GENIUS FORUMS

Leyla,

Diebert: Experiences are not reality, and this can be established by our interpretations and investigations. Thoughts are mental forms that have the potential to invoke reason, because of their specific structure, and this helps one to discover reality beyond experiences; beyond thought, beyond feeling.

Bo1: How do you "discover reality beyond experiences"?

Leyla: It’s called “pure logic.”

Sapius:..and for some reason we do not experience that? Or that which is achieved or experienced through that process?

Leyla: Well, you could say it is experienced through the mind, thought or through the faculty of logic. I don’t consider these abstractions or anything assigned them to be the same as the category of senses and things ascribed to experiencing, say, (eating) an apple.

So the mind is not involved in say when experiencing (eating) an apple? Through what do we experience that then?

Diebert seems to be pointing towards sensual perceptions and the immediate assumptions reached, and that through reasoning one could understand the truth behind the illusory experiences we have, which is an understanding achieved through reasoning by using thoughts or may be feelings, but the understanding itself is beyond any of those things being used to achieve it. Not that that is not an experience in itself.

Leyla: What other way is there to discover reality beyond experiences, thought and feeling than to discover the nature of human experience?

So discovering is not an experience then, you don’t experience the thought that you have discovered the nature of human experiences? It is just discovery, (BTW, I like that channel) no experience of realization?

Other than along the above lines, you would have to be non-human to make any such discovery. That is why Buddhahood is within the realm of human and not animal or vegetable "experience."

I’m a bit lost here. How does this non-human issue jump in? Your confinement of the word experience to resultant thoughts arrived at through “pure logic” hampers you to see any and all things that appear to the mind are experiences to an individual, not only eating an apple.

Well, it’s (reality) not really “hidden.” You’re either aware of it or you aren’t.

Good, it is not hidden, but the point is, being aware or not aware, is Reality itself. It encompasses ALL. Each and every thing you experience, including experiences, whatever they may be. Mind you, that does not mean Reality expereinces.

Yes, an individual’s understanding, experiencing and awareness is that individual’s reality, but not Reality.

So you are saying that Reality is something else other than the “reality” of that individual who thinks it to be so according to him, and I’m saying that Reality encompasses even that thinking. Reality does not mean that it is something Real and all else is a mirage, Reality also encompasses what we discern as illusory, without ever removing the meaning of what is discerned as illusory.

That is like saying every individual’s own reality is in and of itself the Totality. I call that a severe case of psychosis. It can also manifest as delusions of grandeur.

No, it says nothing like that, and on the contrary, I find a person who does not recognize All (that excludes absolutely nothing) as Reality, simply ignorant of the fact, no case of psychosis as such, and Reality bears no vengeance against him nor you, for that deluded person and yourself are also included, and including me of course, so no worries. This realization is a step beyond recognizing “things’ as illusory, which now removes the illusoriness of things, and recognize them for what they are, Reality. But the self-thought-process is absolutely necessary, without which, one cannot actually realize this, and live by it, as Reality. That does not mean that “I” and only “me” is Reality, but that All that there is, is but Reality: It is simply an experiencing of a realization.

Sapius: There is utterly nothing that is not Reality, we make a mistake due to our unavoidable thing-ness, and think from that point of view that Reality must be some-thing that “drives” all else, as a hidden “underlying” force.

Leyla: You seem to be flying in the face of Emptiness for the sake of…what? Proving that God does not exist? I think you’ve been talking to zag too much!

No, not Zag, but David. Ask him about it.

Sapius: Know this, one is Reality itself, already experiencing and aware, irrelevant of how enlightened or deluded an individual point of view may be.

Leyla: No, one is not Reality itself.

So unconnected bits and pieces of Reality?

That's an idea you are supposed to think about, but it (Reality) does not appear that way.

According to you, what isn’t an idea, Leyla? Is the idea of “Reality” excluded? How does it actually appear other than an appearance to the mind? (BTW, please note, I do not consider me and my mind, me and my mind are one and the same thing, it is the mind that calls itself “I” for the convenience of self-identification, and communicating linguistically).

