I ALMOST Get Subjective Reality

[geniegal]

I find objective and subjective reality more helpful when viewed as objective and subjective reality consciousnesses (ORC & SRC)

This way I get that they are perspectives, not saying "my reality is the cast iron truth"

consciuousness is not the same thing as directly knowing reality is- nobody can do that I think. This is a relief, as I don't want proof that I am the only living being.

Therefore we must choose the consciousness that best serves us/our life purpose. Of course SRC wins out on that one. I have manifested so many good things as well as unhelpful teaching experiences

Here's my challenge now...

To fully accept SRC as a workable, believable truth emotionally while knowing that I will never be able to prove what reality actually is.

Now that's a challenge!

Any thoughts?

[Luciddd]

Thats ineed a way to see it.

[ButterflyWoman]

My thoughts are that experiencing reality as subjective is not something you can work out by thinking about it. It's a shift of perception, and although it's possible to (try to) talk about what your reality looks like from that new position, it's not something you can think or plan your way into.

I do suspect that allowing it to happen is a big part of it actually happening, though. So forming a concept in your mind that you can accept may well lead to allowing the shift.

[geniegal]

interesting! I am terrible for trying to intellectualise everything.

[ButterflyWoman]

Originally Posted by geniegal

I am terrible for trying to intellectualise everything.

Heh, you and me both! I just spent a year (and ongoing) working with the concept of "Surrender" (it was my "word of the year") and the whole "need to intellectualise it" came up over and over and over again until I finally figured out how to just say "Ah, screw it, whatever." And then, of course, when I did that, stuff shifted... That's always the way.

[raykilleen]

There is no belief that brings one closer to Truth (dismantling maya), direct experience is required for that, intellectual capacities are bound by the limitations of the human mind whereas one’s true inner nature is unbound.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by raykilleen

There is no belief that brings one closer to Truth (dismantling maya), direct experience is required for that, intellectual capacities are bound by the limitations of the human mind whereas one’s true inner nature is unbound.

Yup. +1

[taylor]

I've found Awareness Watching Awareness very helpful for subjective reality. It's basically putting your attention on your own subjectivity rather than thoughts until you start to realize that your subjectivity is constantly present and is the unshakable foundation of everything.

I remember arguing with Steve through e-mail years ago about subjective reality and then I tried some meditation or another and "Aha" I get it now. It wasn't an intellectual "aha" at all, but something so subtle my intellect couldn't grasp it. Then of course you forget it again until you get in the regular practice of something like AWA.

[ButterflyWoman]

geniegal, I'm not sure how long you've had that avatar, but I only just noticed it. I wanted to tell you how much I like your face. It's a face full of character, and it's wonderful.

[ChrisGinsburg]

Originally Posted by ButterflyWoman

Heh, you and me both! I just spent a year (and ongoing) working with the concept of "Surrender" (it was my "word of the year") and the whole "need to intellectualise it" came up over and over and over again until I finally figured out how to just say "Ah, screw it, whatever." And then, of course, when I did that, stuff shifted... That's always the way.

Indeed. All roads inevitably lead to surrender like rivers into the ocean. The spiritual path itself could be said to be for the sole purpose of preparing to 'let go'. Everything else ends up being almost humorously irrelevant.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by ChrisGinsburg

Indeed. All roads inevitably lead to surrender like rivers into the ocean. The spiritual path itself could be said to be for the sole purpose of preparing to 'let go'. Everything else ends up being almost humorously irrelevant.

Right. It's like allowing yourself to "die", every moment.

[ChrisGinsburg]

Originally Posted by Beingist

Right. It's like allowing yourself to "die", every moment.

Yes. Every single moment is presenting either perceived comfort and familiarity or truth. Truth is not in some distant mountain top awaiting you after years of practice. Nor does it ask that you give up anything of value besides that which was never so to begin with. Even so, we tell ourselves we're not yet ready or that we don't want to give up our loved ones or there's still so much to do and so we wait. We wait and tell ourselves that this truth isn't already the case. It must be on MY terms.

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by geniegal

I find objective and subjective reality more helpful when viewed as objective and subjective reality consciousnesses (ORC & SRC)

This way I get that they are perspectives, not saying "my reality is the cast iron truth"

consciuousness is not the same thing as directly knowing reality is- nobody can do that I think. This is a relief, as I don't want proof that I am the only living being.

Therefore we must choose the consciousness that best serves us/our life purpose. Of course SRC wins out on that one. I have manifested so many good things as well as unhelpful teaching experiences

Here's my challenge now...

