| Author |
Why we can not have a discussion about reality.
|
|
| Dave ©¿©¬ 2005-05-27, 5:55 pm |
| Howdy!
A person can only make 2 types of statements about reality:
1. Reality IS.
2. Reality JUST IS!
If I attempt to say any more than that, I am not talking about reality
anymore...
Rather I am talking about MY PERCEPTION of reality which is a totally
different topic.
MOF: "My perception of reality" is a contradiction!
(That's getting into the Jnana Principle of Two Truths.)
--
Dave ©¿©¬
http://www.howdydave.com
| |
|
| Dave ©¿©¬ wrote:
> Howdy!
>
> A person can only make 2 types of statements about reality:
>
> 1. Reality IS.
> 2. Reality JUST IS!
>
> If I attempt to say any more than that, I am not talking about reality
> anymore...
>
> Rather I am talking about MY PERCEPTION of reality which is a totally
> different topic.
>
> MOF: "My perception of reality" is a contradiction!
> (That's getting into the Jnana Principle of Two Truths.)
>
>
>
I would think that even to get to a place where you could say either #1
or #2 you would already be mired in perception. Wouldn't the
presupposition of reality be a product of perception?
| |
| Dave ©¿©¬ 2005-05-27, 5:55 pm |
| "David" <David@home.org> wrote in message
news:pFLle.76679$IO.13263@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
> Dave ©¿©¬ wrote:
>
> I would think that even to get to a place where you could say either #1
> or #2 you would already be mired in perception. Wouldn't the
> presupposition of reality be a product of perception?
Howdy David!
That's what the Principle of Two Truths is all about.
You have "lower truths" which are all based on perceptions.
Lower truths are all conditional and dependant on a person's point of view
(superimposed categorical framework.)
e.g.; The earth is the center of the universe.
The earth is flat.
Newtonian physics.
Einstinian physics.
Quantum physics,
etc.
The higher truth (n.b.: many "lower truths" one "higher truth") is all
encompassing and is not contradicted by any of the "lower truths" (which may
contradict each other.) This "higher truth": inconceivable, unperceivable,
unattainable, non-rational (neither rational nor irrational) is where (if it
could be perceived) a person might find reality.
I suppose that when you get right down to the nitty-gritty, acceptance of
reality is a matter of faith! aka: intuitive insight, enlightenment.
--
Dave ©¿©¬
http://www.howdydave.com
| |
| shy dolphin 2005-05-27, 5:55 pm |
| CAn you really know what is real and what is not? There are things that
are real but that we can't see of feel. The fact that the universe
exists is unreal to me and at the same time real. Strange huh? We live
in a world which shouldn't exist at the first place. Life is strange,
but forget that. YOu won't find answers. What is real to you , is real
to me. What is real to you, might be unreal to me. There is a human
factor (the mind) which determines what is real or not real.
| |
| omjaram 2005-05-27, 5:55 pm |
| To me defining reality is quite simple. Reality is: what is...
Knowing what is, on the other hand, is a bit more evolved. Whoops! I
mean involved :-)
Namaste
| |
| Dave ©¿©¬ 2005-05-27, 5:55 pm |
| "shy dolphin" <mariodelaleyes@yahoo.es> wrote in message
news:1117232538.698737.264560@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> CAn you really know what is real and what is not? There are things that
> are real but that we can't see of feel. The fact that the universe
> exists is unreal to me and at the same time real. Strange huh? We live
> in a world which shouldn't exist at the first place. Life is strange,
> but forget that. YOu won't find answers. What is real to you , is real
> to me. What is real to you, might be unreal to me. There is a human
> factor (the mind) which determines what is real or not real.
Howdy Shy!
That brings us back to my original post.
You are talking about what the mind perceives to be real.
Not reality, but PERCEPTION OF REALITY.
--
Dave ©¿©¬
http://www.howdydave.com
| |
| David 2005-05-27, 10:53 pm |
|
Dave ©¿©¬ wrote:
> "David" <David@home.org> wrote in message
> news:pFLle.76679$IO.13263@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>
>
>
> Howdy David!
>
> That's what the Principle of Two Truths is all about.
>
> You have "lower truths" which are all based on perceptions.
> Lower truths are all conditional and dependant on a person's point of view
> (superimposed categorical framework.)
>
> e.g.; The earth is the center of the universe.
> The earth is flat.
> Newtonian physics.
> Einstinian physics.
