How Do You Know the Ontological Status of Reality is a Dream

[Faceless]

3 minutes ago, Shanmugam said:

That is right, but Rene Descartes didn't mean it that way either.. His intended meaning was kind of like this:  'I can doubt the existence of anything.. but since I doubt and this doubt is undeniable,  there certainly exists something in which the doubt arises; I doubt therefore I am!"

Yeah...I don’t know of his writings but I have seen that quote. Seems he was still not quite on to it yet. I don’t investigate into the ancients though. 

[Shanmugam]

3 minutes ago, SOUL said:

The questions, the answers to the questions, the explanations of the answers to the questions, descriptions about the explanations of the answers to the questions, understanding the descriptions about the explanations of the answers to the questions, the reasons for understanding the descriptions about the explanations of the answers to the questions, knowing the reasons for understanding the descriptions about the explanations of the answers to the questions.

Or... just be. There is genuine peace in just being.... an unquestionable ontology.

 

Yes.. There is genuine peace in just being.... an unquestionable ontology.

[Faceless]

4 minutes ago, SOUL said:

The questions, the answers to the questions, the explanations of the answers to the questions, descriptions about the explanations of the answers to the questions, understanding the descriptions about the explanations of the answers to the questions, the reasons for understanding the descriptions about the explanations of the answers to the questions, knowing the reasons for understanding the descriptions about the explanations of the answers to the questions.

Or... just be. It isn't really about not asking the question, it's about not desiring the answers. There is genuine peace in just being.... an unquestionable ontology.

Attention without motive is beautiful 

[Nahm]

@Shanmugam Thanks!  I understand and I do apologize if what I said seemed personal to you. I am certainly guilty of being direct. I am experiencing an illusion in this ‘moment’, not reality. I am reality.  The only being that there is, is the only reality. Everything else, is illusionary (or the dream ?) 

When you stated you are nothing, and everything.....it appeared as when someone is stating they have free will, or they don’t have free will, or that there is a paradox of both. It reveals they have not experienced the absolute, the source, what they are, love. Having experienced this, I would state it differently. It is very clear that I am absolute/love, and all else is my illusion. Perhaps we are saying the exact same thing and using different words, but there would be no way for me to deduce that. I don’t see why anyone who has experienced their source directly would refer to what they are as nothing & everything. They would know they are alone, an infinite conscious being, and they are not everything - everything is maya, the illusion of the being. 

You just posted a reference from two days ago, from your memory, and an implied slight against me with psychedelics, immediately following is a post about being enlightened and in the moment (as in not thinking, and further not thinking about yesterday) I am curious, have you tried psychedelics? Which? How was your experience? 

 If you like, you can state what you’re perceiving as a discrepancy between what I said the other day, and what I just said. I am not really interested because I don’t feel it was any different, nor do I see the point in doing so. But I am also happy to entertain and discuss. The absolute is the absolute lol. I do appreciate your convo’s very much! 

It is ok to think, it is ok to think about yesterday, and the day before, it is ok to think about tomorrow. It is ok to be in samadhi too. It is ok to use psychedelics. It is ok not to use psychedelics.  It is ok to learn from Osho, and to quote him, I love his writings. It is ok to put down what others say, and focus on direct experience too. That is the dream, directly. Very funny, but as I’m typing this, the radio is saying “I wanna run through the halls of my highshool, I wanna scream from the top of my lungs - I just found out there’s no such thing as the real world - just a lie we got to rise above”. ? I’m not saying John Mayor is enlightened ? just that maya is so damn funny to be playing that song as I’m typing. 

It had seemed to me, that all became clear between us yesterday in your post which you said was intended in love. I think all in all, in the maya,  we are 99.99999% the same, and we got caught up in the tiniest of fragments in which we appear otherwise. I, am guilty of that, no doubt. I suggest we each feel this now moment, appreciate the breath of life, and take comfort in the silence of what we truly are, One. Just for a moment. Just to clear our thoughts. 

❤️

[snowleopard]

4 minutes ago, Shanmugam said:

In fact, it is totally unnecessary as far as the spiritual path is concerned

That's a assumed generalization and limitation ... How can one know that it is unnecessary for every unique expression/exploration of inquiry?

[Shanmugam]

10 minutes ago, Nahm said:

@Shanmugam Perhaps we are saying the exact same thing and using different words, but there would be no way for me to deduce that. I don’t see why anyone who has experienced their source directly would refer to what they are as nothing & everything. They would know they are alone, an infinite conscious being, and they are not everything - everything is maya, the illusion of the being. 

1

Yes... But please understand the purpose of my book. The book is about bridging science and spirituality; I was very careful and worded every single word carefully to make sure that the book appeals to both seekers as well as scientists, especially psychology. And this is the role I am playing; people would call this is because of karma, but I have even explained the foundations of karma in my book so that it appeals to both seekers as well as scientists (including the common people who prefer scientific method for everything) and rationalists alike. I have also made sure that it is culturally neutral. In spite of all of this, you will notice that  I have stated in my book that there is no feeling of 'other'. If I looked at it one way, I am everything and I am what all that exists; on the other way, there is no separate or fragmented 'me' in relation to an 'other'...

