THE RELIGIONS – THEIR FUNDAMENTAL MISTAKE

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

seeds
Posts: 893
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: THE RELIGIONS – THEIR FUNDAMENTAL MISTAKE

Post by seeds » Tue Sep 13, 2016 3:24 am

sthitapragya wrote: ...why would you assume that an atheist would not do the same thing to the girl that you did? Why would you assume that an atheist would go to her and tell her that her life is meaningless? Why would you assume anyone would be that callous or stupid?
Atheism, by reason of the fact that it rejects the notion that the human consciousness (self/mind/soul) could continue on after the death of the body, automatically renders not only hers, but all of our lives “meaningless” (not in the temporal, but in the eternal sense).

I mean, if we are all going to literally “blink out of existence” forever after just a few short moments on this orb, then no matter what you personally interpret as holding meaning for us in this earthly context, it is reduced to absolutely nothing in the eternal context.

Now you may be perfectly fine with that, and indeed, it may actually be true. But make no mistake about the fact that you and Dam and Lacewing are promoting a nihilistic vision of reality (at least in terms of our status in eternity).
sthitapragya wrote: Why would you assume that we don't understand that this is life happening?
I'm sorry, sthitapragya, but you don't seem to be apprehending the intent of my reasoning, so it is difficult for me to figure out how to respond to your questions.

For one thing, in the quote above, you seem to have misread my words in a way that made you wrongfully think that I was endorsing the idea that what the child was going through was not happening to her, but was merely “life happening” (which is the utterly inane concept offered-up by Dam).

In which case, you need to be more mindful of what is actually being expressed.

Furthermore, what is being debated here is Dam's assertion that the “individual” human consciousness ends at the moment of death in an absorption back into the oneness from which it emerged, and how that contrasts with my assertion that the individual human consciousness continues on after death in a new and transcendent form and context.

Now obviously, the mere “knowledge” that the child sits on the threshold of an impending transcendent state of existence, does absolutely nothing to help her out of her dilemma.

However, it at least suggests that her life will not simply end forever in one final and horrible climax to what was no doubt a miserable three or four years of hunger and poverty (as is implied in the photograph).

(Btw, no one seems to know her actual fate after the photo was taken. But an interesting tangent to her story is that, according to Wiki, the person who took the photograph (Kevin Carter) committed suicide three months after winning the Pulitzer Prize for that particular shot.)

You need to keep in mind that we are just sharing and discussing metaphysical/philosophical “ideas” on this forum, not some clear-cut and irrefutable solutions to our problems here on earth.
_______

seeds
Posts: 893
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: THE RELIGIONS – THEIR FUNDAMENTAL MISTAKE

Post by seeds » Tue Sep 13, 2016 3:26 am

Dontaskme wrote: You know nothing about the you that you imagine you are, and neither do I...
Dontaskme wrote: ...you are talking absolute nonsense...which is generally what all humans do anyway... including me.
Out of your last five posts, those two quotes are your most logical assertions and pretty much establish how serious we should take your following statement...
Dontaskme wrote: Advaita is a timeless ageless universal truth pointing to the obvious fact that there is no final truth that can be known. Not knowing is the only truth.
...which, by your own admission, is you talking nonsense.

I completely agree with the idea that a “final truth” may not be available to us while we exist in this corporeal dimension of reality.

Indeed, I have even put-forth an argument (from my Panentheistic perspective) as to why the “TRUTH” must be kept hidden from us (see this post here in an alternate forum: http://forums.philosophyforums.com/comm ... ost1291473).

However, to blindly assume (to the point of making it your life’s credo) that a final and “ULTIMATE TRUTH” does not exist literally anywhere within the context of the “ALL-THAT-IS,” takes the talking of nonsense to a whole new level.

From the Buddhist perspective, you have merely stepped onto the temporary “raft” of the Advaita belief system to carry you across the waters of our momentary situation.

So be prepared to abandon it upon reaching the not-so-distant shore of death.

Btw, it’s a shame that those of us of a spiritual leaning must argue amongst ourselves (we do enough of that with the hardcore materialists).

Nevertheless, when I come across stagnant and stifling “old paradigm” ideas and dogmas...

(ideas that have been handed down to us from ancient minds who thought that if you travelled too far in one direction, you would fall off the edge of the earth)

...then I must question the veracity of those ideas as I consider the “source” (which, at the time, was thoroughly immersed in mythological visions of reality).
_______

User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 3930
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: THE RELIGIONS – THEIR FUNDAMENTAL MISTAKE

Post by Lacewing » Tue Sep 13, 2016 4:03 am

seeds wrote:But make no mistake about the fact that you and Dam and Lacewing are promoting a nihilistic vision of reality (at least in terms of our status in eternity).
No, I'm not. You are the one making a mistake to accuse and label me in such a way. You do not understand my perspective... and I'm done trying to explain it to you. You are not speaking of a fact... you are speaking of your perspective... but I guess you can't tell the difference, and that's why you only see and glorify what you see.

seeds
Posts: 893
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: THE RELIGIONS – THEIR FUNDAMENTAL MISTAKE

Post by seeds » Tue Sep 13, 2016 4:50 am

Lacewing wrote:
seeds wrote:But make no mistake about the fact that you and Dam and Lacewing are promoting a nihilistic vision of reality (at least in terms of our status in eternity).
No, I'm not. You are the one making a mistake to accuse and label me in such a way. You do not understand my perspective... and I'm done trying to explain it to you. You are not speaking of a fact... you are speaking of your perspective... but I guess you can't tell the difference, and that's why you only see and glorify what you see.
Lacewing, if I am misrepresenting your position then I sincerely apologize to you. I would never intentionally do such a thing.

