GENIUS FORUMS

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 imaginary and the real, 2) and 3), are only differentiated by perspective, they exist in the same manner. To say these worldly experiences (sensations and mental formations) are somehow 'more real' or 'more true' than other formations is ridiculous.

Ultimate reality is made up of 2) and 3), which are the same.

There is absolutely no way to distinguish between real and imaginary, real being the imaginary that you have gotten used to.

You shouldn't differentiate between manifestations which cannot ultimately be differentiated, and then ask how a philosopher can differentiate between them. All forms depend on all forms and exist together. I wouldn't be here typing if the form of sexual activity didn't arise in consciousness in a cave 10,000 years ago. The infinite thread of fate, or, dependent origination.

It would take you 5 minutes of awareness to jump out of all the old and sticky ordinary concepts and stop clinging to them, and take on the undifferentiated and non-attached view, which is correct view.

Who would you consider as well planned?
The man who needed to understand a thing, and only took a quick glimpse before turning away and making assumptions about it, and thinking and thinking on it.
Or the next man who observed the thing, and observed and quieted his mind and kept on observing?

"Sit here, under this tree, with attentiveness fixed upon your mind."

Most people have simply never taken the time just to look.

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:I wouldn't be here typing if the form of sexual activity didn't arise in consciousness in a cave 10,000 years ago.

Oh boy.

lol, the point is, everything depends on uncountable factors.

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:The imaginary and the real, 2) and 3), are only differentiated by perspective, they exist in the same manner. To say these worldly experiences (sensations and mental formations) are somehow 'more real' or 'more true' than other formations is ridiculous.

So fantasy and reality are the same to you?

Ultimate reality is made up of 2) and 3), which are the same.

I thought that ultimate reality was in the logical realm.

There is absolutely no way to distinguish between real and imaginary, real being the imaginary that you have gotten used to.

Surely there's some way to tell them apart... Otherwise why would one be considered real and the other imaginary?

You would have to ask whoever is caught up in that delusion. The distinction is probably due to attachment, that which is perceived as important or real to the self.

If it is an experience not in line with the self, such as a dream, it is usually considered unreal.

All things seen are seen of the mind, in that sense they are all imaginary forms.

To place some forms as imaginary and others as real simply because a certain form is more consistent or we are more attached to it is a faulty understanding.

On that logic, if I were to dream consistently and often about being a fish, I should consider that real due to it becoming ordinary and day to day? I should then consider being a human as an imagination as I only experience it 30 minutes a day?

All formations are real, not just the ones we are currently experiencing or experience often.

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 real does not change.

What is is. It is just terribly confusing what that is.

There can only be one reality otherwise it would not be called reality but an alternative out of a series of possibilities of which none may relate to reality.

Reality I define as what is - what "really" is - but it is just terribly hard to make even one step in the direction of finding out what that is. We are likely part of this reality. It is in us, we are it and it is outside us. We cannot exempt from it as it creates us. It is the dominating force and takes no special notion to its containments. It is not mean and does not fiddle - it simply is, exists and cannot be otherwise because it is what it is. It is a system in which there are masses, energies and forces arranged so as to make combinations in which a particular set of existences regards themselves as "humans" by their own liking in their own, preferable way.

Noone has any access to reality which cannot be put in question and thus possibly be completely contradicted. Reality has no contradictions - it cannot because it only is and has no possibilities but only existence. It is a system which is only a marvelous sight and an awe-inspiring thought.

An interesting quote, though Albert Einstein seems to be disregarded by some here: "The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible." (If one has the understanding and insight which no living thing does).

This is why the task is vital to change and arrange what one can, so the inevitable sins of the past are not repeated and the inevitable sins of the future are avoided, which though in humble retrospect seems to be a contradiction in itself and thus neither the work of genius or anything else is at all creative or different from anything else, since it does not create or arrange, but only plays out like anything else, one pool ball at a time. Human life could well be called an interactive experience, in the format of a movie which you participate in. This is the human condition. There is only one possibility but we are awake enough to realize some of it.

Orenholt: So fantasy and reality are the same to you?

Dividing your thinking world into two things = dualism.

Orenholt:I thought that ultimate reality was in the logical realm.

The logical realm appears when you question why you are thinking what you are thinking. Think about it. You think "I am hungry." If you don't ask why, you get up and get something to eat. If you question why you are hungry, the logical answer is "Because my body needs food to survive."

Which means that once you are finished with 'why', you no longer need the logical realm.

