Adeptus makes a good point (reality isn't an illusion)

[VeganAwake]

8 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

reality is real, it is what it is, the whole thing. what is illusion is the separate individual, and this illusion creates a perspective of reality that is unreal, or false, in the sense that it defines what is undefined

?

[VeganAwake]

5 hours ago, Mason Riggle said:

@Breakingthewall just to expand on what you said,

'reality is real'.. yes, and circles are circular... but notice that 'circles' are, by definition, 'circular'.   'Reality' is, by definition, 'real', even if 'what reality is' is 'imaginary', it would still 'really' be imaginary.   One can't escape 'the 'realness' of 'reality' by showing it to be 'illusion' or 'imaginary'.  This is why I often ask, 'Is this forum real, or does it just seem real?'  This honest answer to this question is, "it doesn't matter" or "there is no difference if I can't tell the difference"... or simply, "'real' and 'seeming to be real'(imaginary) are the same thing."   This is a problem for logic and language, and we end up with people saying contradictory sounding things like 'reality is imaginary', to which some people will say, "of course! Real and imaginary are the same thing!" and others will say, "that makes no sense, because 'real' can not mean 'not real'." and here we go round and round.. 



 

?

[Zigzag Idiot]

The Causal realm has also been referred to as the Imaginal realm.

I cannot emphasize strongly enough that the word imaginal does not mean “imaginary.” That unfortunate but all too understandable confusion was created by Henry Corbin, the noted Islamic scholar, when he introduced the term Mundus Imaginalis to name that intermediate, invisible realm of causality that figures so prominently in mystical Islamic cosmology.,,,,,,,,,,

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,This is exactly what Corbin was trying convey by the word “imagination,” understood in the traditional sense. Imaginal reality is a valid construction which, by changing consciousness in its inner ground, changes the nature of reality in the outer world. For this world as we know it is simply the outer form—Isaak Dinesen’s snake skin— within which runs that fiery, innermost aliveness. At least when things are working well, that is.

A reference about the Islamic Scholar Henry Corbin in 3 part blog written by Cynthia Bourgeault-

https://northeastwisdom.org/2018/12/is-the-imaginal-realm-real/

[Inliytened1]

On 7/7/2021 at 7:41 AM, Mason Riggle said:

@Breakingthewall just to expand on what you said,

'reality is real'.. yes, and circles are circular... but notice that 'circles' are, by definition, 'circular'.   'Reality' is, by definition, 'real', even if 'what reality is' is 'imaginary', it would still 'really' be imaginary.

Yes but that's just kinda the limitations of language l..it depends on what context you are referring to when you say reality is imaginary.  Most of the time when we say that  reality is imaginary  we do not use the phrase in that context.  It is in the context which contrasts it with materialism.  Materialism holds the belief that reality is objective- it actually exists behind the scenes somewhere outside of THIS which is pure direct experience or direct perceptions without a perceiver or experiencer.  Now you may say what is the difference there....but to become conscious of the difference there is quite profound actually.    When you become conscious of this yes you can then imagine that reality is objective and it will become that for you.  But that is very different to what is actual or true.  That is you getting lost in your mind.  What's insane or paradoxical/loopy about this is because of Oneness this being lost will be Total.

[Mason Riggle]

@Inliytened1 there is literally no difference between something 'objectively being materially real' and something 'subjectively seeming materially real'. 

Does this forum exist somewhere outside of THIS pure direct experience?  It does not matter. 

If there is a difference, I have yet to have anyone point it out. 

The profound realization, is that even when God is pretending it's not God.. that's still God... so whether God realizes it is itself or not.. both are God being God. 

[Inliytened1]

Just now, Mason Riggle said:

The profound realization, is that even when God is pretending it's not God.. that's still God... so whether God realizes it is itself or not.. both are God being God. 

That's what I said earlier.  Yes it is still God.  How can it be anything else when it is unlimited?  But it is precisely the realization of limitlessness that offers what you speak of.

[Mason Riggle]

1 minute ago, Inliytened1 said:

 But it is precisely the realization of limitlessness that offers what you speak of.

I'm not sure what you mean. This is very vague. What is up for offer? 

[Inliytened1]

Just now, Mason Riggle said:

I'm not sure what you mean. This is very vague. What is up for offer? 

If reality was not unlimited could there not be differences?

 

[Mason Riggle]

@Inliytened1 I'm still not sure what you're getting at.  Those double negatives are killing me.  

I'm speaking directly to the point about 'real' vs 'not real', and suggesting they are no different.  That's all.  I have no idea what you're talking about. 

[Inliytened1]

8 hours ago, Mason Riggle said:

@Inliytened1 I'm still not sure what you're getting at.  Those double negatives are killing me.  

I'm speaking directly to the point about 'real' vs 'not real', and suggesting they are no different.  That's all.  I have no idea what you're talking about. 

The differences that we make are created.  I'm not disagreeing.  I'm simply stating that difference is relative to context.  If you are speaking from the Absolute Absolute - of course.  When you wake up from the dream to see that all this form - this universe was something you dreamed up...that is simply God realizing itself.  Is it a contrast between itself and the dream? Sure.  So what.  The dream melts away or collapses into complete Oneness.  But contrast is not the enemy.  God realizes itself and realizes what it is.  That it is not a human typing on a forum.   It realizes that it is God.  But then later it can realize hey, I am also the dream and everything in the dream too.  What's wrong with being separate from myself?  Nothing of course because right or wrong is just something I created.

