Reality

Originally Posted by Miss Hepburn

Stick the pin into a yogi.

Thank you Miss H. That's just what I was looking for.

I will tell how I understand 'reality', but I think first I shall share what I think is the problem. This will take some time - I hope you can bare with me for the duration.

Our first natural impulse is to accept what we experience as reality. We find ourselves in it, interacting with it, and affecting it in predictably consequential ways. It is there when we go to sleep a night and it is there when we wake up in the morning. It all seems intuitively obvious - right?

But as we go through life we start noticing certain discrepancies. Sometimes we are wrong about what we had totally accepted as real, or we take some action and the results turn out opposite of what we wanted to happen. It's usually something that seemed subtle, but turns out to be very important, such as the feelings of another or an idea we had about something. We find out that our understanding of what is 'real' is not perfect.

If you think about it, it immediately becomes apparent why this is so. Our perceptions, and our understandings of things, simply are not real. For example, when you look at the moon, your thought is "That's the moon." But is it? Or, is that your perception of the moon as sensed by your senses and mentally reconstructed in your mind as a visual and auditory thought? Do you actually have the moon stuffed into your skull, or is it the shadow of an impression as interpreted by your eyes and nerves and mental processes? Imagine how the moon looks to a dog or bird, or a honeybee. I imagine the moon looks quite different to different animals, because their eyes are quite different, their color spectrum sensitivity is quite different, and their priorities and thoughts are quite different. It's a question of perspective as much as perception.

If you think, "I know what the moon is made out of - it's made of cheese" does that mean that the moon is actually made of cheese? Or is that simply your understanding of it? Even if you think, "The moon is made of moon rocks," what does that really mean? It might correlate closer to 'reality' than thinking the moon is made of cheese, but how closely do you think it correlates with the real thing?

Yes, there are pins and there are moons and there are other people, and I think most of us can agree that there is something 'out there' that corresponds to our ideas of those things - but just what are they really?

So, really, we find ourselves in a situation of trying to find better and better estimates of correlation to what is actually out there, as opposed to our inner world of perception, awareness, and understanding, which is in here. This, actually, is what science was devised for and does much better than humanity has historically been able to do.

And just when we feel we have that figured out, then comes spirituality. Spirituality is a revelation, because it is an entirely different perspective from our old ways of perceiving and understanding the world we had before. "I thought I understood what reality was before," we think, "But now I really do understand reality!" But do we? I don't think spirituality so much answers the mystery of reality as it deepens it. Instead, I think this common 'substitution' of one perceptual 'authority' to another reveals a pattern of seeking to define reality as just our perception of it. For every Gandhi or Yogananda who demonstrates great insight and understanding there is also a Jim Jones of Jonestown or Osho who, though also at one time thought of as extremely spiritual, then descended into depravity and madness. Obviously, the 'spiritual perspective' is no guarantee of 'correct' perception either.

So we've asked the question if physicality is 'real', and now we've asked the question if spirituality is 'real' - and I don't even know what real is yet! It seems there is another turn, often overlooked, on the road to reality.

So what is reality? I don't think that's the right question - at least for what I am actually getting at. I think we all can agree there is something 'out there', a field or dimension, through which we all interact and experience some commonality - whatever it is. I think the more immediate question is how do we create the greatest correlation with what is 'in there' in everybody else, which when put that way I think answers itself - through paying attention, through careful observation and discernment, and intelligent analysis of the perceptions and validations one can find - and even then, for me, it all comes down to a perpetual leap of faith. All I can do is my best.

Originally Posted by Kioma

Thank you Miss H. That's just what I was looking for.

I will tell how I understand 'reality', but I think first I shall share what I think is the problem. This will take some time - I hope you can bare with me for the duration.

Our first natural impulse is to accept what we experience as reality. We find ourselves in it, interacting with it, and affecting it in predictably consequential ways. It is there when we go to sleep a night and it is there when we wake up in the morning. It all seems intuitively obvious - right?

But as we go through life we start noticing certain discrepancies. Sometimes we are wrong about what we had totally accepted as real, or we take some action and the results turn out opposite of what we wanted to happen. It's usually something that seemed subtle, but turns out to be very important, such as the feelings of another or an idea we had about something. We find out that our understanding of what is 'real' is not perfect.

If you think about it, it immediately becomes apparent why this is so. Our perceptions, and our understandings of things, simply are not real. For example, when you look at the moon, your thought is "That's the moon." But is it? Or, is that your perception of the moon as sensed by your senses and mentally reconstructed in your mind as a visual and auditory thought? Do you actually have the moon stuffed into your skull, or is it the shadow of an impression as interpreted by your eyes and nerves and mental processes? Imagine how the moon looks to a dog or bird, or a honeybee. I imagine the moon looks quite different to different animals, because their eyes are quite different, their color spectrum sensitivity is quite different, and their priorities and thoughts are quite different. It's a question of perspective as much as perception.