I am new to the forum, so it takes me a while to assess the views of other members. So, again, if I am wrong, please forgive me.

Therefore, in the spirit of bringing clarity for me (and knowing that we are all just speculating here), what is your stance on the status of the human consciousness (self/soul/mind, or whatever you want to call it) following the event of physical death?

Do you think we continue on in a state of personal self-awareness and knowledge of the fact that we are still the same unique and conscious entity that once occupied a physical body while on earth?

...OR...

Do we lose our self-awareness (i.e., our personal “I AM-ness”) and basically blink-out of existence?

And if something else entirely, please explain it carefully to me so that I do not misunderstand you.
_______

sthitapragya
Posts: 1105
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2014 2:55 pm

Re: THE RELIGIONS – THEIR FUNDAMENTAL MISTAKE

Post by sthitapragya » Tue Sep 13, 2016 7:46 am

seeds wrote:
sthitapragya wrote: ...why would you assume that an atheist would not do the same thing to the girl that you did? Why would you assume that an atheist would go to her and tell her that her life is meaningless? Why would you assume anyone would be that callous or stupid?
Atheism, by reason of the fact that it rejects the notion that the human consciousness (self/mind/soul) could continue on after the death of the body, automatically renders not only hers, but all of our lives “meaningless” (not in the temporal, but in the eternal sense).

I mean, if we are all going to literally “blink out of existence” forever after just a few short moments on this orb, then no matter what you personally interpret as holding meaning for us in this earthly context, it is reduced to absolutely nothing in the eternal context.

Now you may be perfectly fine with that, and indeed, it may actually be true. But make no mistake about the fact that you and Dam and Lacewing are promoting a nihilistic vision of reality (at least in terms of our status in eternity).
So? what is the problem with that? Suppose we promote a meaningless existence. What difference does it make? You have searched your whole life for a meaning and purpose. Then you finally probably decided on a meaning and purpose which is different from what other people believe is the meaning and purpose of life. We believe there is no meaning and purpose to life. What is the difference between us? We all live happy, fulfilling rich lives, cooperating with each other, helping people in need and generally doing what any person who has a meaning or purpose to life does.
seeds wrote:
Furthermore, what is being debated here is Dam's assertion that the “individual” human consciousness ends at the moment of death in an absorption back into the oneness from which it emerged, and how that contrasts with my assertion that the individual human consciousness continues on after death in a new and transcendent form and context.

Now obviously, the mere “knowledge” that the child sits on the threshold of an impending transcendent state of existence, does absolutely nothing to help her out of her dilemma.

However, it at least suggests that her life will not simply end forever in one final and horrible climax to what was no doubt a miserable three or four years of hunger and poverty (as is implied in the photograph).
Well, either she has a transcendent life after this one or this life ends in the "final and horrible climax". That still does not impart any meaning or substance to this life of hers, does it? Whatever transcendent life she might have, in this life, she had a meaningless, horrifying three or four years and she died a cruel death to end a pointless life of suffering. So why do you want to ignore that? Let us assume that in her next life she will have an amazing time and live a fruitful and rich life. But what of this one? Why was this one so pointless and full of suffering? What was the meaning and purpose of this horrible life she had?
seeds wrote:(Btw, no one seems to know her actual fate after the photo was taken. But an interesting tangent to her story is that, according to Wiki, the person who took the photograph (Kevin Carter) committed suicide three months after winning the Pulitzer Prize for that particular shot.)

You need to keep in mind that we are just sharing and discussing metaphysical/philosophical “ideas” on this forum, not some clear-cut and irrefutable solutions to our problems here on earth.
_______
I understand that we are discussing and sharing concepts here. The problem I have is that you seem to have a problem with us saying that life has no meaning and purpose. I don't understand why you should have a problem with that. You believe life has a meaning and purpose. We believe it does not. So what? I find it ironic that every one believes that there is a meaning and purpose to life and yet, no one seems to know what it is. People keep making educated guesses. But no one knows for sure.

If we are here for a purpose, then obviously we were put here by some conscious agent. I find it amazing that the conscious agent forgot to tell us what that purpose was. Obviously that agent wanted us to come here and get the job done. Now since I am here and don't know what job I am supposed to do, chances are that the job won't be done. So I don't understand the mentality of the agent. If I send even my kids to do something for me, I make sure I tell them what I want them to do. Otherwise, I know that it will never get done. Now this super intelligent conscious agent did not seem to have the sense to do this simple common sense thing. I find that hard to believe.

Dontaskme
Posts: 8093
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: THE RELIGIONS – THEIR FUNDAMENTAL MISTAKE

Post by Dontaskme » Tue Sep 13, 2016 9:21 am

Dontaskme wrote: Advaita is a timeless ageless universal truth pointing to the obvious fact that there is no final truth that can be known. Not knowing is the only truth.
seeds wrote: ...which, by your own admission, is you talking nonsense.
Yes it is nonsense to attempt to speak about reality. Reality is unknowable. However, what can the mind do with this immediate unknowable or this immediate blank nothingness of beingness alive presence undeniably here right now...what can be known about that, except the attempt to make something up about it? ..where do the words, thoughts, beliefs, feelings,ideas, sensations, etc, come from but the same blank nothingness of alive presence here right now appearing now here? ..where or what else is there but THIS? ..THIS is known, but not why or what or who it is...JUST THAT IT IS.

