Where is the self? How can dualism stand if it's just a fiction?

Yes, we are expressions of Reality. And I suppose we are "one" (united) by virtue of all our (direct and indirect) relationships or connections, and all our relationships and connections occur by virtue of our unity.

Too bad they didn't write that: "You may be" instead of "you are." It would have made sense if they had.

Exactly! Like I said. You are the product of your own perceptions.

yes

We will start calling you 'doubting Frank'.

Call me anything but late for dinner, Frank.

In any case...you people are being too sure of something that seems to be only conjecture.

Wanna discuss it?

Why didn't you say, instead of "It would have been", it may have been...?

Frank, it is interesting that you insist all valid conclusions are arrived by virtue of "empirical" (i.e., publically accessible) data and/or logical deduction. Do you never feel "certain" about some (privately accessible) interpretations of experience arrived at intuitively?
When Looking4truth and IRFrank agree with my statement about unity it is because they see I have shared their privately grounded perceptions, parallel processes.

I don't understand what you are asking?

I do???

Thanks for telling me that. I didn't realize I did. I'm not even sure I understand what it is I am supposed to be insisting upon.





If I am interpreting what you are asking here correctly, not really.

I was only suggesting--in a weak attempt at humor--that you might have been more consistent if you had applied your compulsive scepticism to you own assertion. We should be rational and not too inconsistent with the findings of the major paradigms of contemporary science. But that is not to endorse Rationalism and Scientism.

If I was too assertive, RL...just insert a "probably" or an "in my opinion."

I just think the comments that were coming when I made my remark were being asserted as fact, rather than speculation.

Do you suggest that they ARE fact, rather than speculation?

I think our differences are a matter of definition. I'm not sure if we should have a discussion on epistemology. How something is proven 'true' is not that simple. All I was saying previously was that I understood what was being said and that I agree with its meaning. I obviously see that your criteria for fact or truth is very specific and demanding. I find no fault with that. Gullible is not a good thing. But, ideas concerning consciousness are not usually physically proven. Consciousness itself is not physical. I do think ideas that are logical and are based upon accepted facts are reasonable to accept. Someone says that 'we' are the object of our experiences and that makes sense to me. Especially after watching the presentation of how the brain works. The brain absorbs our perceptions, hearing, smell, feel, etc. does that not become our consciousness? The brain grows and adds memories and attitudes, does that not come from experiences? You must admit the brain grows and learns. What is the input to that learning? As the video showed, with new technology we are learning, physically, more about how the brain works. This leads to more understanding about what consciousness actually is. Did you watch the video? We all agree that the proposals about god and our place in the universe mentioned at the end were beyond fact. But, in my opinion, they were quite plausible. It is also possible that with more research they may become more than plausible. I also realize that all you were asking for was that 'in my opinion' qualifier. I think the comments were much more than conjecture but short of fact.

Frank...JL and I have been going at it on this issue for a decade now.

He tends to be pretty sure that non-duality prevails...although I have seen him qualify his assertions a bit more of late.

I am not sure of the REALITY.

He is.

If his position is more reasonable to you than mine...fine with me.

Gonna go see a decent production of John/Rice's Aida just now. Will be back tomorrow.

Have fun all.

Did you watch the video?

I don't claim it's more "reasonable" than yours, only that it reflects my experience more than does yours. It's not a product of logical processes.

I do not watch videos in these threads. Was there something in particular that was said...that you suspect would change what I have said...that you would like to share?

I like you, JL...but I seriously doubt this claim.

Let's discuss it...dispassionately.

Here is the question: What is the true nature of REALITY?

I'll even give you my answer first:

I do not know.

For your information, Nagarjuna (a famous intellectual exponent of Buddhist thought) said:



But non-meditators are like non-swimmers. They do not have the experiential equipment to understand such statements. "Emptiness" refers in part to "absence of self" and the sceptic will tend to cling to "self" like a non-swimmer clings to the side of the pool. Hence the "I" in statements like "I don't know" is confined by chains of its own choosing.