Princess Arabia

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

Don't kid yourself. You didn't get laid because you didn't get laid.

Congrats for what. Meeting people. Or the kiss he had.

"Click bait" heading. How dramatic. Ten years from now this story will seem like a walk in the park after you've been through threesomes, orgies, break-ups, marriages, divorces, and a polygamous lifestyle.

You didn't even read the topic. Smh.

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

Thanks. Making my point.

Spiritual gain VS material gain is no different. PERIOD. The me will tell itself anything to feel important and different from the rest of me's. The only difference is in the content. Buying a blue shirt VS an orange one. Does the color orange make you feel better than blue and do you look better in orange so you'll feel better than when wearing the blue one. Everyone is after a feeling and that's what both spirituality and materialism is used for. Nothing else. The energy that arises that seems to feel a sense of separateness is the very same energy that feels the need for wholeness and completion. Both seek, both feel unfulfilled, both are un-eased, dis-eased. Spirituality is the crutch and materialism is the crutch. Neither is really happening and both are illusions. The seeker doesn't exist.

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. Exactly.

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

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

Correct. There's no one to know anything.

That's not what was said in this post. There's also a part that says awareness sees itself everywhere. You say it is one. How can something that's one sees another thing even if it's itself.

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.

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.

Ok, i think we jumped the gun a bit. I get that but what about you and i in the same room seeing the same thing with different sets of eyes. Forget about the experience of it, just the direct seeing of it, how can we both see the same thing with different eyes i'm asking.

You and i are standing in the wind. We both feel it. No issue there. According to you, it is my perception that feels the wind and your perception that feels the same wind but at the same time we can have different perceptions on how the wind is experienced. You can say the wind feels annoying because it gets in your eyes and I can say I love the feel of the wind because without it it feels hot.

Something like that. Not necessarily understood but seen as the same underlying thing but through different lenses from different bodies. Not necessarily going back and forth as in the yellow picture but anything "outside". If you turn those two heads towards a bird chirping across the way, both will see the bird but from different eyes and different heads.

So how come everything else can be based off of seeing the same thing. I get what you're saying. The mistake I think you're making, though, is assuming others are actually seeing anything. I can't see what others are seeing but a whole conversation can be based off of us apparently seeing the same thing. Youre speaking of maybe perceptions. I don't see the correlation with the topic, though.

Ok. So they're not your eyes or your nose or mouth then right. I agree with you now you put it that way. Would you agree then, that those eyes aren't seeing shit.

Looks two lop-sided dresses with no bust line and no waist. Seriously how does this picture explain you being able to see with your eyes what i'm seeing over here.

Didn't you see my post. I saw it. I saw your comment. What does existentially speaking have to do with this.

Also, when the natural wind of nature blows, you and i can feel it at the same time. It's direct contact. Why can't you feel a fan if a fan is blowing on me and not you while in the same room or house. We can only feel the forces of nature together but not from a machine. I thought nothing was separate. Do you see what i'm saying. These sensations are conditional and are dependent on different scenarios. You and i can feel the wind at the same time but you and i can't feel the fan at the same time.

No, that's different. Your example is akin to how does one house accommodate many people. That's not the same as how can a supposed separate body share same sense perceptions as another.