The world is known only via the knowledge available which is a fiction. Belief in fiction is the nonsense of living in a world of make-belief. But since that's all we've got to live on then it probably makes perfect sense to us. It seems some of us know reality as a fiction while others are quite oblivious to the idea that they are subscribing to their own set of arbitrary lies. People believe in their own lies because quite frankly what can the mind do with this blank inane void ..this eternal unmoving unchanging timeless, ageless voiceless now..except fill it in? ...but who's the one filling in the gaps?...no one, it's all just appearing now to no one... known in the experience... the mind of experience is believed to exist since nothingness cannot be...and this is the sheer wonder and beauty of it all, it's not a negative, the fiction is appearing real to us...so we buy it, believe it, and live it. But it's only ever a fiction appearing here now from nowhere...same place.... there is nothing beyond or outside of that arena. THIS IS IT


How do I know it's a fiction? ..I know because I don't know...I don't know who or what I am, only that I am.

That said ..it doesn't mean life is crap or meaningless, it's quite the opposite in fact, it means life is so mysteriously beautiful in that it is appearing here at all. And what's more beautiful is that it is total and utter boundless freedom or for want of a better word LOVE expressing itself. There is something very appealing and beautiful about that kind of freedom to be. Aliveness is here and no one is in charge, look at how all the other creatures are this living aliveness and how effortless they live it. They're not searching for answers or for truth, they're not thinking about better times ahead, they are already living the truth, they are totally in the moment with no sense of individual separate self. The human persona has taken on a false sense of separate identity which is a defect of the human condition but is no ones fault, it's what life has factored in...no one knows how or why life is writing in this story about individual human beings that appear to be able to transcend their separate self..it's all unknowable except as fiction.
seeds wrote:I completely agree with the idea that a “final truth” may not be available to us while we exist in this corporeal dimension of reality.
The truth is always available because it's right here now. It's the unknowingness of this immediate moment that exists always. The now is the only realm of existence that can be known, even such ideas as unknown realms are here right now not somewhere else hidden away, everything is here.

No one has ever been alive before, and yet these people make claims of life after death and talking about better outcomes that are awaiting us. Do you not see how absurd it is to say those things?
seeds wrote:However, to blindly assume (to the point of making it your life’s credo) that a final and “ULTIMATE TRUTH” does not exist literally anywhere within the context of the “ALL-THAT-IS,” takes the talking of nonsense to a whole new level.
All ''thought'' based truths are arbitrary. If you want ''real truth'' it is found in this immediate unknown moment of now...not from the past or future but right here now.
seeds wrote:Nevertheless, when I come across stagnant and stifling “old paradigm” ideas and dogmas...

(ideas that have been handed down to us from ancient minds who thought that if you travelled too far in one direction, you would fall off the edge of the earth)

...then I must question the veracity of those ideas as I consider the “source” (which, at the time, was thoroughly immersed in mythological visions of reality).
Not really an old paradigm since there is only NOW.... there is nothing and no one living in the immediate NOW... the idea that there is a you living as a human being is an idea taken from a memory. So any existence of an entity living at all is a dead idea drawn from past memory. Can't escape this dilemma as it's the only way anything is known at all..all taken from past memory, as ideas, thoughts and emotions all arising here now from no where... so you see, all things known are not now, they are from dead past...arising now... therefore fiction)

All our knowledge is born again now, made alive now .. from other peoples ideas either living or dead. There is no such thing as an original thought. Nothing is known in this immediate now moment, yet it is the well spring of all possibility about to happen .. nothing can be known about what is going to happen from moment to moment, only after it has happened is it known, and that has already past, so we live in the past of memory, it's the only place the assumed entity has it's existence. The only thing original here which is not actually a THING is this unborn timeless ageless present immediate moment now.
seeds wrote:Furthermore, what is being debated here is Dam's assertion that the “individual” human consciousness ends at the moment of death in an absorption back into the oneness from which it emerged, and how that contrasts with my assertion that the individual human consciousness continues on after death in a new and transcendent form and context.
Beginnings and endings, births and deaths belonging to individual human consciousnesses are fictional stories appearing in THIS UNKNOWN REALM OF ALIVENESS PRESENCE/PRESENT.

That which appears to transcend into the being of oneness away from the assumed idea of separateness ..never actually did, except as a fictional story.

thedoc
Posts: 6473
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: THE RELIGIONS – THEIR FUNDAMENTAL MISTAKE

Post by thedoc » Tue Sep 13, 2016 1:47 pm

seeds wrote:
seeds wrote:Artwork” implies the existence of an “artist.
thedoc wrote: This is a human perspective, but there is no reason to expect that the Universe behaves according to human expectations.
And there is no reason to believe that it doesn't either.

For example, it is a completely reasonable “human expectation” to assume that the unthinkable order implicit in our earth/sun system didn't just come into existence by sheer chance.
_______
Nothing comes into existence by sheer chance, nor does anyone, except the very foolish, claim that sheer chance plays any part. There is a reason and an explanation for everything that happens, and science is just working to discover that explanation without resorting to "God did it". One of the fundamental errors of creationists and other fundamentalists is to criticize science by claiming that science is invoking sheer chance, when that is not the case at all.

