What is reality

[Faceless]

What is reality? 

 

I thought maybe i should take out nature. It might not have been the best way to put the question

Edited January 27, 2018 by Faceless

[vizual]

The answer lies in the absence of the question.

[Faceless]

@vizual lol

this is for everyone to meet one another 

[Joseph Maynor]

It cannot be encapsulated in words.  Furthermore, paradoxically it is not an it.  Language haha.

Edited January 27, 2018 by Joseph Maynor

[Faceless]

1 hour ago, Joseph Maynor said:

It cannot be encapsulated in words.  Furthermore, paradoxically it is not an it.  Language haha.

It seems this should be able to be explained considering realty is a reflection of thought. Is reality is a process of thought? Or isn’t any thing that thought things about is reality?  

 

Edited January 27, 2018 by Faceless

[deci belle]

In my definition, reality is seen by the mind that does not think— it doesn't think, it's just awake. Its knowledge is immediate, as in knowing whether water tastes cold or not without deliberation. That's what knows. Actually, it's who knows. Who is that? It's just selfless awareness, your own mind right now. It's not just that non-discursive mind sees reality— it alone is what is reality. I can say that!

When oneself partakes of reality, then one sees reality. It's not good or bad, it's just what is, and you can see it as it really is without discriminatory psychological projections. Reality is spiritual; it is non-psychological.

In my experience, reality looks exactly the same as delusion. So reality is not appearances, and though it is subtle to discern, there is no difficulty or deliberation required— that is, it is not attributable to thinking. Also, reality is not different than delusion. If not for delusion, there is no way to see reality. That's not philosophy— this world is inconceivable, and so are people. Being happily bound by the human mentality is just a reflection of habit-energy (thought).

In Faceless' last line:

Quote

Or isn’t any thing that thought thinks about is reality?  

Being bound, happily or not, is not what is known as liberation. Liberation is seeing what is, as it is, without deliberation— that is, non-discursively or non-psychologically.

So the nature of reality is …what? Even better, since reality can actually be seen, not explained, in the midst of everyday ordinary situations, what is the point of so-called spiritual practice?

I can say that so-called effective spiritual practice is that which results in the cessation of habit-energy. Habit energy is kinetic; it has momentum. What is the result of cessation of habit-energy? Spontaneity; presence; enlightening activity that responds impersonally to inevitability without relying on one's own power. How? It's spontaneous impersonal response to conditions by virtue of non-psychologically aware presence. Buddhism calls this spiritual adaption, or mutual response, or arrow-points meeting, or box and cover fitting. One's personal self is not separate from situations, as the potential for spiritual response is inherent in the situation itself— therefore, one does not rely on one's own power to meet creation due to its (creation's) inherent latent spiritual potential if you can see it. It's the meaning of non-doing. Non-doing in response to situations is authentic spiritual practice.

Renunciatory and remedial programs are not quite on par with enlightening activity, but we all have our parts to carry out— in concert.

The reason why it is essential to wonder what the nature of reality is, as Faceless has articulated, is to bring its inconceivable potential into one's sphere of attention— and that is a matter of will, or intent.

Even the Absolute, which is prior to the primal organization constituting incrementality, or process-oriented causation, is an impersonal, selflessly aware intent.

Intent is an extremely powerful, if subtle, innate aspect of humanity. It eventually enables people to enter the inconceivable; the Causeless.

I would say, beyond any speculation, that in terms of humanity's potential for reversion to, and actualization of, its innate spiritual, non-psychological capacity (which ego is best-suited to serve without peer), is a burgeoning sense of openly sincere objectless intent, as the most direct path to realizing the nature of reality, which must first be recognized, and only then (eventually) harmonized with conditions spontaneously after a maturation process requiring the individual to withdraw from conventional activity in a discrete and subtle way without shrinking from society.

The nature of reality isn't a thing. The Absolute is all-at-once; Duality is incremental; they are not different, nor are they the same. Buddhism calls this Suchness. Adepts are able to see reality in the midst of delusion and have developed the "skill" necessary to operate within the context of delusion without going along with creation in such a way as to give karma its due while they "steal" its potential to develop inconceivable awareness for the benefit of oneself and others..

