Subjective vs. Objective reality

[Irisha]

Originally Posted by seeds

Irisha, please humor me as I speculate:

Not having “direct access” to the inner dimension of each other’s mind is not intended to rule-out a possible connection between us at a higher level of our being that exists for the purpose of communication.

It just means that we cannot be the ultimate “voyeurs” of each other’s inner being to the point where we could explore the infinite and intimate details of another’s personal mental holography and make direct changes to what we see. seeds

Why not? It depends on the state of consciousness. In the highest state everything merges together, and you recognize my grandmother's face as your grandmother's face, and vice versa.
Even in the regular telepathy contact combined with hypnosis it's also possible.

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by Irisha

Why not? It depends on the state of consciousness. In the highest state everything merges together, and you recognize my grandmother's face as your grandmother's face, and vice versa.
Even in the regular telepathy contact combined with hypnosis it's also possible.

There isn't some state where everybody's face merges together, or if there is, it's a highly delusional state. I recognize you as what I am, but the unique expressions never merge or unify or start to look like each other. What I am appears as all forms, and is beyond all forms.

[ChrisGinsburg]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

There isn't some state where everybody's face merges together, or if there is, it's a highly delusional state. I recognize you as what I am, but the unique expressions never merge or unify or start to look like each other. What I am appears as all forms, and is beyond all forms.

Enlightenment= everyone looks like David Hasselhoff and when you look in the mirror, so do you!

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by ChrisGinsburg

Enlightenment= everyone looks like David Hasselhoff and when you look in the mirror, so do you!

Well, as long as they don't all look like Super Enlightenment Man.

[ChrisGinsburg]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

Well, as long as they don't all look like Super Enlightenment Man.

Hahaha.

[Irisha]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

There isn't some state where everybody's face merges together, or if there is, it's a highly delusional state. I recognize you as what I am, but the unique expressions never merge or unify or start to look like each other. What I am appears as all forms, and is beyond all forms.

But I have experienced that in the telepathy contact combined with the distant hypnosis. So, this merging IS actually possible.

And what about hypnosis then, even without telepathy?
A person can be hypnotized to recognize somebody's face as their grandmother's face, or even their own face, and what not.

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by Irisha

But I have experienced that in the telepathy contact combined with the distant hypnosis. So, this merging IS actually possible.

And what about hypnosis then, even without telepathy?
A person can be hypnotized to recognize somebody's face as their grandmother's face, or even their own face, and what not.

Delusional mind states of all sorts are possible. They will come and go. Let them go.

[MariconesUnited]

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

In any case, I accept the account as more than a story, even though it must be said, the picture painted in Genesis may not be overly familiar with the actual events, yet that was never it's purpose after all. Religion has demanded it so, and that is our biggest problem with all this

There's no historical account of the events happening in Genesis if that's what you mean. Life began through bacteria. It mutated from there over millions of years into a multitude of different species. By the time we became homo sapiens, our current expression, there was a multitude of us. There never was a single man and a single woman on the planet.

[Cantando]

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

You might consider offering a definition of what you mean by 'mind' and 'one', which apparently would help.

'mind' = Mind as perceived through erroneous perception (i.e. believing that you are the self which you conceive to be).

'one' = Buddha Mind/Absolute Reality, even Divine Intelligence!

You might consider not thinking - if only for a second.

You might consider letting go of conceiving of anything in your 'mind'.

You might consider taking a deep breath and trying not to think or speak.

You may be pleasantly surprised.

However, if you 'think' about this, you will immediately sink up to your neck in the quagmire of conceptual thought.

[Apopohis Reject]

Originally Posted by MariconesUnited

There's no historical account of the events happening in Genesis if that's what you mean. Life began through bacteria. It mutated from there over millions of years into a multitude of different species. By the time we became homo sapiens, our current expression, there was a multitude of us. There never was a single man and a single woman on the planet.

Thank you for your observation, however this thread is aboslutely NOT about the merits or otherwise of the erroneous theory of evolution.

BTW, there actually is a historical account, even if you don't recognise it, called The Book of Genesis. Amazing that, huh?

[seeds]

Originally Posted by Cantando

...everything 'we' conceive in our minds is conceptual junk, delusional and not rooted in reality, so there is actually nothing for the enlightened mind to see.

There is one Mind. There are no 'minds' (except in your imagination).

Those certainly seem to be some contradictory statements you've made there.

First you say...

"...everything 'we' conceive in our minds is conceptual junk..."

Followed by...

