GENIUS FORUMS

How is the physical separated from the mental?

Chemical reactions are physical, energy is a result.

Can energy be destroyed?

Sue:

Frank,

Did you bleat in my direction?

Sue

Is that you barking back?

hehe....hahaha

mooo

Being of 1 has had a nice Healing of his Psyche...his priorly warring ego is now transcended into a wholeness of vision...his ego is not now so separated from the All if you like...he has compassion, kindness for Others...he's doing OK...his background is Christian and he uses those metaphors to describe his Meaning...it's a Spiritual Awakening.

..this is the kind of thing an unintegrated animus discounts boldly, in that she considers a Man awakened to his feminine side as ridiculous...
...an unintegrated animus in a Woman...holds strong, negative opinions, rejects her femaleness, 'sides' with men, is forever quoting Men's Opinions as if Men had it figured out, thinks it's all black and white...thinks of herself as the CEO of the Universe...

OK I understand 'Woman' didn't work for you so you've headed over to 'Manhood' for a Winning Formula...Why Not?

In 6 Months by working with your dreams and sorting thru' your Archetypal Matrix...you too could have a Healing of your Psyche...

Well, there you go, I've said it.

It's for you...with love.

frank

Sapius:

Please take it easy. What I don’t understand is what exactly are you trying to prove?

Exactly; It is others who have a 'problem' with my life experience. I simply do not have an issue with my memory. Is that OK?

I will not deny my reality as that would make me a liar and quite mad to make others feel OK and that the world is flat. If you will notice, I only respond in like kind to what is put to me - but this does escape most people.

A deluded mind can possibly answer any thing at all

Really? Ask someone you know if they believe they are real. Ask them where reality begins and ends. Ask them if they know why good people suffer etc. etc. etc.

The problem I see is, you cannot make others experience what you have, so I think you better wait for all others to have the same experiences. Or is it that you want all others who did not have your experiences to believe you?

What I want is for humanity to let go of the tight grip they have on their own mortality. That would free a great deal, eliminate most suffering and bring about wisdom in experience.

You yourself could not have believed if told until you came to experiencing it, would you? so how can you expect others?

If you want to know if the sun shines - it does, because you believe it does. Have you ever experienced the sun shining and not believed it?

Why would a person seek enlightenment if they believed they could never experience such?

Let all others have their own experiences. What's your hurry? Are we running out of time?

Someone should have told the Buddha, Jesus, and Lao-Tzu the same thing. Hey you guys, why are you sharing your experiences? Let others have their own, whats your hurry?

My question about the nature of Reality - Does Reality end with you

Yes; it both begins and ends, it is beyond beginning and end.

There is no other reality you have ever experienced nor will ever except your own. Reality and your experience are one and the same.


Sue Hindmarsh,

Not a single question.
Assumptions, assumptions, and more assuming.

What Bof1 is asking me to accept is that when he had his near-death experience, he had a powerful insight into the nature of reality. And that this changed his life markedly.

How about you not making the assumption I am doing anything but recounting an experience of reality eh? In fact that is just about all I ever share as experience is truth.

All this doesn’t alter the fact though that he is stuck in this one small insight and is unprepared to explore any further.

Sidestepping and another assumption. No questions, just mere catagories.

Answer this question since you stated it so matter of fact; what "small insight" am I stuck in? I keep asking you questions and yet you say I am unprepared to explore. I am not the one avoiding issues.

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.

Assumptions and more assuming - ask questions instead of spin doctoring.

Bof1 considers that what he experienced was rare, but that isn’t true, because we are all experiencing Reality directly every moment of every day.

You are contradicting yourself - if my experience is reality - then why do you have a problem with it?

BTW - more assumptions.

Near-death experiences (NDE) and out-of body experiences (OBE) can first be understood by looking at the neurochemistry, physiology, and psychology occurring during these episodes. Philosophically, it can be understood through causality.

Can you tell me when consciousness begins? Everyone seems to have the answer for the cessation of consciousness. How most everyone does seem to avoid the much more critical question of its entry.

Science, at this subject, is still in preschool. You can watch TV and believe that if you hit the TV with a sledge hammer and it stops responding, you have ended the radio waves.

