Awareness and naive realism

[Alistair]

It seems that I have learned two main foundational things from Leos videos. 

1. The external physical universe dosent actually exist and is basically subjective.

2. I am so unaware that I can't even grasp how unaware I am.

My question is how do we tie these 2 points together? The feeling I'm getting is that these 2 things are somehow one in the same.

Edit: And I guess a third thing I realise is that there is no such thing as free will

Edited February 4, 2018 by Alistair

[Ibn Sina]

I am sorry but I can't see what is there in those 2 points that are not straight forward. Leo adheres to the doctrine of non-duality, and the immateriality of the universe, expounded beautifully by his famous dictum " There is no evidence that  reality is physical" (I am not 100% sure if he said that but I think he did). It is just mind boggling (pun intended). It is mind which creates the distinctions physical and non-physical, but actually they are one and the same. Since we are as the default mode operating within the mind, there is always duality, there is always distinctions , and we are always unaware of this lack of distinction. And when we are unaware, we are unaware that we are unaware i.e we think that we are very aware. Hence we sink even deeper  into this abyss of duality. I THINK this is what those 2 points are trying to say. Might be something more  profound I don't know.

Edited February 4, 2018 by Ibn Sina

[Alistair]

11 hours ago, Ibn Sina said:

I am sorry but I can't see what is there in those 2 points that are not straight forward.

Leo (and others) have claimed that something can be so simple that it can't be explained. It can be so obvious that it can't be seen. Maybe I'm just like the fish that can't possibly understand what water is.

Edited February 4, 2018 by Alistair

[MisterMan]

12 hours ago, Ibn Sina said:

I am sorry but I can't see what is there in those 2 points that are not straight forward. Leo adheres to the doctrine of non-duality, and the immateriality of the universe, expounded beautifully by his famous dictum " There is no evidence that  reality is physical" (I am not 100% sure if he said that but I think he did). It is just mind boggling (pun intended). It is mind which creates the distinctions physical and non-physical, but actually they are one and the same. Since we are as the default mode operating within the mind, there is always duality, there is always distinctions , and we are always unaware of this lack of distinction. And when we are unaware, we are unaware that we are unaware i.e we think that we are very aware. Hence we sink even deeper  into this abyss of duality. I THINK this is what those 2 points are trying to say. Might be something more  profound I don't know.

"And you know that you can't really show them anything they don't already know and won't be able to show them anything else until they know it."

Allan watts

[StephenK]

7 hours ago, Mighty Mouse said:

The common denominator of both is segregation/ego (i.e. called the "separate entity" in spiritual circles)

Fear is what creates the illusion of separation, and that includes the conviction of there being an external universe. Those are two sides of the same coin.

So that's the connection.

You see through ego and become more conscious by confronting the fear that fuels your identities.

I understand how everything is ultimately a subjective experience. But if we are to negate the idea of there being a universe, what then is the explanation for the causal patterns and processes that allows empiricism to function so well as a methodology of predicting future outcomes? Why does this 'predictive matrix' commonly referred to as the 'universe' even exist? When are we allowed to authentically appeal to this matrix as a part of reason, and when are we allowed to authentically negate it? I am genuinely curious as to what your answer is (since I don't know it myself). 

[Leo Gura]

@StephenK It's very simple. You're inside a dream. This dream has infinite complexity and structure. You can explore and learn of the predictable patterns of the dream. But no matter how much of that you learn, you will still not understand you're inside a dream, unless you wake up.

[StephenK]

31 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

@StephenK It's very simple. You're inside a dream. This dream has infinite complexity and structure. You can explore and learn of the predictable patterns of the dream. But no matter how much of that you learn, you will still not understand you're inside a dream, unless you wake up.

If it is all a dream, then nothing has innate existence to it, correct? How then can you know that 'other' minds exist (such as myself)? I take it then when you talk in your videos, you are just playing with the 'fabric' of the dream and don't believe any of it to have innately reality to it? Would this be similar to what is referred to in Buddhism as emptiness? Quote: "Sunyata refers to the tenet that "all things are empty of intrinsic existence and nature,"" 

Edited February 5, 2018 by StephenK

[Shin]

7 minutes ago, StephenK said:

If it is all a dream, then nothing has innate existence to it, correct? How then can you know that 'other' minds exist (such as myself)? 

I guess there is only one way to find out ...

... And it's not gonna be by debating on a forum with.

RIGHT ?!

Edited February 5, 2018 by Shin

[Leo Gura]

2 hours ago, StephenK said:

If it is all a dream, then nothing has innate existence to it, correct? How then can you know that 'other' minds exist (such as myself)? I take it then when you talk in your videos, you are just playing with the 'fabric' of the dream and don't believe any of it to have innately reality to it? Would this be similar to what is referred to in Buddhism as emptiness? Quote: "Sunyata refers to the tenet that "all things are empty of intrinsic existence and nature,"" 

Minds do not exist. There is only the Infinite Self. YOU ARE IT! There is nothing happening here but YOU!

Yes, Sunyata means Void. The entire universe is a hallucination. It has no substance.

