Sooner or Later We All Must Completely Surrender to Reality

a reply to: KnightLight
Your conversion from a need to be independent is very interesting. Also your connecting to others selflessly is one of the signs of that conversion - love - that we are not separate.

If I am understanding you correctly, I wouldn't call life, the Matrix. Life is a modification of reality's light-energy just like any realm, high or low, is. We just happen to be in a very gross world here, but it is no more distant from reality in truth than any other world is. It just seems that way to our separate self-sense.

And as it sounds like you understand, there is no place we have to escape to. We simply have to embrace reality as best as we can be feelingly aware of it, moment to moment, wherever we are, and allow the reality, that all of this appears in, reveal itself.

If one meditates on simply this feeling of reality always, one does not have to get deluded by whatever spiritual experiences and subjectivity may arise - because experiences come and go, and so are obviously not the same as reality. Stick with reality!

Thanks for your post.

originally posted by: bb23108
a reply to: KnightLight
Your conversion from a need to be independent is very interesting. Also your connecting to others selflessly is one of the signs of that conversion - love - that we are not separate.

Yes. Love.

If I am understanding you correctly, I wouldn't call life, the Matrix. Life is a modification of reality's light-energy just like any realm, high or low, is.

We used different words. I could have said "Plane" or "world" or "universe" I used matrix to evoke people's knowing of the movie and the desire to escape.

This is a very nice thread,
so no,
Thank you.

a reply to: artistpoet
Right, most of the time when people speak of their soul, they are still assuming some uniquely independent entity, that survives all change.

What about when reality merges that apparently individual soul into itself, does one's uniqueness or independence still exist?

originally posted by: InTheLight

Then there are 'opposites attract' and connections between entities can be both opposite and the same or a little off (quirky), because there are many ways to survive and enliven the life of others' without discrimination, which is judging in a negative manner, perhaps due to narrow mindedness.

Oh dear, I was not using the word "discrimination" in any kind of negative sense. I meant it as knowing what is true and what is not. I was using it in terms of one of the functions of the intellect.

For instance, one discriminates between a sweet taste and a sour taste.

I love "quirky" - I lose all discrimination when certain lady friends get that way!

a reply to: bb23108

When everything is relative, and words use relativity to relate relative concepts.. Oh communication.

Discrimination:
The ability or power to see or make fine distinctions; discernment.

is the main definition.. Next down is discrimination against people you don't like.. Connotations of positive and negative aspects of a word, usually come from hearing a word in a tone more often than another tone as you learn the word. I had always heard discrimination in a negative context usually about black people and jobs. So I had that same negative connotation.

Learning only through relativity. Through analogy. Your mind compares, and goes that's like this. I've noticed more recently as I have been trying to become more and more articulate.. I am very picky about definitions not having connotations. Only being strictly what the word means.

Words or groups of words like UFO, Alien, New World Order... They paint a rich picture in your head, but that picture may not be what I am saying.

The struggle of relating.
"Oh yea that guy is cool you would like him."
"like cool, cool, or like hey I can't get off the couch cool."
"he's cool, cool."
"so he's cool like nice?"
"he's cool like good."

Even with rich facial expressions.. Even then.

Which obviously speaks to our subjectivity.. And yet, you can know someone to the core.

Some ONE, Some BODY, some PERSON.... Some Being?

Your name and words.. These are distances between us. And if you ask God what his name is..

I AM.

hahaha..

originally posted by: KnightLight
a reply to: bb23108

I realize I thought you were repeating because I already knew what your whole post was going to be about.. Not because it was actually repeating. I am glad you took the time, to bring me on that journey.. Pointing things out, and then knowing what someone might think to those words, and explaining that next thought..

Body and mind together.. The Truth is IN the world..

LOL. You are also right that I was repeating myself - I do that to make sure my point is as clear as at least I can be, though I am not always successful at it.
'
The Truth is prior to, but not separate from, the world. Truth is not "IN" the world, nor in the mind, nor found solely above the body-mind. To reality there is no inner or outer whatsoever, there is no elsewhere. All conditions are a modification of the consciousness-light-energy of reality.

