Consider reading the relevant posts before sending an ask â chances are it has already been answered, implicitly or explicitly.
Ask box is open for now. Responses may not be quick, but I try to answer every ask whenever I can.
DMs are open.
This blog is more like a mirror pointed at the sun. It only shows the light that you are, albeit imperfectly, as is the case with mirrors in general. Appreciation is welcome but none of this is doctrine. This isn't a coaching or guidance blog, either.
At the end of the day, introspection, intuition and direct experience reflect the sun better.
this actually makes a lot of sense. i was wondering how there is seeming egos/modes of experience that âbeginâ, but a function similar to code explains it. u can run code repeatedly, infinitely.
i donât really understand the soul thing tho :/
I remind you again that this is a personal interpretation and has absolutely nothing to do with non-duality.
A âsoulâ is just a never-ending, ever-evolving program... that starts, preserves and ends a âbodyâ program, one after the other, forever. It evolves due to the experience, relationships and wisdom earned in each âlifeâ. It accumulates all of these as it goes from one âbodyâ to the other, and what âbodyâ it wears depends on its choice according to its own wisdom, relationships and interests. A âsoulmateâ is just another âsoulâ that is a partner to this âsoulâ, both sharing a strong âsoul-levelâ & âancientâ resonance, connection and/or relationship with each other. There can be one or more âsoulmatesâ. But I prefer just one, lol. This is similar to karma, but here, this is not a binding contract or a chain of cause-effect. It's self-imposed.
This is how I like to interpret being an âindividual soulâ wearing âa bodyâ in this world. This is one way of playing the game of experience.
But there are many other interpretations, such as âthere is no soul and that this âindividualâ is just a biological bodyâ, âheaven/hell, punishmentâ and the death note interpretation of âthose who use the death note go into nothingnessâ, whatever that means.
But of course, if I were to shift realities, I would see myself as a different âsoulâ. Oh gosh, then I have to consider a âshifting-soulâ, lol! This is so fun. Then, I will probably have a âshifting-soulmateâ. Or I might one day, drop this interpretation. Anything can happen. That's the freedom of " ". I also like to see myself as a âsoulâ that doesn't control everything and that things just happen out of my control, and good or bad are allowed. If I saw myself as a âsoulâ that does control, then it would mean âtragediesâ will not exist. I guess it's a different story if I was a sadist or a masochist, but I like this interpretation of not everything being in âmyâ control. It allows for surprise, uncertainty, shock and what not. Moreover, I don't like to see this âinterpretationâ as something âIâ chose, but as âjust how reality isâ. That makes sense as there is freedom for anything, even for âwhat isâ. " " is not limited to experiencing a âmeâ with complete control or free will. It can either be a free âyouâ or be a trapped âyouâ as well, for whom reality just is the way it is as something âfixedâ. Doomed to âbe freeâ or doomed to be âtrappedâ, which are actually both valid experiences for " " and if you notice, both are âdefinedâ which is already a âprisonâ.
This is exactly why ND is not talking about a concept of being free, existence, reality, truth or whatever. It's just pointing beyond all these concepts. Within " ", absolutely any concept is allowed. Even of existence, non-existence, reality, dream, imagination, simulation, matrix, truth, illusion, freedom, determinism, randomness... whatever. YOU are free to experience any of these stories and to interpret them in any way. Anything you can ânameâ can be experienced. That includes anything within the âsubject-objectâ distinction... in other words, literally anything abd everything.
And this is exactly why there is nothing to understand here. Because even if you understood the concept of âfreedomâ, âexistenceâ, âstillnessâ, ânothing to doâ, ârecognitionâ etc, it barely matters, because all of these can be experienced and none of these are necessarily true. These are just more experiences which have nothing to do with " " and only have something to do with " " in the sense that they are âexperiencedâ and that experience ultimately depends on i.e. cannot âappearâ without " ".
