What exactly is The Illusion? (Light and Multidimensionality)

[Inliytened1]

Just now, Mu_ said:

I actually like Tony Parsons, hes pointing to a radical perspective and I wouldn't call it just no self.

Ok....if you say so.

[ivankiss]

@Nahm Is this stillness crystallized? If so how does that occur? How and why does light get denser? 

I don't see a problem with trying to understand this through thoughts. In fact; it's quite exciting.

[Mu_]

10 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

Ok....if you say so.

I feels he's pointing to a empty surrender to a degree that most teachers don't tread, leaving no room for the idea of an actual individual.  I also like that he admits very candidly the difficulty of such a perspective and its difficult feltness on the human experience.

[cetus]

26 minutes ago, ivankiss said:

@Nahm Is this stillness crystallized? If so how does that occur? How and why does light get denser? 

I don't see a problem with trying to understand this through thoughts. In fact; it's quite exciting.

Think in terms of decay. Infinite Light decaying into dense matter. Crystallized on a time/space matrix.

[Jacobsrw]

@ivankiss interesting postulations here.

Although I would suggest that an illusion cannot be so easily rejected if there are comparisons as you are stating.

Comparisons, contrasts, dualities, polarities or dichotomies are the very representation of illusion. Because if reality is one singularity then the illusion is the belief in comparisons.

You see, a comparison is an illusions simply by the fact that it denies reality of its unequivocal non-duality/oneness. So the proof of illusion is comparisons not the other way around. In other words, any distinction that is drawn, is an illusion.

Thus, because human life is predicated on distinctions it is an illusion made up of mind which is ultimately made of consciousness- the one consciousness, all there is. I feel you may be unintentionally fragmenting consciousness into multidimensions and therefore creating multiple illusions around it in order to explain it. I could very well be wrong though.

Forgive me if I am taking you out of context here just my thoughts on your ideas.

Edited March 31, 2020 by Jacobsrw

[Nahm]

1 hour ago, ivankiss said:

Is this stillness crystallized?

The Light is crystalline (and not), like gel-potentiality. Crystallized implies a fixed, remnanet-of-past, formed substance (imo). The Light is not still, it’s flowing, if one cares for the distinction in terms of facets, as far as the peace (in a stillness sense). 

Quote

If so how does that occur? How and why does light get denser? 

“How” is too far down the road with regard to The Light. From the “how” ‘point’, it occurs, backwards. 

What is the variable as to why ‘light gets denser’ ? What’s the reference to?  (Cause I bet that’s going to ‘pop into place’ with The Light facet understanding.) 

Quote

I don't see a problem with trying to understand this through thoughts. In fact; it's quite exciting.

I think I hear ya...direct experience of it is prior to thoughts, though it’s not separate in terms of ‘substance’ of thoughts, thought is the diluting of the subject of the inquiry. Realization occurs via understanding as well though, but still (in my estimate lol) is not direct experience, completely in this regard. 

 

...Btw, kind of a meta-travels / realizations fun convo imo...but what @Jacobsrw said...if that is not already known, take what he said as ‘above and beyond’ so to speak what I’m saying. As superseding what I’m saying. 

[ivankiss]

@cetus56 I see.  thanks.

@Jacobsrw Hey. Thank you for your input. Like how you put that.

I'm just "mapping out" the unknown along the way. Describing the same "thing" from different standpoints.  

[cetus]

13 minutes ago, ivankiss said:

@cetus56 I see.  thanks.

Glad to help.

13 minutes ago, ivankiss said:

Describing the same "thing" from different standpoints.  

It totally came from a hippie standpoint.

[ivankiss]

@Nahm So that's what all that backward stuff was... That's why it seems like I'm remembering everything into being. 

Thank you, that was a lot of juicy info.

Just so damn fascinating. ?

❤?

[cetus]

13 minutes ago, ivankiss said:

@Nahm So that's what all that backward stuff was... That's why it seems like I'm remembering everything into being. 

Thank you, that was a lot of juicy info.

Just so damn fascinating. ?

❤?

There is nothing to remember because nothing is forgotten. -Nisargadatta

Translation: This isn't your first rodeo

[cetus]

5 minutes ago, cetus56 said:

remembering everything into being. 

@ivankiss You could reverse that also. It's interchangeable.

[ivankiss]

@cetus56 Thanks 

2 hours ago, cetus56 said:

Think in terms of decay. Infinite Light decaying into dense matter. Crystallized on a time/space matrix.

But it's all Light. That's why it's "multi-faceted", right? Does "density" have anything to do with light crossing its own path? 

Also; where does breath fall into the equation? 