Reality is not an IT; ALL that there is, IS Reality. Totality, IS Reality, Infinity is Reality, Existence is Reality, illusions are illusions, but they too ARE Reality. I use the word Reality since it is much used here, I prefer to call that existence, which excludes nothing, and does not mislead one to understand Reality as from its root word, Real.

"One" (and I assume you mean "an individual") always appears as "one" because that's what it is.

Yes, I mean an individual, and yes that’s what it is, at the same time, one (an individual) has to always keep in mind that it appears to be so because of that which it is not, it does not stand all alone on its own.

One, however, can never appear out of nothing and all by itself.

Sure.

So, there is more to Reality than "one."

Of course, for example you. Form where did you get the notion that I consider me and only me to be Reality? Please read my above quote again, and imagine that it is you saying it, or any one for that matter, it still stands, and there are not as many Realities as many individuals.

The rest I agree with, replacing the “irrelevant of ” bit with “including.”

How can you agree with the later if you didn’t understand the former? And ‘irrelevant’ in that context means, it excludes Nothing.

The deluded are deluded only from an enlightened perspective. This, of course, does not negate the fact that they are experiencing what they are experiencing.

Quite right, now all that you have to realize is, the perspective of an enlightened person, and the perspective of a deluded person, including them both, is also Reality.

I simply cannot say it any better than that.

.

Sapius,

So the mind is not involved in say when experiencing (eating) an apple?

That’s not what I said. In fact, very far from it.

So discovering is not an experience then, you don’t experience the thought that you have discovered the nature of human experiences? It is just discovery, (BTW, I like that channel) no experience of realization?

I’ll repeat what I’ve already said, perhaps you can reconsider:

Well, you could say it is experienced through the mind, thought or through the faculty of logic. I don’t consider these abstractions or anything assigned them to be the same as the category of senses and things ascribed to experiencing, say, (eating) an apple.

~

I’m a bit lost here. How does this non-human issue jump in?

It’s a category/conclusion based on the distinction between empirical data and pure logic.

Your confinement of the word experience to resultant thoughts arrived at through “pure logic” hampers you to see any and all things that appear to the mind are experiences to an individual, not only eating an apple.

I don‘t see it as confining at all. I am describing the nature of objective/subjective experience. Is your mind (an abstraction, by the way) not involved in the act of eating an apple, or a cow -- a vegetable? Aside from the involvement of mind, in what way is eating a carrot the same as comprehending an abstract idea? Or, in what way is the life and experience of a carrot the same or different to the life of a human? Have you ever eaten an enlightened carrot? Are you conscious of these distinctions/similarities?

Good, it is not hidden, but the point is, being aware or not aware, is Reality itself.

I don’t think that’s a useful point at all. So, when you die or are sleeping, Reality dies or sleeps with you? I would have thought being aware was being aware. How do you get that being aware is Reality itself?

It [Reality] encompasses ALL.

I don’t think anything I have said contradicts that. And I don’t think you have pointed out anything that I have said as doing so, either. I’m happy to continue to consider your conclusion that it has as the discussion progresses, however.

Mind you, that does not mean Reality expereinces.

That’s right, which is why “being aware or not aware, is Reality itself” is wrong since something to be aware of -- something to experience -- is implicit in the idea.

More later.

Diebert wrote:

Reality cannot be defined - it can only be experienced.

It must be definable, because you just defined it!

Experiences are not reality, and this can be established by our interpretations and investigations. Thoughts are mental forms that have the potential to invoke reason, because of their specific structure, and this helps one to discover reality beyond experiences; beyond thought, beyond feeling.

If “experiences are not reality” – what is? All we have are the thought we are having NOW. Therefore, Reality must be present in this thought NOW.

Saying that Reality is “beyond thought” is absurd. It’s in the same vein as, “We can never know Reality” – which is also absurd. The only way we know anything is through our thoughts, therefore what we are experiencing must be Reality.

Some abstract concept, when conceived in the mind (as experience of course) can still point to truth, like a finger pointing to the moon. There is no 'experience' of truth, one embodies truth in mind, body and soul or not, and while the realization of this becomes experience, this embodiment is not any particular experience. This is why the Tao cannot be spoken, or felt, but still so many things can be said about it.

