Reality: What is it?

[godnotgod]

ALL views of reality are "reality, itself". Right or wrong makes no difference. They are both "real".
Illusion and delusion are both aspects of reality. They are both equally "real". There is no "unreality".
The reality is that a wrong view is just a wrong view. It's not any less "real" for being wrong.

Reality is 'what is'. And there is no 'what isn't'. 'What isn't' is an inherently illogical tautology.

The FACT that a wrong view exists is a reality, but the wrong view itself is not real. An illusion is a reality, but the content of the illusion is not real. That is why it is called an illusion.

I see water up ahead on a hot desert road and think it to be real. My view is incorrect, but it still exists as an incorrect view. However, that it is really water is not real.

The ordinary conditioned mind sees this materially phenomenal world as real, as determined via perception, and even scientific experimentation. However, upon closer inspection, it is just an appearance, confirmed by spiritual insight and now Quantum physics. The 'reality' of a material world that exists is not real.

You are having a dream that you are a dragon-slayer. Were someone to ask you during your dream if you really are a dragon-slayer, you would answer in the affirmative. However, upon awakening, and asked the same question, you would answer in the negative, that it was 'just a dream'. On the dream level, the dream content is real to you, but on the awakened level, it is ultimately not real, even though the fact that you were having a dream is real. Dreams, by their very nature, are not reality; only the fact of dreaming is real. That you firmly believed that you were a dragon-slayer within the dream is an incorrect view.

 

[godnotgod]

Repeating it does not make it so. "Consciousness" is mindful awareness. Consciousness does not exist apart from mindful awareness. The mind is what is conscious. And awareness defines the state of being conscious. These are not separate ideas; they are logically and functionally integral.

'Mind' does not originally exist in consciousness, just as a cloud does not originally exist in the sky. I am using the word 'mind' as the agent of thought. However, we can be perfectly conscious without having a single thought. Consciousness sees; mind thinks. Thoughts arise and subside, but consciousness is always present. Ocean waves arise and subside, but the formless sea out of which the wave-form emerges is present before and after. Having said that, and contrary to what you are suggesting, mind is not separate from consciousness, though it is distinct from consciousness, just as the ocean wave is not separate in any way from it's source, but is still distinct in that it now exhibits form against the background of the formless sea.

Mind must necessarily be conscious, but consciousness is not necessarily mind.

During meditation especially, one can actually observe mind arising and subsiding in consciousness

 

[atanu]

Repeating it does not make it so. "Consciousness" is mindful awareness. Consciousness does not exist apart from mindful awareness. The mind is what is conscious. And awareness defines the state of being conscious. These are not separate ideas; they are logically and functionally integral.

This concept is source of much confusion. Actually, the eastern understanding is different.

Consciousness is revealed in mind, which is the world comprising thoughts and objects. But when there are no thoughts and objects, as in deep sleep or in samadhi, there is consciousness in its potential state. In deep sleep apparently there is no consciousness. But one knows of the absence of awareness and on waking says "I slept peacefully". Consciousness, according to Hindu understanding, is the power of discernment. When any discernment of object happens, you know of mind. In absence of objects, mind is not manifest and it seems that there is no consciousness. But according to Vedanta, consciousness, the power of discernment has not vanished.

Let us examine it stepwise. Is there a seer/knower of the mindful awareness?

Our senses see the world. Suppose eyes see a flower. Eye is the seer and flower is the seen. The seer and seen are two different things. But the eyes and the visions of the eyes are seen by the mind. In this case, mind is the seer of the eyes, the seen. But again, there is that ineffable seer that sees/knows the modifications of mind: joys, sadnesses, anger, concepts, intuitions......

What is that seer? You know it is real. Yet you cannot see it even as the eyes cannot see themselves. What is that seer? And what is it's nature?

 

[godnotgod]

Well, I belong to a different school. I do not subscribe to 'Sachchidananda'. Osho (Chandra Mohan Jain) was only trying to get 100 Mercs. He was not even a Hindu.
1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack - Wikipedia

Because you have a prejudice against Osho, you have missed the meaning of his message. Would you care to comment on what I quoted from Osho, or have you not understood his words because you are still attached to this doctrine and that doctrine?

 

[godnotgod]

As I said above, mind would automatically convert it into words even without your realizing it; then only you would understand. IMHV

But if mind is no longer coming into play, then one understands via insight, without mind, and therefore, without words. It is for this reason that the Buddha was able to pierce the facade of the phenomenal world and understand that 'all phenomena is empty of inherent self-nature", a seminal statement that reflects the principle of Sunyata. The insight comes first, then the words. As Rumi has said: 'The language of God is Silence; the rest is a poor translation".

