Reality Is Not As It Seems

[Still_Waters]

Originally Posted by MikeS80

I think unreal is not the right word to use, because saying something is unreal implies that something does not exist. I am not saying Shankaracharya is wrong, I am saying that maybe Shankaracharya used that as a koan so he knows which of his students got it or not: Since brahman is real and brahman is the universe, the universe is real. What is unreal is people's false beliefs, dogma's and view of the universe and thus view of god/brahman/the eternal tao etc etc. How a person views the universe is how the person views god/brahman/the eternal tao. What makes it illogical is that Shankaracharya does not fill in the blanks for people and I think he did that on purpose.

It makes sense to me that "The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao." means the eternal tao can not be told (correctly/truthfully)when a person has false beliefs and dogma about the eternal tao. I do not think it is a generalization that is saying the eternal tao can't be told at all. The understanding I got from reading about taoism/daoism is the tao is the eternal tao manipulated by people's false beliefs and dogma. The eternal tao is not manipulated by peoples false beliefs and dogma. Taoism/daoism and the non-duality schools/branches of hinduism are pretty much the same concept: The tao is duality and the eternal tao is non-duality.

Shankaracharya's point is clear though one may debate the specific words in the translation.

When I met the Taoist master in Chengdu for a one-on-one, I was with him for three hours in complete and utter silence during which all my questions were answered.

Originally Posted by HITESH SHAH

I see its your birthday . Wish u a very happy birthday . Believe your are already blessed and wish u stays the same as ever by God (our God not your or mine) and you get success in endeavours to be spiritual (in whichever manner/tradition suits you and God collaborates with you ) .

Rest - there can be lot of clarifications & answers. But its time to celebrate the birthday. Discussions and dialogues keep on happening always .

Thank you HITESH SHAH for your birthday wishes.

I look forward to further discussions with you.

[Still_Waters]

Originally Posted by God-Like

I am not sure what you are asking in regards to my post .

I am simply saying that one's foundation of reality must reflect in their premises and their actions .

You have just pulled up JASG on creating a scene and being subjected to personal attacks when his foundation doesn't support the personal aspects .

You get the peeps that speak about things not being real and still grab what they know as a real apple to eat instead of an unreal one .

If nothing was real there would not be the knowing of a real apple being a real apple .

Peeps often who proclaim life is a particular way don't often live by example .

This is why non dualists who say no one is here still buckle under pressure when prompted to pay their taxes .

It's a sham, it's denial . It's saying one thing and doing another .

Non duality or oneness as we both know reflects everything being what you are .

It doesn't mean that no-one is here and the world isn't real .

Non duality has mutated into an awful philosophical mess it seems that cannot be lived, only philosophised ..

Jeff foster is a non dualist who had a complete turnaround when there was integration had .

He used to renounce self and would write books on no-one is here .. until he backtracked on himself and said of course there bloody is lol .

How can I deny this Jeff when Jeff is self evident . Jeff is right here, right now (roughly translated from memory)


x daz x

You wrote, "Non duality has mutated into an awful philosophical mess it seems that cannot be lived, only philosophised."

As soon as one's mouth is open to talk, non-duality is generally lost in the confusion of philosophical words. Then it degenerates into philosophy. Otherwise, it can be lived !

Originally Posted by God-Like

Firstly, Happy birthday if it is ..

Well the world is full of spiritual peeps declaring that life is like this and not like that . There was a thread about a woman on youtube who declares she is the only winner of the matrix game and only she knows the true reality .

Then you get thousands of subscribers paying them money and you get a cult following spreading the word .

In a way it's no different to those that following the sages or any scriptures .

You end up arguing with such peeps that continue to quote texts from their beloved as if it is the ultimate truth .

It's a dangerous game being devoted to peeps when their teachings don't add up .

This is why some good teachers say put the books down and find it out for yourself .

There's nothing wrong with educating yourself if you are a seeker or a novice, but I never did, I realised what I am without the interest of what others say .

I resonate with a few quotes here and there that mirror my own realisations and experiences but that is as far as it goes .



x daz x

Thank you too for the 'happy birthday'. It is my birthday. I am 57 today.

I too could never devote myself to anybody elses words. I have read some people that I very much respect, like Sri Aurobindo, for example, but I could never understand why I should let others' words be such focus.

I read the bible, and while there was a lot of it that sounds helpful, there is also a lot of it that is just straight up trash, IMO. It claims to be the 'Word of God', then claims God created the world. Isn't the world then the true 'Word of God'? I'm pretty sure the Bible was written by a human hand at some point. Why are people reading the bible when they should just open their eyes and look around them, if the world is what God actually created?

But yes I too run into a lot of people who feel quoting out of their beloved religious book actually proves things. It just shows me why religion and mysticism have had thousands of years to straighten mankind out but here we are in such a mess instead. It has not worked. We need a new direction, a new way - starting with people learning to think for themselves, IMO. Sadly, I find that religion and mysticism are not about soul and spirit to many people. Instead they are perverted into implements of power, specifically power over others. This often becomes quickly apparent - especially with the dogged proselytizing. This is the primary issue, IMO, is that so many people are so concerned not with how they live their lives, but with how other people should live their lives.

Anyway, didn't mean to rant on you, but I suppose I resonated with your thoughts there.

Thanks again.

[r6r6]

Uni-V-erse aka Universe aka God aka finite occupied space.

The one {Uni } finite, occupied space, is all connected as one, via Gravity { metaphysical-3 }aka mass-attraction and I speculate is directly associated with positive shaped ( ) geodesic curvature of a torus.

And with my last relevations { Eureka! } moments, I believe I understand that Dark Energy { metaphysical-4 } aka cosmological constant, is the diametric opposite of Gravity ---as negative shaped )( geodesic curvature of torus--, yet intimately associated with Gravitional ( ) Space

1} Metpahyiscal-1 aka spirit-1, is mind/intellect/concepts ex concepts of mind, intellect, concepts, space, Universe, God, footballs, dogs, ego etc

-----------conceptual line-of-demarcation---------------------

2} metaphysical-2, macro-infinite non-occupied space, that, embraces the following,

3} finite occupied space Universe aka God aka;

..........3a} Spirit-2, Observed Time aka physical reality aka fermions and bosons that collectively make molecules, people, planets etc, and directly associated with sine-wave pattern frequencys /\/\/\/\/

...........3b} metaphysical-3 { spirit-3 }, Gravity ( )

............3c} metaphysical-4, { spirit-4 }, Dark Energy )(.

All that are words { concepts }fall into the above primary Cosmic Trinity set. There is no existence that falls outside of this above Cosmic Trinity.

As Bucky Fuller liked to say, start with the most comprehensive whole, and no parts can be left out.

We are one, with many interrelated parts, of a finite, occupied space whole.


( ) Geodesic Space ---outer limit of a each individual torus, that inverts at peak of curvature----

/\/\/ Observed Time ----inside the toroidal tube reality----

)( Geodesic Space ---inner limit of each individual torus that inverts and peak of curvature----


What goes around comes around. What goes in, must come out, again and again and again, eternally.

Originally Posted by Kioma

We need a new direction, a new way - starting with people learning to think for themselves,

Originally Posted by Kioma

I too remember that show quite well. And look how Meat-head turned out!

Yes, I too think though this world is ephemeral, what goes on here is not. In a religious sense, if God is omniscient and knows all, doesn't that then imply in itself that all that happens is forever known? Or does God at some point forget?

If Brahman is real, and Brahman is the universe, then isn't the universe forever Brahman, even after it ceases to exist in a physical sense? Or, does it just 'go away' and Brahman 'resets' and starts all over, a brand new Brahman?

The questions get crazier and crazier, but as God-like says, the foundation has to match the premise, and if you're going to make grand claims about your God, well, be prepared for the consequences.

The questions you ask are ones I have chased my tail around and around on until I decided to stop and rest for a while. I may chase them a bit now and then, but they no longer consume me as they once did. I have made some peace with the mystery and grown to appreciate it more and more. Yes, one should always be ready to explain ones claims if asked to do so, yet often it seems many do not have the curiosity to engage and would rather just dismiss them outright, in which case, why even bother to respond.

I agree that one should never devote themselves to any one else's words, or to their own words for that matter. The Tao that can be spoken of is never the true Tao. Words (including thoughts), are a rather limited and finite tool, yet here we must use them as best we can. It seems to me those who spend their effort trying to devote themselves more and more to one dogma or philosophy are like a person who never explores beyond their small home town, believing it has it right and the rest of the world is messed up and not worth bothering with or getting to know. That is their loss, at least for this life experience.

Brahman, God, Universal Consciousness, Awareness, Oneness, and on and on it goes. All in the end are just words trying their best to eff the ineffable. All are just fingers pointing to something deeper. Yet so many make the mistake of focusing on and devoting their lives to studying the finger. They are convinced that they need to understand the finger not realizing that it is just a pointer showing them a direction in which to look and see those deeper meanings and 'truths' for themselves.

Perhaps reality is never as it seems, or perhaps reality is only what it seems?
IDK, and it becomes just more chasing words around on the tip of my tail.

