Meister_Eckhart

@datamonster what have you studied to become what you are?

He would argue that there is no 'that which sees it', and that you create/put that on top of the appearance, and is illusory. I'm not defending him, his view just has my curiosity.

@VeganAwake This Newman message is quite baffling isn’t it? I assume @Leo Gura for one doesn’t share his message as, for example, Jim talks about consciousness and awareness not existing, they are part of the illusion and have a certain positionality to them. There’s only that which appears to arise, and it’s not real. I wonder then, what IS real?

How can you be so certain?

The longer I think about it the more confused I get. One conventional answer comes up: It seems to me that, mostly, we interpret our observations and experiences, we store those as concepts in our memory, and we test that with reality (confirming a concept we hold, perhaps recognizing it). From this, there builds up a sense of knowing. But is that real knowing? I don't think so because it's always based on past experience and we can't really know if the past equals the present, can we? And besides, it could be biased - for example someone having the 'insight' that the earth is flat (let's say it's round) because it suits the person to be a different thinker, or whatever. It seems that all indirect knowing depends on our trust in the source of information (perception, interpretation, logic, etc.). I wonder how this knowing is then different from belief. So perhaps, we can only really know something through the often mentioned 'direct experience'. The problem, I don't know what that is. If perception is not direct, then I don't recall a moment I had a direct experience. Do you?

Let's say you contemplate something. Or you take some psychedelic. An insight into some matter comes up for you. For example, you start to see that everything is one. You feel in your gut that this insight is true and from now on you live your life accordingly. But - how do you know whether or not this insight is actually true? Couldn't it be that it's just another perspective that suits you at this time? Something that makes you feel really good and special for having this perspective? People have lots of different insights, I wonder how to distinguish between fantasy and the truth of it.

@Leo Gura I just read through this interesting thread, and I wonder: How can you be so certain of the truth of your insights through psychedelic experiences? Sometimes I wonder if you are actually considering that (some of) those insights could just as well be your own fantasy interpretations which may be false. Couldn't that be ego being so deceptive that one doesn't see it? This is not an attack but a genuine inquiry. Informative on this topic: Quoted from the book 'consciousness dialogues' by Ralston: ''First, drugs don't increase consciousness; they only shift one's state of mind. Such shifts can be dramatic and might assist someone who is otherwise completely stuck or close-minded to open up. But when all is said and done, whether an "insight" is accompanied by a drug or meditation or bumping your head, you need to ask: what are you actually conscious of now that you weren't conscious of before? In other words, beyond the phenomena, what you believe, thoughts you have, visions you might have had, etc., what are you actually and presently conscious of? The answer is frequently: nothing. Meaning there is no increase in "consciousness"; there is simply the memory of dramatic experiences. Dramatic experiences come and go. Some are really neat or fascinating, some are very pleasant, some are frightening, but a perceived experience means little more than itself. In other words, it is what it is: a dramatic episode in one's mind and perceptions. From these we sometimes have new thoughts or make conclusions, which may or may not be useful, but they are not anything more meaningful than that. It is possible to have a real insight or even an enlightenment experience regardless of the circumstances (the word "experience" in this case is not accurate, but it is used to hold the place of a true increase or awakening in consciousness that does not occur as a perception). And if this is the case, it does not disappear when the drug does or when you stop meditating, or you recover from your concussion, or whatever. The ability to conveniently interpret our perceptions - and so virtually "create" a world that we believe in or wish to be so - is very strong in humans. We do it all the time, especially with " spiritual" pursuits. It is a much more powerful direction to strip as much belief and fantasy from our experience as we can. I recommend doing so without replacing them with more assumptions or beliefs about what is true. Try instead to float in a sea of not knowing for a while, being open to an experience of whatever is actually true."

I agree that I will deal from this lense anyway. But saying that there is no difference is not answering the question. The difference is that either: there is only perception from my body. All other bodies that are perceived or not actually perceiving from their body - it only seems they are. all other bodies are also, just as it seems, perceiving reality (instead of that it only seems like that from my perspective). My current opinion is I can never really know the truth of this - how could one? I'm not talking about absolute Truth now.

Thanks that's what I was asking about I actually just realize that no one can really give the answer to this, for it will always be someone else telling you and you'll never REALLY know the truth of it, is what it seems like to me now.

That point has been made and I won’t argue it now. I’m just trying to get clear if it is true that other bodies actually also have their ‘point of perception’, just as this body. That’s important. Otherwise it could be the case that ‘your’ (not your but you get me) point of perception is the only point of perception, and that the other bodies acting in the world are not having their perspective point of perceptions. Hope this is clearly phrased.

@Moksha but if we stay literal in this case: do the other bodies perceive reality from a perspective as well?

There is no you, I got you there. There are no others, no objections to that. But, then there is still that which seems to be perception (a perceived reality) from this perspective (this body). I'm not saying there's someone in the body or being the body, I'm saying there is what seems to be perception from the body. Now, can you tell whether or not there is, besides perception from this body, ALSO such perception from the other bodies that are perceived by this body? Because this body did not get that yet.

@datamonster Interesting. Perhaps it helps when you ask yourself what you want people to experience (if you haven’t tried already). Good luck.

I definitely see your point and I have to say I was really questioning the authenticity for that matter. But there have been so many exercises to confirm it, could it still be inauthentic? Either way it's probably good practice to keep track of when feeling in flow, being deeply moved by something, etc. How did you notice your vision was inauthentic and how did you find your REAL authentic one? Also - is it really such a coincidence that many have similar life purposes on actualized.org? I assume many people are here because they find the content so fascinating (at least I do and always did, and surely Leo presents it in a compelling way), and it lights one up. To us it has deep meaning, to others perhaps not so much. I do wonder what is the link between authenticity and ego, and whether or not to be worried about ego involvement. Thank you for your input!

@Leo Gura Thanks I will see and learn