Perceiver and Perceived. Or just Perceived?

[RMQualtrough]

@Nahm The "no everyone" thing is of course negating the ability to talk relativistically which negates any possibility of discussion at all. You need the ability to talk as such and say you, me, etc as separate entities.

However I think this means that if a character imagined in your mind points into the foreground, you are saying that foreground is not nothingness, but rather not there period.

My interpretation getting that insanely fucked on DMT, was that I was nothingness. The experience was that. It separated everything from me. And you think that means the nothingness was seen to be me but it wasn't me anymore... I was appearing to it because any thought or image or literally anything was a form. And this was without form.

So like trying to see your own eyes with your eyes. You know how you can't ever get back behind them. This consciousness was not a thing I could get behind, anything that was anything appeared to it. I experienced it that way but I can ascertain you're of the view that it is not nothingness, but rather not there period. Where conversely, although it was literally nothing it seemed to be there to me, it seemed I was it (even though it wasn't me anymore).

Edited December 5, 2021 by RMQualtrough

[silene]

Perceiver and perceived are, to borrow Buddhist terminology, a mutually arising pair, like all dualities. They don't exist separately. But it arises within the cognitive process of the mind, it's simply not there in the original appearance (perception). It's the same with self/other, subject/object, mind/matter. I'd say our spiritual practice is helping us find the difference between original appearance (suchness) and processed cognition (map): this happens so fast we normally conflate them and think reality really is twoness. But with practice (unless we're especially gifted), we can dwell in the primal suchness for a while, at least until our survival needs kick in, and duality arises again. That's rebirth. 

Edited December 5, 2021 by silene

[Nahm]

32 minutes ago, RMQualtrough said:

@Nahm The "no everyone" thing is of course negating the ability to talk relativistically which negates any possibility of discussion at all. You need the ability to talk as such and say you, me, etc as separate entities.

Not so, and this communication is the very evidence of this truth. 

32 minutes ago, RMQualtrough said:

However I think this means that if a character imagined in your mind points into the foreground, you are saying that foreground is not nothingness, but rather not there period.

A character in your mind can do whatever you’re imaging in your mind, so to speak. There are no characters in infinite mind, if you will.  

32 minutes ago, RMQualtrough said:

My interpretation getting that insanely fucked on DMT, was that I was nothingness. The experience was that. It separated everything from me. And you think that means the nothingness was seen to be me but it wasn't me anymore... I was appearing to it because any thought or image or literally anything was a form. And this was without form.

That it is / was an experience is the re-contextualization or ‘claiming’ of, as your experience, and is not semantical. An ‘it’ which separated everything from a ‘me’, is not nothing, but is a personal experience of an it and a me. No one thinks. Form and not form is a duality indicative of the post interpretation. The separate self ‘slips in’ behind the scene, behind interpretation, and is woven into the interpretation, which is then re-contextualized as ‘my experience’ (two). 

32 minutes ago, RMQualtrough said:

So like trying to see your own eyes with your eyes. You know how you can't ever get back behind them. This consciousness was not a thing I could get behind, anything that was anything appeared to it. I experienced it that way but I can ascertain you're of the view that it is not nothingness, but rather not there period. Where conversely, although it was literally nothing it seemed to be there to me, it seemed I was it (even though it wasn't me anymore).

Nothing can get back beyond them, because eyes is a thought, the actuality of which is very literally nothing, as in no thing, nothingness. No one knows a you can’t get back because there is no one who ever left. 

There seems to be an I which experienced and an it and a this consciousness. No one is of the view of anything, view is a thought. There is no it. There is no you. Not two. 

[RMQualtrough]

@silene This would be of the former stance I think, which is duality within nonduality? Dependent origination, Dzogchen, the Dao, I've seen quite a few philosophies which acknowledge the duality within nonduality.

The opposing stance would be to experience the same thing but see there to only be somethingness.

@Nahm It does completely shut down conversation to eradicate terms of duality, it is impossible to share any mystical experience without saying things like I, this, that, X, Y. You can see Leo say "I" smoked 5-MeO for 30 days, or "I" became infinity. It's just a fact you have to use this wording. If a randomer off Google were to read trip reports where things are explained as such, it would be easy to understand, which I think is of utmost importance... 99% of people are never going to smoke DMT etc (I insist on saying "other people"), so any part of the 1% who do decide to, should be incredibly concise and pay the most attention to using the most basic and human wording.

