|
|
Post by sree on Nov 27, 2022 20:03:50 GMT -5
Everything is in the conceptual sense. Some things (i.e. rock, parts of body, sun, moon, color of things, etc.) are tangible to the senses while other things (i.e. SVP, TRUTH, NOTHING, AMERICA, Citibank, etc.) are pure imaginations.
I am you, and you are me. Two SVPs. Just like two leaves on a tree, two sand grains in the desert, two snow flakes in a blizzard. There is no distinction of one thing from another in nature.
Distinction between SVPs arises from demonic possession. Exorcism of the demon is practiced in new-age spirituality to attain the impersonal no-self state. The Earth, as a blue planet, you see is a conceptual thing. It has nothing to do with the ground that you can feel that you are standing on. The two experiences are in separate contexts and cannot felt at the same time.
I could be talking rubbish, Laffy. Prove me wrong, show how my imagination is playing tricks on me.
Ok, this is going to be condescending, but it's either that, be quiet or lie: yes, referring to the relationships between you, the Earth and the Sun was conceptual and involved objectification, but that was to meet you where you are on your perspective of the separate volitional person. You insist on and write from a perspective of that dualistic conceptualization of yourself, so I offered you a physical metaphor rooted in the same conceptualization. As I said, it was a hint, a shadow. Saying that I and you are the same is a misinterpretation of pointing by guys like JK. It's a misinterpretation of Advaita, of non-duality, of Oneness. No, not everything is conceptual. We can use concepts to state what is not true, and clearly, you are not me, and I am not you.  The truth of nonduality is so much more profound, and beautiful than that.
Your mind is spinning on this dichotomy: "are you the whole, or just a part of the whole?" That's what's going on with the context flipping.
Not everything is conceptual? Even academic philosophy is moving towards realism as opposed to materialism. I have been following their arguments but they are, unfortunately, flawed. Materialism is now on shaky ground on account of quantum physics.
But I am not stardust, and I don't care about science theories because there is no way scientists can break out of their paradigm.
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Nov 27, 2022 20:59:17 GMT -5
Ok, this is going to be condescending, but it's either that, be quiet or lie: yes, referring to the relationships between you, the Earth and the Sun was conceptual and involved objectification, but that was to meet you where you are on your perspective of the separate volitional person. You insist on and write from a perspective of that dualistic conceptualization of yourself, so I offered you a physical metaphor rooted in the same conceptualization. As I said, it was a hint, a shadow. Saying that I and you are the same is a misinterpretation of pointing by guys like JK. It's a misinterpretation of Advaita, of non-duality, of Oneness. No, not everything is conceptual. We can use concepts to state what is not true, and clearly, you are not me, and I am not you. The truth of nonduality is so much more profound, and beautiful than that. Your mind is spinning on this dichotomy: "are you the whole, or just a part of the whole?" That's what's going on with the context flipping.
Not everything is conceptual? Even academic philosophy is moving towards realism as opposed to materialism. I have been following their arguments but they are, unfortunately, flawed. Materialism is now on shaky ground on account of quantum physics.
But I am not stardust, and I don't care about science theories because there is no way scientists can break out of their paradigm.
Not everything is conceptual, but our experience of everything is mediated. What we experience is subject to the limitations of the body, the mind-body. I would say our experience is a representation. Is a representation conceptual? I wouldn't say so. So whatever is ~out there~ cannot be known directly. But is there a something that can get beyond the limits of the mind-body? Yes. But what can be ~brought-back~ to the mind-body, can be (necessarily?) an interpretation. A scientific explanation is always going to be just a model. Scientists know this. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Nov 27, 2022 22:12:50 GMT -5
As I understand it, your own subconscious creates the reality that you perceive through your senses. Beliefs filter your perceptions from your inner-senses: you subconsciously perceive in agreement with your beliefs. Your subconscious creates to some degree your expectations, and your emotions are booster. Sure. But reality is transcendent of what you're referring to as perception. To discover the nature of reality, discover the nature of "what perceives". You may not be able to do that, and if you believe you did, you can't be sure. If you're sure, you're probably wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by sree on Nov 27, 2022 22:30:58 GMT -5
Not everything is conceptual? Even academic philosophy is moving towards realism as opposed to materialism. I have been following their arguments but they are, unfortunately, flawed. Materialism is now on shaky ground on account of quantum physics.
But I am not stardust, and I don't care about science theories because there is no way scientists can break out of their paradigm.
