Someone here

What the hell is reality? What is this thing? What is your body? What is sound? What is sight? What is every detail of this 3D realm? What is every moment? Where does it come from? Where is it going? It's real. Here it is. Perhaps it's unknowable? It sure is. It's a complete miracle. A complete unexplainable appearance. Some philosophy.. An observation that is getting sharpened in my mind recently.. There is no difference between dream and reality. It's literally like... The dream phenomenon is identical to the 3d waking world. And both are just what they are. Exactly as they are. Light and sound. Smell and taste and touch. etc. And that's all there is. There is no explanation. Direct experience is God. Is rock bottom. This experience that's happening right now is all.. Is everything.. Is God.. Is unexplainable. I dream of the day that everyone can understand this. It should be obvious.

@Nahm @allislove you can lock thread atm. I said all I want. And not feeling like going in circles again and again.

So I'm advocating that direct experience is the one and only source of Truth. And anything that you have no direct experience of is horseshit (at least for you.. Maybe others have direct experience of it. And maybe you will too... Later on ). I just wanna tackle the objection of "perception". A common objection against direct experience being the only source of certain knowledge about the world is.... "But Leo.(?.) .. Direct experience is just" perception" . We are not experiencing the" real world "as it is. "the thing in itself" as Kant calls it. We are merely experiencing a filtered "copy" of the real world via the senses. For example.. Our eyes.. They don't show us the raw vibrations that are the real reality.. Instead... They show us colors. And color is not a third person objective thing. It's subjectively shaped by our perceptual system. And since different creatures have different perceptual systems.. Different creatures can see different colors from the same object. For example.. A person with color blindness might see a yellow object to be green or orange " Answer : Take a very close look at your direct experience of sight... the eye is not seeing... it is just 'eyeing'. It is the appearance of an eye. In other words.. The experience of" eyes" is not the experience of "sight". You experience "eyes" as a separate experience into itself. And you experience "sight" as a separate experience into itself. All you can say for certain is that there is a correlation between the experience of eyes and the experience of sight more than it Is with your ears for example. But notice that's not the same things as "I see through the eyes" As one looks into someone's eyes.. one is looking at an image. Behind the image and within it are nothing. The image has no 'behind' or 'within'.. any more than the image in an 'apparent nightly dream' has a 'behind' or 'within'. There is no 'spark' or 'focal point' or 'bit' of consciousness in.. or associated with the image seen. One is wholly present. One is not divided into 'bits' or 'loci' or any other differentiators. seeing is an appearance. Eyes are a different appearance. The eyes don't see. You have no experience of the eyes seeing anything. They are distinctions happening within consciousness.the visual field is occurring exactly where is it occurring. It is not occurring in your eyes lmao . Or in your so called brain. It is occurring exactly where it is occurring. Just like the 'dream world' at night.. It appears as if the dream character's eyes are seeing the dream world. But actually it's consciousness who is appearing as eyes.. As sight.. As world. P. S. that being said... I have no specific answer to the color blindness objection thing.

@allislove @Nahm I love you guys ❤️? But... Sometimes different people just have different paths in life you know?

Two questions.. 1 - are you saying that obtaining these material things are not going to resul in increase in one's level of happiness and satisfaction in life? Or are you just saying that it will but it's never good enough? 2 "happy no matter what" doesn't make sense. You see happiness is a specific thing. A happy face is not a crying face. How is you going to be happy when you are not happy? Why is it that we imagine happiness to be conditioned by obtaining specific things if that's actually false? Because if satisfaction as you call it is Indeed induced or can be induced via specific material means.... How is it that it can also be induced without any means whatsoever? If that was the case...why were we chasing those false means in the first place if we could just sit and happy? A serious question.. How can you sit and be hungry and be happy? ? I think what you are referring to is a state of freedom or unconditional openness which is a feature of existence itself.... But then comes the separate self which just happens to be not accepting the present moment and conditions all the time... And it cannot be aligned with this quality of existence fully... Otherwise you will die. If you stopped rejecting pain and suffering you will die. After all.. Why eat if you don't mind being happy with an empty stomach?

Now seriously? if there is no me.. Then who is it that you are trying to discredit? And if there is no me.. How can me realize that there is no me? ... This whole' no self ' business.. The entire Buddhist doctrine that teaches no-self could be easily debunked by simply saying "I'm this body right here. This organism that breaths and eats and sleeps..".are you going to say body is a thought and whatnot? Sorry but that is just utter nonsense. I'm really not baby-sitting anyone or here. I'm a hardcore Truth seeker. I identify as that. And I ask you to respect this. Body is an object that you have actual sensual direct experience of. I'm sorry I need to point such obvious things. Relative means it's not true from all possible POVs. You are using language. Your words are subject to relative falsehood. If you want to never be wrong just stop using language. Silence is never wrong. What you say is not absolutely true. Otherwise we can't be disagreeing about it right now if it's absolute. "there is no you" is relative. It's not the end-all be-all God-given golden Truth. It all depends on what do you mean by you. We could define me as the body.. Or As an ego.or As all of existence. And again if there is no me.. Who are you talking to? ? Sure. The illusory self which doesn't exist can't see its own illusion. This is paradoxical irony Supreme. ?

How is "being" the same as happiness? Being is such a robust thing. Being includes suffering from diseases. Is diseases and pain included in happiness as being? And if you are going to twist the word to such a degree it becomes meaningless. Also not sure why are you always laughing?

@Preety_India sounds like a write-off. You need to elaborate or address my specific point.

