|
syncro
Registered: 01/14/15
Posts: 2,696
Last seen: 6 minutes, 42 seconds
|
Re: Why does Reality Exist? [Re: syncro] 1
#28517344 - 10/25/23 03:44 AM (3 months, 2 days ago) |
|
|
Yet material creation has laws - as we need money or sustenance of the physical body in some way which requires attention, in above as below, the ineffable requires attention. Perhaps they are exclusive as they say, Get!
There was an argument with the ex around this, the teacher influence, some, giving urgency to "know thyself", however said. She was saying it is not as up to us as I consider. The surrender is good, but do we surrender? What is effort but to do that? Why are there teachings? Even the Zen people hit you with a stick for no reason.
|
Buster_Brown
L'une


Registered: 09/17/11
Posts: 11,309
Last seen: 1 day, 21 hours
|
|
The simplest answer may be that matter (reality) is created thru interactions of light:
|
Nillion
Nobody

Registered: 04/14/22
Posts: 1,000
Loc: Terra Firma
|
Re: Why does Reality Exist? [Re: syncro] 1
#28517494 - 10/25/23 08:34 AM (3 months, 1 day ago) |
|
|
Quote:
syncro said: as we've referred to often, matter is reduced to nothing but information
That is the premise of the book solarshroomster wrote, I think. However I am not aware of it being a scientific principal or an accepted aspect of physics.
Rather matter is energy taking a specific form. To change this form one must use energy, there is no information that can be changed and then result in a different kind of matter. Particle physics deals with this.
We represent the energy using information, in this case quantum chromodynamics, but quarks are not a language or information or data, nor is there a proposition that I am aware of that claims they are, which, is not a claim rooted in organized religious beliefs about magical deities.
In the Mahabharata there is a section about the meanings of teaching and symbolism, which claims there are layers of understanding. In this there is material about the Trimurti that relates that it is taught as deities, as personas as a device, but that it is not about entities and that there is no Brahama, Shiva or Vishnu, all are different aspects of the same thing, which is not an entity or a God. However it also states that these things are taught in stories of deities for several reasons. Implied is that the ancient work, which was an oral tradition, used story as a mechanism to convey and transmit knowledge about the world across generations. It also says not to worry about explaining this to people because the different levels of understanding are important. Remnants of the Natya Shastra also relate the same basic concepts in regard to the symbolism and levels of understanding dance movements, which I think is interesting. Is it correct? I cannot say. I also, sadly, don't have the section of the Mahabharata memorized where what I mention is discussed so I cannot tell you where to find it. I would suggest reading the whole thing, it is worth it, but that is something else entirely. However it says in the poem/work that it is not literal work but contains the Veda in it. It thus employs numerous literary devices to convey information on several levels. It advised that people understand it largely according to their personalities and knowledge. So it is considered wrong to say that one interpretation is right and another is wrong, they are all, allegedly at least, different levels of truth. This segues to other interesting topics, but is also getting off topic so I will stop addressing this aspect for now. At some point it might be worthwhile to start a thread devoted entirely to the topic of scriptural allegory but I am not inclined to do so and may not participate any time soon if one is started.
Quote:
syncro said: Is the Dao material or is it mind?
It is nameless but can be considered the mother of all things. In this it is not either and it is both.
I don't use the term Daoist myself, but I follow the way. The book closest to me right now, in a literal physical sense and in a religious sense as well, is a specific translation of the Dao. It is, generally speaking, not something I tend to speak of, so to speak since I am writing right now.
Edited by Nillion (10/25/23 08:36 AM)
|
syncro
Registered: 01/14/15
Posts: 2,696
Last seen: 6 minutes, 42 seconds
|
Re: Why does Reality Exist? [Re: Nillion]
#28517619 - 10/25/23 11:04 AM (3 months, 1 day ago) |
|
|
Quote:
In this there is material about the Trimurti that relates that it is taught as deities, as personas as a device, but that it is not about entities and that there is no Brahama, Shiva or Vishnu, all are different aspects of the same thing, which is not an entity or a God.
If there is no entity, then we would be first to go, the human identity. It seems satisfactory. If we hold that we are are that, entity, then I would put a god above it in legitimacy. Just words, just me. If all is consciousness, and from consciousness came conscious creatures, then certainly the gods stand above us, though we only speculate beyond personal experience.
Edited by syncro (10/25/23 11:21 AM)
|
Nillion
Nobody