If you think, "I know what the moon is made out of - it's made of cheese" does that mean that the moon is actually made of cheese? Or is that simply your understanding of it? Even if you think, "The moon is made of moon rocks," what does that really mean? It might correlate closer to 'reality' than thinking the moon is made of cheese, but how closely do you think it correlates with the real thing?

Yes, there are pins and there are moons and there are other people, and I think most of us can agree that there is something 'out there' that corresponds to our ideas of those things - but just what are they really?

So, really, we find ourselves in a situation of trying to find better and better estimates of correlation to what is actually out there, as opposed to our inner world of perception, awareness, and understanding, which is in here. This, actually, is what science was devised for and does much better than humanity has historically been able to do.

And just when we feel we have that figured out, then comes spirituality. Spirituality is a revelation, because it is an entirely different perspective from our old ways of perceiving and understanding the world we had before. "I thought I understood what reality was before," we think, "But now I really do understand reality!" But do we? I don't think spirituality so much answers the mystery of reality as it deepens it. Instead, I think this common 'substitution' of one perceptual 'authority' to another reveals a pattern of seeking to define reality as just our perception of it. For every Gandhi or Yogananda who demonstrates great insight and understanding there is also a Jim Jones of Jonestown or Osho who, though also at one time thought of as extremely spiritual, then descended into depravity and madness. Obviously, the 'spiritual perspective' is no guarantee of 'correct' perception either.

So we've asked the question if physicality is 'real', and now we've asked the question if spirituality is 'real' - and I don't even know what real is yet! It seems there is another turn, often overlooked, on the road to reality.

So what is reality? I don't think that's the right question - at least for what I am actually getting at. I think we all can agree there is 'something' 'out there', a field or dimension, through which we all interact and experience some commonality - whatever it is. I think the more immediate question is how do we create the greatest correlation with what is 'in there' in everybody else, which when put that way I think answers itself - through paying attention, through careful observation and discernment, and intelligent analysis of the perceptions and validations one can find - and even then, for me, it all comes down to a perpetual leap of faith. All I can do is my best.

It's like Kant’s Transcendental Idealism. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/k...ntal-idealism/

There's the noumenon (the thing in itself) and the phenomenon (our perception of the thing through sense organs and neural processing, constructing an internal representation. Basically a virtual reality inside our head). I look at something and I see an object. It can be deconstructed down below the level of the ability of my senses to perceive, right down to atoms that are 99.99999999999999% empty, and the 0.00000000000001% that isn't empty is basically electrons and quarks and they are described by quantum mechanics as a probability of observation tied to collapse of the wave function. So what's really there?

How objective is objective reality? LOL! It's just a model of consensus and the fact is we haven't a clue. I haven't even addressed dark matter or dark energy, just the 4% of the universe that's observable across the electromagnetic spectrum.

Or we can talk about something else "fundamental" like electromagnetism. Well, if we run the universe backwards and to a high enough energy level it's discovered electromagnetism and the nuclear weak force are appearances of a more fundamental force, the electroweak force. So again, what's "real" and what's "unreal"? What has inherent existence and what has dependent existence?

[Miss Hepburn]

Originally Posted by Kioma

So we've asked the question if physicality is 'real', and now we've asked the question if spirituality is 'real' -
and I don't even know what real is yet! It seems there is another turn, often overlooked, on the road to reality.

So what is reality? I don't think that's the right question - at least for what I am actually getting at. I think we all can agree there is something 'out there', a field or dimension, through which we all interact and experience some commonality - whatever it is.
I think the more immediate question is how do we create the greatest correlation with what is 'in there' in everybody else, which when put that way I think answers itself - through paying attention, through careful observation and discernment, and intelligent analysis of the perceptions and validations one can find - and even then, for me,
it all comes down to a perpetual leap of faith.
All I can do is my best.

Well, my confused little brother....you have not done your best YET....it's in there, tho.

Of course, I read nothing above what I quoted. Who cares about reasons why we don't exp some things.
Might as well look for your cars keys turning your flashlight off - stupid waste of time.
"Found your keys yet?"
No
"Where are you looking?"
Over here in the dark.
"Did you lose them there?"
No
"Is your flashlight on."
No

.............................................
Forget faith, esp blind faith...Seeing is believing...seeing is knowing -Remember that as you grow up.
Seeing is the start of deep wisdom.
Rem that, too.

How do you see the Unseen - stillness, silence, quiet, calm,
focused intent, open heart, acceptance/allowing...being an empty cup.
(Toss out most of the intellect.)