Originally Posted by ketzer

Brahman, God, Universal Consciousness, Awareness, Oneness, and on and on it goes. All in the end are just words trying their best to eff the ineffable. All are just fingers pointing to something deeper. Yet so many make the mistake of focusing on and devoting their lives to studying the finger. They are convinced that they need to understand the finger not realizing that it is just a pointer showing them a direction in which to look and see those deeper meanings and 'truths' for themselves.

Exactly - and then they demand you worship the finger. They become zealously eager to give you the finger! For some reason it causes a lot of ill will.

Originally Posted by ketzer

I agree that one should never devote themselves to any one else's words, or to their own words for that matter. The Tao that can be spoken of is never the true Tao. Words (including thoughts), are a rather limited and finite tool, yet here we must use them as best we can. It seems to me those who spend their effort trying to devote themselves more and more to one dogma or philosophy are like a person who never explores beyond their small home town, believing it has it right and the rest of the world is messed up and not worth bothering with or getting to know. That is their loss, at least for this life experience.

Yes, and as you say we must also do the best we can. I know what I 'see', I have my understandings - just like everyone else. I have no choice but to proceed as my perception and understanding informs me - but at the same time I know that every conclusion and every judgement is truly a leap of faith. To me, the story in genesis of the knowledge of good and evil is about the presumption that what one perceives and thinks is absolute reality. That, to me, is original sin. It is what separates us, and sustains so much strife.

I keep my signature to remind me of this.

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by ketzer

Perhaps reality is never as it seems, or perhaps reality is only what it seems?
IDK, and it becomes just more chasing words around on the tip of my tail.

Wherever you go, there you are. What you think, feel, believe, and engage with is your reality and that is a real part of the BEING-n-DOING of 'Brahman', d/b/a 'the world'.

My 'conceptualization' in this regard (maybe contemplate it one phrase and sentence at a time if it strikes you as being 'convoluted'):

Every aspect of LIFE (i.e. of BEING-N-DOING) is an emanation of LIFE’s omnipresent ESSENCE (d/b/a Source) that, by virtue of ITs POWER, is endowed with (1) the capacity to be conscious to some degree, which consciousness, or presence of ‘mind’, enables ‘it’ to ex·peer·ience whatever vibrations (occurrences, data-packets, etc.) ‘it’ is therefore capable of perceiving (i.e. registering) and so possibly responding to, and (2) the motive‧ation, or ‘spirit’, to ex·press ‘itself’ by way of causing, (generating, transmitting, propagating, etc.) whatever vibrations (occurrences, data-packets, etc.) ‘it’ is thereby motivated to ‘make’ in response thereto. In full‑zoom perspective, every nodal and multi-nodal feature of LIFE may be ‘seen’ to be a subsidiary soul, or gestalt of Life, which is facultatively imbued with ‘mind’ and ‘spirit’ by, and consequently both experiences and expresses ‘itself’ in relationship to and with other nodes of LIFE ‘in’ the matrixial framework of, a (supranodal!) SOUL, which is the MIND-n-SPIRIT 'constellation' (which many regard and relate to as having personal attributes, though all personal attributes actually derive from IT) of THAT which is All That Is."

[r6r6]

You know nothing but you observe plenty.

Consciousness { awareness } is minimally twoness, observer and observed and both interrelated via at least one line-of-relationship ex gravity.

O O = twoness

--- = line-of-relatioship or via geodesic ( )( )( ) line{s}-of-relationship

And in the most cosmic sense --ex if the above is all that existed-- the above exists within the background of macro-infinite non-occupied space.

So twoness, plus line{s}-of-relationship plus the background { ffferrentiaion } from the other three.

O------O or,

O( )( )( )( )O

Of course the above are just 2D, conceptual symbolisms ---ergo 2ndary symbolism-- to convey and some specific, 3D occupied space existence.

1D is linear ex -------- or as _______________
.....flatline, ergo least effective.....

2D is area and the minimal area is a triangle but we may have the case of quasi-2D as sine-wave pattern /\/\/\/
......intuition, speculation, based on angles of consideration.....

3D is volumetric and the minimal 3D is a tetrahedron
....understanding but not comprehension................

4D is wholistic comprehension i.e. dynamic, animated and involves feeling combined with intelligence * i *

Originally Posted by Kioma

I keep my signature to remind me of this.

Originally Posted by Kioma

Exactly - and then they demand you worship the finger. They become zealously eager to give you the finger! For some reason it causes a lot of ill will.
.......

Hehe, good analogy.

Staying with it, perhaps it is not so much that it causes ill will, but just reflects the ill will that they bring to the encounter. Though a visit to the proctologist may be unpleasant, one understands that it is intended for one's own good health, and so we bear them no ill will. But if the doctor always diagnoses prostate cancer where there is none, and then recommends surgery, perhaps what they really worship is money, and the finger is just a means to an end.

And once again, reality is not what it seemed.