I am a Buddhist and if anyone wants to question my beliefs then they are welcome to do so...

@JLNobody,

JLNobody wrote:

Interesting post,Vikorr. I remember the enthusiasm for zen shown psychologist like Jung and Fromm in the mid-20th century. Their concerns, like that of psychologists of an earlier era, Wm. James, Gudgieff/Ospensky, were for the potential value for human health of "mysticism"*, of the transcendence with the West's attachment to dualism, the rejection of the metaphysical split between subject and object.

*as far as I can tell this is the core nature of "religion" the unification the "re-connection between the perceiver and the perceived, between the illusory individual (ego) and all else.

But JL...keep in mind that the notion of non-dualism...the supposed illusory nature of ego and all else...

...is nothing more than guesswork about the true nature of REALITY.

It may be completely wrong.

Mostly it is presented using the word "belief" because most non-dualists do not want to acknowledge that it is a guess.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

It's neither guesswork nor belief (even though at the beginning of one's pursuit of direct insight into phenomenological reality the individual will most likely begin with belief or "faith" if you will). If successful, what he or she will come to is best called insight or a shift in perspective. Dualism is a matter of faith or presuppositional belief. Mysticism refers to the loss of it--or what is often called the liberation from it. Notice that it is not a positive belief, when I suggest that one's "mystical" perspective on experience is unitary or non-dualist, I am doing no more than denying that it is dualistic, but that is not to claim anything positive: that would be dualistic, i.e., that non-dualism is (a philosophical) monism. I am talking about experience not advocating a theoretical proposition.
By the way, what do you consider to not be "guesswork"?

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

JLNobody wrote:

It's neither guesswork nor belief (even though at the beginning of one's pursuit of direct insight into phenomenological reality the individual will most likely begin with belief or "faith" if you will). If successful, what he or she will come to is best called insight or a shift in perspective. Dualism is a matter of faith or presuppositional belief. Mysticism refers to the loss of it--or what is often called the liberation from it. Notice that it is not a positive belief, when I suggest that one's "mystical" perspective on experience is unitary or non-dualist, I am doing no more than denying that it is dualistic, but that is not to claim anything positive: that would be dualistic, i.e., that non-dualism is (a philosophical) monism. I am talking about experience not advocating a theoretical proposition.

Non-dualism....IS A BELIEF...which is to say, it is a guess about the true nature of REALITY.

Quote:

By the way, what do you consider to not be "guesswork"?

The FACT that I do not know the true natue of REALITY is not a guess.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank, you DO know (as an experienced phenomenon) the true nature of reality, you just don't know what to say about it that is theoretically unassailable. Your very being is reality, but your (and my) assertions about it are dualistic falsifications of it. Look at it openly and passively (choiceless awareness of whatever arises in consciousness) and you'll enjoy this truth.

2 Replies

@JLNobody,

JLNobody wrote:

Frank, you DO know (as an experienced phenomenon) the true nature of reality, you just don't know what to say about it that is theoretically unassailable. Your very being is reality, but your (and my) assertions about it are dualistic falsifications of it.

My guess is that you have no idea if assertions about it are actually "dualistic falsifications." I certainly don't.

I am beginning to doubt you will every be able to acknowledge that because the guess (belief) is simply too important to you for you to question it.

Quote:

Look at it openly and passively (choiceless awareness of whatever arises in consciousness) and you'll enjoy this truth.

I am looking at it openly and passively. You ought to try doing so yourself.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

O.K., so we have a hopeless impass. Be well.

0 Replies

Okay.

0 Replies

@JLNobody,

Quote:

Frank, you DO know (as an experienced phenomenon) the true nature of reality

What is this true nature that you think Frank knows about reality and how can you be sure that this is not a guess?

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

I AM my experience; experience is not something that happens to me. And when I experience something, like a wall or a sensation I am those things (tat tvam asi/that art thou). Therefore Reality is me, my true nature. Why do we think that "reality" is something that stands behind or beneath our experienced reality, i.e., something that is separate from us? That illusion of separation is what is meant by the illusion of ego.

2 Replies

@JLNobody,

JLNobody wrote:

I AM my experience; experience is not something that happens to me. And when I experience something, like a wall or a sensation I am those things (tat tvam asi/that art thou). Therefore Reality is me, my true nature. Why do we think that "reality" is something that stands behind or beneath our experienced reality, i.e., something that is separate from us? That illusion of separation is what is meant by the illusion of ego.

Why, JL, do you think REALITY is what you sense and experience?

I DO NOT KNOW WHAT REALITY is...and I am acknowledging that I do not know.

You are suggesting that you do know. You are even telling me (and RL)...what it is.

You may be wrong. Your "explanation" IS A GUESS.

The guess may be correct...but it may be wrong.

