appearance is unreal

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/18/2006 9:24:39 PM Pacific Standard Time,

illusyn writes:

 

> Because some things appear to be solid, actual, such as thoughts,

> fears, images, etc. a sense of " reality " is imputed to those.

> That is only a false thread of assumption. When Reality is masked

> by false interpretations of experience then the very notion of

> reality is unreal, and any " sense of realtiy " is false

>

> Bill

>

>

L.E: Dear Bill, I can see you are trying hard to understand how it is as it

is, but it's really hard to see through your tangle is words and ideas. Such

as, " When Reality is masked by false interpretations of experience then the

very notion of

reality is unreal, and any " sense of realtiy " is false. "

This statement just strikes me as word jumble. How can reality be masked?

How can reality which is everything at once use its own substance to hide

itself? I know there is the ancient idea of self-play, lila, but to me, that

is

another myth. That reality hides from itself so it can surprise itself by

discovering what it hid. What a stupid game that would be. Who is making the

false interpretations? Us, humans, all of us with the exception of an

enlightened few? Is there anything in the totality of existence that can do

this except

perhaps humans? Do you mean us, we humans do that? But nothing else does.

Do rabbits mask reality, do birds, do insects?

The appearance of things is what reality is doing. There is no mistake, no

error, no tainting, no falsity, no dream. Everything is what Life Itself is

doing. It doesn't make mistakes. You cannot run or hide from the ordinary, you

can only live it.

 

 

Larry Epston

www.epston.com

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

>> Someone wrote: Why is it not possible to have a changeless

background that perceives change? The background identifies with

it's own partial reflection.

~~~~~~~~~

 

It is possible for there to be an *interpretation* of experience

that corresponds to the above. Nondualism is not an

interpretation of experience, however.

 

Identification *appears* to be the case. The appearance is

unreal.

 

Appearance is always unreal. Appearance is in time, which itself

is appearance as well. All of it is interpretation. When there is

*no* interpretation then What Is is revealed. There is no agency

of interpretation (no " one " ).

 

Some will say, " But then 'appearance' is the case, or

'interpretation' is the case. " No, they only appear to be. There

is no foundation for any of that. Within interpretation there is

always a thread of assumption, and that thread of assumption is

the false foundation upon which all the castles in the air are

building. You could say it is thought gone amok.

 

But then isn't " thought " the case? No, thought only appears to be

the case.

 

But then how can there be a " problem " if there is only

appearance, which is unreal? There is no " problem " . There may be

the appearance of such.

 

Because some things appear to be solid, actual, such as thoughts,

fears, images, etc. a sense of " reality " is imputed to those.

That is only a false thread of assumption. When Reality is masked

by false interpretations of experience then the very notion of

reality is unreal, and any " sense of realtiy " is false

 

Bill

[Guest guest]

Larry,

 

Kishnamurti said about reality: " There are as many realities as there

are human beings but there is only one truth " .

 

And I think his statemnet is helpful because it reveals " reality " as

a very personal and subjective affair.

 

When people discuss what is real and unreal they never will meet, as

one can observe so oftn.

 

What we call appearances are sensations which beforehand got

processed in the brain and then made conscious. During that

processing these sensation underwent a subjectivation because the way

the brain is processing them totally depends on personal

idiosyncracies. I am colour blind and so a meadow appears not green

but grey - thats my reality of a meadow.

 

I think you will agree that it makes no sense to call an appearance

real or unreal but it makes sense to call it personal or subjective.

 

Werner

 

 

Nisargadatta , epston wrote:

>

> In a message dated 2/18/2006 9:24:39 PM Pacific Standard Time,

> illusyn writes:

>

> > Because some things appear to be solid, actual, such as thoughts,

> > fears, images, etc. a sense of " reality " is imputed to those.

> > That is only a false thread of assumption. When Reality is masked

> > by false interpretations of experience then the very notion of

> > reality is unreal, and any " sense of realtiy " is false

> >

> > Bill

> >

> >

> L.E: Dear Bill, I can see you are trying hard to understand how it

is as it

> is, but it's really hard to see through your tangle is words and

ideas. Such

> as, " When Reality is masked by false interpretations of experience

then the

> very notion of

> reality is unreal, and any " sense of realtiy " is false. "

> This statement just strikes me as word jumble. How can reality be

masked?

> How can reality which is everything at once use its own substance

to hide

> itself? I know there is the ancient idea of self-play, lila, but

to me, that is

> another myth. That reality hides from itself so it can surprise

itself by

> discovering what it hid. What a stupid game that would be. Who is

making the

> false interpretations? Us, humans, all of us with the exception of

an

> enlightened few? Is there anything in the totality of existence

that can do this except

> perhaps humans? Do you mean us, we humans do that? But nothing

else does.

> Do rabbits mask reality, do birds, do insects?

> The appearance of things is what reality is doing. There is no

mistake, no

> error, no tainting, no falsity, no dream. Everything is what Life

Itself is

> doing. It doesn't make mistakes. You cannot run or hide from the

ordinary, you

> can only live it.

>

>

> Larry Epston

> www.epston.com

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/19/2006 2:53:21 AM Pacific Standard Time,

Nisargadatta writes:

 

" billrishel " <illusyn

appearance is unreal

 

>> Someone wrote: Why is it not possible to have a changeless

background that perceives change? The background identifies with

it's own partial reflection.

