What would be the differnce? Please answer if you have any insight

[Akira]

on close observation every experience is seen to be only consciousness manifest. This seems to be so and so we conclude that there is nothing but consciousness: that the universe and all of its forms are made up of consciousness alone. Yet how would our experience of the world differ if it were physical, existing independently of consciousness, coming in through the senses and being converted into conscious experience? We would only ever experience consciousness, as we do, in both scenarios. Therefore how do we access absolute truth, with certainty, through introspection, contemplation, consciousness work?

Much appreciated!

Edited November 22, 2018 by Akira

[ground]

37 minutes ago, Akira said:

on close observation every experience is seen to be only consciousness manifest.

Based on the conventional view of anatomy and physiology, on 'inner' and 'outer', that is an appropriate expression.

37 minutes ago, Akira said:

This seems to be so and so we conclude that there is nothing but consciousness: that the universe and all of its forms are made up of consciousness alone.

No, this conclusion is not consistent. What you may conclude based on the a.m. conventional view is that you simply cannot know whether there is an 'outside world' and if there is an 'outside world' how it really is, i.e. independent of human consciousness.

37 minutes ago, Akira said:

Yet how would our experience of the world differ if it were physical, existing independently of consciousness, coming in through the senses and being converted into conscious experience?

This is a speculative question. Speculations are useless.

37 minutes ago, Akira said:

Therefore how do we access absolute truth, with certainty, through introspection, contemplation, consciousness work?

you can't. you cannot even know whether there is an absolute truth. "truth" is just a word expressing a mental habit. rational analysis entails evidence that there is no truth at all. How so? Because rational analysis is conceptual and directed against its own domain conceptuality and "truth"  is only a concept.

 

 

 

 

Edited November 22, 2018 by ground

[NoSelfSelf]

By realizing who you are and who you are not

[Akira]

57 minutes ago, ground said:

Based on the conventional view of anatomy and physiology, on 'inner' and 'outer', that is an appropriate expression.

No, this conclusion is not consistent. What you may conclude based on the a.m. conventional view is that you simply cannot know whether there is an 'outside world' and if there is an 'outside world' how it really is, i.e. independent of human consciousness.

This is a speculative question. Speculations are useless.

you can't. you cannot even know whether there is an absolute truth. "truth" is just a word expressing a mental habit. rational analysis entails evidence that there is no truth at all. How so? Because rational analysis is conceptual and directed against its own domain conceptuality and "truth"  is only a concept.

 

 

 

 

I don't hold any of those views. I don't know what experience is or where it's coming from. I'm only questioning the idea that Leo seems to espouse that there is no basis to experience beyond consciousness. That consciousness is all there is. How can this be stated so categorically? By what view or perspective can this be known?

[Akira]

59 minutes ago, NoSelfSelf said:

By realizing who you are and who you are not

How so? If all that there can ever be are experiences, how can one realize anything beyond this? Here are experiences(period). is there a way of getting beyond this?

[ground]

11 minutes ago, Akira said:

I don't hold any of those views. I don't know what experience is or where it's coming from. I'm only questioning the idea that Leo seems to espouse that there is no basis to experience beyond consciousness. That consciousness is all there is. How can this be stated so categorically? By what view or perspective can this be known?

Well I do not know Leo's teaching but if he says that "there is no basis to experience beyond consciousness" then he is expressing himself correctly based on the conventional view that consciousness exists. But if he asserts "consciousness is all there is" he certainly merely speculates.

[Akira]

1 minute ago, ground said:

Well I do not know Leo's teaching but if he says that "there is no basis to experience beyond consciousness" then he is expressing himself correctly based on the conventional view that consciousness exists. But if he asserts "consciousness is all there is" he certainly merely speculates.

Do you have any ideas or views about the nature of reality? What it is? Is it purely conceptual? Is it physical? etc... It would be much appreciated because I don't know 

[ground]

7 minutes ago, Akira said:

Do you have any ideas or views about the nature of reality? What it is? Is it purely conceptual? Is it physical? etc... It would be much appreciated because I don't know 

To say 'reality is {this or that}' would be ignorant considering that people usually conceive of reality as "ultimate truth". Ulimate truth however is not conceptual, but is beyond linguistic expressions.

If we speak of "conventional reality" there are as many realities as there are systems of thought ... e.g. there are scientific realities, the realities of religious beliefs, the realities of philosophical or ideological  views etc. etc.