, but our experience of everything is mediated. What we experience is subject to the limitations of the body, the mind-body. I would say our experience is a representation. Is a representation conceptual? I wouldn't say so. So whatever is ~out there~ cannot be known directly. But is there a something that can get beyond the limits of the mind-body? Yes. But what can be ~brought-back~ to the mind-body, can be (necessarily?) an interpretation. A scientific explanation is always going to be just a model. Scientists know this. A scientific explanation of what? Take a rock, for example. Is it a perceptual experience of the senses or not? How real is it if you can see it but cannot touch and feel it because you are in a state of paralysis and have lost the sense of touch?
If you are born blind and have no comprehension of what visual experience is, how real is the moon to you?
All things, as you know them through the senses, are perceptual in nature and their forms are conceptualized through cognition. There is neither the observer nor the observed but only the state of observation, as Krishnamurti told you. You know that the rock is solid through the sense of touch. Without the sense of touch, I don't think we can conceptualize space because you won't be able to touch one wall in a room, walk over to the other wall and feel it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2022 23:21:26 GMT -5
I know belief creates reality. The question is, have you ever used affirmation or visualization to create anything? Have you attained any success? Beliefs don't create reality. Beliefs color and accent the dream. Nope. Creation arises to confirm your belief. Its getting created. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2022 23:36:57 GMT -5
He doesn't like the idea of predetermination but he believes in everything moves as one which means creation happens but there is no creator, choice happens but there is no choice maker. Nah, it's not that I " don't like" predetermination, it's just that "everything moves as one" doesn't relate to predetermination with the logic you think it does. I meant to say that everything moves as one doesn't imply predetermination. I said you follow everything moves as one but not predetermination. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2022 23:39:28 GMT -5
 One day it may hit you or you may die without realizing the fact the reason mostly because you would like to be a teacher. You made an incorrect assessment about me ... I don't want to be a teacher. I don't like to teach. I think that a spiritual teacher shouldn't teach the truth as he knows / believes it to be, but instruct every pupil to look only inwards for the truth. I don't believe I can change anybody, because everybody can be changed only by themselves. As you wrote somewhere, we deal with "figments" (inside individual realities created by our own individual subconscious). My amendment is that those "figments" are based on our individual distorted perception (at non-physical level) of other existing identities. As I was explaining here: Your subconscious is not creating the reality. You and I are just view point of one consciousness, creation arises from the same place for both of us |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Nov 28, 2022 0:59:12 GMT -5
Your subconscious is not creating the reality. You and I are just view point of one consciousness, creation arises from the same place for both of us I disagree. In my view, the physical-reality you perceive isn't identical with the one I perceive. There is no reference physical-reality. Your subconscious creates the physical-reality your ego perceives; my subconscious creates a physical reality that then my ego perceives through its physical senses. They share some commonality, bat are not only different in manifestation, but are actually disjoint gestalts of consciousness. It is similar to the dream reality we experience, but that isn't so because that is how the dream-reality is, but because that is how the physical-reality is, and our perceptions are distorted. What you wrote seems to state that there is such a reference physical-reality. I disagree. But, I don't intend to convince you, or anybody else. Everybody should form their own view of the nature of reality, and their chance to be "less wrong" would be higher. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2022 1:04:22 GMT -5
Your subconscious is not creating the reality. You and I are just view point of one consciousness, creation arises from the same place for both of us I disagree. In my view, the physical-reality you perceive isn't identical with the one I perceive. There is no reference physical-reality. Your subconscious creates the physical-reality your ego perceives; my subconscious creates a physical reality that then my ego perceives through its physical senses. They share some commonality, bat are not only different in manifestation, but are actually disjoint gestalts of consciousness. It is similar to the dream reality we experience, but that isn't so because that is how the dream-reality is, but because that is how the physical-reality is, and our perceptions are distorted. What you wrote seems to state that there is such a reference physical-reality. I disagree. But, I don't intend to convince you, or anybody else. Everybody should form their own view of the nature of reality, and their chance to be "less wrong" would be higher. Do you believe in objective outer world? |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Nov 28, 2022 1:05:05 GMT -5
Beliefs don't create reality. Beliefs color and accent the dream. Nope. Creation arises to confirm your belief. Its getting created. Like here ... In my view, "creation" doesn't confirm beliefs, but "creation" (of physical-reality) is restricted by beliefs which filter / distort perception, that is at the basis of that creation (by each unit and gestalt of consciousness' own subconscious). |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Nov 28, 2022 1:12:38 GMT -5
