Reality: What is it?

[godnotgod]

Our consciousness can interpret reality, of course we could philosophically consider what reality is for a rock.

But I am asking what reality is perse. Obviously, the 'reality' that you and the rock are immersed in is the same reality. The problem is that we set up a subject/object split in the mind and see the rock as an object separate from us, the observers. So we think: rock reality vs our reality.

So 'reality' is an object of consciousness? There is a separate 'observer of the observed'?

 

[Willamena]

If the answer to the question is directly seen, without thought, without a 'see-er of the seen', then isn't there freedom from the narrative in that case?

The problem of freedom may not have to do with the question, but with the concept of a self that is involved in the narrative.

Also, would you define 'narrative' the way you intend it?

That we imagine there is "freedom from the narrative" is the narrative. The truer freedom is freedom from questions.

The "narrative" is the story of the world that we (as individuals, a culture, or a society) tell ourselves in understanding, interpreting, and being "here and now" as we are, what we are, who we are (also where and when), as well as what reality is and how we relate to it. It is the world we have constructed by virtue of being.

 

[atanu]

Reality is the world, but is not the same as what we perceive. For example, there are a great many things we do not perceive and a great many things that we perceive incorrectly (visual illusions, for example).

In that case, what is 'world-reality' stripped of illusions and what is it beneath the things that we do not perceive? How do we know the illusions to be illusions? And can we ever know all things of the world?

Consciousness is one aspect of reality, but not all of reality.

Do you consider consciousness to be a created aspect of reality (that as per your own admission we do not know)?

 

[atanu]

Reality is the world. Perception is an illusion of a non-dual ontological image of the world. Perception is not a necessity. The non-dual image is not a necessity.

What is world and what is non dual ontological image of the world?

 

[atanu]

Is what we call 'reality' the world as we perceive it, or the consciousness with which we perceive it?

Some have commented that the world is the reality. To me, the truth is "You art That", which is explained through a story below.

 

[Polymath257]

In that case, what is 'world-reality' stripped of illusions and what is it beneath the things that we do not perceive? How do we know the illusions to be illusions? And can we ever know all things of the world?

There are many, many things we do not perceive. Ultraviolet light, for example. We don't hear ultrasound. We don't see radio waves. We know all of these things exist and are all around us, but we do not perceive them. We also know that our sense organs are subject to illusions of various sorts. That makes what we actually perceive just a very small part of the world around us. That means we have to work harder and be more careful about testing our ideas because we *know* we only perceive a part, and that imperfectly. We know our illusions are illusory because of testing and comparisons between different ways of obtaining information.

For example, take any number of optical illusions. You can verify two lines are the same length by actually measuring them. You an verify two colors are actually the same by removing the surrounding regions that confuse our senses. THAT is how we know we experience illusions.

What is 'beneath' what we perceive? I don't see it as an above/beneath question. We perceive a poor approximation. Through a variety of means, we can obtain a better approximation.

Do you consider consciousness to be a created aspect of reality (that as per your own admission we do not know)?

Created? No, I don't consisder consciousness to have been created. The evidence is that it evolved and is a function of our brains.

 

[godnotgod]

That we imagine there is "freedom from the narrative" is the narrative. The truer freedom is freedom from questions.

The "narrative" is the story of the world that we (as individuals, a culture, or a society) tell ourselves in understanding, interpreting, and being "here and now" as we are, what we are, who we are (also where and when), as well as what reality is and how we relate to it. It is the world we have constructed by virtue of being.

I cannot agree with this. The world we have constructed is by virtue of personal views, and as a result, we have a multitude of 'narratives'. Personal views only construct personal realities, which define who we are only in terms of Identification in Time and Space. I am referring to the singular Reality behind those personal views; the one that is uncreated; unconditioned, and unformed, which does not come and go, which is not born and therefore cannot die, and which sees things as they actually are, and not as the narrative says they are.

One can be free and still question, no?

