Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2017 10:10:33 GMT -5
I recently read "Refuting The External World" and remain unconvinced that it is a valid proof that a separate world does not exist. I have not really seen a valid proof of this. I have seen arguments that provide a an alternative theory for our experience. For example I think the argument that it's possible this is an illusion cannot be refuted. But it does not prove that it isn't an illusion.
I recently heard an argument that says that if we change the underlying assumption, we can prove that we are not separate and that the world is not separate, but this seems flawed. If you change the underlying assumption you can prove that frogs talk.
I'm open to the notion. Not that frogs talk, but that we are not separate. But I feel strongly that what it comes down to is a matter of belief. No different than believing in God. I am open to the notion and in fact believe that the world is not separate, but feel uncomfortable saying and defending that statement.
I believe that since this debate has raged for thousands of years without a convincing proof, then there is none.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2017 10:24:12 GMT -5
I recently read "Refuting The External World" and remain unconvinced that it is a valid proof that a separate world does not exist. I have not really seen a valid proof of this. I have seen arguments that provide a an alternative theory for our experience. For example I think the argument that it's possible this is an illusion cannot be refuted. But it does not prove that it isn't an illusion. I recently heard an argument that says that if we change the underlying assumption, we can prove that we are not separate and that the world is not separate, but this seems flawed. If you change the underlying assumption you can prove that frogs talk. I'm open to the notion. Not that frogs talk, but that we are not separate. But I feel strongly that what it comes down to is a matter of belief. No different than believing in God. I am open to the notion and in fact believe that the world is not separate, but feel uncomfortable saying and defending that statement. I believe that since this debate has raged for thousands of years without a convincing proof, then there is none. This is Gopal playground now, you have opened up a can of worms. It's fine, I also wondered about this, we all have. I propose we find a way to know for sure. One idea would be to become very good with lucid dreaming, so when you are in the dream set the alarm on your cell phone to go off in the waking dream(everyday life) and see if it works. Maybe some day you just be walking around, your alarm went off and you will then know it's all a dream. However this will not really wake you up from the waking dream but will let you know how things are. |
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Feb 7, 2017 10:29:26 GMT -5
I recently read "Refuting The External World" and remain unconvinced that it is a valid proof that a separate world does not exist. I have not really seen a valid proof of this. I have seen arguments that provide a an alternative theory for our experience. For example I think the argument that it's possible this is an illusion cannot be refuted. But it does not prove that it isn't an illusion. I recently heard an argument that says that if we change the underlying assumption, we can prove that we are not separate and that the world is not separate, but this seems flawed. If you change the underlying assumption you can prove that frogs talk. I'm open to the notion. Not that frogs talk, but that we are not separate. But I feel strongly that what it comes down to is a matter of belief. No different than believing in God. I am open to the notion and in fact believe that the world is not separate, but feel uncomfortable saying and defending that statement. I believe that since this debate has raged for thousands of years without a convincing proof, then there is none. I tend to agree. For example, this model of awareness or whatever you want to call it, being the primordial state of being and then all else appears 'within' it. Even that notion only can be contemplated within a lifetime, lacking verification from the dead/afterlife whatever. So the question becomes, is that state of awareness dependent on an apparatus (body/brain) or does the body/brain rise and fall away within it? Same Q really. And the apparent lack of changiness on which all appearances change could just be because of the relative unchanging perspective. That is, the appearance of everything changing doesn't necessarily mean the awareness of that change is unchanging. It just means that it seems to be unchanging. That said, EF Schoonmaker proposed that there seems to be merit in adopting the 'superhuman' or 'supernatural' belief. It stretches one. Perhaps by taking that extra belief step (awareness is the natural state, the unborn, unchanging, neither being born nor dying), only then can a perspective/attitude develop which is optimized. The realization of no-separation may or may not be true. But the position of no separation may be better. Or, maybe not. I see EFS positing a sort of Pascal's Wager -- might as well go for it, because adopting the 'belief' (maybe it isn't) leads to a better life with less suffering. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2017 10:40:40 GMT -5