'Pure Abstract Intelligence' is just humbug. (I am a staunch Hindu)

Perhaps that is why you are blind to 'Pure Abstract Intelligence'

See, he put it in words.

You have missed the point, which is that his words are simply fingers pointing to the moon. Look at the moon; not the pointing fingers, and then you will see the true color of the tree without words; the true nature of Reality, without descriptors.

 

[PureX]

The FACT that a wrong view exists is a reality, but the wrong view itself is not real.

Why do you insist on maintaining such an incoherent definition? Wrong is just inaccurate. It's not "unreal".

An illusion is a reality, but the content of the illusion is not real. That is why it is called an illusion.

If it has content, it has to be of reality. Again, you're tripping over yourself to maintain this bizarre definition of perceptual inaccuracy as being "unreality".

I see water up ahead on a hot desert road and think it to be real. My view is incorrect, but it still exists as an incorrect view. However, that it is really water is not real.

What we see does not define or determine what is, unless we are a fool.

The ordinary conditioned mind sees this materially phenomenal world as real, as determined via perception, and even scientific experimentation. However, upon closer inspection, it is just an appearance, confirmed by spiritual insight and now Quantum physics. The 'reality' of a material world that exists is not real.

The phenomena of seeing, and of presuming that what we see is "real", are both "real" phenomena. As is the inaccuracy this phenomena generates in our minds.

 

[PureX]

This concept is source of much confusion. Actually, the eastern understanding is different.

Consciousness is revealed in mind, which is the world comprising thoughts and objects. But when there are no thoughts and objects, as in deep sleep or in samadhi, there is consciousness in its potential state. In deep sleep apparently there is no consciousness. But one knows of the absence of awareness and on waking says "I slept peacefully". Consciousness, according to Hindu understanding, is the power of discernment. When any discernment of object happens, you know of mind. In absence of objects, mind is not manifest and it seems that there is no consciousness. But according to Vedanta, consciousness, the power of discernment has not vanished.

The BRAIN is the "latent" mechanism that enables consciousness, not the "mind". It remains able even when it is not conscious. But for it to become conscious, by definition, it must become aware. That's what consciousness is: awareness. And awareness is thought, even prior to it being assembled into words or complex conceptions of "reality".

What is that seer? You know it is real. Yet you cannot see it even as the eyes cannot see themselves. What is that seer? And what is it's nature?

The "seer" is the eye-brain mechanism. As the "hearer" is the ear-brain mechanism. And so on. When these mechanisms are activated, we experience "perception"; which is the mindful awareness of the sensory input they enable. Then our brains compare and contrast these perceptions with other perceptions stored in our memory, to further identify, categorize, and qualify them. We call this act of complex conceptualization and the imagined "reality" it generates, "the mind".

 

[Aupmanyav]

'But if mind is no longer coming into play, then one understands via insight, without mind, and therefore, without words.
Perhaps that is why you are blind to 'Pure Abstract Intelligence'
You have missed the point, which is that his words are simply fingers pointing to the moon. Look at the moon; not the pointing fingers, ..'

Without mind. nothing will register.
There is nothing such as 'Pure Abstract Intelligence'.
Uh, simile repeated 'ad-nausea'. The finger is pointing at hocus-pokus.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Because you have a prejudice against Osho, you have missed the meaning of his message. Would you care to comment on what I quoted from Osho, or have you not understood his words because you are still attached to this doctrine and that doctrine?

I understand Osho very well, better than his father. A debauch criminal, who took advantage of Hindu philosophical words to fool Indians and Americans.

What is experienced can always be put in words. Words exist even in silence. Also exist in silence is vodou, ignorance. Sat-Chit-Ananda is vodou. There is nothing bigger than reason. Leave reason and one wanders in the forest without direction. Revelation is humbug.

 

[atanu]

The BRAIN is the "latent" mechanism

You believe that brain is the seer?

When these mechanisms are activated, we experience "perception";

How does that activation happen?

 

[godnotgod]

Without mind. nothing will register.
There is nothing such as 'Pure Abstract Intelligence'.
Uh, simile repeated 'ad-nausea'. The finger is pointing at hocus-pokus.

Do you agree that Brahman is the 'ground of all Being', which is the general Hindu view?

Without consciousness, there is no mind. Something must already be in place for mind to come into play. Without mind, there is no subject/object split which sees 'this and that'; there is only Pure Consciousness which contains the possibility of all things, just as Quantum physics is now telling us. 'This and that' do not originally exist in Reality; they are merely mental constructs which we have come to see as 'reality'. IOW, there are no such things as 'objects'.

