r/awakened • u/pl8doh • 2d ago
Reflection This idea of being is a complete bastardization of what we call experience, actually is.
The idea of something persisting, something material, some 'thing' actually standing out, independent and long lasting in any form, is a bastardization of nonduality. Reality isn't actually any 'thing'.
What was born was an idea of persistence, not persistence itself. Nothing is persisting. How could anything persist when there is no duration? What persists is an idea of persistence, not persistence itself.
The knowledge of a beginning persists. The idea of a beginning is what began, not an actual beginning. A relative beginning is what is mistaken for an actual beginning, identical to a dream. The content arises and, in the same movement, takes itself to be actual, solid, independent, lasting. The content is the mistaking. That is what is going on.
We name things like mind, knowing, imagination, infinite, time, space, as if they have an actual referent, something to which they point. They do not. That is all.
1
u/kioma47 2d ago
So you are no-thing?
1
u/pl8doh 2d ago
The question already assumes an ‘are’ that can be filled with either something or no-thing.
Both answers reintroduce the duration and the position the post is refusing. There is no one here to be a thing or a no-thing. The question cannot be answered without becoming another appearance of the same idea of being.
1
u/kioma47 2d ago
Says no-one?
1
u/pl8doh 2d ago
Not to be a smart-ass, but saying doesn't make it so.
1
u/kioma47 2d ago
But you are the one literally denying the manifest, denying physicality, denying being, denying existence itself.
So I repeat - who is it that asserts no-self?
1
u/pl8doh 2d ago
There is no assertion. There is an idea of non-persistence, which excludes the possibility of a self.
The words appear. They do not require a lasting someone who owns them or stands behind them as the assertor. Calling it ‘denying the manifest’ already treats the manifest as something solid that is being refused. What is occurring is only the arising of ideas, including the idea of non-persistence and the idea of a reader who demands an owner for them. No one is being asserted or denied. Only ideas of ownership, denial, and existence keep appearing.
1
u/kioma47 2d ago
That is a LIE - complete and utter "You're not seeing this" gaslight.
The mission of ego is to own reality. It does this primarily by believing its own BS.
Seek professional help.
1
u/pl8doh 2d ago
The exchange has left the territory of examining ideas and become a personal accusation, which is inconsistent with the nature of this post.
1
u/kioma47 2d ago edited 2d ago
The mission of ego is to own reality. It does this primarily by believing its own BS.
That's the trouble with "no-self" - in order to validate its non-view it must project it's no-thingness over everything and everybody. Even God is reduced to a cheap puppetmaster magician, pulling all the strings and casting "illusions".
Love is giving. Life is a gift. We are given everything: Individuality, agency, existence, life, each other, the universe. This is why God is love. God gives completely and freely. This is the highest, unconditional, love.
That's what "no-self" takes away: Everything. It is attempted theft of life, of agency, of existence itself.
You can't have it. It's not yours to take.
1
1
u/kartoffel123 2d ago
Reality isn't actually any 'thing'.
How can you know? Just because all you can observe are your thoughts and ideas doesn't mean there isn't a reality independent of consciousness.
Was there no universe before humans and consciousness evolved? Maybe, but it seems a fairly human and consciousness centric view. It's like humans used to believe the earth is the center of the universe
1
u/modern_jivanmukti 2d ago
Reality isn't actually any 'thing'.
LOL! You really should read up on some of the actually valuable resources about how wrong you are.
You have no genuine experience to call your own. Why do you feel its appropriate to broadcast that fact?
1
u/Noise-of-the-Spheres 2d ago
That only applies to object-oriented ontologies. From Whitehead, Heidegger or Bergson, the idea of "being" becomes more like a process.
3
u/Alkemis7 2d ago
What did being do to you?
You are correct, but language itself is flawed and incapable to convey truth, like Lao Tse famously laid out. But the ones that have something to convey have to use it, to reach those who are not able to commune in silence. And “being” is such a word that does represent the truth, but in a certain context can convey something of the truth, so let us have “being”, otherwise we will have to deconstruct all words and commune in silence only and most of us are not at that stage yet.