Hi, I’m the person who asked a question about 15 hours ago. Your claims are so new to me that I’m still quite confused. Are you saying that everything—the Law, the world, everything—is just my story, just one of many narratives?
I have a specific question regarding this. Let's assume I have a desire or a preference I hold deep inside. From my current perspective, it might seem realistic or completely unrealistic. If I want this preference to appear and actually see it with my own eyes, are you saying I should just move forward with what I believe to be true? I’m asking this because what I prefer is something that has never appeared in the world before.
Also, if everything is just a story, what happens if the story is about my death and total disappearance? If that becomes the narrative, would I remain in that state of "extinction" forever? I mean a state where there is absolutely nothing, and even my own consciousness vanishes. To be honest, the thought of that is quite frightening and complex for me.
I would really appreciate your clarification on these points. Thank you.
A follow-up from this ask, alright.
Yes, everything is a story, including this statement. The apple you visualise? A story. The dreams you have? A story. The world you see? A story. The law of assumption? A story. Nothingness? A story. "Me", "You" "I", "Mine"? Stories. A story that is not a story? Also a story. This blog? Pfft, a story. Non-dualism? A story. The fact of these stories arising? Once again, a story.
To answer your question, let's start with "imagination". This is going to be the most elaborate deconstruction as of yet in this blog, so bear with me, lol.
Hmmm. Let's imagine a cake. Specifically, what we call "visualisation". Those with aphantasia can imagine the taste of it or the feel of it. It's the same idea.
I am going to call this "mental imagination", as opposed to just "imagination". I'll explain why later.
Okay, you mentally imagine a cake, the form of it, the taste of it, the feel of it. But, it's just... mental imagination. It's not here in this "physical world". This is not even close to as good as experiencing it in the physical world. WHERE'S THE SENSORY EXPERIENCE? THAT'S INFINITELY BETTER THAN WHATEVER THIS IS.
I agree. But, before we go there, let's talk about this "mental imagination" more.
Anyway, you imagine a cake or its properties. You imagine it for as long as you prefer, and then you get bored of it. Now, you imagine flying in the sky or the feel of it. But wait, what happened to the CAKE!?
"Wdym? Isn't it obvious? I got bored of it, and imagined something else, and the flying appeared."
That's correct. You mentally imagine a cake. You got bored. You preferred to mentally imagine flying instead. The cake became irrelevant. And the flying was mentally imagined instead, and thus it appeared mentally. And you notice how effortlessly it happens.
You imagined a cake, effortless. No trying to mentally imagine. It just happened.
The cake was sustained in imagination for as long as you preferred to, effortless. No trying to sustain it. It just happened.
You preferred to imagine flying, also effortless. No trying to prefer. It just happened.
You imagined flying, also effortless. No trying to mentally imagine. It just happened.
And of course, the "cake" vanished before that. No trying to get rid of it. It just happened.
Notice how the preference to mentally imagine and the mental imagination itself appeared together. This is what I mean by preference is the arising itself. "together" isn't even accurate. It's one and the same.
"Okay, but I don't have WIIIIINGS in the physical world!"
I am getting to it. Let me explain why I called it "mental imagination".
Mental imagination is just ONE form of imagination. What you call this physical world, your body, the laws etc. are all still imagination. All of these are being imagined in the moment.
And no, there is no distinction between the "mentally imagined" and what you call "real". All you can verify is that something is appearing. Even an idea of "this is independent" is appearing. In your immediate experience, all these appearances are appearances, no different from the mental content. If it's true that this is an independent reality, can you find what makes it independent? Even if you do, isn't it just another idea. Past evidence is just another idea. Solidity is another idea. It's absurd to use ideas to prove that an idea is independent of other ideas which are still the same ideas.
Let's talk about your hands, what you call "real hands", for example.
You prefer to move your hands. The hands move. One and the same event.
To rephrase: the movement of the hands was imagined just as preferred, in the moment. Can also be read as: the movement of the hands appeared in the moment. Can also be read as: The movement of the hands was preferred in the moment.
The preference, the imagination and the appearance are one and the same. And this is not even metaphorical. It is literal. They are not even three different stages as events of a big event. They are the SAME event.
Anyway, the mental cake is just as imaginary as these hands. They just differ in content, but they are both imagined.
"But this world is... appearing. Why won't, er, a Naruto world appear instead? That's my preferred DR. Actually, no, let that be. Why won't at least.. a coffee appear already. I prefer that too!"
Good question.
First off, let's make one thing clear. The appearing world is no different from the hands or the mental cake. The world is being sustained by imagination. The laws are also being sustained. The rules are also being sustained. Causality, regularities.. all of them are being sustained. By imagination. The use of "by" is potentially inaccurate, here, but I'll cover that later.
Anyway, for that question, let's get back to "mental imagination".