REALITY may be something totally separate of us...and ego may NOT be an illusion.

Why can you not see that your GUESSES about REALITY may be wrong?

0 Replies

@JLNobody,

Quote:

I AM my experience; experience is not something that happens to me. And when I experience something, like a wall or a sensation I am those things (tattvamasi/that art thou). Therefore Reality is me, my true nature.

I like your view about reality and I think it is a good one. Only you experience your reality even though it may not be a real event that is taking place it is still real to you.

There seems to be many experiences of reality going on around us at the same time such as the experiences that other people and other animals have.

To me reality has a lot to do with our ability to logically string words together "constructing concepts such as "nature" and "reality"

Without this ability we would not even be able to talk about what we think reality is.

Nature
1.
the material world, especially as surrounding humankind and existing independently of human activities.
2.
the natural world as it exists without human beings or civilization.
3.
the elements of the natural world, as mountains, trees, animals, or rivers.
4.
natural scenery.
5.
the universe, with all its phenomena.

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

You note that "Only you expzerience your reality even though it may not be a real event that is taking place it is still real to you." Well put. But I would suggest that it is real to me--even mirages are real mirages--because it IS me.

You also point out that there are many sentient beings having many experiences of reality at the same time. Yes: Reality is both unitary and multiple--a united field of many (so-called "objective") distinct relationships and (so-called "subjective") phenomena. We must not trouble ourselves with the dualistic question of whether It is one or more than one: it is both.
And I agree also that human reality includes our ability to construct abstract representations of what we think reality is. It's what you and I are doing right now. Our thinking now is both a manifestation of Reality and consntructions about Reality.

Thanks for your careful reading of and stimulating responses to my posts.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

JLNobody wrote:

You note that "Only you expzerience your reality even though it may not be a real event that is taking place it is still real to you." Well put. But I would suggest that it is real to me--even mirages are real mirages--because it IS me.

And are you also saying that what is real for you...is the REALITY?

Quote:

You also point out that there are many sentient beings having many experiences of reality at the same time. Yes: Reality is both unitary and multiple--a united field of many (so-called "objective") distinct relationships and (so-called "subjective") phenomena. We must not trouble ourselves with the dualistic question of whether It is one or more than one: it is both.

That was poorly written...and I cannot tell from what you wrote...what you meant.

But if you are saying that REALITY is dualistic, non-dualistic, or both...you are almost certainly simply making guesses about the REALITY.

If not...tell us how you KNOW any of that.

Quote:

And I agree also that human reality includes our ability to construct abstract representations of what we think reality is. It's what you and I are doing right now. Our thinking now is both a manifestation of Reality and consntructions about Reality.

Once again...your impressions or considerations about REALITY...may not be the REALITY. What you term "my reality"...has no meaning. It really is a disguised way of saying, "What I consider to be REALITY."

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

And the impass continues...

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

JLNobody wrote:

And the impass continues...

I suspect "the truth" will set you free.

Why not give it a shot?

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

That's true for both of us.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

I suspect "the truth" will set you free.

Why not give it a shot?

Is this your guess Frank? Why do you think that all of our understandings about the concepts we have constructed have to be guesses? Is it possible that sometimes we may actually know what the concepts we have constructed mean? Shocked

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

JLNobody wrote:

That's true for both of us.

My truth is that I do not know the true nature of REALITY.

What problem do you have with that?

0 Replies

@reasoning logic,

reasoning logic wrote:

Quote:
I suspect "the truth" will set you free.

Why not give it a shot?

Is this your guess Frank?

Yup.

Quote:

Why do you think that all of our understandings about the concepts we have constructed have to be guesses?

For the same reason I think that the assertion of theists that there is a GOD...is a guess and for the same reason I think that the assertion of atheists who assert there are no gods...are guesses.

There is absolutely nothing I see coming that shows the assertions to be anything other than guesses about the REALITY.

Quote:

Is it possible that sometimes we may actually know what the concepts we have constructed mean?

I guess it is possible. What can you provide, for instance, to show that non-duality is the REALITY?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank, if you look intensely and openly at "thought", you may actually see that it is based on dualism, on a structure of opposites ,and if you continue to look you may see that you are one with the world. By "the world" I refer to your experiences of sensations, thoughts, etc....that they are you, not something surrounding "you".
This whole approach of yours, that "reality" is something "out there" and you are something "in here" is what I mean by dualism--Descartes' great disservice to Western culture. Moreoever, non-dualism provides at least an opening into the realization that because you are not separate from "reality," that you have direct access to "it", existentially and phenomenologically if not metaphysically and theoretically, you don't have to make "guesses" about its ontological status. Just enjoy your direct experience of it--it is you; it is your very life.

1 Reply

I am a Buddhist and if anyone wants to question my beliefs then they are welcome to do so...

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know