a reality as a process of spirit
Reality is an in-your-face sort of narrative. It doesn’t impose itself as something else, it also doesn’t give you anything, or take something away. We say in reality but the implication is very much just reality. It might feel like mental gymnastics, a struggle of gains and losses, but there is no other, reality.
Given the above explanation, you can call reality, quite literally and always inclusively, anything at all. Throughout these writings I’ve fallen on the sword of duality as a simple logical explanation of the continuous goings on as a reality of experiences. Yet, it’s not even that much of a something. Neti-Neti not this, not that, comes as a process of deeply dissecting things. That is a popular mechanism of science as well, to look at stuff and break them down, name them and categorize them to individual other parts that make them up. And yet that process has continually lead to more categorizing and breaking down of more things until we reach and logical impossibility, reality is neti-neti, no this, not that.
If we fast forward from (around 1500 BCE) Sanskrit, this breakdown feels more like we have gotten somewhere, we’ve labeled and made connections to other, seemingly more inclusive labels and structures. But, reality remains this impossible, irrational puzzle of eternal unfolding, we are just left with a bunch of new names and definitions and call that the learning process.
how can this be?
I’ve gone through and described, from many different narratives, the how’s. Yet, it’s this process and all process that are the how’s, including the descriptions of them and the perspective of the describer through the interpretation of the observer, adichotmy. This is the crux of reality, the apex of realization and like most offers of enlightenment, wisdom, quick gains of one-upmanship, reality remains eternally unchanged. Not this and also that, is where confusion becomes clarity, where the doer and the doing not only become one, but are simply always experienced as one without the burden of attempting it to be something else.
of spirit
I won’t be giving anyone justification with this, I don’t want to use these words to describe an answer to the illusion of being as some unearthly manifestation of a spiritual existence, there simply isn’t any sort of need that it be somewhere else as something else. It might be disappointing and I’m sorry about that, but the ability to proselytize and induce the imagined is what makes creativity so boundless. If you cannot imagine the real as the unreal, it could never be a product. It’s, in other words, a feature, not a bug.
I will leave these as a caveat though.
- I’m not an authority of reality, just as always adichotomy of experience as is all others
- If you believe an experience (of ghostly nature, etc.) doesn’t preclude its nature as a thing, it just sits as belief, independent and alone, outside of shared experience, if there truly could be such a thing.
- Proof of such nature actually does require contextual relationships to other experiences, like breathing, seeing, feeling, etc. Yet it doesn’t insert it as a factual representation simply by proxy of it’s lack of persistence.
I understand that the above may be a bit confusing, but if it’s not of shared experience (that which can be included by persistent account) it’s going to be discredited. Not because it doesn’t exist, you don’t need confirmation of a belief, just that it doesn’t fit in the structure of a shared experience. This is critical thinking 101 and the desire of it to be something else is the brutality of being (aka suffering, sorrow, disappointment, anger, loss, etc.).
Just be assured, you can imagine and in turn relive experience through imagination and sometimes, that’s beautifully enough. But, the attempt to proselytize will ultimately lead to conflict and in turn suffering.
