The Princess Diaries

[Whitney Edwards]

Hugs Princess. 

[Princess Arabia]

4 hours ago, Whitney Edwards said:

Hugs Princess. 

❤️

[Princess Arabia]

Oh my, there's drama in my diaries. Hey Princess, you ok. Yes, I'm fine. There are no more frogs to worry about.

[Princess Arabia]

Thank God that mess is over. I don't handle drama too well. Brings up unwanted feelings.

 

[Princess Arabia]

Why do we sleep. How is the body able to just fall asleep and wake up on it's own. What's doing that. Why does so many people have sleep issues. What about people who can't seem to stay awake. That's less common. I don't need answers to these questions. Not really. I just have an inquisitive mind and love to delve into these kinds of topics about life. If you ask me, life is very mystical. I can sit there and think about life all day. I look through my eyes and it looks weird. Like there's nothing really there looking. Let me stop before I start to scare myself.

[Hyperion]

On 27.1.2025 at 9:01 AM, Princess Arabia said:

The biggest question of all time to me is this. This question, to me, is the Mother of all questions. The question that so few asks. The question that I think would answer every other existential question especially the one about why are we here. Here goes:

WHY DOESN'T ANYONE MAKE IT OUT ALIVE.

Don't you always insist that there is noone here who can (not) make it out alive, or do/think/say/be anything at all?

Does the question you posted above indicate that you don't actually buy into your own dogma around no self and nonduality?

 

Edited Tuesday at 07:50 AM by Hyperion

[Princess Arabia]

5 hours ago, Hyperion said:

Don't you always insist that there is noone here who can (not) make it out alive, or do/think/say/be anything at all?

Does the question you posted above indicate that you don't actually buy into your own dogma around no self and nonduality?

 

There's nothing to buy into. It's not dogma. There is no one. The question was posted, yes, but not by a person in a body. There's no one here or there that's making the decision to ask the question or to say, do you not buy into your own dogma. Just because I posted a question saying why do we die, it doesn't mean there's someone here in a body that decided to ask that question. The question was just asked but by no one. There's no person here who keeps saying there's no one here so why do I do this or that.

Your question suggests that there's a person who is over here saying to themselves, well, since there is no person how can the no person die. Obviously there are bodies. That is what I'm referring to. It is not a belief or dogma that i hold. It's obvious that there are no persons in these bodies and that these bodies are operating on it's own. It's actually arrogance to believe that you are a somebody that has control and that you are actually doing anything. The problem is the misunderstandings of what this actually means. One doesn't say to themselves I have no control so I won't do anything, and if they do then that's just the energy doing that.

Asking questions like the one you posted is just a misunderstanding on your part because you think I'm over here deciding anything. The decision is being made and a response is being given and reading is happening and so is writing. All are being done by this mysterious phenomenon that we call the Absolute.

[Princess Arabia]

7 hours ago, Hyperion said:

Don't you always insist that there is noone here who can (not) make it out alive, or do/think/say/be anything at all?

Does the question you posted above indicate that you don't actually buy into your own dogma around no self and nonduality?

 

What you're doing here also is trying to make things fit into a box. Because so and so happened or because so and so said this or that, the result must be so and so. Freedom doesn't operate like that. It appears however it wants including appearing as trying to contain freedom in a box. The mind will try to explain things away and try to use logic and sense making to make sense of things, and that's fine; only thing is it will always be disappointed and it can never make sense entirely of what is spontaneous, free, alive and doesn't have a past or future. Everything happening is fresh and new and cannot be contained or grasp with an explanation, reason or logic. All that is only for the dualistic world of appearances of which THIS, whatever it is, is also appearing as fresh and new. It's all appearances.

I'm not over here rationalizing the 'no me' and trying to figure out how should a 'no me' think, or what questions shouldn't be asked since there is 'no me'. Only the apparent me does that. I'm not obsessed with this notion, nor am I living my life as a no me. No one is. There's no me anywhere, but the energy that's considered the me or the contracted energy that feels like the me can operate in that way and appear as a me trying to not be a me. It's still freedom/this/absolute appearing as that. It is all the same 'thing' appearing as everything. Nothing appearing as everything. 

It is the 'me' that's trying to fit into it's apparent world how a 'no me' should act or think and the questions it should or shouldn't ask. Still trying to control what is because of the meaning it has given to life and how life should or shouldn't operate as a 'me' or a 'no me'. 

