Did you know reality can continue to appear in absence of you?

[Breakingthewall]

@RMQualtrough

it is a semantic misunderstanding. Let's see, if the ego disappears and only red remains, you are red. If the void remains, you are the void. if there is no sense of self, you are the void without any sense of self. you are always. you are the awareness that emptiness is, that red is. the sense of self as actor, or perceiver, disappears. but there is still consciousness that red is. or that the void is. you are the conscience. consciousness is nothing specific, it is where the red occurs. but it happens that it is red because in the "act" of being aware of being red, red is being created. You are not conciouss of the red, you are the red. and not only red is created. a universe of perfectly coordinated events is created that occur in the field of consciousness that you are, that is to say that you are creating them by being aware of them. Creation and be conciouss is the same. The "secret door" I'd say it's when the consciousness is totally empty. There is nothing to be aware but "you" still are conciouss of that there in nothing, or the nothing is conscious that there is nothing. That is the moment when the infinity manifest. The consciousness, when it gets free of being aware on anything, reveals itself as God. I don't understand exactly how or why, but when it happens, there is no doubt. The emptiness is everything and it's you. 

Edited October 12, 2022 by Breakingthewall

[RMQualtrough]

2 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

@RMQualtrough

it is a semantic misunderstanding. Let's see, if the ego disappears and only red remains, you are red. If the void remains, you are the void. if there is no sense of self, you are the void without any sense of self. you are always. you are the awareness that emptiness is, that red is. the sense of self as actor, or perceiver, disappears. but there is still consciousness that red is. or that the void is. you are the conscience. consciousness is nothing specific, it is where the red occurs. but it happens that not only is red like that because yes, it is red because in the "act" of being aware of being red, red is being created. You are not conciouss of the red, you are the red. and not only red is created. a universe of perfectly coordinated events is created that occur in the field of consciousness that you are, that is to say that you are creating them by being aware of them. Creation and be conciouss is the same. 

 

It might be semantical, it's hard to tell. But like, to even say something along the lines of red being aware of itself (which is not that inaccurate and I probably use that phrase myself btw), is as nonsensical of a phrase choice as saying "light lights itself up". It leaves behind a notion there for ex, of an un-lit light which becomes light when it lights itself up. When really of course light IS light. Without lighting itself up. Nobody says "lit light" they just say light. And as such red is red without having to red itself up.

Images are superior, so the images should show better exactly what I mean, because it happens exactly identical to that.

I'm really familiar with the various seeming ego deaths of psychedelic drugs, the actual death of ego wasn't really like all that. I've seen it referenced in toad ceremony reports sometimes. There's a few reports like it on Erowid.

As soon as ideas of me start appearing in the fray, back too come the Rupert Spira type complex analogies and insanely complicated theories about why I'm seeing from my eyes and not yours etc. When the ideas of "Self" and "God" are removed, it is all very obvious again right away. It's such a different perspective that there isn't even a middle ground transition between the paradigms, just suddenly everything works. So I think the ideas themselves must be terribly misleading.

[Arthogaan]

This is the best depiction I know of:

[axiom]

It’s not just semantic. There is an actual misapprehension going on.

“I can hide here…” the I said to itself, as it closed the doors of the red and sealed itself inside. “They’ll never find me here.”

Rooting the self out of the appearance is almost impossible, but not quite. Some apparent people get “lucky” (it is actually quite terrifying and anxiety-inducing when it first happens) but it will elude the vast majority because it is exactly like dying, and no one wants to die badly enough.

The notion and the sense of self as reality / infinity is the final hiding place for the illusory ego. It’s as simple as that. 

It can be completely deconstructed. No-self is not merely some Buddhist philosophy, it is reality. It’s just a very rare realisation because it is 100% counter intuitive and seems like it must break all the laws of simple logic and / or science (all constructions of the self, of course - hence the problem..)

You won’t believe me, but if no-self realisation has happened, it is very obvious that something different is being discussed when someone says “you are infinity” or “you are red”.

The word “you” in this context is seen as completely meaningless and is no more suitable a word / idea to describe red than any other word. 

Red is just red.

Red is not you.

Red is not blue.

Maybe it is worth pondering why the word “you” is being used at all. Could it be because the qualitative essence of a “you” seems to have remained essentially unchanged all the way along your “path” from small self to big Self..? 

The answer is yes. Big Self is simply the small self in disguise, on a tightrope, enjoying the thrill but being very, very careful not to fall.

Edited October 12, 2022 by axiom

[Breakingthewall]

@axiom

8 hours ago, RMQualtrough said:

 

what do we call self? I would say that it is the energy that desire and the energy that seeks identity in memory. who desires identity after all. if you remove desire there is no self. as simple as that. so what's up? reality. then I have no choice but to affirm: I am reality. who affirms it is the self, but no less true for that. there is only what exists, therefore, I am what exists, and only I exist. The ego is de desire, the real i is the reality.

