Guest guest Posted March 3, 2000 Report Share Posted March 3, 2000 Greg: > Yes, this is the pre-quantum physics view of scientific realism. According > to it, the world really exists, and really causes our ideas of it. In > short, perhaps innacurately so, this view says that mind activity is the > result of brain activity, which is the result of biological and physical > processes. This view itself is being abandoned by scientists these days, > partly because of results of quantum mechanics. Scientists are seeing that > the process of observation itself actually affects the observed phenomena. > There are others on this list (maybe you too, Roger) who have much more > information on this topic than I. R: I'm interested in experiential reality: does one percieve that one's essence is limited to the body or coincident with the body? Who cares about scientific opinion: what is our perception? Most people will have to answer yes to this, even if they believe otherwise. The reality is that nearly everyone lives the illusion of being confined in a body. But, is this identification with the body the truth? If it's our perception we'd be foolish to deny it, but is it the final truth? We can discover the reality perceptually. Talking about it conceptually is not very interesting, I expect, compared to the perceptual reality. G: > But part of the investigation into freedom, nonduality, etc., is the > investigation and questioning of presuppositions and habitual ideas. So > then this realist world-view is a great candidate to question. The notions > of reality and unreality are other good candidates to throw into the hopper > as well. Usually, advaitic non-dual approach uses the word "real" to mean > "unchanging, permanent, independent" and uses the word "unreal" to mean > "changeable, impermanent, dependent upon something other than itself for > existence." It comes out that consciousness is real, and everything else > is unreal if seen separate from consciousness. "Unreal": it'd be hypocrisy to declare the world "unreal" if this position is only a wishful or favored thought. It seems that many in the 'advaitic non-dual' traditions have adopted the concept of unity but remain short of the experiential reality. The concept of non-duality (without the established experience) is unreal too, it's just another concept, it's just another religion accepting the balm of authority in place of direct experience. The world, I believe, is distrustful of the concepts of NonDuality. And rightly so, because the concepts without the experience are empty. Do we escape the illusion of the world by accepting what appears to be a doctrine that contradicts ordinary experience? The doctrine of nonduality looks down on all effort towards realization. Nonduality doctrine is the very advanced stage of the spiritual quest, a stage beyond effort. But, while one remains identified with thoughts of nonduality and has not had experential glimpses of the truth, one would be better off investigating the various forms of subtle effort which lead to stillness of mind. Back to the title of this thread "addiction": thoughts about nonduality are still an addiction. If one still thinks compulsively, then admit it & investigate techniques to break this addiction NOW! Give up the addiction if you can or get help if you need it !!!! G: > So -- sensory modalities, biology, physics, thoughts, information, external > objects, all that stuff. We do science with it. But how can any of it be > any more or less real than any of the rest? > --Greg Ah! Specifically in the present moment if one sees the false, then this understanding & the subsequent stillness are a step towards the real! That's "more real"! Thanks Greg, see ya monday, Roger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 4, 2000 Report Share Posted March 4, 2000 > "geovani" <inandor > And the brain itself is what Roger? Is it > diferent from sense inputs? Through what chanel > do we "perceive" the brain that would not be through > the senses? No. There is not a "another" real world > "out there". This assumption is the basic duality of man. > > regards > > -geo- R>How do you know that you think? Can thought or any sense observe thought? I do not believe that it's correct to say "Ah, my nose perceives that I am thinking ..." or "Ah, I taste or hear thought..." So, What is it that sees thought? geovani> This IS the real important question!!! R>There is something that sees thought. But it is not thought, not emotion, not senses, not memory, it's not that little think down there between the legs (footnote)... What is the distinction between that which sees, and that which is seen? Can we get over the confusion between the two? I'm not sure I follow your intent here Geo. Please clarify. geovani> Yes I will try. There is nothing that sees through! There is not an observer looking. There is not an awareness being aware. Thoughs, trees, rivers, stars, are all self existent. the understanding of this simple fact ......is the way out the basic duality of man. Events, things, arrise in a non-dimensional field in a incomprehensible manner...like