Registered: 04/14/22
Posts: 1,000
Loc: Terra Firma
|
Re: Why does Reality Exist? [Re: syncro]
#28517665 - 10/25/23 11:51 AM (3 months, 1 day ago) |
|
|
Quote:
syncro said: If there is no entity, then we would be first to go, the human identity. It seems satisfactory. If we hold that we are are that, entity, then I would put a god above it in legitimacy. Just words, just me. If all is consciousness, and from consciousness came conscious creatures, then certainly the gods stand above us, though we only speculate beyond personal experience.
That is certainly an interesting point of view. I can respect it.
|
Nillion
Nobody

Registered: 04/14/22
Posts: 1,000
Loc: Terra Firma
|
|
I don't hold the belief that we are entities, other than in a sense of physics which means something extant having a form, or a body, of some type. Even if the existence is like a numerical value, so the body needs not be physical.
I do maintain that entity is a word or term that has use.
I likewise do not maintain or entertain the belief that all is consciousness, or that conscious creatures came from consciousness, but I believe I covered my beliefs regarding that in previous replies I made in this thread.
I do think, though, that the idea of all arising from consciousness is worth exploring, but like all linear origination concepts that it suffers from the paradox of ultimate origins. As in; what comes before? Much like the issue with the question "why?" one can keep adding "and before that?" to infinity. The linear temporal model of the big bang theory suffers from this paradox no less than any model of origination that can be found in organized religion. Before the big bang was what? Before God was what? Before consciousness was what? etc. Naturally this paradox is an artifact of the linear temporal model but people like to use it to attempt to refute the theories of origination. One model of origination actually has a timeless aspect to it but that is found in general relativity and not in any of the mystical explanations of organized religions. In this there was no origination in a linear sense. My beliefs about this are very close to that found in Dao but are also strongly related to physics, relativity and chemistry as well. They do not entail a claim of origination from consciousness. They do include consciousness originating, but, as a property of cellular biology alone.
God is an interesting term or word as well. It is difficult to discuss because of how versatile it is. If you find 20 people who believe in God you are likely to find 200 definitions of God being used by them, or so it seems. For the sake of conversation it becomes very difficult to discuss because of how fluid and ever-changing the word is in its common use. I am not an atheist but I do believe in any supernatural deities. I am fond of the use of anthropomorphization as a mechanism to convey knowledge through allegory in the scribal and oral traditions of our species.
Edited by Nillion (10/25/23 01:08 PM)
|
spinvis
Stranger

Registered: 09/15/20
Posts: 586
|
Re: Why does Reality Exist? [Re: Nillion] 2
#28517902 - 10/25/23 03:39 PM (3 months, 1 day ago) |
|
|
Jiddu Krishnamurti - Collected Works of J. Krishnamurti, Vol. VI, pp. 134–35;
Quote:
Is God to be found by seeking him out? Can you search after the unknowable? To find, you must know what you are seeking. If you seek to find, what you find will be a self-projection; it will be what you desire, and the creation of desire is not truth. To seek truth is to deny it. Truth has no fixed abode; there is no path, no guide to it, and the word is not truth. Is truth to be found in a particular setting, in a special climate, among certain people? Is it here and not there? Is that one the guide to truth, and not another? Is there a guide at all? When truth is sought, what is found can only come out of ignorance, for the search itself is born of ignorance. You cannot search out reality; you must cease for reality to be.
Garma C.C. Chang - The Practice of Zen - I. The Nature of Zen - Zen Style and Zen Art;
Quote:
Chao Chou asked Nan Chuan, "What is the Tao?” Nan Chuan answered, “The ordinary mind is Tao.” Chao Chou then asked, “How can one approach it?” Nan Chuan replied, “If you want to approach it, you will certainly miss it.” “If you do not approach it, how do you know it is the Tao?” “The Tao is not a matter of knowing, nor a matter of not knowing. To know is a delusory way of thinking, and not to know is a matter of insensibility. If one can realize the Tao unmistakably, [his mind will be like] the great space~vast, void, and clear. How, then, can one regard this as right and that as wrong?"
|
Nillion
Nobody