Edited October 12, 2022 by Breakingthewall

[amanen]

6 hours ago, axiom said:

It’s not just semantic. There is an actual misapprehension going on.

“I can hide here…” the I said to itself, as it closed the doors of the red and sealed itself inside. “They’ll never find me here.”

Rooting the self out of the appearance is almost impossible, but not quite. Some apparent people get “lucky” (it is actually quite terrifying and anxiety-inducing when it first happens) but it will elude the vast majority because it is exactly like dying, and no one wants to die badly enough.

The notion and the sense of self as reality / infinity is the final hiding place for the illusory ego. It’s as simple as that. 

It can be completely deconstructed. No-self is not merely some Buddhist philosophy, it is reality. It’s just a very rare realisation because it is 100% counter intuitive and seems like it must break all the laws of simple logic and / or science (all constructions of the self, of course - hence the problem..)

You won’t believe me, but if no-self realisation has happened, it is very obvious that something different is being discussed when someone says “you are infinity” or “you are red”.

The word “you” in this context is seen as completely meaningless and is no more suitable a word / idea to describe red than any other word. 

Red is just red.

Red is not you.

Red is not blue.

Maybe it is worth pondering why the word “you” is being used at all. Could it be because the qualitative essence of a “you” seems to have remained essentially unchanged all the way along your “path” from small self to big Self..? 

The answer is yes. Big Self is simply the small self in disguise, on a tightrope, enjoying the thrill but being very, very careful not to fall.

You don't understand what people say when they mean 'you are red'. Without becoming more conscious and understanding that the distinction between 'self' and 'other' is not real, you are not going to get anywhere. The distinction between them does not exist. You need to truly understand that duality is an illusion. You are still holding 'appearances' as an other, even if you are not conscious of this, which means you haven't realized that duality is not real nor what 'appearances' are.

You are like someone who is looking at a nightly dream who is too focused on the dream/forms (red in this case), not realizing that it's your own mind, only seeing the dream/form.

Edited October 12, 2022 by amanen

[RMQualtrough]

@amanen Who is the one "holding appearances as other"? There should not even be anyone present anymore if ego death is encountered. The person should temporarily be straight up dead. As dead as if they just took a shotgun shell to the skull.

You know it's not just airy fairy language right? There wouldn't be anyone there. If there's anyone there it is for sure NOT ego death. There are lots of drugged out distortions of ego, many I have encountered. If there is ANY form of I-ness there, there is ego.

Which happens first person as I drew on that illustration. That is exactly how it happens first person (btw, see how I'm forced to contradict myself because language sucks?).

That is legit "enlightenment", and sadly for us the exact moment of enlightenment is also the precise moment there is nobody TO be enlightened. Because at the moment of enlightenment the person does not even exist anymore. Until the ego boots back up they are dead. There isn't even a person or I or anything like that present anymore to be "in duality". There isn't anyone there... Which you should see quickly is logically impossible, thanks to the fact our logic is built on the incorrect foundational belief drilled into us that there is no such thing as a sight without me to see it.

[Breakingthewall]

20 minutes ago, RMQualtrough said:

There should not even be anyone present anymore if ego death is encountered.

Ego death. EGO. Who dies is the ego. And what is de ego? The ego is just the desire. It's the energy that wants. It's really simple and obvios, but it's hidden because the wish has many layers. Deep in the subconscious there is wish. Wish of survival. If you totally remove the wish, you remove the ego. And what remains? You remain. Because you are not the ego. The ego is the false you. Basic

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Wilhelm44]

On 9/30/2022 at 5:01 PM, RMQualtrough said:

Did you know that?

Did you know that the I/You entity can be walking down a beach, and just stop existing? You just cease to exist at all.

But the beach doesn't change. It continues to appear just exactly and precisely the same. With absolutely no difference between when you exist and when you don't. When you stop existing, the beach doesn't.

And then after about say 20 seconds, you exist again. And throughout the entirety the beach continued to appear. It appeared before you went away. KEPT appearing WHILE you were away. And continued still to appear when you started existing again.

Do you know what I mean by that?

What difference does it make whether the beach exists or not, beyond this 'human' experience ?

[axiom]

9 hours ago, amanen said:

You don't understand what people say when they mean 'you are red'. Without becoming more conscious and understanding that the distinction between 'self' and 'other' is not real, you are not going to get anywhere.

Yes I do. I’ve been through that phase, and it lasted about a year. You are referring to when all distinctions between self and other collapse into a singularity of “I AM” / Infinity. 

What happened next cannot really be expressed or understood, unfortunately.

[Arthogaan]

Seeing/Appearing are two sides of the same coin.

You could argue: seeing is false, because it assumes someone who is seeing and that is an illusion.