If you experience something, you experience it. Say you experience drinking a cup of tea; you can say with certainty that you are experiencing drinking a cup of tea. You’re not, for example, diving off a diving board into a pool below when you are experiencing drinking a cup of tea. (Unless your brain misfired, then you’re going to get wet.)

If you experience a realization of Truth, you, at that moment, are experiencing a realization of Truth. At the moment of this experience, you contrast the realization of Truth with what is not a realization of Truth. By doing so, your realization of Truth comes into existence. In the next moment you may experience a realization that the realization of Truth you had a moment ago was incorrect. By contrasting the past moment’s realization against your memories of what is true, and not-true, you have discarded the past realization and have replaced it with the present one. In the following moments, depending on how attached you are to understanding Truth, you could continue to contrast this new realization against memories of thoughts that you have already reasoned as truths, and non-truths, and in this way continue reasoning out whether or not this new realization is taking you closer to Truth, or further away from it.

OR – as quite often happens - you will become distracted by something else and leave these thoughts. Those who are dedicated to Truth will perhaps come back to these thoughts in a moment or two, whereas those who are more attached to say, making money, will be driven to considering thoughts that will make them richer. And even if these thoughts about Truth arise again, they will be too focused on making money to pay them any heed.

So understanding Reality is perhaps a moment away; all you need do is open your mind to it. Once you’ve got a good, strong grip on your intellectual understanding of Reality, you can then begin to consider what is meant by the Tao.

Sue

Sue, I always enjoy the clarity of your posts.

Sue wrote,

If you experience a realization of Truth, you, at that moment, are experiencing a realization of Truth. At the moment of this experience, you contrast the realization of Truth with what is not a realization of Truth. By doing so, your realization of Truth comes into existence. In the next moment you may experience a realization that the realization of Truth you had a moment ago was incorrect. By contrasting the past moment’s realization against your memories of what is true, and not-true, you have discarded the past realization and have replaced it with the present one. In the following moments, depending on how attached you are to understanding Truth, you could continue to contrast this new realization against memories of thoughts that you have already reasoned as truths, and non-truths, and in this way continue reasoning out whether or not this new realization is taking you closer to Truth, or further away from it.

That sounds dangerously close to post-modernism, Sue. How can you realise “Truth” only to realise it isn’t Truth a moment later?

So understanding Reality is perhaps a moment away; all you need do is open your mind to it. Once you’ve got a good, strong grip on your intellectual understanding of Reality, you can then begin to consider what is meant by the Tao.

Is Reality the intellectual understanding that there is only the Truth of each moment since one can realise Truth in one moment and realise in the next that that Truth was incorrect (a Lie)?

Sapius,

Hm…

S: In my opinion, ultimately, all that we are left with is purely experiences only, in other words awareness, irrelevant or whatever they are, or how they have been achieved. One cannot escape that however he may deny it, for his denial bears witness to it. One can surely experience the understanding of Reality, irrelevant of what that understanding is according to an individual, and this understanding, experiencing, awareness, itself is Reality, not of Reality, so what other hidden Reality is one chasing that it may be experienced?

L: Yes, an individual’s understanding, experiencing and awareness is that individual’s reality, but not Reality. That is like saying every individual’s own reality is in and of itself the Totality. I call that a severe case of psychosis. It can also manifest as delusions of grandeur.

S: So you are saying that Reality is something else other than the “reality” of that individual who thinks it to be so according to him, and I’m saying that Reality encompasses even that thinking. Reality does not mean that it is something Real and all else is a mirage [snip]

I provided an expression of reality:

That is like saying every individual’s own reality is in and of itself the Totality. I call that a severe case of psychosis. It can also manifest as delusions of grandeur.

And then you said:

No, it says nothing like that, [snip]

No?