We have all had our worries. Thinking of something problematic because it felt like a real threat, over and over again, planning around it, etc. etc. This is still mental, isn't it? But, wait, isn't mental imagination supposed to be exactly as preferred? Like that cake and that flying... why would we think of that threat over and over again even if it wasn't preferred?
Well, we mistook a mere "idea" of a threat as something real. And when it's a REAL threat, it becomes unavoidable and suddenly, this idea becomes the most important thing to maintain while also fighting to escape from it. And what did this form? A habit. That's right.
(Even a "real" threat is just another idea. So, don't ask me what you mistook an idea for to evoke such repetitive reactions. Whatever you mistook it for is clearly an idea, and yet you reacted like that. It's inexplicable. And of course it is. It is absurd, after all. Before you say you mistook that idea for what you truly are.. no. You can only mistake an idea for some other idea, what you truly are isn't an idea. How can you mistake an idea for... what would you even be mistaking it for? That's absurd. And mistaking an idea for another idea is pretty normal. Like, mistaking a square for a circle, or a rope for a snake. Both are ideas. Neither threatens who you truly are.)
And habit is not mere repetition, it is compulsion. Repetition is just doing the same thing over and over, and it can be done consciously. The habit is the same repetition but "compulsive".
Suddenly, you see that this idea is.. just an idea, as it always was. Actually you didn't even see it as if it's a new event. It was always an idea anyway. You still repeat the same actions anyway, but the compulsiveness is gone, and this repetition is just.. leftover momentum. While repeating the same "imagination", you don't think of a better experience.. the repetition plays out before you could think of a better experience even if you prefer one.
The constantly appearing world, laws, etc. is similar. Clearly, whatever this "misunderstanding" is is ABSURD. So, I can't actually talk about it or the origin of these habits.
But, what I can say is that it's just repetition. But their being ideas already means they don't mean anything, right? They are all mere imagination, after all. These ideas shall appear for as long as it lasts and shall vanish, like that mental cake or your worries.
"Wait, so what should I do? So I should just move on?"
Where in this post so far did you get the implication that there's something to do? Whether you stay or move on, whine about it or just do what matters, whatever, all of those are equally imagined, equally stories that shall appear when they do and dissolve when they do. Just like the mental cake, the worries, the hand movements and this world. There is nothing to do. All of it is imagination.
As for the "total disappearance" idea. You clearly sleep every single day(okay, that depends, but you get the idea). You go through what's called the deep dreamless stage of sleep. Guess what that is? Total disappearance. But wait, you wake up anyway, don't you? Anesthesia is similar. Death is similar. All of these are just temporary states. They appear for as long as they appear, they dissolve when they do. Although of course, there's no perceived "duration" in any of these states. There's no "duration" that appears apart from your story of it, anyway.
Next up, let's talk about what this "imagination" is.
Anyway, Neville probably said "Imagination is the only reality" or something similar.
Well, no. Even "imagination" is just another idea. Imagination itself is imagined. It doesn't get any status of independent reality. Although, it's accurate to say "Imagination is reality" or "Reality is imagination". There's no distinction anyway.
Anyway, as for why "all of this is done BY imagination" is inaccurate.. there's no one imagining this. Not even "imagination" imagining this. Such an idea is also imagined. You aren't doing the imagining. The "you" is being imagined, the "imagining" is being imagined. If "you" aren't burdened to imagine anything, and imagination is effortless, free, spontaneous, then how could there be anything to do? Imagination doesn't create reality as if it's something independent. There was never anything but imagination. There was never any distinction between imagination and reality. Any separation or distinction is itself imagined, their necessity of which is absurd.
Wait a minute. Everything is an idea. Even nothingness. Even imagination itself. Even the idea of appearance and disappearance. Even an idea, no idea, not an idea.. all of these are ideas. All of these are imagined. All of these are changing and temporary.
So, then what's that constancy across all these ideas? Of course, such a description is already an idea. But, let me entertain it anyway. Whatever this constancy is cannot be labelled, described, defined as negation.. nothing. It's not an idea. It's also not "not an idea".
But regardless, there is no idea without whatever this is. This is because whatever this constancy is what an idea truly is. Therefore, there's no separation whatsoever. Can an idea be separate from what it truly is? Can it be separate from the awareness of it?
You could be afraid of being "extinguished". But, whatever this "extinguishment" is, whatever this "extinguished" is, whatever this "you" is... are all themselves ideas appearing. What you truly are is not separate from these ideas and this is an imperfect description—well every description is, anyway, but still useful: all these ideas appear and dissolve within what you truly are. If "you" can be extinguished, then that was never who you truly are. It's just another idea labelled "you".. that appears within who you truly are. That's all.
All these descriptions of "who you truly are" don't cut it. All of these are themselves appearing. You already know who you truly are, anyway. How can you not? If all these ideas come and go, then what is this what you label as "being constant"? Isn't it laughably obvious that all these ideas appear and disappear, including "you", within who you truly are?
47 | Masterlist
