|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 14, 2014 10:21:55 GMT -5
First of all this thread concerns how to differentiate what's less real from what's more real.
enigma has defined illusion as something other than what it seems to be. This is narrowly defined from the standpoint of non-duality, separation is an illusion. Therefore, any assumption of separation is in error and is an illusion. Furthermore, there is no middle ground, nothing relatively real, from this standpoint.
But from a standpoint of utility, this makes no sense, so I would like to try to demonstrate and differentiate what's less real from what's more real.
I propose that the 'more' real consists of those things that existed before man existed. This moves us away from any abstractions.
Less real are exactly, abstractions.
I speculate that language developed out of needs for unity. Life is pretty time consuming and complicated if you have to point to everything you wish to reference. Language might have begun by drawing pictures in the sand, a few grunts and motions could mean, "Let's go hunt a deer for food". Eventually a specific grunt meant deer, and drawing a picture became less necessary. So an abstraction is at least once removed from reality.
And eventually with enough abstractions, added up and multiplied, we end up with an abstraction that represents a particular body-mind-person-individual, and we call this abstraction my-self. Today we would call this ego. So there is a body-mind which I would call essence, it's what we are born-as when we are born as a baby, which acts as a whole, no sense of "I". So there a "real" body-mind-baby on the one hand. Eventually, baby learns language and learns how to abstract, and simultaneously forms a cultural self, ego, OTOH.
I would maintain that body-mind is more real than ego which operates from self-referential abstractions.
In the same manner, the menu is less real than the food which it represents, for the purposes of convenience (easier than every customer being taken back to the kitchen and pointing out what they want for lunch).
A map is not the territory.
But we mis-take abstract-illusory-ego for real-body-mind and compound the problems of life defending something that isn't real. When we operate through ego, we are eating the menu instead of the food. (I hope last edit).
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 14, 2014 10:27:17 GMT -5
First of all this thread concerns how to differentiate what's less real from what's more real. enigma has defined illusion as something other than what it seems to be. This is narrowly defined from the standpoint of non-duality, separation is an illusion. Therefore, any assumption of separation is in error and is an illusion. Furthermore, there is no middle ground, nothing relatively real. But from a standpoint of utility, this makes no sense, so I would like to try to demonstrate and differentiate what's less real from what's more real. I propose that real consists of those things that existed before man existed. This moves us away from any abstractions. The senses present. The question of "is what is presented real or illusion?" can be suspended in favor of the question "am I what presents?".
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Dec 14, 2014 10:35:43 GMT -5
Hi 'Pilgrim: It is my understanding that illusion happens when the experiencer chooses to believe something before sufficient information, gained by experience, reveals the actuality.. approaching the snake/rope, the experiencer doesn't have sufficient information to interact with the 'snake/rope' appropriately, and by choosing snake or rope they have created their illusion.. continued experience of the snake/rope situation reveals which of the possibilities are actual, oddly.. turns out it was a crooked stick..
The clarity of a still mind's awareness sees the possibilities, and acts with genuine curiosity in contrast to expectation/illusion..
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 14, 2014 10:57:06 GMT -5
My apology to L and Tzu, the post was accidentally posted before it was finished.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 14, 2014 10:59:47 GMT -5
Hi 'Pilgrim: It is my understanding that illusion happens when the experiencer chooses to believe something before sufficient information, gained by experience, reveals the actuality.. approaching the snake/rope, the experiencer doesn't have sufficient information to interact with the 'snake/rope' appropriately, and by choosing snake or rope they have created their illusion.. continued experience of the snake/rope situation reveals which of the possibilities are actual, oddly.. turns out it was a crooked stick.. The clarity of a still mind's awareness sees the possibilities, and acts with genuine curiosity in contrast to expectation/illusion.. Exactly, this is functionally what we mean by the difference between the real and illusion.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 14, 2014 11:01:32 GMT -5
First of all this thread concerns how to differentiate what's less real from what's more real. enigma has defined illusion as something other than what it seems to be. This is narrowly defined from the standpoint of non-duality, separation is an illusion. Therefore, any assumption of separation is in error and is an illusion. Furthermore, there is no middle ground, nothing relatively real. But from a standpoint of utility, this makes no sense, so I would like to try to demonstrate and differentiate what's less real from what's more real. I propose that real consists of those things that existed before man existed. This moves us away from any abstractions. The senses present. The question of "is what is presented real or illusion?" can be suspended in favor of the question "am I what presents?". Yes, and that's the other aspect of the OP we can discuss.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 14, 2014 11:44:39 GMT -5
Greed, envy, jealousy, pride, vanity, hate all come from abstract-illusory-ego. A great deal of our 'culture' comes from abstract-illusory-ego. The television industry has maintained itself for many years almost completely from abstract-illusory-ego wants and desires, not real-mind-body needs. Financing for TV comes from advertising, inventing and marketing products for abstract-illusory-ego, cr*p we don't need but we have a manufactured desire-want from advertising. The company I used to worked for has wired million dollar homes for one or two people to live in. The biggest house we wired was 20,000 sq ft., all from illusory-ego want....well.....let's say 17,000 sq ft. from ego-want (I should think any normal family could live in 3,000 sq ft).