~~~~~~~~~

 

It is possible for there to be an *interpretation* of experience

that corresponds to the above. Nondualism is not an

interpretation of experience, however.

 

Identification *appears* to be the case. The appearance is

unreal.

 

Appearance is always unreal. Appearance is in time, which itself

is appearance as well. All of it is interpretation. When there is

*no* interpretation then What Is is revealed. There is no agency

of interpretation (no " one " ).

 

Some will say, " But then 'appearance' is the case, or

'interpretation' is the case. " No, they only appear to be. There

is no foundation for any of that. Within interpretation there is

always a thread of assumption, and that thread of assumption is

the false foundation upon which all the castles in the air are

building. You could say it is thought gone amok.

 

But then isn't " thought " the case? No, thought only appears to be

the case.

 

But then how can there be a " problem " if there is only

appearance, which is unreal? There is no " problem " . There may be

the appearance of such.

 

Because some things appear to be solid, actual, such as thoughts,

fears, images, etc. a sense of " reality " is imputed to those.

That is only a false thread of assumption. When Reality is masked

by false interpretations of experience then the very notion of

reality is unreal, and any " sense of realtiy " is false

 

Bill

 

 

 

 

The nature of illusion is that it " only appears to be the case " . Beyond

that, I'm not sure what is being said here. If I missed a point, please

clarify.

 

Phil

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

> > Because some things appear to be solid, actual, such as thoughts,

> > fears, images, etc. a sense of " reality " is imputed to those.

> > That is only a false thread of assumption. When Reality is masked

> > by false interpretations of experience then the very notion of

> > reality is unreal, and any " sense of realtiy " is false

> >

> > Bill

> >

> >

L.E: Dear Bill, I can see you are trying hard to

understand how it is as it is, but it's really hard to

see through your tangle is words and ideas. Such as,

" When Reality is masked by false interpretations of

experience then the very notion of reality is unreal,

and any " sense of realtiy " is false. " This statement

just strikes me as word jumble.

>>>

 

It is probably too compressed a statement.

I will expand it for you:

 

Reality is and always has been.

" Interpretations of experience " are due to

mind and like a cataract " mask " the clear

and pure Reality that is always there.

 

From the standpoint of the mind's " interpretations " ,

there will be notions of " reality " , but such notions

of " reality " are inherently false. Hence the odd

sounding condition where what the mind supposes as

being " real " being in fact " unreal " .

 

The key notion in the passage you cite above is

the notion of *interpretations of experience*.

Seeing clearly in the Now (I am saying) is *not*

filtered by " interpretations of experience " .

That notion may still remain unclear. Put very

simply it means that when experience is as filtered

by the mind there is not a seeing clearing in the

Now. Perhaps I will find a clearer way of putting

all of this another time.

