it seems there may be some confusion between the concept 'what things are' and the concept 'what one perceives them to be'.

you are assuming that 'what things are' is independent of 'what one perceives them to be'?

you have me laughing, what a good question! Because obviously I made a dualistic statement there :smile: But I guess in response I would have to say, if you don't study the tangled yarn you may not be able to see to untangle it :smile:

Yeah, this is why I generally steer clear of this sub-forum.

Baffling, truly baffling.

Maybe the yarn isn't inherently tangled from the outset?

yeah on the one hand maybe the yarn isn't inherently tangled and I'm making a mountain out of a molehill, on the other hand maybe it is tangled worse than even I think and I'm making it look prettier than it is to be vain. Do you have a way for me to know the difference?

Knowledge can be transferred by means of linguistic expressions. E.g. if you throw a stone it will - sooner or later - fall to the ground. This is knowledge, verifiable by everybody.
Then there is belief. Belief cannot be transferred by means of linguistic expressions because the linguistic expressions of belief are not verifiable by everybody.
Then there is certainty. Certainty also cannot be transferred by means of linguistic expressions because the linguistic expressions of certainty are not verifiable by everybody.
So it seems that I do not have a way to transfer knowledge about the difference to you.
I can only express my certainty that the yarn and all its characteristics are (exist) dependent only on conceptual imputation.

certainly 'yarn' is a metaphor for something else... I in no means intended to impart that there is either a physical or symbolic yarn that you would actually untangle in the same way that real yarn gets tangled. But yes I would agree, whatever I might think of the 'yarn' and where it comes from and what to do with it is full of me just fantasizing about what I see, and trying to make meanings out of nothing. I wish sometimes I could just calm down :smile:

yeah being conscious may be troubling or annoying sometimes, but that's the way it is. So called 'pure' consciousness, i.e. non-duality, on the other hand is an ideal 'place' of rest. It is different from a merely calm state since a calm state can be achieved by means of concentrating on an object (shamatha meditation), i.e. a dual approach. I do consider non-duality a reset of consciousness, back to zero, providing the opportunity to newly set out for a different kind of duality.

This morning in quiet meditation I disappeared or at least it felt like I did not exist, yet I did exist,
because I was still observing the world around me. I say I disappeared because I could not feel my
physical body or anything else; all I could feel was an incredible sense of peace and that peace was
full, thick, deep, and encompassed all of my being. An extremely comfortable and deeply silent peace
was the only thing which existed. No thoughts, no words, just a very deep inner silence which has
lasted throughout my day. For me this was a wonderful experience of "pure consciousness." A
consciousness not cluttered with words, thoughts, or boxed feelings, an incredibly wonderful and
freeing experience. That silent peace within is so sweet and that sweetness is a prelude to the
experience of intoxicating, overwhelming, divine love, an overwhelming silent love washing over me
from within my own being. All of us have so much that is available to us if we so desired to embrace it.
Observing life, without interpretation, can be a very beautiful experience. :biggrin: