Martin Ball says physical reality is real

[Someone here]

11 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

Are you fixated on reality?  

What does this mean ?

[Joseph Maynor]

Just now, Someone here said:

What does this mean ?

I feel like a lot of spirituality at bottom tries to honor some version of reality, or to be it, or to think it.  

[Someone here]

3 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

I feel like a lot of spirituality at bottom tries to honor some version of reality, or to be it, or to think it.  

It doesn’t try to do that intentionally. It doesn’t assume the conclusion.

The ancient Hindu sages (supposedly) went on an inner journey of exploring themselves, and reality at large . And then they concluded whatever they experienced.

[Joseph Maynor]

@Someone here  Exactly.  Most people here have not really studied Hinduism.  They do not realize Advaita Vedanta is just a sliver of Vedanta, and this is just a sliver of Hinduism.  

[Someone here]

6 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

@Someone here  Exactly.  Most people here have not really studied Hinduism.  They do not realize Advaita Vedanta is just a sliver of Vedanta, and this is just a sliver of Hinduism.  

Yep . The Hindu tradition is by far the richest , most wide and diverse spiritual tradition. It is also the oldest .

[Joseph Maynor]

Most people on here never been to India either, so they have no context of how Indian spirituality works in real life. 

[Nercohype]

In the imaginary world I have created, the characters face the same kinds of problems we do in our own world. The characters themselves are pure imagination, or illusion, if you want to call it that. That is absolutely true. However, within that world, they experience separation and individuality.

Within unity, there is separation. The characters aren't the ones imagining the world. Rather, the world itself exists within imagination. It is therefore built through imagination.

But that doesn't make their experiences any less real to them. If a character dies, the world will continue to exist. Their reincarnation is also part of that imagination, but it serves a purpose: it gives them the opportunity to learn and gradually discover the truth — that everything is ultimately imagination, and that imagination itself is oneness.

[Carl-Richard]

It never ceases to amaze me the low intellectual rigor and groupthink and blind attachments to words and lack of understanding of underlying concepts some people on this forum possess.

[Someone here]

28 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

It never ceases to amaze me the low intellectual rigor and groupthink and blind attachments to words and lack of understanding of underlying concepts some people on this forum possess.

Can you give some examples?

[Breakingthewall]

Saying that reality is a hallucination implies a subject, an entity, that is having that hallucination, thereby establishing an absolute duality between subject and object.

This is impossible; there is not an absolute subject, because if there were, it would be a limited and relative entity. The absolute is not dreaming, it is reality, not the one who creates reality.

[Breakingthewall]

13 hours 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.

Infinity don't create the physical reality, the physical reality, that is, the diferentiation, is the inevitable manifestation of the infinity.  As there are not limits, differentiation arises. There are no difference between the unlimited and the limited, the limited and relative is the inevitable expression of the absolute unlimited. 

Saying that the unlimited is real and the limited a dream is incorrect. The unlimited is not an entity who creates a dream, what you call dream is the unlimited appearing. There is not unlimited without expression, there is no separation between the form and the formless, both are one, then the form is not a dream , is form, period. 

The difference is crucial, one closes, another opens. 

[Carl-Richard]

51 minutes ago, Someone here said:

Can you give some examples?

"The guy said 'physical reality is real', he must be completely clueless, I'll not go into anything else he said before/after that which might explain what he actually meant by that single sentence".

Martin Ball criticizes the notion that physical reality is an illusion in so far (or to the extent which) it de-emphasizes embodied approaches to non-dual practices. In which case I agree.

Edited 2 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[Someone here]

6 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

The guy said 'physical reality is real', he must be completely clueless, I'll not go into anything else he said before/after that which might explain what he actually meant by that single sentence".

The interview is 2 hours time . Obviously people will respond before watching all of that . And OP timestamped the core claim he’s disagreeing with.  But you are right , people should listen to the entire conversation before commenting. Just that that’s not realistic and will never happen.

 

[Carl-Richard]

9 minutes ago, Someone here said:

The interview is 2 hours time . Obviously people will respond before watching all of that . And OP timestamped the core claim he’s disagreeing with.  But you are right , people should listen to the entire conversation before commenting. Just that that’s not realistic and will never happen.

Yeah because people are epistemic planktonic species. The level of context that time stamp gave (except from the word "embodied" that was cut into; zero) should give you every reason to look more into what he actually meant. The problem is viewing statements through narrow, isolated, absolutistic interpretations rather than context (which is just something cognitively simplistic people do, it's how they view the word). What words mean depend on context. "Real" can mean so many different things depending on the context it is said in. The "reality" is he talking about here is obviously tied to the effects and "reality" of embodied aspects of non-dual practices.

Edited 2 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[OBEler]

9 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

@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.

My own thoughts with the help of AI:

I don't doubt that you experienced becoming everything, or that the distinction between self and reality completely dissolved.

But how do you distinguish an experience in which all boundaries disappear from an experience that establishes that no boundaries exist independently of consciousness?

An experience of absolute unity is still not automatically proof of an ontology of absolute unity.

The crucial question isn't whether the experience felt infinitely real, but how you established that it revealed the ultimate nature of reality rather than a radically transformed mode of experiencing reality.

What makes that interpretation necessarily true?

[OBEler]

By the way, you all misunderstand martin ball. He just got hung up on the word consciousness and spirituality, which he still interprets not as the searching for truth but as the buddhist way with the whole lifestyle package of meditation, karma, chacras, worshipping, moral and reincarnation and so on. He just misinterpreted their question.

Jump on 28:20:

 

There he clearly says the same like leo: reality is a living conscious entity which is interacting with itself and thats the true nature of reality.

 

update: on 42:50 he shows his materialistic world view.

Edited 1 hour ago by OBEler

[Jirh]

Person 1: Person 2 is real.

Person 2: Person 1 is not real.

[Loveeee]

[Jirh]

It's called the hard problem of consciousness for a reason.

[Someone here]

36 minutes ago, Jirh said:

It's called the hard problem of consciousness for a reason.

It’s a “hard problem “ for the materialist ,who assumes that the base reality is dumb matter , then he has to contend with how unconscious matter gives rise to conscious experience. 
but it’s not a hard problem at all for the idealist , and the mystic ,who knows that consciousness is base reality and not an epiphenomena .