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.
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"?
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.
Frank, you DO know (as an experienced phenomenon) the true nature of reality
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.
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.
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.
And the impass continues...
I suspect "the truth" will set you free.
Why not give it a shot?
That's true for both of us.
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?