Reality Is Relative and Kabbalah Uses This Fact

[BGen]

Reality Is Relative and Kabbalah Uses This Fact

If a tree falls in the forest and there's no one to hear it, did it really fall? And does that tree even exist? Classical science has changed its mind about this again and again, and lately it has taken a direction that is remarkably similar to what the wisdom of Kabbalah has been saying for thousands of years.

But first, a brief history detour. For centuries, scientific research was based on the belief that reality and the observer are two distinct entities. Reality was thought to be objective, to exist regardless of whether there is someone observing it or not. In other words, scientists thought that the tree exists in the forest whether there's anyone to see it or not. But further research in the 20th century proved this to be wrong, and that reality is relative - it depends on the observer.

In the 1920s, Albert Einstein was the first to introduce this concept. He showed that the observer's velocity causes his reality to change. Later on, scientists went even further and concluded that reality does not depend just on the observer's velocity, but that it is altogether subjective and exists exactly to the extent that the observer perceives it. In other words, we perceive everything through our own properties, so that if our properties change, our perceived picture of the world changes as well.

This discovery revolutionized the scientific world; however, it was no innovation to the world of Kabbalah. For centuries, Kabbalah books have described that reality is relative, subjective, dependent on the observer, and changes according to his attitude to it. Kabbalah has always advanced the idea that the picture we perceive depends solely on us and does not exist outside of us. In fact, the reality we see is a reflection of our inner qualities, and if we change our qualities, we will perceive a completely different reality.


So both Kabbalah and science aim to broaden our picture of reality through scientific research, but when it comes to changing the observer's qualities in order to do so, they part ways.

Even though a scientist may know that the findings of his research depend on his own qualities, he doesn't work on developing himself as a part of his research. In other words, whatever an ordinary scientist investigates understands and reveals, remains as something that is "outside" him.

A Kabbalist, on the other hand, develops himself as a part of his research. He doesn't just recognize the fact that reality is subjective, that it depends on the observer's qualities, but actually utilizes it. Hence, a Kabbalist's new finding is a profound feeling and understanding. It becomes an actual part of his reality. This is why Kabbalist's call it an "attainment" or "Hasaga" in Hebrew, meaning that one tangibly "grasps" the feeling and knowledge the way one grasps something with his very hands.
__________________________________________________________
All changes are only in the perceivers. B.Ashlag
_____________________________________________
http://www.kabbalah.info

[Ryan Rudolph]

Bgen,

Just to add a few things -

Relativity is an important concept to consider in regards to how the human mind creates its own picture of reality using thought and sensation, and it can bend reality according to the power or limitation of the mind. For instance: A biologist and a Christian will come up with two totally different conceptions of reality, one obviously more sane and accurate than the other.

And in a causal world, the universe does obey certain laws, and even though these laws maybe experienced slightly different by each observer, much of reality is experienced exactly the same by people, as the causal world behaves in a predicable way. And scientists describe these predictable behaviors as laws, behaviors and theories. All Science is based on the certainty of the predictive power of causal relationships.

For instance: even if astronauts are not perceiving the earth spinning around the sun at a fixed velocity, it continues to do so regardless, even as humans are sleeping and not directly observing the activity. Different things are interacting and relating independent of human observation. But the mind is what gives life to these objects, as they can only be conceived of and perceived with the mind.

Moreover, how we imagine or perceive a planet spinning around the sun is totally dependent on the mind of each observer, but predicable laws can still be universally agreed upon by each observer regardless.

That is why the scientific method so foundational in high school science class because before your theory can have any validity in the scientific community, it must consistently describe how the world behaves, and another scientist should be able to repeat your exact experiment and discover the same empirical relationships.

[Dan Rowden]

If a tree falls in the forest and there's no one to hear it, did it really fall?

Not to be pedantic...well, ok, to be pedantic: I believe the original question is "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" The answer is, no, it doesn't.

[Tomas]

If a tree falls in the forest and there's no one to hear it, did it really fall?

Not to be pedantic...well, ok, to be pedantic: I believe the original question is "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" The answer is, no, it doesn't.

So, (does that imply that) then there isn't even a forest!

ps- Does a bear shit in the woods..?

Oops, but there are fossil records. Carbon date

.

[Dan Rowden]

The reason the answer is "no" is because a "sound" is something heard by an observer. Without the observer the falling tree just makes "causes". But then......even then.....!

[Sapius]

.
BGen,

If a tree falls in the forest and there's no one to hear it, did it really fall? And does that tree even exist?

May be, may be not… how and why should it concern me?

reality is relative - it depends on the observer.