I could argue: only seeing is, and this seeing/consciousness is felt as pure "I" and this "I" is empirically the only thing that exists. And to dismiss this universal feeling of "I" as an illusion is not listening to the direct experience. Saying "I" is not real is just an idea, your projection, because "I" is the only thing you ever experienced.
This "I" can be formed into ego, redness, appering or whatever, but the I-essence is always there, and even though it seems too good/personal to be true it is what the direct experience reveals. 

"I" / Seeing/ appearing is the same coin.
Assuming that there could be an appearance without the sense of "I" is like saying there could be a wrinkle in a blanket without the blanket. It's like saying that the blanket can be red without the blanket. I is the blanket. In every experience there is a sense of "I" and tho dismiss it is an assumption and delusion.

We are speaking the same thing.

[RMQualtrough]

4 hours ago, Wilhelm44 said:

What difference does it make whether the beach exists or not, beyond this 'human' experience ?

Depends. I don't mean you go to eternal pitch black à la random atheist thought, and someone else would still be seeing a beach. Or that you "cycle through lives" so you live again as your aunt or something.

In the way you currently understand this to mean: You will still be seeing the beach. First person. It is exactly like you are seeing the beach first person.

But you won't be there. You won't be there. AT. ALL. Not there as nothing, not there as the beach, not there as God, not there as "True Self@@!", not there as a human, not there as an alpaca. I mean you actually aren't present AT ALL.

As you understand it now, you will be as not present as you were prior to being born.

And if you are living under the assumption that you are one with the universe or something, or seeing it, or BEING it, it is logically completely impossible what happens. If you know there isn't a "Me as Consciousness!" then it isn't a logical problem anymore.

The "I-ness" people think is an "I"... Well... What they are actually in touch with is not awareness or God or I AM. They are in touch with the literal sheer fact of existence itself. Existence exists. It's the raw existence that you are labelling awareness, because as we usually understand that thing or a normal random dude off the street understands it: Awareness is the nature of it. It's really incomprehensibly weird now. But awareness is what we understand the nature of it to be, because for example we think of qualia such as the redness of red to be, to be "seen by a consciousness". The qualia isn't seen by anybody. The red itself, exists.

If ego death happens, you will understand it without needing to compare it to what it would be like within how you currently see the world. It's not even that secretive and locked through secret doors you must smoke lethal doses of drugs to unlock. You ceasing to exist is literally as simple and smooth as red becoming blue. Existence doesn't end with red, and doesn't end with "I"/Godself or whatever. Red goes away blue appears, easy to understand. Godself" or "me" goes, blue appears. That should be equally as easy to understand, as it happens just the same.

[RMQualtrough]

29 minutes ago, Arthogaan said:

Seeing/Appearing are two sides of the same coin.

You could argue: seeing is false, because it assumes someone who is seeing and that is an illusion.

I could argue: only seeing is, and this seeing/consciousness is felt as pure "I" and this "I" is empirically the only thing that exists. And to dismiss this universal feeling of "I" as an illusion is not listening to the direct experience. Saying "I" is not real is just an idea, your projection, because "I" is the only thing you ever experienced.
This "I" can be formed into ego, redness, appering or whatever, but the I-essence is always there, and even though it seems too good/personal to be true it is what the direct experience reveals. 

"I" / Seeing/ appearing is the same coin.
Assuming that there could be an appearance without the sense of "I" is like saying there could be a wrinkle in a blanket without the blanket. It's like saying that the blanket can be red without the blanket. I is the blanket. In every experience there is a sense of "I" and tho dismiss it is an assumption and delusion.

We are speaking the same thing.

The blanket really is just photographed because it allowed me to stick 2 deodorant cans beneath it to make two humps and then one hump. It's only a prop I stuck in to make two obvious humps.

I'm sure we are certainly not talking about the same thing at all. To be saying it's I-ness, personal etc, there's no chance.

You likely just haven't encountered ego death because ANY I is still ego. You are probably sharing encounters with ego weakening, transforming, things like that. I-ness can cease to be as much and as easily as red can become blue. Your thought is that there is a permanent I entity between each moment and the entity is I or God.

It's not accurate and the problem of it (why it isn't good enough for people to just enjoy the belief) is that it deforms simple processes of death into elaborate ideas of returning to the source or flicking through living as your relatives or animals (see: The Egg by Andy Weir). These complex ideas have to be woven desperately by the ego which doesn't get that its complete annihilation does not in fact erase reality into eternal dark. It is as possible for the "direct experience" of I to cease to exist as it is for red to cease to exist. Red ceases to exist blue appears. Nobody finds this odd. I cease to exist blue appears. Suddenly nobody can comprehend it. That it happens identically.

[Arthogaan]

4 minutes ago, RMQualtrough said:

You likely just haven't encountered ego death because ANY I is still ego. You are probably sharing encounters with ego weakening, transforming, things like that. I-ness can cease to be as much and as easily as red can become blue. Your thought is that there is a permanent I entity between each moment and the entity is I or God.