> Quantum physics,
> etc.
>
> The higher truth (n.b.: many "lower truths" one "higher truth") is all
> encompassing and is not contradicted by any of the "lower truths" (which may
> contradict each other.) This "higher truth": inconceivable, unperceivable,
> unattainable, non-rational (neither rational nor irrational) is where (if it
> could be perceived) a person might find reality.
>
> I suppose that when you get right down to the nitty-gritty, acceptance of
> reality is a matter of faith! aka: intuitive insight, enlightenment.
>
It is unclear to me how something can be called truth (even higher) if
it is inconceivable, etc.
perhaps intuitive insight or enlightenment are not matters of faith, but
matters of recognition. Recognizing that the quest for truth is superfluous.
| |
| Dave ©¿©¬ 2005-05-27, 10:53 pm |
| "omjaram" <omjaroo@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1117233801.187703.323300@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> To me defining reality is quite simple. Reality is: what is...
> Knowing what is, on the other hand, is a bit more evolved. Whoops! I
> mean involved :-)
>
> Namaste
>
Howdy!
Do you practice Jnana?
Only problem I have with your post is that word "defining."
The only way I can define something is to set it within the confines of my
own categorical framework.
Everybody has a categorical framework in which they perceive the universe
and every categorical framework has delimiters that differentiate between
what is valid and what is invalid (rational & irrational if you will.)
IOW: Everybody's perception of the universe is constructed around some sort
of DOGMATISM,
As soon as I attempt to define reality within the confines of my own
dogmatisms I end up with contradictions.
--
Dave ©¿©¬
http://www.howdydave.com
| |
| Dave ©¿©¬ 2005-05-27, 10:53 pm |
| "David" <David@home.org> wrote in message
news:NBNle.43132$VH2.7618@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>
>
> Dave ©¿©¬ wrote:
view[vbcol=seagreen]
may[vbcol=seagreen]
unperceivable,[vbcol=seagreen]
(if it[vbcol=seagreen]
of[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> It is unclear to me how something can be called truth (even higher) if
> it is inconceivable, etc.
>
> perhaps intuitive insight or enlightenment are not matters of faith, but
> matters of recognition. Recognizing that the quest for truth is
superfluous.
>
Howdy!
If it is "higher truth" than it holds throughout the cosmos.
If there happen to be sensiant beings living on Andromana who have 7 senses
instead of just 5, then the higher truth must hold for all 7 of their senses
AS WELL AS our 5.
If there are sensiant beings who live in more (or less) dimensions than we
do (we live in 3 if you don't count time) then this truth must hold in all
dimensions.
In other words... it must even hold in situations that we can not even
IMAGINE!
There is a word that I hate to use, but I'll use it just this once...
Instead of "higher truth" think of the realm of (cringe) "absolute."
Personally I agree with your surmise of intuitive insight or enlightenment
being matters of recognition and not matters of faith... but how else could
somebody perceive it who has not come to that recognition themselves?
Once I have experienced it, I need to find some mutually understandable
terminology with which I can convey that experience to somebody who doesn't
have a clue.
IMO: "Faith" seems to be as good a word as any (better than most) to use
when attempting to "share the experience."
--
Dave ©¿©¬
http://www.howdydave.com
| |
| Dave ©¿©¬ 2005-05-27, 10:53 pm |
| "omjaram" <omjaroo@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1117233801.187703.323300@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> To me defining reality is quite simple. Reality is: what is...
> Knowing what is, on the other hand, is a bit more evolved. Whoops! I
> mean involved :-)
>
> Namaste
>
Howdy!
That's why I think Popeye practiced yoga!
"Ego sum quis ego sum quod ut est quicumque ego sum"
("I am what I am and that's all that I am")
Can't get much deeper than that!
I prefer to say it in Latin because:
"Quicumque latine dictum sit, altum viditur"
(Whatever is said in Latin sounds profound!)
--
Dave ©¿©¬
http://www.howdydave.com
| |
| omjaroo 2005-05-27, 10:53 pm |
| In article <qnPle.2359$8g.121@news01.roc.ny>,
"Dave ©¿©¬" <dave@_nospam_howdydave.com> wrote:
> "omjaram" <omjaroo@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1117233801.187703.323300@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Howdy!
>
> That's why I think Popeye practiced yoga!
>
> "Ego sum quis ego sum quod ut est quicumque ego sum"
> ("I am what I am and that's all that I am")
>
> Can't get much deeper than that!