"There is an Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unconditioned. If that Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unconditioned were not, there could be no escape from this that is born, originated, created, conditioned. But because there is That which is Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unconditioned, an escape from this that is born, originated, created, conditioned can be proclaimed. "(Khuddaka-Nikaya, Udana, 80ff.)

Buddhist Spirituality
*****

"However abstruse the teachings are, in comparison with this enlightenment they are like a single hair to the great sky. However profound the complicated knowledge of the world, compared to this enlightenment it is like one drop of water to the great ocean."

Tokusan

The Gateless Gate: 28. Blow Out the Candle

 

[godnotgod]

There are many, many things we do not perceive. Ultraviolet light, for example. We don't hear ultrasound. We don't see radio waves. We know all of these things exist and are all around us, but we do not perceive them. We also know that our sense organs are subject to illusions of various sorts. That makes what we actually perceive just a very small part of the world around us. That means we have to work harder and be more careful about testing our ideas because we *know* we only perceive a part, and that imperfectly. We know our illusions are illusory because of testing and comparisons between different ways of obtaining information.

For example, take any number of optical illusions. You can verify two lines are the same length by actually measuring them. You an verify two colors are actually the same by removing the surrounding regions that confuse our senses. THAT is how we know we experience illusions.

What is 'beneath' what we perceive? I don't see it as an above/beneath question. We perceive a poor approximation. Through a variety of means, we can obtain a better approximation.
.

When you are dreaming, no matter how hard you try to achieve a correct view of reality, you cannot do so due to the nature of the dream reality. On that level, the dream content is real to you, and the only way you can tell that it is a dream is to simply awaken. I am suggesting to you that even when we 'awaken' to the next level, which is called Waking Sleep, because it only seems that we are awake, but in truth, are still just asleep but on a higher level than that of the dream-sleep state. For all practical purposes, we think ourselves truly awake, and go about employing the rational logical mind in a serious effort to discern reality from illusion, not realizing we are immersed in illusion itself, and that the only way to make such a discernment is to awaken once again to a yet higher level of reality, one which shows you beyond a shadow of any doubt that you are truly awake. The problem is the self, which itself is an illusory entity, and which must be overcome if one is to gain a foothold on higher ground. Otherwise, it will keep you locked into Identification, keeping us asleep while thinking ourselves awake, and thinking itself real, when in fact, it is a fiction we act out in the drama of the 'reality' of Waking Sleep.

The only way that the prisoners in Plato's Cave can realize that the dancing shadows on the cave walls are illusions, is for them to escape to the outside of the cave and behold the glorious Sun for the very first time. Any efforts they make to discern reality from illusion via the dancing shadows on the cave walls will fail. They may even construct systems of thought called Science, Religion, and Metaphysics in order to do so, but these will all pale in comparison to the Ultimate Reality represented by The Sun.

 

[Polymath257]

When you are dreaming, no matter how hard you try to achieve a correct view of reality, you cannot do so due to the nature of the dream reality. On that level, the dream content is real to you, and the only way you can tell that it is a dream is to simply awaken. I am suggesting to you that even when we 'awaken' to the next level, which is called Waking Sleep, because it only seems that we are awake, but in truth, are still just asleep but on a higher level than that of the dream-sleep state. For all practical purposes, we think ourselves truly awake, and go about employing the rational logical mind in a serious effort to discern reality from illusion, not realizing we are immersed in illusion itself, and that the only way to make such a discernment is to awaken once again to a yet higher level of reality, one which shows you beyond a shadow of any doubt that you are truly awake. The problem is the self, which itself is an illusory entity, and which must be overcome if one is to gain a foothold on higher ground. Otherwise, it will keep you locked into Identification, keeping us asleep while thinking ourselves awake, and thinking itself real, when in fact, it is a fiction we act out in the drama of the 'reality' of Waking Sleep.

