To what degree can we weed out our delusions on reality?

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: To what degree can we weed out our delusions on reality?

Post by Dan Rowden »

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:If that is the case, and nothing outside of consciousness has ever been known, then why do you assume the appearances of consciousness relate to anything external in the first place?
Consciousness must be the Totality of all that is for it not to have things that are external to it, and indeed causal to it. Are you saying consciousness and Reality are identical rather than consciousness being something that exists within Reality? Just asking for clarity.
User avatar
Kunga
Posts: 2333
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am
Contact:

Re: To what degree can we weed out our delusions on reality?

Post by Kunga »

Dan, as far as you seeing all the mood shifts I display....I prefer to be spontaneous. I sometimes feel quiet & calm, sometimes boisterous, sometimes angry, sometimes something else.....I am not a robot that is consistently and mechanically responding the same to all my interactions.
You only see a few facets of my personality here. You yourself have manifested an acid-like anger, arrogance, and also a calm disposition.

Anyways....I love Huang Po :



http://www.abuddhistlibrary.com/Buddhis ... ang-po.htm
Elizabeth Isabelle
Posts: 3771
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Re: To what degree can we weed out our delusions on reality?

Post by Elizabeth Isabelle »

Russell wrote:
Just what exactly is "universal consciousness"? Other than an egotistical attachment to the preservation of self-existence (fear of death) expressing itself, of course. Consciousness is clearly a thing (as it is differentiated by what it's not), which is therefore caused, and therefore cannot be the whole of reality, as things are just part of the whole of reality.
It is not the egotistical attachment to the preservation of self-existence (fear of death) expressing itself at all. That is a delusion. Consciousness is a thing, as you pointed out.

Universal consciousness is the non-corporeal body of wisdom about reality.
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: To what degree can we weed out our delusions on reality?

Post by Russell Parr »

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Universal consciousness is the non-corporeal body of wisdom about reality.
I'm sure BO1 meant something else.

Defined that way, your original statement makes much more sense. Sorry for jumping to conclusions :)
User avatar
Kunga
Posts: 2333
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am
Contact:

Re: To what degree can we weed out our delusions on reality?

Post by Kunga »

[quote="Dan Rowden"] This is an interesting website about this problem: http://www.fakebuddhaquotes.com/

He also comes from a very controversial buddhist organization ....but they have done some wonderful things that I commend them for....their compassion and support of the Romany (Gypsy) people.


http://thebuddhistcentre.com/birmingham ... disharmony
Last edited by Kunga on Fri Mar 01, 2013 12:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: To what degree can we weed out our delusions on reality?

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

Dan Rowden wrote: Consciousness must be the Totality of all that is for it not to have things that are external to it, and indeed causal to it. Are you saying consciousness and Reality are identical rather than consciousness being something that exists within Reality? Just asking for clarity.
You could put it like that, I would say that the world we know, our own forms and space, are names for varying experiences of consciousness. These experiences of the world aren't the totality of all that is, but they are the totality of the world, as the world and what we know and name are actually experiences of consciousness.

I would be fine for someone to say there exists more outside of consciousness if they had some kind of evidence, but currently, people vouch that the objects they see are existing independently, yet when they do this they are referring to objects of consciousness, very delusional.

But yes, mind/consciousness and its contents entirely contain all known reality. (Waking world+ dreams)
Beingof1
Posts: 745
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 7:10 pm

Re: To what degree can we weed out our delusions on reality?

Post by Beingof1 »

Kunga:
I do love the truth, and I understand what you mean by being able to "see" the truth of this. But it is not a case where everyone obviously knows this reguardless of their interest in truth...like everyone can see the sun shining (that is obvious to everyone looking at the sun).
Yes it is obvious - the stunningly, inescapable, simple dimple truth.

Here it is! Are you ready? Are you sure?

Wherever you go - there you are.
The Truth is not obvious, Universal Consciousness is only understood and realized by those that have realized it....otherwise it's not possible to know this Truth....one would only hear it from others and assume it must be true....they belive it true, without KNOWING (experiencing).
Everyone experiences universal consciousness. They have been programmed not to trust their very own experience. This brainwashing was accomplished by years of systematic abuse of carrot and stick. In school, if you have a test with 100 questions and score 95 out of the hundred. They do not say "you got 95 right." Instead they say "you got 5 wrong." Very subtle and insidious reward and punishment game to make you a good slave so you will surrender your power as an infinite being.
When I said it can't be proven, I was thinking empirically/scientifically.
Can you prove it right now so everyone here knows without a shadow of a doubt ?
No.
Either can I.

So the truth can not be known (obviously).
Yes it can - pay attention.

Could you give me an example of something that exists beyond your awareness? If all things, including your thoughts, are contained within the field of awareness, the field (consciousness) is what is fundamental.