[Mason Riggle]

1 minute ago, Inliytened1 said:

It realizes that it is God.  But then later it can realize hey, I am also the dream and everything in the dream too.

again.. no difference. These are the exact same realization. 

[Inliytened1]

1 minute ago, Mason Riggle said:

again.. no difference. These are the exact same realization. 

In the big picture yes.  But did you have all the realizations at the same time? If you did more power to you

 

[Mason Riggle]

@Inliytened1 did who have all the realizations at the same time? God or God pretending to be me, which is still God? 

God forgetting it's God, or God remembering it's God, is all just more God being God, which is all there is. 

Edited July 9, 2021 by Mason Riggle

[Inliytened1]

12 minutes ago, Mason Riggle said:

@Inliytened1 did who have all the realizations at the same time? God or God pretending to be me, which is still God? 

God forgetting it's God, or God remembering it's God, is all just more God being God, which is all there is. 

It's a strange loop.  God is God but God can change states.  It's One Consciousness that can change states of consciousness.   That is the strange loop.  When in the state of consciousness that is all there is.  When in the state of consciousness.  But there can be other states of consciousness.  But not from this one.

[Mason Riggle]

6 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

 When in the state of consciousness that is all there is. 

And when not in state of consciousness.. that's still all there is. 

[Inliytened1]

19 minutes ago, Mason Riggle said:

And when not in state of consciousness.. that's still all there is. 

Yes precisely.  Being not in a state of consciousness IS also a state of consciousness.  Infinity cannot escape itself.  It's always itself.

So in the end we agree - but the key is the context.  If speaking from the Absolute there are no differences.  Do we concurr?  But actually being the Absolute is Absolute, and being finite is itself being finite by definition.

 

[Mason Riggle]

@Inliytened1 I think we [mostly] agree. Language is such an obstacle.  I think all dualities collapse, including the 'relative/Absolute' duality. 

[AdeptusPsychonautica]

OK, let me chime in here and hopefully straighten a few things out.

Firstly let me clarify my motivation for making this video and also the previous one about staying grounded, and its to and put the brakes on the kind of mentality that lead to the recent suicide of one of the members here on Actualized. I think a strong grounded foundation is critical for any kind of serious psychedelic exploration, and I would say that when that is not the case then we end up with Conor Murphys and tragic cases like Sunni.

I would hope that this would be something that we can all agree on - that (regardless of what else is going on) we have bodies, and that we interacting with a physical plane of existence. No matter how much of it we PERCEIVE, it is REAL (the definition reality was in the video). Actions have consequences, and its happening independent of you - now if we cannot agree on that then you leave the door wide open to future Sunni's, and needless to say THAT WOULD BE BAD.

Even Leo has said similar things in the light of these events (look after your bodies, actions have consequences, don't hurt your physical form) so I really don't think there is a whole lot of daylight between me and him here (Leo feel free to correct me). We need to look after our physical bodies, because they are (at the very least) occupying a physical plane, and the shit going around you (while not being the totality of reality) is real.

I notice a lot of the usual silliness here and most of it has fuck all to do with the point at hand. The plane of reality I discuss within this video has ZERO impact on what you might want to believe about God, consciousness, religion, or whatever else - so calm your tits. I'm also seeing a lot of the same "everything is imaginary" waffle which is what led to the recent tragedy, I guess some things never change... ho hum.

Now the argument I presented within this video is specifically to debunk the case put forth by Deepak within the documentary. You might argue that there are other additional factors that I didn't take into account, but that's not what I was debunking. Deepak put forward his case with some very specific examples in a mainstream documentary, and there were BAD easily debunkable examples. I used the full clip quoting Deepak, and included dictionary definitions of the words at hand, so he was not in any way misrepresented. I will say that I think Deepak Chopra is pretty notorious for his word salad bullshit and that I don't think there is much value in anything he says (most of which he just regurgitates from other more useful sources). 

So in summary all I would say is that if this (the case Deepak makes here) was the foundation you were using to understand reality then you probably should go back to the drawing board, because its an extremely flimsy basis which might make for a quirky soundbite but doesn't hold up to much scrutiny.

[Mason Riggle]

1 hour ago, AdeptusPsychonautica said:

I would hope that this would be something that we can all agree on - that (regardless of what else is going on) we have bodies, and that we interacting with a physical plane of existence.

I don't think this is something we all agree on.  It's an assumption.  Recognize that while it seems that we have bodies and that we interact with a physical plane of existence', it's possible to be totally confused about our experience... when we dream, it seems like 'we are interacting with a physical plane of existence' as well.  

My whole life could be a simulation, or an illusion, or a hallucination.  I could be a brain in a vat, dreaming all of THIS right now.  How could I know? What dream could someone who is dreaming have that would show them it's not a dream?  If a character in your dream was trying to convince you that they are really interacting with you in a physical plane of existence.. and in the dream they showed you an apple, and pointed to all manner of physical things and interactions as proof of the 'realness' of the dream. that would all be possible within the dream, and you still couldn't know that your 'evidence that it's not a dream' isn't just 'more dream'. 
 

[AdeptusPsychonautica]

3 hours ago, Mason Riggle said:

I don't think this is something we all agree on.  It's an assumption.  
 

Whether you cognitively agree or not, the fact that you picked up a device and typed out your disagreement, while acting out entirely in accordance with my "assumption" is good enough for me. Perhaps next time you should just dream your thoughts over to me, it would be a much more convincing argument.

As for the simulation/illusion/hallucination then I already covered this in the video around the 09:17 mark