User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 3930
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: THE RELIGIONS – THEIR FUNDAMENTAL MISTAKE

Post by Lacewing » Tue Sep 13, 2016 1:55 pm

seeds wrote:please explain it carefully to me so that I do not misunderstand you.
Well, you seem to have demonstrated that whatever I say, you will simply categorize it and label it according to the beliefs and limits that you hold. I have thoughtfully written a great deal to you... and you seem to not respond to most questions, and rather just label me. Why should I continue engaging in such an unbalanced interaction? If you cannot acknowledge and engage in the logic and potential and connection and love of what I've already described, there are likely no more words that will make you see it. So we can leave it there, and I'd appreciate it if you would not shallowly label my perspective that you cannot see. :)

Justintruth
Posts: 182
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2016 4:10 pm

Re: THE RELIGIONS – THEIR FUNDAMENTAL MISTAKE

Post by Justintruth » Fri Sep 16, 2016 7:35 am

Dontaskme wrote:
seeds wrote:
However, what does it suggest about the status of one’s consciousness and personal self-awareness after the death of the body?
The root cause of duality is that you sensed your own Beingness (existence). The very experience of your Beingness (existence) is unreal because you cannot experience what you already are, you can only realize (think) you exist.

What you are is unborn awareness therefore cannot die.....what you think you are (personal) is a temporal illusory experience appearing within that which you already are. The personal is a false illusory imprint upon this already existing faceless reality which is known as pure awareness.
The notion of illusion is inappropriate here. Why? The temporal experiencing has real content - it is not just that experiencing is. Experiencing is of what is experienced. That nature of what is experienced happens (contingent being) to be in a way that duality is an essential fact. So there is no illusion. It is the way it is - albeit it is "only" the way it is. That content is also such that consciousness is individuated due to incarnate nature. The world is also both objective and material - to a degree - for it is a matter that can be decided not just yes or no - but to what degree. This is the result of physics and it is not just that there are things and they are made of matter. The descriptions of quantum mechanics and the relativity of time must inform ones notions about the degree to which the world is objective and material but, when that is done, the world turns out to be very objective and very material especially - but not exclusively - when considered at our size and speed. And also there is this causal relation between the conditions in the brain and the presence of consciousness which can be very readily demonstrated with anesthesia. Look as psychosis. Get drunk. Take LSD. Experience what happens to consciousness. There are also the facts of birth and death as well as evolution and the ability to move ones body to increase survival probabilities - the will. Not to mention that there are billions of us. Billions > One. All of these are essential facts.

I am aware that these facts are merely the universe and that the universe itself is just what is so it does not go against the Oneness of which you speak. But are you aware that the nature of the universe is not an illusion. It is really that way. There is no other way that it is that could be put up against this way to say that one is an illusion and the other is the truth. The One-ness is the One-ness of Being, being which is as a universe, a universe that has evidence of having been for a long time, and reason to believe it will continue into the future. That is all the result of looking around not just with our senses but with our senses augmented by very expensive instruments.

But that does not mean that being itself is individuated or that essential nature "has" being in some possessive sense. It just is. Naturalism is a big mistake in my opinion. Its just to miss the relation of what is to the fact that it is.

Now our biology does result in our seeing things that way most of the time. It is not a usual condition with the human population to experience the One-ness of which you speak - or perhaps better said - it is not a usual condition within the human population to recognize they are experiencing One-ness of which you speak - in a sense they all experience it and fail to understand. It is rare but present to experience what is called Satori in Zen and goes by many names. It would be interesting to know what fraction of the human population actually has experienced that way, and even what fraction of their lives, but my guess is less than one percent on both counts. In a deep sense all are always experiencing One-ness but I mean the recognition of it and the ecstatic experiencing.

But there is a tradition within those few that have, of speaking of the normal everyday state as if it were and "illusion". The problem with that is the factual basis for it. It is not an illusion. It is just a possibility of our biology. So we have those who never experience One-ness believing it is all hocus pocus and we have the other set saying that Maya is Illusion.

The truth is neither. An illusion exists when one essential situation is interpreted as another. A bird just disappeared here and re-appeared over there. But that is "illusion". "In reality" there are two birds. So there must be two essential situations with one actually being incorrect - being "merely an illusion" and the other being correct being "in reality". But in the matter we are speaking of there is only one essential situation that is interpreted existentially, or ontologically, if you prefer, in different ways and our biology responds and transforms our conscious awareness into the experiencing that is associated with One-ness. Or you can consider the more mundane examples - a change from a duck to a rabbit - or from a line drawing of a cube with one face forward to an experience of the other face forward. That kind of "switching" is involved. It is not true that its really a duck and the rabbit is an illusion or that one face of the cube is forward and the other back. Nor is it true that either are real more that the other or that the third - that Oneness is the only experiencing.

There are also deeper issues. Dying occurs and the extinction of consciousness - a kind of Nothing with a capital N - not the normal nothing - needs to be spoken about. Our love of life. Love itself. Our desire to be. Also there is Nietzsche's nothing and the possible response of the Uber man that so dangerously infects us - the nothing of nihilism that offers a profound challenge that must be dealt with if the benefits are to be transmitted to the culture and the nukes disarmed. And there is the analytic critique that interprets ontology as "merely" language and something that needs to be graduated from or at least that one needs not to take too seriously. All of these need to be dealt with but starting with the notion that real sense content, the results of science, are an illusion is just a very poor way to do it.

Philosophy must be an intellectual discussion. One needs to be clear in this matter.