The field (consciousness)itself exists nowhere. There is no exact location of the 'you'. Consciousness is non-local. Western mindsets tend to think linear - consciousness has a center that is everywhere and its circumference is nowhere. A compass points at true North - consciousness points in all directions.

It is like the concept of zero or the empty set. In set theory, all other sets( ~), are contained by the empty set. The field of awareness transcends existence as it cannot be found to be a 'thing', yet all of totality exists within this field of consciousness.

There can be no reality or truth apart from experience.All things, categories, systems, beings and principles exist because you experience all the properties of reality. They are defined by you, experienced by you and known by you. You cannot separate yourself from reality.

Do you remember a time you were not? Do you remember your first thought? Can you know anything or something outside of your consciousness?


Russell:

I remember our last conversation. You did not answer a single question, played verbal gymnastics and word chess. You avoid my questions again - I will not speak to you because it would be pointless.
Just what exactly is "universal consciousness"? Other than an egotistical attachment to the preservation of self-existence (fear of death) expressing itself, of course. Consciousness is clearly a thing (as it is differentiated by what it's not), which is therefore caused, and therefore cannot be the whole of reality, as things are just part of the whole of reality.
1) Universal Consciousness is the fact that you cannot have reality without it.

2) Fear of death - Why do you jump to conclusions? Try asking instead of spin doctoring. If I never existed it would be hard to die, would it not?

3) Consciousness is a thingy: If you can point to one thing - just one - that exists outside of consciousness, then you have a point. If you cannot, then all things are contained by consciousness and it therefore transcends being a thingy.
Beingof1:
Did you step outside your consciousness to come to this conclusion?


Sure didn't. Did you?
If it is impossible to step outside your consciousness then - now get this - all things are contained by the field of consciousness.
The fact that we cannot observe anything outside of it (as observation requires consciousness), proves that we haven't the slightest idea of just exactly what is going on beyond it.
The fact that we cannot observe anything outside of consciousness proves there is no edge to it - hello? If you could point to the defining line between reality and your consciousness then you would have a salient point. Where is the edge of your consciousness and where does the outside begin?
The only resort is educated guesswork based on empirical evidence, which is ultimately a shot in the dark. Going any further is both impractical and delusional.
What is delusional is to think there is an 'outside' of your consciousness. Point it out already - would ya?
That said, it's easy to fall into the trap of believing in such a thing.
I do not "believe" I can take a stroll outside of my experience and you call that delusion and a trap. Are you sure it is I who cannot answer all - and I do mean all - your questions and statements?

Tell us all how you know there is an outside to your consciousness and at the very least begin with a premise.
Seeker/John is doing a variation of this same thing. It's all 'new agey', pop-buddhism stuff. It's empowering to the ego to believe that some aspect of conscious experience, which is familiar to the current one in some way, will continue to exist beyond physical death, and/or has always existed in some "higher realm", or anything else you can imagine that gives the impression that consciousness (and/or Love) is beyond causation or is causation.

Uh huh.

Now address my points - do not sidestep, spin doctor, evade and obfuscate.

Here is the essence of the grand contradiction that you are not seeing. Now focus your truth seeker here:

" Did you step outside your consciousness to come to this conclusion?


Sure didn't. Did you"?

If it is clearly impossible to step outside your consciousness - How can you "believe" it to be possible all at the same time?



Diebert, my apologies for misquoting the Buddha. Thank you for the laugh.

How about this?

""The Mind is Buddha. All Buddhas and all sentient beings have the same Buddha-Nature and one Mind. Therefore, Bodhidharma came from the West only to transmit the One-Mind Doctrine. However, since the mind of all sentient beings is the same as original Buddha-Nature, there is no need to practice; for if one recognizes one's own Mind and sees one's own Nature, there is nothing at all to seek outside oneself. But how is one to recognize one's own Mind? Just that Mind itself that wants to perceive the Mind ? that is your own Mind, which is as void as Original Mind and is without words and function."
-- Huang Po
User avatar
Unidian
Posts: 1843
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 7:00 pm
Contact:

Re: To what degree can we weed out our delusions on reality?

Post by Unidian »

What are you all going on about? Jesus H.W. Christ. This is not that complicated. One is either deluded or not.

Either one belives in inherent existence and buys into the ego or they don't. It's really that simple.

Of course, there are residual neural pathways created by the ego delusion, but these subside eventually.

The key thing is whether or not we believe we exist independently and are some kind of 'special snowflakes.'

Of course, it's easy to SAY we don't buy into ego, while acting in an entirely contrary manner...