To fully accept SRC as a workable, believable truth emotionally while knowing that I will never be able to prove what reality actually is.

Now that's a challenge!

Any thoughts?

I guess I'm the only one who doesn't understand how any perspective can be other than subjective. If 50 people are standing around a statue, which perspective is the objective one? We can talk about trying to be objective, which just means getting our personal opinions out of the way, but in the context in which it seems your talking, you can't actually perceive any other way but through your own personal perspective, which is subjective by definition.

As such, SRC is what is happening and what will always happen. It doesn't have to be accepted as workable or believable, it just is what it is, though it's not Truth. Truth isn't a perspective at all, but rather a realization that the apparent subject of the subjective perspective isn't the actual subject that is having the experience.

[ChrisGinsburg]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

I guess I'm the only one who doesn't understand how any perspective can be other than subjective.

I don't even know where to begin with that discussion. Then again, maybe I just lack the constitution as Reject would say to digest it.

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by ChrisGinsburg

I don't even know where to begin with that discussion. Then again, maybe I just lack the constitution as Reject would say to digest it.

I keep thinking there must be a secret rule book somewhere that makes all this clear to peeps. I also wondered if Pavlina might have written that rule book, which would explain why I don't know about it.

[Reefs]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

I keep thinking there must be a secret rule book somewhere that makes all this clear to peeps. I also wondered if Pavlina might have written that rule book, which would explain why I don't know about it.

Well, there's always the MMM you can look up for references.

[ChristsLight]

Originally Posted by ButterflyWoman

Heh, you and me both! I just spent a year (and ongoing) working with the concept of "Surrender" (it was my "word of the year") and the whole "need to intellectualise it" came up over and over and over again until I finally figured out how to just say "Ah, screw it, whatever." And then, of course, when I did that, stuff shifted... That's always the way.

So you had to surrender your understanding of surrender?

[ChristsLight]

Originally Posted by taylor

I've found Awareness Watching Awareness very helpful for subjective reality. It's basically putting your attention on your own subjectivity rather than thoughts until you start to realize that your subjectivity is constantly present and is the unshakable foundation of everything.

I remember arguing with Steve through e-mail years ago about subjective reality and then I tried some meditation or another and "Aha" I get it now. It wasn't an intellectual "aha" at all, but something so subtle my intellect couldn't grasp it. Then of course you forget it again until you get in the regular practice of something like AWA.

And yet there was never anyone there to "get it" or forget it.

[ChristsLight]

Originally Posted by geniegal

This is a relief, as I don't want proof that I am the only living being.

That's not what SR is saying. That's more solipsism.

[ButterflyWoman]

Originally Posted by ChristsLight

So you had to surrender your understanding of surrender?

Yes. And all my ideas of "free will", too.

[ChristsLight]

Originally Posted by ButterflyWoman

Yes. And all my ideas of "free will", too.

That was a tough one for me.

[Reefs]

Originally Posted by ChristsLight

That was a tough one for me.

Now you are will-less? Or pure will (in the Schopenhauer sense)?

[ButterflyWoman]

Originally Posted by Reefs

Now you are will-less? Or pure will (in the Schopenhauer sense)?

I can't speak for anyone else, but I still have the illusion of will. I just see that it's essentially an illusion, like everything else. There is no "self" and therefore there is no "self determination". Took me ages to come to this.

So, actually, neither will-less nor pure will as Schopenhauer saw it (at least, as far as I understand how Schopenhauer model works), although there are periods of Schopenhauer-style "aesthetic perception". (Again, as I understand it; I'm no expert in Schopenhauer.)

[ChristsLight]

Originally Posted by Reefs

Now you are will-less? Or pure will (in the Schopenhauer sense)?

Well it never existed. I just thought it did.

The mind still likes to think it does, though, and likes to try to blame people and so forth. I think it is a habit of mind.

[Reefs]

Originally Posted by ChristsLight

Well it never existed. I just thought it did.

The mind still likes to think it does, though, and likes to try to blame people and so forth. I think it is a habit of mind.

Could be a software bug.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by geniegal

Therefore we must choose the consciousness that best serves us/our life purpose....

Geniegal, do you feel we must choose once and for all which perspective to use, and then keep using it forever? My feeling is that SRC and ORC are both very useful lenses to use in different contexts, and I get to choose anew in each moment, and each choice doesn't preclude choosing differently in the next moment.

Here's my challenge now...

To fully accept SRC as a workable, believable truth emotionally while knowing that I will never be able to prove what reality actually is.

