divine_perception daf This is the final part of a four part series. If you have not read Perception_is_NOT_reality, Of_Fate or Of_Freewill yet, please do so before reading this. Thanks. (As a preface to this, no person can know the total nature of God's being, let alone of God's manner of perceiving things. Only pieces ever seem to be revealed at any given time and so it is quite likely that NOONE's understanding of the nature of our existence will ever truly be complete. This is not to be confused with an absence of objective Truth. Such truly exists and can be found by all who sincerely desire to know.) In the previous posts, we covered three basic concepts. The first is that what we believe is not necessarily what is true. To the contrary, what we believe has been more of a detriment than an aid to our ability to perceive the reality of existence. Moving on, we covered the nature of our existence, of the fate of everything in the universe; a time to be, followed by a return to its source. All things return to the source from whence they came. Thus, the seas return to their mountaintops and springs and the snow melts, springs run, to the rivers then back to the sea. All living things on Earth return to the Earth from whence they came. We are no exception...we must return to our source, but in our case, we are offered an optional route to that source. This route is in an upward direction. A return to our source through evolution. Finally, in the last blathe, a story was told that attempted to illustrate that an ability to choose our course is built into this human existence. Freewill is our gift, a gift unique, so far as we know, in all of Creation. As well, a Truth was revealed. A VERY difficult Truth to wrap one's mind around, to be sure, but a Truth nonetheless: there is only God, regardless of the appearance of things. (Recall the first post? "Perception_is_not_reality.") In the last post, it is suggested that we are to be witnesses to the Creation. In this post, we will attempt to delve into the final question posed by "Of_Freewill." Why? Why witnesses? Let's start off with a very familiar question: "If a tree falls in the forest, and there is noone there to hear it..does it make a sound?" Some would say "Yes" and some might say "No." But what are our reasons for saying Yes or No? For years, my own answer was Yes. The reasoning was that vibrations in the air would be created regardless. See, I thought that entertaining the whole notion that reality is created in our minds was preposterous...and still do. However I was wrong, because the most correct answer to the question is "No." No there is no sound if noone hears it. Why? Because sound is not the vibrations created in the air, but the interpretation of those vibrations within the confines of a mind. The sound must be WITNESSED in order to be a sound. Let's take this koan (seemingly meaningless, but actually quite meaningful question) a step further. If the Creation unfolds, but its becoming is not perceived, is it beautiful? The answer is similar. The beauty lies not with what it is, for indeed, it still is what it is. No, beauty lies with the perception of what it is. At this point, I'm going to ask you to play a mental exercise with me. Understand, that although this is a mental exercise, it should be performed in the meditative state. In other words, it is a mental exercise to be performed without any mental exercise. Clear your mind of all thoughts and then let's all go to the movies. So we're sitting in the theatre, watching this movie. The characters are so real, its amazing. The action seems so real that you're quickly sucked into the story, and yet, we know it's not real..right? The curtain goes down and the lights come on and the movie is over. Although we may have identified with the characters (Titanic anyone?) we never identified with them so intensely that we thought they were real. They were maybe realistic, never real. For the next part of this exercise, you're going to want to go for a walk. Make it around the block, to the store, whatever. Even feel free to wait until the next time you have a reason to go somewhere. (If you're a shut-in, don't despair...you can do this without leaving the house...but it helps to have some movement going on around you.) To do this, you'll want to, once again, be in the meditative state. Be AWARE of what's going on around you, be a WITNESS to it. See the scene, but don't think about it. Hear things, but don't be affected by them. You're at the movies! That's right, you're at the movies..watching the whole thing in stunning surround sound, intense 3d images and an incredible ability to sense things through touch and smell as well. (Smell-O-Vision?!) Is any of it real? Not really, not from the perspective of Divine Perception. It's all the unfolding of a Creation whose every nuance and movement, every happening was KNOWN prior to it's inception. Just as there is a screenplay to a movie, so was everything "you" are watching right now KNOWN before it ever happened. "You" are watching the greatest play ever presented. We all are. But there is more..because didn't we mention something about freewill? If everything was known, how can there be freewill? Well, let's experiment with that notion and find out. Think about a key that you are going to press. Don't think about any other key. Just the one that you are going to press. Now reach for that key, start to press it..then press a completely different key! Or DON'T! Did you just exercise freewill? I would say that you did. Yet, the final outcome of your decision was what determined what ultimately happened and THAT was what was meant to happen. It's a subtle paradox: Fate that takes into consideration freewill. Yet the implications are even more profound than they might appear on the surface. Don't the decisions you make affect things around you? Don't your decisions have consequences and aren't those consequences felt in the universe around you? Certainly. That brings us to a most difficult and interesting paradox. Let's go back to