Reality is 100% mystical mindfuck!

[Kksd74628]

@Galyna

6 minutes ago, Galyna said:

I do not take "them" seriously, and the coolest thing that I feel, like my reactions that I used to have in the past will start to dissolve very soon. 

Could you explain more clearly what you meant by that?

[Someone here]

8 minutes ago, Galyna said:

you cant grasp it with logic. 

I know. I'm not trying to grasp it with logic .I'm just venting in this thread.  I know that nothing would answe this question. I already know that . But I'm just curious to find if someone can relate to me. 

P.S is that you in the profile picture? 

[Someone here]

3 minutes ago, Reciprocality said:

@Someone here Everything that I wrote were to shine light on how precisely that question itself is absurd, and why it is asked.

Sorry I didn't understand what you write. 

I always have problems with understanding your posts ...

Could you please re-explain it in a simpler fashion? ?

[Someone here]

10 minutes ago, Kksd74628 said:

@Someone here

Understand still that thinking that Universe existed before and will after this moment is another assumption, because you can't find past or future from the present moment. Deleting that assumption makes you even more "locked" to present moment and to its mystery and beautifulness. One aspect of spirituality is to spot and delete as much assumtions as possible, remember that.

 

I like it ? 

[Reciprocality]

@Someone here Only in assuming that existence is a possibility that is actualized by some cause can you consider that question (of why there is something rather than nothing) meaningful.

 

What I say is that this assumption is itself absurd, which is affirmed when you realize that the present moment in being at all, negates nothingness. Which means there had to be something, the answer to your question is of necessity, there necessarily were something.

Edited April 26, 2022 by Reciprocality

[Galyna]

5 minutes ago, Kksd74628 said:

Could you explain more clearly what you meant by that?

I mean how can I react to something that is only appearance. Reactions have started to melt.

[Galyna]

26 minutes ago, Someone here said:

I know. I'm not trying to grasp it with logic .I'm just venting in this thread.  I know that nothing would answer this question. I already know that . But I'm just curious to find if someone can relate to me. 

P.S is that you in the profile picture? 

A lot of people can relate. You will only grasp when let go, relax, forget and won't make an effort. Go watch a stupid show, that is how you get it, LOL.

Yes, it is me. Who else would it be? 

Sommie, wake up, we have been friends here forever....

Edited April 26, 2022 by Galyna

[Kksd74628]

@Galyna

I still didn't get clear picture what you meant by "reacting", but I guess you meant emotional response. Still whatever "reacting" means I don't see why you couldn't continue that which you have been doing before. Try to see that you never loved "other's" own experience, but appearance of their personality and how they made you feel. Understand that love never required their "experience" and the appearances can still genuinely love you.

[Reciprocality]

If all that is east is east of west then of what is the most east west? (what is the most east west of)

 

This is analogous to your question, in that it imagines a possibility range that necessarily remains empty.

[Galyna]

@Kksd74628 

2 minutes ago, Kksd74628 said:

@Galyna

I still didn't get clear picture what you meant by "reacting"

Yes, I see it is a puzzle to move forward, I know that some interactions with so-called "others" appear to be very painful, but deliberately designed for "me" to rid of the personalized ego. It hones me in a way, hones and killing what has been left from "me". 

 

[Galyna]

Guys, can you please explain to me how conscious experience creates peripheral vision? and what is the catch there? Or panoramic vision. 

Remember Nahm tried to explain to me once and I did not get it. @Reciprocality @Kksd74628@Someone here

[Someone here]

19 minutes ago, Reciprocality said:

@Someone here Only in assuming that existence is a possibility that is actualized by some cause can you consider that question (of why there is something rather than nothing) meaningful.

 

What I say is that this assumption is itself absurd, which is affirmed when you realize that the present moment in being at all, negates nothingness. Which means there had to be something, the answer to your question is of necessity, there necessarily were something.

So you are basically saying existence is eternal and has always existed. True?

But doesn't that lead to the infinte regression problem?  As Aristotle said there must be the first  cause  or the unmoved mover ? Or is that also some bullshit? 

[Kksd74628]

@Galyna

I am not quite sure what you try to ask, but who said that your visual field isn't just 2d paper without any curve.

[Galyna]

2 minutes ago, Kksd74628 said:

who said that your visual field isn't just 2d paper without any curve

True....I mean how much of reality exists in my vision? I know nothing is behind my back, but peripheral vision is a little bit different beast. 

[Reciprocality]

@Someone here Infinite regress is only a meaningful idea when you assume nothing to be a possibility.

Actuality therefore proves infinite regression to be impossible.

 

There does not have to be a first cause if there is anything at all, first something is actual and then potentiality inheres in what is actual, You mention Aristotle, well this is an idea by him.

[Galyna]

3 minutes ago, Reciprocality said:

There does not have to be a first cause if there is anything at all, first something is actual and then potentiality inheres in what is actual, You mention Aristotle, well this is an idea by him.

It contradicts the non-duality, imho. First vs second. Start vs End...Primary vs Secondary

[Kksd74628]

@Galyna

You don't really have any edges in your vision. Look straight and try to use your "periprehal" vision to find edges and as you will find out, there aren't edges. Intellectually you would need to see that which you don't in order to find the changing point, but that already contradicts itself.

[Galyna]

Just now, Kksd74628 said:

@Galyna

You don't really have any edges in your vision. Look straight and try to use your "periprehal" vision to find edges and as you will find out, there aren't edges. Intellectually you would need to see that which you don't in order to find the changing point, but that already contradicts itself.

yeah...that is exactly what he told me

[Reciprocality]

Causation is necessary and everywhere in/by us. Causation is a sensibility.

It is therefore by means of causation (subsistent to it) that we create an idea of independent causation, this idea is empty of its object. The idea that an independent universe has a first cause is an empty idea for this reason, as in pure speculation.

It is pure projection, something must not at all precede something else in some independent timespace, instead infinity and its expressions end up reasoning that something can at all be independent of something else.

And if something were truly independent of our consciousness then why would it correspond with anything in that which it is independent of? The answer here is typically god.

Edited April 27, 2022 by Reciprocality

[Kksd74628]

@Galyna

If you want to realize that, you should just do that practice I told you long enough that it kind of feels that the the area of visual field is getting bigger. Notice that you won't still see any more content. When you do that long enough, you stop imagining that there would be edges and that makes your visual field infinite in some sense. You know that you are doing it correctly if it kind of feels like you are "diving" to your visual field.