Because we cannot see, smell, touch, hear, or taste radio waves, they obviously do not exist without a receptor is a misguided conclusion. Radio waves transcend the 5 senses, are they real without a receptor?

I would trust my own experience above and beyond any expert you bring up as I do not have an agenda other than giving testimony of what I have experienced, seen, and heard.


Diebert:

Me: I defy all descriptions, definitions, and catagories.


Diebert: But your words do not. Because they are descriptions, definitions and categories that can then be examined, which is the purpose of this board. Not to advertise ones wonderful being.

What? I recounted my life experience and you want to chastise me for it? Are you sure its me that has the issue?

Experiences alone do not create proper understanding as by magic. This is the function of reasoning. A finding like 'Reality is in a constant state of flux' must be examined, not only by sense experiences (we might be dreaming) but by higher faculties.

No Diebert; there is no higher authority than experience, it is the only perfect truth you will ever encounter. Learn to trust your own experience - this leads to freedom.

Reality is in a constant state of change - this is self evident to anyone not in denial. How could you possibly deny or question this fundamental truth? It is a tautology.

"We might be dreaming" is a concept, it is not reality.

No, ongoing investigation and re-evaluation using reason keeps us humble and open. Any other road leads to 'weed' growing back and fool us - again.

Yup - thats what I said alright. Who are you disagreeing with?

I gained nothing. What was thrown away was 'preconceived formatting' and attachments to what was happening.

Then why are you trying to format my experience?

I cannot imagine any serious spiritual or philosophical journey without the discovery of something what was once thought to be real turning out to be illusion, and what was once only considered as remote possibility to become an actuality.

I did not say concepts, ideas, or sytem of belief, please pay attention to what I am writing. Unless you respond to what I am actually saying without spinning it - I will not play that endless mind game.

I said:

I have never experienced reality and it turned out to be fantasy. I have never imagined something and it turned out to be reality.

Now I ask you again, have you ever experienced the opposite?

Does this mean you haven't started seriously yet? That would mean all the understanding you demonstrated so far must be a product of some intuition of yours, not reasoned out, not weeded out, not tested yet to a higher degree. It needs further growth Being, can you imagine there might be a long road ahead still?

Well if you reinterpret what I say you could say that. It does not actually have anything to do with what I said so you are talking to a hand puppet.

Beingof1 wrote:What? I recounted my life experience and you want to chastise me for it? Are you sure its me that has the issue?

Your recounting was not different from posting images of motorbikes. It had nothing to do with what was initially asked: a name and perhaps something about what keeps you occupied in life right now. You gave instead magical bullets and medical miracles. It really says nothing about you, again, apart from showing attachments you cannot see yourself. So yeah, I'm sure it's you who has the issue.

No Diebert; there is no higher authority than experience, it is the only perfect truth you will ever encounter. Learn to trust your own experience - this leads to freedom.

Maybe you should try some drugs, LSD, XTC, heroine or just get really really drunk. Then you'll at least agree with me that experiences can be total bullshit and diverting from truth. It's only your reason that can see the truth in an experience. Otherwise it just remains experience, just like for a cow in the field.

Reality is in a constant state of change - this is self evident to anyone not in denial. How could you possibly deny or question this fundamental truth? It is a tautology.

No, your experience is in a constant state of change. That's why experiences are not capable of forming some authority, as you keep on saying.

"We might be dreaming" is a concept, it is not reality.

It's a thought. Do thoughts have some separate reality, existing somewhere in a detached unreal universe of thoughts? Any concept is just as real as any experience on itself is.

Being wrote:"I have never experienced reality and it turned out to be fantasy. I have never imagined something and it turned out to be reality."

Now I ask you again, have you ever experienced the opposite?

A fantasy is also an experience. That's why truth doesn't lie in an experience but in how we discern.

Being wrote:(..) so you are talking to a hand puppet.

It's dawning on me that I might be doing just that.

Diebert:

A fantasy is also an experience. That's why truth doesn't lie in an experience but in how we discern.

And how we discern truth is also experience, so it does lie in experience.

