Argue Againts the Existence of Objective Reality

[Nak Khid]

On 5/13/2020 at 6:05 AM, Leo Gura said:

If you get the bottom-most layer of reality you will realize that there is only you, imagining everything and everyone else.

So "objective reality" or "consensus reality" is just a very deep layer of your own hallucination. You need to imagine this layer in order to construct "reality" and trick yourself into thinking there is a world and other people.

In other words, this is how God creates "reality": by hallucinating others and imagining that those others have perceptions and that they can agree or disagree with yours.

It's ALL a fucking illusion. "Objective" here simply means that you hallucinate others who agree with you.

You say you want the Truth, but you can't handle the Truth. You want other to be real.

You are God. You are Love. You are Infinity. You are Leo Gura.

 Descartes said "I think, therefore I am".  He also said " I am thinking, therefore I am/exist" 

The critique against the proposition is the presupposition of an "I" doing the thinking, so that the most Descartes was entitled to say was: "thinking is occurring"

 

Descarte: 

Quote

But I have convinced myself that there is absolutely nothing in the world, no sky, no earth, no minds, no bodies. Does it now follow that I, too, do not exist? No. If I convinced myself of something [or thought anything at all], then I certainly existed. But there is a deceiver of supreme power and cunning who deliberately and constantly deceives me. In that case, I, too, undoubtedly exist, if he deceives me; and let him deceive me as much as he can, he will never bring it about that I am nothing, so long as I think that I am something. So, after considering everything very thoroughly, I must finally conclude that the proposition, I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind. (AT VII 25; CSM II 16–17[v])

Similarly Solipsism ( from Latin solus, meaning 'alone', and ipse, meaning 'self') is the philosophical idea that only one's mind is sure to exist. As an epistemological position, solipsism holds that knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is unsure; the external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist outside the mind.

However in Hinduism In order to attain Moksha (liberation), a human being must acquire self-knowledge (atma jnana), which is, according to Advaitins, to realize that one's true self (Ātman) is identical with the transcendent self Brahman.

The six orthodox schools of Hinduism believe that there is Ātman in every living being (jiva). This is a major point of difference with the Buddhist doctrine of Anatta, which holds that there is no self.

Leo who's right?  The Hindus and Descartes who say there is a self
or the Buddhists who say there is  no self ?
 

[Carl-Richard]

@Verdesbird ?

[Mert]

@Nak Khid They are saying the same thing with a different language. When Buddhists say "no-self" its with "s". When Hindus say "There is Self" it's with "S". So what does that mean? What Buddhist are trying to say is basically there is no ego. The person you think you are the one taking action, thinking your thoughts is not a real entity like you think it is. So Descartes and Buddhists completely disagree with each other. Descartes was confused about thinking. He should've said, "I'm conscious, therefore I am". And that would be not a person or an individual soul but the real Self/Nothingness which both Buddhists and Hindus agree.

[Nak Khid]

1 hour ago, Mert said:

@Nak Khid They are saying the same thing with a different language. When Buddhists say "no-self" its with "s". When Hindus say "There is Self" it's with "S". So what does that mean? What Buddhist are trying to say is basically there is no ego. The person you think you are the one taking action, thinking your thoughts is not a real entity like you think it is. So Descartes and Buddhists completely disagree with each other. Descartes was confused about thinking. He should've said, "I'm conscious, therefore I am". And that would be not a person or an individual soul but the real Self/Nothingness which both Buddhists and Hindus agree.

You are uninformed about Buddhism, Hinduism and Descartes. 

[James123]

1 hour ago, Mert said:

They are saying the same thing with a different language. When Buddhists say "no-self" its with "s". When Hindus say "There is Self" it's with "S". So what does that mean? What Buddhist are trying to say is basically there is no ego. The person you think you are the one taking action, thinking your thoughts is not a real entity like you think it is. So Descartes and Buddhists completely disagree with each other. Descartes was confused about thinking. He should've said, "I'm conscious, therefore I am". And that would be not a person or an individual soul but the real Self/Nothingness which both Buddhists and Hindus agree.

Descartes represents being as ego (exist because he can think lol). Buddhists and Hindus represents truth selfless (nothing and everything at the same time. Therefore, Descartes is restricted with thinking or thoughts. However, buddishists, hindus or sufis represents infinite, which includes descartes limited consciousness. 

[RendHeaven]

@Nak Khid Maybe they're all wrong lol.

[Inliytened1]

@Nak Khid  @Mert is not wrong about Descartes. 