I agree! And another apt quote for the aspiring yogi:
"Resistance is futile. You will be asemilated"
-the Borg
>
>
> I prefer to say it in Latin because:
>
> "Quicumque latine dictum sit, altum viditur"
> (Whatever is said in Latin sounds profound!)
I like that one :-)
Namaste
| |
| omjaroo 2005-05-27, 10:53 pm |
| In article <WJNle.1402$qE4.755@news02.roc.ny>,
"Dave ©¿©¬" <dave@_nospam_howdydave.com> wrote:
> "omjaram" <omjaroo@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1117233801.187703.323300@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Howdy!
>
> Do you practice Jnana?
Yes
>
> Only problem I have with your post is that word "defining."
Let me take a lesson from Popeye and rephrase my statement more
accurately. Reality is quite simple: it is what is.
>
> The only way I can define something is to set it within the confines of my
> own categorical framework.
>
> Everybody has a categorical framework in which they perceive the universe
> and every categorical framework has delimiters that differentiate between
> what is valid and what is invalid (rational & irrational if you will.)
Yes, like they say, opinions are like a**holes; everyone has one :-)
>
> IOW: Everybody's perception of the universe is constructed around some sort
> of DOGMATISM,
>
> As soon as I attempt to define reality within the confines of my own
> dogmatisms I end up with contradictions.
And your question is?
Namaste
| |
|
| On 2005-05-27 13:41:16 -0700, "Dave ©¿©¬" <dave@_nospam_howdydave.com> said:
> Howdy!
>
> A person can only make 2 types of statements about reality:
>
> 1. Reality IS.
> 2. Reality JUST IS!
I disagree. Certainly those of us on alt.yoga know that there is a
non-dual experience that transcends object and subject. A primal light
of wholeness all encompassing Kosmos. This light/whole/unity is not
found through the sensory organs. It is not mental. It is a an
experience of pure consciousness.
Reality is the manifestation Consciousness.
>
> If I attempt to say any more than that, I am not talking about reality
> anymore...
>
> Rather I am talking about MY PERCEPTION of reality which is a totally
> different topic.
Fortunately our experience of non-dual awareness is not couched in
perception. It is a direct experience. Subject and object melt away.
Perception is meaningless at this level.
The perception of reality is an illusion. That is the result of not
seeing the whole. The mind is chaotic. It is a bit like only seeing
bits and pieces through the reflections of a broken mirror. Yoga is
about calming the mind so we see unbroken mirror.
Reality is a manifestation of Consciousness.
>
> MOF: "My perception of reality" is a contradiction!
> (That's getting into the Jnana Principle of Two Truths.)
Kant observed that when one confronts experiences that are outside
empirical phenomenology, contradiction becomes the pattern.
--
~Stu
| |
| Dave ©¿©¬ 2005-05-28, 8:55 am |
| "omjaroo" <omjaroo@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:omjaroo-A89367.18243927052005@news.corenews.com...
> In article <WJNle.1402$qE4.755@news02.roc.ny>,
> "Dave ©¿©¬" <dave@_nospam_howdydave.com> wrote:
>
>
> Yes
>
>
> Let me take a lesson from Popeye and rephrase my statement more
> accurately. Reality is quite simple: it is what is.
>
my[vbcol=seagreen]
universe[vbcol=seagreen]
between[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Yes, like they say, opinions are like a**holes; everyone has one :-)
>
sort[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> And your question is?
>
> Namaste
Howdy!
No question... That's part of the "definition" bit.
AT LAST I'VE FOUND SOMEBODY ELSE OUT THERE WHO PRACTICES JNANA!!!!
I was getting the impression that I was the only person on the face of the
planet who had even HEARD of it!!
I get so used to having to give a glossary of my Jnana terminology that I
just do it automatically these days! 
--
Dave ©¿©¬
http://www.howdydave.com
| |
|
|
Dave ©¿©¬ wrote:
> "David" <David@home.org> wrote in message
> news:NBNle.43132$VH2.7618@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>
>
> view
>
>
> may
>
>
> unperceivable,
>
>
> (if it
>
>
> of
>
>
> superfluous.
>
>
> Howdy!
>
> If it is "higher truth" than it holds throughout the cosmos.
>
> If there happen to be sensiant beings living on Andromana who have 7 senses
> instead of just 5, then the higher truth must hold for all 7 of their senses
> AS WELL AS our 5.