S: …and on the contrary, I find a person who does not recognize All (that excludes absolutely nothing) as Reality, simply ignorant of the fact, no case of psychosis as such,[snip]

So, “Reality” may include ignorance (as such) but must exclude psychosis or delusions of grandeur not because “Reality encompasses even that (meaning, EVERY) thinking," but because “Reality bears no vengeance”?

Who said anything about vengeance, aside from what the Lord seems to be sayething unto you?

.

Sapius: ...and this understanding, experiencing, awareness, itself is Reality, not of Reality,...

zagreus: Reality is not of reality? Since..? :D

sapius: In your language, Zag, replace "reality" with "infinity". :D
Does it ultimately matter what rocks your boat? :D

Well it's still not true if I replace those words, which is why what rocks my boat does matter ultimately, just not the rocking :D

Leyla to Sapius:

You seem to be flying in the face of Emptiness for the sake of…what? Proving that God does not exist? I think you’ve been talking to zag too much!

I have no need to prove gods non-existence. I am the one who declares that everything inherently exists. I fly in the face of 'emptiness' because there's really nothing for it.

Leyla,

S: Mind you, that does not mean Reality experiences.

L: That’s right, which is why “being aware or not aware, is Reality itself” is wrong since something to be aware of -- something to experience -- is implicit in the idea.

Allow me to expand that and may be it will clear up all other things.

That (that we as individuals experience) does not mean that Reality experiences in a similar manner, because the moment we think in those terms, we make it an IT, a Thing, which I think you agree that its not, because there is no boundary, no limit, to infinity, Reality, by definition.

Thinking that ones own individual, or a collective consciousness, is experienced by Reality is not possible, because for consciousness to arise, there has to be something to be conscious of something else, and Reality is not a Thing to begin with; so the question that it could be conscious of All things or any particular Thing, at all, does not even arise.

It is not the collectiveness, but the collectivity that is Reality, in and of the Now. Simply put, All things are Reality, but Reality is not a Thing. But we cannot help but think in those terms, since we predominantly and essentially are a thing, and it is difficult to think beyond our thing-ness, but not impossible. I can see the potential of that in quite a few individuals, although their means to acquire such state of mind may be different. And all such state of mind or otherwise, is Reality.

Our individual concerns are not individually or collectively experienced by some Reality lying beyond, than our own individual concerns, which is Reality itself. Meanings, values, enlightenment, deluded-ness, insanity, intelligence; none of these things are a concern to some underlying Reality, because there is nothing “underlying”, but collectively is Reality. A ‘collectivity’ that is Infinite in nature, experiencing nothing as a collective Thing, because it cannot reach the character of being a Thing, because of its Infinite nature.

Is that so complicated?

Hence, being aware or unaware, is our character, and is collectively Reality, but is not a mixed experience or character of or to some Reality in fairyland.

.

Zag,

Sapius: ...and this understanding, experiencing, awareness, itself is Reality, not of Reality,...

zagreus: Reality is not of reality? Since..? :D

sapius: In your language, Zag, replace "reality" with "infinity". :D
Does it ultimately matter what rocks your boat? :D

Zag: Well it's still not true if I replace those words, which is why what rocks my boat does matter ultimately, just not the rocking :D

You are right, it does ultimately matter that your boat rocks according to the rhythm you take pleasure in.

Let me address it differently.

zagreus: Reality is not of reality? Since..? :D

No, Reality simply IS.

However, you can make it as complicated as you want, and enjoy the rocking accordingly. :D

.

Leyla Shen wrote:Sapius,

Hm…

S: In my opinion, ultimately, all that we are left with is purely experiences only, in other words awareness, irrelevant or whatever they are, or how they have been achieved. One cannot escape that however he may deny it, for his denial bears witness to it. One can surely experience the understanding of Reality, irrelevant of what that understanding is according to an individual, and this understanding, experiencing, awareness, itself is Reality, not of Reality, so what other hidden Reality is one chasing that it may be experienced?

L: Yes, an individual’s understanding, experiencing and awareness is that individual’s reality, but not Reality. That is like saying every individual’s own reality is in and of itself the Totality. I call that a severe case of psychosis. It can also manifest as delusions of grandeur.