[Shanmugam]

18 minutes ago, snowleopard said:

That's a assumed generalization and limitation ... How can one know that it is unnecessary for every unique expression/exploration of inquiry?

Because enlightened people know very well that the more information you accumulate regarding existential topics,  there is always a tendency to get identified with that knowledge, believe in it, get identified with it and even conditioned by it. Not only philosophy, too much theoretical knowledge related to spiritual enlightenment is also not encouraged. This is really not a generalized assumption and this is also not an exception but a rule. Very rarely there may be a few people who may not get attached, not just believe in the theory and can withstand any kind of conditioning. But a lot of such conditioning happens unconsciously and people don't realize that it is happening.

I am also a student of psychology, which I learned on my own interests as a hobby. Psychology does have a lot of authentic stuff regarding how a typical human mind works. Conditioning and learning behaviors is also a topic in psychology. As long as there is duality, there is always a tendency to slowly get conditioned to see things with certain new fixated paradigms..

[Joseph Maynor]

11 minutes ago, Shanmugam said:

Because enlightened people know very well that the more information you accumulate regarding existential topics,  there is always a tendency to get identified with that knowledge, believe in it, get identified with it and even conditioned by it. Not only philosophy, too much theoretical knowledge related to spiritual enlightenment is also not encouraged. This is really not a generalized assumption and this is also not an exception but a rule. Very rarely there may be a few people who may not get attached, not just believe in the theory and can withstand any kind of conditioning. But a lot of such conditioning happens unconsciously and people don't realize that it is happening.

I am also a student of psychology, which I learned on my own interests as a hobby. Psychology does have a lot of authentic stuff regarding how a typical human mind works. Conditioning and learning behaviors is also a topic in psychology. As long as there is duality, there is always a tendency to slowly get conditioned to see things with certain new fixated paradigms..

There's a bit of a paradox.  You can learn all you want, just don't attach too much to it.  I find that learning actually supports my skepticism regarding conceptual-truth because I have the counter-paradigm at hand for every paradigm.  Therefore it is easier for me to suspend belief because all my beliefs are in high-relief.  It's harder for your beliefs to hide when you've studied the shit out of Philosophy.

Don't worry about being inconsistent.  The problem is when you attach to the idea that beliefs are what is most true.  We know that what is most true is the reality in the moment, which has little to do with retained-beliefs.  So, there is no contradiction.  It's a subtle issue and kinda hard to explain, but I gave it a shot.

Edited February 12, 2018 by Joseph Maynor

[Shanmugam]

32 minutes ago, Nahm said:

@Shanmugam Thanks!  I understand and I do apologize if what I said seemed personal to you. I am certainly guilty of being direct.❤️

 

Not required to apologize; nothing is taken personally.  

[Nahm]

@Shanmugam ❤️??

Your book is great. I’m gonna make a thread about it. Not because I wanna do you a solid (though I do), but because in my opinion, everyone here would benefit from reading it, I know I did. It’s better than most books on the subject. 

[Shanmugam]

Just now, Joseph Maynor said:

There's a bit of a paradox.  You can learn all you want, just don't attach too much to it.  I find that learning actually supports my skepticism regarding conceptual truth because I have the counter-paradigm at hand for every paradigm.  So, don't worry about being inconsistent.  The problem is when you attach to the idea that beliefs are what is most true.  And we know that what is most true is the reality in the moment, which has little to do with retained beliefs.  So, there is no contradiction.  It's a subtle issue that is hard to explain, but I hope I have done so somewhat here.   

Yes... As I said enlightened people know very well that the more information you accumulate regarding existential topics,  there is always a tendency to get identified with that knowledge, believe in it, get identified with it and even conditioned by it. But as I also stated, there are always exceptions. You are probably an exception if you think this is working for you. But I have seen enough people who get a new 'conditioning' or 'attachment' to even non-dual teachings.. 

But this doesn't mean that it is a rule to follow. It is not a moral code or value. You can live whichever way you want; and as you stated yourself somewhere, there are no such rules in the absolute levels.. I only talk in terms of what works and what doesn't work.  So, when you say that I am forcing my values on others, I would only say that it is a wrong assumption. Probably it gives that connotation because I state things very assertively and clearly. But it is always related to what works better, what works and what may work and what doesn't work at all.

[Shanmugam]

4 minutes ago, Nahm said:

@Shanmugam ❤️??

Your book is great. I’m gonna make a thread about it. Not because I wanna do you a solid (though I do), but because in my opinion, everyone here would benefit from reading it, I know I did. It’s better than most books on the subject. 

Thank you.. This feedback is very useful to know.  

[snowleopard]

@Shanmugam  Well what doesn't have the potential to be a distraction to a fixated self-identity, even when that identity is that of an 'enlightened' person? Eventually every investigative methodology into inquiry becomes disposable -- like the proverbial boat that is abandoned once its function has been served. Just saying, that for some rational mindsets, some sort of intellectual co-validation may well be necessary in conjunction with the intuitive revelation, for it to ultimately stick and be fully integrated. For others, not so much. So I'm not inclined to easily dismiss some others unique investigation as being invalid, or unnecessary, and thus respect it insofar as it all may play its integral role, until it doesn't anymore.

