"The perceiver never existed" ...what?

[Moksha]

@from chaos into self The imminent perceiver is Atman. The transcendent perceiver is Brahman. Atman is Brahman, but Brahman transcends Atman.

@Shin ?

Edited November 14, 2020 by Moksha

[SoonHei]

No more than Forrest Gump exists in OUR world... The Human Beings 2020 world

But ma man Tom Hanks sure does exist, don't he?

[The0Self]

The perceiver isn't deceived. The perceiver is deception.

[Moksha]

5 minutes ago, The0Self said:

The perceiver isn't deceived. The perceiver is deception.

The perceiver is deceived until it wakes up ?

[Shin]

You done arguing about semantic ? ?

[Moksha]

@Shin If it were only semantics, I would have finished far back. Atman is not an illusion; it is the god-tentacle. Just because it wears a form doesn't make it any less divine ?

Edited November 14, 2020 by Moksha

[Mvrs]

3 hours ago, Mafortu said:

Wow thank you!, this made a lot of sense to me.

So there is no perceiver, but there IS perceiving.

Yess perceiving is what the happening is. It’s the raw data . The universe isn’t raw matter with no one watching but raw experience as the substance or matter of it with no one watching. 

[VeganAwake]

6 hours ago, Jonty said:

That's a real thought salad my friend ? ? Some great advice above.

What you're looking for isn't a belief and not something you can agree or disagree with.

Once it becomes clear you'll understand there has never been a truer phrase than "I don't exist" 

? like ❤

[VeganAwake]

Nobody gets it.

Its too radical!

Oh, and there really is no one ? ?

[Arcangelo]

@Mafortu

Keep seeking one day you might get lucky and receive the gift of spiritual awakening.

[Javfly33]

7 hours ago, Mvrs said:

Yess perceiving is what the happening is. It’s the raw data . The universe isn’t raw matter with no one watching but raw experience as the substance or matter of it with no one watching. 

If there is no one watching why do you say there is perceving?

1- the ability to see, hear, or become aware of something through the senses.

2 - the way in which something is regarded, understood, or interpreted.

[Member]

The world does not exist without a dreamer. The dreamer is real.

[Corpus]

14 hours ago, Mafortu said:

Like I said in my post, I have no problems identifying myself as fictional and imaginary. 
But to me, fiction is something, therefor it exists, even if its not "material". Ideas are as much a manifestation like you and I.

I just think the phrase is very silly... it puzzles me when I read/hear it in an otherwise profound video or lecture.

Its a real mind-bender. Take your first line above- the "I" which has no problems identifying itself as fictional/imaginary  IS fictional/imaginary. Its all part of the fiction, self-referencing activity that constructs an illusion of solidity.

Imagine standing around a bonfire at night frantically waving a glowstick around; the visual effect is of solid lines of light zapping around which are illusory when you know its a point of light moving to create an entirely different impression.

Non-dual lingo can be a hindrance for many, but obvious to those who get it. 

[Corpus]

12 hours ago, Nahm said:

Many not-two teachers?

And I don't claim to get it fully myself. I know I would have reached that point when @Nahm 's posts always make sense. I think....

[Mvrs]

2 hours ago, Javfly33 said:

If there is no one watching why do you say there is perceving?

1- the ability to see, hear, or become aware of something through the senses.

2 - the way in which something is regarded, understood, or interpreted.

To simply explain something’s difficult to grasp when you have the assumption perceptions real and not just another happening that’s why I use that term. If I just said being people wouldn’t get it. 

[Mvrs]

It’s hard to explain to someone all the “soft stuff” like thoughts emotions and perceptions are actually just appearances Cuz most ppl thing of form as hard objects (when really there’s no such thing)

[Javfly33]

1 hour ago, Mvrs said:

To simply explain something’s difficult to grasp when you have the assumption perceptions real and not just another happening that’s why I use that term. If I just said being people wouldn’t get it. 

Right  I agree then

[VeganAwake]

Who is asking why?

"From the Upanishads on down, there have been sages who have discovered the meaning of ajata’s message, and have declared “no creation” or “no origination” or “no birth” etc.

They are stating that the nature of ultimate reality is emptiness or nothingness or a void, and that from a “condition” of emptiness not anything can ever come out or originate or appear.

In other words, any thing which appears to exist is not, and cannot be, a creation from nothingness. Put another way, any thing which seems to appear is not real, from the ultimate standpoint.

This is not a denial that things do seem to appear. Both anything which seems to appear and the person to whom they seem to appear are unreal.

The analogy which is classically given is that of a sleeping dream. In the dream, you–a figure which is not actually real–interact in a world which dos not actually exist.

In this analogy, when you–whom ajata says cannot have had this existence from the start–wake up from the sleeping dream, you are nevertheless an unreal person seeming to live in a world, which does not exist in actuality. In other words, the waking “dream” is a continuation of the sleeping dream. Neither one can be anymore real than the other.

Another way in which the literature puts this is to say that all forms are empty. Anything which is truly empty cannot be said to “exist”; and where existence is out of the question, “not exist” is not applicable. You, as a form, are empty. The world, as a form, is empty. In other words, both are nothing. Both have not ever been created, or originated. Though they seem to appear (within the big Dream), both are without any actual reality.

The seeming person continues to live out her life (from supposed “birth” to “death”) in a seeming world, in a seeming universe.

Yet, in what could be said to be the true or ultimate reality of emptiness, not anything ever has, or could, happen. From the ultimate standpoint, there is not anything that ever needs to be explained.

Any questions which arise and any answers are within the Dream–and the Dream is not real.

Those who understand this, the sages would say, have awakened from the big Dream. Whether one does or does not, in the end, makes absolutely no difference.

But for those who do awaken, all their questions–within the Dream–are seen to be utterly empty".

-- Ajata Project (Robert Wolfe)

ajatasunyata.com

 

[arlin]

@VeganAwake this is nicely explained thanks. 

[Inliytened1]

@Mafortu you touch on something that is often misunderstood by many who preach duality does not exist.  Or they don't explain it well enough.

Duality IS imaginary.  

The example of the perceiver is the duality of subject / object.

Absolutely speaking what everything IS is Isness  Being.  One.

So when teachers say this they are speaking from the Absolute perspective, not the relative.  Some say it in a way to say that the relative doesn't exist - but again it is imaginary - it exists but it is content within the structure - so what they mean is that the content is not the substance of reality.  When talking about the substance of reality it is Isness itself.    And of course the paradox is since everthing is One the content IS the structure - so you run this contradiction because of the self reflection problem of Oneness.  That's a feature not a bug.