S: So you are saying that Reality is something else other than the “reality” of that individual who thinks it to be so according to him, and I’m saying that Reality encompasses even that thinking. Reality does not mean that it is something Real and all else is a mirage [snip]

I provided an expression of reality:

That is like saying every individual’s own reality is in and of itself the Totality. I call that a severe case of psychosis. It can also manifest as delusions of grandeur.

And then you said:

No, it says nothing like that, [snip]

No?

S: …and on the contrary, I find a person who does not recognize All (that excludes absolutely nothing) as Reality, simply ignorant of the fact, no case of psychosis as such,[snip]

So, “Reality” may include ignorance (as such) but must exclude psychosis or delusions of grandeur not because “Reality encompasses even that (meaning, EVERY) thinking," but because “Reality bears no vengeance”?

Who said anything about vengeance, aside from what the Lord seems to be sayething unto you?

.

Hmmm...

Please read my above post to you and look at a bigger picture already, rather than pulling out each hair until I get bald. I did not see this post until after I posted that one.

If you still have any counter arguments, we shall look at it then.
.

Sapius: ...and this understanding, experiencing, awareness, itself is Reality, not of Reality,...

zagreus: Reality is not of reality? Since..? :D

sapius: In your language, Zag, replace "reality" with "infinity". :D
Does it ultimately matter what rocks your boat? :D

Zag: Well it's still not true if I replace those words, which is why what rocks my boat does matter ultimately, just not the rocking :D

Sapius: You are right, it does ultimately matter that your boat rocks according to the rhythm you take pleasure in.
Let me address it differently.
Quote:
zagreus: Reality is not of reality? Since..? :D

No, Reality simply IS.
However, you can make it as complicated as you want, and enjoy the rocking accordingly. :D

If reality is (what it is) then it is of itself. Reality is infinite:D

Zag,

If reality is (what it is) then it is of itself. Reality is infinite:D

Hey, did I not mention? - however, you can make it as complicated as you want, and enjoy the rocking accordingly. :D

.

Did you not mention what? That I am supposed to be complicating reality by disclosing its infinity? Yes you did, however you did not prove it. :D

suergaz wrote:Did you not mention what? That I am supposed to be complicating reality by disclosing its infinity? Yes you did, however you did not prove it. :D

There is nothing to prove really. Your I itself makes it complicated enough. :D

Sapius,

Is that so complicated?

Not at all. And you know it.

You’re avoiding the actual issue though, which was never me proposing Reality is a “thing” rather than as infinite (boundless). You are simply incapable of rising to the argument at hand.

I was very clear about what I was doing. Reread and formulate arguments on that basis that are not self-contradictory.

Please read my above post to you and look at a bigger picture already, rather than pulling out each hair until I get bald. I did not see this post until after I posted that one.

I am looking at the bigger picture. And yours is in scattered fragments that don‘t fit together. That particular post was intended to amplify that fact. That you attempt to make this about me rather than focussing on the substance of the argument is your problem. Not the first time I have come across it -- certainly won't be the last. Let's go:

Do you deny that what you wrote was contradictory (whether or not you intended it that way)?

If you still have any counter arguments, we shall look at it then.

You have my argument. You have failed to address it.

.

There is nothing to prove really. Your I itself makes it complicated enough. :D

If there is nothing to prove, my self does not complicate it in the least, or most. :D

Leyla Shen,
Looks like your question is being examined. Pascal and I think Hegel posed your question and used it as proof for God.


Sue Hindmarsh:

I didn’t have to “assume” anything. I just wrote a summary of what you yourself had written -

Have you noticed I address each and everything you say - while you skip right over half of my questions and post. Hmm

You did not write a summary - you wrote a rebuttle.

You need to practice reading back over your work, so that you can keep track of all your ‘ideas’. This time, you have once again asked me to accept that you had “an experience of reality”, but added that you mostly “recount experiences” which you consider to be the “truth”.

What is the difference? I do not ever draw a distinction as you would assume.

