Reality: What is it?

[godnotgod]

Godse had the personal opinion that Mahatma Gandhi was evil and to kill him would be a good thing. He went on to execute his personal opinion on the practical level, leading to Mahatma Gandhi's assassination. The apostle of nonviolence died by violence.

So before we entertain a personal opinion or view, we should study and inquire whether it is in tune with dharma or morality and the facts. If not, one is bound to commit a major blunder by acting on one's personal opinion.

"A person who employs the force of logic and reasoning in the light of the wisdom presented in genuine scriptures attains the highest truth. " - Sage Dattatreya ( Jnanakhanda of Tripura Rahasya)

Hinduism thus teaches us to go by the standards of wisdom combined with reasoning, rather than by one's personal opinions.

If everyone went by their personal opinions , it will only result in anarchy and chaos.

Yes, and on a larger scale, entire nations which adopt religious belief systems as 'Truth' have committed horrendous atrocities throughout the ages in the name of their God. I don't know which is worse: taking action via one's personal opinion in the world, or under the color of religious authority foisted onto one's neighbor. In Deuteronomy 12-20, we have Yawheh telling his 'chosen people' to come with a peace offering to the pagan cities, but if not accepted, to storm the gates and kill every man sparing no one, and to take animals and women as reward. We follow much the same pattern of domination today.

 

[Viviane LaFrance]

Reality is what exists without our presence. Its independent of our interpretation of the world.

I posted this awhile back

If consciousness is an illusion then please tell me what isn't an illusion.

 

[godnotgod]

Reality is what exists without our presence. Its independent of our interpretation of the world.

If that is the case, tell me where your consciousness leaves off, and the world begins. Also, which part of you is NOT the world.

 

[godnotgod]

- Where did I say that Brahman is unconscous and sterile.

I meant that the determination of Brahman's true nature via science can only result in a sterile view. Science itself sees the origin of the Universe as the result of blind, unconscious chance, a fluke.

I accept the consciousness of Brahman.

But only as an attribute of Brahman. So are you saying that Brahman is not conscious, and then via some process, becomes or acquires consciousness?

I also consider it to be dynamic and not static. As we have discussed many times in the topic, advaita does not accept that the universe was created by Brahman. The universe is only an illusion. Brahman does not and has no need to create a universe.

To say that Brahman is dynamic and then to say that the Universe is an illusion, is to say that the dynamism, or change of Brahman, is an illusion, because that is exactly what the Universe IS: change. Therefore, the 'changing' world that is Brahman, is an illusion, or maya. There is no such change; Brahman is The Changeless, playing itself as a changing Universe.

- Human consciousness is electrical and chemical. I go with science. You are welcome not to believe it.

What you are referring to is called 'Emergent Theory', not a true scientific theory at all, but a hypothesis, and a poor one at best. That's bad enough, but now you want me to believe that it is true, an idea no better, or maybe worse, than religious belief. You want me to believe that the images moving around on the TV screen exist inside the TV set, when they are the result of signals outside the TV set. If what you are suggesting as true, that consciousness is nothing more than electro-chemical reactions, then please demonstrate, via the scientific method, exactly how and when such material electro-chemical reactions become non-material consciousness. Or are you like those scientists, who, unable to know what to do with consciousness, simply 'solve' the hard problem by declaring that consciousness is nothing more than electro-chemical reactions. Then what of the consciousness of Brahman? Where does that originate from? The accumulation of interstellar dust and stars? But wait....those came from Brahman, didn't they?

Whirling water is not an action of a whirlpool; it IS the whirlpool itself. Likewise, consciousness is not a characteristic of Brahman; it IS Brahman itself.

- There is no question of there being a point. That is how it is and we have to live with it.
- No. I am not listening. In Hinduism, personal views are sacrosanct. Even Gods cannot over-ride them, what to talk of Patanjali or any other person. My personal views are my domain.

By their very nature, personal views are the product of the workings of the mind, and therefore, of the self, and stand in the way of union with Brahman. Patanjali is saying that, by stilling the activities of the mind, ie 'thought', one will realize yoga, or union with Brahman, whici is, of course, the goal of the jiva. You maintain and nurture personal views as 'my domain' because it is ego that is at work. Who is this 'I' or self that thinks 'mine and not-mine'? No, you are not listening because you are indoctrinated via your belief system.

- As I have said perfection, joy are words in human languages. Brahman does not understand this.

No, Brahman does not understand these as objects of the mind, because Brahman is Perfect Joy itself, which is the reason that the jiva dedicates himself to realization of his true nature, which is Brahman itself.

- That is Tong's view.

