Let me scare you real quick

[Princess Arabia]

2 hours ago, OldManCorcoran said:

Yes I'm sure I don't mean that. I mean forget sense organs and nervous systems etc they're make-believe. None of it is real. Someone speaking to you and your own thoughts in your own mind are just the same thing.

There's no difference between you dreaming and a dream character talking to you (the character's words are just your own thoughts, the character isn't real) and a real person talking to you in the waking world. It's just your own thoughts and the image of a person speaking.

I'm still trying to process this, but this makes sense when we say life is a dream. What about you to the other person. You keep saying the other person talking is just our own thoughts. Am I just their own thoughts too. 

What about the saying that we are not thinkers and thoughts are just appearing. How does that fit into this. Something isn't clicking for me.

Edited December 26, 2023 by Princess Arabia

[Princess Arabia]

25 minutes ago, Squeekytoy said:

Which is just another way of saying that everything is just a thought you're having

When you say "you're having" who is the "who" you're referring to?

[Yimpa]

5 minutes ago, Princess Arabia said:

When you say "you're having" who is the "who" you're referring to?

god with an uppercase G.

[Princess Arabia]

Just now, Yimpa said:

god with an uppercase G.

Ok

[BlueOak]

However, you decide to represent reality to yourself is correct.

If you decide you are alone you are right.
If you decide there is infinite complexity to life and many gods/minds/people sharing a global experience you are also right.
If you decide both you are right.

Edited December 26, 2023 by BlueOak

[Breakingthewall]

On 25/12/2023 at 3:30 PM, OldManCorcoran said:

Whatever way you seem to be communicating with anyone else, is just your own thoughts in your own head and the "other person" is some sort of cardboard cutout mannequin, whatever way they are appearing to you (visual, audio, whatever).

There's no sentient being in that perception. There's no living sentient being behind my eyes. My face and moving mouth is a dead lifeless perception with nothing in it, appearing in tandem with your own thoughts.

Speaking to another person, it's just your own thoughts alone in your head, it just so happens to be accompanied by the sight of a face or whatever. The two aren't connected actually, there's nothing coming from the dead lifeless image, the communication is your own thoughts in your own head. And there isn't anyone else at all.

All people are is an image with absolutely no sentience whatsoever. Their words are just your own thoughts happening in your own head. Same as if you were sat alone thinking to yourself, there isn't any difference compared to another person talking. You are just focusing on the dead lifeless image of a human being but there's no sentience inside it.

I think that this is not so, the main quality of the infinite is that it is alive, this means that everything is alive, we are immersed in life, the objects are alive, everything is living infinite depth, and in everything there is the totality of existence. You are the whole but you are divided, the thoughts in your mind are infinite, everything is synchronized, and it is much more than it seems. The solipsistic vision that you are now the only thing that exists does not make sense, because it is limited, and reality has no limits.

[Osaid]

9 hours ago, OldManCorcoran said:

Yes I'm sure I don't mean that. I mean forget sense organs and nervous systems etc they're make-believe. None of it is real. Someone speaking to you and your own thoughts in your own mind are just the same thing.

There's no difference between you dreaming and a dream character talking to you (the character's words are just your own thoughts, the character isn't real) and a real person talking to you in the waking world. It's just your own thoughts and the image of a person speaking.

It is not the same thing, it is experientially different. It is like looking at the color red and the color blue and you're like "both colors are just thoughts inside your mind." 

It does not matter if the thing sourcing the person is make-believe, or if all of it is your "own perception", your experience has not changed a single bit, aside from what you think of it. You're still just thinking.

Edited December 26, 2023 by Osaid

[Osaid]

6 hours ago, Squeekytoy said:

thought is all there is.

It absolutely isn't. You guys are defining thought/mind in some weird way where it includes your entire experience or something. Just another intellectual tautology you guys are creating. 

No-self is not the origin of anything. No-self tells you that there is nothing sourcing or originating your experience. This does not mean that your experience is hollow or without interpretation, that itself is a backstory/interpretation which still exists in thought and intellect.

When I say nothing is sourcing your experience, I am talking about actual nothing, not non-existence. There is a difference between nothing and non-existence. Non-existence is still intellectual.

6 hours ago, Squeekytoy said:

Both the visual image of a face and the sound of a voice, don't come from anywhere but consciousness. Both are just your own thoughts. 

The visual image of a face is a visual image, and the sound of a voice is a sound, and they will always be experientially different than a thought. It does not matter where they come from, that is irrelevant to your experience of them.

Edited December 26, 2023 by Osaid

[BlueOak]

2 hours ago, Squeekytoy said:

Truth is not a matter of opinion or "whatever you say". Dreams are. 

Everything is relative except observing or creating something to observe.

[Yimpa]

What’s truly scary is convincing yourself that you’re powerless to the dysfunctional circumstances in your life. Getting out of that requires dropping garbage thoughts you’re holding onto in your mind. The rest will follow.

[BlueOak]

Existence is non-dual and dual. I don't understand why people need so badly for one to be true.
People exist and don't exist.
Truth is true and not.
Things are relative and not.

Infinity doesn't have a single answer. Its infinity. Its all answers. I can keep reflecting the opposite of the division people (and I) enjoy, or keep saying this.

If someone decides
1, What real means to them - then
2, An image means not real - then
3, The things around them are images separate from the words he/she hears - then
4,  Defines those images to be non-existent figments of imagination.

Well that's entirely their line of reasoning made up in their own mind. It'd be the same if it was the opposite.

Its no more true or false than me saying all minds are interconnected sharing an experience. One framework for existence is however more solitary and miserable. The other is filled with infinite possibilities. But both are a choice.
 