But who cares? That's just intellectual and spiritual dishonesty, and is as easy to spot as crack in the ghetto.
I live in a tub.
User avatar
Pincho Paxton
Posts: 1305
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 10:05 am

Re: To what degree can we weed out our delusions on reality?

Post by Pincho Paxton »

"SeekerOfWisdom"]Names are provisional descriptions of particular experiences of consciousness.
Yes names are only descriptions, and the dictionary is part of the delusion.
You can see the things, see what they do and feel like and how they act in relation to each other. That is the full scope of your knowledge about particular things.
That's not true. Most of physics is invisible. Someone can throw a ball, and you can catch it, and that takes knowledge of the invisible, and intangible. Most scientists talk of things before the things are found.
Undeniable statement next sentence:

Every time you speak or describe, you are always and only referring to concepts/ideas/mental formations that arise in your mind.
That makes no difference. If the ideas in your mind are the right ideas then you aren't being delusional.
Another try:
When you are speaking the name, that very experience of speaking is made up only of appearances of consciousness. And also, the thing you are referring to and naming, is only a reference to a previous object/appearance of consciousness.
That makes no difference. If the ideas in your mind are the right ideas then you aren't being delusional.
Knowledge consists of referring to things you have seen/felt.
Knowledge can be used to invent, and create new ideas. If you want to figure out what everything is 100% free of delusion then you must work with a brand new theory.
Even when you are referring to an idea, you are referring to mental formations which are essentially things you have seen or felt (they may feel or look different to the normal things you see/feel, but they are still only appearances of consciousness)

The arising in the mind that something has meaning is only a "feeling". The very feeling that something is correct or agreeable is only another experience/"feeling".
Now you just try to keep repeating the same things over, and over. That's called brain washing. Someone cannot brain wash another person who has no delusions.
So, at the end, it all comes down to tracing back these various manifestations to their source.
Wisdom is simply recognizing what the source of everything is. There isn't much to know after knowing the source, besides maybe how to attune your provisional descriptions of your experiences of consciousness.
If you recognise what the source of everything is then you are 100% free of delusion. So now you are saying that we can be 100% free of delusion. Which means that you are contradicting all of your previous quotes.
This is at the essence of not-knowing, all knowledge/ideas consists of particular appearances of consciousness.

All appearances/objects of consciousness, (including the "feeling"/experience that an idea has meaning) are only experiences, the objects exist only so far as what is seen of the mind, as does the knowledge/meaning.
Back to repeating previous quotes like they will penetrate my perfect mind. Well they will not.
In other words, it is all a dream. In other words, it is all only of the mind. (Found the source)
If you know what a dream is then you are being delusional here.
Enlightenment/wisdom is knowing you don't know anything. Or at least that all your knowledge is no different to the ideas you may have dreamt up to explain the 40 suns while sleeping.
Your knowledge is very poor to be honest. So for you to say that you don't know anything is quite accurate. But if you are speaking to other people, then you should expect them to know more than yourself.
Knowledge is made up of dreams referring to dreams.
Repeating a previous quote again.

To sum this up. SeekerOfWisdom is not capable of going past their own experiences. Doesn't want to admit that they are less intelligent than others, so applies the same rules to others to equal out the playing field. The most delusional person on here must have the strongest oppinion, and the longest posts. It doesn't work though. If you are free of delusion, nobody can tell you that you are living a dream. Nobody can tell you very much that you don't already know. The source is the creator of all manifestations, and the source is a particle. An infinite number of these particles create 100% free of delusion universe.
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: To what degree can we weed out our delusions on reality?

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

Pincho, you are a holes and fillers type of guy, we clearly have different opinions as I am under the impression that there is nothing but what is seen of the mind, as I said, I don't have the heart to even begin to try and start on making a first note as to why I should take a stab at making a first step toward conversing about enlightenment with you, so please for future reference ignore everything that I say and I will do so for you also, I say this for the single reason that you would not believe how different mine and your opinions are, neither of us will come to agreement, thankyou and goodnight.
User avatar
Tomas
Posts: 4328
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 2:15 am
Location: North Dakota

Re: To what degree can we weed out our delusions on reality?

Post by Tomas »

Beingof1 wrote:
The Truth is not obvious, Universal Consciousness is only understood and realized by those that have realized it....otherwise it's not possible to know this Truth....one would only hear it from others and assume it must be true....they belive it true, without KNOWING (experiencing).
Everyone experiences universal consciousness. They have been programmed not to trust their very own experience. This brainwashing was accomplished by years of systematic abuse of carrot and stick. In school, if you have a test with 100 questions and score 95 out of the hundred. They do not say "you got 95 right." Instead they say "you got 5 wrong." Very subtle and insidious reward and punishment game to make you a good slave so you will surrender your power as an infinite being.
That's very good, Beingof1. Excellent employment of carrots and sticks, indeed! You win two cookies!
Don't run to your death
User avatar
Pincho Paxton
Posts: 1305
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 10:05 am

Re: To what degree can we weed out our delusions on reality?