 

<<

How can reality be

masked? How can reality which is everything at once use

its own substance to hide itself? I know there is the

ancient idea of self-play, lila, but to me, that is

another myth. That reality hides from itself so it can

surprise itself by discovering what it hid. What a

stupid game that would be. Who is making the false

interpretations?

>>

Another message I posted tonight with the subject

" Empty shadows dancing in the silence of Peace "

addresses your point here. If you take a look at

that in relation to your question here perhaps

you will find your question answered. Your question

is a very good one, in my view. In the " shadows dancing "

post I use the term Peace in a way corresponding to

the use of the term Reality here. In that post I

make the perhaps startling assertion that " realization "

is not about a human realizing Reality, but about

Reality/Peace realizing itself. Let me know if that

post does not address what you are asking here.

 

 

<<

Us, humans, all of us with the

exception of an enlightened few? Is there anything in

the totality of existence that can do this except

perhaps humans? Do you mean us, we humans do that? But

nothing else does. Do rabbits mask reality, do birds, do

insects? The appearance of things is what reality is

doing. There is no mistake, no error, no tainting, no

falsity, no dream. Everything is what Life Itself is

doing. It doesn't make mistakes. You cannot run or

hide from the ordinary, you can only live it.

>>

Again, please look at the " dancing shadows " post.

Note that I am *not* saying Reality/Peace is hidden.

It is always in " plain view " . And it includes all the

" ordinary " etc. you mention. And note that rabbits,

insects etc. presumably wouldn't have the " masking "

issue at all. But that is another matter, which I

would be willing to discuss if you still want to.

But first I'd like to see what you have to say after

considering the above.

 

Bill

 

PS: I access this list via the web directly ()

and I saw your message only as included in Werner's response.

I'm puzzled why I don't see your response while Werner

evidently did.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/19/2006 2:53:21 AM Pacific Standard Time,

Nisargadatta writes:

 

epston

Re: appearance is unreal

 

In a message dated 2/18/2006 9:24:39 PM Pacific Standard Time,

illusyn writes:

 

> Because some things appear to be solid, actual, such as thoughts,

> fears, images, etc. a sense of " reality " is imputed to those.

> That is only a false thread of assumption. When Reality is masked

> by false interpretations of experience then the very notion of

> reality is unreal, and any " sense of realtiy " is false

>

> Bill

>

>

L.E: Dear Bill, I can see you are trying hard to understand how it is as it

is, but it's really hard to see through your tangle is words and ideas.

Such

as, " When Reality is masked by false interpretations of experience then the

very notion of

reality is unreal, and any " sense of realtiy " is false. "

This statement just strikes me as word jumble. How can reality be masked?

How can reality which is everything at once use its own substance to hide

itself? I know there is the ancient idea of self-play, lila, but to me,

that is

another myth. That reality hides from itself so it can surprise itself by

discovering what it hid. What a stupid game that would be. Who is making

the

false interpretations? Us, humans, all of us with the exception of an

enlightened few? Is there anything in the totality of existence that can do

this except

perhaps humans? Do you mean us, we humans do that? But nothing else does.

Do rabbits mask reality, do birds, do insects?

The appearance of things is what reality is doing. There is no mistake, no

error, no tainting, no falsity, no dream. Everything is what Life Itself is

doing. It doesn't make mistakes. You cannot run or hide from the ordinary,

you

can only live it.

 

 

Larry Epston

 

 

 

 

I basically agree with all that, Larry. I see consciousness as the

experiential aspect of God, and so that's what it's 'doing'. Nothing has gone

horribly

wrong.

 

The concept that consciousness 'forgets' what it is so that it can it can

remember is about as close to the truth as most folks care to get. The problem

here is that, apart from the human experience, consciousness does not think,

and so it's doesn't sit around pondering what it identifies itself as until it

already identifies itself as human, and so there's nothing to 'forget'.

 

From our human perspective, we might imagine that a conscious, or

unconscious shift in identity must have occurred in order for consciousness to

identify

as a human, but remove the idea that consciousness thinks, and the question

itself dissolves.

 

Phil