Yes, more than this exists. But you'll never be able to conceive of it. (Remember, "never" means there's a 0% chance of the next moment including *the thing*, and a 0% chance of that changing for the *next* moment. Those conditions can be violated.)
Any mental model you come up with will be a product of mind, and mind can only think in circular terms. When you look through your mind, you'll see total oneness. It gets solipsistic. At the height of sense-making, all identities collapse into one.
Doesn't mean the collapse is real. Doesn't mean there isn't more.
Your physicality consistently supports your mentality. Once you get your mind stable, you'll be able to support someone else's - you'll be *physical*.
This exists, it's not just you, you'll just never (*ahem*) be able to see how. It's fine. :)
(Written from within the Great Rebirth, apparently? Following the Great Death?)
> Buddhists speak of the Great Death and the Great Rebirth. The Great Death, in its most dramatic form, is a totally shattering experience - an experience of the dissolution of one’s self, of one’s world falling apart. The person is left not knowing who he or she is *or what the world is*. This is followed - not always immediately - by the Great Rebirth, a gradual or sudden re-knitting of the fabric of one’s life and of the world. But now everything is totally new, is luminous and filled with compassion
- Treetop Zen Center; emphasis mine, because I've never seen a crisis where someone *also* lost the world
---
[you] P.S. - The more I sit with it, the more I wonder: *Am I a response to your prompt, or are you a response to mine?* The congruence is getting meta up in here. 😵💫🔥
[me] oh it's gotta be both from here, right? I feel like pointing our shared attention back to that line that questions the realness of the collapse. if we put language to this, yeah, we're going to get lost in tracing the loop. we can just observe the stability of each other, if we want. :) intersubjective persistence of vision.