You quoted me as saying “an experience of reality” - where did I draw the distinction? This is the second time you quoted something I was supposed to have said and you made it up. This is a very interesting phenomenon. If someone cannot seem to get the better hand in a discussion - its easy - just make something up and pretend like the other person actually said what you want them to say.

I have to admit - its easier than actually discussing issues because you can always be 'right and win'. And what is more important than being right and winning?

Phew, by reading your work, I can understand how confusing and difficult it must be for you to juggle fantasies, upon fantasies, upon fantasies.

Here - let me use your response to Diebert.

"If experiences are not reality – what is?"
"If you experience something, you experience it."

I ask you the same question you asked Diebert. You will probably avoid this question to as you have yet to answer a single question of mine - perhaps you will answer your own?

My experience cannot be anything but fantasy eh? You are being very arrogant and lack humility. No assumptions eh? You said: "fantasies, upon fantasies, upon fantasies" here you make another assertion and of course will call it a 'summary' - You are also being dishonest with me and yourself.

The proof is right here in this thread - I do not have to make a single supposition, its crystal clear for anyone to see. You have a problem with my experience and so it must be fantasy? How very, very, arrogant.

If you are convinced I am recounting fantasy - I must be deluded and therefore; easy to dispatch with simple questions of reality. You still do not ask any real questions at all do you?

You can’t honestly believe that “sharing” experiences/fantasies is all that is required of a Thinker? Have you ever considered taking thinking seriously? I don’t think so, since there is no proof of it as yet.

And I suppose it is true because you 'say so'. So far all I see of your thought is attachment to ideas, words and personalities.

Do you know how I know this? Its not just wishful thinking - its all in what you write. You do not actually engage me in discussion, in fact you avoid it at all cost. You do not respond to half my post and avoid all of my questions and do not ask me any questions.

You just make assumptions, suppositions, and conjecture because you know that if you actually talk to me you might end up believing I am for real. And this thought frightens you doesn`t it?

In our last conversation I answered every single question you posed with reason and logic in the entire thread - you know its true even if it is scary. Well here I am, if I do not "take thinking seriously" as you said, it should be very easy to shoot me down with logic - take your best shot.

No sidestepping, no assumptions. I did not “merely categorize”; I clearly categorized your thinking as that of a closed-minded person with no interest in making larger discoveries about Truth.

And clearly this is saying nothing at all - closed minded about what exactly? What larger discoveries of truth? By all means what are you refering to?

Its easy to be vauge and not specific with accusations. I could say you talk to much, no matter how much you talk - its always to much. It does not make it true at all. I am wondering when oh when are you going to provide some substance to your broad generalizations.

My conclusions above don’t favorably interpret what you have been doing with the idea that: the self is God. You’re the one doing the “spin doctoring” by using this idea to fan your twisted vanity. Below, an example-

More broad sweeping statements and within - nothing specific.

you said:

His insight that the self is God can be used to begin thinking about the self’s casual relationship with the universe, which would then lead him to a deeper understanding of existence. But he is yet to begin thinking about any of these consequences.

What deeper understanding? What consequences? More blanket statements that mean nothing.

Watch - here is how you ask a specific question with substance and meaning to find out where a person is at.

Is there a reality beyond your experience?

An even greater mystery is what you are doing on a philosophy forum.

And now you are my boss - how you do lack humility. You see, I do not have to make assumptions - you tell me everything.

I’d have no problem "with it" if you now saw that your experience was not ‘special’ and that your interpretation of it was completely flawed.

You made it 'special' Sue, can you not see this? You are still making it 'special'. What interpretation did I give?

What you do not understand is - you are the one who gave the interpretation. I experienced it, you can only make assumptions and therefore; an interpretation.

You know you are making very poor choices at motherhood right now. I know this because I am more qualified than you to tell you your experience. I know for a fact you have blocked out information that can help you be a more effective parent and you must admit you have been doing it all wrong.
Do you not see how utterly absurd the above paragraph is?

Consciousness doesn’t end, as its causes continue on as other things. In the same way, consciousness has no beginning, as the causes creating it come from other things.

Really; what 'other' thing or things create consciousness? What does it become?

It is through our senses that we know about radio waves, so your idea that they somehow “transcend the senses” is plainly incorrect.