fire cracks....and fall back to nothingness. The smarter scientist is just a kid without understanding this. The content of perceptions ARE the perception itself. See you monday, then... -geo- See ya monday, Roger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 4, 2000 Report Share Posted March 4, 2000 Dear Roger/Greg, This discussion can really go somewhere. Allow me please to come in on this with a sense that one could either look at reality/appearance as we 'perceive' it from a intellectual/philosophical perspective, or one could look at it from the perspective of direct perception. My sense is that if one wants to arrive at non-duality through the contemplation of these matters around sense/thought-realities, the direct experiental route will be more appropriate. Like yourselves, I have given considerable thought to these matters. In the end, I realised that even if I can come in myself to an absolute intellectual clarity, the ACTUAL living truth of the matter is not my living reality. So my approach here is not so much to make philosophically/logically correct statements which can be analized and found to be either faulty or impeccable. I want to try and describe what I have come to in my meditative experience about the things you have discussed. Allow me to make an initial few remarks here. I hope it is in context.. You said: <How can you be what you observe? If you can observe it, you can not be it, because by definition there is separation between the observer and the object under observation. > ~~This is the classical beginning to the so-called Neti-Neti (not this-not that) line of argument found in Hinduism. It seems very seductive because (not unlike Descartes style of argument) when everything 'observable' has been removed, this is supposed to prove that there is an ultimate observer, consciousness, awareness which must have made all the objects possible by existing prior to the act of observation. However, a) This 'not this-not that' process is just a series of thoughts. One cannot actually PHYSICALLY remove ALL appearance (body and all other forms of arising and still remain intact 'oneself' to end with enough left to be able to make the statement 'Therefore I am consciousness, the witness etc. This whole process is a delusion in thought and based on a kind of pseudo logic. Factually only a human being can say "I am the witness". If nothing is left, where will be the consciousness which is suppose to remain? What will be left to notice it? And will this then not again have the supposed consciousness as its content? Again two? b) So, instead of starting with the 'observed', such as body, sense 'perception' and so on, I then started my investigation into the nature and reality of the apparent observer. That sense we all seem to have that we have something 'inside' of us called consciousness which is passively waiting for objects to appear in its field for it to reflect it. Something like an inner mirror. Unstained and unmoved in itself, but filled with images of momentary appearance. After becoming as sensitive to these matters as I possibly could during periods of intense meditation, it became clear that this inner observer could not be found. All that was real was a particular appearance (sound, taste, thought,sensations, emotions etc) with no-one or nothing making these appearances possible. It became clear that the one thing I had always belived to be the final, most primary aspect of my being ie consciousness-as-observer, was absent. Things simply appeared by themselves and all one could do was paying attention to them. It was at this point that it also became clear that it is this very act of paying attention which has deluded me into thinking that I am the observer. Not being sensitive to this prior to a state of meditative clarity, my thought simply assumed that because I can pay attention, I am separate from appearance - and so deduced from that , that I (as final witness, consciousness, conscious observer,) actually exist. Outside of thought this is not true. Such a thought would be integrally part of what I have referred to in another posting on Intellectualism. Thought projects /logically deduces an 'I' and then experiences this 'I' , consciousness, observer, awareness, as though it has objective reality. This may be considered to be the most fundamental form of delusion and illusion. This clarity is still working its way in me, and is still the basis of much of my own feeling myself into the sense of non-duality. All the work is not done, but through direct experience, instead of using the intellect where it has no place, much clarity may come. Love, Moller Roger Isaacs <RIsaacs NondualitySalon <NondualitySalon >; < > Addiction 04 March 2000 12:07 "Roger Isaacs" <RIsaacs > >The mental process is such a tremendous addiction. I know that *any* > contents of *any* thought is unreal. > > >To cope with this * unsatisfying situation*, the mind keeps on saying not to > make any distinctions anymore which in itself is just another distinction ! > > This is nice! And it is so, not only for apples, bosses and