@ThomasMann: the ego exists as an illusion/dream. When in a dream/illusion not many realize they're in it, so until they wake up they believe the illusion/dream is the reality (Matrix 1999 - check the scene between Agent Anderson and Cypher at the restaurant which happens after Cypher is awaken aka removed from the matrix). I fully agree with you, but for some is very hard to understand/grasp this due to...ego. @gorski: I know what I know. @sid_16: again, what you present is simply lack of perspective. How many times I have to give you the example of watching a river from its banks and from a plane/helicopter. The river is the same, the observer's perspective view of the river changes. There's no "time". Just NOW.
Hey Socrate of 2012! do you know how illogical you sound when you say this? Do you know what does fact mean? Can you differentiate between fact and personal experience? A fact is a reality that cannot be logically disputed or rejected, i.e if I say "fire is hot," I don't care how great your reasoning skills are and how logical you're, if you touch fire your skin will burn (and don't give me that "but people can walk on hot coals!" nonsense . There's a difference between the transfer of heat through conduction and training one's body to deal with the agonizing pain of said conduction). Now when I say this, I am not speaking the personal experience, I am speaking a fact. If you say "fire is not hot," you are not lying, you are incorrect. Facts are concrete realities that no amount of reasoning will change. When one acknowledges a fact, they are doing just that. Facts are not discovered, facts are not created, facts are simply an acknowledgement. The degree of despair you show on the hand-wringing over a trivial conundrum is way beyond anything but a normally adjusted personal experiences.
..moderated--- P.S. The "AUM/OM" representation is incorrect in that picture. It can't help you in that form.
The point of this is not the "saying it" or "writing it". The point would be "being it"... but then, who would want that... right?
Isn't it amazing how much "trouble" google can get you into? If you asked me to explain why I feel that Reality is an illusion, I'm not sure that I can. I just feel that way.
The video of Osho is really funny especially the last second when he had to laugh also. I like it and it underlines what I have in mind when posting here...to have fun sharing POVs on the matter, I frequently laugh when reading here and posting and find it sad when one gets personal as if it would be a contest and the first price is access to reality with own personal means. I think basically we are in agreement, anyway my way of expressing is sometimes a bit different. Not to say goal of discussion is to come to an agreement, but to exchange own info about the matter. Actually my profession is science (Organic Chemistry) and the spiritual stuff is a major part in my life also influenced by my travellings through S/E Asia... I agree with your irony on science actually I have the same opinion. Anyway we should not forget science creates a relative reality on the perspective of science itself. Being familiar with it (conform to the reality of science) one can make VALID conclusions which are real where they have their place. (within the limits of human mind) “OK, let us assume there is timelessness.” I used that for the sake of an argument that it always creates an issue when relating from 'time' to it..example deep sleep state where nobody is able to relate to time and a CHANGED perspective after sleep back to a time relating retrospective. That's all. Can there be something outside the human mind at all? If yes where (basic S/O issue) ? Depends on the perspective. Pure dualistic intellectual view by mind. Yes. No object without its contrary. From the perspective of perception without categorizing mind? No answer with categorizing mind /intellect possible since it cannot grasp the present as it IS. I say no due to own meditation also because there is no S/O dualism 'thought'... "“To be more aware than less IS meditation, it is nothing special.” Same reason. No. Meditation first means to break deep conditioned habits. Humans are usually not familiar with focusing on the now, because 'our home' is mostly in the categorizing intellect where thoughts about future and past have their home. From a retrospective meditation has a progress from being less aware to being more aware. The witness who becomes aware of unawareness grows. Yes strictly you either are aware, or you are not. “By doing that since time is relative the process of perception (duration) extends.” Can be only answered "by doing that"... "It appears as the fact that once an hour goes fast once it goes slowly. " This is no believe. Black and white: You either are aware, or you are not. Retrospective: There are 'periods' of awareness of the now and periods of time where one recognizes time as duration. It is only expressible as metaphor: The timeless now is 'perceived as' 'the room of now' where anything happens, time as the changing objects IN this room. Actual knowledge is not about to recognize 'events' which could be more real than others also not to understand them by our limited intellectual mind. (additive process time related). It is about to let the reality be and not become a own. Thereby 'you' is transcended and included into it. An interesting read about the relativity of time "Amondawa tribe lacks abstract idea of time, study says": http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13452711 which I have posted some time ago. @MJ: Maybe you had moments of 'awareness of the now' in your life which are now in the background?!
Yen, just for a laugh, posts of mine, Sid's posts etc. ought not to be removed, whereas Soccy's utterly disrespectful posts full of ignorance and anti-intellectualism were left standing.... Just for a laugh, either restore ours or delete his happy trolling, please... Do you think this is "balanced"?!?
Since I am involved in the discussion I did not moderate except posting a remark. A moderator not involved did moderate...and he did it well IMHO. If you want to judge by statistics 6 posts of socrate have been removed one partially moderated, and 7 of yours have been removed. I just had a look name calling/disrespect have been removed... Where is something left?
