Consciousness is the only real thing .

[Someone here]

I think this is the most important topic i ever started In this forum so listen up  . Today I want to solve a big dilemma and a big confusion that people have philosophically. 
 Rene Descartes (the guy in my profile pic) talked about his evil demon doubt.   And How he can't trust his senses because it can deceive him.  If we dream and the dream world seems perfectly identical to the waking state ..then how do we know that we are not dreaming right now or in some sort of illusory world fabricated by our mind ?

Inside the dream there is a complete universe. It has the appearance of depth and solidity that we also experience when we are awake. The laws of physics are sometimes different but not always  .and we meet with people that we see in "real life ". However inside the dream, these things appear to be totally normal. They are all created by our mind. We can walk through forests and cities, lie on the beach or make love. We eat, drink and experience the full gamut of life. How can we tell that the waking experience is not a dream? How do we know for sure that when we sleep, that isn’t a waking up experience for another dreamer, the dreamer who is dreaming us?
So the questioner can be phrased in  this way:
In exploring our direct experience, we might  often wonder how much we can trust it. When one sees a mirage in a desert, if not aware of such a phenomenon, one would consider it to be real.  Even though its not actually real.

The definitive answer to this philosophical dilemma is as follows:

It's quite right to suggest that nothing that appears within the mind, the body or the world can be completely trusted or relied upon. The short answer is: Only consciousness or being is certain.

However, it is helpful to understand clearly why this is so, to prevent us from ever putting our trust in the wrong place again..

As I said in the  dream state.. During a dream, our experience seems to have the same reality as that of our waking state. However, upon waking we discover that its apparent reality was illusory.

How then, do we know that the current experience of the mind, body and world is not also illusory? We don’t! 

What then can we be absolutely certain of?

To answer this question we first have to understand what it is that qualifies an experience as being illusory. How do we know that the water in the desert or the buildings in the dream are not real? It is the fact that when we go towards these objects or experiences and try to find them or touch them, they are not there. They have disappeared. The substance out of which we thought they were made is not present.

If disappearance is the criterion by which we qualify something as being unreal, then presence without disappearance must be the criterion by which we qualify something as being real.

Whatever it is that is truly present, and therefore real, in any experience cannot disappear, because that into which it would disappear would be more real than itself. Everything that appears and disappears must have a background or a support on which to appear. For instance, the screen doesn’t disappear when the image disappears, and in that sense it is more real than the image.

Whatever it is that is real in every experience cannot change. For example, water is ‘more real’ than its changing forms of ice and steam.

Whatever is real in any experience cannot appear or be born, because that from which it appeared or was born would be more real than itself, in the sense that gold is ‘more real’ than an ornament.

And whatever is real in our experience must know or illumine itself, for if it were known or illumined by something other than itself, that ‘something’ (which knows it) would be more real than itself.

Nevertheless, even if the experience of the mirage or the dream buildings turns out to be an illusion, there is an element of reality to our experience of it. There is ‘experience’, there is ‘something’, even if we are not sure what this ‘something’ is.

What then is this undeniable ‘experiencing’ or ‘something’? What is it that is truly present in every experience?

Whatever is truly real and present in our experience must be without appearance or disappearance; it must be changeless, that is, ever-present; and it must know itself.

So we can now simplify our question and ask, is there anything in our experience that is ever-present, changeless and knowing? And the answer of course is yes,  consciousness

Only this ever-present, changeless consciousness  can be absolutely trustworthy. An intermittent object cannot, by definition, be worthy of absolute trust, because on what would we place our trust when it was absent? Hold on to consciousness alone.

However, what could hold on to that? Obviously an intermittent object, such as a personal entity, cannot hold on to the ever-present reality of our experience. So an apparent person cannot hold on to consciousness. 

consciousness  alone can hold on to itself. It is the only ‘thing’ that is present ‘there’ throughout its own ever-presence. However, it is already itself, so there is no need for it to make an effort to hold on to itself. It cannot lose itself. It cannot ‘not be’ itself.

Therefore, in order to know that element of our experience that is worthy of trust, all that is needed is to abide as the  that we always already are. That is the only certainty, the true security.

So in conclusion..consciousness or direct experience is the only trustworthy thing in existence and the only thing we know,  or we will ever know about reality.  And that's the absolute truth. 

Please share your thoughts about what has been said and if you have any questions ..feel free to ask .