There is no right or wrong, correct or incorrect concept, action or understanding. There's only " " which these concepts arise in.
There are people that ask âis this correct?â on an ND blog and some refuse to answer, some say âYesâ, some correct it further, depending on what response is relevant to the ask and their personal style. But none of it are correct or wrong responses when it comes to " " and that's precisely what ND says.
No one here is telling you that what you are doing is wrong! Not the point of any ND blog. All is being said is just that there is no concept that has a higher authority than other concepts. We cannot even say âseekingâ is wrong. That's just another concept. We cannot even say that âtreating one concept as higher authority than other conceptsâ is wrong. ND just points to " " where no concept is fundamentally distinct or in the âright/wrongâ dichotomy.
Even if some ND blogger does say âthat's rightâ, âthat's wrongâ, âimagine whatever you wantâ, âdon't do thatâ, or whatever, it's still just their personal style and what response they consider appropriate in that moment or with that specific ask. That no one can be an authority on ND is consistently ignored, but I guess that's exactly what ND points to anyway. It's impossible to âteachâ ND. It's impossible to âhelpâ you when it comes to ND or âuseâ ND. All these framings, if used, are themselves once again tied to âpersonal styleâ.
It's all just personal observation at the end of the day which we fail to bring into words. All of us are describing the same thing that all of you already observe. We just have different interpretations, styles etc. of talking about or better said, pointing to the exact same " ". A better way of describing what you people are doing is already having this direct recognition and complaining that you don't, seeking it etc. The point is not for you to stop seeking or complaining. There is no point in doing specifically this as opposed to that or vice versa... at all given " " already IS.
You already are " ". That's the end. There's nothing extra to this. Seeking or not, feeling limited or not, noticing or not, understanding or not, observing or not... what does any of these matter?
Why i feel trapped in this life like i hv no choice but to go through it how to know that its not the case like genuinely wht it really takes n yeah u will tell me blah blah n i will agree but why i still cant talk like u do like its actually true
âblah blahâ is really an accurate label for what I am doing here, actually. I suppose you already expect me to âblah blahâ right now, lol. In other words, you consider âconceptsâ and what your mind is telling you, making you feel etc. as unreliable. And they are. So your question, which assumes something unreliable, is meaningless and has no answer. đ
I feel like youre making it way more complicated that it is, over explaining non dualism wont make it more understandable it only raises more questions which will make people seek more answers thinking they exist
Words are already complicating it, lol. It doesn't matter whether I use too many words or not. I like sharing and people resonate with it.
Besides, this blog, in particular, isn't intended to make people âunderstandâ anything. I am just sharing my observations. It's not like my blog or any other blog or resource is responsible for anything. If it's confusing or complicated, I suppose it is expected. This isn't a feature of the resource. It's a feature of the mind. The mind can complicate anything. In the end, it doesn't even matter whether things get complicated or not.
" " or direct experience has nothing to do with these concepts at all. Whether what I say sounds âsimpleâ or âcomplicatedâ to you, it is a personal interpretation, which is ultimately irrelevant when it comes to " ".
And... I have consistently made clear that all of this is an observation. A piece of art. I would be lying, no... I would be crazy if I claimed I was an authority on this matter because it's impossible to have any âclaimâ regarding non-duality at all. So if people interpret this as âsomething to understandâ, then it's their own interpretation despite my pointing out over and over that this is not something to be understood.
If people share their experiences or observations online, is it to be questioned as âunhelpfulâ, âcomplicatedâ etc. Nope, that is simply not the point. All you say is âinterestingâ or âuninterestingâ and move on.
I understand many bloggers who post about ND like to keep it short and sweet, but it's their choice. I like to write extra long posts because I am, well, different, I guess. And I also love the mental gymnastics and the many different ideas that I get related to ND to describe my observation from different angles in different ways. It's not that I don't care about all the people who are desperate, but sharing is caring. What you do with what I share is really up to you! :D
Wouldn't it be boring if you find similar paintings in every museum you go to, anyway? Let's preserve diversity, alright? âșïž
Indeed. Note that this isn't a âconceptâ, by the way. It's just what is without even the concept of âperfectâ. There's also the âperfectâ vs âimperfectâ division which is of no significance, either.