schoolbusses, but > also for thoughts. If, like you say, any content of any thought is unreal, > then thoughts themselves aren't real! What's unreal? Is thought unreal? Perhaps it's more specific to say that the observer's assumption that he IS THOUGHT is what is false. The senses report information to the brain. The senses are limited bandwidth channels. In other words the information they report is only a limited representation of the external world. Sight only reports a range of the electromagnetic spectrum, hearing has frequency limits, touch/smell/taste are all limited: your dog or the hawk in the sky have far superior smell & sight interfaces. Furthermore some animals have sense interfaces that humans don't even have: the shark & platypus (trying to play to the crowd down under!) sense the nervous system electrical activity of their prey. And apparently the goose has a built in magnetic compass for navigation. So there's no argument: the senses are limited, but saying that sense reports are "unreal" is an overstatement. When the brain processes sensory input it attempts to match the incoming data to stored patterns in memory. So the rope on a dark night may first fit the general pattern of a snake and be reported as such. But we shouldn't generalize this presumptive pattern matching as "unreal". The rope was there, only the initial report was presumptive. Having had a close encounter with a poisonous snake recently, I am quite pleased with the build-in sensitivity we have for snake detection! An occasional false report is acceptable in achieving a more rapid response in an emergency! Memories are limited, they are only partial electro/chemical representations of some past event, never a complete representation, how could the brain even receive a complete report when the senses are limited? Furthermore, memories can drift, degrade, merge, combine with time or sprout from imagination. But we can't generalize all memory as "unreal", let's understand it for what it is, a recording media with limitations. Each human unit comes with a built in biological computer and it's programmed to ensure the survival & prosperity of that individual unit. Scientists have located various areas of the brain responsible for these functions: it's all biological, chemical, electrical. You accomplish something that furthers the biological goals of the organism and as a reward pleasure causing chemicals are released by certain centers in the brain. But this computer can only act on the limited inputs from memory & sense reporting: garbage in, garbage out. Thought is part of the operation of this biological computer. But, I don't think we can jump to the conclusion that "thought is unreal", it might be garbage but that's different than being unreal. Thought can be measured electrically, so it does exist. Thought has it's place, it's part of the biological organism. Enlightened people still think! right? So thought is not the problem, it's our relationship to thought/emotion that's the key issue. Our assumption is that we (if I may use 'we' & 'our' presumptively) are thought/ego/emotion, our assumption is that we are biological. But that's false: chop off your foot and you're still you right? Remove even major portions of the body and you're still you at least before the biological organism shuts down down due to the damage. As a child in a developing body you were the same 'you' that you are now? right? You were 'you' before cultural, religious, economic indoctrination, and before the arrival of adult responsibilities, before you were told that Jesus is going to save you... We observe the workings of the biological organism: thought, emotion, senses, pleasure, pain... How can you be what you observe? If you can observe it, you can not be it, because by definition there is separation between the observer and the object under observation. Pain & pleasure are chemical & electrical. But that does not mean that they are "unreal". Thought/emotion are biological events in the organism. They aren't 'unreal', they are biological. The key seems to be: our essence isn't biological. Can we understand this truth so deeply & thoroughly that the false identification with the body ceases? Roger ------ DON'T HATE YOUR RATE! Get a NextCard Visa, in 30 seconds! Get rates as low as 0.0% Intro or 9.9% Fixed APR and no hidden fees. Apply NOW! http://click./1/2120/3/_/520931/_/952121145/ ------ // All paths go somewhere. No path goes nowhere. Paths, places, sights, perceptions, and indeed all experiences arise from and exist in and subside back into the Space of Awareness. Like waves rising are not different than the ocean, all things arising from Awareness are of the nature of Awareness. Awareness does not come and go but is always Present. It is Home. Home is where the Heart Is. Jnanis know the Heart to be the Finality of Eternal Being. A true devotee relishes in the Truth of Self-Knowledge, spontaneously arising from within into It Self. Welcome all to a. To from this list, go to the ONElist web site, at www., and select the User Center link from the menu bar on the left. This menu will