UnbornTao

Just a silly joke on my part, nevermind.

Well, the drugs sure aren't touching that sweet nothing! Nor do they increase consciousness. What they do is change one's state of mind.

Ouch, that hurt my sense of self-importance.

Oh no. Don't extrapolate. Just this thread. I also like the entertainment from time to time.

@Someone here The fact of perceiving is hard to deny - you yourself relied on your own experience, treated as absolute, as evidence that you are at the source of the reality you claim does not exist. This doesn't have to imply a self running the show behind the scenes. So what are we talking about? Anyway, I'm not very interested in pursuing these discussions further. They're mostly entertainment, in my view. It seems to me that your relationship to this matter remains abstract, as another form of knowledge. No matter how convinced we may be of notions like no-self, in your lived experience you likely still carry a very solid and consistent sense of "self." The main issue is that we keep talking as if it were something else, but it is your very experience right now - you. Knowing our nature allows us to clearly see that what we are is distinct from one's self. Until then, we'll fail to make that distinction for real, in our lived experience.

@Sugarcoat I see, let's say nothingness is neither of that, it's up for grabs. Sounds good, good luck.

@Someone here

No, I'm just saying that an imposter could be living in your house. You refer to cognition and perception, and drawing conclusions from that is premature. Consider that not-you isn't in your control. But again, figuring things out won't cut it, only an insight. - That's the thing. Perception is what you're dealing with, and these matters go beyond this activity. Observe that you don't perceive yourself, that you can't locate or find the one you are. That's because experience is all you have, and you'll search there.

What you said about consciousness is your contribution, not mine. Speculation and philosophy aren't useful here. In any case, "self" isn't meant as the one you take yourself to be - the little one assumed to be the source of awareness and the recipient of perception. These kinds of exchanges, albeit entertaining at times, exemplify how our approach is too intellectual and superficial to make a real dent in one's experience.

She already said it's something she imagined.

haha

@Husseinisdoingfine Try following @Joshe's advice. The site's performance has been inconsistent for a while now. Give it another try, and make sure your account hasn't exceeded the maximum upload quota.

@Eskilon Oh no, don't make stuff up. This still relates to perception and experience.

Haha, just found it funny.

I see you're pioneering new ways to enjoy suffering. If you did the same but in a more useful direction, you'd have a better time. For instance, imagine you'd be satisfied with the present, meditating and doing mundane chores, working or studying now, despite discomfort, regardless of your experience. To engage with your story - is that really nothingness? It is seen as an absence of sense perceptions as you now know them. We could also imagine that other animals have different sense perceptions than ours; since we don't, there's no problem for us in this domain. Not sure what I'm saying, anyway.

At this point we're likely frustated with the topic and have either drawn a conclusion or moved on to other things. Anyway: If we know that our experience is made of distinctions, then the challenge here is discerning that our experience and concept of these "existential" possibilities - value, mind, language - are not themselves the context; they are still content. We're looking for that which allows us to entertain these distinctions in the first place.

@Princess Arabia For example, a German speaker who doesn't know English would perceive (interpret) this string of text differently from you. Even among English speakers, what they "hear" and interpret when you communicate can sometimes be completely different. And "mom" in this example exists relative to the relationship you have with that person - your friend doesn't see "mom" the same way you do. It may feel like direct contact in the sense that you personally experience the sensations, but perception itself is an indirect process. We hear that a fly perceives an object from many different angles (or something along those lines, I don’t recall), and at times it might relate to the object more effectively than we do with the limited means our sense organs provide, even though we "know" there is really just one object there, appearing only as our perception presents it. Some thoughts.

Solipsism is the philosophy that holds only the self can be known to exist. This is because our shared human experience assumes the self is the source of perception and consciousness. It only seems that way because everything perceived is related to the self as a matter of self-survival to determine its value or threat to us, and we hold that conceptual activity is generated by the self and so self seems essential for all of our experiences. Yet self can't exist without not-self. And even if you see the not-self is experienced by the self, you still have to admit that you don't control objective reality. This begs the question, how can you assume self is all that is, or all that can be known? The truth is way different than this philosophy. Ultimately, there is no self, so that rather destroys the whole solipsism argument, doesn't it? Self is an illusion, it is just a distinction made in experience and is not inherently real. So there you go. -- Your experience is all you have, which is why it's tempting to go there. We already feel existentially lonely as individual selves, and I suspect this gets conflated with and extrapolated into this philosophy, at least by some people. Also, without deeply experiencing the truth of the matter ourselves, Ramana's quote about there being no others will necessarily be misunderstood.

@Someone here Done!

Smoke a toaster! edit: final edit

Do both! It's up to you, really, even if you think that being addicted is out of your hands.

And yet, like Zen, it still runs the risk of turning into just another theory to adopt. In this discussion, a philosophy or worldview is a superficial construction: often highly abstract, consciously adopted, and easily discarded - or simply recognized as such. The foundational kind, however, is the one you are currently unconscious of, even as you operate from it, like fish in water. This hidden framework sets the stage for the more superficial exchange of beliefs that so often occurs. It's based on the entrenched assumption that our perception and experience are accurate reflections of reality, even when, intellectually, we acknowledge that they may not be. In practice, it will likely be resisted and felt as threatening - yet it is probably the most useful direction to pursue, and on that we agree.

@zurew I feel like I'm leaving important things unsaid. And yes, I did avoid directly dealing with your points. I'm focused on where that stance might be coming from, what "world" it originated in. If you mean insight into what reality is, then I'm inclined to say that demands direct consciousness. I suspect the kind of questions you may be thinking of would be based on worlds of assumptions, though that depends on the specific question and what's being investigated. For instance, would we include the nature of language? As foundational as it is in our lives, it's still an invention - it isn't existential. This could apply to more things than we might think. If you include relative things in that category, then those exist as inventions or activity, not as a reality. When you say metaphysics, I think of the existential - the ultimately real, rather than what could be regarded as relative aspects of reality - time, for example. Perhaps your point refers to scientific discovery and having insights into principles or dynamics. That's valid too. However, if it's indirect, what can you know about reality? What can we expect from a network of thoughts adopted as true when it comes to accessing the nature of things? We're dealing with what's "real," which differs from perception or any human activity - even though we engage in activities to become conscious of it. A belief or answer are different from an experience of the reality of something. We use intuition, language, models, equations, theories, frameworks, feelings, hypotheses, and social validation. But consider this: Do you know what you are? What is your self? If not, why adopt a philosophy? You do that precisely because you don't grasp what the self is. Consider Ramana: he simply grasped what's absolutely true. Perhaps realizing that deeply enough provides access to a consciousness that goes beyond the mind, rendering "metaphysical" questions irrelevant. We'd have to do that first to know for sure, though. In any case, what form would that "knowing" take? A concept, belief, perception, answer, feeling, intuition, hypothesis, theory, philosophy, formula, language, equation, model, perspective, framework, or memory? This is the domain I'm discussing. Such frameworks can be useful for many purposes, but when it comes to existence itself, it demands direct realization. You can have a theory, but a theory is not an experience of the truth - it's just a thought. At the risk of oversimplifying: these are all "thought-forms." A thought in itself isn't true - it's an activity, a result of thinking. Although this doesn't change the fact that, in real contemplation, intellect is insignifcant. In the end the method is unimportant, but honest and direct is best, since in reality there isn't a path. Perhaps the best practice is to identify and eliminate every belief and assumption we hold. Powerful and functional beliefs that enhance life can be kept, but they should be recognized as beliefs, and therefore different from truth.

You can quit smoking, too.