Reality: What is it?

[godnotgod]

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

But one needn't be attached to the narrative when asking questions, does he? Nor does the question need to spring from the narrative, though the narrative may prompt a question.

 

[godnotgod]

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?

No one is asking you to believe anything. You would need to have the experience yourself to confirm that you have indeed left the cave. You know for certain the moment you awaken from sleep, via the very fact of awakening, right?

Once the self is transcended, there is no 'you' that feels as if it is the Universe looking at itself. There is no 'I' that is looking in the sense of a subject/object relationship. It is now the Universe, and ONLY the Universe that is looking. The experience is neither correct nor incorrect. It is authentic because there is no 'I' which can misperceive the the nature of the experience. You and the Universe are now the same experience, just as the drop is now at one with the vast ocean. There is no longer a 'you' that is having an experience; you are that very experience.

Just tell me: are you an agent called 'I' that is having an experience, or are you in fact the experience itself?

Is a tree made of wood, or is a tree wood itself?

 

[Polymath257]

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.

Well, that assumes that all physucal things are made from fermions and bosons. Now, at this point, that seems *very* likely, especially with some very general mathematical results about how relativistic quantum field theories must act. But, for example, we already know of situations where particles are limited to one or two dimensional motion where the spins can be other than integral or half-integral (say, spin 1/3). While not technically an example of something that is neither fermion nor boson, it is a piece of evidence that such might be possible.

I'll stick to saying that anything that interacts with the physical is also physical.

 

[ajay0]

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

The enlightened master Ramana Maharshi stated thus, " Existence or consciousness is the only reality. "

Obviously he stated this from the vantage point of enlightenment and many other masters have also testified to the same. We are not able to perceive the same with our dualistic minds trapped in habitual thinking and emoting, but such a possibility indeed exists ( as shown by these case studies throughout history and modern times), and is the innate potential of every human being.

 

[atanu]

Well, that assumes that all physucal things are made from fermions and bosons. Now, at this point, that seems *very* likely, especially with some very general mathematical results about how relativistic quantum field theories must act. But, for example, we already know of situations where particles are limited to one or two dimensional motion where the spins can be other than integral or half-integral (say, spin 1/3). While not technically an example of something that is neither fermion nor boson, it is a piece of evidence that such might be possible.

I'll stick to saying that anything that interacts with the physical is also physical.

What is physical, but?

 

[Willamena]

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

No, it's just one narrative. I make no judgement.

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

I apologize if my terminology throws you.

The narrative for each of us forms our story, the full-spectrum image in which we 'are' (alive). An understanding, if you like. We experience the world in takes, our memory (like a camera) taking bits and impressions, sensations and comprehensions, judgements and decisions--and mistakes (the missed 'takes')--all which inform an ontological image of what the world is, one image that we fall back on repeatedly as the truth, in order to move ahead. That's how paradigm shifts are possible, the foundational image can be altered.

For the dual ontology, the image is 'mind,' and allowably the original (since the 'real' world cannot be known). This is the mindset that invented science, methodical means to investigate the unknown inner workings of a world that lies 'outside the mind.' For the non-dual ontology, mind does not differ from the world. There is only the image, only the original. There is only "just me," which is the world.

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?

'Objective' and 'subjective' are inherently part of the narrative, as they are simply descriptors that place things in the narrative. The words are applicable to truth, so depending on one's ontological image, they will be used differently to place truth. Objective means "of truth," and subjective refers to a perspective on truth.

The dual ontological image places truth firmly in the world. It invests in 'objective' meaning 'outside the mind.' This belief creates the divide between mind and the world. The alternative is that there is just the world, the composite image available to each of us.

I offer no proof, just a story.​

 

[atanu]

No, it's just one narrative. I make no judgement.

I make distinction and judgement, since the dual narrative can cause pain, imo.

I apologize if my terminology throws you.

Oh no need. I just want to ensure that I understand correctly.

For the dual ontology, the image is 'mind,' and allowably the original (since the 'real' world cannot be known). This is the mindset that invented science, methodical means to investigate the unknown inner workings of a world that lies 'outside the mind.' For the non-dual ontology, mind does not differ from the world. There is only the image, only the original. There is only "just me," which is the world.

Why not 'only the original'? Both 'image' and 'original' confused me in the previous post.

The dual ontological image places truth firmly in the world. It invests in 'objective' meaning 'outside the mind.' This belief creates the divide between mind and the world. The alternative is that there is just the world, the composite image available to each of us.

I offer no proof, just a story.​

Assuming that the dual ontological image, although offering many thrills, ultimately engenders pain, what will be the means for one to 'transform' the mind-set from dual to non dual?

 

[godnotgod]

Not necessary to the narrative.

The narrative is the story about "how" or "why."

You see, what I am referring to is That against which the 'narrative'* occurs. It is 'That' which is the true Reality, the 'narrative' only a story that comes and goes against the unchanging background of Reality. When you are in synch with the background, you are enlightened. When immersed in the 'narrative', you are lost in the state of Identification. So the narrative is that which is out of balance to the perfect background of Reality, and that is why we suffer.

The thing is, you can lose touch with the background and get lost in the narrative, or be awake within the dream but still firmly planted in the background that is Reality. Most of us have lost touch with the background because we have been conditioned by the rational mind to see Reality in terms of a conceptual framework, and not as it actually is.