I disagree. In my view, the physical-reality you perceive isn't identical with the one I perceive. There is no reference physical-reality. Your subconscious creates the physical-reality your ego perceives; my subconscious creates a physical reality that then my ego perceives through its physical senses. They share some commonality, bat are not only different in manifestation, but are actually disjoint gestalts of consciousness. It is similar to the dream reality we experience, but that isn't so because that is how the dream-reality is, but because that is how the physical-reality is, and our perceptions are distorted. What you wrote seems to state that there is such a reference physical-reality. I disagree. But, I don't intend to convince you, or anybody else. Everybody should form their own view of the nature of reality, and their chance to be "less wrong" would be higher. Do you believe in objective outer world? If you mean by " objective outer world" a stand-on-its-own construct, an objective reference that we all observe, then I believe there is no such thing. Each one of us observes, and distorts what everyone else constructs: there is an infinite number of variants, constructed by all the units and gestalts of consciousness involved in the physical-reality, not only human. EDIT: For example, by the cells of your body. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2022 6:45:53 GMT -5
Nope. Creation arises to confirm your belief. Its getting created. Like here ... In my view, "creation" doesn't confirm beliefs, but "creation" (of physical-reality) is restricted by beliefs which filter / distort perception, that is at the basis of that creation (by each unit and gestalt of consciousness' own subconscious). Nope, belief freezes a line of experience for you. If you change your belief, then your experience changes too. But what you believe is not in your hand. You can't choose to believe something. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2022 6:47:12 GMT -5
Do you believe in objective outer world? If you mean by " objective outer world" a stand-on-its-own construct, an objective reference that we all observe, then I believe there is no such thing. Each one of us observes, and distorts what everyone else constructs: there is an infinite number of variants, constructed by all the units and gestalts of consciousness involved in the physical-reality, not only human. EDIT: For example, by the cells of your body. Your individual subconsciousness is not creating the reality, creation arises from impersonal level and it gets experienced on individual level. |
|
|
|
Post by sree on Nov 28, 2022 10:44:55 GMT -5
Not everything is conceptual? Even academic philosophy is moving towards realism as opposed to materialism. I have been following their arguments but they are, unfortunately, flawed. Materialism is now on shaky ground on account of quantum physics.
But I am not stardust, and I don't care about science theories because there is no way scientists can break out of their paradigm.
but our experience of everything is mediated. What we experience is subject to the limitations of the body, the mind-body. I would say our experience is a representation. Is a representation conceptual? I wouldn't say so. So whatever is ~out there~ cannot be known directly. But is there a something that can get beyond the limits of the mind-body? Yes. But what can be ~brought-back~ to the mind-body, can be (necessarily?) an interpretation. A scientific explanation is always going to be just a model. Scientists know this. Laffy asserted the same thing: not everything is conceptual. He also asserted that he is not me, and I am not him.
What does "conceptual" mean to you guys? Is it an imagination, an idea? I believe so. And that is the conventional mindset, the consensus worldview. People know the difference between something that is conceptual and something that is not. So, what is not conceptual? Laffy referred to physical metaphor. What the hell is a physical metaphor? It is so in your face dishonest when one can form such meaningless phrases and still insist on knowing what is what.
I won't give up on you guys though. I forgive you for you know not what you do.
|
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Nov 28, 2022 15:29:29 GMT -5
.. last year I had a vision of seeing a white car in front of a garage . I intuitively thought that I am going to move and have a new car . Two weeks ago my next-door neighbour had a fire in his garage that swept across to mine and blew up my car and destroyed my garage . I looked for a new car and in a matter of minutes, I brought the car that was in my vision & obviously I am going to have a new garage also .. When I have these sorts of visions that I have had for many years, there doesn't seem to be anything that can stop these things from happening after I have had a vision of such things . It really does make you think that if you can see these things a year from the event, then it's in a way just playing out as it should . You can turn it around, and wonder if you didn't (carelessly) materialize your vision, one of the infinite number of probabilities. Somehow you glimpsed something or made a connection, focused on it but not carefully enough, and your subconscious materialized it. You hadn't given any restrictions, and also put in some emotion which expedited it. It is what happens all the time in our dreams. Well I was more than happy with my car and garage, why would I carelessly materials something that wasn't on my mind? Sometimes one has to be careful of what one wishes for but they weren't on my wish list . When we start talking about the subconscious creating stuff without one knowing then one would never know anything per se in relation to what manifests. I have a history of visions both personally and global . I don't think for instance I subconsciously brought the plane down to land on the Hudson River lol . It's fair enough to say that you don't know my history of such things .. You get to know what visions are what, what dreams are what . |
|
The truth of nonduality is so much more profound, and beautiful than that. 
One day it may hit you or you may die without realizing the fact the reason mostly because you would like to be a teacher. 