(It was a nice read but I read it in short breaks, I couldn't complete it in one sitting alone. I wanted to say I understand however you mentioned it was a way to express your observational experience.)
(That's all it is. You are free to discard it if it doesn't serve you.)
what do u think life and death are then if u donât think consciousness is fundamental?
If you're asking my personal opinion, birth(or even conception) is the beginning of a sophisticated program called âlifeâ and death is just the end of that program, i.e. the dissolution of that program back into the âquantum fieldâ.
This interpretation still allows for all things sacred such as love, relationships, care etc. I also believe in a "soul" which is a sophisticated never-ending, ever-evolving program. I am all for âsoulmatesâ too, hehe.
This interpretation has nothing to do with non-duality. It's how I personally interpret experience.
i was thinking about ur posts, where you speak about us being boundless and free.
but weâre not, not really. we have no choice but to be. we canât escape it, the same way infinite potential canât cease being, it just is.
we are trapped in existence.
The sentence âI am trapped in X" is only accurate if "I" is an independent entity and "X" is an independent thing.
What you said is poetic, sure, but I can't help but be pedantic here, because you can't really use that as an argument like you're using it here.
When I said âYOU are freeâ, I wasn't talking about a thing or a concept of YOU being free. I was pointing beyond the concepts.
It's accurate to say a âhuman bodyâ is trapped in a âhuman bodyâ or in a âroomâ. But are YOU a human body? Are YOU a concept?
Moreover, âexistenceâ is yet another concept. And so is âfree willâ.
âWe have no choice but to beâ. But it's not something you can choose to begin with. Moreover, âconceptsâ don't exist to begin with. What you call âweâ or âyouâ or âIâ don't exist at all. So how could they choose or even âbeâ?
Only YOU(pointer) ARE. And YOU(pointer) cannot be spoken of in a sentence like you just made. And concepts DON'T exist. âyouâ can't escape âBeingâ? âyouâ never existed to begin with. âyouâ can be trapped in the concept of âexistenceâ but not in Existence(Pointer), but any concept can be trapped in any other concept. It's all just narration. So any argument is rendered null here.
So this observation is not something one can argue against. The concept of âargumentâ is inapplicable here.
Therefore, YOU(pointer) are indeed free(pointer). Here, "free" means âundefinedâ. Therefore, anything that is âdefinedâ can appear before YOU, and what is âdefinedâ does not exist.
A/N: Loosely based on greek mythology (i.e. Athena, Aphrodite, Dionysis, Zeus, Poseidon, etc.) but interpret as you see fit! If you use these, please kindly tag me, thank you! <3
The day before yesterday, I fell into a loop of overthinking. My head hurt and I almost cried. The most horrendous of ideas occurred to me. I felt so stuck. It was so... suffocative. It felt like there was no escape. It felt like I was going to get consumed... but that was the least of my worries. What I couldn't bear was the fact that it felt like things will never change... it felt like I was doomed. It felt like it was specifically me. I just couldn't get the thought âI am somehow the only one punished to be trapped in this whirlpool of horrorâ out of my head.
And then what? It faded and... I survived. Those thoughts felt like a threat to my existence... my purpose. And I almost believed them... no, I believed them fully(not really)... but I survived anyway.
That gave me an idea to write this post. It cannot be denied that no matter how âmeaninglessâ something is, it can still produce the illusion that there is not a single thing that could compete with it... when it comes to how important it is. Its importance is felt deep in your bones... and you cannot be blamed if you succumb to it.
It's funny because when I faced that the day before yesterday, I was thinking about how there could be anything horrible... no matter how horrible... and I wouldn't bat an eye at it. Gosh was I proven wrong...