Registered: 04/14/22
Posts: 1,000
Loc: Terra Firma
|
|
I like those. This is from the translation I mention by John C. H. Wu:
Quote:
Tao can be talked about, but not the Eternal Tao. Names can be named, but not the Eternal Name.
As the origin of heaven-and-earth, it is nameless: As "the Mother" of all things, it is nameable.
So, as ever hidden, we should look at its inner essence: As always manifest, we should look at its outer aspects.
These two flow from the same source, though differently named; And both are called mysteries.
The Mystery of mysteries is the Door of all essence.
This is the only English language translation of it that I follow or accept.
I'll give a brief explanation of why. Here is the second part of chapter 5 of the translation I use:
Quote:
Between Heaven and Earth, There seems to be a Bellows: It is empty, and yet it is inexhaustible; The more it works, the more comes out of it. No amount of words can fathom it: Better look for it within you.
Here is one from a website that claims to explain Tao:
Quote:
Is not the space between Heaven and Earth like a bellows? It is empty, but lacks nothing. The more it moves, the more comes out of it. A multitude of words is tiresome, Unlike remaining centered.
Another from a different website:
Quote:
May not the space between heaven and earth be compared to a bellows? ‘Tis emptied, yet it loses not its power; ‘Tis moved again, and sends forth air the more. Much speech to swift exhaustion lead we see; Your inner being guard, and keep it free.
Another:
Quote:
The space between Heaven and Earth is like a bellows; it is empty, yet has not lost its power. The more it is used, the more it produces; the more you talk of it, the less you comprehend. It is better not to speak of things you do not understand.
Another:
Quote:
How the universe is like a bellows! Empty, yet it gives a supply that never fails; The more it is worked, the more it brings forth. By many words is wit exhausted. Rather, therefore, hold to the core.
I know I should not be sharing this causally but here is the explanation of this using the translation of John C. H. Wu:
Quote:
Between Heaven and Earth, There seems to be a Bellows:
You are the thing that connects heaven to Earth, a human being, feet on the ground, head in the air and inside you, between the ground and your feet are your lungs.
Quote:
It is empty, and yet it is inexhaustible; The more it works, the more comes out of it.
When you breathe you inhale and exhale using the empty space. The more you do this the more the air comes out of you.
Quote:
No amount of words can fathom it: Better look for it within you.
The bellows it is talking about it literally inside you. We call them lungs.
I won't really discuss the Tao much, nor argue about it or explain the chapters, but it is a way rather than a thing. There are actual applications and meanings of the teachings that are precise and specific but they are written in a special way that both conceals their meaning and contains it for those who know and follow the way.
I follow Tao but I don't really like to discuss it. It is not really a thing to discuss.
So regarding Tao being ordinary mind I am sure that made sense to the person in the quote and others who read it but it is not the Tao I know and follow. There is a lot that Zen tradition and Tao have in common. Original mind is part of that. I don't disagree there, but that Tao is a mental state is not something I can accept personally.
Though I could be making this all up and be lying or be totally confused about it and not have any truth to share about these things.
Regarding the quote about truth, I agree with it, but see it as about the truth of the ineffable, not the truth of things like how much a person weighs when they step on a scale. I believe there are limitations to what human beings can know and the more we try to understand them then the further from understanding them we get. A single thought or emotion can be a blinding and distracting thing. Original mind lacks those distractions and is required to follow the way. Focusing on breathing is a widely used method in regards to that. As is the training of the mind and body. The bull needs to be tamed, after all.
Please regard anything I write as nothing more than an opinion. I could be wrong, lying, insane or maybe even a bot, you never know. These are just words on a screen, after all. I share a lot of stuff that I probably shouldn't, for one reason or another. I ask for your forgiveness for this.
Edited by Nillion (10/25/23 05:53 PM)
|
Nillion
Nobody