Can we have a rational discussion with someone who holds irrational beliefs? Someone who rejects rationality are, of course, free to do so. But s/he loses all right to be taken seriously in a debate. Typically this sort of move is done as a rhetorical gambit when the facts are not on his/her side. Again, typically this move is accompanied by one or another fallacious rhetorical move, such as an appeal to emotion, to strength, to numbers, or simply to some form of obscurantism. When one argues with someone for long enough, it tends to happen that one figures out which the posits are about which one disagrees. Then each of the protagonists can accuse the other of “begging the question” with respect to those posits.That is, unless they wish the argument to go on forever, and continue providing arguments for each of the posits that they hold. But here we find only the accusation no argument/s. Let’s say I’m arguing with someone who doesn’t accept the premise that logic is truth-preserving. There is no way I will not “beg the question” in arguing with such a person, at least by his lights. But that doesn’t mean my argument/s is/are not valid and sound. What one has to say eventually in an argument is that we disagree about the plausibility of a given premise, and if you have no further arguments as to why I should accept that premise, then our argument becomes abusive and needs to be moderated. Here’s again where we distinguish between epistemology and metaphysics, or opinion and truth.
let me interject a perplexing conundrum for you all... to suppose in the first place that the human mind is perfectly capable of, and that it often does, discern the "truths" of our existence and the "truths" of nature as we exist, is to directly imply that the human mind is ontologically something more than just a random occurrence and adaptation of survival through eons of biological evolution. to assert that we can discern absolutes in the universe is to imply the mind is not a product of evolutionary processes but instead one of intelligent design. we cannot in any way assert that any of our rationales, logical deductions, estimations, computations, or accusations as to the ultimate "truth" of reality, whether it is an illusion, fabrication, dream, or ego-driven construction, are the "infallible truth" unless we make the foolish assertion that our minds are infallible--which they obviously are not. then, since our minds are not infallible, it is the more reasonable thing to assume that we can in no way fully comprehend the "truths" of reality and existence in such a way as to dogmatically say that any one thing is "absolute" with regards to any and everything in the universe. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- my degrees are in philosophy and theology so these are subjects that i'm well versed in and ponder on all the time. the above is not necessarily my view on the matter, but it can't be refuted as illogical, and shows the utter absurdity of scientists saying they know anything to be fact.
Oh, sweet, somebody asked: So, I provided - purely factually - the evidence: Btw Yen, aren't you a - chemist? Still standing, but my post, full of obvious evidence - at least for anyone decent and fair - gone... Kill the messenger, why don't you, that will change it all... So, what happened to the rules here? How good a show is this?
OK, let me take a poke... Decent Scientists do not claim "absolute truths", as this would go against the very grain of Science. This would be "scientism" you are substituting for Science. And the critique there is nothing new, ergo...
Science has approaches where scientists 'extrapolate' to the absolute. For example the big bang theory and absolute temperature Kelvin. Also the speed of light (it seems to be un-relatable to an, the same 'additive' velocity vector). It comes always to the same result, no 'space' which means also no time. The question is if the process/evolution of perception also extrapolates (by human 'effort') to an absolute where we have no S/O dualism. This would mean that ones true nature and 'anything' out there are the same...Das Ding an sich so to say...
Yen, you write: “The video of Osho is really funny especially the last second when he had to laugh also. I like it and it underlines what I have in mind when posting here...to have fun sharing POVs on the matter, I frequently laugh when reading here and posting and find it sad when one gets personal as if it would be a contest and the first price is access to reality with own personal means." I have to agree with you on this, I have been aware for a few posts now, that we basically agree on the matter and simply enjoy the banter about it, knowing that words will always be wrong in a way, when they try to express anything about reality. I thought you might like the video, I have been with that man for about 40 years by now, not counting his death…. Which path you follow is of no importance, as long as you are on your path What impressed me though, was your point on science. I rarely find someone who agrees with my skepticism, much less a scientist. So your words have greatly improved my opinion about the members of that profession. (Don't tell them!) I did start off studying physics, because of Feynman, but the maths was too much work, and so I “retired” to my true subjects of philosophy, politics and music, and since that day had the invaluable pleasure of being asked by friend and foe, what I wanted to be when I grow up. Now, at 70, I still answer: I will deal with that, when I get there! All this just to make it clear that there is no need for you, to justify your words… This beautiful planet is the only paradise we will ever live in, and this life is the only one we have, so lets enjoy it. Existence usually takes care of us, if we let it….
Such scientists exist…. can be found either at ‚older generations‘ or at the ‘synthesists’…lol. I can remember controversies with 'absolutists' 'Fachidioten' I had when I was young(er)... Within all this I see a general issue, the overestimation of the (categorizing) intellect/determinism…and the unwillingness to change a perspective (ego), not knowing that a perspective comes always along with restriction. I had the luck to have got talent for Chemistry a gift responsible that an ego on this did not develop, even though I graduated with honors … Nothing to add.
To anyone who believes reality is an illusion: I need you here on the first of the month when the rent is due. If you can convince the landlord that I am paid up for life, I want to have your baby.
This means your ego is played in "The Sims". @gorski: if you take a VERY GOOD look at my posts that you've quoted, I never insulted you or any other participants to our discussion, but some random dead people. But I love how you played "the victim" part. You'd be a great politician. P.S. I "love" how this society trashes geniuses, yet promotes mad men as visionaries. Carl Jung? Neah! He said it right (would have been very wrong to enlighten the people), so let's promote Sigmund Freud instead; Nikola Tesla? Neah! Who needs free and clean energy? So let's promote a greedy thief called Thomas Edison. Polished turd never turns to gold, no matter how hard it's being polished. @sid_16: I proposed you a scientific experiment with verifiable results that can be repeated countless times with the same result, yet you deny it. I wonder why?