Everything is Nothing.

Nothing is Everything.

Mu

[MarkusSweden]

10 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Minds do not exist. There is only the Infinite Self. YOU ARE IT! There is nothing happening here but YOU!

Yes, Sunyata means Void. The entire universe is a hallucination. It has no substance.

Everything is Nothing.

Nothing is Everything.

Mu

Too bad the investment is so high if you want to have everything there is.  

You don't want to find out that you put the money on the wrong horse when the investment is your whole life. 

But that's how it goes I guess. You can't have it all if your not prepared to go all in.

[Alistair]

It's a very persistent dream that's for sure. One that we can't seem to wake from, or even alter to our liking to make less of a nightmare and more dreamy. I suppose it's our constant frustration of reality that pushes us to want to awake. It feels like being a baby in the womb but the mother is having difficulty giving birth. Even though your eager to get out it's not really up to you.

[Gabriel Antonio]

Lucid dreaming helped me grasp how our minds can trick us into believing that something is real. I feel like lucid dreaming is a very underrated practice. It's not only for "fun", but a practice of awareness. When you are in a dream and you realize you're dreaming, the mind realizes that this is "off script" so homeostasis quickly kicks in, and BAM! You are back thinking that it is not a dream. When you wake up "for real", it becomes clear how the mind was sneaky. 

Anyway, lucid dreaming helps you realize that ordinary reality isn't as solid as you think. And it is extremely fun. It's similar to psychedelics, but it takes a bit of work to get lucid and, more importantly, to maintain the lucidity. But it is worth it. I have recently gotten back to lucid dreaming, and I already feel my consciousness expanding. 

 

[Thanatos13]

20 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

@StephenK It's very simple. You're inside a dream. This dream has infinite complexity and structure. You can explore and learn of the predictable patterns of the dream. But no matter how much of that you learn, you will still not understand you're inside a dream, unless you wake up.

Actually you aren't inside a dream, and unless you can actually give some solid evidence to suggest otherwise I'm sticking with the physical universe. 

All lucid dreaming shows is that we can influence our dreams if we are aware of them. Then again we "close our eyes" and what we can do in each reality is markedly different, not to mention the stability and stubborness of this reality leads me to think of it as "default". 

You don't KNOW it's a dream, despite that many spiritualities think so. Spiritual experience isn't proof of teachings but a RESULT of them, important difference. They end up confirming preconceived notions, so there is a cognitive element to them. It's only a "dream" insofar as our brains construct reality on a "best guess" through our senses. We are actively "hallucinating" reality. 

It's impossible to be "non-conceptual" for if you were then nothing would make sense, you would not have "insight" or "divine knowledge". It would be indecipherable chaos. 

The "no evidence reality is physical" is nonsense, it's literally all around you. If it's physical you can interact with it, touch it, feel it, experience it through senses. Even in your dreams things are physical. The exception is a few sensory illusions. 

While you could argue that the mind makes distinctions between physical and nonphysical, I can argue it makes the same illusion of oneness. Oneness, nonduality, these are concepts. Simply believing in them allows my body to experience such a state, but when I stop believing in them then the distinctions return. It makes me doubt the truth of oneness and nonduality, seeing them as merely just another lens to see the world. 

Also, just because "awareness" and "consciousness" are mysterious and poorly understood doesn't mean we can make judgments on them. As for the free will not being real, you're late to the party on that. Though the answer to the question is rather foggy.

[Alistair]

@Thanatos13 Its always good to get the opposite opinion every now and then, for someone to come along and state the more conventional point of view.  But everyone knows this angle already. Its kind of like those people who knock on my door and ask if I've heard of our Lord Jesus Christ. Well of course I've heard of Jesus everyone has unless you're living under a rock. I appreciate your input, I really do because sometimes these types of spiritual forums become a circle jerk, but I can't see how you're being much different to a Jehovah's witnesses. 

[Patang]

it is true that there is nothing out there, nothing at all. reality is just a subjective illusion, a dream, "created" by/for "you" as a scenery to explore and experience life as you grasp it. scientifically, there is no proof, no single evidence of any kind to the "physical" nature of reality, so it can not be true. physics (and science as a whole) is just a "human" belief like all the rest...

you are only a tip of a finger, a sensor for infinity, a means to experience.

[Leo Gura]

17 hours ago, Mighty Mouse said:

That's exactly why QM is bunk, mister integrity.

It's not bunk. It accurately predicts certain kinds of patterns within this dream. Which is good and useful.

Not everything needs to be about escaping the dream. There's a time and place for escaping the dream, and there's a time and place for exploring the dream.

You don't want either/or, you want BOTH!

[Thanatos13]

11 minutes ago, Patang said:

it is true that there is nothing out there, nothing at all. reality is just a subjective illusion, a dream, "created" by/for "you" as a scenery to explore and experience life as you grasp it. scientifically, there is no proof, no single evidence of any kind to the "physical" nature of reality, so it can not be true. physics (and science as a whole) is just a "human" belief like all the rest...

you are only a tip of a finger, a sensor for infinity, a means to experience.

