Martin Ball says physical reality is real

[Jodistrict]

53 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

That is no different than Vedanta.

This is a big difference in actual practice.  For example, Vedanta (and Buddhism) are both body negative.  In Buddhism there are meditations to contemplate how disgusting the body is.  Tantra is body positive, everything about the body is divine.

[Leo Gura]

13 minutes ago, Jodistrict said:

In Buddhism there are meditations to contemplate how disgusting the body is.

Well, that's just corruption.

[cetus]

They say, "There is no mirror to polish." But when was the last time you saw a dirty looking Buddhist monk that needed a shave?

Edited 12 hours ago by cetus

[Leo Gura]

58 minutes ago, aurum said:

The podcast hosts actually seem to have a better intuition here than Martin.

They correctly pushed back when he tried to ground his distinction in "consistency".

Martin was really grasping at straws, haha 

Reality cannot be grounded in anything. Nothing can ground the real/unreal distinction.

There cannot be a difference between the real and the unreal.

Edited 12 hours ago by Leo Gura

[OBEler]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

They can. But the underlying Reality is non-physical since to call it physical requires differentiating it.

The highest Truth is undifferiated because it needs to be Infinite.

Infinity creates the physical, which means Infinity cannot be physical. That's why the physical is a hallucination.

The physical and non-physical are not symetrical. The non-physical is more fundamental and true. The non-physical must be more Real than the physical.

ChatGPT goes deep now:

But this seems to undermine your previous argument.

You explicitly stated that the non-physical is "more Real" than the physical, and that the physical is a hallucination.

Now you're claiming that there can be no ultimate distinction between the real and the unreal.

If that distinction ultimately collapses, what exactly does "more Real" mean? What ontological criterion allows you to privilege the non-physical over the physical?

If Reality cannot be grounded in anything, then you also cannot establish the non-physical as its privileged ground without explaining what you mean by grounding.

And if all distinctions ultimately dissolve into Infinity, then the distinction between hallucination and genuine reality must dissolve as well.

You seem to be switching between two positions:

At the absolute level, no distinctions are ultimately valid.

At the ontological level, some distinctions are absolutely decisive, particularly the superiority of the non-physical over the physical.

These positions can potentially be reconciled through a distinction between relative and absolute truth. But then you need to specify which level you're speaking at and explain why your ontological hierarchy is justified at that level.

If the distinction between real and unreal ultimately collapses, how can you consistently claim that the physical is less real than the non-physical?

Without that clarification, your argument appears to use distinctions when they support your conclusion and dismiss them when they challenge it.

Edited 12 hours ago by OBEler

[Terell Kirby]

19 minutes ago, OBEler said:

ChatGPT goes deep now:

Are we seriously outsourcing understanding Reality and God to ChatGPT? Goodness ..

[Leo Gura]

@OBEler I am not going to keep debating your AI.

[Natasha Tori Maru]

I don't know about Martin Ball. I might watch.

Has he recognised emptiness? That distinctions don't exist independently or intrinsically. All constructed from his mind in infinite variations as a unity. Absolutely empty, and full etc. 

I suppose if you get this wrong the rest will be all fucked up.

[Joshe]

1 hour ago, OBEler said:

If that distinction ultimately collapses, what exactly does "more Real" mean? What ontological criterion allows you to privilege the non-physical over the physical?

This is actually a good question. @Leo Gura Could you please answer? 

[Leo Gura]

@Joshe The physical is finite. The non-physical is Infinite. Infinity is non-physical because it has no category at all.

Physical is a finite thing.

Non-physical is not.

The non-physical creates the physical.

There's ultimately no difference between physical and not. That difference is imaginary.

Don't think of non-physical as a category, think of it as no category.

Edited 8 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Wilhelm44]

7 hours ago, Jodistrict said:

You do not escape the dream

I don't think there are any spiritual traditions which imply that you escape the dream by waking up.

[Wilhelm44]

14 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Just? You created the universe. That's not "just".

I meant that with regards to what you said about everything vanishing when we die.

It seems hard to believe that all of these marvels were created for 'just' one lifetime's dream.

My intuition says there is continuity of this dream after we die.

Like there's a blueprint for the universe that continues without my body.

Edited 4 hours ago by Wilhelm44

[Wilhelm44]

15 hours ago, JoshB said:

When I realized God for the first time i ceased to imagine my body and the entire dream.

I have heard this from a number of people that upon God realization the whole universe vanishes.

However this is not proof that the whole universe will vanish when the body dies.

[Joseph Maynor]

@Leo Gura  I think you are an INTJ not an INTP.  

[Someone here]

 

[Joseph Maynor]

5 minutes ago, Someone here said:

 

I see your conclusion that there is no creation.  

[Someone here]

4 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

I see your conclusion that there is no creation.  

Sorry that was a separate insight which I should’ve posted separately. It’s unrelated to the point about the distinction between real and illusory , which is what people are discussing here.

edit:  btw I meant there is no “creation “ as a verb , not a noun .

Edited 3 hours ago by Someone here

[Joseph Maynor]

2 minutes ago, Someone here said:

Sorry that was a separate insight which I should’ve posted separately. It’s unrelated to the point about the distinction between real and illusory , which is what people are discussing here.

edit:  btw I meant there is no “creation “ as a verb , not a noun .

I'm interested in what you think about this:

There is no qualitative difference between imagination and actuality.

[Someone here]

8 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

I'm interested in what you think about this:

There is no qualitative difference between imagination and actuality.

Reality must always be real , as the very word itself suggests . There is no such thing as an unreal reality . If physical objective reality exists as such , then that’s what’s real . If , according to Vedanta , there is nothing more to reality than there is to a dream , just an imaginary world in consciousness, then that is what is real .  So whatever the nature of reality is ontologically , it is always real , never an illusion  . But of course you can apply some nuance and say that there are degrees of realness . A hallucination induced by a drug or a mental disorder is NOT at the same level of “realness “ as an actual physical concrete wall .

Edited 3 hours ago by Someone here

[Joseph Maynor]

2 minutes ago, Someone here said:

Reality must always be real , as the very word itself suggests . There is no such thing as an unreal reality . If physical objective reality exists as such , then that’s what’s real . If , according to Vedanta , there is nothing more to reality than there is to a dream , just an imaginary world in consciousness, then that is what is real .  So whatever the nature of reality is ontologically , it is always real , never an illusion  . But of course you can apply some nuance and say that there are degrees of realness . A hallucination induced by a drug or a mental disorder is NOT at the same level of “realness “ as an actual physical concrete wall .

Are you fixated on reality?