It doesn't really matter if you are a God, a fearless demon, a witch or whatever... a thought of doom is a thought of doom. That feeling when it comes ruins you totally, regardless of your preconceived notions.
Of course, I don't really need to describe that. I am sure you all have had your fair share of experiences corroborating what I am saying here.
But still, I would like to emphasise something I said earlier:
âAnd then what? It faded and... I survived.â
As horrible as that experience or your ideas were at that moment, did it change the fact that it was merely an idea? An idea that was experienced. The idea of âpainâ can be experienced. The idea of âentrapmentâ can be experienced. The idea of âdeathâ can be experienced. The idea of an âapocalypseâ can be experienced. Wait... if all of these are experiencible phenomena... then, the one who experiences all these cannot get hurt or be trapped or die or be sent to oblivion.
I am not limited. I experience âlimitationâ.
I am never afraid. I experience âfearâ.
I don't die. I experience âdeathâ.
I don't desire. I experience âdesiresâ.
I don't act. I experience âactionâ.
Let's go one step further: I don't experience. Just... experience. Just... this. Just... ME.
There is no need to bring an "I" into this at all.
Anyway... it should already be clear what an âillusionâ is here. But I will expand on it anyway.
TW: Not-so-creepy image of a not-so-creepy child with eyes that are wide open ahead. Keep reading if you want a totally anticipated jumpscare. It's not as creepy as I make it sound, though, lol. But do prepare yourself.
What does it mean to believe in an âillusionâ?
Take a look at this:
Credits: Escaping Criticism, 1874, by Pere Borrell del Caso, oil on canvas, Banco de España, Madrid; Wikipedia.
This is an art form known as Trompe-lâĆil, where the paintings are drawn in such a way that they look not like a painting at all... but as if there's something real there.
I suppose the above painting produces the illusion of a real child coming out of a painting and if you didn't know better, I suppose you would freak out. (Not like he looks that creepy either way)
You may attempt to deny that it's just a painting out of fear that a child is coming out of the painting... refusing to notice anything and sticking to what you just assumed is the case, because apparently, the time and energy wasted on false positive is less catastrophic than a life wasted thanks to a false negative. You may attempt to do something about this child... ironically giving this child much more sustained attention than you would have if you knew what it actually was. You may try to solve the problem of a creepy child coming out but no matter what you do, the child isn't budging! By the time you muster the courage to face this child head-on, you'll notice how it isn't a real child coming out at all... you'll notice how it was quite obvious all along... you'll notice how you never actually stopped noticing this... you'll notice how pointless all of that was... you'll notice how there was no need for this âcourageâ to notice it at all... and if we drop the idea of ânoticingâ altogether... you'll see how it isn't something that's true because you ânoticedâ it, but that... it's just true, regardless.
The truth in question is that it's a painting. What's next? Continuing to take a look at this painting to marvel at the magnificent illusion that it seemed to produce or just proceeding to take a look at another painting. A painting can barely stop you in your tracks now, can it? It's already out of the way... it was never not out of the way. It's already just one of many paintings... other paintings were never not out of reach.
Anyway, what about the painting resulted in all those reactions to begin with? Surely not the fact that it is a painting... just a second ago, you were looking at the famous painting of a woman lacking eyebrows and that didn't remotely freak you out.
I suppose it just boils down to two reasons, both needing to be met:
1. You didn't know what you just looked at was a painting prior to being exposed to it.
2. The painting was distinct in that it looked just like a real human with a threat attached to it.
Non-duality is just the simple fact that no matter what you see... it's a painting, and that there is no such thing as a real "thing" that could produce such reactions. In other words, there is no "painting" that could ever be real. Therefore, when you look at a painting, which it is for sure, it is absurd to even assume that it is anything other than a painting. If you had to assume it was something else, well, even that would be a painting. There is no room for an illusion here at all. An illusion requires a distinction between âa paintingâ and ânot a paintingâ AND the impression that âa paintingâ is somehow ânot a paintingâ, but since there is no thing that is ânot a paintingâ... there is neither a distinction nor an impression that could ever be mistaken for a threat.