"...nothing for the enlightened mind to see..."

Followed by...

“...There are no 'minds' (except in your imagination)..."

Where, exactly, do you think your "personal imagination” is transpiring if not within the "closed containment medium" of your own personal mind?


seeds

[Apopohis Reject]

Originally Posted by Cantando

'mind' = Mind as perceived through erroneous perception (i.e. believing that you are the self which you conceive to be).

Ok, well that is quite an alternative definition to mine, and (I would expect) most, in turn being; the mental process of appreciating the results of sensory input and the thoughts that in turn lead to action. I would further include the two aspects of mentality in there as well - Intelligence and emotions.

So why would it be erroneous to believe you are who you are? Who am you if not yourself?

I guess another question could also be asked; why are you saying that all perception is erroneous? Is it impossible for any perception to be valid? If not then by your definition, you should never be taken seriously - for your erroneous perceptions can't possibly provide valid suggestions or conclusions, right?

Originally Posted by Cantando

'one' = Buddha Mind/Absolute Reality, even Divine Intelligence!

I don't have any problem with 'Absolute Reality', nor with this being equitable with ONE. I don't quite get the 'Buddha Mind' however.

So if ONE is Absolute Reality, then what about all those billions of people in the world who don't believe/accept ONE? Are they outside Absolute Reality?

Originally Posted by Cantando

You might consider not thinking - if only for a second.

By my reasoning, this would be impossible, therefore an illusion, unless of course you can offer an explanation as to why such an interlude would be valid or worth the effort?

Originally Posted by Cantando

You might consider letting go of conceiving of anything in your 'mind'.

You might consider taking a deep breath and trying not to think or speak.

You may be pleasantly surprised.

However, if you 'think' about this, you will immediately sink up to your neck in the quagmire of conceptual thought.

Yes I've been giving some consideration to this concept, as I've heard expressed many times over the past year or so. Yet I'm still trying to work out the relevance of it all, and if those promoting it actually appreciate what it is they are promoting. No-one has yet been able to offer a satisfactory explanation, so maybe you can?

[Apopohis Reject]

Originally Posted by seeds

Where, exactly, do you think your "personal imagination” is transpiring if not within the "closed containment medium" of your own personal mind?

I'm thinking the definitions offerred suggests 'mind' IS the imaginings rather than the imagination that imagins. But that doesn't answer what is doing the imagining, does it?

Hmmmmmmm

[seeds]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Objectively, each "man" is vast empty space with a few subatomic particles rapidly popping in and out of existence.

That is the structure of the atom, that is the structure of the universe, and that is the structure of "men", "dogs", "mountains", "planets" and "trees".

That may indeed be the “objective” condition of the universe, but it certainly does not address what we humans truly are at the deeper level of reality.

Imagine yourself asleep and engrossed in the most wonderful and “vivid” dream you have ever experienced; perhaps a dream involving a beautiful forested valley with flowing streams and intricately detailed flowers.

Your definition of "men", "dogs", "mountains", "planets" and "trees" as being a “…vast empty space with a few subatomic particles rapidly popping in and out of existence…” can be applied to the phenomenal structures forming the intricate details of your dream (i.e. the valley, streams, trees, and flowers) but it does not apply to you – the “dreamer” of the dream.

I believe that the essence of life and consciousness that forms our ultimate being is of a much higher and sublime nature, and cannot be described in terms of “…a few subatomic particles rapidly popping in and out of existence.”


seeds

[Apopohis Reject]

Once we appreciate and recognise that we have two distinct sources of input - Intelligence and emotions continuously pouring directly into that personal essence we call our consciousness, we can then step back a little to view ourselves, our choices and consequent actions. In a new found honesty, we can begin to notice some stark evidence emerge in relation to how our emotions have ruled mercilessly over us throughout our lives.

We start to recognise how some (a few) decisions were quite Intelligent choices to make, yet the vast majority (once we apply a valid definition to such) would sit somewhere between emotional and highly emotional. Again, a deep commitment to personal honesty is required in this.

The interesting thing about this is that in looking at the emotional actions, we may recall the occasion of the thought process preceding the choice, and especially how they all seemed to make perfect sense at the time, indeed even intelligent. Many people have ended up in trouble with the law and even gaol after believing such choices to be 'intelligent'.

In a rather extreme case in the media of late, a family in Afghanistan had acid poured on their faces after the 18 y/o daughter refused to marry an aging warlord. At the time of such a choice to action, It's obvious the perpetrators all viewed the circumstances through their subjective perspective; so believing that their actions to be intelligent rather than emotional. This was of course their subjective reality.

