/lit/ - Literature

Alright, this is the last post I'll leave here on this subject, and only leave here now because this thread's subject is tangentially-related.

I'm that pretentious loser mysticanon who has in other threads mentioned a book I'm trying to write that teaches certain spiritual realities to readers of any background. I want to give you guys a concrete example of one of the realities I came to learn of, and want to teach people of now, and get your feedback on how to teach it. I consider it very profound, yet very simple. Essentially, I learnt that the usual state of subject-object distinction that we live under is an illusion, and that in reality we are entirely one with all phenomena around us. Visual, aural, textural, and everything else - we are all of these, but in our ordinary state we live identified with ourselves as an identity and a body, and thereby see everything beyond these - other objects, the sounds we hear, etc, as being "other". When you lessen your identification with your body and personhood (which I will teach of), this distinction dissolves, and you now LITERALLY see things around you as yourself - staring at an object in front of you, while identifying it as you. Observe picture attached. When you look at that flower in real life, you'd normally view it as separate to you. In reality, the way the camera shows it there is what it would really be. But only when you've left your usual identifications behind you, would you be able to personally see it in front of you like you do in that photograph.

I want to teach this simple principle, which we could call "phenomena monism", to as many people I can. Not only would it reveal to them the true non-dual nature of themselves and the reality they live in, but it would help make them more moral too, since people would be far less likely to harm other people when they literally see the other as "them". I personally live within this non-dual state now, it's really surreal and also very comfy.

My question that I was recently asking people here is whether there's something wrong in trying to explain these concepts to a lay audience, meaning, anyone of any intellectual/spiritual background. My desire was to reach as wide an audience as possible. I'm not an elitist, or even an intellectual. Much philosophy I've read goes over my head. But these realities I'm trying to teach of are in my grasp, and I want them to be in the grasp of others. I never always understood these things, and believe anyone could grasp and experience them.

However, people here have told me that writing for accessibility may damage the quality of concepts I'm touching upon, and therefore do more harm to me than good. But I am unsure if they are correct, and am now at an impasse as to what I should do. Taking the above as a concrete example of one concept I'd like to explain (and I have several more), can you tell me your views on how it could be conveyed? Despite its depth, could it not be communicated to anyone?

>>12586981
Perhaps I've mis-stated it then, but it isn't idealism. Meaning, it isn't simply saying "mind is everything", instead that everything within your awareness is inseparably and equally you, but until you've reached a state of awareness high enough, you will not see this. My explanations are definitely poor. What I'm trying to get at is that you are merely a field of awareness, and everything in that field is equally you. The objects you presently view and see as "other", if you enter the state I'm describing, will be viewed in front of you and seen as "you", because your awareness has now expanded enough that it has come to encompass it. The way that a photograph perceives everything in front of it as itself, without distinction. Like the picture attached, but imagining it with any object, such as a stranger's face, for example. Everything you see is literally you.

I hope that clarifies it. I'm not so sure it's "original", I'm certain it's been written of before, but I don't imagine most people actually understand it, or if they do, aren't really displaying such an understanding in their speech or writing. Philosophers always speaking about surrounding "objects", for example, not realizing themselves to be those very objects, without separation.

Thank you for the kind wishes though, I really appreciate that.