Edited March 31, 2020 by ivankiss

[VeganAwake]

1 hour ago, Mu_ said:

I feels he's pointing to a empty surrender to a degree that most teachers don't tread, leaving no room for the idea of an actual individual.  I also like that he admits very candidly the difficulty Andreas of such a perspective and its difficult feltness on the human experience.

Yes exactly this is the message...

Most teachers can't stomach the notion of there's nothing here from the start... 

Takes big nuts and total surrender...

 

 

[Nahm]

Mu just told mu about mu

[VeganAwake]

An Empty Answer

You want me to “say more” about nothingness. Could anything be more paradoxical for the reader than to try to understand “nothing”?

 

Why? Because most people start from the conviction that there is something which does exist; if nothing more, at least “me”.

 

So, you will not likely appreciate nothingness unless you have come to realization through advaita. At least we will, then, begin without the assumption that a “me” really exists.

 

But even for the realized advatin, there will almost certainly be a presumption that “something” exists in the realm of reality. Even “reality”.

 

Advaita points to ajata, and ajata is about nothingness, or emptiness. The Diamond Sutra of Buddhism, points exclusively to it. Hui Neng, the Sixth Chinese Patriarch, declares flatly: ‘There is nothing from the start.” These sources, among others, set your foot on the path, but recognize that most people are then going to immediately be lost.

 

I have written clearly about advaita, and several have understood what I’ve said. I have spoken, to some of these, about what lies beyond the “Absolute,” and a couple have understood. So I will try to explain it, as best I can.

 

The “ultimate condition” (if any) is nothingness, the complete “absence” of anything—no thing, of any possible description.

 

The (approximate) comprehension of this would be to conceive of “emptiness”, as the emptiness of which not anything could be emptied; pure unassociated emptiness, and not even an emptiness which is within some imagined boundaries.

 

The word “void” could be applied; but this “actuality” is not void of something—in any positive sense.

 

So the nothingness of which we speak is totally empty, free of any subtlety which could even be envisioned.

 

Hence there is not anything “within” it that can be subject to any kind of movement, or even change.

 

Not anything can “come from” nothingness, nor “return” to it. It is not the “origin” of anything.

 

In fact, it could not be applicable to say that it exists, or does not exist. Thus we can’t say that this is the “beginning” condition or the “ending” condition. At best, we could say that (if it were “existent”) it would be the ever-present condition.

 

Yet, it is not an abstraction: its presence is “eternal”.

 

“In” its presence are supposed creatures, and the world and universe they seem to inhabit. But all of these supposed things are “in” nothingness. They have not appeared from nothingness, or out of nothingness, or because of nothingness. In fact, they have not actually “appeared”, except as nothingness.

 

The creatures take their reality, their “existence”, for granted; and thus also the reality or existence of the world and its universe—not knowing that they are nothing.

 

The assumption is: ‘There was a time when I didn’t exist, a time when I existed, and a time when I will no longer exist”. But there are no such times. Not anything has ever “existed”, from the standpoint of nothingness. In nothingness, there is no “time”.

 

What makes this so difficult to understand, is that because we say that “I have existed”, we conclude that there is some thing. And indeed we look around and say there are other things, such as a world or a universe.

 

But the presumption that there was a time when I did not exist (or do; or will not exist) is false: no arising, abiding or decaying exists in nothingness. In other words, not anything “happens” in nothingness.

 

“We” are nothing, the “world” is nothing, the “universe” is nothing. In nothingness, there is neither existence nor nonexistence. There is only nothing.

 

From the standpoint of nothingness, no questions can arise. We can not ask for, nor expect, an explanation: not anything ever happens, in nothingness.

 

The value of this understanding is that not anything really matters. Even understanding this does not matter. All is emptiness. That is the “empty” answer.

 

The scriptures speak of one who is in sahaja samadhi as having “no mind” or an “empty mind”. It is this appreciation of nothingness that is referred to.

[Consilience]

1 hour ago, Mu_ said:

I feels he's pointing to a empty surrender to a degree that most teachers don't tread, leaving no room for the idea of an actual individual.  I also like that he admits very candidly the difficulty of such a perspective and its difficult feltness on the human experience.

This is a fair point, however there is still an individual energy, operating system which is dictating speech patterns, emotions, mental chatter, all mind states, bodily survival and preferences. We can frame this energy, this ‘survival,’ as the individual, or we can call it an illusion like Parsons does. Doesn’t matter, no matter what belief system one adopts, it doesn’t change the relentless nature of this energy. If one prematurely ends their investigation because they consider it “empty” or “illusory” they are limiting their understanding of the way things really are. 