The only way that the prisoners in Plato's Cave can realize that the dancing shadows on the cave walls are illusions, is for them to escape to the outside of the cave and behold the glorious Sun for the very first time. Any efforts they make to discern reality from illusion via the dancing shadows on the cave walls will fail. They may even construct systems of thought called Science, Religion, and Metaphysics in order to do so, but these will all pale in comparison to the Ultimate Reality represented by The Sun.

Yes, I understand the concept. It really isn't a deep one or a new one. I simply disagree with it.

For example, your description of a dream state is not what I have ever experienced. I don't find it difficult *in a dream* to know that I am dreaming. In fact, the inconsistencies typically make that obvious quite quickly. But dreams are more about emotions than anything else: they help us to work through issues so that we need not do so in reality.

And yes, I quite understand the concept of Plato's cave. I think it one of the greatest philosophical mistakes ever made. It is quite clear, for example, that the whole story can be repeated ad infinitum: one cave inside of another, inside of another, etc. At each level those who have emerged from one cave *think* they are seeing reality, when they are just inside of a larger cave. And it's caves all the way up. And all that means is that it is *all* data for understanding the world.

And that leads to the simple fact that we always perceive through our senses. The only way to determine anything about the real world is through them. Even mystics do this: they just claim to have another sense to allow them to see a new cave. But, as we know, all senses can be fooled. And at some point we have to realize that it is more reasonable to say the senses are wrong than to produce one cave after another.

So, the spot we all know: our reality, is where I will stand. This can be tested, which distinguishes it from dreams and from mystical insights. That means we can learn to avoid mistakes, always an issue with mysticism and dreams. We find that this realm, unlike the dream or mystical realm, is subject to reliable laws of dynamics. And these are part of why I can reasonably ignore the other caves as illusory and this one cave as reality.

 

[atanu]

There are many, many things we do not perceive. Ultraviolet light, for example. We don't hear ultrasound. We don't see radio waves. We know all of these things exist and are all around us, but we do not perceive them. We also know that our sense organs are subject to illusions of various sorts. That makes what we actually perceive just a very small part of the world around us. That means we have to work harder and be more careful about testing our ideas because we *know* we only perceive a part, and that imperfectly. We know our illusions are illusory because of testing and comparisons between different ways of obtaining information.

For example, take any number of optical illusions. You can verify two lines are the same length by actually measuring them. You an verify two colors are actually the same by removing the surrounding regions that confuse our senses. THAT is how we know we experience illusions.

What is 'beneath' what we perceive? I don't see it as an above/beneath question. We perceive a poor approximation. Through a variety of means, we can obtain a better approximation.

So, the situation being that more things are unknown than are known and that the things that are wrongly known are wrongly known, how do we say that the world is the reality?

Created? No, I don't consisder consciousness to have been created. The evidence is that it evolved and is a function of our brains.

How does one know that it is evolved to determine truth?

 

[Polymath257]

We don't expect it to have evolved to determine the truth in all instances. In fact, we know full well that there are many flaws in the ways we naturally think. We tend to see purpose and attribute consciousness to things where there is no purpose and consciousness (like faces in clouds).

But, we do know it gives a survival-level of approximation because that *is* what evolution produces. And that is enough to 'get off the ground'. But it requires testing at each and every step to check all our ideas for flaws.

 

[atanu]

We don't expect it to have evolved to determine the truth in all instances. In fact, we know full well that there are many flaws in the ways we naturally think. We tend to see purpose and attribute consciousness to things where there is no purpose and consciousness (like faces in clouds).

The situation being that more things are unknown than are known and that the things that are known are wrongly perceived, how do we say that the world is the reality?

 

[godnotgod]

Yes, I understand the concept. It really isn't a deep one or a new one. I simply disagree with it.

For example, your description of a dream state is not what I have ever experienced. I don't find it difficult *in a dream* to know that I am dreaming. In fact, the inconsistencies typically make that obvious quite quickly. But dreams are more about emotions than anything else: they help us to work through issues so that we need not do so in reality.

