Ponder this...

[andrew g]

Originally Posted by Gem

Is physical reality the experience of physicality?

Din used the concept of 'physical reality' so I am going with it, but yes, I would say it is the experience of physicality and in the end there is no other kind of experience.



The above expresses thought so I see no reason to 'if'.

You dont, but I do.



All is one kinda negates the individual somewhat, but people do tend to attempt to make everything one, or as we individualize experience (memory) and perceive namable objects (differences), many.

I dont think that 'all is one' negates the individual because the 'all' is acknowledged. I would say that all is one and that we are many of the one.

However individuality is existant in the formative (only by way of comparison) but not in the formless (which is actually a comparison too, but not a definition)... call I and I or whatever.

I think I agree.


The word individual is literal, and the fundamental of it is two is not distinguistable from one, so one may experience duality as truthfully as one experiences onenessness, and there it is quite blatant and obvious in all experience... neither is ultimately true and both occur... so we arrive at all is one which isn't different to saying it's a dual comparison. 'One interaction' is quite the contradiction.

I dont really get what you are saying here, I dont get what you mean by 'truthfully'....do you use the word 'truthfully' where I use the word 'actually'? If so I basically agree because where there is experience happening duality is necessary, the all is as necessary as the one.

We can say the self which experiences that is prior to that experience so is neither one nor dual nor individual thus remains unamed and devoid of quality where being or not being is quite irrelevant as one just simply accepts existence as the experience as it happens to be.

Again, I think I agree.

It is strange that there is no-one thinking there... it only seems to be, as attention is directed upon an object physical or abstract and observes a belief that object is thinking or perhaps that object stops thinking in zen meditation... but actually the attention is directed away from that object and the other objects and the object of belief the former object thinks thus desists entirely paying attention to such objects... or perhaps just focuses attention on a single object (no different to two) and from that initial 'space' not is the only direction for attention... thus we say 'we are really the space' etc etc... but there is no final conclusion one can retain ... so just as duality is not possible to hold nor is oneness... and is and is not have no foundational basis... thus it is said 'just be'... but as all I say is one and individual with equal validity... So we make effort by directing our attention to the woodpile and all the other aspects of experience which in our life must be kept orderly and maintained...

Okay, I really have tried to follow this but Im just not following it, it was a long sentence and I tend to struggle with long sentences. Can you run it by me again in a slightly different way?

[athribiristan]

Originally Posted by Gem

Is physical reality the experience of physicality?



The above expresses thought so I see no reason to 'if'.



All is one kinda negates the individual somewhat, but people do tend to attempt to make everything one, or as we individualize experience (memory) and perceive namable objects (differences), many.

What's missing to make the argument make sense is the concept of duality. We are individuals, and we are one. We are both at the same time.

However individuality is existant in the formative (only by way of comparison) but not in the formless (which is actually a comparison too, but not a definition)... call I and I or whatever.

The word individual is literal, and the fundamental of it is two is not distinguistable from one, so one may experience duality as truthfully as one experiences onenessness, and there it is quite blatant and obvious in all experience... neither is ultimately true and both occur... so we arrive at all is one which isn't different to saying it's a dual comparison. 'One interaction' is quite the contradiction.

We can say the self which experiences that is prior to that experience so is neither one nor dual nor individual thus remains unamed and devoid of quality where being or not being is quite irrelevant as one just simply accepts existence as the experience as it happens to be.

It is strange that there is no-one thinking there... it only seems to be, as attention is directed upon an object physical or abstract and observes a belief that object is thinking or perhaps that object stops thinking in zen meditation... but actually the attention is directed away from that object and the other objects and the object of belief the former object thinks thus desists entirely paying attention to such objects... or perhaps just focuses attention on a single object (no different to two) and from that initial 'space' not is the only direction for attention... thus we say 'we are really the space' etc etc... but there is no final conclusion one can retain ... so just as duality is not possible to hold nor is oneness... and is and is not have no foundational basis... thus it is said 'just be'... but as all I say is one and individual with equal validity... So we make effort by directing our attention to the woodpile and all the other aspects of experience which in our life must be kept orderly and maintained...

Study the yin/yang concept of duality to help shed some light on this.

[Internal Queries]

Originally Posted by Gem

Indeed it is entirely meaningless and doesn't matter one iota, and as the ponderance is the flow on inane conjecture so to are conclusions drawn.

Fact is... one might have knowledge (ie experience) of the thought which is formless but imagines this is 'what we really are' calls it the 'I thought' or 'the aware space' thus has a incredible resistance to recognizing the thought is the space or vice versa.

What witnesses the apple also witnesses the thought, be it a space, imaginary, or falling on Newton's head, so all these three have no inherant difference but are experienced differently... all can be collectively be called experience.

What does experience... the intelligence which cognizes... it might be awake and walking or perhaps it dreams at night or enters emptiness of zen or falls into deep sleep. It just remains as experience comes and goes.

Like you are before your life and during your life and after your life, and none of it matters so much as it is impermanant, temporal, changing, coming and going while behind it all is the consciousness which is fast asleep or observing the space/dream/solid thingy.

Concluding by sayiing ... to be pragmatic is to smile... it makes you look more beautiful. That is sensible.

LOL so threads like this one are just exercise wheels in the hamster cage. **squeak squeak squeak**

smiling pragmatically.