*Correct me if I am wrong, but I am understanding 'narrative' as the storyline of man about himself, eg: philosophy, religion, myth, metaphysics, legends, epics, history, etc.

 

[godnotgod]

That depends on one's narrative.

It's not necessary to the narrative.

Such a merging of the observer, the observed, and the process of observation is transcendent of the narrative; not dependent upon it. It is the narrative that is dependent upon That with which we are merging with.

 

[Willamena]

I make distinction and judgement, since the dual narrative can cause pain, imo.

Pain isn't absent from the non-dual ontological image. Nothing real is ignored or denied.

Assuming that the dual ontological image, although offering many thrills, ultimately engenders pain, what will be the means for one to 'transform' the mind-set from dual to non dual?

The realization that 'objective' really is nothing more than descriptive of truth.

 

[dfnj]

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

Reality is a giant blob of energy jello vibrating in every direction. Every now and then waves of energy bouncing off of each other vibrate together creating rogue waves that cascade out. Sometimes these rogue waves collide and converge to single point in our brains which creates a single thought inside our heads. Our consciousness IS reality.

 

[Willamena]

You see, what I am referring to is That against which the 'narrative'* occurs. It is 'That' which is the true Reality, the 'narrative' only a story that comes and goes against the unchanging background of Reality. When you are in synch with the background, you are enlightened. When immersed in the 'narrative', you are lost in the state of Identification. So the narrative is that which is out of balance to the perfect background of Reality, and that is why we suffer.

The thing is, you can lose touch with the background and get lost in the narrative, or be awake within the dream but still firmly planted in the background that is Reality. Most of us have lost touch with the background because we have been conditioned by the rational mind to see Reality in terms of a conceptual framework, and not as it actually is.

*Correct me if I am wrong, but I am understanding 'narrative' as the storyline of man about himself, eg: philosophy, religion, myth, metaphysics, legends, epics, history, etc.

I suspect that you are translating the story of the narrative into something Hindu.

It's just me.​

 

[lukethethird]

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

The consciousness with which we perceive it, the rest is woo woo.

 

[godnotgod]

Neither. It is necessarily a step beyond perceiver, perceived, and any tool of perception.

What is making that 'step beyond'?

 

[godnotgod]

I suspect that you are translating the story of the narrative into something Hindu.

It's just me.​

No, not Hindu. I interpret your use of 'narrative' as a universal storyline.

 

[godnotgod]

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.

'Reality is the world', but what knows that to be the case?

 

[godnotgod]

I realised that when we talk of 'consciousness with which we perceive', most people immediately assume that we are talking of electro chemical reactions taking place in brain, since that is the default thought: electro chemical reactions taking place in brain is consciousness through which we perceive things, including the self.

For me consciousness is that which enables knowledge of all things that are directly perceived or known through reports. 'Self' and electrochemical reactions in brain are such known things.

Electro-chemical reactions have a beginning and an evolution. Does consciousness have a beginning? Or is it just present, full-blown?

 

[atanu]

Pain isn't absent from the non-dual ontological image. Nothing real is ignored or denied.

Agreed. But there is no ego person to own the pain.

The realization that 'objective' really is nothing more than descriptive of truth.

Yeah. But how does one get the 'non dual' part? If a mosquito bites me, no else but me gets the itch.

 

[atanu]

Electro-chemical reactions have a beginning and an evolution. Does consciousness have a beginning? Or is it just present, full-blown?

Is there any experience of 'no consciousness'? Nope. Awareness of absence of consciousness of sleep state is awareness itself.

Suppose a person has never seen a cinema screen but has only seen the characters playing on the screen. To such a person, the screen is unimaginable. Only when during the intermission, the movie stops, the person understands "Oh. That is the screen."

Similarly, Vedanta points out the deep sleep state as the fullness of consciousness (parallel to a blank screen without any picture). Understanding this much is sufficient. Deep sleep 'lack of awareness' is 'lack of objects' and not lack of consciousness. The Vedanta idea of consciousness is different from the idea of consciousness prevalent among western philosophers and scientists. To us, consciousness is that which illumines the self and the objects. I think it may be proper to link the following thread here.

Consciousness and Mind according to Vedanta

 

[godnotgod]

Is there any experience of 'no consciousness'? Nope. Awareness of absence of consciousness of sleep state is awareness itself.

Suppose a person has never seen a cinema screen but has only seen the characters playing on the screen. To such a person, the screen is unimaginable. Only when during the intermission, the movie stops, the person understands "Oh. That is the screen."

Similarly, Vedanta points out the deep sleep state as the fullness of consciousness (parallel to a blank screen without any picture). Understanding this much is sufficient. Deep sleep 'lack of awareness' is 'lack of objects' and not lack of consciousness. The Vedanta idea of consciousness is different from the idea of consciousness prevalent among western philosophers and scientists. To us, consciousness is that which illumines the self and the objects. I think it may be proper to link the following thread here.

Consciousness and Mind according to Vedanta

You use the term 'screen'; I am using the term 'background'. I want to know if the screen, or background of the manifested world comes into being, or is it always the case? IOW, is this background, or consciousness, unborn and uncreated? Has anyone ever experienced consciousness having come into existence from a state of non-existence?