The trompe-lâĆil for us is I suppose: the experience of limitation, the experience of pain, the experience of undesirable circumstances...
But it should already be clear by now that what defines a trompe-lâĆil is that it is supposed to "look real". But what is "real", anyway? It should already be clear that there's no such thing as ârealâ. That requires something particular to not be a mere idea, but something real. Do point it out to me. Is there an idea that isn't as transient as an idea? Is there an idea that isn't as insubstantial as an idea? Is there an idea that isn't as fluid/malleable as an idea? Is there an idea that isn't as free to appear or disappear as an idea?
If you can somehow answer with a "Yes, there is. It's XYZ" to those questions, what makes you think XYZ isn't an idea? If you can come up with reasons that happen to be just true, are they not ideas themselves?
There might be terrible scenes playing on a screen, but does the screen tear when these scenes play? Does the screen divide itself and declare that it is not a scene but a different screen altogether?
There is no scene that the screen cannot display. There is no scene that the screen has to be displaying or a scene that shouldn't be playing on it.
The idea that it's impossible for a particular experience to not play merely because it's bad, harsh, terrible or undesirable to the character within it... implies that it's being assumed that the screen is limited!
But YOU are not limited at all. The experience, even if it is a strong reaction or suffering, that's appearing right now is a perfectly valid and possible experience. It doesn't indicate that there's something wrong, that there's something to fix or that "enlightenment" hasn't been reached. It only indicates that YOU are already free.
âWhy would I let this experience be playing right now if I was free?" Because YOU can! That's YOUR freedom. Moreover, this question assumes that the experience in question is something that YOU dislike. No, all that is happening is an experience of "not getting what is desiredâ. YOU have no relationship towards it. Neither positive nor negative.
Can you declare wholeheartedly that YOU are so limited that whatever is happening right now simply isn't possible? Is it something that YOU cannot experience? Is it something that YOU wouldn't experience? Is there any valid reason to not experience terrible stuff?
If the answer to any or all of these is an absolute âYesâ, then YOU are indeed limited and are under the mercy of the present experience and it shall persist forever.
But instead, if it is a "No", which makes perfect sense to me, then YOU are not limited to this experience and can experience whatever. No matter what the experience is, YOU are not under the mercy of that experience and it does not have to persist.
What exactly is the âillusionâ here?
Let me go back to the points I just made so far and expand on them:
1. There is no distinction.
-> All âthingsâ are defined as âthis, but not thatâ. As it's clear that there is no distinction, there is no âthingâ at all. What is âexperienceâ then? It is just how " " appears as. Suppose you see a âsnakeâ, it's not that there's a âsnakeâ there. There is no âthingâ after all. So when you see a snake, what you are actually seeing is " ". Not a âthingâ.
2. There is no impression.
-> As I have already pointed out, illusion requires two things: distinction and impression. One of them is already down, so there is no need to talk about the other. But I'll talk about it anyway. As you know, when you see a âsnakeâ, it's obvious that you are seeing " ". Here, the impression the appearance of a âsnakeâ might give is that there is a âsnakeâ thing there. It's already clear that what you saw is not a âsnakeâ, but " ". It's also clear that there is no such thing as a âsnakeâ thing. Given this, how can " " give the impression that it is a âsnakeâ thing? In other words, what I can say is " " is impressionless. Let me go further and say " " is nameless, formless, limitless and devoid of qualities.
3. There is no illusion.
-> It's showtime!
Let's use the famous rope and snake analogy to explain why this analogy falls short when it comes to " ":
A rope is distinct from a snake.
The rope produces the impression that it is a snake.
This, if you don't know better, produces the illusion that the rope is a snake.