However,quantum science ---don't toss that ...study it.
If you are 99.99999% empty space ---you tell me what Reality is.
Forget it, it's too much for you're brain at the moment.
(You know I have a VERY dry humor, right?)

-What is real can Never be destroyed.
-Nothing your eyes see when they're open is real.
-Nothing is what it appears to be.

But it's a darn good illusion, eh? Boy, do appearances deceive.
I bet you're the type that thinks the chair you're on is really a chair.
Boy, we have a ways to go.

[Miss Hepburn]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

It's like Kant’s Transcendental Idealism. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/k...ntal-idealism/

There's the noumenon (the thing in itself) and the phenomenon (our perception of the thing through sense organs and neural processing, constructing an internal representation. Basically a virtual reality inside our head). I look at something and I see an object. It can be deconstructed down below the level of the ability of my senses to perceive, right down to atoms that are 99.99999999999999% empty, and the 0.00000000000001% that isn't empty is basically electrons and quarks and they are described by quantum mechanics as a probability of observation tied to collapse of the wave function. So what's really there?

How objective is objective reality? LOL! It's just a model of consensus and the fact is we haven't a clue. I haven't even addressed dark matter or dark energy, just the 4% of the universe that's observable across the electromagnetic spectrum.

Or we can talk about something else "fundamental" like electromagnetism. Well, if we run the universe backwards and to a high enough energy level it's discovered electromagnetism and the nuclear weak force are appearances of a more fundamental force, the electroweak force. So again, what's "real" and what's "unreal"? What has inherent existence and what has dependent existence?

Dumb it down.

[inavalan]

Seth's take on "what is reality":

https://findingseth.com/q/what+is+reality/ --- 1148 results sorted by relevance

"In one context what you call physical reality is a dream, but in a larger context it is a dream that you have created. When you realize that you form it you come into the memory of your whole self.

And when you realize that you form the events of your life in the same way, you will learn to take hold of your entire consciousness in whatever aspect it shows itself in this life. Through all of this you must realize that you are not powerless. Remember, also, that this life is a dimension of experience and reality even if it is, in contrast, a dream in a higher level of reality in which you have your larger consciousness."

—SS Appendix: ESP Class Session: Tuesday, January 5, 1971

Originally Posted by Miss Hepburn

Dumb it down.

In a nutshell physics hasn't a clue what is real. The further down they drill, the more pieces parts they find. However what I take away from it is the surface layer's existence is dependent on the layer beneath and down we go and where we'll stop no one knows. LOL!

It's very much like Advaita in that there's the transient, the temporal. Call it "unreal". Its existence is dependent on the permanent, the infinite. Call it "real". Mind-body is of the prior and Consciousness is the latter (not of, but the One and only).

At least that's my take.

[Molearner]

Originally Posted by inavalan

Seth's take on "what is reality":

https://findingseth.com/q/what+is+reality/ --- 1148 results sorted by relevance

Double talk......that covers all the bases.....the only reality that matters is the reality we trust.....whether perceived or intuited.....this essentially means that multiple realities exist.....

[inavalan]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

In a nutshell physics hasn't a clue what is real. The further down they drill, the more pieces parts they find. However what I take away from it is the surface layer's existence is dependent on the layer beneath and down we go and where we'll stop no one knows. LOL!

It's very much like Advaita in that there's the transient, the temporal. Call it "unreal". Its existence is dependent on the permanent, the infinite. Call it "real". Mind-body is of the prior and Consciousness is the latter (not of, but the One and only).

At least that's my take.

inavalan's highlight

What if it is the other way around? What if everything starts from the current point of power, both in space and time, and propagates in all directions: beneath and above, past and future, with no end in either direction?

[Rah nam]

Originally Posted by Kioma

So what is reality? I don't think that's the right question - at least for what I am actually getting at. I think we all can agree there is something 'out there', a field or dimension, through which we all interact and experience some commonality - whatever it is. I think the more immediate question is how do we create the greatest correlation with what is 'in there' in everybody else, which when put that way I think answers itself - through paying attention, through careful observation and discernment, and intelligent analysis of the perceptions and validations one can find - and even then, for me, it all comes down to a perpetual leap of faith. All I can do is my best.

You come close with your "field".

[Miss Hepburn]

OMG -Exactly ---"In one context what you call physical reality is a dream, but in a larger context it is a dream that you have created.
When you realize that you form it you come into the memory of your whole self.

And when you realize that you form the events of your life in the same way, you will learn to take hold
of your entire consciousness in whatever aspect it shows itself in this life.
Through all of this you must realize that you are not powerless.
Remember, also, that this life is a dimension of experience
and reality even if it is, in contrast, a dream in a higher level of reality in which you have your larger consciousness."