Post by Pincho Paxton »

People talk about Enlightenment on here as a spiritual thing. A sort of Buddha carbon copy. Well if you break that down into parts it isn't the knowledge of all things, and nature. It's a wish to be harmonious with nature, and allow the delusion of nature to be part of you. So enlightenment is a delusional state to be in. You cannot have both enlightenment, and the weeding out of delusion. The two things don't fit together. Like I said. 100% delusion free is all about particles. Enlightenment is all about allowing nature to delude you into a state of peace. It's a sort of natural drug. I would feel insulted to be called enlightened in the sense of a Buddha. I prefer the scientific version which is called a Theory Of Everything, or TOE. I know the TOE, therefore I have no delusions. I know how consciousness is made, and the brain, so I know how I am thinking, and how I am coming up with the Theory Of Everything. I am a circle that realises their own beginning.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: To what degree can we weed out our delusions on reality?

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Unidian wrote:What are you all going on about? Jesus H.W. Christ. This is not that complicated. One is either deluded or not.

Either one belives in inherent existence and buys into the ego or they don't. It's really that simple.

Of course, there are residual neural pathways created by the ego delusion, but these subside eventually.
It's all very black & white uncomplicated and that simpl -- oh wait, it's not but "only a matter of time".

And various "neural pathways" now are involved as well! And suddenly everything becomes complicated again and not simple at all. At least you could try to keep the bullshit straight and not insult people's intelligence!
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: To what degree can we weed out our delusions on reality?

Post by Russell Parr »

Beingof1 wrote:Russell:

I remember our last conversation. You did not answer a single question, played verbal gymnastics and word chess. You avoid my questions again - I will not speak to you because it would be pointless.
Drats! I'll do my best.
1) Universal Consciousness is the fact that you cannot have reality without it.
Well it doesn't get much more vague than this.
2) Fear of death - Why do you jump to conclusions? Try asking instead of spin doctoring. If I never existed it would be hard to die, would it not?
To be fair, you jumped to conclusions too in regards to Elizabeth's use of the phrase "universal consciousness".

The fear of death, as a human experience, is a good motivation for the human ego to cling onto made-up supernatural characteristics applied to conscious experience. A very common example is "eternal existence" or "infinite awareness." It's basically just God repackaged and reformed by egotistical desires.
3) Consciousness is a thingy: If you can point to one thing - just one - that exists outside of consciousness, then you have a point. If you cannot, then all things are contained by consciousness and it therefore transcends being a thingy.
The big error in your logic is your lack of understanding of the relationship between things and consciousness. I will never contend that there are things beyond consciousness, but I'll bet that you will keep pressing that I do think that there are, because 1) it provides the necessary contrast for you to uphold your beliefs and 2) you don't understand what consciousness is.
If it is impossible to step outside your consciousness then - now get this - all things are contained by the field of consciousness.
Making up stuff again. Consciousness (or it's field) doesn't "contain" anything. It merely interacts with its environment using the process of differentiation. It's environment is made up of the 5 senses, memories, and abstract thought.
The fact that we cannot observe anything outside of consciousness proves there is no edge to it - hello? If you could point to the defining line between reality and your consciousness then you would have a salient point. Where is the edge of your consciousness and where does the outside begin?
This is like asking to define the edge of a cloud with a microscope, then concluding the cloud must expand infinitely because we can't see its edge. Rather, we know the cloud isn't infinite because we can differentiate it from its surroundings, as well as the rest of reality. In the same manner, I know that your consciousness isn't infinite by the simple fact that it isn't my consciousness, or anything else but your consciousness.

Perhaps one could say that consciousness has an infinite potential to differentiate, but of course this isn't entirely true either given the limitations of time and space relative to individual experience.
Tell us all how you know there is an outside to your consciousness and at the very least begin with a premise.
Like I said, you're going to just keep harping on this, while in reality the burden of proof rests on you.

How's this for a premise: What color am I thinking of?
User avatar
Kunga
Posts: 2333
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am
Contact:

Re: To what degree can we weed out our delusions on reality?

Post by Kunga »

peach
User avatar
Unidian
Posts: 1843
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 7:00 pm
Contact:

Re: To what degree can we weed out our delusions on reality?

Post by Unidian »

It's all very black & white uncomplicated and that simpl -- oh wait, it's not but "only a matter of time".

And various "neural pathways" now are involved as well! And suddenly everything becomes complicated again and not simple at all. At least you could try to keep the bullshit straight and not insult people's intelligence!
Other than being "bullshit," what exactly is wrong with what I said? Just curious.
I live in a tub.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: To what degree can we weed out our delusions on reality?