Diebert to Beingof1: Your recounting was not different from posting images of motorbikes. It had nothing to do with what was initially asked: a name and perhaps something about what keeps you occupied in life right now. You gave instead magical bullets and medical miracles. It really says nothing about you, again, apart from showing attachments you cannot see yourself. So yeah, I'm sure it's you who has the issue.

I could be wrong, but I think Diebert only wants you to tell us how you think the bullets, materializing objects and healing happened. I am also interested in hearing your own explanations for them, even if you don't think explanations are possible.

Steven,

The discussion so far:

Steven: What if the "tunnel" is passage through the visual cortex - and into the hidden void?

Sue: What is the relationship between this world, the ‘tunnel’ and your “hidden void”?

Steven: This world is your brain, the hidden void is your mind.

The tunnel would be transition from the physical to the mental.

Sue: How is your brain and mind separated from one another?

How is the physical separated from the mental?

Steven: Chemical reactions are physical, energy is a result.

So the physical and mental are in a causal relationship - as is everything else in the universe. Also, like everything else in the universe, the physical and the mental can be both a cause and an effect. E.g. chemical reactions in the brain cause you to take drugs that cause chemical reactions in the brain…

Steven: Can energy be destroyed?

No.

suergaz wrote:Diebert:

A fantasy is also an experience. That's why truth doesn't lie in an experience but in how we discern.

And how we discern truth is also experience, so it does lie in experience.

All experiencing lies in truth. Truth cannot be experienced and still remain true. But truth can be served nevertheless, through fearless discernment, to start with.

Suergaz wrote: I could be wrong, but I think Diebert only wants you to tell us how you think the bullets, materializing objects and healing happened.

I had a fleeting interest to know how he dealt with the experiences, and the process that was leading him to further understanding. Apart from things like 'now everything is possible' I haven't heard much.

Diebert: A fantasy is also an experience. That's why truth doesn't lie in an experience but in how we discern.


suergaz: And how we discern truth is also experience, so it does lie in experience.


Diebert: All experiencing lies in truth. Truth cannot be experienced and still remain true. But truth can be served nevertheless, through fearless discernment, to start with.

All experience lies in truth yes, but then truth is nothing if not discerned/experienced. Experience of truth doesn't change it. Experience of truth only changes who experiences it.

Sapius: Please take it easy. What I don’t understand is what exactly are you trying to prove?

Bo1: Exactly; It is others who have a 'problem' with my life experience. I simply do not have an issue with my memory. Is that OK?

I will not deny my reality as that would make me a liar and quite mad to make others feel OK and that the world is flat. If you will notice, I only respond in like kind to what is put to me - but this does escape most people.

Your are right,Bo1. It is the others who seem to be provoked by your simple expression according to your experiences. Yes, nothing wrong with that, quite sane in fact. The world is indeed not flat, and I can see the sun hence it exists.

Enjoy your experiences :)

Diebert van Rhijn:

Your recounting was not different from posting images of motorbikes. It had nothing to do with what was initially asked: a name and perhaps something about what keeps you occupied in life right now. You gave instead magical bullets and medical miracles. It really says nothing about you, again, apart from showing attachments you cannot see yourself. So yeah, I'm sure it's you who has the issue.

Now you are just twisting what was said to 'fit into' your agenda with discrediting me. Hows that working for you?


Shardrol said:

I have to agree with what David Quinn said in another thread in a comment to 'unwise': there's something fishy about someone who claims to be fearless who posts under a pseudonym. Why not come out & stand naked in the light with nothing to hide & all that?

If you take the time to read the post David said to Unwise he wanted much more than just "a name and perhaps something about what keeps you occupied in life right now".

But again; what was actually said and written has very little to do with your agenda and so, you must tweak and fididdle with reality to make it 'fit' your agenda.

Its easy isn`t it? If reality comes into conflict with your agenda of discrediting me, you simply fix reality and twist words until they do fit.

Me: No Diebert; there is no higher authority than experience, it is the only perfect truth you will ever encounter. Learn to trust your own experience - this leads to freedom.