OK.

we perceive everything through our own properties, so that if our properties change, our perceived picture of the world changes as well.

Which property should one change to perceive bread when holding a rock?

For centuries, Kabbalah books have described that reality is relative, subjective, dependent on the observer, and changes according to his attitude to it. Kabbalah has always advanced the idea that the picture we perceive depends solely on us and does not exist outside of us. In fact, the reality we see is a reflection of our inner qualities, and if we change our qualities, we will perceive a completely different reality.

Like what? Say what will a Cabbalist perceive a tree as?

A Kabbalist, on the other hand, develops himself as a part of his research. He doesn't just recognize the fact that reality is subjective, that it depends on the observer's qualities, but actually utilizes it. Hence, a Kabbalist's new finding is a profound feeling and understanding. It becomes an actual part of his reality. This is why Kabbalist's call it an "attainment" or "Hasaga" in Hebrew, meaning that one tangibly "grasps" the feeling and knowledge the way one grasps something with his very hands.

Profound feeling and understanding is all well and fine, but if one becomes a Cabbalist, would it in any way help one change the way one perceives hunger and live without food?

Don’t get me wrong; I’m not thinking of millions of hungry souls whom that might help… actually, I’m quite tired of eating food myself.

[brokenhead]

The reason the answer is "no" is because a "sound" is something heard by an observer. Without the observer the falling tree just makes "causes". But then......even then.....!

Dan is exactly right on this one. There is something exhilarating to the realization that the falling tree in fact makes no sound whatsoever, it just creates a rippling pattern in the surrounding atmosphere. The effect is in the ear, and since there is no observer, there is no ear. That is, if by "no one" we agree that we mean "no other organism capable of experiencing auditory stimulation." No squirrels, chipmunks, etc...

[Tomas]

Dan Rowden - The reason the answer is "no" is because a "sound" is something "heard" by an observer. Without the observer the falling tree just makes "causes".

-tomas-
So when one "hears" the word of God, does one act upon such event?




-Dan-
But then......even then.....!

-tomas-
Wiggly-room?


.

[Dan Rowden]

Dan Rowden - The reason the answer is "no" is because a "sound" is something "heard" by an observer. Without the observer the falling tree just makes "causes".

-tomas-
So when one "hears" the word of God, does one act upon such event?

Yes, one dresses in silk suits, calls oneself Benny Hinn and asks people for great dobs of money.

-Dan-
But then......even then.....!

-tomas-
Wiggly-room?

My intention was to convey the question: without an observer do even "causes" happen......

[Nick]

Don't forget the Devil put dinosaur bones on Earth to trick us too.

[Dan Rowden]

The reason the answer is "no" is because a "sound" is something heard by an observer. Without the observer the falling tree just makes "causes". But then......even then.....!

Dan is exactly right on this one. There is something exhilarating to the realization that the falling tree in fact makes no sound whatsoever, it just creates a rippling pattern in the surrounding atmosphere. The effect is in the ear, and since there is no observer, there is no ear. That is, if by "no one" we agree that we mean "no other organism capable of experiencing auditory stimulation." No squirrels, chipmunks, etc...

Exactly; other plants, for example, may "feel" the tree fall but not "hear" it because they lack an auditory system which is part of what a "sound" is.

[Sapius]

The reason the answer is "no" is because a "sound" is something heard by an observer. Without the observer the falling tree just makes "causes". But then......even then.....!

Dan is exactly right on this one. There is something exhilarating to the realization that the falling tree in fact makes no sound whatsoever, it just creates a rippling pattern in the surrounding atmosphere. The effect is in the ear, and since there is no observer, there is no ear. That is, if by "no one" we agree that we mean "no other organism capable of experiencing auditory stimulation." No squirrels, chipmunks, etc...

Beyond "sound".

[Steven]

Nice video.

To undercut the previous post slightly though not entireally, the Universe is not only relative but it is also probabilistic.

The two are infact fundamental; the relationship between probabilities produces the perception of the singular definate when one is capable of observation. The "sum over paths" that we think combines all probability for one absolute manifestation is still relative to the observer, hence relative to a probability.

All that is possible has a probability relative to all other that is possible, and the latter has probability relative to the former. Not only do we interperate this tree as having existence, but all others possible as not having existence. The tree falls and does not fall, the observer hears and does not hear, the sound is produced and not produced, heard and not heard.

The Kabbalah as described here is half true, half accurate in that it describes how if we change our perceptions we can change the world around us. What it does not describe is that this change already exists.

We are a part and we see only a part, and we know this. This does not stop us ascribing our part to the centre of all that exists, like the Earth pre-Copernicus, like the description of the Kabbalah above. Change does not change, it already is.