Dontaskme
Posts: 8093
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: THE RELIGIONS – THEIR FUNDAMENTAL MISTAKE

Post by Dontaskme » Fri Sep 16, 2016 8:38 am

Seeds seems to have fallen silent on this topic, maybe because seeds is over thinking this too intellectually for a subject that is basically very simple.

seeds wrote: Clearly you have not given much thought to what your mind can do.


Picture how “real” the holographic-like structures within your mind appear to be when you are immersed in a vivid dream.

When we dream we inwardly experience three-dimensional phenomena that, relative to our five inward senses, seem almost as real as the phenomena we experience outwardly.

Now just imagine the possibility of awakening to this inward domain of your mind in such a way that your own personal mental holography looks, feels, sounds, smells, and tastes completely real (again, what is “reality” but fields of energy and information that produce the “illusion” of solidity and separation).
There is no individual human consciousness, or mind. ''Individuation'' is an appearance in that which is not a mind...all appearances are like dream images appearing and disappearing in/on nothing. The awareness of such phenomena is the emptiness from which all suchness appears. No one owns awareness, therefore the suchness appearing to awareness is an illusion in the sense the illusion is a mere shadow appearing on the screen of blank inane awareness. However, dreams appear and they are amazing. Let's not discount the dreams, they are a happening. The thing to remember is they are not happening to an individual entity. The 'individual entity' is the character in the dream...characters have no independent existence apart from the dreamer.

seeds wrote:When you use the word “completeness,” or when Dam uses the word “oneness,” I see them both as titles of a book, yet when I open the book, the pages are blank.

They are words used to evoke a sense of something profound being stated when, in fact, absolutely nothing is being stated (just smoke and mirrors).
Actually there is a lot being stated about the nature of reality in all it's divine beauty and glory but you don't seem to be listening. You appear to have zero understanding of the concept ''Oneness'' and what it implies.
You appear to believe in an ''individual human consciousness''...whereas I believe ''human consciousness'' is an appearance in one undivided consciousness.
You consider the ''individual human consciousness'' to be the centre behind the eyes from where all perceiving seems to be located, that place being the awareness which we commonly call our ''self''

In truth however, there is no 'individual special human self'' we are neither the subject nor the object of perception. We are neither the body which perceives, nor the world it sees..rather, we are the awareness that is perceiving both.

I am not the perceived, nor am I the perceiver... I am the continuous act of perceiving. There is no human centre of perception owning the perception of itself..except an idea which can only be the perception itself.You can only ever experience the perception of you...as perceived. You are neither the perciever or the perceived, you are that which is perceiving.

Consider this, does that which appears on the screen of a theatre, belong to the screen?

The human eye is merely a tool of perception. In truth, the human owns nothing. Likewise, the movie screen is merely the blank slate upon which all appearances arise, but the screen itself can own nothing. Experience is no different - it is not a ''thing'' that can be owned- such a thought exists only within imagination.

The human individual consciousness or mind is the nature of mind, a mind that wants to mistakenly attach it's identity onto everything it perceives.

Your true Self is beyond any possible perception of identity, it is the aware emptiness in which all perceptions arise within. But the mind that believes it exists as a separate special self cannot handle the truth of it's illusory existence including Seeds imagined mistaken perception of itself as being a special individual human consciousness with a special future awaiting it ....correct me if you think this is wrong?

Dontaskme
Posts: 8093
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: THE RELIGIONS – THEIR FUNDAMENTAL MISTAKE

Post by Dontaskme » Fri Sep 16, 2016 10:22 am

Justintruth wrote:

The notion of illusion is inappropriate here. Why? The temporal experiencing has real content - it is not just that experiencing is. Experiencing is of what is experienced. That nature of what is experienced happens (contingent being) to be in a way that duality is an essential fact. So there is no illusion. It is the way it is - albeit it is "only" the way it is.
But who is the one who knows all this? ..that one> who is that one? ...who's writing and telling that story?

The 'you' doesn't have an experience, the 'you' is the experience. The 'self is not an experience, it is that in which experiences arise and fall. There is no 'self' having an experience..the 'self' is the experience. An experience is an appearance.

The ''self'' is a by-product of seeing. The presence of seeing appears to divide reality into two parts ..the subject and the object, but seemingly independent parts are an illusion. In reality, there is only the presence of seeing.Without the presence of seeing, neither of the two apparent parts could appear. That seen by no one collapses the duality into oneness.

Justintruth wrote:Philosophy must be an intellectual discussion. One needs to be clear in this matter.
But life is not an intellectual thing. The sense of self (mind) that wants to intellectualise life as happening to it is an illusory story arising in it. Life is nothing without a continuous running narrative about it. That's what life factors in, but it is not what it is essentially. It's just appearances in it. Essentially life is nothing at all. There appears to be an attachment to the story of ''I'' appearing here.. apparently creating more and more
conceptual parts.. continually on and on adding people and myriad of other things all living individual stories of life with real substance, autonomy and continuity.

But this 'You' have mistakenly believed that you have a 'self' only because of the continual succession of memories and experiences that you've chosen to identify yourself with. You believe that 'you' are the owner of these memories, and that all such experiences happened directly to 'you' and that's fine, it's how the world appears in the first place, it's the narrative and the belief in such that appears to be running the whole show. But in all actuality no thing is running the show except the narrative and the belief.

My posts are not about the intellectual narrative, they are about the end of belief in a separate self who apparently suffers in life. I'm talking about the end of suffering. The end of separation and lack, and the re-union with all that is which is love expressing itself in every form conceivable including the axe murder.