Excuse me, but words are merely symbols which are representative of some phenomena, or, as intended, which point to something beyond the phenomenal world. Both lie beyond words, don't they? Words are just symbols inserted in-between you and Reality itself, creations of the rational mind as an attempt to 'understand' and interpret a world it does not quite understand.

 

[godnotgod]

I understand Osho very well, better than his father. A debauch criminal, who took advantage of Hindu philosophical words to fool Indians and Americans.

What is experienced can always be put in words. Words exist even in silence. Also exist in silence is vodou, ignorance. Sat-Chit-Ananda is vodou. There is nothing bigger than reason. Leave reason and one wanders in the forest without direction. Revelation is humbug.

Please provide just one example in which words can accurately describe experience.

re: 'Reason': Do you suppose that The Universe was reasoned into existence?

You say you 'understand' Osho, then in the very next sentence resort back to an ad hominem attack against him. That is not being very reasonable. I asked you to comment on the CONTENT of Osho's commentary which I posted. Show me where in this commentary he is fooling Indians and Americans.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I believe whatever is in the universe is Brahman itself. If you want a quote, this is from Upanishads. "Sarvam Khalvidam Brahma" (All things here are Brahman).
True. their should be a brain, there should be consciousness (ability to use the brain). That will give rise to mind.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Please provide just one example in which words can accurately describe experience.
re: 'Reason': Do you suppose that The Universe was reasoned into existence?
I asked you to comment on the CONTENT of Osho's commentary which I posted. Show me where in this commentary he is fooling Indians and Americans.

I think, this should be enough on Osho - Rajneesh - Wikipedia
There was none to reason it into existence. But surely, there was a reason for its coming into existence. Perhaps it flits between existence and non-existence. Perhaps it is the nature of things. Quantum Mechanics. Ex nihilo - Wikipedia
It is word salad. It does not deserve a comment.

 

[Craig Sedok]

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

I would say that it is not a question of how you perceive reality, but more a question if you can separate perception from deception.

 

[godnotgod]

I think, this should be enough on Osho - Rajneesh - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajneesh

hmmmm....I guess you're just not understanding what I am saying to you: I don't care about his reputation; I only want to know what your thoughts are on the content of his commentary which I provided.

There was none

to reason it into existence. But surely, there was a reason for its coming into existence.

What? If there was a reason for its coming into existence, then some intelligence had to have been present which reasoned it into existence. But if it was not reasoned into existence, then it is not reason-based. It is non-rationally based. Now, that does NOT mean it is irrational. It simply means that reason was not instrumental in bringing it about. IOW, another kind of knowledge was responsible for it coming into existence. And that is exactly what Osho is trying to tell us: that nature is bigger than Reason, and that, according to Immanuel Kant, Reason has ineluctible limits.

You say that 'surely, there was a reason for its coming into existence', but why is a purpose for its existence a necessity?

Perhaps it flits between existence and non-existence. Perhaps it is the nature of things. Quantum Mechanics. Ex nihilo - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_nihilo

But you said that reason is primary. So what does reason have to do with The Universe existing?

It is word salad. It does not deserve a comment.

Which 'word salad' are you referring to?

 

[godnotgod]

I would say that it is not a question of how you perceive reality, but more a question if you can separate perception from deception.

But perception can be illusory and even delusional. We perceive a 'real' material world via our senses, but the 'material' world may, in fact, be an illusion. Now some Quantum physicists see the particle as not existing at all. That everything is the result of energy fields, 'particles' being 'bumps' in the field. Perhaps we confuse form for things.

 

[Craig Sedok]

But perception can be illusory and even delusional. We perceive a 'real' material world via our senses, but the 'material' world may, in fact, be an illusion. Now some Quantum physicists see the particle as not existing at all. That everything is the result of energy fields, 'particles' being 'bumps' in the field. Perhaps we confuse form for things.

One thing in life I have always perceived that cannot be broken. The three words, base subroutine, work eat sleep. WES and add Jesus the SON. WESSON

 

[godnotgod]

I believe whatever is in the universe is Brahman itself. If you want a quote, this is from Upanishads. "Sarvam Khalvidam Brahma" (All things here are Brahman).

Brahman is referred to by Hindus as 'Pure Consciousness'. Is that so?

True. their should be a brain, there should be consciousness (ability to use the brain). That will give rise to mind.

Is the brain responsible for the existence of consciousness, or is consciousness responsible for the existence of brains?

 

[godnotgod]

One thing in life I have always perceived that cannot be broken. The three words, base subroutine, work eat sleep.

Have you ever asked the question: 'Who is it that is working, eating, and sleeping?', and if you have, what answer did you come up with?