We on the other hand, being relatively removed from this scenario, have the opportunity to gaze upon these terribly sad circumstances with a great deal more objectivity, so we might recognise the subjective nature of these highly emotional actions causing grievous harm to others. Therefore ours would be a relatively more objective perspective of this tragic unfolding reality.

On the other hand, we might in turn feel inclined to distress, anger, even rage over it all, because in our subjectivity, we tend to relate the 'out there' actions to our personal circumstances via a rather odd dynamic. In such case, we would progressively lose the chance of objectivity, for we will also descend once again into a predominantly subjective view of reality - again believing we are being objective, that is; our relative thoughts/actions as being Intelligent.

[seeds]

Originally Posted by Irisha

Why not?

Because it would wreak havoc on the stability of your own inner being. That's why not.

It is the same reason why humans are not allowed to reach into the fabric of the universe with their wills and make direct changes to the suns and planets according to their personal whims.

It would wreak havoc on the stability of the universe (you yourself hinted at that earlier in post #199).

Originally Posted by Irisha

It depends on the state of consciousness.

I am guessing that you may think that only those who are at a suitable level of consciousness would be able to change things in the universe because they would understand when and when not to monkey with something.

However, that brings us back to an earlier "suggestion" I made of how the creation "substance" of each sovereign mind (and that includes the mind of God – the universe) is connected to, and controlled by, "one will" and one will only.

Your mind is a separate "universe" under the control of your will; my mind is a separate "universe" under the control of my will; and God's mind is a separate universe under the control of His* will.

(*God has no gender. There doesn't seem to be a word to describe God and the "genderless, wholeness of being" we all acquire after death. See illustration below...)






seeds

[Apopohis Reject]

Originally Posted by seeds

Because it would wreak havoc on the stability of your own inner being. That's why not.

It is the same reason why humans are not allowed to reach into the fabric of the universe with their wills and make direct changes to the suns and planets according to their personal whims.

It would wreak havoc on the stability of the universe (you yourself hinted at that earlier in post #199).

Indeed you wouldn't permit a child to run at will in a china shop, nor to organise or rearrange that china shop to his desires. This wouldn't be because you don't love deeply and want the best for that child, but because the best for him is to learn the value of respect and understanding. To appreciate the beauty and worth, not only of the exquisite fragility in the artistry in that shop, but also the benefit of cultivating a healthy reverence for the invaluable, takes time and patience.

So it is with man, who by nature is as selfish, peurile, unreasonable as the young child, and as the young child, man in his presumptuous bent fails to recognise his profound immaturity. As a result of his dire need to acquire respect and reverence, he has been given dominion over a planet only, rather than over the universe as originally designed. As the results of his tests come in with regards his progress, things don't look overly promising, to say the least. He increasingly immerses himself in more arrogance in the stead of thankfulness, more anger rather than accord, more 'me' over and above 'us'.

So the universe continues to patiently await the graduation of it's authentic owner from capricious child to fully qualified curator.

Yet it becomes increasingly obvious that not the entirety of mankind will ever graduate or for that matter, have any interest in the first instance of even developing any respect whatsoever.

Originally Posted by seeds

I am guessing that you may think that only those who are at a suitable level of consciousness would be able to change things in the universe because they would understand when and when not to monkey with something.

However, that brings us back to an earlier "suggestion" I made of how the creation "substance" of each sovereign mind (and that includes the mind of God – the universe) is connected to, and controlled by, "one will" and one will only.

In the ultimate sense, the will of INTELLIGENCE (God if you like) will forever prevail throughout the universe. Yet man, being the physical manifestation of INTELLIGENCE (God) has a second aspect to his consciousness - indeed his individual emotions, and therefore the choices that are made through it, are dependent upon these two together, rather than merely his innate Universal INTELLIGENCE (God).

Now it just so happens that man, in this default condition (towards his emotions) in which we subsist, respects his private emotions a great deal more than his universal Intelligence (God), and therefore gives dominion over himself (individually) to such whimsical demands. As a result, prior to man graduating andassuming his ascension to his designated curator of the universe position, he is required to develop a healthy control over these emotions in order to commence upon the process of developing the rightful respect for his Intelligence (God).

But how is he ever going to recognise any value in developing such a reverent focus, while he not only cherishes his emotions so, but obstinately fails to acknowledge value in his Intelligence (God) and consequently remains blind to the awesome possibilities available to his glorious future? And how is he going to deal with any of this, while he continues in his focus for religious slavery, in which he is required to relate to an 'out there' 'God' rather than his 'in here' Intelligence?