Justintruth
Posts: 182
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2016 4:10 pm

Re: THE RELIGIONS – THEIR FUNDAMENTAL MISTAKE

Post by Justintruth » Fri Sep 16, 2016 12:30 pm

Dontaskme wrote:
Justintruth wrote:

The notion of illusion is inappropriate here. Why? The temporal experiencing has real content - it is not just that experiencing is. Experiencing is of what is experienced. That nature of what is experienced happens (contingent being) to be in a way that duality is an essential fact. So there is no illusion. It is the way it is - albeit it is "only" the way it is.
But who is the one who knows all this? ..that one> who is that one? ...who's writing and telling that story?

The 'you' doesn't have an experience, the 'you' is the experience. The 'self is not an experience, it is that in which experiences arise and fall. There is no 'self' having an experience..the 'self' is the experience. An experience is an appearance.

The ''self'' is a by-product of seeing. The presence of seeing appears to divide reality into two parts ..the subject and the object, but seemingly independent parts are an illusion. In reality, there is only the presence of seeing.Without the presence of seeing, neither of the two apparent parts could appear. That seen by no one collapses the duality into oneness.
REPLY: I understand what you mean when you say there is only the presence of seeing. And I have experienced the collapse of the subject object distinction and experienced the ontological state you refer to. "There is only the presence of seeing" is a statement. I think I know what you mean by it.

But that seeing is not arbitrary in what seeing is seeing. It is possible for seeing to be seeing seeing seeing in an ontological state. But it is also possible to turn your attention from that fact and describe what seeing is seeing. When you do you begin to explore nature and are no longer investigating ontology or metaphysics.

Now if you do explore nature you find a duality between what is seen and the seeer. Basically if you put your chin on your chest and look down you will see your body. If you look in a mirror you will see your eyes. You ask "But who is the one who knows all that?" and while I think I know what you mean by the question I want you to stop thinking of that and think instead of what I mean when I say, "Look in the mirror. See yourself there? It is he that is doing the seeing". You are there in an essential - not just existential sense. You have a body, you drive a car you eat. All of that is part of the nature or your experiencing even if all experiencing is experiencing experiencing in an ontological sense.

You can respond what is all of that its just seeing and not be wrong but that would also miss my point which can only be made when you stop thinking about what you are thinking about when you write and instead consider the content of experiencing. Seeing sees content and that content is such that seeing is occurring in a kind of monkey like creature that is you.

And this is real. Come back to the mirror and while you could in some sense that Popper would recognize see a bear staring back you will not in a scientific sense because you are a primate and primates don't turn into bears and that is not an illusion.

You have eyes and ears and there is a fundamental duality that exists between that which is you and that which is not. Now you can see this in the intentionality inherent in the brain independent of consciousness. In other words forget that consciousness even exists for a second and just look at the photons striking something and entering the eye and then to the brain. Complement that with your other sensory data and allow the process to proceed with memory between moments. You will find that there is representation in the brain of what is not in the brain that has entered the brain through sensory pathways. Those pathways terminate in a brain and here the science is not clear yet, but whatever happens there, we believe that what seeing sees is correlated with this sense data. So absent the science we hypothesize that it is and then we know that a kind of representation of what is "out there" beyond the brain exists in the brain. Through further experiences we know that these representations are not always accurate, they can be fooled and all kinds of illusions and hallucination can be demonstrated. So this duality exists independent of consciousness in the sense that it is itself not the seeing but is an aspect of what is seen by seeing.

However, and this is the point, it is a real aspect. Hear that if nothing else. It is not an illusion in the sense that the brain has been spoofed into coming up with the wrong answer out there. It is the correct answer. It is not an illusion.

The description you are given is based on a non sequitor: You assume that because there is no duality (or tri-ality) between the experiencer, the experiencing, and the experienced that there is no duality (or tri-ality) within the experienced. There is. And it is not an illusion. It is necessary to understand that you are not just conscious but that you are conscious of nature. Do you eat? Why? What impact would not eating have? Don't they eat in monasteries? Why?

It is possible to make true or false statements about the experienced even while realizing that the experienced is experiencing. Sartre tried a method that worked somewhat but I don't like it. He use parenthesis and typed not-thetic consciousness of something as consciousness (of) something and thetic consciousness of something in the normal way without the parenthesis.

Look, just take experiencing and tell whether you can distinguish sight from sound. Forget the metaphysics for a moment and concentrate on the physics in the original sense of the Greek physis translated into natura or nature in Latin. Ignore for a moment the fact of experiencing and just become aware of the content of experiencing and the distinctions and most important the symmetries that are in FACT present there. Your house, where you live for example. Do you not return at night to it?

Now why is that not an illusion? Because there is not some other content that is put over against it as being the illusion. If I had the resources to take down and re-arrange your neighborhood in some clever way that you would think that your have entered your house but you actually entered and were in another then there would be an illusion. The reason is that there are two essential experiences - the experience of being in your house actually and the experience of being in your neighbors house but thinking you are in your house. That is an illusion. But when you enter it tonight that won't be happening. There is a difference there. Calling everything an illusion will just blur that distinction and people who do not know by their own experience the Oneness of Being will just think you are a lunatic because clearly there is a distinction between being fooled that you are in your house and not. They will then confuse descriptions of mystical experiencing as nothing by lunacy or worse the intent to be some kind of charlatan - and frankly - and its another thread - there are a lot of them around.