But the point is we can look inside ourselves and see what's more real and what's less real.
The further point is I don't see how (conceptual) non-duality cannot make this distinction, the distinction between real-mind-body and abstract-illusory-ego? Why, if a certain real-mind-body considers itself separate, is this still not more-real than abstract-illusory-ego?
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 14, 2014 11:52:14 GMT -5
First of all this thread concerns how to differentiate what's less real from what's more real.enigma has defined illusion as something other than what it seems to be. This is narrowly defined from the standpoint of non-duality, separation is an illusion. Therefore, any assumption of separation is in error and is an illusion. Furthermore, there is no middle ground, nothing relatively real, from this standpoint. But from a standpoint of utility, this makes no sense, so I would like to try to demonstrate and differentiate what's less real from what's more real. I propose that the 'more' real consists of those things that existed before man existed. This moves us away from any abstractions. Less real are exactly, abstractions. I speculate that language developed out of needs for unity. Life is pretty time consuming and complicated if you have to point to everything you wish to reference. Language might have begun by drawing pictures in the sand, a few grunts and motions could mean, "Let's go hunt a deer for food". Eventually a specific grunt meant deer, and drawing a picture became less necessary. So an abstraction is at least once removed from reality. And eventually with enough abstractions, added up and multiplied, we end up with an abstraction that represents a particular body-mind-person-individual, and we call this abstraction my-self. Today we would call this ego. So there is a body-mind which I would call essence, it's what we are born-as when we are born as a baby, which acts as a whole, no sense of "I". So there a "real" body-mind-baby on the one hand. Eventually, baby learns language and learns how to abstract, and simultaneously forms a cultural self, ego, OTOH. I would maintain that body-mind is more real than ego which operates from self-referential abstractions. In the same manner, the menu is less real than the food which it represents, for the purposes of convenience (easier than every customer being taken back to the kitchen and pointing out what they want for lunch). A map is not the territory. But we mis-take abstract-ego for real-body-mind and compound the problems of life defending something that isn't real. When we operate through ego, we are eating the menu instead of the food. (I hope last edit). There are no degrees of real. Real is the realm of the absolute. The realm of the relative (i.e. degrees, levels and layers and tinges) is false. In that sense, more real is as false as less real. It's all just a TMT fest.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 14, 2014 11:57:02 GMT -5
First of all this thread concerns how to differentiate what's less real from what's more real.enigma has defined illusion as something other than what it seems to be. This is narrowly defined from the standpoint of non-duality, separation is an illusion. Therefore, any assumption of separation is in error and is an illusion. Furthermore, there is no middle ground, nothing relatively real, from this standpoint. But from a standpoint of utility, this makes no sense, so I would like to try to demonstrate and differentiate what's less real from what's more real. I propose that the 'more' real consists of those things that existed before man existed. This moves us away from any abstractions. Less real are exactly, abstractions. I speculate that language developed out of needs for unity. Life is pretty time consuming and complicated if you have to point to everything you wish to reference. Language might have begun by drawing pictures in the sand, a few grunts and motions could mean, "Let's go hunt a deer for food". Eventually a specific grunt meant deer, and drawing a picture became less necessary. So an abstraction is at least once removed from reality. And eventually with enough abstractions, added up and multiplied, we end up with an abstraction that represents a particular body-mind-person-individual, and we call this abstraction my-self. Today we would call this ego. So there is a body-mind which I would call essence, it's what we are born-as when we are born as a baby, which acts as a whole, no sense of "I". So there a "real" body-mind-baby on the one hand. Eventually, baby learns language and learns how to abstract, and simultaneously forms a cultural self, ego, OTOH. I would maintain that body-mind is more real than ego which operates from self-referential abstractions. In the same manner, the menu is less real than the food which it represents, for the purposes of convenience (easier than every customer being taken back to the kitchen and pointing out what they want for lunch). A map is not the territory. But we mis-take abstract-ego for real-body-mind and compound the problems of life defending something that isn't real. When we operate through ego, we are eating the menu instead of the food. (I hope last edit). There are no degrees of real. Real is the realm of the absolute. The realm of the relative (i.e. degrees, levels and layers and tinges) is false. In that sense, more real is as false as less real. It's all just a TMT fest. Yea.....but all that is just words. You can't function in life without making judgments, without making distinctions. If all things are equal, I'll just come over and take your car and drive it...........