Diebert: Maybe you should try some drugs, LSD, XTC, heroine or just get really really drunk. Then you'll at least agree with me that experiences can be total bullshit and diverting from truth. It's only your reason that can see the truth in an experience. Otherwise it just remains experience, just like for a cow in the field.

How do you know drugs and getting drunk is "total bullshit and diverting from truth" without experiencing such? You are missing the tautology of what is blatantly obvious.

Reason must have a basis for seeing truth and that would be your experience - hello?

Me: Reality is in a constant state of change - this is self evident to anyone not in denial. How could you possibly deny or question this fundamental truth? It is a tautology.


Diebert: No, your experience is in a constant state of change. That's why experiences are not capable of forming some authority, as you keep on saying.

Think about what you just wrote in the above post. Do try to see the wisdom in your words without trying to 'get me'.

It's a thought. Do thoughts have some separate reality, existing somewhere in a detached unreal universe of thoughts? Any concept is just as real as any experience on itself is.

Thought is without doubt an experience. That does not mean they trump reality. Reality cannot be defined - it can only be experienced.

What are your thoughts on thinking?

Me: I have never experienced reality and it turned out to be fantasy. I have never imagined something and it turned out to be reality.

Now I ask you again, have you ever experienced the opposite?


Diebert: A fantasy is also an experience. That's why truth doesn't lie in an experience but in how we discern.

You are obfuscating again; answer the question.
For God`s sake Diebert - can you not answer a simple question?

Me: so you are talking to a hand puppet.


Diebert: It's dawning on me that I might be doing just that.

You must be - its not me you are responding to.

I had a fleeting interest to know how he dealt with the experiences, and the process that was leading him to further understanding. Apart from things like 'now everything is possible' I haven't heard much.

That is because you must listen first to hear what is being said.

Wisdom begins in silence.


suergaz:

I could be wrong, but I think Diebert only wants you to tell us how you think the bullets, materializing objects and healing happened.

If you look at his posts, he has an obvious goal of trying to get me to 'realize' the higher truth of how logic trumps experience; as if that could happen.

I am also interested in hearing your own explanations for them, even if you don't think explanations are possible.

I do not completely understand how the mechanics of it works but I will tell you what I do know.

It works by a leaping of outlandish, if you will, statements and deeds of faith. What most would say is impossible - dare to declare it by shouting it.

Its like if you want someone else to be healed, hold onto that person by the arms or shoulders until you both believe they are healed. It is an interesting dynamic in that you believe when you see and see when you believe.

Of course this will be jumped on and attacked by all those that have never experienced such as they are the 'experts'. Even though they have never seen or believe this could possibly happen. Well it has happened to me more times than I can recall.

It happens when you disregard everyone and everything else and declare healing or truth regardless the catcalls.

Enjoy your experiences :)

Do you know how Jesus healed the blind?

He believed they could already see.

Bo1 wrote:

Do you know how Jesus healed the blind?

He believed they could already see.

You are right again. I don’t know how he healed the blind, or whether he did. You see, I did not experience that. But I’m told that his touch was also involved, again, I wouldn’t know.

Apparently, you seem to have had since you know how it is done, and that you know it all, so how many blind have you healed? I will be glad to inform all the blind institutions, world wide, and even assist them to reach you in whichever way I can. I’m serious. In my opinion there could be nothing more Godly than help expanding a new aspect of experience for those who can’t, just as you are helping us here, but it would be great if those blind people could join us. Do you mind traveling the world? I can help sponsor that too.

I await in anticipation.

Diebert: A fantasy is also an experience. That's why truth doesn't lie in an experience but in how we discern.

What I fail to understand is how can otherwise a seemingly sane person not see that one has to necessarily use logic and reasoning to understand, explain or justify even the truth in and of there experiences itself! Our experience cannot be an experience unless processed through thought, beginning with conscious awareness of the self, a logical deduction in itself, even if one is dead sure that he is dreaming, or one with everything else, or does not exist in whatsoever form.

suergaz wrote:

Diebert: A fantasy is also an experience. That's why truth doesn't lie in an experience but in how we discern.


suergaz: And how we discern truth is also experience, so it does lie in experience.