Edited Tuesday at 12:48 PM by Princess Arabia

[Hyperion]

2 hours ago, Princess Arabia said:

What you're doing here also is trying to make things fit into a box.

Who is trying to make things fit into a box? Didn't you say that I don't exist?

Again: Beware of delusion. Delusion = confusing relative truth for absolute truth.

What is relative truth? Anything that can be expressed with words (because it is partial aka. conceptual).

What is absolute truth? That which cannot be expressed with words (because it contains and transcends absolutely everything).

 

Edited Tuesday at 02:35 PM by Hyperion

[Princess Arabia]

1 hour ago, Hyperion said:

Who is trying to make things fit into a box? Didn't you say that I don't exist?

Again: Beware of delusion. Delusion = confusing relative truth for absolute truth.

What is relative truth? Anything that can be expressed with words (because it is partial aka. conceptual).

What is absolute truth? That which cannot be expressed with words (because it contains and transcends absolutely everything).

 

It's all Absolute. Relative is just Absolute appearing as relative. Nothing can be expressed with words. We do it because it's the only way of communicating and to make sense of what we believe we're actually experiencing. I don't get involved with all these technicalities anymore because it's all just for the mind to make it's distinctions and to complicate things. Only in day to day life and living in the dream but not on paper or speaking about this particular topic. One can't live in nondual state and function as an individual even though it's only appearing that one is functioning. It's all just one blob happening in no time and within no space for no one. Everything else is just appearances happening and coming from nowhere and going back to nowhere void of substance and meaning in the grand scheme of things. There are no real traps, no real consequences and nothing to be "beware of" this is not bypassing, it is the case. Only within the dream and the apparent individual's life there is, and I'm not denying that. I live a normal life of certain fear and I suffer and there's a me here. The difference is I apparently see it all to be a facade and only an appearance that I have nothing to do with.

[Princess Arabia]

I was the victim of a horrible pick-up line today. I was alone sitting down and he pranced upon me (kinda scared me shitless) and said, "excuse me, I was wondering if you could give me directions - directions to your heart". Then he actually paused and looked at me waiting for an answer. I just couldn't help but to just look at him in awe, like wtf are you saying. Then after the brief silence he asked if I was single, and I said no. Then he said, I admire beauty, have a nice day and walked away. I hate pick-up-lines. Just say hi, are you alone or hi, I'm Jeff, would you like some company or something ordinary like that. 

Not that the line was that bad but that he expected an answer. That's not leaving me open to reciprocate, it's leaving me open to look at you like what the fuck was that. Nobody is going to mind a "hi, I'm so and so what's your name", because that's generic and doesn't leave much room for criticism or leave you speechless. It's a mistake to prance upon an unsuspecting female with a line like that because you just set yourself up to be judged by that line and it could go either way. Why take that chance. A hi or hello doesn't have the same effect. I didn't like him anyway at first glance, so it didn't really matter, but maybe he would have been a great conversationalist and got me interested, who knows. That's just me. Even if he were handsome, I probably would have treated the situation the same way, because I'm not swayed by just looks. He wasn't ugly, just average looking but his approach turned me off to even want to engage any further. 

[Hyperion]

9 hours ago, Princess Arabia said:

It's all Absolute. Relative is just Absolute appearing as relative.

Ok great, so let's take some examples:

"You are god". Is this absolutely true?

"You are not god". Is this absolutely true?

"You are a person." Is this absolutely true?

"You are not a person." Is this absolutely true?

"Life is a dream". Is this absolutely true?

"Life is not a dream". Is this absolutely true?

"There is separation". Is this absolutely true?

"There is no separation". Is this absolutely true?

Are all of these statements equally true?

9 hours ago, Princess Arabia said:

Nothing can be expressed with words.

You have just expressed this with words.

[Hyperion]

9 hours ago, Princess Arabia said:

There are no real traps, no real consequences and nothing to be "beware of" this is not bypassing, it is the case. Only within the dream and the apparent individual's life there is, and I'm not denying that.

You mean that there are no consequences in an absolute sense, but only in a relative sense?

Nice distinction. Thanks for confirming the difference between absolute and relative.

 

Edited yesterday at 01:59 AM by Hyperion

[Princess Arabia]

2 hours ago, Hyperion said:

Ok great, so let's take some examples:

"You are god". Is this absolutely true?

"You are not god". Is this absolutely true?

"You are a person." Is this absolutely true?

"You are not a person." Is this absolutely true?

"Life is a dream". Is this absolutely true?