The universe is not an illusion. It is the real content of what we experience AND it is even outside of consciousness! Consider the back side of the moon? Now surely there are times when no sentient creatures think about it. Does it cease to exist? No. It is really there. That, I can say that is based on the real content of experiencing which is as if things hung around when we stopped looking at them. That needn't be the case. It is easy to imagine experiencing where the idea of positing any object existing beyond consciousness of it will just not work. It is a REAL ESSENTIAL PROPERTY of our existing that objective descriptions of a limited type work. It is then just simpler in the sense of Occam to accept this external reality based on the evidence. Ice flowing down a river beyond your view does not come into existence as it passes before you and go out as it leaves your sight. That is just a poor understanding and you can take some spray paint and color a piece then jump in the car and drive down river and wait and as long as it didn't melt you WILL SEE IT! And that is not some illusion. That will really occur. Do you see that there are all these descriptions that I could give like that. And they are not illusory. They are the actual content.

Now true all actual content is of a form of experiencing that admits the metaphysical understanding you speak of but that does not make the non-metaphysical description I am pointing to incorrect. In fact it is correct and you use it to find your socks in the morning.

But now look at the case you are talking about. Take a case were there is no illusion in the sense I described. You are in front of your computer. Experiencing experiencing experiencing - true, but also different that sitting down to dinner. It (dinner) is also experiencing experiencing experiencing but it is not true that there is no difference between sitting down for dinner and sitting in front of your computer. Also these statements I am making are referring to certain stabilities in the content of experiencing. You know what I mean by saying sitting down to dinner is not the same as sitting in front of your computer but without the REALITY of the content of experiencing being similar at different times the word computer would become useless. So too, did you know what I meant by imagining yourself sitting down to dinner and you are in fact reading something now that you know came across on the internet and it isn't an illusion that it did unless you think there is some trick and someone came into your house and typed the words there locally. There is a difference between and illusion and reality within what is experienced. And the reality of what is experienced forms the basis for the validity of the statements we make about it.

Just because you realize that all of that is experiencing experiencing experiencing doesn't make the facts about what was experienced any less real or any less susceptible to being an illusion or not. But you are calling all of the facts illusions! And they are not. For example if I used mirrors or something and faked CNN on your computer and said there was a second moon that had arrived around the earth then took you outside and by using mirrors got you to believe that there was a second moon then that would be an illusion. But the other experience of the fact that there is one moon would be the reality. But in your way of speaking both would be illusions because in reality there is ONLY experiencing experiencing experiencing and that ONLY is true only in one sense. There is another very important sense in which a person fooled into believing that there are two moons is under the illusion that there are two moons and the person thinking that there is one is not and that distinction is brought on not arbitrarily but by the nature of what is experienced. And if those faked CNN reports were true? Then that would be different situation essentially - not existentially but essentially - from the one where it was faked.

By conflating metaphysics of being with an ontic description of nature and science you confuse the whole issue. It is not an illusion that there are houses and dinners and bodies and brains and moons. The are not illusory. They are real features of the NATURE of experiencing and so are even illusions, for you can be doubly tricked! You can think you are under an illusion and find out no, you were right, there really is one moon!

So what I am saying is that by calling the results of science illusory you are falling into a trap. The trap works like this. There are illusory experiences of nature where you think you know something but are wrong or are tricked and there are those not like that where you are not tricked and know the actual situation. Your sentence can be interpreted to mean that you think they are equivalent or that there is no real basis for sorting out a scientific fact from a fiction. It makes it seem that you can't tell the truth from fiction. Especially by someone who has never had the radical transformation of their metaphysics or ontology - not nature now but ontology - required to know what you mean when you say its all One.
Dontaskme wrote:
Justintruth wrote: Philosophy must be an intellectual discussion. One needs to be clear in this matter.
But life is not an intellectual thing. The sense of self (mind) that wants to intellectualise life as happening to it is an illusory story arising in it. Life is nothing without a continuous running narrative about it. That's what life factors in, but it is not what it is essentially. It's just appearances in it. Essentially life is nothing at all. There appears to be an attachment to the story of ''I'' appearing here.. apparently creating more and more
conceptual parts.. continually on and on adding people and myriad of other things all living individual stories of life with real substance, autonomy and continuity.

But this 'You' have mistakenly believed that you have a 'self' only because of the continual succession of memories and experiences that you've chosen to identify yourself with. You believe that 'you' are the owner of these memories, and that all such experiences happened directly to 'you' and that's fine, it's how the world appears in the first place, it's the narrative and the belief in such that appears to be running the whole show. But in all actuality no thing is running the show except the narrative and the belief.

My posts are not about the intellectual narrative, they are about the end of belief in a separate self who apparently suffers in life. I'm talking about the end of suffering. The end of separation and lack, and the re-union with all that is which is love expressing itself in every form conceivable including the axe murder.
You are not talking about the end of suffering. That description has been around for a long time in Buddhism but it has not ended suffering. It can end one and only one kind of suffering. The kind of suffering that comes from not experiencing existing. Even then the reality of suffering will be there. You have to remember the third movement: At first I saw a tree and it was a tree. Then I saw a tree and it was the Tao. And then I saw a tree and it was a tree.

Did you know that the real problem in monasteries is often getting monks to stop spacing out and focus on their work?

There was a Zen monk preaching on the Tao who found his student sitting meditating as the pet dog attacked the pet cat. "What are you doing you idiot!" the master shouted while separating the dog from the cat. Can't you see he was about to rip the cat apart?" "But master, you said in the Tao all are one" "Yes but you are part of the scene"

Now go look in a mirror and instead of considering the Tao take a good look. That is you! You are in the scene! That fact is a real aspect of the seen.