Originally Posted by seeds

Your mind is a separate "universe" under the control of your will; my mind is a separate "universe" under the control of my will; and God's mind is a separate universe under the control of His* will.

[I](*God has no gender. There doesn't seem to be a word to describe God and the "genderless, wholeness of being" we all acquire after death.

Quite right. The universal INTELLIGENCE (God) is generally depicted for our purposes as a 'he', in order to relate more appropriately to our existence as the duality it is/we are - male and female, good and bad, life and death.

This duality is actually in turn based solely upon the duality of man's persepctive - Objective and subjective; again arising from the two aspects of our consciousness - the spiritual Intelligence (God) and the physical come spiritual emotions.

[MariconesUnited]

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

Thank you for your observation, however this thread is aboslutely NOT about the merits or otherwise of the erroneous theory of evolution.

BTW, there actually is a historical account, even if you don't recognise it, called The Book of Genesis. Amazing that, huh?

I would think the Theory of Evolution would merit some attention in a thread about objective and subjective reality.

I've never heard or seen of any part of Genesis being historical, but if there's any evidence that any of it is factual, the scientific community will let us know. Until then I'd be curious to know which parts of the Theory of evolution are untrue.

[Apopohis Reject]

Originally Posted by MariconesUnited

I would think the Theory of Evolution would merit some attention in a thread about objective and subjective reality.

I can't for the life of me imagine why.

Originally Posted by MariconesUnited

I've never heard or seen of any part of Genesis being historical, but if there's any evidence that any of it is factual, the scientific community will let us know. Until then I'd be curious to know which parts of the Theory of evolution are untrue.

You seem to place a great store in 'the scientific community' religion in a similar manner to how other religionists place great credence in their respective religions.

In any case, not all scientists adhere to, or even accept the theory of evolution, and nor should they.

There are some aspects of the theory that are valid, such as 'survival of the fittest', however this isn't so much a tenet as an obvious cognisance. Natural selection likewise appears to have some validity to it. Yet the resultant concept of one species developing through time into another is at the most fundamental level laughable, and I've no idea why on earth some scientists have been so corralled into accepting it in totality.

It surely generates a great many more unanswerable questions that it supposedly answers, yet in their surrender to this concept, their eyes appear to have been blinded to any of that.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by MariconesUnited

I've never heard or seen of any part of Genesis being historical, but if there's any evidence that any of it is factual, the scientific community will let us know. Until then I'd be curious to know which parts of the Theory of evolution are untrue.

I have two degrees treating of ancient history, and I haven't read or seen anything historical about Genesis, myself. I recall seeing a documentary a couple of years ago that claimed some geological evidence, about some massive flooding in the immediate vicinity of where the Noah built his arc, and at about the same time period, but I don't think that such would suggest that all the old testament accounts be taken as a literal history.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

[The theory of evolution] surely generates a great many more unanswerable questions than it supposedly answers, yet in their surrender to this concept, their eyes appear to have been blinded to any of that.

With all respect, Reject, I think the same could be said about interpreting the old testament as a literal, documented historical account.

[Luciddd]

Originally Posted by seeds

Because it would wreak havoc on the stability of your own inner being. That's why not.

It is the same reason why humans are not allowed to reach into the fabric of the universe with their wills and make direct changes to the suns and planets according to their personal whims.

It would wreak havoc on the stability of the universe (you yourself hinted at that earlier in post #199).



I am guessing that you may think that only those who are at a suitable level of consciousness would be able to change things in the universe because they would understand when and when not to monkey with something.

However, that brings us back to an earlier "suggestion" I made of how the creation "substance" of each sovereign mind (and that includes the mind of God – the universe) is connected to, and controlled by, "one will" and one will only.

Your mind is a separate "universe" under the control of your will; my mind is a separate "universe" under the control of my will; and God's mind is a separate universe under the control of His* will.

(*God has no gender. There doesn't seem to be a word to describe God and the "genderless, wholeness of being" we all acquire after death. See illustration below...)






seeds

If we cant then the image you put make no sense. So basically we can create universes but we cant do something as simple as affecting one?

So if I were capable of withdrawing myself 100% inwards into my mind and remain there forever you say I would be able to create universes as real as this one?

But universes must be placed somewhere, there is a good support of evidence that interaction between universes is possible, if what you say is true then a universe is 100% closed and nothing can go in or out of it.

