How There is No Difference Between Real and Imaginary?

[RMQualtrough]

Both ultimately made from the same thing. Don't forget the body that is hurt by the "real" lion, as well as the pain, is also what might be called imaginary. Know what I mean?

[Breakingthewall]

18 hours ago, Razard86 said:

Let me explain this to you so you can understand. You are dreaming a dream, we all are.  While dreaming your individual dream, you have the ability to interact with our dream. When I enter your dream, you are imagining me, and when I interact with you, I am imagining you. So we imagine each other. But you do not understand what we mean when we say imagine....because you think we mean your brain is doing it. Your brain is ALSO being imagined. When we say you are consciousness it can get confusing so I will use the word awareness. ALL YOU ARE IS AWARNESS. That's it. Your not a physical being, your not a thought, an emotion, etc. You are just AWARENESS.

When you can wrap your head around the fact that you are just awareness...then real and imagination is the same thing. You are not your body, so what happens to the body is just imagination. It FEELS real because you create pain!! And the amount of pain you experience is based on how attached you are to the body. I recently got into a car accident and my attachment to my body was LOOSE, it stopped feeling like my body and just some thing I was dragging around. I also could BARELY feel pain. It took awhile for my body to heal and I became aware it felt like that because my body was close to DEATH. If your body gets close to death.....you realize for the first time in your direct experience....that your body is not you and you are not even physical but just awareness itself. So stop trying to figure it out...you cannot without direct experience. Go run some tests if you want to find the truth. Leo is just a guide.... you have to take the steps yourself.

It is a good understanding but in my opinion there is a mistake. You say: I am imagining everything. It is not like this. there is no me. The I that is said here to imagine a lion is imaginary. there is indefinite consciousness, without limits, imagining the self that thinks it is imagining the lion. the empty conscience that we are is so far from being the "i" you speak of, than from the lion. the self that imagines the lion in the room is an imaginary construction imagining something. the empty reality that we are is in the antipodes of the self, and it is very difficult to put ourselves in that point of view, it inevitably mixes with the construction of the self and is contaminated by it, and that is noticeable in each idea that we express about consciousness in this forum

[Ry4n]

On 20/5/2022 at 5:10 PM, SQAAD said:

If you mean that both the imaginary knife and the real one are made of Consciousness, then ok with that.

?This makes sense.

[ZzzleepingBear]

On 2022-05-20 at 5:30 PM, zurew said:

Not just you, this is a really fair critique.

Always reducing everything just to "imagination" have its own limits, and sometimes doesn't really make any sense to bring it up in conversations, where the question doesn't necessarily points to anything absolute, but requires a relative answer.

By reducing everything down to just imagination we are losing all the nuances , and the questioner won't be able to make sense of our answers.  Asking for definitions or giving our own definitions from the get go can really help to make the conversations more fruiteful and productive. I think that most of the misunderstanding in this forum comes from the fact, that we don't use the same words the same way and we give different meanings to different words.

The other big problem i see is the content vs structure problem. Some people ask about a problem or question that is related to a content, and the answer that will be given will be structure related. This is okay, when someone can give an advice to a person to find the root cause to a problem, but in most cases the advice won't be usable at all because that particular person either craving for attention and not for answer to solve the problem or that person craves for a usable productive answer that can be utilized, and not for answers like "you just imagining your problems" or "just wake up and you won't give any fucks anymore".

A newbie who comes here, will use the word 'imagination' a lot differently than how we use it. Even when they hear the word 'consciousness' they don't necessarily refer to the same thing as we do.

Most of our convos should start setting/clearing the foundation up , and then we can start to debate or have conversations but if we miss that, there is a high chance that we will misunderstand each other even though we might agree about everything or on most things.

 

Well said!

If only more forum users took this approach that you described, then there would be alot more interesting and fruitful discussion, instead of miscommunication and arguing around buzzwords.

As mentioned. There is clearly a desperate need for nuances in this forum to establish a common ground of understanding. And less of the parroted agreements based on the latest popular belief thrown around in here.

 

[RMQualtrough]

2 hours ago, ZzzleepingBear said:

Well said!

If only more forum users took this approach that you described, then there would be alot more interesting and fruitful discussion, instead of miscommunication and arguing around buzzwords.

As mentioned. There is clearly a desperate need for nuances in this forum to establish a common ground of understanding. And less of the parroted agreements based on the latest popular belief thrown around in here.