Registered: 04/14/22
Posts: 1,000
Loc: Terra Firma
|
|
I also apologize for taking things so far off topic. If Solarshroomster desires it I will delete my replies in this thread.
Edited by Nillion (10/25/23 05:52 PM)
|
solarshroomster
Wonderer



Registered: 11/01/13
Posts: 506
Last seen: 3 days, 23 hours
|
Re: Why does Reality Exist? [Re: spinvis] 1
#28518003 - 10/25/23 05:51 PM (3 months, 1 day ago) |
|
|
Nillion - please, you can keep it on here! The process cannot be separated from book cannot be separated from universe.
Yeah, your right spinvis, not knowing may be the "answer". Can you search after the unknowable? Can you know the unknown and ever make it known? What would it be like to perceive the "ineffable"?
Quote:
If there is no entity, then we would be first to go, the human identity. It seems satisfactory. If we hold that we are are that, entity, then I would put a god above it in legitimacy. Just words, just me. If all is consciousness, and from consciousness came conscious creatures, then certainly the gods stand above us, though we only speculate beyond personal experience.
I loved this!
-------------------- Chopin in Eternal Sonata: "I believe that I am somehow being tested. That I am on this journey to come to some realization. And in order to do so, I think I’m supposed to live my life to the fullest, even if it is in this muddled world of dream and reality."
Edited by solarshroomster (10/25/23 05:52 PM)
|
solarshroomster
Wonderer



Registered: 11/01/13
Posts: 506
Last seen: 3 days, 23 hours
|
|
I don't think I forgot. When I took ketamine, it felt like I "broke" the rules of the game. That my life was like a jack-in-the-box, that, once opened, flew out a lot of springs that I thought were aspects of my personal identity. The street I knew as a kid. "The United States of America". "Colors". "People". "Family".
And then what was left, was the real core of Reality and existence. The actual nature of Reality. And it was awesome! It was so cool, because it was Reality behind-the-scripts, as scripter.
"Music was read" "Colors were seen" "Psychical patterns were telepathically transferred"
It was the "ineffable" being seen, only to then be forgotten. What is spiritual amnesia, and why does it exist. This is the thing I can't figure out with entheogens and the mystical journey?
-------------------- Chopin in Eternal Sonata: "I believe that I am somehow being tested. That I am on this journey to come to some realization. And in order to do so, I think I’m supposed to live my life to the fullest, even if it is in this muddled world of dream and reality."
|
BrendanFlock
Stranger


