Mason Riggle

@Swarnim 'nice'

Through meditation you may begin to recognize your own thoughts coming on the exact same way the chirping of a bird does.. every bit of 'your experience' arising into awareness, with no 'you' who's doing any of it. Reality happens.

?

@Leo Gura 'dancing around'.. cute metaphor. Language is metaphor, and shitty is subjective. 'raining cats and dogs' and 'pouring out' point to the same thing.. but if you think 'raining cats and dogs' means that actual cats and dogs are falling from the sky, then obviously you will think that's a pretty shitty metaphor for what's actually occurring with the weather. If you understand the metaphor, it's a perfectly good one.

@Someone here I suppose I can't see a difference between the two.

'guilt' is just a word, a map. It's like saying, electrons have a 'desired state'.. clearly electrons don't have 'desires' in the exact same sense of the word we use to describe human urges, but it's a decent enough metaphor. The map is not the territory.. and while this particular map may be kind of blurry and a little simplistic, with the proper meta-understanding, it might not be as 'silly' as you think. The dream is a function of guilt, as much as it is a function of Love.. depending on your understanding of the words 'guilt' and 'Love'.

^this is because you have the wrong definition of 'God'. You think 'God' exists separate from 'God's Creation', but those are actually the same thing. God can't create 'other bubbles' because the 'other bubbles' would just be 'more God'. Consider a computer program that could 'self edit it's own code'.. any 'edit it makes to itself', is just 'more of itself'. The edits aren't 'other code'.. they are just 'more of the program writing itself'.

@Someone here notice that when you pour a glass of water, you are manipulating reality consciously with your mind. The explanation I gave is in the context that all there is is 'God/Mind', and God/Mind 'pretends' (imagines, dreams, etc) that it is separate from itself in order to know itself (be itself, seem like something rather than Nothing/Everything, etc.) Alan Watts explains it in his work 'The Dream of Life', where he puts forward the idea that everything occurring now is 'God's Dream', and it's a dream of pretending not to be what it is. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- " And finally, you would dream where you are now. You would dream the dream of living the life that you are actually living today. That would be within the infinite multiplicity of choices you would have. Of playing that you weren't God, because the whole nature of the godhead, according to this idea, is to play that he is not. So in this idea then, everybody is fundamentally the ultimate reality, not God in a politically kingly sense, but god in the sense of being the self, the deep-down basic whatever there is. And you are all that, only you are pretending you are not." - from 'The Dream of Life' by Alan Watts.

Solipsism and Proof are mutually exclusive. Proof would imply there is something 'other than self', and Solipsism is the view or theory that the self is all that can be known to exist, because everything is 'the self'. (I'm alone in the Universe because I am the Universe).

There is no proof against Solipsism. I can't even prove to myself in this moment that there is anything beyond the entirety of this moment. Any 'proof' is just more 'the entirety of this moment'. I know for certain that something seems to be happening Now.. beyond that I can never be certain what that something is. I can only know what seems to be, and it always seems to be whatever there is Now, which is 'the entirety of my experience' (the contents of which I could be totally mistaken about.. I could be a brain in a vat somewhere hallucinating my entire life.. this could all be just a dream, etc.) I can't know if there's anything 'other' than the entirety of my current experience. From my perspective, the only ONE I have, whatever there seems to be (the entirety of my current experience), is the ONLY thing there is.

Except that you are already manipulating reality consciously through your mind, it's just that you don't know who you are. You have tricked yourself into thinking you are separate from reality... that there is 'your mind' and 'that which is not 'your mind', but it's all 'your mind'.