Diebert: All experiencing lies in truth. Truth cannot be experienced and still remain true. But truth can be served nevertheless, through fearless discernment, to start with.

All experience lies in truth yes, but then truth is nothing if not discerned/experienced. Experience of truth doesn't change it. Experience of truth only changes who experiences it.

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.

Beingof1 wrote:

Shardrol wrote:I have to agree with what David Quinn said in another thread in a comment to 'unwise': there's something fishy about someone who claims to be fearless who posts under a pseudonym. Why not come out & stand naked in the light with nothing to hide & all that?

If you take the time to read the post David said to Unwise he wanted much more than just "a name and perhaps something about what keeps you occupied in life right now".

That might have been your interpretation of the request, fair enough. But your focus on the miraculous nature of your recounted experiences seemed quite peculiar to me. And that's why I inquired further about how you investigated and what role they play in forming your philosophy. There was no 'twisting' intented. Maybe I wasn't clear enough in my wording.

Being wrote:

Diebert wrote:Maybe you should try some drugs, LSD, XTC, heroine or just get really really drunk. Then you'll at least agree with me that experiences can be total bullshit and diverting from truth.

How do you know drugs and getting drunk is "total bullshit and diverting from truth" without experiencing such? You are missing the tautology of what is blatantly obvious.

I didn't use the word is but the words can be. And experience is in this case important but it's not needed to try out every drug or delusion before understanding the general idea. Induction is used to understand something about experiences, no matter how wild.

Being wrote: Thought is without doubt an experience. That does not mean they trump reality. Reality cannot be defined - it can only be experienced.

What are your thoughts on thinking?

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.

Being wrote:I have never experienced reality and it turned out to be fantasy. I have never imagined something and it turned out to be reality.

Now I ask you again, have you ever experienced the opposite?

Let me try to reply again: the opposite is unavoidable when philosophical inquiry begins. The opposite here being: yes one must realize that what was once regarded to be reality, can only be fantasy. And yes, one begins imagining ideas and abstracts that turn out to be pointing to the only reality that matters.

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? What other phenomenon is happening then?

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?

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? Do you mean to say, Diebert, [your Tao quote notwithstanding] that things are only real if they are articulable?


[edit]

Diebert: A fantasy is also an experience. That's why truth doesn't lie in an experience but in how we discern.


suergaz: And how we discern truth is also experience, so it does lie in experience.


Diebert: All experiencing lies in truth. Truth cannot be experienced and still remain true. But truth can be served nevertheless, through fearless discernment, to start with.


suergaz: All experience lies in truth yes, but then truth is nothing if not discerned/experienced. Experience of truth doesn't change it. Experience of truth only changes who experiences it.


Diebert: 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.

The embodiment of truth is experience of truth.

Pye,

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

Pye: 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?

I wouldn’t interpret that as “non-reality”, but illusory, however that ‘illusion’ is necessarily real as far as our perspective is concerned, because we have none other. In the sense, is White actually White as we experience it? It is not that we don’t experience White, we do, and we cannot experience it otherwise unless looked through a third component. The same White is Violet for a butterfly, so what color is it actually? It would then stand to reason that things experienced need not necessarily be what we experience them as, but for all practical purposes, we have to work with White because it is impossible to directly experience otherwise. That is, experience what color that thing may be in Reality. Saying Reality is void, or Emptiness, or whatever, is simply our conceptualization, including that in reality there is no color at all, but actually it might not be any of those things, and that is the truth in my opinion, hence we grapple to try and explain that which we feel through conceptualization but cannot verbally explain it for someone else to “feel”, because each individual is unique in this infinite sea of causality, so is his feeling of his conceptualization. No two things could feel the same in such matters, how so ever much they agree they feel the same. There will always remain a wee bit of a difference, because of his unique individual thing-ness.

So why is one forced to think about Reality, and conclude some conclusion? Because the poor mind, due it’s pride in it’s egotistical self and non-realization of reality in and but of the Now, simply refuses to accept that it itself is but a passing effect in and of Reality itself, and yearns to somehow be Reality just by him self, ignoring the fact, that Reality excludes no-thing, but is not a thing in itself, to be experienced by a thing as it is. It is this age old ingrained tradition of trying to go beyond its own thing-ness, which in a way could only be “experienced” through conceptualization, that is exactly and all that one feels when he says he experiences reality directly. One is actually feeling his conceptualization of reality, that’s all, because one cannot go beyond that as long as he is a Thing.

