Materialism

[Mert]

Sometimes on the path, you think you've transcended something and later it comes back again. Lately, I've been thinking about materialism and it doesn't seem that much of an absurd thing. This is the issue. I'm having a hard time seeing that reality is only my perceptions. Some people agree with that some people don't Here is an example. If I see a train coming and stand in front of it and turn my back. And close my ears. So there is nothing in my perceptions about the train including the idea of it. Im just meditating peacefully on the rails. And boom! the train is going to hit me and I'm going to die. Now you might say that "there was no train because you said that there was no perception of it. And suddenly a new perception occurred and you died. Or you might say your perception changed. But I feel like there is something missing with this explanation. Radical implications of enlightenment (of course for some people) that your perception creates the world or objects. One explanation can be that there is no material but there are other minds who also create reality so if somebody comes from your back and hits you, this only happens because you are in their perception. But what if in the train example there is no one driving the train or seeing this event. Are we going to deny that a train hit me and I died because of that. I am not defending materialism here, I understand the metaphysical implication of it. But I refuse to be lazy and just play the "oh "materialism" is just an idea in your mind" card. Like I said of course if I stop thinking something as material, it's just not. But reality is just way more complicated and I have a thirst to understand. Maybe what I need is a model at this point. Ruper Spira sometimes talks about this "other minds" model but I really need more answers. Let me clarify again don't tell me how materialism cannot be true ultimately. But I need an explanation for "things happening outside my consciousness" and materialism in that sense, even though the ultimate substance is consciousness, doesn't seem to be a bad model.

Edited April 27, 2020 by Mert

[Leo Gura]

@Mert You are God, dreaming a dream within a dream.

[tenta]

1 hour ago, Mert said:

other minds who also create reality

That's a duality.

1 hour ago, Mert said:

Are we going to deny that a train hit me and I died because of that. I am not defending materialism here, I understand the metaphysical implication of it. But I refuse to be lazy and just play the "oh "materialism" is just an idea in your mind" card. Like I said of course if I stop thinking something as material, it's just not. But reality is just way more complicated and I have a thirst to understand. Maybe what I need is a model at this point. Ruper Spira sometimes talks about this "other minds" model but I really need more answers. Let me clarify again don't tell me how materialism cannot be true ultimately. But I need an explanation for "things happening outside my consciousness" and materialism in that sense, even though the ultimate substance is consciousness, doesn't seem to be a bad model.

I don't know, maybe you aren't going far enough with how much reality is being dreamed of.

[Mert]

@tenta @Leo Gura Yeah I understand that that's duality. I can say that its non-dual or a dream but what I'm interested in is the structure of the dream. So this is where I'm stuck. I understand that no word or concept can describe reality. What I see in front of me right now is not a computer. The concept of computer is a dream we might say. But I'm looking at something right? For example, I can't drink my computer. Now I can sit on the top of the mountain and say "Drinking is a dream too. There Is no one to drink or use the computer. It's all empty nothingness which can't be described". I think a lot of people just memorize this type of knowledge and not think about the ramifications of it. The fact of the matter is there is a structure in what I'm looking at.  Now, this is not an argument against its being a dream but how the fuck does that happen? Is it God's will? I hope you can see where I'm coming from. For example, in Leo's "brains don't exist" episode, he makes a very good case that perception affects another perception in the case of brain damage which I totally agree. But how does that happen when the brain is not being perceived? or anything for that matter. So let's say I drink water and the effect of it is that I have to pee. Water is a perception. Sensation to want to pee is a perception. Pee is a perception. But what the fuck is happening between them? For example, the process that water goes through until it becomes pee in my body is lost. Now you can say that process is a perception too. BUT. That process was never perceived by anyone. So, how stuff still happens when no one is looking. Is God perceiving everything all the time? That would be a not a bad explanation. I think that's Berkeley's position.

[Leo Gura]

21 minutes ago, Mert said:

but how the fuck does that happen?

Infinite Consciousness

What you see is exactly HOW it is happening. Reality is 100% direct. You cannot understand it as a process or a causal chain because it is 100% direct. Being IS the process. Since God is unlimited and creation costs God nothing, God can do without any process.

Think about it, why would an unlimited power need a process? It can just directly manifest precisely whatever it wanted to. A process would imply that God has to follow some rules or limits, but God invented all the rules and limits, so it is not bound by them.

Everything you see is the process unfolding. Nothing is hidden. Nothing is happening behind the scenes. This. Is. It.

[Mert]

@Leo Gura That's a good explanation and I have a very strong intuition that that's the case. It makes sense too. But also doesn't that mean that my finite mind is all that there is to reality? Don't other people have experiences too? Now, I understand that ultimately all limited minds have to come from infinite consciousness so in that sense "other minds" is just more God. But the question remains unanswered on a relative level. It's like you ask me "Hey what are you watching on your phone?" and I reply "Oh It's just God is watching itself?" Even though that would be absolutely true, the question is still unanswered. So for example in this work, we claim to be empirical right? Even though its a relative question, can I know that there are other minds that perceive something other than what I perceive? I found that we should remain agnostic on this issue on purely empirical grounds. Am I wrong?

[Leo Gura]

@Mert If you want to understand reality at a deep level -- at the ultimate level -- then what you have to do is realize that the relative level/domain is entirely illusory, and let the whole thing go.

You are still trying to drag God down into the mud, to your relative level, but God cannot be understood that way. You must empty your cup and rise to God's level. This means surrendering the relative -- at least for a while.

The question of whether other minds exists cannot be properly answered at the relative level. At the absolute level you will realize that other minds are your mind.

To realize what another is requires a specific awakening experience.

[Victor Mgazi]

@Mert Does a dreamer experience the dream? Or does a dreamer dream the experience? 

[Leo Gura]

The dreamer is the dream. Furthermore, there isn't even a dream.

[Mert]

 

 

1

 Advanced issue found

▲

 

 

 

 

1

 Advanced issue found

▲

 

 

 

 

1

 Advanced issue found

▲

 

 

 

 

1

 Advanced issue found

▲

 

 

 

 

1

 Advanced issue found

▲

 

 

29 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

 To realize what another requires a specific awakening experience.

 

@Leo Gura Yes, I completely agree with everything you said. We can go directly to the source of experience but other relative stuff requires a different kind of "getting it" and that was what I was after because I'm naturally very curious like you. Of course, getting too stuck in those relatives can be tiring. It's funny how people usually think we can be pretty good at knowing the relative truths but not absolute, but I think its the other way around. Absolute is the simplest one, but there are literally infinite relative truths.

Edited April 27, 2020 by Mert

[Enlightenment]

2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

The question of whether other minds exists cannot be properly answered at the relative level.

So we can not get a concrete, definitive answer to this profound existential question 

 

[Mert]

@Enlightenment No I think we can give a conclusive answer to the simulation theory. Because one of the premises is that there is a "real reality" as opposed to the simulated one. There cannot be a "more real" reality because what would be the measure of this. There is only being. Being is being. That's it. So, In a sense it is possible that we are in a simulation but the ones who simulate us (let's say aliens) wouldn't be the real ones. So if you want you can say all reality is a simulation and simulator is God, which is not different than the common-sense view which is that world being created by God. Or you can say It's all real. It's a language game. But you can't say anything in between.

 

Edited April 27, 2020 by Mert

[Mert]

@remember What I meant was "if you couldn't figure it out like me, then we should stay agnostic" and I cant see a way right now so that's why I'm asking. Seems like empirical knowledge has its limits and at some point we have to make logical inferences.

Edited April 27, 2020 by Mert