Originally Posted by andrew g

What is interesting here is that first you suggest there is no physical reality (i.e. that it is just a thought) and then in the next sentence you acknowledge a physical reality.

i really don't see a problem with this

i'm not on the boards to sound consistent to you

i'm here to talk about the truth the way i see it

If there is such thing as 'thought' then I would say that thought is part of the physical reality.

thinking a thought perpetuates the reality of the thought being identified with...

there's no right or wrong here,

i'm not putting down your ideas

i'm just saying that all your ideas

and mine are just that, just ideas


It makes no sense to me to acknowledge the actuality of thought (which you are happy to do) and then deny the actuality of a physical reality in which thought manifests.

personally, i'm not interested in making sense any more

making sense is just what the ego clings to

I see why you do it....you are trying to actually become the aware space. Its a futile effort though because you are both finite and infinite, unlimited potential and limited potential, human and spirit. You cannot escape the individuality of your perception and experience.

you are totally projecting here

Ponder this din.....when you go to a grocery store, why dont you just take what you want without paying? Why dont you take what you want from others? What is stopping you from taking from little old ladies? Is it just the law of the land? Or on some level do you actually have some respect for individuality? Do you recognize on some level that all is one and therefore hurting another is hurting yourself?

this is NOT about doing anything andrew

it's about what you already are

about Beingness itself

it's about living as THAT

especially since there is only THAT

Gem wrote:

Din used the concept of 'physical reality' so I am going with it, but yes, I would say it is the experience of physicality and in the end there is no other kind of experience.

I would have to disagree with this

there is definitely the experience of physicality, we all are intimately acquainted with this

but when we truly open our minds

we realize there is another, more real, more subtle reality

the reality of MIND (consciousness) itself

from a course in miracles

"Nothing real can be threatened,

Nothing unreal exists,

Therein lies the peace of God"

Originally Posted by din

I would have to disagree with this

there is definitely the experience of physicality, we all are intimately acquainted with this

but when we truly open our minds

we realize there is another, more real, more subtle reality

the reality of MIND (consciousness) itself

from a course in miracles

"Nothing real can be threatened,

Nothing unreal exists,

Therein lies the peace of God"

am I appearing in the world?

or

is the world appearing in me???

[Internal Queries]

"Nothing real can be threatened,"

i suppose it's fortunate that our ancestors didn't have this view of reality or none of us would be here.

(what's that sound? **squeak squeak squeak**)

[andrew g]

Originally Posted by din

What is interesting here is that first you suggest there is no physical reality (i.e. that it is just a thought) and then in the next sentence you acknowledge a physical reality.

i really don't see a problem with this

i'm not on the boards to sound consistent to you

i'm here to talk about the truth the way i see it

If there is such thing as 'thought' then I would say that thought is part of the physical reality.

thinking a thought perpetuates the reality of the thought being identified with...

there's no right or wrong here,

i'm not putting down your ideas

i'm just saying that all your ideas

and mine are just that, just ideas


It makes no sense to me to acknowledge the actuality of thought (which you are happy to do) and then deny the actuality of a physical reality in which thought manifests.

personally, i'm not interested in making sense any more

making sense is just what the ego clings to

I see why you do it....you are trying to actually become the aware space. Its a futile effort though because you are both finite and infinite, unlimited potential and limited potential, human and spirit. You cannot escape the individuality of your perception and experience.

you are totally projecting here

Ponder this din.....when you go to a grocery store, why dont you just take what you want without paying? Why dont you take what you want from others? What is stopping you from taking from little old ladies? Is it just the law of the land? Or on some level do you actually have some respect for individuality? Do you recognize on some level that all is one and therefore hurting another is hurting yourself?




this is NOT about doing anything andrew

it's about what you already are

about Beingness itself

it's about living as THAT

especially since there is only THAT

Im not saying you are on the forum to sound consistent and I dont have an issue with contradiction or paradox at all, but what you tend to illustrate to me is confusion (thats your cue to fall back on the projecting defense).

Neither do I have an issue if you want to suggest that physical reality is illusory, but to suggest that thought is real and that physical reality is not makes no sense.

Over and over again you tell me (and others) that ideas are just ideas, but ideas are not separate from reality. In holding yourself separate from ideas you hold yourself in separation. Furthermore you cant live as Beingness because you are not just Beingness, you are Beingness AND not-Beingness, you are the absolute AND the relative, the formless AND the form, the Creator AND the Created.

Thats why you dont take from little old ladies din. There is a recognition at a deep level that you are part of a physical reality, and because we are all the same at an absolute level, to hurt another is to hurt yourself. There is a deep recognition of both oneness and individuation.

[andrew g]

Originally Posted by din

excellent quote,

thanks a lot

the course in miracles also talks about two types of thought

egoic, self centered thought

and

thought coming from recognition of being the light of the world

Right. So would you agree that different types of thought arise in different individual consciousness's? Or are you still saying that thought is all that is real (along with the 'aware space')?

[andrew g]

Originally Posted by din

I would have to disagree with this

there is definitely the experience of physicality, we all are intimately acquainted with this

but when we truly open our minds

we realize there is another, more real, more subtle reality

the reality of MIND (consciousness) itself

from a course in miracles

"Nothing real can be threatened,

Nothing unreal exists,

Therein lies the peace of God"

The reality of Mind (or perhaps we could also call it 'love') can only be experienced in a physical reality. Without a physical reality there would be no experiencing at all.

Notice the word 'unreal', its an interesting choice of word. I would tend to say 'non-real' but I can go with 'unreal'. The word still implies there is a reality to experience, and all realities are physical because experiencing is a physical thing (though we could perhaps say that the higher dimensions are non-physical)