[Shanmugam]

1 minute ago, snowleopard said:

@Shanmugam  Well what doesn't have the potential to be a distraction to a fixated self-identity, even when that identity is that of an 'enlightened' person? Eventually every investigative methodology into inquiry becomes disposable -- like the proverbial boat that is abandoned once its function has been served. Just saying, that for some rational mindsets, some sort of intellectual co-validation may well be necessary in conjunction with the intuitive revelation, for it to ultimately stick and be fully integrated. For others, not so much. So I'm not inclined to easily dismiss some others unique investigation as being invalid, or unnecessary, and thus respect it insofar as it all may play its integral role, until it doesn't anymore.

The investigation is necessary.  I am only talking about getting attached and identified with theories that you learn.. 

[snowleopard]

@Shanmugam For all one knows, attachment and identification may play an integral role as well ... The Divine Dreamer/Dream works in mysterious ways

[SOUL]

18 minutes ago, Shanmugam said:

But it is always related to what works better, what works and what may work and what doesn't work at all.

Since the absolute is infinite, the "what works better, what works and what may work and what doesn't work at all" is as diverse as their are individuals that are being.

There is no universal, one size fits all "what works better, what works and what may work and what doesn't work at all". It's unfathomable how individualized each of our experience of being really is. I cannot tell you what works for you and you cannot tell me what works for me,

We can speculate, we can investigate, we can communicate, we can hypothesize, we can analyze, we can generalize but we cannot realize what "works" for another.

This is the ultimate challenge in 'spirituality' and the state of being.

[Shanmugam]

@snowleopard Yes.. In fact, some theory is necessary. In my book, I have talked a lot about Indian schools of thought like Samkhya, Vedanta, Yoga, and Buddhism and I have also shown where they are in agreement. I deeply studied these topics only after enlightenment, and I examined them just like how a linguist would investigate the nature of different languages. I found that the terminology is the main issue.  I have also discussed the three important means of knowledge which all of these schools agree which are the following:

1) Verbal testimony..

2) Inference.. Number 1) is verified by Number 2)

3) Direct experience Number 1) is verified by Number 3)

You first hear about non-duality through verbal testimony. You finally confirm that it is true by direct experience.  

Any theory beyond this is usually unnecessary and it will make the spiritual path more complicated..the bottom line is, you don't have to have a degree in philosophy to walk on the spiritual path. But if you like it and if you want to proceed that way because it is indeed helping you to progress, then that should be fine..  The general rule of thumb is, if it works, go ahead!

[Shanmugam]

Just now, SOUL said:

Since the absolute is infinite, the "what works better, what works and what may work and what doesn't work at all" is as diverse as their are individuals that are being.

There is no universal, one size fits all "what works better, what works and what may work and what doesn't work at all". It's unfathomable how individualized each of our experience of being really is. I cannot tell you what works for you and you cannot tell me what works for me,

We can speculate, we can investigate, we can communicate, we can hypothesize, we can analyze, we can generalize but we cannot realize what "works" for another.

This is the ultimate challenge in 'spirituality' and the state of being.

I told you very clearly that teaching non-duality is a totally different deal. It is important to get down to the level of the seeker and speak to them in their language.. That is called compassion.

 'I am that I am' is a revelation of an experience;  not a teaching.. 

 

[SOUL]

7 minutes ago, Shanmugam said:

I told you very clearly that teaching non-duality is a totally different deal. It is important to get down to the level of the seeker and speak to them in their language.. That is called compassion.

 'I am that I am' is a revelation of an experience;  not a teaching.. 

 

Haha, so hilarious. I was just trying to point to how much of a challenge it is to speak on spirituality and being, that's all but you appear to take any interaction between us personally.

You can't seem to let go of a previous conversation, maybe you can examine your self to discover why.

Although since you brought it up....

"Teaching non-duality" is dualism....oh the irony.

"Down to the level of the seeker".... so it's "down", huh? I thought there were no levels...hmmm

Haha.

[Shanmugam]

1 minute ago, SOUL said:

Haha, so hilarious. I was just trying to point to how much of a challenge it is to speak on spirituality and being, that's all but you appear to take any interaction between us personally.

You can't seem to let go of a previous conversation, maybe you can examine your self to discover why.

Although since you brought it up....

"Teaching non-duality" is dualism....oh the irony.

"Down to the level of the seeker".... so it's "down", huh? I thought there were no levels...hmmm

Haha.

Do you have the ability to speak normally like every other person does? Are will you answer this question by saying that there is no 'every other person'? 

What I say is not just based on the previous conversations alone. Your every conversation sounds like how the so-called 'neo-Advaita teachers' speak... I have tried to make many things clear to you many times...

You have the freedom of speech.. But I can tell you right now that this is going nowhere. I am not even sure what your intention is.