Reality: What is it?

[Craig Sedok]

Have you ever asked the question: 'Who is it that is working, eating, and sleeping?', and if you have, what answer did you come up with?

The ones that understand life. Not the arrogant that sit in castles bound by obligation to the subjects. So who wins here in the great debacle of life?

 

[Aupmanyav]

I only want to know what your thoughts are on the content of his commentary which I provided.
What? If there was a reason for its coming into existence, then some intelligence had to have been present which reasoned it into existence.
You say that 'surely, there was a reason for its coming into existence', but why is a purpose for its existence a necessity?

I mentioned my thoughts about it. It is word salad. There is no substance in it.
No intelligence is required for appearance and dissolution of virtual particles.
Existence and non-existence are just phases. That is the way Brahman is.
Of course, in the coming times, we will know better.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Brahman is referred to by Hindus as 'Pure Consciousness'. Is that so?
Is the brain responsible for the existence of consciousness, or is consciousness responsible for the existence of brains?

No, that is not what all Hindus will subscribe to. We have polytheists, monotheists, atheists and many others with different views in our society.
It is neither expected nor possible that all Hindus will have the same view about anything except that following one's 'dharma' is necessary. Hinduism is not constituted that way. We are not Abrahamics.
Brain is responsible for consciousness.

 

[godnotgod]

I mentioned my thoughts about it. It is word salad. There is no substance in it.
No intelligence is required for appearance and dissolution of virtual particles.
Existence and non-existence are just phases. That is the way Brahman is.
Of course, in the coming times, we will know better.

No, you did not give your thoughts on Osho's content, but on his person as ad hominen attacks. To call it 'word salad' only demonstrates ignorance and convenient dismissal due to prejudice against the person making the statement.

Did you not say that words are accurate descriptions of experience, but now refuse to acknowledge Osho's words as valid descriptions of Reality?

Brahman does not change it's true nature; only it's manifestations change. 'In the coming times', you will have more data and factual knowledge, but you will not have any more understanding as to the true nature of Reality. Apparently, you seem to think that someday science will unlock the secrets of the Universe, but you are mistaken. Science, as useful as it is, is incapable of doing so. All it can do is to tell us about behavior and to predict that behavior. It cannot tell us what the Universe actually IS.

I repeat: Brahman is seen as 'Pure Consciousness'. That is Intelligence...Supreme Intelligence that manifests itself as virtual particles, and as the infinite galaxies, since, as you agreed, all is Brahman.

You call this manifestation, or play, of Brahman 'word salad' because you are comparing it to how the world of Reason and Logic work. But the Universe is not a result of Reason and Logic. It is the result of a higher kind of knowledge, one you are not in touch with.

 

[godnotgod]

No, that is not what all Hindus will subscribe to. We have polytheists, monotheists, atheists and many others with different views in our society.
It is neither expected nor possible that all Hindus will have the same view about anything except that following one's 'dharma' is necessary. Hinduism is not constituted that way. We are not Abrahamics.
Brain is responsible for consciousness.

That 'brain is responsible for consciousness' is known as 'Emergent Theory', which is not actually a bona fide scientific theory, but merely a hypothesis offered up by the materialists as an explanation for its presence. What they cannot tell us is how the material brain creates non-material consciousness.

Most of what I have encountered regarding Hindu teachings, is that most Hindu sects see Brahman as consciousness itself. The Upanishads themselves refer to Brahman as pure consciousness (prajñānam brahma)*. In your sect, is Brahman consciousness and/or intelligence?

Please understand that I am not suggesting that Brahman is a creator-god in the sense of the anthropomorphic Abrahamic deity.

*Consciousness in Advaita Vedanta - Hindupedia, the Hindu Encyclopedia

 

[Aupmanyav]

Most of what I have encountered regarding Hindu teachings, is that most Hindu sects see Brahman as consciousness itself. The Upanishads themselves refer to Brahman as pure consciousness (prajñānam brahma)*. In your sect, is Brahman consciousness and/or intelligence?

Then you have not seen it all. As I said Hindus have various views about things. Even ten sages or ten books mentioning something does not make it applicable to all Hindus.

 

[ajay0]

Brahman is referred to by Hindus as 'Pure Consciousness'. Is that so?

This is true. It is mentioned in the Vedas.

However not all Hindus have the scholarship and training to comprehend these facts accurately and give their own distorted versions.

