Does the relative world exist?

[Nahm]

On 12/14/2020 at 10:17 PM, andyjohnsonman said:

I then said if everything is one then why eat?

And what did she reply to that? 

[Blackhawk]

It's very simple. Smash your face with a frying pan, and then ask yourself if the relative world exists.

[Natasha]

@andyjohnsonman Relative world only exists within the collective ego-mind. 

[Moksha]

Great topic, thank you for starting the discussion, @andyjohnsonman. This is synchronous with an overall direction I've been sensing with our community here.

I'm deciding to stop using terms like "illusion", "dream world", and "imaginary" to refer to this relative dimension. It is too easy for people to fall into solipsism with these pointers. They confuse, more than they enlight. There is still value, meaning, love, and divinity, even in this dimension.

I prefer to talk about reality in terms of depth. This is still a reality, it just more shallow than the ultimate reality, which dissolves all distinctions. The waves of the ocean are real, they are just thinner, and only temporarily separated from, the depthless ocean that creates and reabsorbs them.

Even in this reality, when we dream, we create an even more shallow reality within. I once dreamed, that I dreamed, that I was dreaming. That goes pretty shallow

Moving the other direction, there might be other depths of reality, underlying this reality, before separation entirely dissolves into the infinite ocean of Consciousness. I was pondering this the other day, when I watched a video about near death experiences. Our forms may continue to exist, still within time and space, but less bound, and finer in substance. Whether it is a system of samsara like the ancient Indians saw, I can't say for sure. But I sense it is possible that other, finer forms, continue in their own realm of existence, still separate from ultimate reality, until eventually they are entirely reabsorbed into the source that created them.

I would appreciate any thoughts/insights you all have on this.

Edited December 20, 2020 by Moksha

[fi1ghtclub]

The very thing that lends illusion it's illusory-ness is reality.

The distinction between reality and illusion is also illusory or real.

Those two terms aren't actually opposite. They cannot exist without each other.

Delusion is always a reality. It's just the degree to which you choose to delude yourself determines what is your truth.

 

[Natasha]

2 hours ago, Moksha said:

What do you people think about this?

What we think is exactly what creates the Relative reality... aka the mind 

[snowyowl]

5 hours ago, Moksha said:

I prefer to talk about reality in terms of depth. This is still a reality, it just more shallow than the ultimate reality, which dissolves all distinctions. The waves of the ocean are real, they are just thinner, and only temporarily separated from, the depthless ocean that creates and reabsorbs them.

I like this analogy, and I've never been comfortable with the perspective of 'illusion', non-existence of ego etc. Any analogy is limited of course, we can just as well talk about height, breadth and meta-perspectives too. I'm not keen on the word 'reality' either, which creates (for me) more confusion than light and clarity. 

Edited December 20, 2020 by snowyowl

[Moksha]

49 minutes ago, Natasha said:

What we think is exactly what creates the Relative reality... aka the mind 

I feel that Consciousness goes beyond the thinking mind. It expresses itself in everything, even the trees and rocks. As human beings, we are more evolved transmitters, which allows Consciousness to become directly aware of itself. But it doesn't require a human brain in order to manifest.

What I'm asking though, is what you sense about this little bundle of data called "you", and the possibility of it retaining definition, beyond the threshold of the human form. In NDEs, where people are clinically dead, they describe continuing to exist as an independent entity, in a more refined form, before remerging with their human form. The gurus taught samsara. Just curious to hear what others have intuited about this.

[Moksha]

42 minutes ago, snowyowl said:

I like this analogy, and I've never been comfortable with the perspective of 'illusion', non-existence of ego etc. Any analogy is limited of course, we can just as well talk about height and meta-perspectives too. I'm not keen on the word 'reality' either, which creates (for me) more confusion than light and clarity. 

Good point. Even reality, as a concept, can be confusing to people. Any name, system, or analogy bears that risk, because it falls short of the ultimate, nameless Tat. I'm ok with reality as a pointer though, since Tat includes all that exists, and all that does not exist. Tat is all.