I recently read "Refuting The External World" and remain unconvinced that it is a valid proof that a separate world does not exist. I have not really seen a valid proof of this. I have seen arguments that provide a an alternative theory for our experience. For example I think the argument that it's possible this is an illusion cannot be refuted. But it does not prove that it isn't an illusion. I recently heard an argument that says that if we change the underlying assumption, we can prove that we are not separate and that the world is not separate, but this seems flawed. If you change the underlying assumption you can prove that frogs talk. I'm open to the notion. Not that frogs talk, but that we are not separate. But I feel strongly that what it comes down to is a matter of belief. No different than believing in God. I am open to the notion and in fact believe that the world is not separate, but feel uncomfortable saying and defending that statement. I believe that since this debate has raged for thousands of years without a convincing proof, then there is none. I tend to agree. For example, this model of awareness or whatever you want to call it, being the primordial state of being and then all else appears 'within' it. Even that notion only can be contemplated within a lifetime, lacking verification from the dead/afterlife whatever. So the question becomes, is that state of awareness dependent on an apparatus (body/brain) or does the body/brain rise and fall away within it? Same Q really. And the apparent lack of changiness on which all appearances change could just be because of the relative unchanging perspective. That is, the appearance of everything changing doesn't necessarily mean the awareness of that change is unchanging. It just means that it seems to be unchanging. That said, EF Schoonmaker proposed that there seems to be merit in adopting the 'superhuman' or 'supernatural' belief. It stretches one. Perhaps by taking that extra belief step (awareness is the natural state, the unborn, unchanging, neither being born nor dying), only then can a perspective/attitude develop which is optimized. The realization of no-separation may or may not be true. But the position of no separation may be better. Or, maybe not. I see EFS positing a sort of Pascal's Wager -- might as well go for it, because adopting the 'belief' (maybe it isn't) leads to a better life with less suffering. We agree on all points. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2017 10:48:09 GMT -5
I recently read "Refuting The External World" and remain unconvinced that it is a valid proof that a separate world does not exist. I have not really seen a valid proof of this. I have seen arguments that provide a an alternative theory for our experience. For example I think the argument that it's possible this is an illusion cannot be refuted. But it does not prove that it isn't an illusion. I recently heard an argument that says that if we change the underlying assumption, we can prove that we are not separate and that the world is not separate, but this seems flawed. If you change the underlying assumption you can prove that frogs talk. I'm open to the notion. Not that frogs talk, but that we are not separate. But I feel strongly that what it comes down to is a matter of belief. No different than believing in God. I am open to the notion and in fact believe that the world is not separate, but feel uncomfortable saying and defending that statement. I believe that since this debate has raged for thousands of years without a convincing proof, then there is none. This is Gopal playground now, you have opened up a can of worms. It's fine, I also wondered about this, we all have. I propose we find a way to know for sure. One idea would be to become very good with lucid dreaming, so when you are in the dream set the alarm on your cell phone to go off in the waking dream(everyday life) and see if it works. Maybe some day you just be walking around, your alarm went off and you will then know it's all a dream. However this will not really wake you up from the waking dream but will let you know how things are. Since I'm in unmoderated speak. I believe I can say this without Saint Peter shutting me down. Gopal is a religious fanatic. You need a sledge hammer to crack that brick. Interesting idea. Lucid dreaming is how I imagine SR feels like. Those who are SR can let me know if that's what it feels like to walk around here knowing, I mean really knowing, you are dreaming. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2017 11:06:46 GMT -5
This is Gopal playground now, you have opened up a can of worms. It's fine, I also wondered about this, we all have. I propose we find a way to know for sure. One idea would be to become very good with lucid dreaming, so when you are in the dream set the alarm on your cell phone to go off in the waking dream(everyday life) and see if it works. Maybe some day you just be walking around, your alarm went off and you will then know it's all a dream. However this will not really wake you up from the waking dream but will let you know how things are. Since I'm in unmoderated speak. I believe I can say this without Saint Peter shutting me down. Gopal is a religious fanatic. You need a sledge hammer to crack that brick. Interesting idea. Lucid dreaming is how I imagine SR feels like. Those who are SR can let me know if that's what it feels like to walk around here knowing, I mean really knowing, you are dreaming. Yeah he's impossible, I can take only a few hours with him, then I need to leave. I have no idea how Andy does it. Lucid dreaming is much like being SR imho. For myself SR is akin to walking around knowing that you are not this body, never was and who you really are is pure awareness, the absolute. The only real problem is this body/mind that seems to be with us all the time. This forum would be far better off putting the energy into what is SR, how does it feel, lets have some examples than the little wars that some of the members bring up just because they can. They stay in the body/mind and look to pull you in, they have no or little experience about being SR , so they look to trap you with word play, I'm better than you and so on. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2017 13:04:19 GMT -5
This is Gopal playground now, you have opened up a can of worms. It's fine, I also wondered about this, we all have. I propose we find a way to know for sure. One idea would be to become very good with lucid dreaming, so when you are in the dream set the alarm on your cell phone to go off in the waking dream(everyday life) and see if it works. Maybe some day you just be walking around, your alarm went off and you will then know it's all a dream. However this will not really wake you up from the waking dream but will let you know how things are. Interesting idea. Lucid dreaming is how I imagine SR feels like. Those who are SR can let me know if that's what it feels like to walk around here knowing, I mean really knowing, you are dreaming. What is this? The day you arrive here you started to talk nonsense about Enigma and now it's me. Let me report this post and let me see what would happen. Reporting this post. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 7, 2017 13:10:55 GMT -5
