By calling a mountain "a mountain", I create it's birth and death. I take what is eternal, and give it a lifespan. A distinction strikes like a sword through the infinite, splitting it into "is" and "is not", exploding oneness into duality, fragmenting something complete.

For something to "exist" at all, it needs to be defined by a flexible distinction. Something that is constantly in flux, such as the earth's crust, is unable to retain the credibility of any absolute distinction thrust upon it, for before it can adopt any definition, it has changed and the distinction no longer applies. When a distinction with some degree of flexibility, such as "mountain", is applied to something in flux, there inevitably appears a circumstance when the distinction is yet to apply, a circumstance when the distinction is supposed to apply, and a circumstance when the distinction no longer applies.

There being no absolute point at which the mountain comes into being, the observer, or the creator of the distinction, is required for the mountain to exist - to determine it's existence by determining the flexibility of the distinction. To see a mountain and believe that the mountain exists at all outside the mind's distinctions, is to forget the role of the observer in the mountain's being or not existing, but rather being in a state before the limits of the definition were imposed, they
being what determines it as existing or not. Existing and not existing are concepts that only arise once a distinction has broken completeness into duality.

To believe the mountain is real, a thing, separate from the universe and everything in it, is to be deluded by distinction. In truth, when we see a mountain, we see the infinite - we see everything.

So is our true nature infinite. The consciousness is the mountain, only existing due to it's having been defined, having been seen as a thing. Seeing the mountain is to imagine a boundary within the infinite, separating what is the mountain and what is not the mountain, binding the mountain with, and making it's existence subject to, it's observer. The same is true of our 'self' and 'not the self', imagining a boundary separating 'mountain' and 'not mountain' is imagined, so to believe the self exists is to forget that the object (that which exists according to the boundary) and observer (that which determines the boundary) are one.

Well, I try to explain to them, you see watching cutscenes is also a form of doing, though an extremely docile, extremely tame form, to be sure. But it's still technically a doing, since watching -- the act, that is to say, of observation -- still consumes energy. It is simply not possible for a human being to not be continuously "doing" something -- even sleeping is a form of doing, and in fact an extremely productive one (in terms of healing of the organism, both physiologically through muscle reparation, etc., and mentally through dreams). To put it in scientific terms, a human being can be seen as an open, dissipative thermodynamic system (by this point I've lost more than 90% of the audience, which is why I am considering moving up to the beginning this part of my little lecture routine), meaning that it is simply incapable of being inactive. The word "inaction" is in fact strictly speaking meaningless, being merely a shorthand way of saying "acting less vigorously than usual", or "acting to such a small degree that it seems from a distance as if one is not acting at all", etc. etc. It is the same kind of thing with many other fundamentally nonsensical concepts -- with, that is to say, non-concepts -- such as for example "peace", "truth", "justice", "equality", "altruism", etc. etc. -- words which are never to be taken literally since they do not correspond to anything in the real world, but which we still use as an abbreviated form of expression, in order to put in a few words longer and more complicated phrases which do, in fact, make sense.

Have you heard of something called the "Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle"? Look it up. So yeah, the cutscene IS being affected by your watching it -- even though the effect may be extremely minor and practically undetectable without expensive laboratory equipment -- but also, and just as importantly, you are also affected by the cutscene (just like with videogames then!)

When you look at anything close to you--this book, for example--the muscles around your eyes pull into a spherical shape to get the words and pictures in focus.
      But because the lens of your eye isn't perfectly round, some parts of what you're looking at will be in focus and others will look blurry.
      Normally, these differences in the clarity of your vision are on the edge of the object you're looking at, so you can still read the words and recognize the pictures. But in an illusion such as this one, where all the lines come from different angles and meet at the center, it is impossible for you to focus clearly on all of it at once.
     Now, your eyes are always making tiny movements that you cannot prevent, no matter how hard you try. So the clear parts of the design and the blurry parts are constantly changing. This is called "optical distortion" and it's what makes the picture seem to move, shimmering, swirl or pulse!

Waking up I am thinking that I have left out something crucial: the viewer. A cutscene would then have to be a frame displayed on a screen as perceived by the viewer.

After watching 60 Minutes about people with face blindness (prosopagnosia) it reiterated the fact that what we perceive can vary wildly (this disease affects an estimated 1 out of 50 people) person by person.