Registered: 06/01/13
Posts: 4,216
Last seen: 2 days, 7 hours
|
Re: Why does Reality Exist? [Re: Nillion] 1
#28518329 - 10/25/23 10:15 PM (3 months, 1 day ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Nillion said:
Quote:
syncro said: as we've referred to often, matter is reduced to nothing but information
That is the premise of the book solarshroomster wrote, I think. However I am not aware of it being a scientific principal or an accepted aspect of physics.
Rather matter is energy taking a specific form. To change this form one must use energy, there is no information that can be changed and then result in a different kind of matter. Particle physics deals with this.
We represent the energy using information, in this case quantum chromodynamics, but quarks are not a language or information or data, nor is there a proposition that I am aware of that claims they are, which, is not a claim rooted in organized religious beliefs about magical deities.
In the Mahabharata there is a section about the meanings of teaching and symbolism, which claims there are layers of understanding. In this there is material about the Trimurti that relates that it is taught as deities, as personas as a device, but that it is not about entities and that there is no Brahama, Shiva or Vishnu, all are different aspects of the same thing, which is not an entity or a God. However it also states that these things are taught in stories of deities for several reasons. Implied is that the ancient work, which was an oral tradition, used story as a mechanism to convey and transmit knowledge about the world across generations. It also says not to worry about explaining this to people because the different levels of understanding are important. Remnants of the Natya Shastra also relate the same basic concepts in regard to the symbolism and levels of understanding dance movements, which I think is interesting. Is it correct? I cannot say. I also, sadly, don't have the section of the Mahabharata memorized where what I mention is discussed so I cannot tell you where to find it. I would suggest reading the whole thing, it is worth it, but that is something else entirely. However it says in the poem/work that it is not literal work but contains the Veda in it. It thus employs numerous literary devices to convey information on several levels. It advised that people understand it largely according to their personalities and knowledge. So it is considered wrong to say that one interpretation is right and another is wrong, they are all, allegedly at least, different levels of truth. This segues to other interesting topics, but is also getting off topic so I will stop addressing this aspect for now. At some point it might be worthwhile to start a thread devoted entirely to the topic of scriptural allegory but I am not inclined to do so and may not participate any time soon if one is started.
Quote:
syncro said: Is the Dao material or is it mind?
It is nameless but can be considered the mother of all things. In this it is not either and it is both.
I don't use the term Daoist myself, but I follow the way. The book closest to me right now, in a literal physical sense and in a religious sense as well, is a specific translation of the Dao. It is, generally speaking, not something I tend to speak of, so to speak since I am writing right now.
The Dao is the law..
It exists as an abstraction from material existence.
|
solarshroomster
Wonderer



