Everyone Creates Their Reality In Full vs shared "stage" backdrop to a play where actors create their interactions
Elan has mentioned many times that from our 3D perspective (in popular lingo) it's hard to get our heads around the idea that everyone creates their own entire reality.
I was walking through a department store the other day surrounded by a million suitcases and thought it odd that I'd actually be creating all of them (or every leaf on a tree or building in a vast city). Furthermore on important issues I've eg never met anyone who doesn't experience London as having a huge river running west to east through it or didn't find the Pacific where it is.
Elan has mentioned mass agreements in the case of eg gravity which if one really stops buying into them one can get around.
However in practice surely even Essassani must need to focus on key items and not "everything"? Would Elan if he walked with me eg examine the underlying belief that led to every individual suitcase in a store, leaf on a tree etc?? Seems reductio ad absurdum in extremis.
Speaking just for me it's only 0.000000000001% of my environment that really matters (& most of that how i relate to it rather than it's design). Indeed in the Buddhas case phenomena are just phenomena and it's how one relates to phenomena rather than what they represent that matters.
Any thoughts, any recollections of sharings in this context?
Great post and fascinating query! This is for sure a fascinating paradox of our physical experience … the idea that we are a singular creator of our reality while simultaneously standing within a world of shared objects, geographic landmarks and mass agreements. While we are indeed the architect of our entire reality, we are a exceptionally efficient ones. We don’t need to consciously manufacture every suitcase or leaf through laborious mental effort; instead, we utilize "mass agreements" as a sort of automated background rendering. These agreements … like the location of rivers or the laws of physics … are the shared stage that we’ve agreed to stand upon so that we may focus our creative power on the specific "1%" that actually triggers our excitement.
Let’s use your example of the suitcases. The suitcases in a store exist as a generic "probability" until our excitement or intent brings one into sharp focus. Until that moment, they are simply part of the consensus wallpaper that allows the physical game to feel consistent. We are not meant to examine the belief behind every trivial detail, for that would indeed be an exhausting use of our focus. Our power lies in our interpretation of the symbols that do "step into the light" of our awareness.
In our 3D life, we understand that details are the spontaneous, automatic result of a clear intention. We focus on the "what" and the "why" of our excitement, and we allow the "how" … the underlying scaffolding … to handle itself. In our very essence, we are the masters of a very sophisticated, automated projection system that only requires our conscious attention on the parts that truly matter to our journey.
Pretty cool stuff. ✨💖