also let you change your subscription between digest and normal mode. .. The senses are limited bandwidth >channels. In other words the information they report is only a limited >representation of the external world. Sight only reports a range of the >electromagnetic spectrum, hearing has frequency limits, touch/smell/taste >are all limited: your dog or the hawk in the sky have far superior smell & >sight interfaces. Furthermore some animals have sense interfaces that humans >don't even have: the shark & platypus (trying to play to the crowd down >under!) sense the nervous system electrical activity of their prey. And >apparently the goose has a built in magnetic compass for navigation. > >So there's no argument: the senses are limited, but saying that sense >reports are "unreal" is an overstatement. > >When the brain processes sensory input it attempts to match the incoming >data to stored patterns in memory. So the rope on a dark night may first fit >the general pattern of a snake and be reported as such. But we shouldn't >generalize this presumptive pattern matching as "unreal". The rope was >there, only the initial report was presumptive. Having had a close encounter >with a poisonous snake recently, I am quite pleased with the build-in >sensitivity we have for snake detection! An occasional false report is >acceptable in achieving a more rapid response in an emergency! > >Memories are limited, they are only partial electro/chemical representations >of some past event, never a complete representation, how could the brain >even receive a complete report when the senses are limited? Furthermore, >memories can drift, degrade, merge, combine with time or sprout from >imagination. But we can't generalize all memory as "unreal", let's >understand it for what it is, a recording media with limitations. > >Each human unit comes with a built in biological computer and it's >programmed to ensure the survival & prosperity of that individual unit. >Scientists have located various areas of the brain responsible for these >functions: it's all biological, chemical, electrical. You accomplish >something that furthers the biological goals of the organism and as a reward >pleasure causing chemicals are released by certain centers in the brain. But >this computer can only act on the limited inputs from memory & sense >reporting: garbage in, garbage out. > >Thought is part of the operation of this biological computer. But, I don't >think we can jump to the conclusion that "thought is unreal", it might be >garbage but that's different than being unreal. Thought can be measured >electrically, so it does exist. Thought has it's place, it's part of the >biological organism. Enlightened people still think! right? So thought is >not the problem, it's our relationship to thought/emotion that's the key >issue. > >Our assumption is that we (if I may use 'we' & 'our' presumptively) are >thought/ego/emotion, our assumption is that we are biological. But that's >false: chop off your foot and you're still you right? Remove even major >portions of the body and you're still you at least before the biological >organism shuts down down due to the damage. As a child in a developing body >you were the same 'you' that you are now? right? You were 'you' before >cultural, religious, economic indoctrination, and before the arrival of >adult responsibilities, before you were told that Jesus is going to save >you... > >We observe the workings of the biological organism: thought, emotion, >senses, pleasure, pain... How can you be what you observe? If you can >observe it, you can not be it, because by definition there is separation >between the observer and the object under observation. Pain & pleasure are >chemical & electrical. But that does not mean that they are "unreal". >Thought/emotion are biological events in the organism. They aren't 'unreal', >they are biological. The key seems to be: our essence isn't biological. Can >we understand this truth so deeply & thoroughly that the false >identification with the body ceases? > >Roger > > > > > > > > >------ >DON'T HATE YOUR RATE! >Get a NextCard Visa, in 30 seconds! Get rates as low as >0.0% Intro or 9.9% Fixed APR and no hidden fees. >Apply NOW! >http://click./1/2120/3/_/520931/_/952121145/ >------ > >// > >All paths go somewhere. No path goes nowhere. Paths, places, sights, perceptions, and indeed all experiences arise from and exist in and subside back into the Space of Awareness. Like waves rising are not different than the ocean, all things arising from Awareness are of the nature of Awareness. Awareness does not come and go but is always Present. It is Home. Home is where the Heart Is. Jnanis know the Heart to be the Finality of Eternal Being. A true devotee relishes in the Truth of Self-Knowledge, spontaneously arising from within into It Self. Welcome all to a. > >To from this list, go to the ONElist web site, at > www., and select the User Center link from the menu bar > on the left. This menu will also let you change your subscription > between digest and normal mode. > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.