The tendency for distorted ideas of Brahman had been warned about by Mahatma Gandhi himself.

I have briefed this in this post of mine.

Kabir on the need for critical examination to weed out the false and fraudulent...

Is the brain responsible for the existence of consciousness, or is consciousness responsible for the existence of brains?

Yes, this is what Advaita says. The outward universe is considered as a manifestation of the unitary consciousness.

 

[ajay0]

Repeating it does not make it so. "Consciousness" is mindful awareness. Consciousness does not exist apart from mindful awareness. The mind is what is conscious. And awareness defines the state of being conscious. These are not separate ideas; they are logically and functionally integral.

Consciousness here is considered as the transient content of mindful awareness.

'Awareness becomes consciousness when it has an object. The object changes all the time. In consciousness there is movement; awareness by itself is motionless and timeless, here and now.' - Nisargadatta Maharaj

'Awareness is not something. The moment you become aware of something, it becomes consciousness or thought. The moment you think about that thought, you are the thinker. The moment you become the thinker of that thought, that's ego.' - Burt Harding

Consciousness does not exist apart from mindful awareness. The mind is what is conscious. And awareness defines the state of being conscious. These are not separate ideas; they are logically and functionally integral.

The mind is just thoughts and emotions that has a beginning and an end. However the Self or Awareness is the constant factor in all experiences which is aware of all the thoughts and emotions.

The following sayings by the female sage Metta Zetty can clarify this further....


'It is the mind and consciousness that vacillate and move; Awareness does not.' - Metta Zetty

'You see, it's only the mind that imagines that Awareness comes and goes. Awareness is actually constant, and it is the movement of the mind that vacillates. The mind wanders all about and then says: "What happened to Awareness?" – Metta Zetty

'Remember that Awareness is the clear screen upon which the movement of the mind occurs. And, even if you don't remember this, Awareness will still be the clear screen upon which the movement of the mind occurs.' - Metta Zetty

 

[PureX]

Consciousness here is considered as the transient content of mindful awareness.

'Awareness becomes consciousness when it has an object.' - Nisargadatta Maharaj

'Awareness is not something.' - Burt Harding

'It is the mind and consciousness that vacillate and move; Awareness does not.' - Metta Zetty

'You see, it's only the mind that imagines that Awareness comes and goes. Awareness is actually constant, and it is the movement of the mind that vacillates. The mind wanders all about and then says: "What happened to Awareness?" – Metta Zetty

'Remember that Awareness is the clear screen upon which the movement of the mind occurs. And, even if you don't remember this, Awareness will still be the clear screen upon which the movement of the mind occurs.' - Metta Zetty

Awareness is an activated mechanism. Light waves strike the back of the eye, stimulating the light-sensitive nerves there. This stimulation is then transmitted to the brain, which stores it's pattern, compares and contrasts these patterns with other incoming and stored stimuli patterns, and thereby conceptualizes the cause and meaning of it (comes to know it) within the context of all our other collected and conceptualized experiences. Should the input mechanisms no longer function, awareness can no longer occur.

 

[ajay0]

Awareness is an activated mechanism. Light waves strike the back of the eye, stimulating the light-sensitive nerves there. This stimulation is then transmitted to the brain, which stores it's pattern, compares and contrasts these patterns with other incoming and stored stimuli patterns, and thereby conceptualizes the cause and meaning of it (comes to know it) within the context of all our other collected and conceptualized experiences. Should the input mechanisms no longer function, awareness can no longer occur.

These are all external stimuli. You can find that you are conscious even in the midst of extreme darkness.

Awareness is present in all the three states of waking, dreaming and deep sleep state. The very fact that there was no remembrance of any dream content in the deep sleep state is proof of the presence of awareness even then.

Advaita states through the testimony of ancient, medieval and modern enlightened masters that pure consciousness is of an eternal, omnipresent nature and is not transient, and which does not vanish completely upon deep sleep or physical death.

 

[godnotgod]

Then you have not seen it all. As I said Hindus have various views about things. Even ten sages or ten books mentioning something does not make it applicable to all Hindus.

No, I never said that. However, that Brahman is Consciousness itself is integral to both the Vedas and the Upanishads, and is taught by all of the MAJOR schools of Hinduism.