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Unidian wrote:
It's all very black & white uncomplicated and that simpl -- oh wait, it's not but "only a matter of time".

And various "neural pathways" now are involved as well! And suddenly everything becomes complicated again and not simple at all. At least you could try to keep the bullshit straight and not insult people's intelligence!
Other than being "bullshit," what exactly is wrong with what I said? Just curious.
I see a couple of things wrong with it, James, and it surprised me in so far that I couldn't make anything else from it than something not passing the smell test.

You are creating what seems to be a false dichotomy "one is either deluded or not" and derive from this assertion that it's therefore "simple". Then of course it's important to know why it's black and white like that. One can only assume your next statement is meant to explain the simplicity.

It's for you then it seems a "believing in inherent existence" or not. Buying into ego or not. As if the decision to stop believing in it is The Great Start and only a matter of time before It Is Made So. Not very complicated then and that could be your opinion on it, which no matter how I would disagree with it would not be something I'd respond to normally.

But after submitting this as a simple and uncomplicated thing, as an afterthought through the back door as it were, comes this "but": some neural pathways, habitual thoughts and behaviors I suppose which have some level of delusion attached to it (?) which you assure us they will "subside". But I think introducing brain chemistry in the equation complicates your initial (but in my view also false) simplicity. Could believing in inherent existence be itself then perhaps a case of some crooked neural pathway? How would we know which behavior or effect is neurological as blueprint, genetics, causes or effects? It becomes very murky here to introduce neurobiology right after dealing with belief. How to distinguish beliefs from someone's brain chemistry, how to verify this all?
Of course, it's easy to SAY we don't buy into ego, while acting in an entirely contrary manner...
There's no way of knowing then since it call can be "residual neural pathways" which as you wrote can still be in place after stopping to buy into it. Not as "easy to spot" after all then? Again, it all complicates it immensely but I'm surprised you are hammering still on the simplicity of the dilemma having said all that. Not to mention the question if beliefs rise as result or as cause of some transformation and movement.
Beingof1
Posts: 745
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 7:10 pm

Re: To what degree can we weed out our delusions on reality?

Post by Beingof1 »

Tomas:
That's very good, Beingof1. Excellent employment of carrots and sticks, indeed! You win two cookies!
Your discernment sucks. You cannot tell the difference between someone who is trying to control you and allow you to be free.



Russell:
1) Universal Consciousness is the fact that you cannot have reality without it.

Well it doesn't get much more vague than this.
Vague?

It does not get any more specific than this. What is fuzzy wuzzy about this statement?

2) Fear of death - Why do you jump to conclusions? Try asking instead of spin doctoring. If I never existed it would be hard to die, would it not?

To be fair, you jumped to conclusions too in regards to Elizabeth's use of the phrase "universal consciousness".
What conclusion did I jump to?
The fear of death, as a human experience, is a good motivation for the human ego to cling onto made-up supernatural characteristics applied to conscious experience. A very common example is "eternal existence" or "infinite awareness." It's basically just God repackaged and reformed by egotistical desires.
Who are you talking to? Did you even read my response?
3) Consciousness is a thingy: If you can point to one thing - just one - that exists outside of consciousness, then you have a point. If you cannot, then all things are contained by consciousness and it therefore transcends being a thingy.


The big error in your logic is your lack of understanding of the relationship between things and consciousness. I will never contend that there are things beyond consciousness, but I'll bet that you will keep pressing that I do think that there are, because 1) it provides the necessary contrast for you to uphold your beliefs and 2) you don't understand what consciousness is.
Speaking of vague. Instead of just saying I do not understand the relationship of things and consciousness - could you describe what I am missing? Just saying I do not understand is like me saying to you " You do not understand 'what is up' means."

If you will never contend that there are things beyond your consciousness (it is clearly impossible); what does that tell us? Just saying I do not get it is not an answer. If you fail to draw a conclusion, you are incapable of truth.
If it is impossible to step outside your consciousness then - now get this - all things are contained by the field of consciousness.

Making up stuff again. Consciousness (or it's field) doesn't "contain" anything. It merely interacts with its environment using the process of differentiation. It's environment is made up of the 5 senses, memories, and abstract thought.
Using logic is making stuff up? Sure, whoever said logic had to make sense?

You just said "I will never contend that there are things beyond consciousness." If there is nothing beyond consciousness - just like 1+1=2 - that means all things are contained by it. This is not rocket science, its just simple logic.

Of course consciousness interacts with 'its' environment. Notice what you said with your very own words - pay real close attention. "interacts with ITS environment."

