I Love You.

[Someone here]

@Phil whatever.  I see it as a contradiction.  Don't really understand this whole  sphere thing either.

[Alexander]

4 minutes ago, Someone here said:

@Phil whatever.  I see it as a contradiction.  Don't really understand this whole  sphere thing either.

Yeah I don't understand 2 spheres model when in direct experience there is only one.

[Someone here]

9 minutes ago, Alexander said:

Yeah I don't understand 2 spheres model when in direct experience there is only one.

Yup

[Phil]

36 minutes ago, Someone here said:

@Phil whatever.  I see it as a contradiction. 

There isn’t the you of ‘you’re imagining that’. 

There is no you. 

 

How do those two statements seem conflicting? 

 

Is this clearer… there is no you of ‘you’re imaging that’ because there is no you…? 

Or maybe… because there is no you… there is no truth to… ‘you’re imagining that’… ?

 

36 minutes ago, Someone here said:

Don't really understand this whole  sphere thing either.

Check direct experience (thought, perception, sensation) for “understanding”.

What’s being suggested is ‘understanding’ is the thought ‘understanding’… and that whats being said or suggested is in accordance with direct experience. 

 

What might be called a room or a universe is a sphere. (‘World-sphere’)

What might be called a head & peripheral vision is a sphere. (‘Lens-sphere’). 

 

This is based only on direct experience, and not understanding or any other thoughts. Thoughts are an appearance of the lens-sphere. This is why there seems to be an experience of thoughts, yet thoughts are never actually perceived as in seen or heard. No one has ever actually seen a thought. It’s like a rumor that really spiraled.

 

31 minutes ago, Alexander said:

Yeah I don't understand 2 spheres model when in direct experience there is only one.

Undersatnding (thoughts) isn’t what’s being suggested.

 

Being is self-aware. So as being be’s the world-sphere, for Being, there is no worldsphere. Just, Being. 

Being must veil itself of it’s own infinitude & unconditionality, for it to seem to Being that there is a world.

So Being be’s the lens-sphere. 

 

 

The dream analogy might be clarifying for this understanding hiccup. While there could certainly seem to be an experience of understanding in a dream, neither you nor understanding would actually be “inside of” a dream. 

 

Consider letting thinking / thought / understanding be like 1% of experience, the rest being perception & sensation. As natural curiosity & innocence, see if what’s being said is accurate in direct experience. Allow any conceptualizations or thought labels to come & go. 

[James123]

5 hours ago, Phil said:

While the Truth is ineffable, these are the ‘truest’ words which can be spoken. There is no clearer verbalization of the actuality of reality. 

I love you too brother, I love you too. It is literally inevitable. You are my teacher, you are the king. 

[Someone here]

16 minutes ago, Phil said:

There isn’t the you of ‘you’re imagining that’. 

There is no you. 

 

How do those two statements seem conflicting? 

 

Is this clearer… there is no you of ‘you’re imaging that’ because there is no you…? 

Or maybe… because there is no you… there is no truth to… ‘you’re imagining that’… ?

There is a contradiction between there's no you in "there's no you imaging that " and "I love you ".

17 minutes ago, Phil said:

Check direct experience (thought, perception, sensation) for “understanding”.

What’s being suggested is ‘understanding’ is the thought ‘understanding’… and that whats being said or suggested is in accordance with direct experience. 

 

What might be called a room or a universe is a sphere. (‘World-sphere’)

What might be called a head & peripheral vision is a sphere. (‘Lens-sphere’). 

 

This is based only on direct experience, and not understanding or any other thoughts. Thoughts are an appearance of the lens-sphere. This is why there seems to be an experience of thoughts, yet thoughts are never actually perceived as in seen or heard. No one has ever actually seen a thought. It’s like a rumor that really spiraled.

Great. I understand it better now .thanks .

[Orb]

28 minutes ago, Phil said:

What might be called a room or a universe is a sphere. (‘World-sphere’)

What might be called a head & peripheral vision is a sphere. (‘Lens-sphere’). 

Can the nondual become so nondual that there's no way to tell apart the 2 spheres? 

[Jonas Long]

I love juice.

[WhiteOwl]

36 minutes ago, Phil said:

Thoughts are an appearance of the lens-sphere. This is why there seems to be an experience of thoughts, yet thoughts are never actually perceived as in seen or heard. No one has ever actually seen a thought. It’s like a rumor that really spiraled.