I said to imagine the man because that is what triggered this within a trip. Which was that I was watching these jester things then they pointed at me as if to say "don't look here, see what's back there". And it intensified from there. It became such that all of "me" was also some form just like the jesters. Which means the word "I" is a thought and hence form and hence observed, my name is a thought, my emotions are observed, there was literally no me left of me, because me was observed and I was the observer. I is not what you'd think of as the accurate term but I think that's inconsequential... I became pure consciousness and it was nothing, because everything was removed from this so of course if literally every thing is removed, there's just nothing. But nothing could not be without something, so the something must appear to even be able to know the nothing.

I am not adding re-interpretations, it's exactly as it happened. But I think the experience could be had where nothingness is there, or there is no nothingness. I've had both in fact, the experience mentioned, and also of the merging of all. I don't fully remember everything.

Edited December 5, 2021 by RMQualtrough

[Nahm]

@RMQualtrough

No one’s ‘eradicating terms of duality’, and everyone loves to share & hear mystical experiences. I was speaking more to the ‘How do you interpret this & why’, and the title which is in question form. It seemed somewhat invitational. 

Also, we aren’t per se ‘randomers of google here’. My reply would likely be different in that case. 

It’s the ‘I became pure consciousness’, ‘I don’t fully remember everything’ which sounds like identification with a past experience, while I lean towards This is still “that”, or, that was just an experience, a trip within The Trip, like a dream within This Dream. 

[monad_dyad]

9 hours ago, RMQualtrough said:

This seems to come down to how one interprets the "foreground".

What I mean is, if in your mind you imagine a man as vividly as you can, then have that man point towards you, invariably we all imagine that man to be pointing directly into the foreground at "us".

The question then is, do you interpret there to be a foreground (which is made of literal nothing), or for there to BE no foreground and instead only the image of the man?

 In my everday consciousness state I also notice the illusion of a "foreground", possibly also a "backround", an indescribable, ungraspable unplacable border from which the perception of sight expand towards one side. And I believe sight is the reason why this appears to be so, since it seems to be placed assymetrically on one "side". Its very hard to put any of this into words and I am aware of how dualistic I am formulating this, but thats just how I work with my current "level" of consciousness. Anyways, my point is that I sometimes play music from a speaker placed on the "unconscious" side of the "wall", "behind" me, to try to collapse the duality of being a conscious front and an unconsious back.

[Guru Fat Bastard]

What is there, in the perceiver and the perceived other than the experience of perceiving. And what is there in the experience of perceiving other than the awareness of it. Thus the triad of perceiver,perceiving,and perceived collapse into objectless awareness.

Edited December 5, 2021 by Guru Fat Bastard

[RMQualtrough]

@Nahm Right but we gotta remember those are the people who may stumble upon these posts. I'm always very conscious of posting in such a way that literally a randomer could read it during his break at the office and understand what is described. So I sometimes elaborate on minor whys etc. Mainly because of my own experience reading trip reports in the past.

It is invitational yeah.

It can be hard to discuss sometimes because some things are technically correct but aren't what I want to convey. E.g. random example think "thoughts are not happening to anybody", that is a true statement. So I can't disagree but it's also not what I want to get at, so it becomes really difficult to verbally navigate.

@monad_dyad Get in-ear headphones, and play some meditative flute music or something. And consciously try to find the exact precise location the sound is happening.

You can consciously move it around your head if you imagine it to be coming from behind or in front. It is actually not coming from any direction so you find it's not in any location.

That's helpful.

[Nahm]

@RMQualtrough

?? I hear ya and I get it. I wouldn’t say I disagree really, but that I tend to comment with only the op in mind. Can’t help but respect the questioner so to speak, (not to imply you’re a questioner per se). If someone reads something and doesn’t get it, and isn’t interested enough to inquire, that’s fine with me. Nonetheless, always looking to use simpler language. I think I got that about 2% on lock. 98 to go. Much love my friend ?

[Chris365]

@RMQualtrough

 

In direct experience, all it is known of the world is through perceptions...

In direct experience, there is no separation between the perceiver, perceiving  and perceived... only thought/language makes it seem so.