Have you ever consciously chosen a particular perspective on someone or something, and then enjoyed reality occurring in accordance with that perspective?

For instance, say you're standing in front of someone, and you deliberately use a perspective of: "This person is magnificent. I love this person!" Not because of anything that person is being or doing; just because you choose to look at them that way -- you're choosing to generate magnificence and love right there, just cuz.

Or maybe you deliberately use a perspective of: "People are out for themselves and I can't trust this person." That person and his actions are probably going to occur as fitting into the *reality* of whichever perspective you use, don't you think? Your actions and how you occur for them, too -- your body language, your receptiveness, your breathing, your tone of voice... all of that will be in perfect accord with how the world is occurring for you. If someone does something "nice" inside the perspective of "I can't trust this person," you might wonder if they're only being nice in order to get something from you. And if he does something "nice" inside the perspective of "I love this person!" it's probably going to occur for you quite differently, wouldn't it? And what you be in response is likely to occur for them quite differently, as well, right? You could, if you wanted to, trigger an upward or a downward spiral, just by using a particular perspective on the person.

But is it The Truth that the person is magnificent and lovable or that he's only out for himself and you can't trust him? Is it something that can be proven?

Still, it's workable to use either perspective, isn't it? One might feel better than the other, but both *work* just fine - I mean, both perspective get results with a positive purpose. (The positive purpose of using the "I can't trust people" might be survival, for instance.)

In the same way, you can use ORC or SRC without knowing them to be provable or The Truth -- they're just ways of looking, points of view.

I am not suggesting that ORC is like seeing people as untrustworthy, by the way, but generally, I find that using ORC as a default, background way of experiencing the world tends to have people living in a world of struggle, where SRC as a background point of view tends to have my dream characters living more and more in a world of limitless possibility and inspiration. It's the darndest thing.

One place that shows up in a practical way is when I'm driving on the freeway. If I'm using ORC on the 405, I could get pretty frustrated at how things *really are.* People not letting others change lanes, cutting people off, too crowded, etc... and when I've noticed that and shifted to SRC -- and shifted how I'm Being in traffic -- letting go of resistance, allowing it to be as it is, being what I'd like to see (courtesy, harmony, joy), how things really are occurs very differently: people take turns like teeth in a zipper, things move along more smoothly, I see smiling faces in cars, etc... again, it's the darndest thing!

[Reefs]

Originally Posted by ButterflyWoman

I can't speak for anyone else, but I still have the illusion of will. I just see that it's essentially an illusion, like everything else. There is no "self" and therefore there is no "self determination". Took me ages to come to this.

So, actually, neither will-less nor pure will as Schopenhauer saw it (at least, as far as I understand how Schopenhauer model works), although there are periods of Schopenhauer-style "aesthetic perception". (Again, as I understand it; I'm no expert in Schopenhauer.)

I see, it's a conclusion you reached that you don't have free will but in your day to day endeavors you still act as if you would have free will. That's actually the worst case scenario which will only end after the realization (not conclusion!) that the entire free will debate is absolutely bogus.

Pure will in the Schopenhauer sense would be impersonal living. That's how a genius functions and how masterpieces are created.

[ButterflyWoman]

Originally Posted by Reefs

I see, it's a conclusion you reached that you don't have free will but in your day to day endeavors you still act as if you would have free will. That's actually the worst case scenario which will only end after the realization (not conclusion!) that the entire free will debate is absolutely bogus.

I've read that about three times. I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you're saying. I don't think it's what I was saying, though. And I'm pretty sure I didn't say I'd "concluded" anything, did I? That implies something other than that which I've experienced, and it's you projecting your own conclusions.

Maybe I'm not using the words you want me to use? I've seen you (and others on this board) get quite persnickety about semantics (but I'll tell you that if you want to jump all over this word or that word or some other metaphor I might choose, I'm not going to play ).

Let me put this another way.

It's ALL illusion. The "free will" thing is just as much illusion as the "separated self" thing. I don't think I can get any more basic than that.

[Reefs]

Originally Posted by ButterflyWoman

I've read that about three times. I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you're saying. I don't think it's what I was saying, though.

Well, it seemed that you were trying to say that theoretically you know that there is no free but practically can't do other than act as if there is free will. Correct?

ETA:

I come in peace. I'm not a spelling bee.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by ButterflyWoman

It's ALL illusion. The "free will" thing is just as much illusion as the "separated self" thing. I don't think I can get any more basic than that.

Sounds like me with "what is, IS."

Copaseticness. Yay!