At times I feel like an idiot since I am not able to explain it in any better academic terms, but that is how I understand it.

(Later Addition)

I hope I’m not misunderstood from the above. I’m not saying that the this “feeling” generated through the sinking of this conceptualization as an absolute understanding according to ones own experience is any thing but beyond awesome, but that the one talking about it is not the only one, and it doesn’t really matter through which concept you acquire this, as long as you don’t actually loose your mind, and accept that that too at its core, is absolutely meaningless, valueless. It has to be! Can any one place any actual meaning or value to such a thing? It is simply beyond that.

All that we do is basically argue that “mine is one up to yours, since you don’t know what I’m talking about”. But of course! What one doesn’t deliberately want to realize and acknowledge is that the same thing could be true vice versa, and dwells in his own pride and predigest.

However, that’s one of the aspects of existence that I find Awe in too.

Sapius:

so how many blind have you healed?

I have never healed anyone - I have seen many occur. The truth is they always healed themselves, I was simply a conduit for their faith to transcend what was repeated, like a mantra, "this will always be" and "it is impossible for you to avoid death at this point" and so on.

To answer your question, I prayed for one boy in San Antonio Tex. and he was blind and then could see. It was amazing really. At first his eyes kinda popped open and it frightened him so much they closed back up. I spent a week or so with him until they reopened.

That is the only time I have personally ministered to someone who was blind and saw their eyes open.

I will be glad to inform all the blind institutions, world wide, and even assist them to reach you in whichever way I can.

Sure go ahead. I catch your drift.

There is a book written by a man in the early 20th century who had the cure for cancer and many other diseases. He had well over 300 terminal cases with complete recovery, all documented. His name was Jethro Klaus and the book was titled 'Back to Eden'. You can probably find it on Amazon or such. His cure was sent in to the Cancer Society and the US govt. They did not even look at his cases, documents, or cure, it was rejected out of hand.

Sickness is very big money Sapius.

Do you mind traveling the world?

If you know of someone personally - I would prefer that much more. I enjoy an anonymous lifestyle and am called almost everyday anyway. Sometimes 5 and 6 times a day by the same person. Sometimes because they just spit up with their girlfriend and want me to wave a magic wand and make it all better - if ya follow me.

Beside that; lab coat types tend to just get in the way.



Diebert van Rhijn:

That might have been your interpretation of the request, fair enough. But your focus on the miraculous nature of your recounted experiences seemed quite peculiar to me. And that's why I inquired further about how you investigated and what role they play in forming your philosophy. There was no 'twisting' intented. Maybe I wasn't clear enough in my wording.

Fair enough sir, fair enough.

If you race cars for a living, what else do you talk about? This is exactly why I do not talk about my personal life unless I think it will really help someone or the discussion. I would much prefer to stick to pure philosophy as this can be so distracting and dividing. I do what I do in my life.

Here, at this forum, I would rather talk about;
"Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.

Truth, Courage, Honesty, Logic, Masculinity, Wisdom, Perfection."

I do not mean to say we should exclude the subject of the nonordinary - just not focus on it. It happens, its a part of reality. If it occurs, it is no miracle, just not common experience. It is a byproduct of faith. A person can be completley enlightened and wise and never have experienced what could be called a miracle. They could be just as wise as one who has seen the inexplicable.

I didn't use the word is but the words can be. And experience is in this case important but it's not needed to try out every drug or delusion before understanding the general idea. Induction is used to understand something about experiences, no matter how wild.

Then the experience of deducing it is bringing the understanding by witnessing the occurance. We certainly learn in this way - it is still a 'learning experience'.

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.

How do you "discover reality beyond experiences"?
Reality has two components, perception and experience. We could say the experience of observing experience but we are acheiving maximum redundancy with that statement.