I recently read "Refuting The External World" and remain unconvinced that it is a valid proof that a separate world does not exist. I have not really seen a valid proof of this. I have seen arguments that provide a an alternative theory for our experience. For example I think the argument that it's possible this is an illusion cannot be refuted. But it does not prove that it isn't an illusion. I recently heard an argument that says that if we change the underlying assumption, we can prove that we are not separate and that the world is not separate, but this seems flawed. If you change the underlying assumption you can prove that frogs talk. I'm open to the notion. Not that frogs talk, but that we are not separate. But I feel strongly that what it comes down to is a matter of belief. No different than believing in God. I am open to the notion and in fact believe that the world is not separate, but feel uncomfortable saying and defending that statement. I believe that since this debate has raged for thousands of years without a convincing proof, then there is none. I would say that if we change the underlying assumption we can know that there is no separation, but this knowing isn't proof of anything, in fact this knowing is more akin to trust or faith than it is logical proof. I'm not sure it would be to our benefit to be able to prove that oneness is the case, the mystery is better I think. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 7, 2017 13:12:12 GMT -5
Since I'm in unmoderated speak. I believe I can say this without Saint Peter shutting me down. Gopal is a religious fanatic. You need a sledge hammer to crack that brick.Interesting idea. Lucid dreaming is how I imagine SR feels like. Those who are SR can let me know if that's what it feels like to walk around here knowing, I mean really knowing, you are dreaming. What is this? The day you arrive here you started to talk nonsense about Enigma and now it's me. Let me report this post and let me see what would happen. Reporting this post. Dude this is the unmoderated section....now you know the difference between the two sections! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2017 13:13:36 GMT -5
What is this? The day you arrive here you started to talk nonsense about Enigma and now it's me. Let me report this post and let me see what would happen. Reporting this post. Dude this is the unmoderated section....now you you know the difference between the two sections! What is this? There is the unmoderated section where people can abuse anyone? Or what? I don't understand! I don't even come across this person, I started notice that he started abusing Enigma first, now he is creating this thread in unmoderated section and abusing me. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 7, 2017 13:19:34 GMT -5
Dude this is the unmoderated section....now you you know the difference between the two sections! What is this? There is the unmoderated section where people can abuse anyone? Or what? I don't understand! I don't even come across this person, I started notice that he started abusing Enigma first, now he is creating this thread in unmoderated section and abusing me. yes, my guess is that it's fine to call you a religious fanatic here. You religious fanatic you  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2017 13:21:04 GMT -5
What is this? There is the unmoderated section where people can abuse anyone? Or what? I don't understand! I don't even come across this person, I started notice that he started abusing Enigma first, now he is creating this thread in unmoderated section and abusing me. yes, my guess is that it's fine to call you a religious fanatic here. You religious fanatic you Sorry Andrew, I can't continue arguing in this unmoderated thread. Let me catch you in our 'What if I am the world' Thread, OK? |
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Feb 7, 2017 13:24:38 GMT -5
yes, my guess is that it's fine to call you a religious fanatic here. You religious fanatic you Sorry Andrew, I can't continue arguing in this unmoderated thread. Let me catch you in our 'What if I am the world' Thread, OK? That's the fanatic's den you know.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2017 15:35:47 GMT -5
I recently read "Refuting The External World" and remain unconvinced that it is a valid proof that a separate world does not exist. I have not really seen a valid proof of this. I have seen arguments that provide a an alternative theory for our experience. For example I think the argument that it's possible this is an illusion cannot be refuted. But it does not prove that it isn't an illusion. I recently heard an argument that says that if we change the underlying assumption, we can prove that we are not separate and that the world is not separate, but this seems flawed. If you change the underlying assumption you can prove that frogs talk. I'm open to the notion. Not that frogs talk, but that we are not separate. But I feel strongly that what it comes down to is a matter of belief. No different than believing in God. I am open to the notion and in fact believe that the world is not separate, but feel uncomfortable saying and defending that statement. I believe that since this debate has raged for thousands of years without a convincing proof, then there is none. I would say that if we change the underlying assumption we can know that there is no separation, but this knowing isn't proof of anything, in fact this knowing is more akin to trust or faith than it is logical proof. I'm not sure it would be to our benefit to be able to prove that oneness is the case, the mystery is better I think. Yes. You were clear on this previously about the broader awareness perspective being unprovable. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2017 15:37:47 GMT -5
Dude this is the unmoderated section....now you you know the difference between the two sections! What is this? There is the unmoderated section where people can abuse anyone? Or what? I don't understand! I don't even come across this person, I started notice that he started abusing Enigma first, now he is creating this thread in unmoderated section and abusing me. I am sure if you ask the Great Frog if he was offended because I called him an animal, he would tell you he was not. |
|