[Osaid]

10 minutes ago, Squeekytoy said:

P. S. If existence is nondual then there is only one thing. Your so-called experience is lying. Whatever thought is, everything is.

Thought is a subset of experience. It is not experience. It is an abstraction of experience. You are mistaking the map for the territory. 

The word "thought" points to a duality, but you use it to point to everything. Again, this is how you are mistaking the map for the territory.

I am not saying experience is not one thing. You are just trying to create non-duality through intellect, that won't work. Your idea of non-duality is not how it actually works.

You are making a tautology through your intellect where you say "thought = everything." This is meaningless. I could also say "banana = everything" and that could be just as true.

Edited December 27, 2023 by Osaid

[OldManCorcoran]

8 hours ago, Devin said:

So do you think you can make someone else talk the way you make yourself talk? If they're both from the same mind you would be able to.

I don't make myself talk, the sense of control is fake. My own thoughts just appear like dream people's words.

[OldManCorcoran]

8 hours ago, Princess Arabia said:

I'm still trying to process this, but this makes sense when we say life is a dream. What about you to the other person. You keep saying the other person talking is just our own thoughts. Am I just their own thoughts too. 

What about the saying that we are not thinkers and thoughts are just appearing. How does that fit into this. Something isn't clicking for me.

Nah you aren't their thoughts you are your own thoughts too, there isn't anyone else to have thoughts. All other people are just images in your mind, including your own human avatar.

Someone above said about Leo talking on video, and I think it is a good example. The video of Leo was recorded before you watch it, Leo is probably in bed asleep while you watch him talk on video. The image of him is just that, it's only an image on your computer screen. The sound isn't coming from the character it just looks like it is.

Human beings are just images like on a computer screen on YouTube. They aren't actually living beings they're just moving pictures in your mind. You are the only sentient thing there is. Your human body or some other human body, these things are just moving pictures, they aren't real and aren't the source of any thought or feeling or anything else.

When you speak to other people you aren't even speaking to yourself which makes it sound like there's a you in them hearing your words. Actually you are simply talking at a picture. Like pulling up an image of Homer Simpson on Google and talking to it. Nobody is listening, it's just a picture. Speaking to a picture of Homer Simpson is the same as speaking to a person. The person is only a picture. The words if they speak back are just your own thoughts in your own head. They're just a picture.

Edited December 27, 2023 by OldManCorcoran

[Osaid]

19 minutes ago, Squeekytoy said:

If you're gonna talk, might as well talk sense. Within the framework of language, saying that all experience is the same as thought, is as true a statement as there is. Saying everything is banana isn't.

Both statements make an equal amount of sense. They are not applicable here. I love language and I use it all the time. You are using it in a way where it points to nothing. It is just intellectual stagnation. It only exists in intellect. That is what I am trying to point out.

In the same way that the word "incorrect" points to something that doesn't exist, the idea of "incorrect" only exists as an intellectual idea, it is not experienced as something aside from an idea. That is what I am trying to point out. It is intellectual in nature. You are trying to apply intellect to something that isn't intellect, like someone who tries to measure temperature with a ruler instead of a thermometer.

You are using a duality, "thought", to point to everything/existence. It is impossible and means nothing.

Quote

Likewise, thought IS the word we have for what the dreamstate consists of. 

Thought is the word for thought. You are saying "thought = everything" and I am saying that is not what "thought" points to, that actually defeats its definition. 

Edited December 27, 2023 by Osaid

[Yimpa]

50 minutes ago, Osaid said:

You are making a tautology through your intellect where you say "thought = everything." This is meaningless. I could also say "banana = everything" and that could be just as true.

28 minutes ago, Squeekytoy said:

By your logic, you can't even call consciousness consciousness. But you're wrong. Consciousness IS the appropriate word we have for the true nature of existence. Likewise, thought IS the appropriate word we have for what the dreamstate consists of. Those words have meanings, and those meanings apply. 

[BlueOak]

33 minutes ago, Squeekytoy said:

Because only one thing can be true, lol.

This is not like the clever indian tetralemma where you refuse to find out what's true because you're stuck in a loop trying to reconcile the false.

Existence is a certain way. Just not the way your senses tell you.

 

What makes you think what you said is any more true than what I said? There will be nothing at all you can point to. Because you created the representation anyway. Take any subject at all, any representation you can make, any perception or form of it.

Infinity has an infinite amount of possible perspectives. All we do is pick things to create or observe an experience. Structure or order things to have them make sense and become material and usable.

You are severely limiting yourself deciding only one perspective has truth to it. You could tomorrow decide the complete opposite about something in your experience, and you'd still be true/correct. 

*In fact all conflict comes from human's inability to take two perspectives at once as true.

Edited December 27, 2023 by BlueOak

[BlueOak]

Eh I am doing it again, I am arguing with someone to accept reality as I see it, and for that, I apologize. I wonder if one day I'll break that habit. Hope springs eternal.

[Osaid]

21 minutes ago, Squeekytoy said:

experience itself is an idea.

Speak for yourself.

Quote

Some actual philosophy might do you good.

Truth is serious business. 

Truth is unrelated to philosophy. Philosophy is still ultimately intellect, although perhaps a more subtle form of it. When used to understand reality, all philosophy leads to is solipsism and other forms of intellectual stagnation.

I've already spent enough time running around philosophizing and I have realized its limits. Knock yourself out though.
 

 

Edited December 27, 2023 by Osaid

[Osaid]

Just now, Squeekytoy said:

you do realize that Osho was a philosopher, right?

That is unrelated to his point.

I can be a painter, but I am not gonna tell you that painting leads you to Truth or non-duality.