Let me try to reply again: the opposite is unavoidable when philosophical inquiry begins. The opposite here being: yes one must realize that what was once regarded to be reality, can only be fantasy. And yes, one begins imagining ideas and abstracts that turn out to be pointing to the only reality that matters.

I know thoughts are within the framework of reality. What I am saying (and no need to take this to its metaphysical ultimate conclusion of the Tao) is, have you ever fantasized about being somewhere else other than where you were?

Bo,

How do you "discover reality beyond experiences"?

It’s called “pure logic.”

For example, I wrote in “Ego: the belief in ‘I’”

10. The a priori one- and two-dimensions are logically necessary to the human experience of three- and four-dimensional objects, even though such objects -- 1 and 2D -- literally cannot be experienced as empirical objects (only as a priori, ie via pure logic).

I suggest that is along the lines of the discovery of reality beyond experiences Diebert is referring to.

What do you think of it?

Beingof1 wrote:

Sue: What Bof1 is asking me to accept is that when he had his near-death experience, he had a powerful insight into the nature of reality. And that this changed his life markedly.

How about you not making the assumption I am doing anything but recounting an experience of reality eh? In fact that is just about all I ever share as experience is truth.

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

May 27: I died for about three hours and after I came back I was thrust into a vision. I saw things and heard things while I was gone but the vision, after I returned, let me know what my life would now consist of.

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

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.

Sue: All this doesn’t alter the fact though that he is stuck in this one small insight and is unprepared to explore any further.

Sidestepping and another assumption. No questions, just mere catagories.

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.

Answer this question since you stated it so matter of fact; what "small insight" am I stuck in? I keep asking you questions and yet you say I am unprepared to explore. I am not the one avoiding issues.

You wrote -

May 31: There is no universe outside of your perception, that is, you can only experience your own reality and there is no other - you are it.

I shortened it to, the self is God.

Sue: 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.

Assumptions and more assuming - ask questions instead of spin doctoring.

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-

Bof1 wrote, May 27: I am the master of my body and brain. It does what I will it to do. It is the effect of the consciousness which is the prime mover and potential for existence. Cause and effect is not limited to what is material; it transcends that which can be perceived by and through the five senses.

Yup - I resurrected, funny that.
And they say it can`t happen. Yet here I am with cogent thought and logic. What a mystery.

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

Sue: Bof1 considers that what he experienced was rare, but that isn’t true, because we are all experiencing Reality directly every moment of every day.

You are contradicting yourself - if my experience is reality - then why do you have a problem with it?

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.

Can you tell me when consciousness begins? Everyone seems to have the answer for the cessation of consciousness. How most everyone does seem to avoid the much more critical question of its entry.

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.

Science, at this subject, is still in preschool. You can watch TV and believe that if you hit the TV with a sledge hammer and it stops responding, you have ended the radio waves.

Because we cannot see, smell, touch, hear, or taste radio waves, they obviously do not exist without a receptor is a misguided conclusion. Radio waves transcend the 5 senses, are they real without a receptor?

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

I would trust my own experience above and beyond any expert you bring up as I do not have an agenda other than giving testimony of what I have experienced, seen, and heard.

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’.

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


Sue

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.”

..and for some reason we do not experience that? Or that which is achieved or experienced through that process? You are not actually wrong in a way, but the problem I see is how two different people are using the word ‘experience’ here.

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.

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

.

Sapius:

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

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

suergaz wrote:Sapius:

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

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

In your language, Zag, replace "reality" with "infinity". :D

Does it ultimately matter what rocks your boat? :D

Sapius,

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?

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.

You are not actually wrong in a way, but the problem I see is how two different people are using the word ‘experience’ here.

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.

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

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?

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

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.

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!

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

No, one is not Reality itself. That's an idea you are supposed to think about, but it (Reality) does not appear that way. "One" (and I assume you mean "an individual") always appears as "one" because that's what it is. One, however, can never appear out of nothing and all by itself. So, there is more to Reality than "one."

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

That is why Buddhahood is within the realm of human and not animal or vegetable "experience."

Are you sure about that?

A Buddha may live with animals and plants, to rediscover himself.

Every thing having Buddha-Nature.

Since all is the mind, where can the Totality be said to begin and end?