"I think therefore i am" stated by Descartes implied he could trust his own mind.  He was wrong.   The ego is an illusion and will try to deceive you every step of the way.  He thought there was an evil demon out there.  The evil demon is your own mind.   He was wrong about that.  He was also wrong about reality.

[Nahm]

5 hours ago, Mert said:

Descartes was confused about thinking. He should've said, "I'm conscious, therefore I am". And that would be not a person or an individual soul but the real Self/Nothingness which both Buddhists and Hindus agree.

But the “I” or “I’m” is not conscious. That is the illusion, if you will. 

[Forestluv]

10 hours ago, Nak Khid said:

who's right?  The Hindus and Descartes who say there is a self or the Buddhists who say there is  no self ?

It’s amazing how deep the human mind’s desire to determine right or wrong goes. To this end, the mind must create opposites and contradictions, which it finds intolerable. 

[Inliytened1]

43 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

It’s amazing how deep the human mind’s desire to determine right or wrong goes. To this end, the mind must create opposites and contradictions, which it finds intolerable. 

Indeed.  A better way to say it is Descartes did not become directly conscious of Truth.  But then again, the highest Truth is that he is in your imagination.  As was the Buddha.

[Nak Khid]

You guys are groping in the dark, only Leo can answer this 

[Carl-Richard]

@Inliytened1 I love twisting it around so it says "I am, therefore I think" hahaha

[Mert]

@Nak Khid I'm really not. Go research what "no-self" means and what "Self" means. Descartes was nowhere near those things.

[Leo Gura]

Descartes was simply pointing out the primacy of I AMNESS. He was right about that, but deluded in other ways.

no-self and Self are the same.

no-self means Infinite Self

[Nak Khid]

Solipsism ( from Latin solus, meaning 'alone', and ipse, meaning 'self') is the philosophical idea that only one's mind is sure to exist. As an epistemological position, solipsism holds that knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is unsure; the external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist outside the mind.

However in Hinduism In order to attain Moksha (liberation), a human being must acquire self-knowledge (atma jnana), which is, according to Advaitins, to realize that one's true self (Ātman) is identical with the transcendent self Brahman.

The six orthodox schools of Hinduism believe that there is Ātman in every living being (jiva). This is a major point of difference with the Buddhist doctrine of Anatta, which holds that there is no self.

Leo who's right?  

[Leo Gura]

7 minutes ago, Nak Khid said:

The six orthodox schools of Hinduism believe that there is Ātman in every living being (jiva). This is a major point of difference with the Buddhist doctrine of Anatta, which holds that there is no self.

Leo who's right?

It's just a difference in emphasis and formulation. There is little meaningful difference once you have some awakening.

[Mert]

@Nahm Depends on what you mean by "I". A person is never conscious. A person is in consciousness. But that is the "real you" so to speak. It doesn't have an identity. Yet has all the identities. It's God.

[Member]

6 minutes ago, Mert said:

@Nahm Depends on what you mean by "I". A person is never conscious. A person is in consciousness. But that is the "real you" so to speak. It doesn't have an identity. Yet has all the identities. It's God.

Then reality is subjective or objective? Are there things outside the mind?

[Mert]

@Leo Gura Do you think that Descartes was really trying to point out the primacy of "I AMNESS". "I think therefore I am" seems like an ego identification to me. Maybe you are right, maybe he was trying to say "I am conscious, therefore I am" but they don't have the internet and their terminology is limited and "reason" was treated like a god in his time. So he just used that terminology. If that's the case I would be really shocked and that would mean even western Descartes scholars don't know what he is talking about lol.

[Leo Gura]

5 minutes ago, Mert said:

@Leo Gura Do you think that Descartes was really trying to point out the primacy of "I AMNESS". "I think therefore I am" seems like an ego identification to me. Maybe you are right, maybe he was trying to say "I am conscious, therefore I am" but they don't have the internet and their terminology is limited and "reason" was treated like a god in his time. So he just used that terminology. If that's the case I would be really shocked and that would mean even western Descartes scholars don't know what he is talking about lol.

This is a common misunderstanding of Descartes. If you actually read and contemplate Descartes Meditations you'll see that the argument is not, "I think, therefore I am". The argument is: if thoughts or any perceptions are arising at all, they must be arising for me. Which means I must exist even if the thoughts and perceptions are a deception. The one thing which cannot be a deception is the I AM. Even if I think I am not, I still AM.

Descartes was not saying that thinking causes I AMNESS. He was saying that thinking arises within I AMNESS. There cannot be thoughts without I AMNESS.