An illusion is possible, here. There is an illusion that needs to be seen through.
Let's apply this to " ":
" " is distinct from... oh. It doesn't apply.
" " produces the impression that it is a... oh. This doesn't apply, either.
This produces the illusion that " " is... oh. Nevermind!
An illusion is a fundamental category error, here. There is no illusion at all!
Only a âthingâ can be mistaken for some other âthingâ, but THAT is not a âthingâ at all. In other words, there is no âillusionâ to see through to begin with.
In other words, it's impossible for there to be âignoranceâ or ârecognitionâ. You are already THAT. There's nothing to see through!
It's impossible for you to:
1. not directly experience âTHATâ.
-> If you're experiencing âsomethingâ, it is THAT already. Can you see or smell or hear anything? That thing is already THAT. It's impossible to not directly experience THAT.
2. not notice you're âTHATâ.
-> When people say ânoticeâ, they simply cannot be implying that you haven't noticed it yet. Why? Because it's impossible for you to not notice THAT. When someone tells you to notice, they are asking you to notice what you already are noticing. It's a self-defeating instruction! It's impossible to not be noticing THAT.
3. not be âTHATâ.
-> If you're THAT already, it's impossible for you to not be THAT. It's impossible. It's impossible. It's impossible!
YOU are already free. It's impossible to not be free. It's impossible. It's impossible!
It's absurd. It's meaningless. It's nonsense. You are already THAT.
It's impossible to not have âdirect recognitionâ already! If you are saying you don't have âdirect recognitionâ right now, you are lying! You are speaking nonsense! Your thoughts and your mind are dumb, unreliable, stupid, foolish when it comes to this. They are all total hogwash! You have never not had âdirect recognitionâ because it's impossible to be âoverlookingâ THAT. You never missed this. It's unmissable. You cannot overlook this at all. Whatever you're looking at right now is already THAT.
If you're already THAT, and there is neither a problem nor an illusion here... what exactly is the confusion?
There is no confusion here, either. You think that being free automatically implies that âgood experiencesâ are going to show up, but that's not freedom. That's just another prison. As YOU can never be trapped, and are forever free, you are not limited to just âbadâ or just âgoodâ experiences. That dichotomy DOES NOT apply.
Does " " have any desires, motive, incentive, intention, tendency, preference, patterns, reason, personality, or ability... that would lead it towards a particular experience? It's already clear it isn't. And yet you might insist that this isn't freedom already, which of course, is some good old nonsense. But let's entertain this idea.
What does it mean to not have any desires, motive, incentive, intention, tendency, preference, patterns, reason, personality, goal, purpose or ability? It means nothing. That lack of definition is what is referred to as limitlessness.
What does it mean to have desires, motive, incentive, intention, tendency, preference, patterns, reason, personality, goal, purpose or ability? It means limitation.
When you insist that what is happening is off, wrong or that it makes no sense... or a better term, imperfect... then you're automatically implying that " " has all of the above and thus, the assumption underneath is that " " is effectively limited. Well, I suppose the experience perfectly reflects that. It's a self-perpetuating cycle... or a better term, samsara.
We know that " " is limitless. This is clear as " " cannot itself be what " " is appearing as(not that it is appearing as a "limit" in the first place). It cannot be a limit and is thus, limitless.
Therefore, " " has neither of desires, motive, incentive, intention, tendency, preference, patterns, reason, personality, goal, purpose or ability.
In other words, there's absolutely no appearance that is âimperfectâ for " ". Therefore, whatever appears is completely perfect, always. Yes, it is undesirable, imperfect etc. for "you". That's not under dispute. But is it existentially imperfect? Surely not. It's absurd to even think that it could be so... " " is never imperfect.
And therefore, YOU are free, always.
Now what? Now nothing. If the only thing that says something's wrong with what's happening is a thought, and there's nothing, in actuality, wrong with what's happening... then it is PERFECT. No doubts at all.