The logic is inescapable.
The fact that we cannot observe anything outside of consciousness proves there is no edge to it - hello? If you could point to the defining line between reality and your consciousness then you would have a salient point. Where is the edge of your consciousness and where does the outside begin?

This is like asking to define the edge of a cloud with a microscope, then concluding the cloud must expand infinitely because we can't see its edge.
Thank you for the example. I mean that Russell. Instead of just making fun and saying statements like "you do not get it", you are actually bringing up examples and analogies to the debate.

This is a great example. The cloud does expand to infinity is the correct conclusion. The reason is because (especially with a microscope) there is no edge to a cloud.
Rather, we know the cloud isn't infinite because we can differentiate it from its surroundings, as well as the rest of reality. In the same manner, I know that your consciousness isn't infinite by the simple fact that it isn't my consciousness, or anything else but your consciousness.
This is the tricksey part of consciousness. Because you can categorize a cloud as being distinct, you think that means it is not dependant on the universe. All things are interconnected at the most fundamental level. You must have an infinite cloud if it is interconnected with the entire universe. Are there water particles that expand beyond the arbitrary edge that you define? Who has the better vision? I might be able to see water vapour beyond your 'edge' of the cloud. If I can see water particles that you cannot, the conclusion is, the cloud is much bigger than you perceive.

All things, ideas, and limits are applied by you categorizing and defining the experience of reality.There is no limit that has not been transcended. The very fact that you apllied the limit to the cloud means it has already been expanded and transcended. All limits are transcended by the very fact of applying the limit itself. There is no limit that has not been transcended.
Perhaps one could say that consciousness has an infinite potential to differentiate, but of course this isn't entirely true either given the limitations of time and space relative to individual experience.
There is strong difference between a zero-dimensional and one-dimensional entity and geometry establishes what is 0D and what is 1D. Is a zero dimensional point infinitely small or large? All this talk about small and big particles is not about the size, including clouds.

When an electron is a particle it produces a finite number - they may be real or imaginary numbers but conceivable non the less. It functions as energy.

When an electron is a wavelength it is circular(spin) and the function pi - the infinite spin as in a circle and has an infinite amount of points otherwise known as zero point. Its function is information.

A square has four points - a circle has an infinite amount of points.

0/1 = consciousness
1/0 = universe

An orange could pass through the double slit experiment with the right velocity.The equation relates momentum p to the wavelength lambda through an inverse relation that also includes the Planck's constant h, that is:
p = h / lambda. Momentum p is a product of mass m and velocity v. So, the equation m • v = h / lambda deals not only with mass (or density) but also includes the particle's velocity. This remains a subset of the zero dimension no matter how many separate oranges you end up with. There seems to be no other way the math explains what is happening in relation of the potential field to the actual.

This means there are an infinite amount of every individual thing you can point to.
Tell us all how you know there is an outside to your consciousness and at the very least begin with a premise.

Like I said, you're going to just keep harping on this, while in reality the burden of proof rests on you.

How's this for a premise: What color am I thinking of?
I have been through this game before. Even when I am right - the other trapped in dogma says I am wrong.

I will not address this stupid game again.
User avatar
Unidian
Posts: 1843
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 7:00 pm
Contact:

Re: To what degree can we weed out our delusions on reality?

Post by Unidian »

Thanks for your response, Diebert.
I see a couple of things wrong with it, James, and it surprised me in so far that I couldn't make anything else from it than something not passing the smell test.

You are creating what seems to be a false dichotomy "one is either deluded or not" and derive from this assertion that it's therefore "simple". Then of course it's important to know why it's black and white like that. One can only assume your next statement is meant to explain the simplicity.

It's for you then it seems a "believing in inherent existence" or not. Buying into ego or not. As if the decision to stop believing in it is The Great Start and only a matter of time before It Is Made So.
I don't see it so much as a "decision" but rather as an "event." And I do feel that once the ego has been thoroughly understood to be a delusion (the fundamental delusion, actually), gradual (or possibly rapid) changes in a person's mentality are likely to be inevitable.
But after submitting this as a simple and uncomplicated thing, as an afterthought through the back door as it were, comes this "but": some neural pathways, habitual thoughts and behaviors I suppose which have some level of delusion attached to it (?) which you assure us they will "subside".
Maybe I miscommunicated, then. I cannot "assure" anyone that they will subside, but it seems to be the logical outcome. And the existence of ingrained neural pathways and such is pretty well established in the cognitive sciences. I don't mention them to complicate matters, but rather simply to acknowledge their reality.
But I think introducing brain chemistry in the equation complicates your initial (but in my view also false) simplicity. Could believing in inherent existence be itself then perhaps a case of some crooked neural pathway?
No, I think it is a result of crooked educational and cultural pathways.
How would we know which behavior or effect is neurological as blueprint, genetics, causes or effects? It becomes very murky here to introduce neurobiology right after dealing with belief. How to distinguish beliefs from someone's brain chemistry, how to verify this all?
Agreed, it does become somewhat murky. But I described the matter as simple, not easy. Things that are simple are not necessarily easy to understand. If they were, everyone would be at least partially enlightened.
There's no way of knowing then since it call can be "residual neural pathways" which as you wrote can still be in place after stopping to buy into it. Not as "easy to spot" after all then?
Only easy to spot if one is experienced in looking, I would add. If one has "eyes to see," I suppose.
Again, it all complicates it immensely but I'm surprised you are hammering still on the simplicity of the dilemma having said all that. Not to mention the question if beliefs rise as result or as cause of some transformation and movement.
Again, I would go with "simple, but not easy." Becoming free of delusion is a simple matter, but as we all know, it is certainly not an easy one.
I live in a tub.
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: To what degree can we weed out our delusions on reality?

