Doing and Happening

[Iamit]

Originally Posted by MikeS80

I am not projecting my own unacceptable urges that are based on fear onto another. Projection has nothing to do with false contradictory premises that make no logical common sense. A projection is a dream, or an illusion and thus is not real.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/projection

You are the one who is projecting that I am projecting inside a projection, like a dream or illusion inside a dream or an illusion, and it simply does not work.

Edit: fear, pain, suffering and etc are real and are not projections. It does not help a person when he/she escapes, ignores thus supresses his/her fear, pain and suffering. It is all fear based! Your foundation is either based on fear or your foundation is not based on fear, and this is the lesson to be learned if you want to grow and evolve physically, mentally and spiritually.

Fear and the desire to feel good/bliss within fear is the bane or poison to spiritual growth. You can't fight fear with more and more fear, this is why the misunderstood traditional/extreme view of non-duality does not make any sense. Fear is what separates and divides everything, not duality.

Ok, our respective points of view have been expressed, so no point in us repeating those. Farewell and good luck. Maybe you and the other members of your opposition to nonduality club will find a group that suits you:)

Originally Posted by God-Like

...

... ketzer has pointed this out also to no avail .

...

Ha, fooled you, silly dualist there is no ketzer. If I existed I would think it to be hilarious.
But I am not. This whole non-existence thing is not as much fun as you would think, but then who cares what you think you don't exist either.

Illusion, a misrepresentation of a “real” sensory stimulus—that is, an interpretation that contradicts objective “reality” as defined by general agreement. For example, a child who perceives tree branches at night as if they are goblins may be said to be having an illusion.

Of course the tree branches, if looked at with the right technology can be seen as an illusion created by the interaction of matter and light, clouds of atoms that are 99.?% empty space. But then the atoms themselves are illusions of a similar nature. And what about those 'fundamental' particles? Do they "exist" when we are not actually observing them, or are we creating them by the act of observation? If they were mere probability distributions of potential prior to observation, does that count as "existence"? Who makes the call, particularly if no-one exists?

Yes, everything can be seen as illusion from one perspective or another, but IMO, that can be a very different thing than saying it does not exist, or that it is not real. Real and existing can be seen as a matter of perspective. The experience that these illusions create can be seen as real experiences. Reality may be constructed of an endless series of 'illusions', but so what. When I go to the movies, I willingly suspend my disbelief, and I experience the story, am moved, am changed by that experience in some way or another, it becomes a tiny little part of who I am. I don't see any point of being at the theater, and insisting that because I can explain how everything there, including me, is an illusion, I should stand up and tell everyone to dismiss it all as non-existent.

Life, everything in it, including the character called ketzer, may be a self created and self induced illusion, but as an experience it is 'real', and does 'exist', for the time be-ing anyway, and still requires a self to induce and to be.

I may say or think that "I am not what I thought or felt myself to be.", That "I am not that, it is an illusion.", and perhaps all that is true. But it and any other such statements are predicated on the basic affirmation that "I am." Everything else must rest upon it, whether or not we ever understand what comes after the am. I can even say that, "I am everything." or "I am the all that is." (which does sound more profound ). Yet as soon as I do, there is the 'I' that 'is', a distinction even from the everything or all that makes it up, even if it is only a gestalt of the former, duality now arises, and with duality, arises the very concept of non-duality, as they must exist together.

Of course the retort to all of that is that I just don't get non-duality. Which is admittedly hard to do when one does not exist. Perhaps oneness can be experienced directly, but as a subject to think about or discuss, it seems to be a dog eternally chasing its tail.

We are having such fun here.....or...
Are we?

.

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by God-Like

At the end of the day these types on non duality concepts are not realised and they are certainly are not lived .

When a non dualist is questioned on these foundations there is denial, deflection and contradictory behaviour expressed .

All this offence taken is false based upon their own premise and yet they don't seem to care how contradictory it makes them look .

It's no even logical .

As Iamit has declared you cannot transcend the dream from this perspective for there is only more dream and a dream character cannot transcend anything anyway so we don't actually have a way or a means to be offended or transcend offence and yet the expression doesn't mirror the belief .

Why show signs of being offended when the belief encompasses that no one is offended .

They are not even living their belief and they cannot transcend it either from their own vantage point .

What a mess .

This isn't to cause anyone offence, I am pointing out why the premise doesn't work .

If it causes non dualists to feel offended then one should seriously look at your beliefs because it's no good not living by them .


x daz x

Yes, it is all has to do with people covering up, ignoring and/or escaping their deep rooted inner fear, insecurities, narcissism etc etc, since it is easier to blame the ego, self/SELF, intellect or mind/body for their fear, instead of actually working their way through their fear.

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by ketzer

Ha, fooled you, silly dualist there is no ketzer. If I existed I would think it to be hilarious.
But I am not. This whole non-existence thing is not as much fun as you would think, but then who cares what you think you don't exist either.

Illusion, a misrepresentation of a “real” sensory stimulus—that is, an interpretation that contradicts objective “reality” as defined by general agreement. For example, a child who perceives tree branches at night as if they are goblins may be said to be having an illusion.

Of course the tree branches, if looked at with the right technology can be seen as an illusion created by the interaction of matter and light, clouds of atoms that are 99.?% empty space. But then the atoms themselves are illusions of a similar nature. And what about those 'fundamental' particles? Do they "exist" when we are not actually observing them, or are we creating them by the act of observation? If they were mere probability distributions of potential prior to observation, does that count as "existence"? Who makes the call, particularly if no-one exists?