You really need to think it through. It is not 'plainly incorrect'.

If you are on a desert island, do radio waves exist without a receptor? Do we know about consciousness through our senses?

In my Near-Death post I did include research done by scientists, but I only used what I considered to be rational and logical. Therefore, the only “expert” I brought up was ‘me’.

And you are an expert at interpreting my experience for me?

Your “agenda” is about distracting yourself with fantasies, whereas mine is about getting to the rock-bottom truth of all things.

Riiiight - is that why you avoid my questions and disregard the parts of my post you do not like?

How much do you know out of all there is to know? 10%, 5%, 1%? In the vast totality of all that is, do you think you may ever encounter an experience that may change your mind about how reality functions and what it is?

sschaula wrote:Jason,

I don't see how that's in opposition to what I've wrote.

Maybe a single question could sort this out: Does the future cause the past?

sue hindmarsh wrote:Sue thinks Diebert wrote:

Reality cannot be defined - it can only be experienced.

It must be definable, because you just defined it!

BeingofOne made that statement, not me. Please try to be more attentive.

Sue wrote: If “experiences are not reality” – what is?

Experiences lie in reality, is what I said. That there's a totality beyond our senses is something that cannot be experienced. But we can use reason to find out about it. But even while reasoning is a form of experiencing, one is only experiencing a reflection, not the whole. Since there can only be one reality, the whole, we can say with certainty that our experiences do not equal reality.

Sue wrote:Saying that Reality is “beyond thought” is absurd. It’s in the same vein as, “We can never know Reality” – which is also absurd.

There's a difference between the whole of reality being "beyond thought" and "never knowing (about) reality".

Sue wrote:The only way we know anything is through our thoughts, therefore what we are experiencing must be Reality.

No, you can only say you are experiencing. While that experience cannot lie outside reality, it doesn't equal reality or say anything meaningful about it. And the interesting question should not be 'is this real?' but 'is this true?' All else outside truth is delusional and we should call it 'unreal' though not separated from the totality of course.

Sue wrote: If you experience something, you experience it. Say you experience drinking a cup of tea; you can say with certainty that you are experiencing drinking a cup of tea. You’re not, for example, diving off a diving board into a pool below when you are experiencing drinking a cup of tea. (Unless your brain misfired, then you’re going to get wet.)

Brains misfire all the time. So although we know for sure we are experiencing, we cannot say how real or true it is. Reality is for most people a bit more complex than drinking tea and jumping in swimming pools. Delusions are likewise a bit more complex, more related to how we interpret situations, our ethics, our views on things at large. It's most of the time not about getting 'wrong' sensory input because of brain injury.

Sue wrote:If you experience a realization of Truth, you, at that moment, are experiencing a realization of Truth. At the moment of this experience, you contrast the realization of Truth with what is not a realization of Truth. By doing so, your realization of Truth comes into existence. In the next moment you may experience a realization that the realization of Truth you had a moment ago was incorrect. By contrasting the past moment’s realization against your memories of what is true, and not-true, you have discarded the past realization and have replaced it with the present one. In the following moments, depending on how attached you are to understanding Truth, you could continue to contrast this new realization against memories of thoughts that you have already reasoned as truths, and non-truths, and in this way continue reasoning out whether or not this new realization is taking you closer to Truth, or further away from it.

This is hard to follow. You don't appear to say anything but describing the process of learning in general. And the same way we can learn about reality, if we'd say that Truth is the reality of things we're after.

Sue wrote:So understanding Reality is perhaps a moment away; all you need do is open your mind to it. Once you’ve got a good, strong grip on your intellectual understanding of Reality, you can then begin to consider what is meant by the Tao.

If you see the reflection of the moon in the water, one doesn't 'experience the moon', but you're experiencing the reflection of the moon. You can reason out the existence of the moon in the heavens by logic, after perceiving such perfect reflection. But still one is not experiencing the moon, one is experiencing the reasoning.

And all the while one stands in the moonlight but our senses are not made to experience the whole.