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

Pincho Paxton wrote:People talk about Enlightenment on here as a spiritual thing. A sort of Buddha carbon copy. Well if you break that down into parts it isn't the knowledge of all things, and nature. It's a wish to be harmonious with nature, and allow the delusion of nature to be part of you. So enlightenment is a delusional state to be in. You cannot have both enlightenment, and the weeding out of delusion. The two things don't fit together. Like I said. 100% delusion free is all about particles. Enlightenment is all about allowing nature to delude you into a state of peace. It's a sort of natural drug. I would feel insulted to be called enlightened in the sense of a Buddha. I prefer the scientific version which is called a Theory Of Everything, or TOE. I know the TOE, therefore I have no delusions. I know how consciousness is made, and the brain, so I know how I am thinking, and how I am coming up with the Theory Of Everything. I am a circle that realises their own beginning.

Exactly, so you agree you think "enlightenment is a delusional state to be in".

Hence you are on an enlightenment forum saying enlightenment is delusional and you would be insulted to be called enlightened in the sense of a Buddha.

That is a wildly different opinion to most held here, or at least wildly different to my own opinion, it is fine for you to look at things however you like, and it is clear we are not thinking on the same grounds, so don't worry about me, no reason to talk about things when we've already discerned we are not on the same page. Goodluck Pincho.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: To what degree can we weed out our delusions on reality?

Post by Pam Seeback »

Pincho Paxton: People talk about Enlightenment on here as a spiritual thing. A sort of Buddha carbon copy. Well if you break that down into parts it isn't the knowledge of all things, and nature. It's a wish to be harmonious with nature, and allow the delusion of nature to be part of you. So enlightenment is a delusional state to be in. You cannot have both enlightenment, and the weeding out of delusion. The two things don't fit together. Like I said. 100% delusion free is all about particles. Enlightenment is all about allowing nature to delude you into a state of peace. It's a sort of natural drug. I would feel insulted to be called enlightened in the sense of a Buddha. I prefer the scientific version which is called a Theory Of Everything, or TOE. I know the TOE, therefore I have no delusions. I know how consciousness is made, and the brain, so I know how I am thinking, and how I am coming up with the Theory Of Everything. I am a circle that realises their own beginning.
Enlightenment is not the knowledge of everything, it is the knowledge [wisdom] that one is everything which is to remove all delusion that one is any one thing. This is what the Buddha understood which is not a being drugged into a state of peace, just the opposite, it is to be awake. To be awake is to be aware of omnipresence but also to be aware that not all who are aware are awake. Nature is not deluded for it is without consciousness of being deluded.

Pincho, you can observe quantum reality appearing with the eye of empirical sight, the eternal circle of 'beginning', but the caveat of this condition of empiricism is that you cannot KNOW how consciousness or the appearance of quantum particles are made. Have you heard the wisdom tidbits "the eye cannot see itself" and "a hand cannot cut itself?" Both apply here. My saying this, however, will not stop your mind from trying to 'see' its version of TOE. Such is the way of the gradual unfolding of omnipresence awareness. I cannot count the number of TOE's I have written in the past 15 years. :-)
User avatar
Pincho Paxton
Posts: 1305
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 10:05 am

Re: To what degree can we weed out our delusions on reality?

Post by Pincho Paxton »

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:
Pincho Paxton wrote:People talk about Enlightenment on here as a spiritual thing. A sort of Buddha carbon copy. Well if you break that down into parts it isn't the knowledge of all things, and nature. It's a wish to be harmonious with nature, and allow the delusion of nature to be part of you. So enlightenment is a delusional state to be in. You cannot have both enlightenment, and the weeding out of delusion. The two things don't fit together. Like I said. 100% delusion free is all about particles. Enlightenment is all about allowing nature to delude you into a state of peace. It's a sort of natural drug. I would feel insulted to be called enlightened in the sense of a Buddha. I prefer the scientific version which is called a Theory Of Everything, or TOE. I know the TOE, therefore I have no delusions. I know how consciousness is made, and the brain, so I know how I am thinking, and how I am coming up with the Theory Of Everything. I am a circle that realises their own beginning.