the movies for a second. Imagine that there is a scene in which the bad guy and the good guy are fighting. A bystander happens to kick the bad guy's gun out of the fight scene, and as a result the good guy easily overcomes the villian, subduing him. The consequences of the bystander's actions affected the outcome..right? Or did they? I mean he was just an actor and it's just a movie...right? What if the actor playing the bystander decided that he didn't FEEL like kicking the gun? What if he was afraid it would go off and blow his toe off? Wouldn't the fight scene be changed by that decision? But it's STILL a movie and, from YOUR perspective, he's STILL just an actor. Here's the most difficult realization of all: You are that actor! You aren't watching the unfolding of Creation, something else is. Something behind your mind, behind your eyes. You are as unreal as the rest of it. It's just a movie and the YOU of you is just a part of that movie. You are a part of God's creation, going through the motions. (But don't think for a second that this makes existence a pointless exercise. What would the movie look like if all of the actors decided to give up and sit down? No movie at all. You are playing a part...so PLAY it! With gusto!) Shift your perspective now to the most difficult thing that your mind will ever do: releasing the self. Get back in that "Matrix mode"; everything is unreal. It's fairly easy when you play the part of the audience. Now...realize that YOU TOO are unreal. That's the tough part. That's the kicker. See, you've identified with this actor so long and so intensely, that you've made him/her REAL. He/she isn't. It is the something behind that particular "you" which is really the audience in this whole play. There is only the curtain, the screen, the projector and the lamp within it. There are no people, no cars, no trees, no houses, no YOU. The screen is the universe. Energy is the projector. The lamp is matter and the curtain remains open for the duration of time. Noone in the theatre? No movie..even though the projector continues to run. If a projector projects filmed images onto a screen in the theatre and there is noone in the audience... (This isn't quite over. There is still the matter of that rogue actor to contend with. Directors rarely have any use for actors that don't follow the script. Especially when there is no cutting room floor. But we'll let the more qualified deal with that subject.) Good luck in the quest for whatever you seek. 050725 ... daf This information is part of a four part series. The four posts are titled: Perception_is_NOT_reality Of_Fate Of_Freewill and Divine_Perception. 050725 ... Doar .read. 050725 ... anne-girl . 050725 ... pete . 050725 ... anne-girl this reminds me of the concept of treating life lightly vs heavily heavily = associated with worry, strain, despair, seriousness, entrenched in life lightly = joy, mirth, hope, and a mild sense of not taking anything too seriously, detachment from stuff lightness of being 050725 ... andru235 here i am! you knew i was coming, hee hee! :D alrighty. i agree with much of this, but it leads me in the opposite direction. if nothing we perceive is real, then we can't be sure of what 'real' is, and thus, it might be real after all. our ideas about 'real' and 'unreal' are based in our perceptions. that dafreman and i differ on this point is as much proof as there is of any other aspect of existence: admittedly there is little proof of anything. but is proof needed for something to be real? if our perceptions are inherently 'not real', we cannot be sure of anything at all, including the status of not-real. i agree that sometimes things return to the source; often, even, but not always. variation is the key to everything we have ever seen/known/experienced/felt. identicalism is a myth. additionally, "sound" is sometimes applied to things we do not hear, although perhaps not in english. 'sonic' is a latin-based sound word, and we have all heard of supersonic and subsonic noise that we cannot hear but dogs (or whatever) can. since we don't know a thing about what sentience these vibrations trigger in non-mammals, the question really is one of "if a tree falls in the forest, what effect does the vibration of its crash have on other entities in the vicinity?" but that, of course, is less fun. for dafreman, none of this is real. it is only real for an intangible entity we have never met. even his blathes cannot be real. for andru235, all of it is real: even the movie. it is real for us *and* the intangible entities we have never met. dafreman's blathes are very, very real. why is the movie real? because there you are, focused on it an it alone. to enjoy it, you suspend your disbelief. and in suspending your disbelief it seems real. and our only measure of what is real and what is not real is based upon how things seem. (again; if our perceptions are not real, we couldn't know that they were not, in fact, real) if someone is tripping on mescaline and sees the goddess, it may not be real to me, but it is very, very real to them. there are no means at my -nor anyone elses - disposal to know whether or not the tripper saw 'reality', unless we concede that sense is reality. again: if sense is *not* reality, then we really do not know a thing about reality whatsoever, including the idea that 'sense is not reality'. moving on... renouncing the self and renouncing one's existence is false humility. you are you. you have a self. if it really bothers you so much, commit suicide, but you won't because you like having a self, and being yourself. fear of death is merely a permutation of this. you like existing. but more than you like existing, you like existing uniquely. AND THAT'S OK! [special note: many suicidal persons enjoy existing, but are seeking a new existence. nothing dishonorable about that, really. we have all dropped one book for another at one point.] it's trendy to dis the ego and the self, blah blah blah. nevertheless, there they both are. only the ego can appreciate its own renunciation. only a self