To say something is "just" or "only" consciousness is to impoverish the description to a point where it is nearly - not completely as most people think - but nearly useless.

Dontaskme
Posts: 8093
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: THE RELIGIONS – THEIR FUNDAMENTAL MISTAKE

Post by Dontaskme » Fri Sep 16, 2016 8:23 pm

Justintruth wrote:
You are not talking about the end of suffering. That description has been around for a long time in Buddhism but it has not ended suffering. It can end one and only one kind of suffering. The kind of suffering that comes from not experiencing existing. Even then the reality of suffering will be there. You have to remember the third movement: At first I saw a tree and it was a tree. Then I saw a tree and it was the Tao. And then I saw a tree and it was a tree.

Did you know that the real problem in monasteries is often getting monks to stop spacing out and focus on their work?

There was a Zen monk preaching on the Tao who found his student sitting meditating as the pet dog attacked the pet cat. "What are you doing you idiot!" the master shouted while separating the dog from the cat. Can't you see he was about to rip the cat apart?" "But master, you said in the Tao all are one" "Yes but you are part of the scene"

Now go look in a mirror and instead of considering the Tao take a good look. That is you! You are in the scene! That fact is a real aspect of the seen.

To say something is "just" or "only" consciousness is to impoverish the description to a point where it is nearly - not completely as most people think - but nearly useless.
Thanks for your all your comments, I appreciate your input, I enjoyed reading your ideas but it all got a bit too heady for me so couldn't actually follow your drift.

I am talking about the end of suffering for a separate person. Suffering does arise and that will never stop while there is a human. But I'm talking about suffering that is not taken personally as if it was happening to a separate entity. That can stop when there is no one to whom the suffering is arising. My definition of suffering is when there is sense of a separate self apart from the suffering. That sense of isolation is the suffering.

I know suffering is a human concept, and does not actually exist in nature. I know this to be true when I once witnessed my cats reaction after it lost one of it's claws when it was accidentally ripped from it's paw one night. The following morning the cat lay silently alone in a spare bedroom for what must have been 16 hours or so, it was a Christmas Day of all days, so no one was taking much notice of him, I just thought he was staying out of the way since it was a hectic and busy day. And while I was initially unaware what had happened to him and did not know why he was choosing not to interact with us until he finally had to move in order to go for a pee and have something to eat. The cat wasn't suffering in the way a human does, he must have been in a lot of pain, but there was no suffering ..he did not choose to interact with us humans demanding we give him immediate attention, but his anal glands did release a rather pungent strong smelling odour as a deterrent to warn other cats he was injured..suffering is a human concept. It doesn't actually exist.

_______

When looking in a mirror a reflection of the seer is seen but not the actual seer. The body is seen, but the body is not the seer. It's the instrument of seeing. The body is never actually seen, it is known as it is seen. The seer and the seen appear only when there is seeing. They are attributes of seeing ONLY. You can be aware of the known body as conceived in this conception but not of a knower. Knowing is a reflection of you. Knowing is a fact. The knower of the known is a fiction.

Dontaskme
Posts: 8093
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: THE RELIGIONS – THEIR FUNDAMENTAL MISTAKE

Post by Dontaskme » Fri Sep 16, 2016 8:44 pm

The philosophy of Vedanta, could be interpreted as solipsism in one of it's primitive senses, as the world is but an illusion in the mind of the observer. However, Advaita Vedanta can be understood to be non-solipsistic when it is recognised that it does not actually deny the existence of a world 'external' to the Self or Atman. Rather, it is asserting that the consciousness and awareness of the individual pervades all of that person's experience, to such an extent that absolute notions of 'inside' and 'outside' are arbitrary. The universe is the same as the self, as the universe can only be experienced through the self and the self is submerged within the universe as an integrated part. Advaita is strongly divergent from solipsism in that the former is a system of exploration of one's mind in order to finally understand the nature of the self and attain complete knowledge. The unity of existence is said to be directly experienced and understood at the end as a part of complete knowledge. On the other hand solipsism posits the non-existence of the external void right at the beginning, and says that no further inquiry is possible.

seeds
Posts: 893
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: THE RELIGIONS – THEIR FUNDAMENTAL MISTAKE

Post by seeds » Sat Sep 17, 2016 5:00 am

Dontaskme wrote: Seeds seems to have fallen silent on this topic, maybe because seeds is over thinking this too intellectually for a subject that is basically very simple.
Nah, not silent, I just need to come up for air once in a while.
seeds wrote: Clearly you have not given much thought to what your mind can do.

Picture how “real” the holographic-like structures within your mind appear to be when you are immersed in a vivid dream.

When we dream we inwardly experience three-dimensional phenomena that, relative to our five inward senses, seem almost as real as the phenomena we experience outwardly.

Now just imagine the possibility of awakening to this inward domain of your mind in such a way that your own personal mental holography looks, feels, sounds, smells, and tastes completely real (again, what is “reality” but fields of energy and information that produce the “illusion” of solidity and separation).
Dontaskme wrote: There is no individual human consciousness, or mind.
So says the “individual” human consciousness, or mind, who calls himself “Dontaskme” as he types away on a keyboard in an effort to convey the unique and personal ideas within his own sovereign mind to that of other sovereign minds.

Oh the irony.

(Continued in next post)
_______

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests