Joseph Maynor

@Nichols Harvey Gotcha. Interesting. I gotta make sure I am not being too much of an idealist regarding reality. I'll consider this in the next couple of days and see if I see any shifts. It's interesting that there are parallels in epistemology in Western Philosophy to this -- The shift from Hume to Moore. It's the person that doesn't think they're being idealistic who often is. Common-sense ain't to be underestimated.

You think reality is illusory?

Is this based on this premise and argument: The idea that our theory of consciousness as existing in the head is erroneous. Therefore we need an expanded theory of consciousness and awareness that perhaps extends beyond what we think of as the psyche. Thus a notion of body-mind seems to at a minimum cause us to redress our myopia regarding how we ordinarily conceive of consciousness and become open to expanding our conception of consciousness.

The reputation feature rewards participation though. In that sense the reputation feature is cool. It's fun. Nothing wrong with a bit of fun. I think it's kind of tongue in cheek myself. I'm an expert. Sometimes I sound like an expert too ironically. But sometimes I probably sound like a caricature of one. Like the Nutty Professor. So it cuts both ways. Everybody starts off as a Greenhorn too no matter how smart they are. I like that.

I'm a Sagittarius and I fit my sign very well.

I'm sorry, but what are you implying here Dodo lol.

I find it disconcerting that we can't define these terms more consistently. Everybody does seem to have and use their own definitions.

Get it. I read several books in it that were excellent. Kinda took me from the newbie to intermediate level in personal development a couple of years ago. I listened to many of the books as audiobooks. Surprisingly a lot of them are on Audible. I prefer audiobooks to paper books.

I can see how non-dualists think all is one if you strip concept out of reality and just take what is in the skandhas in the moment as what is real. Am I off target here folks? Take the case of my mom. One might contend that my mom is part of me when I sense her, and only those elements in my skandhas are really real. Therefore, my mom is mostly concept. Am I making sense? Thinking of my mom as real is like taking a little nugget of idealism and adding it to reality. What is in my skandhas that I call my mom is not the same as the concept of my mom that I might choose to cling to or to release in a moment. But reality is not bothered at all by whether I cling to or release that concept. Therefore, whatever reality is is independent of that concept of my mom that I am clinging to. My mom is really just a collection of items in my shandhas that change every moment. Visuals, audibles, touches, etc. That's my mom really. And there is no cause to separate-out these items from my skandhas and label them as a separate thing. That too would be clinging to concept. Reality just is. Furthermore, there is no cause to bifurcate reality because that would be clinging to concept, like taking a little nugget of idealism and adding it to reality, looking at reality as though you were looking through a warped lens. Have I gotten it finally folks! I think this is the big insight here. At least one of the biggies. And this is changing me, this realization. I can already feel myself transforming. So, this is not just intellectual masturbation here. This is an epiphany basically. The second one I had on here.

No, I'm talking about accepting or releasing a concept. I advance no theory. I can observe reality without accepting a concept of reality or a concept of me. I could release those concepts with no change to empirical reality. That's what I'm saying. It's expressed conceptually, but I'm referring to awareness, accepting, and releasing only. I also don't like the word empirical reality but I'm using the term to mean a snapshot of awareness in a moment. It's hard not to use that term.

It's happening to me now. It's unsettling. What a paradigm shift. I still have a few matters to clear up though. Like do others people's emptinesses exist, and is that experientially confirmable or am I just clinging to concept with that assumption.

Maybe they're growing on here. I know I am.

Yeah skandhas is a concept, you're right. Think of what I'm referring to by the word though which is -- what's in your experience in a moment. That's what I mean. Skandhas is just a way to communicate that in writing or speaking. It's a pointing to awareness basically. But I see your point, even that is a concept that adds a little nugget of idealism to reality. Reality is independent of concept. If I do not cling to any concept, nothing in reality changes for me. If I release any concept, nothing in reality changes for me. I'm sure you get what I'm trying to say here. It's hard to write clearly about this stuff, but I am trying very hard. It's laborious.

Maybe it's the tone that's the problem. Arguing can get nasty. Often a downward-spiral of suffering because everybody's got their mouths wide open but has their fingers in their ears. We all do this to a greater or lesser extent, myself included. Cable news does this to the extreme. So, I can appreciate Leo's fear. That said, I agree with you 100% SOUL. You sound like a stage yellow person right there. I think I'm at yellow too.

Understood. I'll abide by your wish on this matter Leo. I appreciate everyone here. I haven't been this excited in a long time. Fun to hang out with you all. We've all got one thing in common -- we love to grow.

He really does claim that eh? Fully enlightened. Wow. I don't even know what that means.

I'm having an epiphany and I wanna run it by you: Since all I am is awareness and attaching or releasing in the moment, I'm starting to realize that I have no self to improve, no needs inherently, no fears inherently, and that I can chose to ditch non-positive thinking totally. Am I off in la la land here? Add to this if you can. Broaden and extend this for me please.

Again, my original epiphany has nothing to do with argument. It's an epiphany, an observation. It's not a theory. The act of arguing about that epiphany vs the epiphany itself are apples and oranges. Similar to the distinction between concept or theory of reality and reality itself. Apples and oranges there as well.

All is one, right? That's a pretty lofty claim to my ears. So, let's look at one potential problem with this theory. Other minds. Are all other people part of you? Or is reality the complete set of individual non-dual realities? How are other people's consciousnesses a part of your skandhas though? Don't you either have to assume that other people's consciousnesses do not exist, or that the same are illusory? Don't both of those conclusions lead to a kind of absurd result? It's pretty clear that other people do exist and we have reason to believe that they are conscious like we are, although we can't climb inside their minds to find out for certain. So, what do we make of this? Is reality the set of individual one-nesses? That seems sort of *wacky* to me. Non-dualism seems kind of implausible to me on this basis. Please enlighten me on this issue.

Something you don't have now. Strain your mind to find one. Come on, do it! I'll do this too.

I'm not challenging. I've posted an observation and asked for feedback, others are challenging me, as I requested them to do. I'm the proponent here not the challenger, the guy making the claim not the critic. I'm really starting to see the depths of this epiphany now. It's awesome. I'm in the woods right now contemplating this.

It's not a view of reality. That would be concept. I'm not talking about an idea, theory, or perspective of or on reality. It's an awareness of what's in the skandhas in a moment. Pure awareness of what is in a moment. Maybe looking is a good analogy. When I say I need or I fear I'm adding a little nugget of idealism into the purity of reality. I've stepped into the matrix a tad. And it was self-induced because I conflated reality with concept. I clung to that concept rather than releasing it. See, concepts are not inherently bad, just when I use them to define what I am or what reality is. It's like getting things ass-backwards. I precede any concept, and so does reality.

But we can become more aware of what we're doing regarding this. I'm not saying we stop conceptualizing by any means. I'm a philosopher. I love concepts. I just don't use concepts as a prism to view reality. I take a more direct view, a non-conceptual view of reality. But concepts have their place. I can choose to cling or release them more intelligently with increased awareness.

No more suffering and stunting of growth caused by attachment to concepts in the sense that they define me in any way. So, for example, stop saying you have needs and fears. Stop attaching to those concepts. That will not change whatever comes up in your skandhas, even sharp pains. But you don't have to conceptualize it as anything. Just experience the feeling without also accepting a concept that says "I have a need". This is matrix-speak. By doing this you've stopped looking and started thinking. You've added a little piece of fantasy to raw reality: a little nugget of idealism.

I've actually expanded my view a little bit. The way I said it initially was too glossy. It's not that I have no needs. There may be a thirst in my shandhas. But I can chose to attach to the concept "I am thirsty" or release the same, could I not? See the difference? Reality is one thing, concept is something else. I can release any concept. There may be a sensation in my breast. But it's another matter altogether to attach to the concept "I have a fear". You may experience reality, but it's another matter to attach to the concept "I exist". You can release this concept. So what I think I've discovered is a bifurcation between concept and reality (in the sense of reality as what is, not a theory of reality, which is concept). This is the counter-intuitive move it seems.