Roger/reality and projection

[Guest guest]

>R: you say my reality is only a concept.

 

D: No I don't.

 

Is that really true?

 

D: No.

 

If so, how is

>your reality different?

 

D: It's the same and different.

It's one, none, and all.

It's there you, and here me, and the

point in the middle emanating you and me,

and the "other side" of the point.

>I say Harsha & Melody & I are perceptually distinct, from my perspective. I

>am not them. You have some need to deny the reality of others and have them

>accept your version of reality, even if it's false for them?

 

Oneness is not at the expense of distinctness.

 

Roger, how can anyone accept "my version of reality"?

It's always changing.

Whatever doesn't change has nothing to do with "my" or "version".

How would anyone even be able to think they "know"

my version of reality?

What good would it do anyone to try to place

one "version" on top of another "version"?

>Your line of thinking seems to deny the existance of ordinary waking

>consciousness. Apparently you'd prefer that most of the world see you as

>delusional? Your delight is a display of irrationality! Ah, that's it!

 

My delight is in infinity, Roger.

 

Awareness is awareness - it's not divided.

As I open, concerns about being seen a certain way

dissolve.

Your definitions of rationality and irrationality

appear rigid to me, but perhaps they work for you.

>> D: The only way to know what is unreal is to be Real. If you are somehow

>> "outside" of Reality, and hoping to gain Reality by rejecting

>> what is unreal, you are talking about a contradictory process.

>> Because how would one be able to know what is unreal unless

>> "standing" in and as the Real?

>

>I say the way to truth, for me, is by rejecting the false. You say my

>process is contradictory. How extraordinary! How is it that you know what

>is better for me, better than I could possibly know for myself? You have

>more information about my inner insight than I do?

 

D: I simply asked how would one know what is

unreal unless "standing" in and as the Real? That's all - not

any claim to know what's best for you.

What is contradictory, as I see it, is to claim to be

outside of the Real, waiting to see it, and then think

that one can know what needs to be rejected as false.

How can one know the false unless one knows/is the real?

This is simply truth as I know it.

>How is it best that I surrender my inner guiding insight to any willful

>know-it-all?

 

D: It's not.

>From here, Dan, it appears that your way has nothing to do with inquiry.

>Isn't your game a non-dual intellectual one-upsmanship, a cunning

>manipulative exercise in irrationality?

 

D: It could be seen that way, if that's the kind of personalized,

emotionally-reactive, and negative labelling projected onto it.

 

Peace,

Dan