Yeah but what is happiness and is it really separate from "pleasure"? It all basically boils down to sensations in the body. We don't need abstract off and theorizing about what happiness means. Actually go back in your past and remember your experiences of happiness. Weren't they linked to specific things (maybe getting high grades.. Buying new iPad.. Getting new friends etc)... Now a hedonist will argue that you just keep doing more and more of these good feeling activities and that's basically what a happy life is! @Tim R will come to your lengthy post later ?(off to bed atm lol)

A baby is shiting his pampers.

This might take you some intelligence to grasp... The earth is both flat and round... Flat when you are standing on it.. Round when you are viewing it from outer space... And to get extra devilish... Have you actually seen the earth from above or traveled across the whole diamater to verify that it's round? No. Then you are just blindly Believing that it's round.

@mandyjw how is happiness separate from specific experiences of specific things? Is there a pure happiness that comes out of nothing? Also isn't "happiness" itself sort of relative? What is considered happiness? Some people are happy by pain (masochistic).... This gets deep.

Well if you actually experienced "God" telling you xyz then that would be true for you because you experienced it. Otherwise you would be deluding yourself. And people are not gonna Believe you unless you show them that supposed God. Again what is the criteria here? Direct experience. I'm saying two people can disagree about anything if it's thought based or speculative in nature. While they can never disagree upon something they both have the same experience of. Which should show you that direct experience is the only certain parameter.

@Mu_ my definition of TRUTH as direct sensory experience is true because it is true. It can't be justified any further. It is what it is. We've hit rock bottom. Consider that 7 billion people on the planet agree that sun exists because they are directly experiencing it.. While disagreement on matters like religious beliefs is simply due to lack of experience and faith based Truth.

Now here's a mindfuck.. You actually don't know what other people perceive. You don't know if your red is their red. You both call red to be red.. But you actually have no way to perceive the red via the eyes of others. I think this ties nicely with this whole "only thing you know to be for sure is your own experience" thing that I'm kinda preaching. Let alone that you don't know what "color" is. You actually have no idea what anything is but just to make it specific otherwise it's possible to deconstruct entire human knowledge if it's not founded on direct experience. @Nahm sorry not quite understanding you.

LOL. There is just no need to dig down that rabbit hole. I'm real. Helllo? ? Who are you asking? ?

What you (perhaps) don't understand is that all these things are relative. "you" "ego" depends on the definition. If we define "me" as the physical body.. Then certainly "me" exists. If we define "me" as a unicorn.. Then certainly "me" doesn't exist. Also.. Unity doesn't make sense without the concept of separation. Nothing makes sense without its opposition (that which is not it). None of these things are Absolute Truth. @VeganAwake Yep.

@VeganAwake ..Your kids are not a concept.. They are not a "conditioned thought".. They are not "the mind running rampant".... They are Absolute Truth. So-called perception or sensory experience (your five-sensed experience of a 3D world. Nothing fancy)... turns out to be the only absolute Truth. You know what that means? It means it's certainly True. It's certainly existing. That's all. I'm not making a huge discovery here. Truth turns out to be the most obvious thing ever. Which is precisely why it goes overlooked and filterd out. While whatever conceptual knowledge one might have (reincarnation.. No self.. This.. That etc) are not the Truth in the sense that they are uncertain by nature. Because they are just ideas and speculation. Easy enough?

Yes I didn't say others are not sentient. I said it's an unresolvable issue. Since you only have experience of your own sentience. Just making a clear distinction that your own conscience is certainly True. While others will remain a mystery.

@Nahm except it is possible. I have done it.

I never said that. You can play video games all day long. And that's about as enlightened as you can get. God doesn't give a F. You finally can be happy. Consider that if you are not happy in life.. That's because you are not Conscious of Truth.

@Vibroverse your understanding of "True" is not the same for me. My own definition of TRUTH=undeniably True. Only direct experience meets this definition. All philosophy is just conceptual noise.

Nope. Direct experience is certain. Memory isn't. Neither is an external material objective world. You are intelligent enough to see that I'm not saying solipsism here.. I'm saying "it's not certain" that existence is an objective medium and not just figment of your consciousness. Like a dream. One cannot validate or invalidate the existence of that which supposedly exists outside one's own subjective experience. For example you can't prove that the past really happened.. You can't prove that history happened... Yeah you moan all you want about history but you cannot prove it. All you have is a present moment. Heard of simulation theory argument? You can't prove that you are not a brain in a vat.. Which is an updated version of Rene Descartes's evil demon doubt. Common to many science fiction stories.. it presents a scenario in which a mad scientist.. machine.. or other entity might remove a person's brain from the body.. suspend it in a vat of life-sustaining liquid.. and connect its neurons by wires to a computer which would provide it with electrical impulses identical to those the brain normally receives.According to such stories.. the computer would then be simulating reality (including appropriate responses to the brain's own output) and the "disembodied" brain would continue to have perfectly normal conscious experiences.. such as those of a person with an embodied brain.. without these being related to objects or events in the real world. This is also similar to simulation theory. It's actually not possible to prove with 100 %certainty that we are not inside a video game right now that some teenagers are playing in a different universe. All you can be certain of is your direct moment of experience.

I answered this point. It's not that I'm denying memories...or the past.. Or other beings.. Or atoms and molecules.. Or galaxies etc... Because all these things you have no direct experience of In the present moment....I'm NOT denying these things..... I'm making a clear distinction between what is undeniably True And certain and what isn't... The only thing that is certain is your direct experience. Anything else is beliefs.