Nahm To not talk as a separate self would just turn conversation into incomprehensible babble and extreme semantic difficulty.

According to who? 

Self Inquiry

Quote

I don't find that helpful, you would literally never be able to have any discussion if we had to be that regimented... It is useful and we can understand what is meant when I say what I am seeing vs what you are seeing. I am making an assumption that you are seeing and you do know what is meant by that.

Assumptions can be inspected and dispelled. 

Quote

So I am assuming something which isn't the typical form of Solipsism where the sight of your screen as you read this isn't happening at all.

Solipsism is delusion. Let it go, focus on anything else which is not discordant. 

Quote

Barring that assumption and agreeing to not be semantic-Nazis, nothingness is not necessarily an assumption. Depending on how you experience what I mention, since I seemed to experience being nothingness. Others will have the same experience but for them it shows there IS no perceiver, not merely that the perceiver is nothingness/void. I'm wondering how and why people arrive at which conclusion.

By not believing assumptions, one arrives at the truth. No one else. Just One. 

That perception can be thought, as in thunk or thought of, is ignorance, and opportunity to inspect actuality. 


MEDITATIONS TOOLS  ActualityOfBeing.com  GUIDANCE SESSIONS

NONDUALITY LOA  My Youtube Channel  THE TRUE NATURE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Nahm I would arrive at you being an NPC down that route. With literally no assumption, there is just this, I never existed before this or after this, and you are an NPC.

We know what I am talking about broadly, I think we can agree to use terms like you and me for the purpose of having a discussion... A full ego death experience is basically identical for everyone, so we are discussing what we make of that experience.

So for you was the foreground existent but nothingness, or was the foreground not there period? Or was there a meshing of everything, so any appearances seemed to be identical to you etc.

Edited by RMQualtrough

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, RMQualtrough said:

This seems to come down to how one interprets the "foreground".

Not so. Comes down to direct experience. 

31 minutes ago, RMQualtrough said:

@Nahm I would arrive at you being an NPC down that route. With literally no assumption, there is just this, I never existed before this or after this, and you are an NPC.

NPC is an assumption, another way of saying ‘a you’, the implication is ‘you’ are ‘the playable character’. This is not / was not direct experience, this is conjecture. 

Quote

We know what I am talking about broadly, I think we can agree to use terms like you and me for the purpose of having a discussion...

For sure. ?? ?

Quote

A full ego death experience is basically identical for everyone, so we are discussing what we make of that experience. 

This conflict reveals the ‘experience’ has not been, so to speak, directly experienced. What is realized is there is no everyone, and this is not realized by anyone. This is precisely not “an experience” “identical for everyone”. 

Quote

So for you was the foreground existent but nothingness, or was the foreground not there period? Or was there a meshing of everything, so any appearances seemed to be identical to you etc.

There is no you. There is no foreground. There is no nothingness. There is no everything. There is no appearance. There is no you. This does not ‘come down to interpretation’. There is no interpretation. “This” is uninterpretable, that is the realization, had by very literally no one. 

 


MEDITATIONS TOOLS  ActualityOfBeing.com  GUIDANCE SESSIONS

NONDUALITY LOA  My Youtube Channel  THE TRUE NATURE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, RMQualtrough said:

Do you think the unification encompasses perceiver and perceived, or is there only perceived. That's the difference.

Silence can be best teacher->feelings.

It is easier on psychedelics so be pragmatic and realize what all of this really is.

Use them as growth tool not to trip your balls out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now