• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Vibroverse

  1. "He said, 'the human being is like a wise fisher who cast a net into the sea and drew it up from the sea full of little fish. among them he found a fine large fish and cast all the little fish back down into the sea, easily choosing the large fish. anyone who has ears to hear should hear!" 

    Jesus, from the Gospel of Thomas 


  2. 45 minutes ago, Someone here said:

    Who told you that reality comes to you through the senses or through mind (whatever that means )? That's a false assumption.  Reality is 100% direct .

    Of course reality is consciousness. But consciousness is not perception. There is a big difference. Perception implies subject-object relationship. While consciousness =being .

    reality is not the result of sensory perception. ‘Our senses’ as well as ‘our minds’ appear in reality, not reality in them. That which is constantly on the move, changing all the time, dependent on other things cannot be real [e.g., there are no senses without the air you breath, which is ignored as something trivial, attributing to the senses that which in fact is just one link in the causal chain, but not the cause].

    To know reality, you must start with the knower.fiind the nature of the knower by questioning that which you learned from others about what you are, on top of which you added your own ideas. Identify all the false ideas and remove them; here’s where logic and reason complete their job. When you know the knower, you will know reality. This kind of knowledge is unique, unlike the worldly knowledge of phenomena. You know reality directly, by being, not with the help of the mind as an intermediary. The mind has no access to reality; all it can do is to identify the false and discard it. Reality will then shine fort, self evident.


    Cool, then I think you've found your answer. 


  3. 35 minutes ago, Someone here said:

     But you are also philosophizing so you are not escaping this problem.

    I still stand by my conviction..Believing in something CAN NOT make it a reality any more than giving an inanimate object a name can give it sentience. However, the things you believe DO influence the way you perceive the world. And the way you perceive the world has a huge influence over which parts of reality you’re attentive to vs which parts you ignore. Ie, if you believe that something is real (or possible) you are much more likely to observe evidence about it in reality.

    Eg. If you believe that Santa is real/possible you will notice things in reality that support (or disprove) your belief; sleigh bells ringing on Christmas Eve, mysterious presents around the Christmas tree, those mysterious presents disappearing when you move out of your parents home

    Well, my experience is that reality is consciousness. However, the question is can I even trust my experience? Can you even trust your memories for instance that tells you that there has always been such a thing as gravity, or can you just say that there is something like gravity for now, in this moment, and that it is the only thing you can be certain about? 

    Well, then can you even be certain about your current experience, maybe you're in a dream right now, or something like that, yeah? Therefore what I'm saying is there is such a thing as experience, or to say it even better, there is such a thing as a mode of experientiality that you are experiencing. 

    You probably won't just jump off of a building saying that "oh I'm not sure if gravity is real anyways", because on the practical level of being, at least, we are living based on our intuitions, and we, at least on a pragmatic level, take our memories, and knowledges of the world, like remembering that there has been such a thing as gravity all along, to be trustable. 

    And therefore, in that sense, we are always trusting something to be true, because you, intuitively, feel like a certain mode of thinking and being, etc, will be the most beneficial for you from where you are. And by my experience, I "know" that reality is consciousness, and my intuition is the true source of knowledge, or at least the knowledge that is most "accurate" and relevant for me. 

    And, yeah, it is true that at the ultimate level even consciousness is an illusion, maybe it is not even consciousness that is the source of being. Maybe what reality is and how reality works, in that sense, will never be known, for every explanation will be another story. But that would be an absolute chaos then where you are an absolute skeptic, so you'll, perhaps, go and pee on your carpet instead of the toilet, for you cannot even trust your senses. 

    Or, when you get into your car, you will steer the wheel to the right when you are actually wanting to go to the left, because how can you even be sure whether causality exists or not, or whether your senses and mind are fooling you or not? So, look, you are here and now, found yourself in the world, with endless people with endless opinions about what reality is, all of whom claiming that their explanation is the best explanation. 

    So, what will you do, who will you trust about what reality actually is? And I won't say trust your own intelligence, because you very well know that your intelligence also is fooling you. I mean, sometimes you think something makes sense, and a few days later you say "oh I was just bullshitting". So you cannot even trust your own mind, what will you do about that? 

