Experience is never direct

[Johnny5]

7 minutes ago, purerogue said:

That is why I stay out of that grey area, there are very few people who can in any way grasp what I am trying to say  and in honesty there are no words to do it justice as it completely collapses logic. 

+1

I'm sure I'll stop indulging some day...  

 

4 minutes ago, mandyjw said:

Did you get back in it again? 

Unsure...

[Gesundheit]

7 minutes ago, Johnny5 said:

No, we initially make it up with language and then argue about its existential status.

What's the existential status of something that we just made up ourselves... can you guess?

Here's the deal: The existential status of relativity is that it's a complete fabrication. There is no such thing, it's simply not possible.

Strange loops are not possible...

Wait what? Yeah that's right! Strange loops are not possible, what a novel concept!  ? Holy shit I just fell out of my chair. Are you saying strange loops are impossible? Fuck yeah that's what I'm saying.

What, you didn't know?

Can God be so all-powerful that it creates itself? No of course not! Shit, does this really need explaining? It doesn't matter how powerful anyone or anything is, it can't do anything whatsoever if it doesn't already exist.

You said Atman and Brahman are different so I disagreed with that. You said that Atman is a mirage, and that only Brahman is actual. But in this sense, both Atman and Brahman are concepts that are not actual.

It's like you identify Brahman as nothing but then deny that nothing = everything. And then at some other point, you identify Brahman as everything, but still deny that everything = nothing. What am I missing here?

[Johnny5]

1 minute ago, Gesundheit said:

What am I missing here?

My point.

It's not about the word games.

[Gesundheit]

Just now, Johnny5 said:

My point.

It's not about the word games.

Elaborate pls.

[raphaelbaumann]

19 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

What he means is, everything will stay the same, but you will realize that perception is actually Being by collapsing the subject of perception into the raw data of perception. Perception will get radically recontextualized, but all the raw data, so to speak, will stay exactly the same. If you saw red before, you will keep seeing red during awakening. But now red will be recognized as RED! -- an absolute, rather than a function of some biological human brain process.

Beautifully explained, thanks!

[Dodo]

3 hours ago, Johnny5 said:

No, it really isn't...

What do you even base that on?

 

Brahman is awareness without form, Atman is form and alll form is a mirage. When you see everything as yourself, that's Atman, and that's still a step removed from truth.

 

Yes Atman is the self and unifies those three states.

Brahman is no-self, and for Brahman there are no states.

 

No! That's the whole point  

 

Atman = THIS

Brahman = Not even...

sorry I need to read up on my Brahman. I like to just use my direct experience, this Brahman thing does not sound like my experience currently

When I say Atman I mean the subject of experience ( no form) and when I say Brahman I mean the object of experience. You seem to mean the opposite. 

Edited September 1, 2020 by Dodo

[Johnny5]

2 hours ago, Gesundheit said:

Elaborate pls.

"Nothing" is just what we call the absence of phenomena. Phenomena being perception.

In this sense you could consider consciousness the noumenal, as opposed to the phenomenal. In other words the "source" or "cause" of perception, rather than perception itself.

The existential status of perception was never at issue, even science and philosophy generally doesn't mistake it for reality (at least in theory). Because that would be what is called "naive realism". Instead, this is identified as "the veil of perception". Which means that perception veils the actual reality underlying it.

The only mistake of science and (western) philosophy is that they take perception to be indicative of an objective reality underlying it, in other words they assume the noumenal to be "out there", behind perception as it were. But really, perception is only indicative of consciousness, the noumenal "in here", prior to perception.

Prior to perception... In the same way that a mirror is prior to any image in it. And in that same way, the mirror is reality, the image is not. That's not a duality, the mirror is what's nondual.

Appearances don't factor into this equation one way or another, except as proof of the existence of consciousness. In the same way that any image in a mirror is proof of the existence of the mirror. The only significance of the image itself is that it is proof of the only thing that actually exists, i.e. the mirror. That's it. Nothing more.