[Jacobsrw]

@ivankiss anytime. Happy to contribute. It’s great to see that you have interest exploring these areas because they fundamental to explore ?

[VeganAwake]

Holy smokes this has been gone over about a dozen times...

There is still a conditioned human body here... have you ever driven to the store and forgot you even did it... that's called conditioning

The human body can still jump out of the way of a moving train and turn its head if it's name is called get a drink of water or eat something if it's hungry... choose coffee over tea..

[Inliytened1]

37 minutes ago, VeganAwake said:

An Empty Answer

You want me to “say more” about nothingness. Could anything be more paradoxical for the reader than to try to understand “nothing”?

 

Why? Because most people start from the conviction that there is something which does exist; if nothing more, at least “me”.

 

So, you will not likely appreciate nothingness unless you have come to realization through advaita. At least we will, then, begin without the assumption that a “me” really exists.

 

But even for the realized advatin, there will almost certainly be a presumption that “something” exists in the realm of reality. Even “reality”.

 

Advaita points to ajata, and ajata is about nothingness, or emptiness. The Diamond Sutra of Buddhism, points exclusively to it. Hui Neng, the Sixth Chinese Patriarch, declares flatly: ‘There is nothing from the start.” These sources, among others, set your foot on the path, but recognize that most people are then going to immediately be lost.

 

I have written clearly about advaita, and several have understood what I’ve said. I have spoken, to some of these, about what lies beyond the “Absolute,” and a couple have understood. So I will try to explain it, as best I can.

 

The “ultimate condition” (if any) is nothingness, the complete “absence” of anything—no thing, of any possible description.

 

The (approximate) comprehension of this would be to conceive of “emptiness”, as the emptiness of which not anything could be emptied; pure unassociated emptiness, and not even an emptiness which is within some imagined boundaries.

 

The word “void” could be applied; but this “actuality” is not void of something—in any positive sense.

 

So the nothingness of which we speak is totally empty, free of any subtlety which could even be envisioned.

 

Hence there is not anything “within” it that can be subject to any kind of movement, or even change.

 

Not anything can “come from” nothingness, nor “return” to it. It is not the “origin” of anything.

 

In fact, it could not be applicable to say that it exists, or does not exist. Thus we can’t say that this is the “beginning” condition or the “ending” condition. At best, we could say that (if it were “existent”) it would be the ever-present condition.

 

Yet, it is not an abstraction: its presence is “eternal”.

 

“In” its presence are supposed creatures, and the world and universe they seem to inhabit. But all of these supposed things are “in” nothingness. They have not appeared from nothingness, or out of nothingness, or because of nothingness. In fact, they have not actually “appeared”, except as nothingness.

 

The creatures take their reality, their “existence”, for granted; and thus also the reality or existence of the world and its universe—not knowing that they are nothing.

 

The assumption is: ‘There was a time when I didn’t exist, a time when I existed, and a time when I will no longer exist”. But there are no such times. Not anything has ever “existed”, from the standpoint of nothingness. In nothingness, there is no “time”.

 

What makes this so difficult to understand, is that because we say that “I have existed”, we conclude that there is some thing. And indeed we look around and say there are other things, such as a world or a universe.

 

But the presumption that there was a time when I did not exist (or do; or will not exist) is false: no arising, abiding or decaying exists in nothingness. In other words, not anything “happens” in nothingness.

 

“We” are nothing, the “world” is nothing, the “universe” is nothing. In nothingness, there is neither existence nor nonexistence. There is only nothing.

 

From the standpoint of nothingness, no questions can arise. We can not ask for, nor expect, an explanation: not anything ever happens, in nothingness.

 

The value of this understanding is that not anything really matters. Even understanding this does not matter. All is emptiness. That is the “empty” answer.

 

The scriptures speak of one who is in sahaja samadhi as having “no mind” or an “empty mind”. It is this appreciation of nothingness that is referred to.

Where did you copy that from?  Lol.  It is a good explanation of formlessness.  But it does not mean nothing matters.   Do not confuse the Absolute with the relative.   And if you say there is no relative then you are not grasping Truth yet.

To say nothing matters is but your relative interpretation  of Infinity.  Infinity is nothing and everything.  So if you choose to say nothing matters you are deciding this.  You could also be conscious that everything matters.  In the world of form it is relative.     The formless is pure Infinity and pure Love.

[VeganAwake]

Cool story you can investigate your entire life and none of it will have any meaning value or purpose whatsoever...

Simply because there isn't anyone here to get anything out of it...

The someone here to get something out of something is the illusion hints Awakening...❤ ?