    These are, in my humble opinion, the important questions to answer, first and foremost. Because if you cannot be clear about these things, who cares if reality is consciousness or whatever crap? Whether it is consciousness, or not, or whatever shit, whatever story we might be telling, whatever "truth" we might be explaining, if you've not become one with yourself, or whatever you call it, then it is all just blah blah blah. 


  4. 30 minutes ago, Someone here said:

    I disagree.  What about the laws of physics? Are they real or just figment of our collective imagination?  What keeps the sun rising everday is the rotation of the earth around its axis.  If I stopped believing the earth will keep rotating around its axis that won't make it happen. 

    reality is not a matter of belief. Beliefs do not create reality as it is. Sometimes beliefs don’t even reflect reality. For instance, many religious beliefs are basically founded on pure wishful thinking. Such sectarian beliefs have certainly created a reality for millions if not billions of people. The same goes for so-called scientific beliefs like evolution and abiogenesis.

    Laws of physics are consciousness, they are the patterns of consciousness, and when I say "belief", I'm talking about a very deep level of your psyche, not like when people say "I believe this, I believe that". But you cannot understand this by mere thinking, because your mind will take you anywhere and convince you about anything that, it requires the experiential understanding of what I'm saying. So, philosophizing, in that sense, will help you just to an extent, but after that point you need to think about what thinking itself is, and, maybe, that can help you. 


  5. 3 hours ago, Someone here said:

    So if I stopped believing that the sun will rise up won't? 

    Yeah, but it is a very very very deep seated belief that you, highly highly probably, won't be able to stop believing it, so far so that it will appear to you to be something that is just outside of you, just something that is "objectively" true. 


  6. It is not the same with everything in life, for instance when you are thirsty, you wanna drink water, and you go drink it. You don't need to stop wanting to drink water to be able to drink it. You know, if we are talking about if everything is the same, then clearly not everything is the same. But what you said might work about things about which you have doubts and worries, you see. The key is the absence of resistance, really. 


  7. 14 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

    It's okay to stop believing in the idea of God that is imposed on us from a young age. Now, if you are interested, you can research and read about spirituality until you know the subject in some depth. religions, non-duality, etc, and begin to get an idea of what god is supposed to be, and how some throughout history have come to realize god directly. and lastly, you might have the inclination to do that yourself. the inescapable need to see the truth, to understand what you are, to get to the bottom of reality. but that is not done to satisfy your family, it is done for oneself 

    If you are Muslim, you could start with ibn Arabi, a Sufi mistic, a man really deep and clever 


    Yep. And in addition to Ibn Arabi, you may also wanna study Rumi, Suhrawardi and Mulla Sadra, they are pretty, relatively, awakened beings. 


  8. 2 hours ago, Ulax said:

    @Vibroverse I think I get you, and I agree from a certain point of view.

    However, I was talking about epistemology in a more intellectual sense.

    Well, I can say complicated intellectual things about that also, but won't it all come down to consciousness at the ultimate level? All the concepts will be known by your consciousness and justified, or not, at the ultimate level by your consciousness. Anyways though, yeah, there are many mind games to be played, I understand. 


  9. 2 minutes ago, Someone here said:

    This is a cycle version of the liar paradox. There is no easy way to answer it, something which has been known for over two thousand years. If the first statement is true, so is the second statement, so the first is false, which is a contradiction. If the first statement is false, so is the second statement, so the first is true, which is a contradiction.

    Its self contradiction . Therefore it's meaningless .

    "This statement is false", it is clear that there is actually no statement being said. The "This . . ." part of the text perhaps enables the text to reference itself, but assuming this self-reference, the ". . . statement . . . " part misascribed this text as being a statement. There is no description or claim about the world being made (even about this bit of text), and so the text does not qualify as being a statement. If, on the other hand, the text had read "This text is not a statement" (assuming once more successful self-reference), then the claim would be a linguistic one that is in fact true, and there is nothing paradoxical happening here. But "This statement is false" is not a statement, as has been shown.

    To be honest, you're just running away from the question, consciously or unconsciously, but maybe what you're doing is good, maybe I should do that also, haha.