GENIUS FORUMS

If thinking in terms of duality from "fantasy" to "reality" is bad... Why don't you react to dreams in your waking life?

Like if someone cut off your arm in a dream would you only be ok with it because it "grew back" when you woke up?
Or would you walk up to them and be like "Why the hell did you do that?!"

movingalways wrote:You really think that committing physical suicide is what I mean by extinguishment of attachment?

It's just that there's nothing to be extinguished by anyone, least of all any "mind". You promote ceasing "the activity of imagining" and "the end of wisdom". It's like suggesting to drain the oceans and roll up the clouds. The only extinguishing left is this very bit of delusion: you're suggesting wiping a mirror which is not even there, at least when its nature is truely being understood.

Diebert wrote:
It's just that there's nothing to be extinguished by anyone, least of all any "mind". You promote ceasing "the activity of imagining" and "the end of wisdom". It's like suggesting to drain the oceans and roll up the clouds. The only extinguishing left is this very bit of delusion: you're suggesting wiping a mirror which is not even there, at least when its nature is truely being understood.

And that rather neatly answers Orenholt's question about the difference between the real and imaginary; also exposes the essence of Lacan's Real and Imaginary, at the same time.

But it's as if there's no connection between them. Perhaps why Nietzsche embraced and repositioned rather than rejected ego?

Welcome to humanity.

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:

movingalways wrote: It has to be.

Solitary, yes, because of non-attachment to people and not feeling the need to talk or go about things 'ordinarily'. But a lot of what you are saying differs from simply non-attachment, it seems dependent on the belief that life is suffering and non-attachment is the path to the end of sensual craving, of clinging to self, form, and hence rebirth. The idea that non-attachment and eventually death will allow an end to the current form of experiencing is a heavenly idea with no basis besides that we experience non-being, or whatever you would call the time that worldly form is not appearing. There is no reason to assume that the end of attachment to 'worldly form' is the end of the current continual appearance of it. It seems to me it has been happening every day despite non-attachment, and you I assume. I would like to know why you expect a radical change from what is, rather than the continuation of consciousness as we know it?

Acceptance is my alternative, rather than aiming at an escape from what is and what will be tomorrow. Experience is eternal, and There is never better than Here.

Seeker, being solitary may have the effect of not needing to talk to people except to awaken, but a solitary who becomes solitary for the sake of wisdom becomes a solitary for that reason alone.

You quote the Buddha often. The first noble truth is "life is suffering". Fortunately, he goes on to say that there is a way to end suffering.

It is illogical to conclude that when one becomes nonattached to worldly form that it will continue to appear. It is by the principle of attachment that it appeared in the first place. A = A ends desire, ends the rising up of worldly form. That is its purpose. When desire is gone, where is the will or energy or power to form the world?

The arguments you are giving me about the continuation of the world when attachment is finished I have given myself for 20 years. I fought the truth of truth tooth and nail. What I discovered is that acceptance of the truth does not put one into a state of despair or nilhilism or pain, but into a fullness of spirit or being. It is as if one is standing on an invisible platform, fulling conscious, fully accepting of eveything that comes their way. When logic is needed to be in the world, logic appears. When laughter is needed to be in the world, laughter appears. What doesn't appear is anger, fear, grief or desire.

Bottom line is, A = A. Neutrality. Perfect equality. Perfect balance. When perfect balance is attained, where can the world find a footing to appear?

Seeker, letting go of one's imagination liberates one from speculation, from maybe's, from perhaps and from shoulds. Are not these shadow things of consciousness not delusionary things?

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:

movingalways wrote:You really think that committing physical suicide is what I mean by extinguishment of attachment?

It's just that there's nothing to be extinguished by anyone, least of all any "mind". You promote ceasing "the activity of imagining" and "the end of wisdom". It's like suggesting to drain the oceans and roll up the clouds. The only extinguishing left is this very bit of delusion: you're suggesting wiping a mirror which is not even there, at least when its nature is truely being understood.