 

I really think everything should ideally be written as though you were trying to make your point to Richard Dawkins. If Richard would say "ok yeah that's a decent model" then you've explained it well.

The parroting is dumb lol. "Omg guys I watched 10 seconds of Leo video and had an awakening that all is love!" (or whatever his latest video claims) REE-DICULOUS!!!!

People just reading books or watching videos and posting, it destroys the chance for serious discussion. Doesn't matter wtf Buddha or Jesus wrote in a book if it's verifiably false. You do need the first person experience probably.

[SQAAD]

@Leo Gura

On 20/5/2022 at 9:37 PM, Leo Gura said:

It's not complicated.

When you say there are no differences without giving any explanation whatsoever, then it can be quite complicated .

On 20/5/2022 at 9:37 PM, Leo Gura said:

Formed reality is the imagination of differences. You create "reality" by holding one thing as distinct from another. These are divisions in consciousness your mind is making, even though you are not yet conscious of how your mind is doing this. This is otherwise known as dreaming.

So what is your point actually? Do you mean that there are no distinctions in Reality until your mind projects them onto Reality?

I think the mind is making these distinctions because things are actually different. It is not like those distinctions don't actually exist or exist only inside your mind.

You can see reality as one thing , without making distinctions but that doesn't make everything the same.

Having sex or dying from cancer has inherently different qualities to it whether your mind makes those dinstcions or not. 

Quote

You create "reality" by holding one thing as distinct from another

Even if you did not make distinctions, reality would still be the case.

Edited May 22, 2022 by SQAAD

[RMQualtrough]

@SQAAD Technically the quality is created in your mind so it could be rendered equal: e.g. animals who see color differently, I doubt it's totally the same but like, dogs might see yellow as red and red as red too...

A lot of things can stop being existent at least in perception... Salvia especially turns off your ability to see depth. You literally don't have ANY depth perception AT ALL anymore. Everything is just incomprehebsible 2D abstract mosaic of colors and such. It's still your real surroundings, you can tell because after a lot of trips on it you realize colors matched your surroundings. E.g. the 2D shape was flat blue at the top where the sky was, and stripes of brown where trees were. But you can't discern anything and your mind keeps trying on a failing loop to process it, and it can't so it reacts with psychotic laughter.

[SQAAD]

@RMQualtrough

10 minutes ago, RMQualtrough said:

@SQAAD Technically the quality is created in your mind so it could be rendered equal: e.g. animals who see color differently, I doubt it's totally the same but like, dogs might see yellow as red and red as red too...

A lot of things can stop being existent at least in perception... Salvia especially turns off your ability to see depth. You literally don't have ANY depth perception AT ALL anymore. Everything is just incomprehebsible 2D abstract mosaic of colors and such. It's still your real surroundings, you can tell because after a lot of trips on it you realize colors matched your surroundings. E.g. the 2D shape was flat blue at the top where the sky was, and stripes of brown where trees were. But you can't discern anything and your mind keeps trying on a failing loop to process it, and it can't so it reacts with psychotic laughter.

Yes it is valid point that your mind creates distinctions and some people make more distinctions than others.

But those distinctions are grounded on something. They are not grounded on thin air. The reality you experience doesn't depend on the distinctions (on some level). But the distinctions depend on reality.

The color red is distinct from the color blue. Whether i make that distinction is irrelevant. I could notice that or not notice that. But if i don't notice that, that doesn't make red the same as blue. That is my point. Those distinctions are always grounded on reality. To say that there no distinctions unless you make them is not true.

 

Edited May 22, 2022 by SQAAD

[zurew]

46 minutes ago, SQAAD said:

But those distinctions are grounded on something. They are not grounded on thin air. The reality you experience doesn't depend on the distinctions (on some level). But the distinctions depend on reality.

That ground doesn't exist independent of your mind. Thats the point, the ground itself is part of your imagination. Everything is mind.

When you say that distinctions depend on reality. Reality itself part of the distinction making, thats basically the most meta distinction you make in your mind, thats why you are able to separate yourself from the world . But that distinction only exist in your mind.

Notice that you can create a million different kind of scenarios to explain reality and yourself. But where are those philosophies and explanations comes from and where they exist? They all comes from your mind. Everything is grounded in your mind.

 

Lets assume there is an independent physical reality out there. Even if thats the case you can only experience your own distorted version of it. When i say own distorted version of it, you have your own biased way to make sense of that physical reality. You don't talk to me, you talk to an idea of me. Your mind generating me. Your mind generating your room. Your mind generating yourself.