[Tomas]

.

I'd read the Kabbalah from a few different interpretations some years ago during my university days .. it came across as mostly bullshit dreamed up by narrow-minded whodunnits bent on domination of the people's collectivist thought-patterns.

Now that Madonna (the pop diva) has climbed on board, the whole thing stinks to high-heaven (haven) .. so, unless something better comes along than some forest fire buring the non-existent tree falling without sound, I'll be departing this thread knowing full well that the trees in my neck of the woods will not be polluted by some tree-hugger like Madonna quoting the Kabbalah from some crows-nest perch. Bad enough that that slut travels to Israel to hang with the rabbis and prime minister. Somebody told me she has some "new" video/song coming out .. same old retread like the pervert Michael (Whacko) Jackson and his Jehovah's Witnesses gangsters..

Life may be an illusion, or a passing fancy, but it's all I got.

.

[BGen]

The reason the answer is "no" is because a "sound" is something heard by an observer. Without the observer the falling tree just makes "causes". But then......even then.....!

Dan is exactly right on this one. There is something exhilarating to the realization that the falling tree in fact makes no sound whatsoever, it just creates a rippling pattern in the surrounding atmosphere. The effect is in the ear, and since there is no observer, there is no ear. That is, if by "no one" we agree that we mean "no other organism capable of experiencing auditory stimulation." No squirrels, chipmunks, etc...

Beyond "sound".

Yes, I love this video and offer to you more:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YG9FO7JGWq4&NR=1
_____________________________________________________
All changes are only in the perceivers. B.Ashlag
_____________________________________________________
http://www.kabbalah.info

[Sapius]

Yes, I love this video and offer to you more:http://www.youtube.com/watch?

Thanks for the link BGen, however, I'm not in agreement with the closing chapter - The Real Absolute Being, nor am I in agreement with the 'Projector' idea in the Holographic Universe, for both are a giant leap of faith based on our conventional experiences, that there MUST be an Absolute since all else is relative, whereas I believe that the 'relative' itself is what is eternally actually there, making the 'Hologram' itself the Real.

I agree Existence is Holographic, a Matrix, but it is without any 'projector' or an Absolute Being, or any thing that creates or projects it, but is an eternal interactivity of Holographic forms. Holographic since they lack permanency, but such impermanency itself is what permanently remains, and absolutely nothing else.

But hey! I have nothing against The Real Absolute Being, or the Projector, or Emptiness.

[BGen]

I would like to offer you other interesting video:
http://www.kabbalah.info/engkab/kabbala ... of-reality
Will be interesting to know your opinion.

[Sapius]

I would like to offer you other interesting video:
http://www.kabbalah.info/engkab/kabbala ... of-reality
Will be interesting to know your opinion.

No disrespect, but he said nothing that I don’t already know or have not heard before, but tell me, have you personally experienced anything through the “sixth” sense that he speaks of? May be then I could really question you on how and what you perceived.

The only thing that seems to emerge out of what I believe is most probably an out of body experience that some rare few Cabbalists might have experienced, or say other people of the old, is, a belief in a “creator” or an “absolute”, for a simple reason actually, that since logically something cannot come out of nothing, and that since ‘regress’ does not really satisfy the ego as a last and final answer, since there is nothing really to hold on to, so it finds this “pleasure” that the speaker talks about in an “Absolute authority” or say “Reality”, to which it gives either divine or conceptual qualities that satisfies ones ‘ego’ in any case.

I do agree with him that all are driven and motivated by and through self-satisfaction, (‘pleasure’ as he puts it), but that is the nature of existence itself, otherwise existence couldn’t be. On that level, it is merely a quality of a Will to BE, but not a sentient one.

He speaks about many aspects of the Self; would you like to point at any particular aspect?

[xerox]

...

[Sapius]

If a tree falls in the forest and there's no one to hear it, did it really fall? And does that tree even exist?

Not according to the person who wasnt there and didnt hear it.

Sure, but if you did, then tell me, and most probably I will believe you since it would conform to my own conscious experiences, thereby giving me some rational idea that such an event is not only dependant on my consciousness alone, but is relative to other consciousnesses as well, that are not mine, hence giving an objective quality to such an event itself, and to your consciousness as against mine too, and vice versa.

That is, given all conditions, it will most definitively be an objectively relative event. Remove any single condition, and existence itself isn’t, which is actually absurd to begin with, for that is not logically possible.

[Dave Toast]

If a tree falls in the forest and there's no one to hear it, did it really fall? And does that tree even exist?

Not according to the person who wasnt there and didnt hear it.