It's not accurate and the problem of it (why it isn't good enough for people to just enjoy the belief) is that it deforms simple processes of death into elaborate ideas of returning to the source or flicking through living as your relatives or animals (see: The Egg by Andy Weir). These complex ideas have to be woven desperately by the ego which doesn't get that its complete annihilation does not in fact erase reality into eternal dark. It is as possible for the "direct experience" of I to cease to exist as it is for red to cease to exist. Red ceases to exist blue appears. Nobody finds this odd. I cease to exist blue appears. Suddenly nobody can comprehend it. That it happens identically.

Maybe I am naively optimistic but I still believe we try to point to the same insight.

I think you and @axiom based on your interactions with people - that did not have solid understanding of reality and still had a lot of ego left - you see the word "I" differently than lets say me and @Breakingthewall.

Based on the teachers we were listening to and the people we interacted with we may have the same insights in different words. For you "I" can be the sign of someone still clinging to the ego and for me it may be the word for the pureness of appearing.

I will try to reconciliate that with the following.
You say:
"It is as possible for the "direct experience" of I to cease to exist as it is for red to cease to exist. Red ceases to exist blue appears. Nobody finds this odd. I cease to exist blue appears. Suddenly nobody can comprehend it. That it happens identically."

Believing that you have profound insight I assume that the feeling of that realization you point to is the same as the feeling that I point to with "only I is". So I would have to conclude that "appears" is the same as "I" for me. 

Then I have to use "I" as verb. And it is exactly the direct experience.

When I really focus into the redness, so much that whole ego is forgotten about and there exists only redness, no time, no space.
Then I would argue that better sentence than " redness appears" is just " redness I " or even just "I".  Only "I" is left, but it just so happens that this "I" is redness at that time thanks to focus.

Analogically you could say that "redness appears" can be purified into " APPEARING" or just "Redness".

And I really think what you mean by pure  "APPEARING" is what I call " I ".  

And you are right that many folks still hold ego there in the "I" so then they are deluding themselves, but please open to the possibility that someone just maybe can say "I" and have no ego at all in a certain moment. 



 

 

[Ramu]

@RMQualtrough the world does NOT exist when you die.  My condo will no longer exist when I die...parents will not be collecting my things etc....this is all YOU happening in this bubble...the bubble is you.  Perhaps you could watch Actualized Clips if you have trouble getting the point with the longer, more nuanced videos.

[Ramu]

@Arthogaan and anyway it sounds from what I'm reading that you're still hopelessly stuck in the materialist paradigm.  Unfortunate, as one cannot understand this stuff from a materialist standpoint.  Have you tried psychedelics or maybe thought about awakening?  If you could awaken then it would make sense to you.  Sorry.

[axiom]

37 minutes ago, Ramu said:

@Arthogaan and anyway it sounds from what I'm reading that you're still hopelessly stuck in the materialist paradigm.  Unfortunate, as one cannot understand this stuff from a materialist standpoint.  Have you tried psychedelics or maybe thought about awakening?  If you could awaken then it would make sense to you.  Sorry.

‘You’re Hopelessly Stuck, Ya Loser!’ - Ramu’s keenly anticipated follow-up to the wildly popular ‘Have You Even Thought About Awakening, Bro?’ 

[Ramu]

@axiom does this person sound even remotely awake?  After all this contemplation about the nature of reality he's still going about it as a materialist.  Somewhat blatantly obvious by his arguments.

[Ramu]

My whole point is that reality does not exist independently of you.  Why?  Because you ARE reality.  Yes it requires an awakening or several to see this.  Furthermore you will never get any further trying to "get it" from a materialist standpoint.  

I wasn't calling anyone a loser.  My apologies the tone in my message seemed condescending, as that wasn't my intention.  My only intention is to clarify things for comments I see that completely miss the boat.

If you watch the videos and contemplate independently in your own direction as a supplement it will become abundantly clear.

[Arthogaan]

17 minutes ago, Ramu said:

@axiom does this person sound even remotely awake?  After all this contemplation about the nature of reality he's still going about it as a materialist.  Somewhat blatantly obvious by his arguments.

1 hour ago, Ramu said:

@Arthogaan and anyway it sounds from what I'm reading that you're still hopelessly stuck in the materialist paradigm.  Unfortunate, as one cannot understand this stuff from a materialist standpoint.  Have you tried psychedelics or maybe thought about awakening?  If you could awaken then it would make sense to you.  Sorry.

Dear @Ramu

I am not sure what I wrote that made you think of me as in materialist paradigm. I am genuinely curious. But we can both be happy that it is not the case.
I had lots of experiences on psychedelics and I totally agree that reality is a dream dreamed by Me/I/God.