"In Hinduism, Brahman connotes the highest Universal Principle, the Ultimate Reality in the universe. In major schools of Hindu philosophy, it is the material, efficient, formal and final cause of all that exists. It is the pervasive, genderless, infinite, eternal truth and bliss which does not change, yet is the cause of all changes. Brahman as a metaphysical concept is the single binding unity behind diversity in all that exists in the universe.

Brahman is a Vedic Sanskrit word, and it is conceptualized in Hinduism, states Paul Deussen, as the "creative principle which lies realized in the whole world". Brahman is a key concept found in the Vedas, and it is extensively discussed in the early Upanishads. The Vedas conceptualize Brahman as the Cosmic Principle. In the Upanishads, it has been variously described as Sat-cit-ānanda (truth-consciousness-bliss) and as the unchanging, permanent, highest reality."

Brahman - Wikipedia

I have referred to Brahman as 'Pure Abstract Intelligence', and 'Sat-cit-ananda', which you rejected. So can you tell me what your concept of Brahman is?

 

[godnotgod]

Why do you insist on maintaining such an incoherent definition? Wrong is just inaccurate. It's not "unreal".

And why can't you understand the difference between 'wrongness', which IS real, and that which is wrong, which if wrong, cannot be real? 1+1=3 is an incorrect statement. The statement itself is real, but the content is not real.

If it has content, it has to be of reality. Again, you're tripping over yourself to maintain this bizarre definition of perceptual inaccuracy as being "unreality".

The fact of having content is real, but being incorrect content makes it not real.

What we see does not define or determine what is, unless we are a fool.
The phenomena of seeing, and of presuming that what we see is "real", are both "real" phenomena. As is the inaccuracy this phenomena generates in our minds.

Believing something to be other than what it actually is, is illusion. The belief that the illusion is real, is a real belief, but the illusion itself is not real, which is why it is called an illusion.

 

[godnotgod]

We don't expect it to have evolved to determine the truth in all instances. In fact, we know full well that there are many flaws in the ways we naturally think. We tend to see purpose and attribute consciousness to things where there is no purpose and consciousness (like faces in clouds).

But, we do know it gives a survival-level of approximation because that *is* what evolution produces. And that is enough to 'get off the ground'. But it requires testing at each and every step to check all our ideas for flaws.

We evolved a brain suited to navigating our environment for survival via perception. However, we continue to utilize perception in an attempt to navigate that which is responsible for our existence and that of our environment, when, as you pointed out, even our ordinary perception of our world is sometimes (many times?) inaccurate. So how can we expect to utilize perception, via the brain, to determine the true nature of the material world and of our origin? What we are doing is to superimpose conceptual frameworks over Reality to determine the true nature of Reality. Is something wrong with this picture?

 

[Polymath257]

We evolved a brain suited to navigating our environment for survival via perception. However, we continue to utilize perception in an attempt to navigate that which is responsible for our existence and that of our environment, when, as you pointed out, even our ordinary perception of our world is sometimes (many times?) inaccurate. So how can we expect to utilize perception, via the brain, to determine the true nature of the material world and of our origin? What we are doing is to superimpose conceptual frameworks over Reality to determine the true nature of Reality. Is something wrong with this picture?

I didn't say it was easy. But it is possible because we continually test our ideas through as many different sensory channels as possible. So, optical illusions are discovered when our visual system and, say, our tactile system give conflicting information. There are other types of illusions for other sensory modes.

But, when we are able to off-load some of that processing to outside sources (like instruments), we lessen the likelihood that our own senses disrupt the end result.

 

[Aupmanyav]

However, that Brahman is Consciousness itself is integral to both the Vedas and the Upanishads, and is taught by all of the MAJOR schools of Hinduism.

I have referred to Brahman as 'Pure Abstract Intelligence', and 'Sat-cit-ananda', which you rejected. So can you tell me what your concept of Brahman is?