>
> If there are sensiant beings who live in more (or less) dimensions than we
> do (we live in 3 if you don't count time) then this truth must hold in all
> dimensions.
>
> In other words... it must even hold in situations that we can not even
> IMAGINE!
>
> There is a word that I hate to use, but I'll use it just this once...
> Instead of "higher truth" think of the realm of (cringe) "absolute."
>
> Personally I agree with your surmise of intuitive insight or enlightenment
> being matters of recognition and not matters of faith... but how else could
> somebody perceive it who has not come to that recognition themselves?
>
> Once I have experienced it, I need to find some mutually understandable
> terminology with which I can convey that experience to somebody who doesn't
> have a clue.
>
> IMO: "Faith" seems to be as good a word as any (better than most) to use
> when attempting to "share the experience."
>
Hi Dave,
Not to get too picky, but your use of the word cosmos is problematic.
You want your "higher truth" to be everywhere (and probably everywhen),
but you can only talk about where (and when) by using concepts of mind
built out of perception. The more you (and here I mean the generic you,
not "Dave") attempt to be precise about such matters, the more you get
caught up in an endless loop of mind justifying perceptions of mind.
And as for faith, it is a dangerous thing. I do not encourage it in anybody.
David
| |
| Sevenhundred Elves 2005-05-28, 11:51 am |
| Stu wrote:
> On 2005-05-27 13:41:16 -0700, "Dave ©¿©¬" <dave@_nospam_howdydave.com> said:
>
>
> I disagree. Certainly those of us on alt.yoga know that there is a
> non-dual experience that transcends object and subject. A primal light
> of wholeness all encompassing Kosmos. This light/whole/unity is not
> found through the sensory organs. It is not mental. It is a an
> experience of pure consciousness.
>
> Reality is the manifestation Consciousness.
>
>
> Fortunately our experience of non-dual awareness is not couched in
> perception. It is a direct experience. Subject and object melt away.
> Perception is meaningless at this level.
>
> The perception of reality is an illusion. That is the result of not
> seeing the whole. The mind is chaotic. It is a bit like only seeing
> bits and pieces through the reflections of a broken mirror. Yoga is
> about calming the mind so we see unbroken mirror.
>
> Reality is a manifestation of Consciousness.
>
>
> Kant observed that when one confronts experiences that are outside
> empirical phenomenology, contradiction becomes the pattern.
Thank you, Stu. You express it very well. I can only agree.
S.
| |
| shy dolphin 2005-05-28, 10:54 pm |
| Isn't enlightenment something that is inconceivable, something that you
can feel? So basically enlightenment is different with every human, so
that takes me back to what I tried to explain you people in the
beginning. Isn't enlightenment something to make people continue
buddism till the bitter end (end of suffering I mean). Isn't it
something that is simply something that depends on a human factor, thus
not a common goal/ value that can be attained by every single person
alive today. That is all really.
| |
| omjaroo 2005-05-28, 10:54 pm |
|
> AT LAST I'VE FOUND SOMEBODY ELSE OUT THERE WHO PRACTICES JNANA!!!!
>
> I was getting the impression that I was the only person on the face of the
> planet who had even HEARD of it!!
>
> I get so used to having to give a glossary of my Jnana terminology that I
> just do it automatically these days!
Welcome. I'm glad you found some company. Really, jnanis are as common
as dirt around here:-) I spent years practicing yoga before I ever met
another yogi. In the last year I have become good friends with the guy
who owns the 99-cent store next door; he is a yogi. My dentist in
Mexico; he is a yogi. My sewing teacher of the last two years: she's a
yogi. And the really amazing thing is all these different people in my
life know each other and are in fact best friends having run a yoga
center in Mexico fifteen years ago. Coincidence? I don't don't believe
in those any more ;-)
Namaste
| |
| Dave ©¿©¬ 2005-05-29, 8:54 am |
| "Stu" <Nospam@towel.com> wrote in message
news:2005052721001316807%Nospam@towelcom...
> On 2005-05-27 13:41:16 -0700, "Dave ©¿©¬" <dave@_nospam_howdydave.com>
said:
>
>
> I disagree. Certainly those of us on alt.yoga know that there is a
> non-dual experience that transcends object and subject. A primal light
> of wholeness all encompassing Kosmos. This light/whole/unity is not
> found through the sensory organs. It is not mental. It is a an
> experience of pure consciousness.