Why? Obviously it's not about good or bad, self, other, or before or after— it's about using potential for self-refinement. To be sure, self-refinement isn't about good and bad, right and wrong. Enlightenment is just a sign-post on the endless path of perpetual transformations entering into the profound mystery without end. For those who seek within the clarity of spiritual potential, there is only wonder. It's not particularly easy or difficult.

[Nahm]

Self inquiry is really underrated. Lol!

[Faceless]

Word reality comes from ``res'', thing,.. does this implies anything that thought operates on, or fabricates, or reflects about, is reality. If thought didn’t operate would there be reality? 

 

[Faceless]

Reality as we know it “sensory reality” is conditioned right? Depends on the senses. 

Actuality, the fact. Every thing conditioned and determining every other thing: all interrelated. Thought is part of this. Reality as experienced cannot be independent of man.

 There is also reality which is not made by man, by mankind. But that’s still limited. The cosmos, for example, as seen by us is influenced by our own experience “thought” and therefore limited. Any thing that we see, we see through our own experience, our own background. So that reality cannot possibly be totally independent of man. It may be relatively independent. The tree is a reality that is relatively independent but it’s our consciousness that abstracts the tree. When we investigate reality we can not view this as seperate if that makes sense....  Is man’s reality the product of influence and conditioning?

Seems so what do you guys think? 

 

...Remember everythng i say here is to be questioned and investigated. My attempt is to come to a general consensus. 

 

[Nahm]

@Faceless nice!     

Any thing that we see, we see through our own experience, our own background.

Through practices, being without thought, “actual reality” is experienced. Everything else you said but that sentence, is experienced. Each person’s reality is the product of influence and conditioning. The ego plays the role of insisting that is not the case, and our understanding of reality is the most accurate one. The ‘not knowing’, is the state of without, or having actually let go of one’s conditioning, and then by default, seeing what actually is. The tiniest axe to bring is enough to prevent enlightenment. That’s why it’s so hard. That’s why we tend to look for the answer in everything but our self. The answer is perceived as to good to be true, while the ego distracts us with looking for the answer. One day it just pops, and the obviousness that was there all along is so funny, it’s maddening! ???

[Faceless]

6 minutes ago, Nahm said:

@Faceless nice!     

Any thing that we see, we see through our own experience, our own background.

Through practices, being without thought, “actual reality” is experienced. Everything else you said but that sentence, is experienced. Each person’s reality is the product of influence and conditioning. The ego plays the role of insisting that is not the case, and our understanding of reality is the most accurate one. The ‘not knowing’, is the state of without, or having actually let go of one’s conditioning, and then by default, seeing what actually is. The tiniest axe to bring is enough to prevent enlightenment. That’s why it’s so hard. That’s why we tend to look for the answer in everything but our self. The answer is perceived as to good to be true, while the ego distracts us with looking for the answer. One day it just pops, and the obviousness that was there all along is so funny, it’s maddening! ???

Yeah lolol?

Only when thought ends there is truth. This is why I am so interested in the limits of thought. 

 

[Nahm]

@Faceless Godspeed brutha

[Faceless]

@Nahm ??

[StephenK]

Reality is fundamentally information. What is information? Information is the relationship/s between different states of consciousness. Those perceived relationships are consciousness. Fundamentally, information is pattern recognition within consciousness, and pattern recognition allows us to anticipate future states of consciousness. The question of there being an 'external reality' is another question all together, and one that I believe can never be answered. There are relationships; that is all that can be said in my opinion. 

[Faceless]

@StephenK  I understand.

thought, sensory realty, conciousness depends on conditions. Seems reasonable so far. 

[Natasha]

14 hours ago, Faceless said:

What is reality? 

It's what is.

[Will Bigger]

Whatever you’re experiencing right now is reality.

[Faceless]

What determines an experience? 

Is it not the experiencer? 

[Vingger]

reality is that which can not be separate from you

[Nahm]

The information is not reality, it is the appearance of the illusion. It is not the fabric of the illusion. 

“What is”, could not be more different depending on wether one has actually experienced what they are or not, because it’s unthinkable, and unimaginable previous to experiencing for one’s self.