Sure, but if you did, then tell me, and most probably I will believe you since it would conform to my own conscious experiences, thereby giving me some rational idea that such an event is not only dependant on my consciousness alone, but is relative to other consciousnesses as well, that are not mine, hence giving an objective quality to such an event itself, and to your consciousness as against mine too, and vice versa.

That is, given all conditions, it will most definitively be an objectively relative event. Remove any single condition, and existence itself isn’t, which is actually absurd to begin with, for that is not logically possible.

Xerox,

Do you think the koan you reference points towards whether things exist, or rather, the nature of existence?

Sap,

Could you explain further what an 'objective quality' is please?

[Sapius]

Dave;

Sap,

Could you explain further what an 'objective quality' is please?

I would try explaining it at length, but I apologize for this succinct response. I won’t be around for two weeks or so, so at this point I can’t afford to engage in a lengthy discussion. May be when I get back.

In short, the confidence in the affirmation of ‘I am’, which asserts the objective quality it has as against the rest of totality, for it is NOT the rest, which in turn makes absolutely everything in and off totality having a objective quality, since any thing and the rest are objectively related, as per the subjectivity of any two things however.

I know, my use of ‘objective’ and ‘subjective’ may be different and goes beyond than a sentient consciousness, but I have reason to believe that our consciousness is but a different level of awareness that interdependently permeates thing-ness, and fluctuates at different levels with the fluctuation of thing-ness, inter-effectively.

A holographic dance so to speak, but real nonetheless, for these holographic forms do create an objective effect, hence an objectively alive interaction that creates a sense of subjectivity in things, which incidentally, unlike any thing in and of totality, is itself dependant on subjectivity itself to be what it objectively IS.

I hope that gives a rough outline, though it just off the top for now.

[Dave Toast]

No worries matey, let me know when you're back from saving the cheerleader and we'll continue ;-)

I was really looking to see how you understand the word 'quality' and whether you think the conjunction 'objective quality' is an oxymoron?

[Sapius]

Dave,

No worries matey, let me know when you're back from saving the cheerleader and we'll continue ;-)

Ah! I see :)

In my opinion, it is not wise to judge others by projecting your values on to them, my friend.

I was really looking to see how you understand the word 'quality' and whether you think the conjunction 'objective quality' is an oxymoron?

So that was all that you could see. Well, yes it is, but as long as you believe things exist inherently, otherwise, absolutely all that one can thing or imagine are but "qualities", but are real nonetheless, otherwise, I see no reason to take you seriously, and that is where I see two subjectivities sensing that objective quality of each other. It is not ALL in MY mind you see.

I'm afraid all the explanations in the world won't make sense to you unless to strengthen your own foundations. However, it is but a matter of perspective, and of course, you can always enjoy your own through you own understanding or values, as do I.

[Dave Toast]

Sap,

DT: No worries matey, let me know when you're back from saving the cheerleader and we'll continue ;-)

Sap: Ah! I see :)

In my opinion, it is not wise to judge others by projecting your values on to them, my friend.

That's good advice mate. It wasn't a judgement or meant to offend in the slightest. It was just a 'Heroes' related joke, hence the smiley and the jocular tone.

DT: I was really looking to see how you understand the word 'quality' and whether you think the conjunction 'objective quality' is an oxymoron?

Sap: So that was all that you could see. Well, yes it is, but [only] as long as you believe things exist inherently,

Isn't it, rather, the other way around?

That is, belief that the qualities of things are objective is necessarily grounded in the belief that things exist inherently.

otherwise, absolutely all that one can think or imagine are but "qualities", but are real nonetheless,

Yes indeed, that is reality.

otherwise, I see no reason to take you seriously,

You have no certain reason to take others seriously at all (if, by taking them seriously, you mean they objectively exist). You can be provisionally confident that you can take others seriously, but never certain.

and that is where I see two subjectivities sensing that objective quality of each other. It is not ALL in MY mind you see.

How can you know that for sure?

Just as you can be only provisionally confident of taking others seriously, you can only be provisionally confident of objective existence and that it's not all in your mind.

So, for instance, I made a joke above, intending no offense whatsoever. That was the (objective) quality of my intention, of which I can be subjectively certain. But all you can see is your subjective understanding of it, the qualities of which may or may not be correct, objectively.

I'm afraid all the explanations in the world won't make sense to you unless to strengthen your own foundations.

Ok, so if you explain how I should fortify my foundations, that should lead to my being able to make sense of your explanation of the certitude of objective qualities; fire away.

However, it is but a matter of perspective, and of course, you can always enjoy your own through you own understanding or values, as do I.

So if it's all a matter of perspective, qualities included, how can one possibly be certain of the objective quality of qualities?