So we do not have to go anywhere to discover the Truth - it is prior to the world we arise in, but the first step is to embrace this world we appear in as a modification of truth. This is our current reality.

No seeking elsewhere is required because that is more of the same, maybe more fun in various ways, but nonetheless ultimately no less limiting, and potentially more deluding if not done in complete communion with reality and what reality offers personally and directly.

a reply to: bb23108

ok I can take that.
Another reason I used the word matrix.

I guess what I mean is that here we are right now.. Take it in.. Because when you escape somehow, you will just be in another here.. It will be here, but elsewhere, and different, but no more real.. I mean things might be closer or further from the "center." but whatever you are in affects you. It's all real as it is real.

or the opposing thought from an old favorite band of mine:
"whatever's out of focus is a dream."

Me and my little brother had this conversation not long ago. It was about people wanting to die to know the truth. Or wanting to reincarnate so they won't have the same problems.. And we discussed how that's like saying "I'll do that tomorrow."
just do it. Do it now. You will be dealing with the same issues later. Whether that's two weeks from now or in another life, you'll get your chance to grow.

I do have to say escapism has it's interesting learning path all on it's own of course. As do all things, all attitudes.

And above all I don't have to live on to be happy that I had my opportunity here on Earth. I think I will of course, but it's not needed. If I think I am a leaf, and really I am a tree (as another poster was portraying), then maybe I won't even know the leaf part so well.. I don't know, but maybe I'll be a tree? OR more bluntly I won't exist.. Absorbed..

What I do know is here I am now.
Whatever the word I means.

originally posted by: InTheLight
Of course we are dependent many factors for survival, however, without a separate sense of self inside the body-mind some of us would never be able to soar to higher heights.

Okay, but are higher heights in and of themselves the actual truth? Or just more modifications of the prior reality?

Sure, such experiences can be useful for realizing that when our body-mind dies, we do not die, but these experiences are still based on the false presumption that we are an independent entity.

Such experiences can also make people feel they have realized the ultimate truth when this may very well not be the case.

Reality cannot be directly experienced via any aspect of the body-mind, high or low. It can only be felt most directly via fundamental awareness which is beyond all aspects of the body-mind, including the observer function and attention itself.

Do such experiences actually change your most fundamental awareness?

a reply to: KnightLight
Okay, I see what you mean about your use of the word matrix".

Right, relative to escapism, and its ultimate attempt in terms of suicide: I am always saddened when I hear of someone committing suicide. It is a terrible waste and may very well throw the individual into very difficult realms especially since attention does not have the anchor of the body-mind and so one can go through some real confusing and further hell-like experiences.

People would do well to relate to the world fully and not worry about all their negative subjectivity and difficulties - as much as possible. When you don't give energy and attention to all the bs that can arise in the body-mind, but instead turn one's energy and attention to our obvious condition of relatedness here, then those dark places will become obsolete over time, because they are not being fed with energy and attention.

But you obviously know this!

a reply to: bb23108

Very good thinking, bb. I enjoyed your essay.

Though I oppose your idea of dependence and surrender to "reality", whatever that may be, for most of it is utterly hostile to any living thing, I regard your idea of relation as of extreme importance. Relationships, however, can only be had by separate entities, for if they were not separate, one would be unable to relate to the other since there is no other to relate to.

a reply to: bb23108

Right, most of the time when people speak of their soul, they are still assuming some uniquely independent entity, that survives all change.

What about when reality merges that apparently individual soul into itself, does one's uniqueness or independence still exist?

That is a very good question ... and one which I have often pondered when I hear some speak of going back to the source or into the one so to speak.

