Is world physical??

[Alex bliss]

I am really confused like we feel something is physical when we touch it and feel the sensation but let's say there is no sensation but when we try to go through a closed door we wouldn't be able to even if there is no sensation,  doesn't it mean that the door has some physicality in it ???

[SoonHei]

what is "physical" 

if what you call "physical" was called "tissical" does that change anything?

 

what you call "physical" is same as illusion. it is, what IT IS.

 

in your dream, walking thru a door is also something you cannot do. is your dream physical? or mind-stuff ?

is this current waking state any different than mind-stuff?

is this even a waking-state? seems like a dream to me

Edited November 18, 2019 by SoonHei

[TrynaBeTurquoise]

In a dream while your sleeping you don't walk through walls most of the time, and you definitely dont fall through the floor/ground/earth during your dreams (unless you were lucid and consciously wanted to)

So in that dream you get that same physicality, but its all in the mind realm. 

[Alex bliss]

But why does the waking state always the same and dreams different 

[Sempiternity]

If you are God that created all of everything you experience, then you created all the rules that govern that reality, like the experience of gravity, solidness and consistency of the experience. You created dreams to be not as consistent. And you made yourself forget that you made it all, so you can experience being a finite being. Just as you can wake up (lucid dreaming) that you created everything, you can wake up to reality that you create everything. 

[Alex bliss]

So What is a way to going back to nothingness ? 

[TrynaBeTurquoise]

8 minutes ago, Alex bliss said:

But why does the waking state always the same and dreams different 

They are still two different levels of reality. But the point is that perceived physicality in a dream is there. You are perceiving things as physical in a realm that you know is not physical once you've exited it. Get it?

[Sempiternity]

13 minutes ago, Alex bliss said:

So What is a way to going back to nothingness ? 

You already are nothingness, but if you mean Awaken from the dream, everything has been laid out by Leo in his videos. 

[Shaun]

1 hour ago, Alex bliss said:

I am really confused like we feel something is physical when we touch it and feel the sensation but let's say there is no sensation but when we try to go through a closed door we wouldn't be able to even if there is no sensation,  doesn't it mean that the door has some physicality in it ???

My view on it is that it's impossible to prove since all experience is subjective - meaning that it must appear to a perspective, whether that is a fly, human or camera or whatever else. Could there ever be an objective experience? I doubt it. The strongest piece of evidence there is for an objective something, be it a physical  or mind/consciousness based world is that you can hold up an orange and every sane person will agree with you on what and where it is. This suggests there may be something that is objective and exists independently of your current experience.

I hope this helps. 

Edited November 18, 2019 by Shaun

[ivankiss]

It's vibrational.

All realms, including the "physical" are vibrational in nature; vibrating at a specific rate, a frequency. 

What you call "physical" is just a specific density of light. 

[Forestluv]

2 hours ago, Alex bliss said:

I am really confused like we feel something is physical when we touch it and feel the sensation but let's say there is no sensation but when we try to go through a closed door we wouldn't be able to even if there is no sensation,  doesn't it mean that the door has some physicality in it ???

You are creating a construct of a thing called "physical". From the human perspective, this is a useful construct. If I am crossing the street and a speeding car is approaching me, a construct of "physical" comes in handy. A big physical thing is speeding toward me, I better get out of the way.

Yet this construct can be transcended. The transcendence does not invalidate the construct of "physical". The transcendence is prior (or above) the construct. Does a dead person have a construct of "physical"? Of course not, because a dead person consiousness is prior to the construction of "physical". Does a worm have a construct of "physical". Of course not, because worm consciousness is prior to the construct of "physical". . . When you were a baby, was there "physical"? Of course not, because baby consciousness is prior to the construct of "physical". 

The key to transcending "physical" is not to reject "physical" and embrace "non-physical". This is still within the duality game. . . They key is to go "prior" to both "physical" and "non-physical" constructs. Here, there is no "physical" or "non-physical". Here, there is both "physical" and "non-physical". Prior to construction, there are no constructs and all constructs are possible. Here, there is Nothing and Everything. 

If you create a construct of "Physical is a thing we can touch and feel", then that becomes physical. Creating a construct and trying to prove the opposite of the construct is a circle and a waste of time.  If you say a door is physical, then it is physical Defining a door as physical and asking for evidence that it is nonphysical is a waste of time, imo. . . That would be like saying "A roglif is a ferocious predator that eats chickens". Then asking "If a roglif is a ferocious predator that eats chickens, then how can a roglif be a vegetarian?". A roglif can't be vegetarian because we just created a construct that a roglif is a carnivore that  eats chickens!". The key is not to get into a circlular theoretical trap trying to figure out if a roglif is a carnivore or a vegetarian. The key is to deconstruct the roglif construct and realize that prior to the roglif construct, a roglif doesn't exist! We just made up the construct. Prior to the construct, a roglif is Nothing and Everything. 

[Nahm]

3 hours ago, Alex bliss said:

I am really confused like we feel something is physical when we touch it and feel the sensation but let's say there is no sensation but when we try to go through a closed door we wouldn't be able to even if there is no sensation,  doesn't it mean that the door has some physicality in it ???

Breakdown the direct experience.

First separate thought, perception, and sensation, all of which there is direct awareness of. 

Thought: “Door”

Perception: Seeing

Sensation: Feeling via the body. 

Without the thought “door”, there is seeing and feeling. 

Without the thought “door” and closing your eyes, there is feeling. 

Without the thought “door”, with eyes closed, and not feeling (“the door”), there is nothing. 

Without the thought “door”, with eyes closed, and with feeling (“the door”), there is sensation. No door. No separate object. Only sensation. 

Now without the thought “door”, with eyes closed, without feeling...notice there is the knowing of thought, perception, and sensation. 

Now notice, there is no actual separation, between the knowing of, and thoughts, perceptions, and sensations - there is only the knowing of _______, but there is nothing in that blank. There is no evidentiary direct experience of separation in actuality. There is only the knowing.

 

Thought: “physicality”

yada, yada

 

Go outside tonight, and look straight up. That isn’t finite. That’s infinite. It’s put itself into a snow globe, which it is looking out of, up at it’s own infinitude. In all that infinitude, “earth”, “air”, & “atmosphere”. What are the odds of that?