Registered: 11/01/13
Posts: 506
Last seen: 3 days, 23 hours
|
|
Quote:
BrendanFlock said:
Quote:
Nillion said:
Quote:
syncro said: as we've referred to often, matter is reduced to nothing but information
That is the premise of the book solarshroomster wrote, I think. However I am not aware of it being a scientific principal or an accepted aspect of physics.
Rather matter is energy taking a specific form. To change this form one must use energy, there is no information that can be changed and then result in a different kind of matter. Particle physics deals with this.
We represent the energy using information, in this case quantum chromodynamics, but quarks are not a language or information or data, nor is there a proposition that I am aware of that claims they are, which, is not a claim rooted in organized religious beliefs about magical deities.
In the Mahabharata there is a section about the meanings of teaching and symbolism, which claims there are layers of understanding. In this there is material about the Trimurti that relates that it is taught as deities, as personas as a device, but that it is not about entities and that there is no Brahama, Shiva or Vishnu, all are different aspects of the same thing, which is not an entity or a God. However it also states that these things are taught in stories of deities for several reasons. Implied is that the ancient work, which was an oral tradition, used story as a mechanism to convey and transmit knowledge about the world across generations. It also says not to worry about explaining this to people because the different levels of understanding are important. Remnants of the Natya Shastra also relate the same basic concepts in regard to the symbolism and levels of understanding dance movements, which I think is interesting. Is it correct? I cannot say. I also, sadly, don't have the section of the Mahabharata memorized where what I mention is discussed so I cannot tell you where to find it. I would suggest reading the whole thing, it is worth it, but that is something else entirely. However it says in the poem/work that it is not literal work but contains the Veda in it. It thus employs numerous literary devices to convey information on several levels. It advised that people understand it largely according to their personalities and knowledge. So it is considered wrong to say that one interpretation is right and another is wrong, they are all, allegedly at least, different levels of truth. This segues to other interesting topics, but is also getting off topic so I will stop addressing this aspect for now. At some point it might be worthwhile to start a thread devoted entirely to the topic of scriptural allegory but I am not inclined to do so and may not participate any time soon if one is started.
Quote:
syncro said: Is the Dao material or is it mind?
It is nameless but can be considered the mother of all things. In this it is not either and it is both.
I don't use the term Daoist myself, but I follow the way. The book closest to me right now, in a literal physical sense and in a religious sense as well, is a specific translation of the Dao. It is, generally speaking, not something I tend to speak of, so to speak since I am writing right now.
The Dao is the law..
It exists as an abstraction from material existence.
Really enjoyed this.
-------------------- Chopin in Eternal Sonata: "I believe that I am somehow being tested. That I am on this journey to come to some realization. And in order to do so, I think I’m supposed to live my life to the fullest, even if it is in this muddled world of dream and reality."
|
syncro
Registered: 01/14/15
Posts: 2,696
Last seen: 6 minutes, 42 seconds
|
|
Quote:
Original mind is part of that. I don't disagree there, but that Tao is a mental state is not something I can accept personally.
Are you saying that Tao is beyond the qualities, as in Advaita, distinguishing obscuration from source? Though ultimately I think it unites them, as a rope mistaken for a snake is only the rope, the camouflage only the chameleon.
Quote:
One model of origination actually has a timeless aspect to it but that is found in general relativity and not in any of the mystical explanations of organized religions.
I thought Buddhism has a nuanced stand on origination - that from Advaita is more familiar. Shankara goes on it a good bit, essentially that consciousness is self effulgent, one without a second. And Tao you said agree with on original mind? I assume you are distinguishing these from organized religion?
I think it's a matter of interpretation and we could dig it out of the Bible, etc. say, just as in that like nothing was before the Father. Whether that is agreeable would depend on how the Father is considered, defined, and what is experienced or our version of what is.
Edited by syncro (10/26/23 03:59 AM)
|
Nillion
Nobody

Registered: 04/14/22
Posts: 1,000
Loc: Terra Firma
|
|
"There is a separate sky for each of us"-Anonymous
|
Buster_Brown
L'une


Registered: 09/17/11
Posts: 11,309
Last seen: 1 day, 21 hours
|
Re: Why does Reality Exist? [Re: Nillion]
#28518566 - 10/26/23 06:52 AM (3 months, 1 day ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Nillion said: "There is a separate sky for each of us"-Anonymous
With separation and deception as natural attributes of an ego we might perceive them at work. If someone doesn't sort their laundry we would perceive the colors seeping into the light.
Edited by Buster_Brown (10/26/23 06:57 AM)
|
BrendanFlock
Stranger


Registered: 06/01/13
Posts: 4,216
Last seen: 2 days, 7 hours
|
|
Doesn't separation actually define things?
|
syncro
Registered: 01/14/15
Posts: 2,696
Last seen: 6 minutes, 42 seconds
|
|
If words we need; can we think of space without words?
|
Nillion
Nobody

Registered: 04/14/22
Posts: 1,000
Loc: Terra Firma
|
Re: Why does Reality Exist? [Re: syncro]
#28519832 - 10/27/23 07:05 AM (3 months, 1 hour ago) |
|
|
Quote:
BrendanFlock said: Doesn't separation actually define things?
In marriage it certainly can redefine things.
Where does the wave end and the ocean begin?
Where is the boundary line between me and the universe to be found?
Are the bacteria in my body a part of me?
|
Buster_Brown
L'une


Registered: 09/17/11
Posts: 11,309
Last seen: 1 day, 21 hours
|
Re: Why does Reality Exist? [Re: Nillion]
#28519837 - 10/27/23 07:21 AM (3 months, 54 minutes ago) |
|
|
It's a paradox; suppress (deny) our animal instincts even if it's ultimately impossible.
|
|