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

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]

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?

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]

"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

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]

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.

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]

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

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]

"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

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]

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 m
ay
> 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.

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]

"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

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]

"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

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]

"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

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]