Exactly, so you agree you think "enlightenment is a delusional state to be in".

Hence you are on an enlightenment forum saying enlightenment is delusional and you would be insulted to be called enlightened in the sense of a Buddha.

That is a wildly different opinion to most held here, or at least wildly different to my own opinion, it is fine for you to look at things however you like, and it is clear we are not thinking on the same grounds, so don't worry about me, no reason to talk about things when we've already discerned we are not on the same page. Goodluck Pincho.
We may be on different grounds, but the thread still reads "To what degree can we weed out our delusions on reality?" and the Forum is still called Genius Forums. So I am actually the only person on here posting the correct answers to the thread title, and the Forum Title.
User avatar
Pincho Paxton
Posts: 1305
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 10:05 am

Re: To what degree can we weed out our delusions on reality?

Post by Pincho Paxton »

movingalways wrote:
Pincho Paxton: People talk about Enlightenment on here as a spiritual thing. A sort of Buddha carbon copy. Well if you break that down into parts it isn't the knowledge of all things, and nature. It's a wish to be harmonious with nature, and allow the delusion of nature to be part of you. So enlightenment is a delusional state to be in. You cannot have both enlightenment, and the weeding out of delusion. The two things don't fit together. Like I said. 100% delusion free is all about particles. Enlightenment is all about allowing nature to delude you into a state of peace. It's a sort of natural drug. I would feel insulted to be called enlightened in the sense of a Buddha. I prefer the scientific version which is called a Theory Of Everything, or TOE. I know the TOE, therefore I have no delusions. I know how consciousness is made, and the brain, so I know how I am thinking, and how I am coming up with the Theory Of Everything. I am a circle that realises their own beginning.
Enlightenment is not the knowledge of everything, it is the knowledge [wisdom] that one is everything which is to remove all delusion that one is any one thing. This is what the Buddha understood which is not a being drugged into a state of peace, just the opposite, it is to be awake. To be awake is to be aware of omnipresence but also to be aware that not all who are aware are awake. Nature is not deluded for it is without consciousness of being deluded.

Pincho, you can observe quantum reality appearing with the eye of empirical sight, the eternal circle of 'beginning', but the caveat of this condition of empiricism is that you cannot KNOW how consciousness or the appearance of quantum particles are made. Have you heard the wisdom tidbits "the eye cannot see itself" and "a hand cannot cut itself?" Both apply here. My saying this, however, will not stop your mind from trying to 'see' its version of TOE. Such is the way of the gradual unfolding of omnipresence awareness. I cannot count the number of TOE's I have written in the past 15 years. :-)
I do know how they are made though. My theory starts from nothing, and works up to everything. I cover all things.

Look at this maths... 1 + -1 = 0

The maths says that zero is made from two things. It is the human language that zero = nothing that is wrong. Words can be wrong. Don't trust words.

We think of zero as a hole, it has a missing 'W' zero is the whole.
User avatar
Cahoot
Posts: 1573
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: To what degree can we weed out our delusions on reality?

Post by Cahoot »

Neural pathway. Write a long piece without the verb "to be" and you may actually feel your brain rewiring.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: To what degree can we weed out our delusions on reality?

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Unidian wrote:And the existence of ingrained neural pathways and such is pretty well established in the cognitive sciences. I don't mention them to complicate matters, but rather simply to acknowledge their reality.
But you are acknowledging this modern "reality of the cognitive sciences" in the context of stopping belief in "inherent existence". It seems a very tricky move considering the complex web of causality over and beyond the sciences just being acknowledged. Couldn't we just say "habits linger"? Because it points to more, for example etymological.
I think it [believing in inherent existence] is a result of crooked educational and cultural pathways.
Karma then? And still some karma left even after belief falls away. But it's hard to give this arms and legs. And even then: what you find crooked, another might find straight depending on culture. To make that decision at all is culture.
But I described the matter as simple, not easy. Things that are simple are not necessarily easy to understand. If they were, everyone would be at least partially enlightened.
If it's not simple to understand we really should call it difficult. See, that was easy :-)
Only easy to spot [that one stopped buying into ego] if one is experienced in looking, I would add. If one has "eyes to see," I suppose.
It's called opinion, a hunch maybe? But I'd focus more on the contradictions in reasoning where they are clear to spot. The rest is guess work, like everything else eyes are sizing up.
Locked