Sounds like you say percieving only means "seen" or "heard"?

 

Thoughts do appear and are "seen" so to speak, for me. Thinking of a banana right now and a banana becomes visible and fades away again. Thats what we refer to as thoughts. What do you mean no one has seen a thought and that there are no thoughts.

 

Is it the same way as the "there is no chair" saying? In that way nothing exists

[Reena]

4 hours ago, Jonas Long said:

 

This should be played at my funeral. Coolest sickest beat. 

[Reena]

I wish the whole forum was like this..

 

 

[Phil]

1 hour ago, Someone here said:

There is a contradiction between there's no you in "there's no you imaging that " and "I love you ".

Gotcha, thanks.

 

There is no you which is imagining anymore than there is a you which is thinking or doing. That’s just an obscuring belief like any other.

I am being two spheres (light-love), such that it seems there is an ‘other’ or a ‘you’.

Inherent in the appearing being love, intrinsically; I love you. 

Put another way, I am loving as a verb and that loving is you / This as a noun. 

 

1 hour ago, James123 said:

I love you too brother, I love you too. It is literally inevitable. You are my teacher, you are the king. 

I love you & thanks God! 🙂

 

1 hour ago, Orb said:

Can the nondual become so nondual that there's no way to tell apart the 2 spheres? 

Being the two spheres is the veiling or obscuring, yet is never actually a change or changing, such that nondual became any thing, and could become nondual or ‘more’ nondual. Not two isn’t a claim as to what is, only that whatever what is is thought, said or believed to be, that isn’t ‘it’. 

 

1 hour ago, WhiteOwl said:

Sounds like you say percieving only means "seen" or "heard"?

 

Thoughts do appear and are "seen" so to speak, for me. Thinking of a banana right now and a banana becomes visible and fades away again. Thats what we refer to as thoughts. What do you mean no one has seen a thought and that there are no thoughts.

The thought (banana) is directly experienced… and is not seen as in with the ‘eyes’ (perception). 

Put another way, you are not turning your eyeballs around backwards and actually visually seeing thoughts.

 

1 hour ago, WhiteOwl said:

 

Is it the same way as the "there is no chair" saying? In that way nothing exists

Chair is a thought, there is no actual separate thing called chair. The thought could be believed to be a separate thing in or of perception. 

With respect to nonduality, self-realization, ‘it’ isn’t nothing either. 

 

[Reena]

You call others emotionally shallow. How fucking loving is that?

[Reena]

I'm so emotionally shallow that being called emotionally shallow still hurts.

[Joseph Maynor]

Love of the Whole.

[WhiteOwl]

1 hour ago, Phil said:

The thought (banana) is directly experienced… and is not seen as in with the ‘eyes’ (perception). 

Put another way, you are not turning your eyeballs around backwards and actually visually seeing thoughts.

not with the eyes of course... I was referring to what you call directly experienced. 

 

How to know perception is not direct? Seeing my hand is not direct?

[Phil]

@WhiteOwl

Perception is direct. 

 

Awareness is directly aware of thought, perception, and sensation. 

 

There isn’t a thinker of thoughts, a perceiver and a perceived, a sensor of sensation. 

 

23 minutes ago, WhiteOwl said:

Seeing my hand is not direct?

No. Hand is a thought. Seeing is a thought. 

Perception is perception. There is no hand (thoughts) in perception. 

There is no perception of thoughts. 

There is no ‘seer’, and no one which a hand belongs to, as implied by my hand. 

 

Just btw - none of this is right or wrong. If it seems like you’re inside of the body or it’s your body - that is the point of being the two spheres. That, and of course, ‘other’. 

 

Forget “metaphysics”, “philosophy”, “the universe”, etc, etc, etc. That’s all back story. 

 

Just look in someone’s eyes. Talk with someone. Share something. That is the whole point. The Truth is immediate. Most intimate. Simple. 

[James123]

@Phil this is the best topic ever.

[Phil]

@James123

Yeah. Love you! 😘 

[Serenity]

On 2/15/2024 at 3:14 PM, Phil said:

While the Truth is ineffable, these are the ‘truest’ words which can be spoken. There is no clearer verbalization of the actuality of reality. 

Love you too, Phil!