>
> Reality is the manifestation Consciousness.
>
>
> Fortunately our experience of non-dual awareness is not couched in
> perception. It is a direct experience. Subject and object melt away.
> Perception is meaningless at this level.
>
> The perception of reality is an illusion. That is the result of not
> seeing the whole. The mind is chaotic. It is a bit like only seeing
> bits and pieces through the reflections of a broken mirror. Yoga is
> about calming the mind so we see unbroken mirror.
>
> Reality is a manifestation of Consciousness.
>
>
> Kant observed that when one confronts experiences that are outside
> empirical phenomenology, contradiction becomes the pattern.
> --
> ~Stu
Howdy Stu!
I agree that:
"our experience of non-dual awareness is not couched in perception."
Unfortunately, any attempt to DISCUSS it IS couched in perception.
--
Dave ©¿©¬
http://www.howdydave.com
| |
|
| On 2005-05-28 22:25:24 -0700, "Dave ©¿©¬" <dave@_nospam_howdydave.com> said:
>
> Howdy Stu!
>
> I agree that:
>
> "our experience of non-dual awareness is not couched in perception."
>
> Unfortunately, any attempt to DISCUSS it IS couched in perception.
It is fortunate that we can have these experiences and then describe
them intellectually. Although the limitations of perception will never
duplicate the experience, the intellectual process supplies pointers.
This is a good thing. Because it means we are not alone. We share the
symbols of language, and we can confirm our experiences with each other
as a community. I am reminded of Martin Buber's I-thou. The remedy to
the 20th century existential nihilist, alone and frightened.
Let me look at it another way:
Scientific method requires an experiment to be mounted in the world of
the relative. Data is collected. Then at an intellectual level the
data is presented to the scientific community to further the quest.
The results of the experiment is couched in perception, the data itself
is pre-sensory.
For example I drop balls from a tower and after collecting the evidence
I exclaim V=MA. (velocity + mass x acceleration) The balls dropping
from the tower are pre-sensory. They happen on a physical level. The
formula V=MA is perceptual. The formula exists on an intellectual
level. I express the formula to the scientific community who build
upon it or disprove it.
The experience of non-dual awareness has the same attributes, though
the means are different. We have the experience, we make judgments on
that experience, share this with our peers. Like the scientific
community we get feed back from our peers as to if our experience is
common or not.
Otherwise this NG would be a complete waste of time.
--
~Stu
with help from Ken Wilber
| |
| Sevenhundred Elves 2005-05-30, 11:53 am |
| Stu wrote:
> On 2005-05-27 13:41:16 -0700, "Dave ©¿©¬" <dave@_nospam_howdydave.com> said:
>
>
> I disagree. Certainly those of us on alt.yoga know that there is a
> non-dual experience that transcends object and subject. A primal light
> of wholeness all encompassing Kosmos. This light/whole/unity is not
> found through the sensory organs. It is not mental. It is a an
> experience of pure consciousness.
>
> Reality is the manifestation Consciousness.
>
>
> Fortunately our experience of non-dual awareness is not couched in
> perception. It is a direct experience. Subject and object melt away.
> Perception is meaningless at this level.
>
> The perception of reality is an illusion. That is the result of not
> seeing the whole. The mind is chaotic. It is a bit like only seeing
> bits and pieces through the reflections of a broken mirror. Yoga is
> about calming the mind so we see unbroken mirror.
>
> Reality is a manifestation of Consciousness.
>
>
> Kant observed that when one confronts experiences that are outside
> empirical phenomenology, contradiction becomes the pattern.
Thank you, Stu. You express it very well. I can only agree.
S.
| |
| shy dolphin 2005-06-12, 8:54 am |
| SO YOU WILL GET TO KNOW REALITY once you are dead?????
When wil you get to know reality then????? so only buddist people who
have been enlighted get to see reality???
| |
| Dave ©¿©¬ 2005-06-12, 10:53 pm |
| Naaa....
Don't have to wait until you're dead you can get to KNOW reality while
you're still alive.
Only problem is being able to put it into words!
--
Dave ©¿©¬
http://www.howdydave.com
"shy dolphin" <mariodelaleyes@yahoo.es> wrote in message
news:1118540606.158181.241110@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> SO YOU WILL GET TO KNOW REALITY once you are dead?????
>
> When wil you get to know reality then????? so only buddist people who
> have been enlighted get to see reality???
>
|
|
|
|