Yes, everything can be seen as illusion from one perspective or another, but IMO, that can be a very different thing than saying it does not exist, or that it is not real. Real and existing can be seen as a matter of perspective. The experience that these illusions create can be seen as real experiences. Reality may be constructed of an endless series of 'illusions', but so what. When I go to the movies, I willingly suspend my disbelief, and I experience the story, am moved, am changed by that experience in some way or another, it becomes a tiny little part of who I am. I don't see any point of being at the theater, and insisting that because I can explain how everything there, including me, is an illusion, I should stand up and tell everyone to dismiss it all as non-existent.

Life, everything in it, including the character called ketzer, may be a self created and self induced illusion, but as an experience it is 'real', and does 'exist', for the time be-ing anyway, and still requires a self to induce and to be.

I may say or think that "I am not what I thought or felt myself to be.", That "I am not that, it is an illusion.", and perhaps all that is true. But it and any other such statements are predicated on the basic affirmation that "I am." Everything else must rest upon it, whether or not we ever understand what comes after the am. I can even say that, "I am everything." or "I am the all that is." (which does sound more profound ). Yet as soon as I do, there is the 'I' that 'is', a distinction even from the everything or all that makes it up, even if it is only a gestalt of the former, duality now arises, and with duality, arises the very concept of non-duality, as they must exist together.

Of course the retort to all of that is that I just don't get non-duality. Which is admittedly hard to do when one does not exist. Perhaps oneness can be experienced directly, but as a subject to think about or discuss, it seems to be a dog eternally chasing its tail.

We are having such fun here.....or...
Are we?

.

Haha, that is seriously funny!

I have a serious question for you: How is ketzer a self created and self induced illusion, when ketzer was not conceived/born out of thin air?

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by Iamit

Ok, our respective points of view have been expressed, so no point in us repeating those. Farewell and good luck. Maybe you and the other members of your opposition to nonduality club will find a group that suits you:)

There is zero opposition, including duality to non-duality/oneness.

What is the point of separating and dividing you and I, by you putting me in an opposition to non-duality club, which you created?

[Iamit]

Originally Posted by MikeS80

There is zero opposition, including duality to non-duality/oneness.

What is the point of separating and dividing you and I, by you putting me in an opposition to non-duality club?

Oneness manifests as an illusion of a separate person called MikeS80 to join an illusory nonduality group to deny that it is an illusion and get itself into a severe knicker twist. Hilarious! Oneness certainly has a sense of humour:) Lets see if Oneness as MikeS80 will continue with this denial game or manifest as realization. I suspect not but we shall see!

Oneness has kindly manifested as the illusory Amit, and others, to witness this comedy:)

[Iamit]

Oneness manifests as an illusion of a separate person called MikeS80 to join an illusory nonduality group to deny that it is an illusion and get itself into a severe knicker twist. Hilarious! Oneness certainly has a sense of humour:) Lets see if Oneness as MikeS80 will continue with this denial game or manifest as realization. I suspect not but we shall see!

Oneness has kindly manifested as the illusory Amit, and others, to witness this comedy:

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by Iamit

Oneness manifests as an illusion of a separate person called MikeS80 to join an illusory nonduality group to deny that it is an illusion and get itself into a severe knicker twist. Hilarious! Oneness certainly has a sense of humour:) Lets see if Oneness as MikeS80 will continue with this denial game or manifest as realization. I suspect not but we shall see!

Oneness has kindly manifested as the illusory Amit, and others, to witness this comedy:)

If I am an illusion, you will not be here talking to me.

[Iamit]

Originally Posted by MikeS80

If I am an illusion, you will not be here talking to me.

The capacity of Oneness to manifest is limitless so can also constrict to appear as Mike S80 to believe in limits that make sense, that are true, or real:) Its a very advantageous position. Oneness is presenting an invitation, by and to itself as Mike S80, to see that there are no limits, and invites itself as Mike S80 to trancend, in which case the problem with Nonduality disappears.

Or Onenss may continue to play this game with itself whilst looking like MikeS80. It seems to be enjoying it, as no doubt we all are, so may long continue:)

Originally Posted by MikeS80

Haha, that is seriously funny!

I have a serious question for you: How is ketzer a self created and self induced illusion, when ketzer was not conceived/born out of thin air?

Was ketzer not conceived and born out of thin air? Ketzer was perhaps created out of something even less material than air. Ketzer did not exist when the organism that holds it was born. It had to be created so that organism could relate itself to the world around it, once it decided it was separate from that world. And so it set about creating a model from its own thoughts, memories, perceptions, interpretations, and experiences. A model of itself it called ketzer because that is what it seemed others were calling it. A model that it could use to compare itself to the world. A model of self to be the doer of what it wanted to see happening, and a model to assess whether it was capable of doing it. Of course having little direct experience of itself, it had to base its model of self on the interactions it had with other beings and things. On how the organism experienced these and how they appeared to experience it. But in the end, Ketzer is an idea conceived in and birthed from the brain of that organism.
But of course to be a self created and self induced illusion, we must have a self to do the dirty work. Ketzer, is not that self, it just feels like that it what it is, for the time being human.
Now if we wanted to go further down the rabbit hole, we could talk about how that still undefined and indirectly experienced self may be creating that organism and the entire environment it is in, both at the level of perception, and the level of physical existence, but that would take more time then I care to go into in this particular post.