A Rant Against Naive Realism Summary

[aurum]

29 minutes ago, Captain Flint said:

And moreover, as if it was not radical enough - you are claiming that this whole field of awareness (undivided experience) is an illusion too?

Existentially, yes. Follow the pixel example to it's natural conclusion. If that's true about pixels, what about your cat? What about your house? You and I? Aren't these all just arbitrary labels the mind has made up?

Think of a Globe. On the globe, everything is divided and we say this or that country exists. But the deeper reality is that there are no divisions on the Globe. We made them up. The Globe is just One Thing without division or boundary.

That's your field of awareness. You're talking to yourself, and so am I. We're the same.

29 minutes ago, Captain Flint said:

I don't say that I'm not open to this possibility. But, perhaps, this is more radical even than Leo's video about Nothingness.

There is nothing I'm saying that Leo isn't saying in his videos. We may just be using different words or explanations, but we're trying to say the same thing. It's all one, only nothing exists.

Edited January 17, 2017 by aurum

[alyra]

reality is infinite. the physical assumption, is what is measurable. but measurable existence only exists in the finite point of view of the measurements. the measurable existence is only existent when measurements create evidence. 

if measurements are the reality, these measurements (including experience, seeing, touching) are infinite - infinitely local - there are infinite cases of the local phenomena of measurement. only in the local existence does the locality of our awareness exist - in the infinite scale, there is nothing because it is infinite that the local noise is so insignificant it is small. 

 

the point on the graph has no dimensions to it - but infinite points create a line. this is the reality we live in - what we believe is physical existence, is nothing but a grouping of local, dimensionless points of reality, pretending to be substance, but there really is no substance. we measure patterns and assume there is a diversification of energy in a field - but we are just projecting something onto what is nothing. 

 

when we zoom out we see that there is really nothing. if we zoom in, we find nothingness. except we cannot - because our zoom is measurement, and where there is measurement there is the illusion of the measurable world. 

 

our finite experience is only experienced finitely because we are using a finite vantage. this does indeed appear to be a self-fulfilling statement - but, well, yes, that is exactly right. the physical world is only self-fulfilling. the infinite consciousness of reality is what creates the illusion of form - and what is in reality nothing - everything is nothing, and nothing is everything. 

 

we care about measurements and death because we are finite phenomena. but the reality is, that we are not finite at all - nor are we phenomena - we are one infinite nothingness. zoom in on what appears to be form and you will find nothingness - zoom out and you will find nothingness. this is the reality. and what spawns from nothing is everything.

 

 

what is consciousness - we measure things with our tools - but no matter how advanced our tools become - there will always be some phenomena our tools cannot measure - the next infinite layer of dimensionless phenomena pretending to have form. this is what is consciousness - we can measure it better but we will never have it in our measurements. in this way, we know that reality is consciousness and not nothing - consciousness is the dimensionless phenomena which pretends to have form. but even being aware of this idea - is the falseness of the measurable world. our science will continue to believe it has discovered what creates consciousness - and a new question will arise to ask, what is consciousness? a question which our finite tools cannot measure. 

 

consiousness, existence, nothingness, measurements, these are all the same nondual thing that gets pointed to in different measurable ways. our physical world is also nothingness, and consciousness. all is as one, this is the nature of the infinite. 

Edited January 18, 2017 by aryberry
dunno how to spell consciousness apparently.

[Leo Gura]

15 hours ago, David1 said:

Yes. The only thing you are sure of is that you are conscious. Other people can say that they are conscious, but you'll never know for sure.

That's a tricky assumption, stemming from the paradigm that self and other are real solid entities.

Consider this: if everything in one (as nonduality suggests), there is no separation between you and other beings. In which case, it would be possible to have a direct consciousness of what another being is.

Turns out it is possible to have direct consciousness of another. Because another is you. And you're both nothing.

To accomplish this feat, you'd have to have an enlightenment experience on the question of: What is another?

Enlightenment has many interesting facets. More than people first suspect.

[ParanoidAndroid]

How do you quote a particular part of somebody's comment?

[alyra]

3 hours ago, ParanoidAndroid said:

How do you quote a particular part of somebody's comment?

you highlight their text, and then hover over with the mouse. "quote this" appears and you can click on it. sometimes that popup doesn't show tho... if I try three or four times with no result, I refresh the page and this gets it to work in the next 1-4 tries. I am unsure how this is done on mobile. I think a mouse is needed to mouse-over. 

Edited January 18, 2017 by aryberry

[ParanoidAndroid]

2 hours ago, aryberry said:

you highlight their text, and then hover over with the mouse. "quote this" appears and you can click on it. sometimes that popup doesn't show tho... if I try three or four times with no result, I refresh the page and this gets it to work in the next 1-4 tries. I am unsure how this is done on mobile. I think a mouse is needed to mouse-over. 