Reason with me how your thoughts are not a reflection of you, right here, right now.

movingalways wrote:The logical realm appears when you question why you are thinking what you are thinking. Think about it.

No that realm already "appears" when you distinguish, filter, prioritize one thought from or over another, one sensation from another. This means you're always doing it at some level.

If you question why you are hungry, the logical answer is "Because my body needs food to survive."

Why would that answer be logical? It's a very specific answer implying already a lot of context. The question is not even logical, it's a very generic inquiry without much definition: what form of hunger are we talking about?

Which means that once you are finished with 'why', you no longer need the logical realm.

But there is no you without the need, without the distinction making (I & thou). One might imagine being "without" by not being conscious of all what's going on inside: the logical realm.

Diebert thank you for your reply because it goes right to the heart of what seems to be two different understandings of the nature/purpose of logic.

My understanding of your interpretation above is that when one enters the logical thinking realm of A=A, they have entered the realm of ultimate reality. I say this is not so, that instead they have entered the realm of wisdom of ultimate reality, A=A. To have wisdom one is in the world but not of the world. As you stated above, the logical realm is to imagine being without I and thou, imagine being the operative word. The goal of the sage is to be neither of the world nor in the world, to cease the activity of imagining.

In other words the fruit of wisdom is the end of wisdom.

movingalways wrote:My understanding of your interpretation above is that when one enters the logical thinking realm of A=A, they have entered the realm of ultimate reality.

You are already in that "logical thinking realm of A=A". It's not something to enter from somewhere! But do you know it?

The goal of the sage is to be neither of the world nor in the world, to cease the activity of imagining.

The goal is never to end the mind! And without the mind, the distinguishable, there is no sage or fool. The mind is being born and dies again in fools and sages alike.

In other words the fruit of wisdom is the end of wisdom.

It's perhaps just your fruit. Everything ends anyway, so there's no need to be wise about it to get there a bit earlier.

movingalways, what you say about understanding A=A as being a mere intellectual attainment and not a spiritual one is a great point. However, I'm not sure where you go after that, and that step is perhaps one of the most crucial ones. For it is at that point that one either devolves into postmodernism and thinks that Reality is "beyond thought" and thus stops their thinking of Reality (thinking that it is "beyond thought"), stopping short, falsely believing one has reached the end, or evolves into a budding sage, knowing full well that Reality is not beyond anything, and continues a long, long way onward to the real end which is no end. So please be very careful here, and consider the following:

Physical/sensual/empirical/material realm
Science, truth, thought
Uncommon persons with critical thinking skills may momentarily enter this realm when focused and in a supportive environment. Activities in this realm, though motivated by idealism borne of passion and curiosity, are nonetheless primarily material in nature, and lead usually to innovative and creative works in sciences and arts. Most cannot maintain this state other than during brief productive moments in a comfortable and focused setting, and otherwise are indistinguishable from the ordinary average Joe with a wife and kids. Those who can maintain this state usually just become trapped in the pleasures of altered consciousness. Still, a few sense something more to life, and search their inner and outer worlds onward until finally they break free of the prison of objective existence and their entire world STOPS, are SPIRITUALLY DEAD, at which point they enter the...

Metaphysical/intellectual/logical/conceptual realm
Philosophy, Truth, Reason
Rare persons with advanced philosophical (both psychological and metaphysical) development may momentarily enter this realm during peak moments of good attitude (no stress, worry, anxiety, depression, frustration, etc.) and good Reasoning. Activities in this realm are primarily conceptual in nature, and lead usually and unfortunately to locked in forms of mysticism, occultism, esotericism, and most of all, to postmodernism. If one, armed with unwavering intellectual discernment and unfailing will to truth, manages to overcome the many dangers and dead ends of this realm, then they are lead eventually to the pinnacle intellectual vision of Reality, at which moment the person passes beyond existentialism (purpose), positivism (existence), and nihilism (no purpose, no existence), and drop all delusion and chaos until finally their entire world STARTS AGAIN, are SPIRITUALLY REBORN, at which point they enter the...

Spiritual realm
spirituality
Legendary persons who have achieved varying degrees of union with Reality, who do without doing, who join with others without joining with others...

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:

movingalways wrote:My understanding of your interpretation above is that when one enters the logical thinking realm of A=A, they have entered the realm of ultimate reality.

You are already in that "logical thinking realm of A=A". It's not something to enter from somewhere! But do you know it?

The goal of the sage is to be neither of the world nor in the world, to cease the activity of imagining.