If you want to take a position where you make the least amount of assumptions you naturally arrive at solipsism. The only thing you can verify in your direct experience if you destroy all the layers , is that everything is consciousness and you are constantly experiencing your own mind no matter what.

When you say "but there is a physical reality out there" thats an instance where your mind trying to ground itself in itself.  The notion of physical reality only exist in your own mind. You can't access any independent physical reality, and even if you do, you can only access your own biased version of it. And that biased version is generated by your own mind.

Every idea, philosophy, explanation is ultimately coming from the mind.

No matter what philosophy you want to use, we are always coming back to the mind.

But this is all just intellectual talk, you should be able to have an awakening experience and verify all the things we have said so far. Further intellectualizing won't help you to come closer to any truth.

Edited May 22, 2022 by zurew

[RMQualtrough]

1 hour ago, SQAAD said:

@RMQualtrough

Yes it is valid point that your mind creates distinctions and some people make more distinctions than others.

But those distinctions are grounded on something. They are not grounded on thin air. The reality you experience doesn't depend on the distinctions (on some level). But the distinctions depend on reality.

The color red is distinct from the color blue. Whether i make that distinction is irrelevant. I could notice that or not notice that. But if i don't notice that, that doesn't make red the same as blue. That is my point. Those distinctions are always grounded on reality. To say that there no distinctions unless you make them is not true.

 

Yeah I think you missed the point though. Keep in mind that you the person are as much of a mirage as the world around you, and as such are subject to that reality, you can't walk through a wall just because you stop making a distinction between solid and not. As your body is part of the "plane" (so to speak) in which the wall appears.

It's not the labels you put onto things being discussed, but literally how your mind interprets things, which might be beyond our control. E.g. we can't just decide to see every color as black, and hence there is nothing for us visually but blackness.

Now, all things in existence are limited. Think about it logically even, if something is a thing, it is that and NOT something else. E.g. for red to appear it has to be NOT blue, right?

If the mind ceases making ANY distinction, there is pure nothingness. Which is what isolated consciousness is. Literally nothing. The less the mind makes distinctions between things, the less limits are on reality, until there is no limit and just nothing. Which is what you really are. Your human body would remain here dead or something I suppose? Or just unconscious until the trip/state ends.

Edited May 22, 2022 by RMQualtrough

[ZzzleepingBear]

14 hours ago, RMQualtrough said:

I really think everything should ideally be written as though you were trying to make your point to Richard Dawkins. If Richard would say "ok yeah that's a decent model" then you've explained it well.

The parroting is dumb lol. "Omg guys I watched 10 seconds of Leo video and had an awakening that all is love!" (or whatever his latest video claims) REE-DICULOUS!!!!

People just reading books or watching videos and posting, it destroys the chance for serious discussion. Doesn't matter wtf Buddha or Jesus wrote in a book if it's verifiably false. You do need the first person experience probably.

It doesn't need to be one way or the other. If some degree of mutual understanding is the goal or of any interest, then context and distictions matters.

While agreements doesn't require mutual understanding. So you don't need any common ground to feel that you know what is being said. 

I have for example experiences of using a smartphone, so I know how to use a smartphone in various ways. But my experience with a smartphone doesn't require that I understand how a smartphone works. Only that it work in a way that I personally want it to work. So I could not talk about any insight of how the technology itself works. And that understanding part can probably better be reached through watching videos and books, instead of trying to open up the smartphone without any knowledge at all, despite my constant daily use of one.

I think this is some fiting quotes to what I try do higlight with my ramblings.

 

"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function."

- Scott Fitzgerald

 

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

- Aristotle

 

And I found this gem on google as well.

"How do you entertain a thought?"

"When you entertain a thought, you're bringing it in, but you're not accepting it. You're not immediately saying it's true. You're entertaining it with the idea that you're going to mull it over, think about your past experiences, and think critically about it to see if it's something you can accept."

 

[Leo Gura]

6 hours ago, SQAAD said:

Having sex or dying from cancer has inherently different qualities to it whether your mind makes those dinstcions or not.

False.

[DecemberFlower]

@Leo Gura Why you said before that distinction is a substance of reality and now you deny them? 

[Leo Gura]

7 hours ago, DecemberFlower said:

@Leo Gura Why you said before that distinction is a substance of reality and now you deny them? 

They are the substance of reality, and all distinctions are imaginary and boil down to nothing.

Reality is an absolute illusion made of nothing.