This is my honest opinion regarding the soul

You retain your individuality ... individual but inter dependent and connected as we are on Earth
My reason for objecting to being absorbed back into the One is this

We are already within the One ...
Before the Universe began ... Its Creator was alone ... we are part of that creator
By creating more beings other than itself it ensured diversity and companionship

Sure superficial things like the character we create of ourselves will fall away
The essence of who we truly are will remain

Our reality / soul is the sum of what we have come to understand ... the way we have lived our lives on Earth
How we have cared or not for our fellow beings

I believe the Creator to be A higher intelligence ... we are each given a small part of it ... our essence
What we do with it is what determines the state of our soul

a reply to: LesMisanthrope
Thanks, LesMis.

Do you actually think dependence is a hostile notion to the body-mind? Isn't it obvious that we are completely dependent on the environment for our very survival? So my question is, why do we assume we are independent and separate, when clearly we are dependent and connected to the environment?

In terms of relationships, our body-minds are obviously individually definable, and as such we can relate to others. But again, this does not imply that we are inherently separate and independent of others.

Let's assume you and I are in the same room. We are clearly sharing many elements in the same environment, even breathing the same air, etc., with our dependent body-minds. Our perceptions of one another also connects us - e.g., my perception of us is of one event with the two of us in it, just as it is one event in reality. It only seems separate because of the point-of-view mechanism of attention creating the illusion of a separate self-sense.

a reply to: artistpoet
I agree with you that because we appear as modifications of the consciousness-light-energy of reality - we are not ultimately separate from the Source.

However, we don't recognize this absolutely - for if were true that we were completely one with the source, there would be no separate self sense whatsoever.

In reality we are light-energy modifications, but we are very stepped down here in this Earth world in terms of how dense it seems - we are in a "red-yellow" realm of the cosmic mandala if case you relate to these matters that way.

I can't relate to a Creator-Source/God idea. How can such a God exist as indivisible and perfect, but create all of this apparently separative mess we see on Earth?

It makes much more sense to me that everything that appears is a modification of Consciousness (Being-Energy) and that consciousness, when associated with body-minds through the root mechanism of attention, then animates apparent forms. From there, all these body-minds perpetually generate whatever conditions do, in a cause-and-effect manner.

So it is all these body-minds creating the messes that people usually blame God for creating in this world.

Reality itself is not separate but also has no cause-and-effect relationship to conditions. It is all the apparent conditions that keep patterning endlessly, like cellular reproduction, constantly duplicating, changing, duplicating... karma.

All forms are witnessed by Reality as Conscious Radiant patterns, but the patterns themselves tend to dream until consciouness is freed from the knot at the root of attention in the body-mind.

What is the one characteristic that is true of experience, high or low, that is common to all? Attention is always the case and is the root essence of the separate self sense.

Once attention is transcended, which is extremely rare, then egoity is actually transcended. Not until then - no matter how high the experience seems to be in terms of subtle and causal states, attention or separate self-sense is still present (albeit very very subtle). This is why no spiritual experience ever leads to ultimate Enlightenment. That is reality-given.

a reply to: bb23108

Must say I find it difficult to grasp all you speak of ... not your fault by my own as I tend to think in simple terms ... however I do take on board all you say ... Sometimes it can take me long time to process information ...

However I will try to answer as best I can picking up on some of the points you raise without veering too far off topic

In reality we are light-energy modifications, but we are very stepped down here in this Earth world in terms of how dense it seems - we are in a "red-yellow" realm of the cosmic mandala if case you relate to these matters that way.

I agree we are limited here on Earth ... as you point out ... the Earth we directly experience is a denser form of matter or substance ... than say more highly refined forms of energy ... yet potentially everything contains energy as unfortunately the atom bomb proved ... though I would like to add that I believe our thoughts are also substance but of a highly refined form ... I used to paint Mandalas and colour is very important to me as an artist ... to me colour is information ... I have read much on colour and it's associations with "Spiritual matters" ... However I think the spectrum we see is of a lower frequency ... Too much light and we are blinded ... like when we look directly at the Sun it is off our range of seeing ... however higher forms of energy do have their own spectrum it is just we can not see them ... So I concur that we live in a dense matter realm

I can't relate to a Creator-Source/God idea. How can such a God exist as indivisible and perfect, but create all of this apparently separative mess we see on Earth?