The goal is never to end the mind! And without the mind, the distinguishable, there is no sage or fool. The mind is being born and dies again in fools and sages alike.

In other words the fruit of wisdom is the end of wisdom.

It's perhaps just your fruit. Everything ends anyway, so there's no need to be wise about it to get there a bit earlier.

Diebert, I am aware I am in the logical realm, when I think about ultimate reality, A= A. That is all I can do when while I am yet in the world of having been born. "Entering into" was of, course, not to be taken literally, but as a figure of speech to mean conscious understanding or recognition.

We have different goals if your goal is not to end the mind that distinguishes. My understanding is that a fool is born again as a mind that distinguishes out of ignorance; such a mind is a mind of attachment. A sage, however, is not born again because of his or her devotion to becoming unattached, to be delivered of ignorance, to be liberated from the suffering that is to be born. A sage continues to distinguish while becoming unattached for obvious reasons - he is becoming unattached.

"There is monks, an unborn - unbecome - unmade - unfabricated. If there were not that unborn - unbecome - unmade - unfabricated, there would not be the case that emancipation from the born - become - made - fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn - unbecome - unmade - unfabricated, emancipation from the born - become - made - fabricated is discerned. (Nibbana Sutta, Ud 8.3, Thanissaro 1994)"

Obviously, our understanding of the purpose of logic is different.

movingalways, what you say about understanding A=A as being a mere intellectual attainment and not a spiritual one is a great point. However, I'm not sure where you go after that, and that step is perhaps one of the most crucial ones. For it is at that point that one either devolves into postmodernism and thinks that Reality is "beyond thought" and thus stops their thinking of Reality (thinking that it is "beyond thought"), stopping short, falsely believing one has reached the end, or evolves into a budding sage, knowing full well that Reality is not beyond anything, and continues a long, long way onward to the real end which is no end. So please be very careful here, and consider the following:

Getoriks, since A=A is an intellectual attainment and not a spiritual attainment, for the one who attains to the spiritual, A=A is but a roadmap. One way of looking at it is that logic is an object of support that sustains the intellect until the intellect gives up the ghost. :-) This is my understanding of the Buddha'a parinirvana and the Christ's ascension.

I don't understand what the fuss is all about, this talk of postmodernism, etc. Who can stop thinking of Reality? That's absurd! Its how one thinks of Reality that is the crucial step.

movingalways wrote:I am aware I am in the logical realm, when I think about ultimate reality, A= A. That is all I can do when while I am yet in the world of having been born. "Entering into" was of, course, not to be taken literally, but as a figure of speech to mean conscious understanding or recognition.

It's still looking at it backwards somewhat. You don't have to think about any "ultimates" to be in the logical realm in the more universal sense. The ultimate thinking is when realizing what you were already doing, breathing and shitting as reality.

A sage continues to distinguish while becoming unattached for obvious reasons - he is becoming unattached.

It won't put out his mind. There's enough already out there doing that for him. If I would be not attached to my own life it doesn't mean I'm going to jump from a building and "extinguish" it to show how unattached I'm to it!

Obviously, our understanding of the purpose of logic is different.

No, I think you want to extinguish something for personal, egotistical reasons only. But you might have internal reasons for doing that. It's only interesting to see how it influences parts of your philosophy, embracing a more nihilistic and artificial peace program a bit too eagerly.

movingalways wrote: We have different goals if your goal is not to end the mind that distinguishes. My understanding is that a fool is born again as a mind that distinguishes out of ignorance; such a mind is a mind of attachment. A sage, however, is not born again because of his or her devotion to becoming unattached, to be delivered of ignorance, to be liberated from the suffering that is to be born. A sage continues to distinguish while becoming unattached for obvious reasons - he is becoming unattached.

"There is monks, an unborn - unbecome - unmade - unfabricated. If there were not that unborn - unbecome - unmade - unfabricated, there would not be the case that emancipation from the born - become - made - fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn - unbecome - unmade - unfabricated, emancipation from the born - become - made - fabricated is discerned. (Nibbana Sutta, Ud 8.3, Thanissaro 1994)"

Obviously, our understanding of the purpose of logic is different.

We have all most likely thought of death and the end of this life extensively. After understanding what is meant by these teachings, to leave worldly existence behind completely seems quiet... unreasonable.

How could you know? How could anyone know, even Buddha?

I don't deny the possibility, but what is to say we simply don't keep experiencing? Would the mind not eventually reattach itself?

My point is, I just don't know how we could determine if "ending every substratum of rebirth" is what will or can happen.