Nonduality (Oneness) is always the case, only it doesn't seem that way. This is because in order for 1 thing to seem like anything requires duality. (try describing a cup without duality. How does a cup seem to you? How could you describe it without duality? If it seems light in color, that only has meaning relative to 'dark'. If it's a big cup, this is only relative to small, etc.. Reality SEEMS dual, because the very act of SEEMING itself requires duality. Without (imagined) duality, reality can't seem like anything. Reality can not be 'dual', because there is only one reality. Whatever there is, is reality, so there can't be anything 'else'. Reality SEEMS dual, however, because that's how SEEMING works. SEEMING is like how Reality describes itself to itself. It's how Reality 'knows itself'. Consider your arm for a moment.. you can look at your arm and think, here is 1 arm.. but you could also see this 1 arm as 'a hand and a wrist and an elbow, etc.. but notice that these distinctions are rather arbitrary and relative.. where does the hand end and the wrist begin? There really is no separation between the two, other than the arbitrary separation we assign it.. We could say that the arm (nondual) is made of 2 parts (dual). 'the hand' and 'everything that's not the hand'. The arm IS one thing.. the whole arm.. but it SEEMS like two things: the hand, and that which is not the hand. The same is True for reality.. it's one thing, seeming like many things. It SEEMS like there is a tree, and that which is not a tree.. but there really is no separation other than arbitrary relative (imaginary) separation. Reality is one big system. The inside of a cup and the outside of a cup seem like two things, but they are both 'the cup'.

@Someone here when a body builder enjoys the intense muscle ache (pain) after a grueling workout, his he/she suffering?

Why are you guys wasting your time with Pick Up.. just get yourself a bottle of Sex Panther™. 60% of the time it works every time!

'Other Universe' is an oxymoron (self contradictory). The term 'Universe' already encompasses all that there is.

@Someone here I think this is a translation issue.. 'cessation' isn't really 'ending'.. it's more like 'letting go'. When you are hungry, the hunger is the suffering.. if 'being hungry' is causing you to suffer, then you are suffering from the suffering. By accepting that you are hungry, you do not suffer from 'being hungry', although the 'hunger' remains. Something like that.

@Anahata yes. Imaginary = Real

@Anahata when you say 'Really investigate this matter' notice 'what' exactly you're referring to.. Of course I get what you are saying.. it's all consciousness. (I think perhaps you meant to direct your comment to @RMQualtrough rather than me). I could have said, 'Johnny Bravo seems to exist. He seems to be a cartoon character', language that's a little better at conveying that it's the 'seeming' that's 'real', while the contents of seeming (what seems to be) are just that. We might explore what it means for something to 'exist'. Does Johnny Bravo exist? Sure, just as much as my chair exists, or thoughts about chairs exist, or the experience of chairs exists. Does anything 'really exist', or does everything only 'seem to exist'? Is there any difference?

@Hulia then it wouldn't be skin like mine, it would be some other kind of skin that resembles mine. He can't have skin like mine that's not like mine. That doesn't make sense. That's like a beverage that tastes like grape and not like grape.

@Hulia I guess that was my point.. Johnny Bravo is already real. He already does exist... and if there is some difference between 'the Johnny Bravo that already exists' and 'some other more real Johnny Bravo' then they are two different things. I think the OP is conflating 'real' with 'has all the qualities of a human'. Would the hypothetical 'real Johnny Bravo' have skin like me, or remain a cartoon?

@Hulia chairs are less real than people?

@Hulia okay, but why does that make Johnny Bravo any less real? (we seem to have different notions of what 'interacting' means, so I'll go along with your definition and agree that I don't interact with Johnny Bravo any more than I interact with the rest of my surroundings, like my chair, which is still real, even though we don't 'interact'.)

@Hulia if Johnny Bravo isn't interacting with me, how do I see him when I watch him? Isn't my 'watching Johnny Bravo' me interacting with Johnny Bravo?

@Hulia not sure what you mean. When I watch Johnny Bravo, am I not interacting with Johnny Bravo? If 'the real Johnny Bravo' is different from 'Johnny Bravo', then it's not the 'real Johnny Bravo', but rather some other thing that resembles Johnny Bravo but isn't Johnny Bravo.

Desire/Suffering are two sides of the same coin.. wanting/not wanting. What you 'desire' is to 'not suffer'. Suffering is 'that which we do not desire'. You would not desire food, if you did not suffer hunger pain. Desire/Suffering is necessary, because without it, the Universe would be static and unchanging. If a ball that was 'up' did not 'desire' to be down, balls would not fall when dropped. "There will always be suffering. But we must not suffer over the suffering." - Alan Watts