can appreciate self-denial. there are many different perspectives on reality. indeed, the ratio is greater than one perspective per person. likewise, there are many different realities about perspective. this ratio is also greater on the side of perspective than per person. humans have thrown so many babies out with the bathwater, it is amazing that we have overpopulated ourselves. the fringe minority of megalomaniacs and egonmaniacs has taught us only to renounce our own egos and selves?!? yet we see the suicides, and angrily denounce them for the ultimate renunciation of the self. why have we elevated the sportspeople, the generals, the philosophers, to such lofty positions? their merits can be argued as readily as those of the plumber or the garbageman. why do self-renouncers name the source of self-renunciatory quotes? isn't that a valuation of someone else's self? anonymity ought suffice. the egomaniacs and the self-renouncers are both here and both are here to learn and teach. one is not inferior nor less integral than the other. indeed, if it is the path of others to self-renounce, that's super. and if it is the path of others to egomaniacally force themselves on others, whoop-de-do. perhaps neither will receive my direct support, and yet, i support them both. i would, for my own part, rather have both than neither. there have been atrocious individuals of either nature, by the way; egomaniacs have sometimes been very benevolent people, no less so than self-renouncers. and other very destructive people have not done so for their own ego but as an assault on others' egos due to their contempt for their own. if nothing we perceive is real, then it doesn't matter in the least what we do, nor how, because our perceptions about benefaction and malefaction are also unreal. our perception that nothing is real is not real either, under such a creed, for the fourth or fifth time. if everything we perceive is real, then there is suddenly plenty of merit in not believing it to be real, for many different possible reasons. ultimately, the argument is trivial because our existences continue onward toward the transmogrification between lives. call it real, call it unreal, call it McZigler, but there you are, existing. seriously, what could we possibly know about 'divine perception'? for all we know it involves senses we do not have, emotions we have yet to feel, wisdoms irrelevant to the life of earthlings... and what kind of deity gives the gift of life and then attaches strings to the gift? that isn't a gift, that is extortion. so dafreman has blathed about his reality and i have blathed about mine. i congratulate us both for having faith enough in ourselves to be what we are. 050725 ... daf Let's preface this response with a comment on the foolishness of responding. No mind that is enraptured of its own ability to juggle complexities is worth engaging. It's a tailchase at best, capturing a mouse fart in a windy field at worst. From the moment that the knowledge that the "Self" was a creation of the mind was experienced, my own mind has rebelled against the notion wholly. (Being quite as taken with and comfortable with the thought of there being a "me" as anyone that might care to respond.) However, this is a patently false belief created by the material brain. This is not a knowledge based on existentialist ponderings, nor is it a knowledge to the mind/ego's liking since it means its "eradication" (if the ethereal invention of a material brain can truly be eradicated in that sense.) The notion that "I think therefore I am" seems perfectly reasonable to the gray matter between these ears, friends. It is not..I do not...I am not. There is a very real truth underlying all of our words and a quick counting of the "me's" and the "I's"...the "my's" and the "mine's" will show us when our nature is more self-absorbed and when it is less so. In the end, we've all had good days and bad. 050725 ... DannyH "No mind that is enraptured of its own ability to juggle complexities is worth engaging. It's a tailchase at best, capturing a mouse fart in a windy field at worst." That's a shame. I guess there's no point in talking to you then. And you know how I feel about inflexible and unresponsive dogma. If you have chosen to become nothing but a talking head I pity you your fate, although it sounds from the way you describe it as less like a choice, more like succumbing to some form of monomania. You may think I'm taking a pop at you Dafremen but I'm really not. I'm genuinely concerned for you. 050727 ... daf Let's retract the statement then Danny, and see what we have...shall we? "Nothing could be more worthwhile than to engage a neverending stream of thoughts, notion and ideas emanating from a consciousness which centers upon itself and the novelty of its sentience. Nothing could more stoke the fires of the imagination, nor instill vigor in the spirit than to listen the same notions rehashed over and over and over again ad nauseum because pieces of a larger, coherent scene can't stomach the notion that they are just pieces and not the linchpin on which hinges the entirety of the puzzle. And so they ignore the mistakes of the other pieces, ignore their words. Focused on their own, they are likely to repeat the mistakes of those that have come before them. Now who wouldn't find that refreshing?" Hopefully you can see how "not sane" that sounds. It's certainly bad enough to entertain one's own blithering insanity, but to then invite in the rest of the cacophony for a we've-all-flown-over-the-cuckoo's-nest cocktail? Thank you for your concern. Nice to have it reciprocated once in awhile. You're a nice chap Danny..you always were. Don't go tilting at the windmill of this old geezer's insanity just yet, old chum. There are bigger dragons all around that are more deserving of your attentions. Start looking, stop believing. 050727 ... dafremen Should read: More looking. Less knowing. 230822 ... sameolme deconstruction of wisdom 230822 ... ego hum there is none perceive 230822 what's it to you? who go blather from