"Life is not a dream". Is this absolutely true?

"There is separation". Is this absolutely true?

"There is no separation". Is this absolutely true?

Are all of these statements equally true?

You have just expressed this with words.

There are no truths or lies but only in the relative sense. Notice I didn't say all is Absolutely true, I used only the word Absolute. All that you asked is the Absolute appearing as questions being asked. Whichever way they are answered is also the Absolute responding and appearing as such. Answers in the affirmative or negative will all be relative answers.

As far as the expressing of words statement, that's all illusory and only as an appearance because all is the Absolute and nothing can be known. For there to be something known there has to be more than one, separation and time which are also the Absolute appearing as apparent space and time. There's nothing but all there is so how can anything really be known. It's all a mirage, an appearance neither real or unreal but not actually the case. It's all illusory knowledge and expressions and also there's an illusory effect of you having an experience of knowing. That's what I mean by nothing can really be expressed with words.

[Princess Arabia]

2 hours ago, Hyperion said:

You mean that there are no consequences in an absolute sense, but only in a relative sense?

Nice distinction. Thanks for confirming the difference between absolute and relative.

 

I said apparent individual's life. Meaning there really is no life of an individual but it surely appears that way. So, there are really no consequences either way because the individual's apparent life isn't really happening. Meaning there are things appearing eg bodies, houses, cars, trees, whatever appears is energy appearing solid and as form but it's not personal, sees no one; but there's an energetic pattern that tends to be found within the body that gets contracted and feels like a person there that we call me that thinks it's a human with a life and a story. So there are no real consequences because there's actually no one there. It's all just appearances and illusory effects. Seems real, but it's all empty and void of any real meaning and real substance. Apparent consequences are also just stories and ideas that the me invented to carry on it's personal storyline. 

[Hyperion]

1 hour ago, Princess Arabia said:

There are no truths or lies but only in the relative sense.

Exactly. This is precisely what I am saying.

"You are god" is just as relatively true/untrue as "you are a person".

"You and me are one" is just as relatively true/untrue as "you and me are seperate".

"There is no time and space" is just as relatively true/untrue as "there is time and space".

"Nonduality is more true, more real, more fundamental, more divine than duality" is just as relatively true/untrue as "duality is more true, more real, more fundamental, more divine than nonduality".

And none of these statements are absolutely true.

In other words: The belief that duality is illusory and nonduality is not illusory is the illusion.

The Absolute is neither dual nor nondual. It just IS.

[Princess Arabia]

1 minute ago, Hyperion said:

In other words: The belief that duality is illusory and nonduality is not illusory is the illusion.

The Absolute is neither dual nor nondual. It just IS.

I never said otherwise; plus please quote where I said nonduality (or even mentioned the word here) was not illusory. You can definitely quote me saying in many instances that life just is, though. 

[Hyperion]

1 hour ago, Princess Arabia said:

I said apparent individual's life. Meaning there really is no life of an individual but it surely appears that way. So, there are really no consequences either way because the individual's apparent life isn't really happening. Meaning there are things appearing eg bodies, houses, cars, trees, whatever appears is energy appearing solid and as form but it's not personal, sees no one; but there's an energetic pattern that tends to be found within the body that gets contracted and feels like a person there that we call me that thinks it's a human with a life and a story. So there are no real consequences because there's actually no one there. It's all just appearances and illusory effects. Seems real, but it's all empty and void of any real meaning and real substance. Apparent consequences are also just stories and ideas that the me invented to carry on it's personal storyline. 

Appearance = existence. It is that which is happening. And it's happening within reality, therefore it is real.

[Hyperion]

1 minute ago, Princess Arabia said:

I never said otherwise; plus please quote where I said nonduality (or even mentioned the word here) was not illusory. You can definitely quote me saying in many instances that life just is, though. 

Great, then we can agree to agree.

[Princess Arabia]

Just now, Hyperion said:

Appearance = existence. It is that which is happening. And it's happening within reality, therefore it is real.

That is your definition. Please don't put words in my mouth or offer up what you THINK I'm saying in my responses. To me appearances are neither real nor unreal, they are simply appearances that appears from nothing. Would you call a rainbow real or false. It looks like something appearing in the sky but go try to grab it and nothings there. It's an effect from the sun's rays and the clouds or however the process responsible for it's formation. That's what I call neither real or unreal. Appearance means that which appears and not within reality because reality is not a thing for something to be within. Reality is not a container.