What can be imagined from A = A?

movingalways wrote:What can be imagined from A = A?

What not?

Orenholt wrote:If thinking in terms of duality from "fantasy" to "reality" is bad... Why don't you react to dreams in your waking life?

Like if someone cut off your arm in a dream would you only be ok with it because it "grew back" when you woke up?
Or would you walk up to them and be like "Why the hell did you do that?!"

Because dreams (and imagination in general) only exists inside one's brain, in one's skull, as opposed to other people's arms.

Fantasy is just a human description of things related to that concept. Here's a copy from dictionary.com on fantasy:

fan·ta·sy [fan-tuh-see, -zee] Show IPA noun, plural fan·ta·sies, verb, fan·ta·sied, fan·ta·sy·ing.
noun
1.
imagination, especially when extravagant and unrestrained.
2.
the forming of mental images, especially wondrous or strange fancies; imaginative conceptualizing.
3.
a mental image, especially when unreal or fantastic; vision: a nightmare fantasy.
4.
Psychology . an imagined or conjured up sequence fulfilling a psychological need; daydream.
5.
a hallucination.

The neurons, structures and chemicals in your brain and all that is going on there never touches another person's arm during a dream or fantasy.

Oh, I misunderstood that. Reverse the calculation - your arm is not touched by your imagination and neither are other people's movements (such as a movement of chopping of one's arm).

movingalways wrote:
Seeker, being solitary may have the effect of not needing to talk to people except to awaken, but a solitary who becomes solitary for the sake of wisdom becomes a solitary for that reason alone.

You quote the Buddha often. The first noble truth is "life is suffering". Fortunately, he goes on to say that there is a way to end suffering.

It is illogical to conclude that when one becomes nonattached to worldly form that it will continue to appear. It is by the principle of attachment that it appeared in the first place. A = A ends desire, ends the rising up of worldly form. That is its purpose. When desire is gone, where is the will or energy or power to form the world?

The arguments you are giving me about the continuation of the world when attachment is finished I have given myself for 20 years. I fought the truth of truth tooth and nail. What I discovered is that acceptance of the truth does not put one into a state of despair or nilhilism or pain, but into a fullness of spirit or being. It is as if one is standing on an invisible platform, fulling conscious, fully accepting of eveything that comes their way. When logic is needed to be in the world, logic appears. When laughter is needed to be in the world, laughter appears. What doesn't appear is anger, fear, grief or desire.

Bottom line is, A = A. Neutrality. Perfect equality. Perfect balance. When perfect balance is attained, where can the world find a footing to appear?

Seeker, letting go of one's imagination liberates one from speculation, from maybe's, from perhaps and from shoulds. Are not these shadow things of consciousness not delusionary things?

Non-attachment from the world leads you to see it as it is and move beyond it in the sense that it is no longer attached to as 'the real' while other forms are 'the imaginary', as you say you are 'fully conscious' and hence fully accepting of what comes your way, acting when it is needed, laughing when it is needed.

The acceptance of being apart from the world may result in such uncommon actions as to meditate a whole day experiencing the mind, not caring, being there. A good indicator for communication of awareness would be someone knowing they are not moving anywhere, that it is more like only the appearances in their mind are altering.. desire being the act of going out of the way to choose an appearance for delight or supposed satisfaction.

The Buddha was enlightened and shed great insight on ego, false imaginations, and the illusory nature of things. That does not mean I agree that life is suffering and we should be on the path to its end. Personally I do not believe any person could or has had greater insight on the subject than what is available to either of us.

I think life is beautiful and I accept that it is what it is without entertaining any belief that I will escape it, more precisely, I escape it often and nightly, I don't entertain the belief that I will escape completely the ordinary experience of form arising (now).

There is experience, experience changes, that is it, even non-being is only experience changing.

We have both witnessed doing the same thing over and over 1000 days in a row without being able to remember the last 999, the complete emptiness, still, when you say you have previously been fighting against the truth and have now come to terms, for me it has been the other way, I was previously in line with such beliefs, I believe my acceptance came about when I stopped entertaining the idea that it was not wise to let the world draw me back to it as it does.