I believe the mess we see in this world is what we have created ... As for a Creator be invisible ... we only have to look around to see it manifest ... I am sure you agree that it is awe inspiring to view the Universe and also the wonder and diversity of life on Earth ... I believe the source is hidden from us ... though we can trace back to origins we are limited in that also ... Where did the spark of life come from ... for me though I admire sciences it fails to satisfy my question ...

I think I will leave my answers at that for now ... or I may go way off tangent explaining my own personal beliefs

But thank you for such an in depth response ... and creating this thread ... Also it is good Les Mis has found it interesting and contributed his thoughts also ...

a reply to: bb23108

...for if were true that we were completely one with the source, there would be no separate self sense whatsoever.

There's no such thing as a 'separate self sense'. Everything you sense IS yourself. Perhaps you mean there wouldn't be a perception of a separate self. There is no such thing as a perception of a separate self or any self for that matter. Because if there were, you, the perceiver of it, would be there perceiving it. Self can never be perceived. You, the self, aren't these 'selves' you're perceiving nor anything else you perceive internally or externally. So this "self" isn't the one being referred to.

There's no such thing as 'completely one with the source', because You are not with the source...you ARE the source. There is no combiner to the Self.

originally posted by: Visitor2012
a reply to: bb23108

...for if were true that we were completely one with the source, there would be no separate self sense whatsoever.

There's no such thing as a 'separate self sense'. Everything you sense IS yourself. Perhaps you mean there wouldn't be a perception of a separate self. There is no such thing as a perception of a separate self or any self for that matter. Because if there were, you, the perceiver of it, would be there perceiving it.

Or perhaps if one was within the source as pure spirit it would seem as if there were no self.

a reply to: InTheLight

Or perhaps if one was within the source as pure spirit it would seem as if there were no self.

Can you remember any point in time, when it seemed there was no self? And if so, what do you call the one who was perceiving that to be so? Where is your position in the whole scheme?

originally posted by: Visitor2012
a reply to: InTheLight

Or perhaps if one was within the source as pure spirit it would seem as if there were no self.

Can you remember any point in time, when it seemed there was no self? And if so, what do you call the one who was perceiving that to be so?

I guess I was referring to after death as being within the source as pure spirit, but being alive and having spirit, and having that spirit leave the body, I am always me and nobody or nothing else.

a reply to: artistpoet
Cool that you painted mandalas. I looked at a bunch for an avatar but couldn't decide, so I went with the white horse and pretty gal.

Yes, no doubt we created the mess we are in. I didn't mean to imply that I don't think there is a Divine Reality. It's just that nothing can be separate from Reality, so I don't see how a Creator God creates objects as though that God could be separate from the created objects.

Unconditional Reality is the "medium" for all conditionality to appear in, and also, as. So Unconditional Reality is never separate from anything. Conditional reality is a modification of the Unconditional medium of absolute Consciousness-Light-Energy.

Ramana Maharshi used to liken it to the Self (Unconditional Reality) being the movie screen, and form (conditional reality) being the constantly changing pictures on the screen. The screen simply reflects the forms, without a cause-and-effect relationship to what appears on it.

Unconditional Reality simply witness what appears, but is NOT separate from what appears, but also does not cause or affect any of it - Unconditional Reality is prior to all conditions.

And yes, it is truly awe-inspiring to look at the night sky for instance - that right there should make any non-believers at least agnostic!

Thank you for your contributions and kind words.

a reply to: bb23108

I can't relate to a Creator-Source/God idea. How can such a God exist as indivisible and perfect, but create all of this apparently separative mess we see on Earth?

This would depend on if your concept of 'God' or 'Source' is all inclusive or not. An all-inclusive concept of God by definition, could never exist. Because the concept 'exist' is a dualistic concept, an exclusive term. Not only does it imply separation, it also implies the opposite 'not exist' which is completely unrelated to an all inclusive concept of God It wouldn't make sense even to use the two terms in the same sentence.