Then we would never be able to create because we could never go "out" of the universe we are in. To be able to create we would had to be capable of going into the dimension or zone where universal creation is possible, and in said zone you would have every universe created available those created by yours and those created by others.

And I may be wrong, but according to my experience let me tell you one little dirty secret, this exalted dimensions and the entirety of the spiritual verse lies WITHIN you, it lies in the innermost of your heart, but not the physical heart the heart of your being, perhaps you would call this "area" the SPIRIT. Dont do, become.

Having said that I agree with you completely in some tenets, however I do not agree in the "100% closed space" thing, there has been extraordinary accounts through history, if we really cant do anything regarding the present universe then basically it means that everyone through history who has ever claimed to be able to do so some of them great sages is nothing but a liar.

[Apopohis Reject]

Originally Posted by Beingist

With all respect, Reject, I think the same could be said about interpreting the old testament as a literal, documented historical account.

I totally agree with this and your previous post, yet what most folk fail to appreciate is, all that is the very nature of much of the Old Testament, and therefore anyone who expects a predominantly (at times) allegorical account to be purely historical, will be mightily disappointed.

Indeed the reader, especially with regards the Book of Genesis, is being asked, indeed required to open his mind to a great many anthropomorphic details about our origins, of which it would take a library of books to elucidate via text. And even then, roughly the same amount of folk will fail to see the relevance, for man generally is infinitely more focused upon his personal gain, his arrogance, his narcissism, his personal subjective reality, to extend any interest toward universal objective reality. After all, why should he? He leaves all that to the priests of religion and science.

Therefore you are quite correct; indeed certain parts of the Old Testament such as Genesis, are infinitely more concerned in revealing underlying truths about who man is, than purely historical details. For instance; the account of 'God' forming man from the dust of the ground and breathing life into his nostrils, will at the most basic level conjure an image of a physical man (who many Christians argue was Jesus) as he works to fashion Adam, stooped over with perhaps a physical bail of water at his side and a pile of mud before him. When finished, he leans over further, and physically breathes into the mud nostrils, and subsequently Adam stands up, full of life. And the result? Here we are - undeniable proof of the historical account seen through the indolent eyes of religious indoctrination!

Indeed these may be the images the words generate at an infantile level, yet at a more mature awareness, they present as absurd, which in turn demands we investigate a little deeper, towards a more verifiable appreciation. Well that is provided; *IF* we happen to be sincere. And right there indeed, is our most debilitating disease.

[MariconesUnited]

So what findings has your deeper investigation brought you?

[Apopohis Reject]

Originally Posted by MariconesUnited

So what findings has your deeper investigation brought you?

Quite honestly my friend, were I to share all that with you, it would take you days to read through and I'm sure your eyes will glaze over in simply viewing the length of the post. So I'm happy to share a point or ten, but if you don't mind, do you think it might help if you could be a little more specific?

For starters, you can peruse my posts in this thread to realise my understanding on the subjective perspective we all live under, and how a more concentrated focus on the objective alternative we nonetheless retain, would reveal an infinitely more advantageous mindset under which to exist.

[MariconesUnited]

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

Quite honestly my friend, were I to share all that with you, it would take you days to read through and I'm sure your eyes will glaze over in simply viewing the length of the post. So I'm happy to share a point or ten, but if you don't mind, do you think it might help if you could be a little more specific?

For starters, you can peruse my posts in this thread to realise my understanding on the subjective perspective we all live under, and how a more concentrated focus on the objective alternative we nonetheless retain, would reveal an infinitely more advantageous mindset under which to exist.

As far as specifics, I think ''a deeper investigation with a verifiable approach on the book of Genesis'' would be specific enough. Maybe you can start with one observation or a single argument and see from there if there is interest. Would save you the trouble of writing a lot of stuff for nothing. Then again it's a public forum I suppose nothing's for nothing.

[Apopohis Reject]

Originally Posted by MariconesUnited

As far as specifics, I think ''a deeper investigation with a verifiable approach on the book of Genesis'' would be specific enough. Maybe you can start with one observation or a single argument and see from there if there is interest. Would save you the trouble of writing a lot of stuff for nothing. Then again it's a public forum I suppose nothing's for nothing.

Ok, how is this for starters; The Book of Genesis, predominantly explains the reasoning behind an assurance to us, that death (as we understand it) was never an intended consequence of being alive in the first instance.