Kindly note that though Vedas and Upanishads are part of Hinduism, they are not the whole of Hinduism. Majority of Hindus may not have heard the names of Vedas and Upanishads. Vedas derive from the Aryan migrants and Upanishads came up mostly after the assimilation of the Aryans into the indigenous people. They are the stuff for philosophers to polemicize. The mass of Hindus happily go about worshiping their multitude of their Gods and Goddesses without caring for the deliberations of philosophers. It is not necessary for a Hindu to belong to some school and many don't. A member of the Hindu forum aptly named them as 'Village Hindus'. 'Brahman' and 'Sat-Chid-Anand' are words coined by philosophers which a 'Village Hindu' would not understand. They would understand 'Ganesha', 'Shiva', 'Yellamma', 'Bahuchara', 'Iravan', 'Dhara Devi', 'Kalu Devta', 'Rama', 'Krishna', 'Durga', 'Chintapurni', 'Naina Devi', etc. The 'Village Hindus' are just as much Hindus as the great philosophers of Hinduism.

Don't ask for my concept of Brahman because it is entirely different from all others. I consider 'Brahman' to be 'physical energy' with which we started at the time of 'big-bang', and all that exists in the universe is constituted by that after atoms were formed through the process of 'Nucleosynthesis'.

"Nucleosynthesis is the process that creates new atomic nuclei from pre-existing nucleons, primarily protons and neutrons. The first nuclei were formed about three minutes after the Big Bang, through the process called Big Bang nucleosynthesis. Seventeen minutes later the universe had cooled to a point these processes ended, so only the fastest and simplest reactions occurred, leaving our universe containing about 75% hydrogen, 24% helium, and traces of other elements such as lithium and the hydrogen isotope deuterium. The universe still has approximately the same composition today."
Nucleosynthesis - Wikipedia

I appreciate your interest in Hinduism and you do understand some parts of Hinduism, but you do not understand the whole of it.

However, we continue to utilize perception in an attempt to navigate that which is responsible for our existence and that of our environment, when, as you pointed out, even our ordinary perception of our world is sometimes (many times?) inaccurate.

I would replace 'sometimes (many times?)' with 'all the time', 'always in every single instance'. Perception is always an illusion. Only an analytical mind can parse it. That is why Sankara said: 'Brahma satyam, jagan-mithya ..' (Brahman alone is true, the world is untruth ..)'.

 

[Willamena]

The right view of Reality is Reality itself; the wrong view is not-Reality, as it can only be either illusion or delusion. The reality is that wrong view is not-Reality. How can it be otherwise?

Not reality is (not) reality.

 

[godnotgod]

Perception is always an illusion. Only an analytical mind can parse it. That is why Sankara said: 'Brahma satyam, jagan-mithya ..' (Brahman alone is true, the world is untruth ..)'.

Then Brahman is conscious.

 

[godnotgod]

Not reality is (not) reality.

Which is 'wrong view', right?

 

[godnotgod]

I didn't say it was easy. But it is possible because we continually test our ideas through as many different sensory channels as possible. So, optical illusions are discovered when our visual system and, say, our tactile system give conflicting information. There are other types of illusions for other sensory modes.

But, when we are able to off-load some of that processing to outside sources (like instruments), we lessen the likelihood that our own senses disrupt the end result.

What is 'possible' is only that more and more data leads to a hypothesis, that, when tested, remains consistent and stable, so that predictions can be made about phenomena, none of which reveals the true nature of Reality. So, no. Science cannot show us the true nature of Reality; only its behavior and characteristics, leading to prediction. It can't tell us what the Universe actually IS.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Then Brahman is conscious.

Brahman is conscious in a way absolutely different from human consciousness. It is the play of fundamental interaction of four (or perhaps five) forces of nature.

"In physics, the fundamental interactions, also known as fundamental forces, are the interactions that do not appear to be reducible to more basic interactions. There are four fundamental interactions known to exist: the gravitational and electromagnetic interactions, which produce significant long-range forces whose effects can be seen directly in everyday life, and the strong and weak interactions, which produce forces at minuscule, subatomic distances and govern nuclear interactions. Some scientists speculate that a fifth force might exist, but this is not widely accepted nor proven."
Fundamental interaction - Wikipedia

"In physics, there are four conventionally accepted fundamental forces or interactions that form the basis of all known interactions in nature: gravitational, electromagnetic, strong nuclear, and weak nuclear forces. Some speculative theories have proposed a fifth force to explain various anomalous observations that do not fit existing theories. The characteristics of this fifth force depend on the theory being advanced. Many postulate a force roughly the strength of gravity (i.e. it is much weaker than electromagnetism or the nuclear forces) with a range of anywhere from less than a millimeter to cosmological scales. Another proposal is a new weak force, mediated by W' and Z' bosons."
Fifth force - Wikipedia