And yes, I quite understand the concept of Plato's cave. I think it one of the greatest philosophical mistakes ever made. It is quite clear, for example, that the whole story can be repeated ad infinitum: one cave inside of another, inside of another, etc. At each level those who have emerged from one cave *think* they are seeing reality, when they are just inside of a larger cave. And it's caves all the way up. And all that means is that it is *all* data for understanding the world.

And that leads to the simple fact that we always perceive through our senses. The only way to determine anything about the real world is through them. Even mystics do this: they just claim to have another sense to allow them to see a new cave. But, as we know, all senses can be fooled. And at some point we have to realize that it is more reasonable to say the senses are wrong than to produce one cave after another.

So, the spot we all know: our reality, is where I will stand. This can be tested, which distinguishes it from dreams and from mystical insights. That means we can learn to avoid mistakes, always an issue with mysticism and dreams. We find that this realm, unlike the dream or mystical realm, is subject to reliable laws of dynamics. And these are part of why I can reasonably ignore the other caves as illusory and this one cave as reality.

But it is still a cave, no matter that phenomena behave according to certain patterns, which in this example, would be the shadows dancing upon the cave walls. What most of us don't see is the field against which all caves are determined to be seen as 'caves', and that field is 'no-cave', or more accurately, neither 'cave' nor 'no-cave'. One must leave the cave behind entirely. 'Sun' is not 'cave'; it is freedom from 'cave'. Transcending the caves of science, religion, and metaphysics is the direct experience of Reality itself, and how you know beyond all doubt that you have truly awakened.

The problem with your 'spot' is that you still cling to the notion of 'MY view', rather than just 'The View'. You will claim that your view is 'objective' because it is determined by science, but how many scientifically 'objective' views exist as regards the origin of the Universe, for example? Here, the problem is in 'objective' vs 'subjective, a split that exists as a conceptual framework within the mind. The true nature of Reality exists beyond all such frameworks and dualities, and to experience that, is to set aside all of the machinations of mind. Science, as wonderful as it is, still ends up nibbling around the edges of Reality. It is incapable of showing us its true nature.

The mystical experience is not to awaken into yet another cave filled with illusions, but to leave behind all caves entirely, and to realize one's union with the entire Universe, just as the drop merges with the entirety of the vast ocean. The illusion of 'my view' ceases to exist. You are now 'The Universe' looking at itself through your eyes, but without a personal self attached to the view. IOW, there is now no self that is the 'experiencer of the experience'; there is only the experience itself, and you are that experience, in exactly the same way that there is no 'whirler' of whirling water in a whirlpool; there is only whirling water. In fact, there is not even something called 'whirlpool'.

 

[Polymath257]

The situation being that more things are unknown than are known and that the things that are known are wrongly perceived, how do we say that the world is the reality?

That is precisely why we have to be careful and *test* all ideas. What we perceive is only a small, approximate part of reality. We *know* this for a fact. Even other species can perceive things we cannot (insects can often see ultraviolet, for example).

Part of the issue is what the word 'reality' even means. The best I can come up with is 'whatever all predictive theories agree upon'.

 

[Polymath257]

The mystical experience is not to awaken into yet another cave filled with illusions, but to leave behind all caves entirely, and to realize one's union with the entire Universe, just as the drop merges with the entirety of the vast ocean. The illusion of 'my view' ceases to exist. You are now 'The Universe' looking at itself through your eyes, but without a personal self attached to the view. IOW, there is now no self that is the 'experiencer of the experience'; there is only the experience itself, and you are that experience, in exactly the same way that there is no 'whirler' of whirling water in a whirlpool; there is only whirling water. In fact, there is not even something called 'whirlpool'.

Yes, I understand the claim. But why should we believe the mystic has actually left the cave system? Why should we think the mystic is any less subject to inaccurate experiences when having their mystical experiences?

Yes, you *fell* like the universe perceiving itself. So? Is that perception correct?

 

[Willamena]

One can be free and still question, no?