Does effortlessness involve fighting against the appearance of the world?

This should be considered a kind of metaphor rather than literal: but when you are at complete ease and empty of attachment, do your eyes remain effortlessly shut or do they effortlessly flick open?

The answer is both.

I would also like to add that I don't dismiss this, I still accept that it is a very real possibility, it is definitely something I am eager to better understand and I am glad to read such uncommonly seen and to-the-point writing regarding your view of life and enlightenment.

Orenholt wrote:As far as I can tell there are 4 types of "realness".
1.) The illogical which is never true such as married bachelors etc.
2.) The imaginary which is true only sometimes such as dreams.
3.) The real which is true only thus far such as the physical world.
4.) The ultimately real which is true for eternity such as a=a.


How does a philosopher differentiate between the real (3) and the imaginary (2)?

Or are there some other kind of order and definitions that are better suited to explaining this?

The key to your question appears to lie with the words "imaginary" and "physical".

In physics (and most sciences in general), matter is defined as that which has mass and takes up space.

The 'real' in the ordinary sense is what is composed of matter (that which has mass and takes up space).
As far as we humans are aware at this point, imaginary substances neither have mass nor take up space.

One can imagine a dog, but does one's imaginary projection of a dog have the power to affect the world around it? If I imagine the dog biting my neighbor, for example, does the neighbor himself feel the bite? Does he need to be taken to the hospital to get stitches?

In the case of an imaginary dog, the answer is no.
In the case of a dog that occupies mass and takes up space - a physical dog - then the answer is yes.

And that is the difference between 2 and 3: the actions of substances in realm 3 directly affect other substances in realm 3, whilst the actions of substances in realm 2 can only directly affect other substances in realm 2.

The imaginary dog cannot bite off the hand of my neighbor. That would only be possible if the imaginary dog were materialized (e.g. I bought a dog). And even then, would it be exactly the same dog from the imaginary realm?

In the same way, the real dog cannot bite off the hand of a neighbor in my imagination. That would only be possible if the real dog were translated into a character in my mind. And even then, would it be exactly the same dog from the physical realm?

Eilam wrote:

Orenholt wrote:As far as I can tell there are 4 types of "realness".
1.) The illogical which is never true such as married bachelors etc.
2.) The imaginary which is true only sometimes such as dreams.
3.) The real which is true only thus far such as the physical world.
4.) The ultimately real which is true for eternity such as a=a.


How does a philosopher differentiate between the real (3) and the imaginary (2)?

Or are there some other kind of order and definitions that are better suited to explaining this?

The key to your question appears to lie with the words "imaginary" and "physical".

In physics (and most sciences in general), matter is defined as that which has mass and takes up space.

The 'real' in the ordinary sense is what is composed of matter (that which has mass and takes up space).
As far as we humans are aware at this point, imaginary substances neither have mass nor take up space.

Imaginary substances would just as likely be mass and a form of matter in the form of brain cells in your brain as the chair you are sitting on would. Imagination or a blood cell - what's the difference? One combination of the building parts inherit to the universe is just more complex than the other. Imagination exists inside one's brain in one's skull in whatever parts in whatever way. Not much different from the chair one is sitting on in my opinion.

Eilam wrote:And that is the difference between 2 and 3: the actions of substances in realm 3 directly affect other substances in realm 3, whilst the actions of substances in realm 2 can only directly affect other substances in realm 2.

I understand your sense of the qualifier "directly," however "directly" is bound by a habitual sense of time. If you live in a city most everything you see, except the sky, is man made, and everything man made once existed as a sleep dream or a daydream. Form and dream are thus linked. I once stood on a spot of earth and watched a fireman chop through the roof of one of my buildings to get to the fire and imagined that all would be as it was, the chopped hole would be gone, the smoke and water damage presently under the roof was a fleeting dream that would soon exist only in memory. When I again stood on the spot and aligned the same view of the building, it was so, as if the lightning strike itself had been a dream.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:

movingalways wrote:What can be imagined from A = A?