Thanks

[David1]

On 18-1-2017 at 1:57 AM, Leo Gura said:

Consider this: if everything in one (as nonduality suggests), there is no separation between you and other beings. In which case, it would be possible to have a direct consciousness of what another being is.

Let's use the dream analogy. The stuff and characters in a dream are obviously 'made' of (sub)consciousness. When the dreamer wakes up, he'll realize 'they were all me'. But in the dream, there has to be duality. He can't dream being more than one character at the same time.

Edited January 19, 2017 by David1

[alyra]

59 minutes ago, David1 said:

Let's use the dream analogy. The stuff and characters in a dream are obviously 'made' of (sub)consciousness. When the dreamer wakes up, he'll realize 'they were all me'. But in the dream, there has to be duality. He can't dream being more than one character at the same time.

are we really so singular? you appear to find duality in a dream necessary. but I find myself conversing with myself all the time. I hold complex scenarios in my head with ease. and this is when I'm consious... and distracted. a dream being nondual sounds pretty easy to accept, much more easier to accept than reality nondual. 

[Leo Gura]

The dream analogy is very good. That's basically how best to hold reality, as a dream. And you can wake from it, just like a dream.

[WaveInTheOcean]

Dreaming = a creation of subconsciousness

Not-dreaming = a creation of consciousness

Waking up includes the realization that both dreaming and not-dreaming are two sides of the same coin. i.e. it's arbitrary what you call a dream and what you call reality.

The Not-Dreaming_Experience (= body being "awake" on planet earth or where ever the body is) is indeed a dream. 

The Dreaming-Experience (= body being "asleep" on planet earth or where ever the body is) is reality.

And vice versa.

Edited January 19, 2017 by WaveInTheOcean

[Echoes]

I would be interested in what you guys have to say about the message presented in this video. the question is asked at 7:00 (but the prior part is also worth watching) 

basically, Francis Lucille says that the world has existence/reality independent of the human mind, but not independent of consciousness. So in his understanding, New York exists independent of whether I'm in Japan or actually in New York. It doesn't matter where the bodymind is, because they too are only appearing inside consciousness. How is this message in conjunction with Leo's Video? Or am I misunderstanding his message?

 

[Menno]

https://www.youtube.com/shared?ci=4seMP2zvQ9c

another great explanation to this topic!

 

[ParanoidAndroid]

On 17/01/2017 at 9:06 PM, aurum said:

If you never had a single thought, there would be nothing. You wouldn't even have the concept of existence or non-existence. There would be no you, no God, no science, no philosophy, no morals, no ideas about spirituality, no mind, no universe, no enlightenment, no ideas about realness, no ideas about nothingness, NO BELIEFS OF ANY KIND.

There'd only be ...............................

We can't describe it.

But we do think. And THINKING is what makes us feel like there are things happening, and that somethings are true and some are false. That somethings are "real" and somethings aren't. That there's anything at all, happening anywhere at any time.

Absent of thinking of thinking, it's just fucking nothing.

So yes, everything that we say "exists" is just an idea. We created it in our "minds", and it has NO REALITY outside our own minds. There are no "people" or "places" or "things" or anything OUT THERE.

Are you saying that consciousness/awareness/nothingness/ is just imagining/thinking of stuff and the stuff it thinks about is reality? As if nothingness is sort of dreaming all this stuff up and that includes us and therefore we are part of the dream. This also means that we in the dream don't realise we're in a dream. This would explain why stuff feels solid because just like in a sleeping dream where we think that the objects we touch are solid, so too do the objects in this dream feel solid.

I think the problem in this discussion is the lack of a definition of the word real. When you say that reality isn't real do you really mean that it isn't physical? Even if it's not physical it can still be real.

[aurum]

2 hours ago, ParanoidAndroid said:

Are you saying that consciousness/awareness/nothingness/ is just imagining/thinking of stuff and the stuff it thinks about is reality? As if nothingness is sort of dreaming all this stuff up and that includes us and therefore we are part of the dream. This also means that we in the dream don't realise we're in a dream. This would explain why stuff feels solid because just like in a sleeping dream where we think that the objects we touch are solid, so too do the objects in this dream feel solid.

I think the problem in this discussion is the lack of a definition of the word real. When you say that reality isn't real do you really mean that it isn't physical? Even if it's not physical it can still be real.

You're definitely getting it.

Except if consciousness is "dreaming" all this up, what does that say about YOU? 

Who are you?

You're not the character in the dream. You're the dreamer. You're God. 

Reality is neither physical nor real. But I don't mean "not real" in the convention sense.

In duality, you have "real" and "imaginary". Those are CONCEPTS, both still part of the dream.

I'm saying reality is beyond all concepts.

But the best I can do in describing it is to say that it's "not real", at least not in the way people think. Because real is a concept.