--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "endlessrainintoapapercup" > <endlessrainintoapapercup@> wrote: > > > > Technically, I didn't say "all is one". > > I said that there is one reality. How > > can you argue against the existence > > of reality? > > Easy. Who is the *perceiver* of reality?
The perception of reality is all part of the experience of reality itself. > > If you're claiming that transcendence is > "the reality," who is the *perceiver* while > you are transcending? If there is one, you > aren't transcending. I'm not saying that transcendence, whatever it means to anyone, is "the reality". But I'm suggesting that reality necessarily includes the experience of transcending because nothing can be outside of reality which must be all-inclusive. Didn't you, yourself, already say that all things and states of consciousness co-exist? They are co-existing within that larger framework that I am calling reality. > > > As I am using the word, > > it includes everything in the > > phenomenological world and everything > > outside of it, all that exists, everything > > that doesn't. > > And again, who is the *perceiver* of this > so-called "reality?" This is a very good and deep question. This question, in its many forms, lies at the heart of the quest for enlightenment, the quest to understand the true nature of reality. >Are you claiming that > "you" can perceive all of the things you > listed above? Is this a trick question? >