Edited June 27, 2022 by Someone here

[JuliusCaesar]

A common rebuttal to this is that "dreams" feel less real than "reality" and that's how we know they aren't real. But I and other lucid dreamers have had dreams that are equally as vivid sensory as waking world experiences. Literally 100% indistinguishable from the waking world's so-called "reality". Another rebuttal people often use is that the laws of nature tend to be pretty wacky in sleeping dreams which proves they aren't real. I've had dreams that gave me perfect foreknowledge of future events that took place in the waking world which should have been humanly impossible to determine. So I of course know that argument to be bunk.

 

Leo often takes a different approach and one that is also undeniably valid. I recommend everyone who wasn't yet watched the video Leo made on this topic to watch it. It's the first video out of hundreds of his I've watched and I'd say it might be the best video he's made. Because it offers a perspective that delivers such incredible clarity into not only how/why certain high-level spiritual truths about reality are or at least could be true, but also allows for practically anyone to comprehend them. Which is a task that often feels insurmountable when approached through other means.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmvvzpzGCWE

[Someone here]

7 minutes ago, JuliusCaesar said:

A common rebuttal to this is that "dreams" feel less real than "reality" and that's how we know they aren't real. But I and other lucid dreamers have had dreams that are equally as vivid sensory as waking world experiences. Literally 100% indistinguishable from the waking world's so-called "reality". Another rebuttal people often use is that the laws of nature tend to be pretty wacky in sleeping dreams which proves they aren't real. I've had dreams that gave me perfect foreknowledge of future events that took place in the waking world which should have been humanly impossible to determine. So I of course know that argument to be bunk.

 

Leo often takes a different approach and one that is also undeniably valid. I recommend everyone who wasn't yet watched the video Leo made on this topic to watch it. It's the first video out of hundreds of his I've watched and I'd say it might be the best video he's made. Because it offers a perspective that delivers such incredible clarity into not only how/why certain high-level spiritual truths about reality are or at least could be true, but also allows for practically anyone to comprehend them. Which is a task that often feels insurmountable when approached through other means.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmvvzpzGCWE

Yeah great video from Leo .  Though technically what I'm pointing out in this post is that we can't be certain of the ontological standards of our experience (dream ,awake ,simulation, brain in a vat etc). We can only be certain that we are conscious right now. and conscioconsciousness is the only real certain thing.  I mean your first person subjective experience of the world .

Right now..you  reading my answer on a forum  to the question , “How is it possible to be certain that I am not dreaming right now?”, you are a mortal human; as such, you are experiencing the Dream of Mortal Life. You can ascertain right now that your mortal life is merely a dream by committing suicide. Unfortunately, even if you kill yourself, you will awaken in a second dream .

You will at that point  again believe that you really are a human; but that will also be a dream. You would then need to kill your human self to be awakened from your human state. At that point, you would know that you are an eternal human, who was having the Dream of Mortal Life.

[Nilsi]

2 hours ago, Someone here said:

Whatever it is that is real in every experience cannot change. For example, water is ‘more real’ than its changing forms of ice and steam.
 

No its not. The notion of water can only arise in relationship to the notions of ice and steam. There is no formlessness without form and neither is more "real." Dont be so righteous, you obviously dont understand what you are talking about.

[Someone here]

7 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

No its not. The notion of water can only arise in relationship to the notions of ice and steam. There is no formlessness without form and neither is more "real." Dont be so righteous, you obviously dont understand what you are talking about.

What I meant is that there is three forms to the same substance.  Liquid ,ice and steam . Yet the three are one substance. They are water . So the real is the H2O molecule despite the different shapes and forms it takes.

Similarly..consciousness can take different forms. Infinity of forms actually. But consciousness is the substance of everything. And it doesn't change as the substance. However it can take different forms.  These forms are changing all the time .so they cannot be the bedrock of existence. Consciousness alone as a substance is .

[Nilsi]

1 minute ago, Someone here said:

What I meant is that there is three forms to the same substance.  Liquid ,ice and steam . Yet the three are one substance. They are water . So the real is the H2O molecule despite the different shapes and forms it takes.

Similarly..consciousness can take different forms. Infinity of forms actually. But consciousness is the substance of everything. And it doesn't change as the substance. However it can take different forms.  These forms are changing all the time .so they cannot be the bedrock of existence. Consciousness alone as a substance is .

There is no such "substance."

[Someone here]

7 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

There is no such "substance."

You are dead wrong.  If there is no substance to reality, how come it exists ? It must be made up of something, no ? Otherwise what are these objects and  perceptions you see around you all the time ?

And There is only one fucking substance out of which everything is made. Which is consciousness.  And this is not speculation or mental masturbation..apparently you are conscious right now .and everything in your experience is held within your consciousness. 