What not?

Wisdom of A = A brings the mind to rest. A rest that grows with acceptance of the wisdom of A=A.

This should be considered a kind of metaphor rather than literal: but when you are at complete ease and empty of attachment, do your eyes remain effortlessly shut or do they effortlessly flick open?

The answer is both.

Both=moving between two realities/understandings=duality=suffering. Yes or no?

movingalways wrote:Wisdom of A = A brings the mind to rest.

The mind is restlessness itself. Moving always, movingalways. But yes, not clinging to anything brings rest from clinging.

Tenver- wrote:
Because dreams (and imagination in general) only exists inside one's brain, in one's skull, as opposed to other people's arms.

.....
The neurons, structures and chemicals in your brain and all that is going on there never touches another person's arm during a dream or fantasy.

Oh, I misunderstood that. Reverse the calculation - your arm is not touched by your imagination and neither are other people's movements (such as a movement of chopping of one's arm).

But ultimately we don't know that anything in realm 3 IS real so what's the differentiating mark between 2 and 3?

Eilam wrote:
The key to your question appears to lie with the words "imaginary" and "physical".

In physics (and most sciences in general), matter is defined as that which has mass and takes up space.

The 'real' in the ordinary sense is what is composed of matter (that which has mass and takes up space).
As far as we humans are aware at this point, imaginary substances neither have mass nor take up space.

One can imagine a dog, but does one's imaginary projection of a dog have the power to affect the world around it? If I imagine the dog biting my neighbor, for example, does the neighbor himself feel the bite? Does he need to be taken to the hospital to get stitches?

In the case of an imaginary dog, the answer is no.
In the case of a dog that occupies mass and takes up space - a physical dog - then the answer is yes.

And that is the difference between 2 and 3: the actions of substances in realm 3 directly affect other substances in realm 3, whilst the actions of substances in realm 2 can only directly affect other substances in realm 2.

The imaginary dog cannot bite off the hand of my neighbor. That would only be possible if the imaginary dog were materialized (e.g. I bought a dog). And even then, would it be exactly the same dog from the imaginary realm?

In the same way, the real dog cannot bite off the hand of a neighbor in my imagination. That would only be possible if the real dog were translated into a character in my mind. And even then, would it be exactly the same dog from the physical realm?

I like that you have the "what happens in 2 stays in 2" or "what happens in 3 stays in 3" idea. I think it's accurate but things are only concepts and appearances according to philosophers and dreams can appear physical. And you could go insane and have a perpetual hallucination that stays in realm 3 until you die.

Orenholt wrote:

Tenver- wrote:
Because dreams (and imagination in general) only exists inside one's brain, in one's skull, as opposed to other people's arms.

.....
The neurons, structures and chemicals in your brain and all that is going on there never touches another person's arm during a dream or fantasy.

Oh, I misunderstood that. Reverse the calculation - your arm is not touched by your imagination and neither are other people's movements (such as a movement of chopping of one's arm).

But ultimately we don't know that anything in realm 3 IS real so what's the differentiating mark between 2 and 3?