When we were first created, we 'lived in the (metaphorical) Garden of Eden'; a scriptural definition of an objective mindset. In that original condition, we would never be required to suffer death, except by choice. Yet something eventuated that changed this dynamic. The Choice was made, and by that choice we lost, or rather rejected that default objective perspective, and subsequently became predominantly subjective. As such, we 'lost' access to the metaphorical Garden, and therefore also by default CHOSE our personal demise.

Now there actually IS a verifiable way back into that metaphorical Garden, an obvious restoration of that original default to the way we exist, that is; an objective perspective of reality.

The result of this will be an infinite perspective of the universe, infinite possibilities at our disposal, and an eternal lifespan to enjoy all this. For we would surely have ascended to our originally designated position as; curator of the universe.

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

Ok, how is this for starters; The Book of Genesis, predominantly explains the reasoning behind an assurance to us, that death (as we understand it) was never an intended consequence of being alive in the first instance.

When we were first created, we 'lived in the (metaphorical) Garden of Eden'; a scriptural definition of an objective mindset. In that original condition, we would never be required to suffer death, except by choice. Yet something eventuated that changed this dynamic. The Choice was made, and by that choice we lost, or rather rejected that default objective perspective, and subsequently became predominantly subjective. As such, we 'lost' access to the metaphorical Garden, and therefore also by default CHOSE our personal demise.

Now there actually IS a verifiable way back into that metaphorical Garden, an obvious restoration of that original default to the way we exist, that is; an objective perspective of reality.

The result of this will be an infinite perspective of the universe, infinite possibilities at our disposal, and an eternal lifespan to enjoy all this. For we would surely have ascended to our originally designated position as; curator of the universe.

As I see it, the "original condition" was never an actuality for mankind. Individuation already presupposes dualistic experience, which includes pain and suffering, and all of the negative polarities implied. As mentioned before, I see the eden story as a metaphor for what happens in every individual's life. If it referred to some distant past, it wouldn't actually be entirely metaphorical.

Dualistic experience is what it is, which is to say dualistic. There can't be all the good stuff without the bad stuff. As such, the destiny of mankind is to transcend duality, which means transcending human consciousness. This is what 'enlightenment' refers to. While mankind's arrogance knows no bounds, there is never a point at which humankind becomes curator of the universe. Humans are a minuscule, and nonessential, part of the unfolding of Consciousness itself.

[Irisha]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

As I see it, the "original condition" was never an actuality for mankind. Individuation already presupposes dualistic experience, which includes pain and suffering, and all of the negative polarities implied. As mentioned before, I see the eden story as a metaphor for what happens in every individual's life. If it referred to some distant past, it wouldn't actually be entirely metaphorical.

Dualistic experience is what it is, which is to say dualistic. There can't be all the good stuff without the bad stuff. As such, the destiny of mankind is to transcend duality, which means transcending human consciousness. This is what 'enlightenment' refers to. While mankind's arrogance knows no bounds, there is never a point at which humankind becomes curator of the universe. Humans are a minuscule, and nonessential, part of the unfolding of Consciousness itself.

I would say it's a metaphor for what happens in every individual's life starting from its prenatal state, or even earlier (!) Because this dualistic experience actually happens to be the case immediately after the "birth" inside the womb. A new-born baby is crying - thus expressing its reaction to the new sensations - those of gravity, change of temperature , pain, etc. Which by themselves can be experienced only in the dualistic world. The Eden garden was even before the conceiving . As it has been scientifically proved that the fetus is also experiencing dualistic sensations.

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by Irisha

I would say it's a metaphor for what happens in every individual's life starting from its prenatal state, or even earlier (!) Because this dualistic experience actually happens to be the case immediately after the "birth" inside the womb. A new-born baby is crying - thus expressing its reaction to the new sensations - those of gravity, change of temperature , pain, etc. Which by themselves can be experienced only in the dualistic world. The Eden garden was even before the conceiving . As it has been scientifically proved that the fetus is also experiencing dualistic sensations.

The human experiences duality from birth, yes, though duality itself is not the problem, as we see in the awakened ones who remain in duality, but without suffering, because human consciousness has been transcended. The newborn is also not suffering in spite of the crying and discomfort, but it is for a different reason that the baby does not suffer.

The baby does not suffer for the same reason that most other animals don't suffer; they have not learned to conceptualize and project the separate 'me' into the future and struggle with their projections. But of course the mind of the baby learns to do this, and learns from others that it is separate and that it is not safe. This happens around age 2, and it is this that is the eviction from paradise; the bite of the apple of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Before this, there was not a garden of Eden. There was nothing.