Consciousness is simply everything and anything. This is Consciousness. That is consciousness. You are consciousness. The brain is consciousness. Anything you think or possibly doubt in a million years that isn't consciousness IS fucking consciousness... Tada!

And it can't be "defined" because there is nothing which is not consciousness to define consciousness in terms of it. That's why it's a mystery. 

[Leo Gura]

The problem with your logic is that all the impermament stuff (form) is also equally consciousness, and is also Absolute. You have denied the absoluteness and truth of form, creating a duality between form and formless.

You have also denied absolute truth to impermanence, which is false.

Your logic is too clever for its own good.

[axiom]

As Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj once pointed out, the first step is to realise “I am not that” - and the next is to realise “I am that”.

[Dazgwny]

He is right though isn’t he! Everything is consciousness and with anything the only ever present with whatever form may be there in front of you is consciousness. So all is consciousness. It just seems he added unnecessary layers onto it, beginning with calling it an actual substance hence creating a duality between form and formlessness. As in he initially has it correct but too much conceptualising has made him drift away from truth

[axiom]

@Someone here

I agree with you.

One’s immutable sense of self does not seem to depend on anything that appears. 

Form rises up and passes away, like all thoughts.

Thought is the very thing that creates the distance between subject (you) and object (other).

Thought is the duality.

You exist beyond thought and thus beyond form.

[Nilsi]

6 minutes ago, axiom said:

@Someone here

One’s immutable sense of self does not seem to depend on anything that appears. 

Your sense of self completely depends on the context in which it arises.

 

6 minutes ago, axiom said:

@Someone here

Thought is the duality.

You exist beyond thought and thus beyond form.

No it is not. You also exist as and within thought and form.

Edited June 27, 2022 by Nilsi

[Leo Gura]

Consciousness is all well and good. But it is not God-realization.

The point is not to realize everything is consciousness -- of course it is. The point is the realize you are the one and only God.

To speak of form and formlessness is really missing the point. That's far too disconnected from your own Godhood.

Be careful talking about Truth as something impersonal. It's YOU!

[Someone here]

2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

The problem with your logic is that all the impermament stuff (form) is also equally consciousness, and is also Absolute. You have denied the absoluteness and truth of form, creating a duality between form and formless.

You have also denied absolute truth to impermanence, which is false.

Your logic is too clever for its own good.

I understand what you're saying.  

I will try to explain my point again briefly....

Consciousness is changing and morphing all the time. We are not even sure about that fuzzy line that distuinghes "illusion" from "reality" . Because we experience dreams but we know that dreams are not real. Or less real than the waking world . So how can we trust that which decives us every night when we dream?  Of course we can't.  The only element that is present in both states of "illusions" and "reality" is the fact that the experience is happening or being experienced or held within  Consciousness.  Therefore the Consciousness of any experience is the only sure thing that we cannot doubt about reality. 

Does that make sense? 



 

[Nilsi]

4 minutes ago, Someone here said:

Consciousness is changing and morphing all the time. We are not even sure about that fuzzy line that distuinghes "illusion" from "reality" . Because we experience dreams but we know that dreams are not real. Or less real than the waking world .

How often do you need it spelled out? There is no such difference.

[axiom]

7 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

How often do you need it spelled out? There is no such difference.

If words are failing there's always the hammer, right?

[Someone here]

11 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

How often do you need it spelled out? There is no such difference.

Of course there is a difference. An easy way to differentiate between our dreams and reality is by using a reality check. A simple one is counting the fingers on one hand. They should add up to five. If you are in a dream, this will likely not be the case.

If you are suggesting that your life is a dream, then why would it matter whether we are dreaming or not?

If you are not dreaming, then life goes on the same way you always thought it did.

If you are dreaming, then cool. Live out your dream life and go back to the real world when you die.

There is no point in pondering this question because regardless of whether we are dreaming or not, life goes on the same way. It would be difficult to prove that this is all a dream.

In conclusion, you can use a reality check if you are referring to the dreams we have every night. If you are alluding to the idea that reality is itself a dream, it is futile to waste your time trying to prove it.

 

[Nilsi]

1 minute ago, Someone here said:

 An easy way to differentiate between our dreams and reality is by using a reality check.

Thats what Im trying to give you.

[Someone here]

@Nilsi I don't understand your point /points. 

can you make a post explaining where do you agree and disagree with me ?

[Nilsi]

5 minutes ago, Someone here said:

@Nilsi I don't understand your point /points. 

can you make a post explaining where do you agree and disagree with me ?

It doesnt get more clear than what has been said here. Im not going to fill your head with more fantasies.