There is nothing to suggest that. As for the “physical nature” most people in any entry level philosophy course know that. All we have are the senses, anything beyond that is up for guess. All one can do is believe. Not a satisfying answer, but it never was. The way I see it, physical means interaction through touching. Even a dream can do that. 

The “reality is a subjective illusion” is old news and in most neurology textbooks. I covered that already. But that doesn’t make it “not real”. Since there is no way to confirm or deny the “realness” of reality or the physical nature of it then we must suspend judgment. You’re like the people with the proof of god. No proof on either direction means we can’t say anything about it.

Physics is not a belief but the study of the interaction of forces in the world (or any world). Try breaking on ice and see how much of a belief it is. Science is also not a belief (no matter how much you or Leo want it to be). Modernity is a testament to that. It also shows a poor understanding of what Science IS. What is a belief is that you are infinite, that everything is one, the physics and science are beliefs, that you are already “dead”. That last once showcases major death anxiety.

4 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

It's not bunk. It accurately describes patterns within this dream. Which is good and useful.

Not everything needs to be about escaping the dream. There's a time and place of escaping the dream, and there's a time and place for exploring the dream.

QM (or quantum physics) is poorly understood even by those who spend their life on it. Not to mention it’s the most misinterpreted and quoted by woo folks (like you). Any claim to this being a dream (apart from the sensory sense of the word) is something I would have to deny. Unless there is compelling evidence of a “waking world” (and no psychelics don’t count) I’m sticking with what has worked so far.

Spirituality is unsatisfactory as a method of truth due to the large amount of misses it tends to have, the tendency to hide behind “ego” and “mind” when it comes under criticism, and the huge amount of belief required for it. It seems to me more like trying to convince yourself of a certain mode of thinking and believing but not giving evidence for it. It’s pretty well known that “religious experience” (as the term they use) while having several things in common (egolessness, oneness) are colored by prior beliefs and really are only a result of those beliefs, they don’t prove anything or give insight (not in the way we think). Meditation might lead to enlightenment (the state of “balance”) but all it proves is that meditation can result in it, not that enlightenment says anything about reality, existence, or life.

It makes me think that it’s just a lens people choose to see the world through, yet it garners much social currency in today’s world (heaven knows why). That way of viewing the world is just that, a way. 

But we are foolish humans. We create explanations for things we don’t understand to sate the fear of “not knowing”. We want something to place our bets on, and personal experience is powerful enough to sway us. But that itself clouds our judgment. Just because you experience and “enlightened moment” doesn’t prove much of anything no matter how much we want it to. Yet we do much desire it to be so that we believe it does. 

[StephenK]

7 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

It's not bunk. It accurately describes patterns within the dream. Which is good and useful.

Not everything needs to be about escaping the dream. There's a time and place of escaping the dream, and there's a time and place for exploring the dream.

Now that I have a clearer picture of Mighty Mouse's position on this matter: it seems that he negates any and all experience as Maya (which is fair) in an attempt to play the role of a contrarian on all issues on this forum (it's an easy position to take, but it is also lazy). As you put it, one can play in the absolute (as he does), but in order to have relative conversations, we must use the 'matrix' of the dream as it is manifesting now, so to speak. He tends to fall in and out of the Absolute into the Relative without so much as making a conscious distinction that he is playing with Maya (by conversing with us), but then proceeds to criticize others for doing just that (falling back into the Absolute). The problem with this forum is that many people hold their cards close to their chest when it comes to their assumptions, but readily criticize others when it comes to their own agenda. I personally don't really know what's true anymore, but the philosophical foundations of your and mighty mouse's positions are very interesting.     

[Thanatos13]

4 minutes ago, StephenK said:

Now that I have a clearer picture of Mighty Mouse's position on this matter: it seems that he negates any and all experience as Maya (which is fair) in an attempt to play the role of a contrarian on all issues on this forum (it's an easy position to take, but it is also lazy). As you put it, one can play in the absolute (as he does), but in order to have relative conversations, we must use the 'matrix' of the dream as it is manifesting now, so to speak. He tends to fall in and out of the Absolute into the Relative without so much as making a conscious distinction that he is playing with Maya (by conversing with us), but then proceeds to criticize others for doing just that (falling back into the Absolute). The problem with this forum is that many people hold their cards close to their chest when it comes to their assumptions, but readily criticize others when it comes to their own agenda. I personally don't really know what's true anymore, but the philosophical foundations of your and mighty mouse's positions are very interesting.     

Assuming there is any dream at all, or Maya.

If you want to debate philosophy go to a philosophy forum. If you want to confirm your beliefs then come here.

I personally treat any claims of the “spiritual”nature with a huge grain of salt. Especially with anything like the “absolute”. 

I also don’t find the contrarian position lazy, what’s lazy is glorifying what Leo says as truth. Every forum needs a contrarian (provides they are good ones and not just “no you’re not”). 

[7thLetter]

@Leo Gura So are we all experiencing the same "dream" and interacting within' the same dream? What if the fact that we call this a dream is part of the dream too? Since thoughts and ideas are a part of the dream itself?