Difference: which perception you subscribe to.
Noone can make any argument for the existence (ie. reality) of anything which cannot be argued against. One cannot make an argument for the existence of one's imagination, or details of it, just the same as one cannot make arguments for the existence of phenomena experienced otherwise (by sensory input or other forms of thought f.ex.), which cannot be non-neglicible argued against and thus possible refuted. One's imagination is only a phenomena that one experiences - a very private one - but it does not differ in its fundamental restrictions that other phenomena has. One cannot make an argument for the experience of one's imagination that cannot be refuted by some question that cannot be explained, just as one cannot make an argument for the experience of a chair via one's sight that cannot be refuted by some question that also cannot be explained - both are subjective phenomena experienced by a subjective object that cannot cross the barriers of phenomenology. I cannot verify completely without possible refutations that are answered by my argument, theory and evidence that the chair I see is similair how to someone else sees it or that some factual evidence is so (material, atomic construction f.ex.) - the same can be said about my imagination; I cannot verify irrefutable that I think of a dog - I may be deluded, I may not know what I think about, I may think of an elephant and believe I think of a dog.
Imagination is something that happens inside some living animals' brains - and it is restricted nonetheless and just the same as anything by the building blocks and laws of Nature. A carton of milk is no different - the milk is as it is and restricted by the building blocks and laws of nature - just the same as the brain cells and biological and chemical substances that make my imagination. Both may not be able to do anything else than they do - certainly, in reality, of which there can only be one, otherwise it would not be reality, but merely speculation and possibility conceived in the feeble human mind, there is only truth, existence and no contradictions and only action. Mother Nature does not talk or think: she only acts for action is all that she is and she is fed by reality, if we are to assume there is a Mother Nature as it presents itself to us (the phenomological experience we have; reality is the supreme master and Mother Nature is his genius abiding servant, the creator though reality directs). Okay, getting off-topic. Humans are only clinged to their imaginations because it feels very private and one can sometimes believe himself or herself to be among Gods or out of one's body - but there is little indication that the human imagination of each human created in the brain is any different from any other of Mother Nature's creations such as the chair I sit on, the air or the table which this laptop sits on, except for the particular details which make the form of any of the beforementioned.

Dreams and the so-called "real" world are the same at a basic level. Each exists in the same way when examined metaphysically. Each follows and adheres to the basic definition of existence. They do, however, have vastly different secondary characteristics (ontological, of you like), just as the conceptual realm and the empirical realm in general do. You can't make a whiskey and soda in a dream then wake up and drink it. More's the pity, really. Mind you if you could it'd be really good whiskey and you could shove the soda.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:

movingalways wrote:Wisdom of A = A brings the mind to rest.

The mind is restlessness itself. Moving always, movingalways. But yes, not clinging to anything brings rest from clinging.

Precisely. Which is one if one desires to cease being restless, to cease clinging, they must transcend the mind(body), wherein they discover Buddha, Christ or Witness consciousness.

movingalways wrote:

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:

movingalways wrote:Wisdom of A = A brings the mind to rest.

The mind is restlessness itself. Moving always, movingalways. But yes, not clinging to anything brings rest from clinging.

Precisely. Which is one if one desires to cease being restless, to cease clinging, they must transcend the mind(body), wherein they discover Buddha, Christ or Witness consciousness.

Then there is clinging to not clinging : )
And how to do "transcend" from that which you already are ?
Where do you "transcend" to ?

You can't cling to not clinging. That's just getting cute with words.

Try not clinging for a bit and you might actually know about it.

Cahoot wrote:You can't cling to not clinging. That's just getting cute with words.

Try not clinging for a bit and you might actually know about it.

yeah ? then go outside naked when your neighbors are looking...cutie pie..


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXbmRK6dpZg

http://5.media.tumblr.com/fHaraQkc6k1ii ... o1_400.jpg

http://www.shambhalasun.com/sunspace/wp ... chment.jpg

haha...i wanted to attach this one to the last post...but it said i could only have 3 attachments :)

http://www.indiamike.com/india/attachme ... -sadhu.jpg


One zen student said, “My teacher is the best. He can go days without eating.”
The second said, “My teacher has so much self-control, he can go days without sleep.”
The third said, “My teacher is so wise that he eats when he’s hungry and sleeps when he’s tired.”

Dream on, Kunga. You're talking out your ass. I'm just noting the success of your intent.

Cahoot wrote: I'm just noting the success of your intent.

I won't assume i know what you think my intensions were....so will you please tell me exactly what you mean by that ?
my intension was to show you that if you cling to non-clinging....that is, hold strongly to your attachment of non-attachment...you will be attached to non-attachment....and that means you are still attached !!!!

You can't cling to not clinging.

Cut through the crap and figure it out. Do it yourself.