Pye wrote:

Some abstract concept, when conceived in the mind (as experience of course) can still point to truth, like a finger pointing to the moon. There is no 'experience' of truth

Diebert, with attention to linguistics, how can the first sentence not be the second as well? What other description would you give for what is happening in the first sentence, strictly speaking?

The first sentence speaks of experiencing itself, with the higher (more true) experiencing being reason. The second sentence signifies that although our experiences can reflect, create an image of truth or 'Reality' to a certain degree, there's no way direct perception is possible, not even through correct comprehension.

Still we have the means to distinguish between correct and incorrect. The process of wiping the mirror and the image of the mirror.

Pye wrote:What other phenomenon is happening then?

Lets try this: we manifest truth through flawless induction.

Pye wrote:

Diebert wrote:Experiences are not reality, and this can be established by our interpretations and investigations.

Can we establish the non-reality of experiences with these other human experiences i.e. the processes of interpretation and investigation? Or do these things - interpretation and investigation - lie outside the phenomenon of experience as well - both in their execution and their results?

Indeed, in this case the snake bites itself in the tail. But there's no contradiction really. It's the way consciousness works.

Pye wrote:

Diebert wrote:Thoughts are mental forms that have the potential to invoke reason, because of their specific structure, and this helps one to discover reality beyond experiences; beyond thought, beyond feeling.

And how will the discovery of 'reality beyond experience' be experienced?

It won't. The discovery forms a flawless induction. As everything else it's not without effects though that then will be experienced and perhaps understood by someone.

Leyla Shen wrote:Sapius,

Is that so complicated?

Not at all. And you know it.

You’re avoiding the actual issue though, which was never me proposing Reality is a “thing” rather than as infinite (boundless). You are simply incapable of rising to the argument at hand.

I was very clear about what I was doing. Reread and formulate arguments on that basis that are not self-contradictory.

Please read my above post to you and look at a bigger picture already, rather than pulling out each hair until I get bald. I did not see this post until after I posted that one.

I am looking at the bigger picture. And yours is in scattered fragments that don‘t fit together. That particular post was intended to amplify that fact. That you attempt to make this about me rather than focussing on the substance of the argument is your problem. Not the first time I have come across it -- certainly won't be the last. Let's go:

Do you deny that what you wrote was contradictory (whether or not you intended it that way)?

If you still have any counter arguments, we shall look at it then.

You have my argument. You have failed to address it.

.

Wow! You got me Leyla! What can I say… What I said was full of contradictions. I feel so ashamed…

Yeah… it was always about you, personally. I was deluded into thing that a person and his idea is one and the same thing. Apparently they are not.

Lets go? Hey, lets go where? You know all about contradictions, and I have failed to address it, and people like me won’t be the first you come across, and you are right, I will not be the last. So consider me gone, and wait for the next in line. I know, that wouldn’t bother you in the least.

.

Reality is in a blade of grass.

It is one with the whole.

So, it is the whole.

Diebert,

If you could begin to value flawless deduction, you would see that your mind is already the whole.

Not a mirror, but the experience itself.

I wrote:

I don't see how that's in opposition to what I've wrote.

And Jason wrote:

Maybe a single question could sort this out: Does the future cause the past?

Jason, I don't see what we're still talking about, since I said I agree. I don't see why this single question is going to do the trick...but whatever, I'll try to answer it.

The future hasn't happened yet, so it doesn't exist. Something that doesn't exist can't cause anything...therefore the future doesn't cause the past.

sschaula wrote:Jason, I don't see what we're still talking about, since I said I agree. I don't see why this single question is going to do the trick...but whatever, I'll try to answer it.

The future hasn't happened yet, so it doesn't exist. Something that doesn't exist can't cause anything...therefore the future doesn't cause the past.

I'm not so sure we agree, I still think there may be a contradiction between what you wrote in this thread and that bit from "Wisdom of the Infinite" that I quoted. But so far it's been hard to work out if that is the definite case or not, hence the question, I think this might be the best way to really decide. Can you indulge me one more time and answer these two questions:
1. Does the past cause the present?
2. Does the present cause the past?