If there is a way to determine it through cooperative thinking/ sharing experience I would be eager to attempt to better understand it.

movingalways wrote:
We have different goals if your goal is not to end the mind that distinguishes. My understanding is that a fool is born again as a mind that distinguishes out of ignorance; such a mind is a mind of attachment. A sage, however, is not born again because of his or her devotion to becoming unattached, to be delivered of ignorance, to be liberated from the suffering that is to be born. A sage continues to distinguish while becoming unattached for obvious reasons - he is becoming unattached.

Whoa whoa whoa....! Are you talking about literal reincarnation here?

You mistake the meaning of 'reincarnation', as does everyone, it implies that the body dies and the mind is born into a new body.

This gives off all kinds of unreasonable connotations, it is more like the mind simply continues to experience, as it is doing right now. (There is no reason to assume experience ends simply because form changes, form is always changing)

It's still looking at it backwards somewhat. You don't have to think about any "ultimates" to be in the logical realm in the more universal sense. The ultimate thinking is when realizing what you were already doing, breathing and shitting as reality.

.

Breathing and shitting is real. Thinking is real. So is their extinguishment. Not forward or backward looking, a looking at the unfoldment of ignorance and wisdom, their alpha and their omega.

It won't put out his mind. There's enough already out there doing that for him. If I would be not attached to my own life it doesn't mean I'm going to jump from a building and "extinguish" it to show how unattached I'm to it!

You really think that committing physical suicide is what I mean by extinguishment of attachment? Leyla's signature comes to mind to express the truth of becoming unattached: "between suicides."

Quote:

Obviously, our understanding of the purpose of logic is different.

No, I think you want to extinguish something for personal, egotistical reasons only. But you might have internal reasons for doing that. It's only interesting to see how it influences parts of your philosophy, embracing a more nihilistic and artificial peace program a bit too eagerly.

I am not embracing anything, that is the point. Truth takes no prisoners.

We have all most likely thought of death and the end of this life extensively. After understanding what is meant by these teachings, to leave worldly existence behind completely seems quiet... unreasonable.

How could you know? How could anyone know, even Buddha?

I don't deny the possibility, but what is to say we simply don't keep experiencing? Would the mind not eventually reattach itself?

My point is, I just don't know how we could determine if "ending every substratum of rebirth" is what will or can happen.

If there is a way to determine it through cooperative thinking/ sharing experience I would be eager to attempt to better understand it.

Seeker, I am not speaking of what happens after this life. Nor am I projecting what happens when the mind is extinguished. You are right, no one knows. This is what makes truth such a difficult and sometimes terrible road to walk. One must totally abandon all projections of "beyond", for they come from the mind of attachment, and instead, put total and complete faith in the truth of the process of becoming unattached.

How can 'we' determine what happens when distinctions end when to speak of their end, one remains making distinctions? This is why becoming unattached to the appearance of things is a solitary activity. It has to be. This does not mean those who are on the solitary path of truth cannot share the trials and joys of the walk with those who walk the same road, but from my experience, since as you say, "it seems an unreasonable path", solitary spiritual friends are few and far between. Finding them is spiritual gold.

Orenholt wrote:

movingalways wrote:
We have different goals if your goal is not to end the mind that distinguishes. My understanding is that a fool is born again as a mind that distinguishes out of ignorance; such a mind is a mind of attachment. A sage, however, is not born again because of his or her devotion to becoming unattached, to be delivered of ignorance, to be liberated from the suffering that is to be born. A sage continues to distinguish while becoming unattached for obvious reasons - he is becoming unattached.

Whoa whoa whoa....! Are you talking about literal reincarnation here?

Orenholt, your question is too broad and too emotional to allow a meaningful dialogue between us. Tighten it up and let's see what unfolds.

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:You mistake the meaning of 'reincarnation', as does everyone, it implies that the body dies and the mind is born into a new body.

This gives off all kinds of unreasonable connotations, it is more like the mind simply continues to experience, as it is doing right now. (There is no reason to assume experience ends simply because form changes, form is always changing)

Changing requires an unmoving cause, an unchanging law, an ordered foundation. If this were not so, logic could not exist.

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.

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:You mistake the meaning of 'reincarnation', as does everyone, it implies that the body dies and the mind is born into a new body.

This gives off all kinds of unreasonable connotations, it is more like the mind simply continues to experience, as it is doing right now. (There is no reason to assume experience ends simply because form changes, form is always changing)

Ok just making sure. Thanks.