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 14, 2014 12:20:31 GMT -5
There are no degrees of real. Real is the realm of the absolute. The realm of the relative (i.e. degrees, levels and layers and tinges) is false. In that sense, more real is as false as less real. It's all just a TMT fest. Yea.....but all that is just words. You can't function in life without making judgments, without making distinctions. If all things are equal, I'll just come over and take your car and drive it........... I didn't say any of that. Your problem is that you see non-duality as some kind of metaphysics. Non-duality is not metaphysics. The real is not a context. You won't be able to cram it into a neat theory/philosophy. That's why non-duality can ever only be collection of pointers - nothing more, nothing less.
|
|
|
Post by silver on Dec 14, 2014 12:31:24 GMT -5
Yea.....but all that is just words. You can't function in life without making judgments, without making distinctions. If all things are equal, I'll just come over and take your car and drive it........... I didn't say any of that. Your problem is that you see non-duality as some kind of metaphysics. Non-duality is not metaphysics. The real is not a context. You won't be able to cram it into a neat theory/philosophy. That's why non-duality can ever only be collection of pointers - nothing more, nothing less. So...given that...you are here on an internet forum proselytizing about non-duality - passionately so - to sell something that can't be proven, when you could just go home, enjoy life, and very easily forget about all this and live happily ever after.
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Dec 14, 2014 14:07:08 GMT -5
I didn't say any of that. Your problem is that you see non-duality as some kind of metaphysics. Non-duality is not metaphysics. The real is not a context. You won't be able to cram it into a neat theory/philosophy. That's why non-duality can ever only be collection of pointers - nothing more, nothing less. So...given that...you are here on an internet forum proselytizing about non-duality - passionately so - to sell something that can't be proven, when you could just go home, enjoy life, and very easily forget about all this and live happily ever after. Well said Silver. It's one thing to simply say "non-duality can ever only be a collection of pointers - nothing more,nothing less". But the thing is, the moment that collection gets argued for, it becomes something more than 'just pointers.' He can't have it both ways...arguing for a pointer by arguing that 'it's only a pointer' is a bit like thawing water and then trying to pass it off as still being an ice-cube.
|
|
|
Post by silver on Dec 14, 2014 14:20:54 GMT -5
So...given that...you are here on an internet forum proselytizing about non-duality - passionately so - to sell something that can't be proven, when you could just go home, enjoy life, and very easily forget about all this and live happily ever after. Well said Silver. It's one thing to simply say "non-duality can ever only be a collection of pointers - nothing more,nothing less". But the thing is, the moment that collection gets argued for, it becomes something more than 'just pointers.' He can't have it both ways...arguing for a pointer by arguing that 'it's only a pointer' is a bit like thawing water and then trying to pass it off as still being an ice-cube. Thank you...I like your thawing water analogy.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 14, 2014 15:13:39 GMT -5
Greed, envy, jealousy, pride, vanity, hate all come from abstract-illusory-ego. A great deal of our 'culture' comes from abstract-illusory-ego. The television industry has maintained itself for many years almost completely from abstract-illusory-ego wants and desires, not real-mind-body needs. Financing for TV comes from advertising, inventing and marketing products for abstract-illusory-ego, cr*p we don't need but we have a manufactured desire-want from advertising. The company I used to worked for has wired million dollar homes for one or two people to live in. The biggest house we wired was 20,000 sq ft., all from illusory-ego want....well.....let's say 17,000 sq ft. from ego-want (I should think any normal family could live in 3,000 sq ft). But the point is we can look inside ourselves and see what's more real and what's less real. The further point is I don't see how (conceptual) non-duality cannot make this distinction, the distinction between real-mind-body and abstract-illusory-ego? Why, if a certain real-mind-body considers itself separate, is this still not more-real than abstract-illusory-ego? I understand the distinction you want to make between more and less real. Imagination is less real than an object held in the hand. However, when you introduce nonduality, you change contexts, and the body is as devoid of substance as the ego. Furthermore, they are both appearances, one appearing to the senses and the other appearing in mind as a set of thoughts, and all appearances are equally empty. About all that can be said is that appearances are appearing, which is why the notion of real or not real loses it's meaning. Even to say that appearances are happening is not true, because nothing is real-ly happening. A happening requires time, space and a continuity, all of which are also appearances. Appearances appearing are not really different from that to which the appearances appear, in the same way that a movement in mind is not really other than mind itself, as mind IS that movement. In this way, everything collapses into a little greasy spot, or we could say nothing is ultimately true, or we could say form and emptiness are the same, or we could say everything just IS, or we could say there's nothing to know, or we could remain silent. (though that one seems unlikely)
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 14, 2014 15:16:15 GMT -5
There are no degrees of real. Real is the realm of the absolute. The realm of the relative (i.e. degrees, levels and layers and tinges) is false. In that sense, more real is as false as less real. It's all just a TMT fest. Yea.....but all that is just words. You can't function in life without making judgments, without making distinctions. If all things are equal, I'll just come over and take your car and drive it........... Are you under the impression that nonduality means to offer a way to function in the world?
|
|