But since you can't see the mirror itself, we call it "nothing". When actually it's the only thing that exists, and the image is just a trick of light. When you say "everything", you are refering to the trick of light, which in truth is nothing. When you say "nothing", you are referring to the mirror, which in truth is the only thing that exists. You can't reconcile the image with the mirror, and it makes no sense to try. There's no need. The image in itself has no relevance whatsoever.

So when you say perception is consciousness, you're saying the image is the mirror. In a way, yes, but not in the way you think. Only the mirror exists, and there is no image other than the mirror. But that doesn't ever make the image identical to the mirror. Nor self-created, nor self-perceived, nor self-reflected. And certainly not absolute.

Edited September 1, 2020 by Johnny5

[Johnny5]

Just now, Dodo said:

I like to just use my direct experience

For what? Truth? Or practical matters? Those are two very different things. Practical matters (and we) exist only in illusion. That's why this is a significant point to make. If you are looking for truth, it's good to know that you'll never find it here.

[Dodo]

1 hour ago, Johnny5 said:

For what? Truth? Or practical matters? Those are two very different things. Practical matters (and we) exist only in illusion. That's why this is a significant point to make. If you are looking for truth, it's good to know that you'll never find it here.

How do you mean, there is nothing other than the truth here. 

[Leo Gura]

@Johnny5 You don't know what you're talking about.

Relative = Absolute

If the end, everything has to equal everything else, otherwise you're still in duality, still not ONE.

[Gesundheit]

55 minutes ago, Johnny5 said:

"Nothing" is just what we call the absence of phenomena. Phenomena being perception.

In this sense you could consider consciousness the noumenal, as opposed to the phenomenal. In other words the "source" or "cause" of perception, rather than perception itself.

I could, but that's not my current experience. My current experience is non-duality (best term I could find). No self or source or cause or anything like that, at least to a good degree. There is perception, and when I contemplate it, I see that it's the same thing as consciousness or emptiness. The distinction between perception and consciousness didn't exist in the first place except in thought.

[anaj]

@Johnny5 You're mistaken. There's no consciousness apart from phenomena. There's no mirror. It's only when phenomena is regarded and contextualized as such that this idea of a witness/source/cause/mirror is born. When phenomena is clearly seen as nothing but non-dual experienc-ing, consciousness is more seen as the substance, while apperances are its form. This is another subtle duality than can be further deconstructed, in the end leaving nothing but "brahman". But brahman isn't something apart from atman, it's just what remains when atman is broken down and seen clearly.

[Johnny5]

1 hour ago, Dodo said:

When I say Atman I mean the subject of experience ( no form) and when I say Brahman I mean the object of experience. You seem to mean the opposite. 

Pretty much

 

27 minutes ago, Dodo said:

How do you mean, there is nothing other than the truth here. 

Yup

 

9 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

@Johnny5 You don't know what you're talking about.

Relative = Absolute

Yessir

 

4 minutes ago, Gesundheit said:

I could, but that's not my current experience.

Actually it is everyone's current experience all the time... but sure, I get what you're saying.

And of course that's also what the biggest normie in town would say. So if that's good enough for them then I guess it's good enough for you?

I mean, your call of course... Not really though  

 

1 minute ago, anaj said:

@Johnny5 You're mistaken.

Okay

[Dodo]

10 hours ago, Johnny5 said:

Yessir

This made me laugh super hard hahahh

[Johnny5]

14 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

If the end, everything has to equal everything else, otherwise you're still in duality, still not ONE.

Yes, but only everything that actually exists.

Marlon Brando is not actually The Godfather. It's just Marlon Brando. There's no duality there, only Brando exists. Godfather is just Brando pretending. That doesn't validate the existence of The Godfather one iota, and it's not a duality or distinction that needs "collapsing" or reconciling one way or another. There never was a godfather, it was always just Marlon Brando pretending. Godfather is pure fabrication.

