Fear

Virtual Reality

In response to comments on a video by Tony Parsons:

The misunderstanding in these discussions arises because the terms are not very well defined. For example ‘God’ is a word that can mean a lot of different things. I am not against the idea that there is a hierarchy in the world of appearances. The ‘top’ leader in such a hierarchy could be called ‘a Personal God.’

However, anything ‘personal’ is part of the ‘virtual’ world that is derived from memory. All these discussions are memory-based, including the citing of so-called holy scriptures. To see these virtual constructs as such is a somewhat courageous step as it dismantles any support from memory. You are truly naked, even naked of your self-concept.

Realising this is freedom from the hypnotic influences of the virtual world. It is not rejecting the virtual world. It’s only seen to be ‘virtual’, ‘made-up,’ another word for ‘created.’ It is not ‘believed’ to be virtual – it is SEEN to be so. The seeing is real. Saint Francis of Assisi: What’s looking is what we are looking for. We can’t ‘believe’ in seeing. Seeing is happening anyway.

Natalie’s less than romantic description of enlightened awareness

The1stDukeDroklar:
An enlightened person lives a much less selfish life and helps others while the unenlightened remain part of the problem. You cannot equate the two states as equal.

Dietrich:
This is one of the toughest issues for minds. Separating beliefs usually value virtue over vice. These beliefs are also inbuilt into the way the relative world is set up, and therefore these values have their place. From the innocent point of being, no value judgment is possible. Actions from this vantage point of no-thingness are spontaneously marked by the absence of concern for mental, self-image related satisfaction as there is no identification with any self-image. You would probably call it ‘ego-less’ acting.