Why is this not âaccepting realityâ? Because there's no fixed, imperfect reality to accept. There's only the malleable, perfect reality.
To insist that it is imperfect is to insist that it is limited and thus fixed forever, and that is exactly what's experienced. But... regardless of insistence, it is perfect, infinitely malleable, always. The former is only ever assumed to be so. The latter is not an assumption. It is what is known directly, already! It is the truth! The truth in question is nothing but the truth that is already directly recognised, always. Everything is already THAT. YOU are already THAT.
Keep yapping and lying all day and night that " " is not perfect. No one is going to believe you. Not even yourself. You can keep insisting YOU are not free... the thoughts may continue appearing, but it doesn't change a thing. All the mind does is yap yap yap yap yap yap! Pffft, poor thing. That's all it can do. It can't do it forever, though. I suppose it will stop out of exhaustion soon enough. But it's not like YOU are waiting for it to exhaust! YOU are already free and perfect, regardless of whether the mind keeps insisting against it or not. I suppose it cannot really be dismissed that there is nothing wrong with the mind, either. Even its incessant yapping is perfect. To consider everything to be perfect, except for the insistence, is still considering âlimitationâ which is an absurd idea to even consider.
To be precise, note that I am not talking about the specific experience but at the same time, I kind of am. The specific experience is perfect but this is not so despite being separate. That's just accepting reality and it's already clear that there is nothing to accept. There is no separate experience to accept as " ". There's only " " and it's perfect. Whenever you're fighting or denying what you think is a specific experience, you are actually fighting or denying " " because there is no specific experience. Why would you fight and how could you fight the infinitely malleable and perfect " " as if assuming that it is fixed and imperfect instead?
Here's an example:
When a dragon is being imagined in imagination, is there a dragon or just imagination? Now, look at the experience in front of you. A world is being imagined in " ". Is there a world or just " ". Honestly, I can just call " " imagination, as the âfunctioningâ(that ask I got rubbed off on me) is the exact same. But " " is not just in your head. Even ârealâ and âbeyond humanâ experiences are included.
If you have any questions at all despite this, it would be thanks to the absurd assumption that YOU are limited. As the assumption in question is absurd, it's absurd to even think you have any questions at all. Also, stop with the âIs this correct? Did I understand this right?â asks. I don't decide that. And I didn't write this post to get you to understand anything. I just felt like sharing my observation, that's all. It's pretty ironic that I am saying this at the end, but hehe, I am impish like that. This post is purely observational. Not opinionated. Not informational. Not doctrinal. Not instructional. All of this is what I observe and I am sure that you observe this too as what's being observed here is the same " ", and nothing else.
To summarise:
1. There is no problem. There is no illusion. There is no confusion. Direct knowledge, recognition, experience etc. is here, already. " " is perfect, already. This is not something to assume, accept, obtain or notice.
2. Every time you say something's wrong, off, bad or imperfect, missing, lacking... note that you are talking about " " as there is no other thing. Is " " imperfect?
3. Is it possible for the mind to insist that " " is imperfect? Or can it only insist that a âspecific experienceâ is imperfect? The latter does not exist as there is no âthingâ.
4. If " " is infinitely malleable like âimaginationâ is, isn't it wonderful? âBut this experience persistsâ. You mean " " persists which can appear as any experience? Of course it does. " " automatically appears differently. It's neither âa choiceâ, âa scriptâ, ârandomnessâ, âdisconnectedâ nor âout of controlâ, but at the same time, it's all of these, depending on how you interpret it.
5. It's impossible to have any questions. If there is a question, something is being assumed making that question seem meaningful. Any such assumption is absurd.
Ex: âBut why is this appearingâ -> Assumes that âthisâ is not imagination. Exercise: Imagine a dragon and ask the question: âBut why is this appearing?". Meaningless? Malformed? Exactly.
Thanks to @steviebbboi for these beautiful dividers. This is the post where I got these dividers from.