The movie on a videotape is just videotape. There is no movie other than the videotape. No duality, no need to reconcile them. The videotape exists, the movie doesn't, except as a facade of the videotape. The movie is pure fabrication, can't possibly exist in its own right, and is thereby proof of the videotape even if nobody in the movie ever "experienced" the video tape. Nonduality refers to the videotape, not the movie. At most you could say that the movie is an expression of the videotape, and as such included in the nondual nature of the videotape.

If appearance is anything, it's consciousness pretending. Sort of. Form is formless pretending. They are not identical in truth, one is a facade of the other, and only the other exists so no need to reconcile them. Relativity is the absolute pretending. Still no duality, still no actual relativity. It was always just the absolute pretending. Sort of. The absolute never actually does anything, it just imagines to be doing everything. Still no duality, still no need to reconcile.

Only the absolute exists, relativity never did. Reality is not a strange loop, it only appears as a strange loop. Strange loop is the facade.

Infinite regression is not the same as actual infinity. The former can't exist, the latter must exist. A strange loop is infinite regression. Relativity is infinite regression. Two hands drawing eachother is infinite regression. Escher's stairs are infinite regression. Duality is infinite regression. Infinite regression is not absolute, it is impossible. Infinity is absolute and necessary.

Come on it's not that difficult...  ? 

[Johnny5]

Don't think that it's not possible to be mistaken in what you "take back" from a psychedelic trip.

Happens all the time, if you haven't noticed.

[Dodo]

@Johnny5 imagine Ramana Maharshi going to Buddha and schooling him in the REAL TRUTH 

That wouldnt be Ramana Maharshi 

[Johnny5]

@Dodo If Leo happens to be wrong about something (or if you misinterpreted something he said), what's at stake for you?

Edited September 2, 2020 by Johnny5

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, Johnny5 said:

Yes, but only everything that actually exists.

Marlon Brando is not actually The Godfather. It's just Marlon Brando. There's no duality there, only Brando exists. Godfather is just Brando pretending. That doesn't validate the existence of The Godfather one iota, and it's not a duality or distinction that needs "collapsing" or reconciling one way or another. There never was a godfather, it was always just Marlon Brando pretending. Godfather is pure fabrication.

The movie on a videotape is just videotape. There is no movie other than the videotape. No duality, no need to reconcile them. The videotape exists, the movie doesn't, except as a facade of the videotape. The movie is pure fabrication, can't possibly exist in its own right, and is thereby proof of the videotape even if nobody in the movie ever "experienced" the video tape. Nonduality refers to the videotape, not the movie. At most you could say that the movie is an expression of the videotape, and as such included in the nondual nature of the videotape.

If appearance is anything, it's consciousness pretending. Sort of. Form is formless pretending. They are not identical in truth, one is a facade of the other, and only the other exists so no need to reconcile them. Relativity is the absolute pretending. Still no duality, still no actual relativity. It was always just the absolute pretending. Sort of. The absolute never actually does anything, it just imagines to be doing everything. Still no duality, still no need to reconcile.

Only the absolute exists, relativity never did. Reality is not a strange loop, it only appears as a strange loop. Strange loop is the facade.

Infinite regression is not the same as actual infinity. The former can't exist, the latter must exist. A strange loop is infinite regression. Relativity is infinite regression. Two hands drawing eachother is infinite regression. Escher's stairs are infinite regression. Duality is infinite regression. Infinite regression is not absolute, it is impossible. Infinity is absolute and necessary.

Come on it's not that difficult...  ? 

No, you are still creating duality by trying to negate appearances. Appearances are absolute. If you don't get that, you ain't really awake.

That itch on your ass -- yup, it's absolute.

[Johnny5]

11 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

No, you are still creating duality by trying to negate appearances.

Just the reification of appearances, which is what the mind does. That's the duality, and that's what I'm negating.

 

11 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

you ain't really awake.

Never said I was.

 

11 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

That itch on your ass -- yup, it's absolute.

No, that's you reifying it.

Edited September 2, 2020 by Johnny5