Not from the narrative, no. The question springs from the narrative, and demands the narrative.

 

[Twilight Hue]

But I am asking what reality is perse. Obviously, the 'reality' that you and the rock are immersed in is the same reality. The problem is that we set up a subject/object split in the mind and see the rock as an object separate from us, the observers. So we think: rock reality vs our reality.

So 'reality' is an object of consciousness? There is a separate 'observer of the observed'?

Well there is obviously no permanent Observer.

Everything remains in a state of flux, so it would seem reality follows suit, making it out to be a true continuum for all intents and purposes.

Reality for us would be different as to what reality is for a Rock . It would continually morph depending upon who or what we are as we slip in and out of the role as an observer.

 

[Willamena]

What is world and what is non dual ontological image of the world?

You look out the window at a tree across the street.

The dual ontological image is that there is a real tree "out there" and a second tree "in your head" composed of what your brain has interpreted of the senses about the tree; and the image in your head (the artifice) is either given to match the tree outside (reality) by virtue of assumption and inference, or given to be the only one that matters, as it's the only one we can "know." Perception takes on a stark significance as some sort of electronic "receiver" of reality. This is the image of people who have learned some philosophy of mind, enough to decide that they know something about mind. This is also the image of people who have divorced mind from reality, such that they would declare anything of the mind is (literally) "not the reality." The divide between reality and mind has become part of the narrative.

What I referred to as the non-dual ontological image is ignorance of a divide between "in" and "outside" the head. There is no "mind" that differs from "the world outside," and no need that the tree be "perceived" in order to be real. This is the resting state for most people when issues of the divide between reality and mind are furthest from (actual) reality. Asked whether the tree is real, they would not (could not) hesitate to say, "yes."

The world is everything when mind doesn't differ from the world. When it does, then the world is halved in size, and the number of 'things' there are is effectively doubled.

 

[atanu]

That is precisely why we have to be careful and *test* all ideas. What we perceive is only a small, approximate part of reality. We *know* this for a fact. Even other species can perceive things we cannot (insects can often see ultraviolet, for example).

Part of the issue is what the word 'reality' even means. The best I can come up with is 'whatever all predictive theories agree upon'.

That is fresh.

But when I read assertions as below from naturalist authors, I recoil:

What is the world really like? It’s fermions and bosons, and everything that can be made up of them, and nothing that can’t be made up of them. All the facts about fermions and bosons determine or “fix” all the other facts about reality and what exists in this universe or any other if, as physics may end up showing, there are other ones.
​

The author seems to have reached the final frontier of knowledge.

 

[atanu]

You look out the window at a tree across the street.

The dual ontological image is that there is a real tree "out there" and a second tree "in your head" composed of what your brain has interpreted of the senses about the tree; and the image in your head (the artifice) is either given to match the tree outside (reality) by virtue of assumption and inference, or given to be the only one that matters, as it's the only one we can "know." Perception takes on a stark significance as some sort of electronic "receiver" of reality. This is the image of people who have learned some philosophy of mind, enough to decide that they know something about mind. This is also the image of people who have divorced mind from reality, such that they would declare anything of the mind is (literally) "not the reality." The divide between reality and mind has become part of the narrative.

Do I understand that in your opinion this is a flawed narrative?

What I referred to as the non-dual ontological image is ignorance of a divide between "in" and "outside" the head. There is no "mind" that differs from "the world outside," and no need that the tree be "perceived" in order to be real. This is the resting state for most people when issues of the divide between reality and mind are furthest from (actual) reality. Asked whether the tree is real, they would not (could not) hesitate to say, "yes."

How can an image be non dual? The image, necessarily will have an original. No? Or, I do not understand what you are saying?

The world is everything when mind doesn't differ from the world. When it does, then the world is halved in size, and the number of 'things' there are is effectively doubled.

I will take time to process and understand this. At this stage, I will ask what of this is objectively or subjectively provable? Can you provide a few key points that can be tested -- objectively or subjectively?