No, that is the view of a computer simulation based on the standard model:

"Take all the particles out of the box, all the atoms out of the box. What you're left with is a pure vacuum.
And this is what the vacuum looks like. So what you're looking at here is a computer simulation
using our best theory of physics of something called the standard model, which I'll introduce later.
But it's a computer simulation of absolutely nothing. This is empty space. Literally empty space with nothing in it.
This is the simplest thing you could possibly imagine in the universe. And you can see, it's an interesting place to be,
an empty space. It's not dull and boring. What you're looking at here is that even when the particles are taken out, the field still exists. The field is there. But what's more, the field is governed by the rules of quantum mechanics. And there's a principle in quantum mechanics, which is called the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, which says you're not allowed to sit still.
And the field has to obey this. So even when there's nothing else there, the field is constantly bubbling and fluctuating
in what's, quite honestly, a very complicated way. These are things that we call quantum vacuum fluctuations.
But this is what nothingness looks like from the perspective of our current theories of physics. It's worth saying that this is a computer simulation. It looks a little bit like a cartoon, but it's actually quite a powerful computer simulation, and it took a long time to do. But these aren't just theoretical. These quantum fluctuations that are there in the pure vacuum are things that we can measure. There's something called the Casimir force. The Casimir force is a force between two metal plates
that get pushed together basically because there's more of this stuff on the outside than on the inside. And you know, these are real. These are things that we can measure, and they behave just as we would predict they would from our theories.
So this is nothing."

David Tong, The Real Building Blocks of The Universe

Here is a link to the text above in context and the video source, in case you wish to watch it:

Quantum Fields: The Real Building Blocks of the Universe - with David Tong with English subtitles (closed captions) and transcript

True reality might be known in future and and we are not prophets to say what we will know or not know in future. I leave it to future generations. At the moment I will say that it is yet unknown. That is as far as I will go.

We either see things as they are, or as they are not. This only occurs in this present moment, and never in some future time, since any such 'future time' will be now. So why are you waiting for others to do your seeing for you? You may be dead by then. Now is the time to see things as they are, and no other time. We do not see things as they are because of the veil of maya. Pierce the facade of maya so that your vision will become clear. Clear is what is meant by Pure Consciousness, the consciousness that is none other than Brahman. Your true nature is Brahman, but science cannot show you that.

- All change is not 'maya'. There is an original pattern of change, that of ever-changing dynamic Brahman. Then there are changes brought about by 'maya' - creation, birth, death, etc. The two changes are of different class, just as the two types of 'consciousness' too are different, one to Brahman, the other to living beings.

You had stated that the Universe is maya. The Universe is change. Now you are saying that change is not maya, and that Reality is a duality?

There are not two consciousnesses, one for Brahman, and one for humans. They are the same consciousness, but one is distorted by mind. Do you agree that the jiva 'becomes' Brahman? How is it possible that human consciousness 'becomes' the consciousness of Brahman unless they are one and the same consciousness? 'Living beings' are none other than Brahman. The world is Brahman. The fact is that jiva consciousness does not 'become' Brahman; it already IS Brahman, but that is not yet realized. That's all. Jiva consciousness is Brahman, playing itself as 'the jiva'.

 

[godnotgod]

 

[Aupmanyav]

Science itself sees the origin of the Universe as the result of blind, unconscious chance, a fluke.

So are you saying that Brahman is not conscious, and then via some process, becomes or acquires consciousness?

because that is exactly what the Universe IS: change. Therefore, the 'changing' world that is Brahman, is an illusion, or maya. There is no such change; Brahman is The Changeless, playing itself as a changing Universe.

Or are you like those scientists, who, unable to know what to do with consciousness, simply 'solve' the hard problem by declaring that consciousness is nothing more than electro-chemical reactions. Then what of the consciousness of Brahman? Where does that originate from? The accumulation of interstellar dust and stars? But wait....those came from Brahman, didn't they?

Likewise, consciousness is not a characteristic of Brahman; it IS Brahman itself.

Patanjali is saying that, by stilling the activities of the mind, ie 'thought', one will realize yoga, or union with Brahman, which is, of course, the goal of the jiva.

No, Brahman does not understand these as objects of the mind, because Brahman is Perfect Joy itself, which is the reason that the jiva dedicates himself to realization of his true nature, which is Brahman itself.

".. And there's a principle in quantum mechanics, which is called the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, which says you're not allowed to sit still. And the field has to obey this. So even when there's nothing else there, the field is constantly bubbling and fluctuatingin what's, quite honestly, a very complicated way. These are things that we call quantum vacuum fluctuations."

We either see things as they are, or as they are not. .. You may be dead by then. Now is the time to see things as they are, and no other time. .. Your true nature is Brahman, but science cannot show you that.

You had stated that the Universe is maya. The Universe is change. Now you are saying that change is not maya, and that Reality is a duality?

Do you agree that the jiva 'becomes' Brahman? How is it possible that human consciousness 'becomes' the consciousness of Brahman unless they are one and the same consciousness? 'Living beings' are none other than Brahman. The world is Brahman. The fact is that jiva consciousness does not 'become' Brahman; it already IS Brahman, but that is not yet realized. That's all. Jiva consciousness is Brahman, playing itself as 'the jiva'.

1. Yeah, many things happen by fluke, e.g., the five extinction events, meteorite hits, super volcanoes, 'Chaos Theory'. I have no problem with that.
2. I have always been saying that Brahman is conscious in its own ways (interaction of force fields). That is totally different from human consciousness.
3. Brahman does not change. The changes that you perceive (as fed by your senses and as interpreted by your mind) are illusions. Even the universe is an illusion.
4. Yeah, I am like those scientists, though I am not a scientist myself. I have described the consciousness of Brahman in #2. There is no interstellar dust. That too is an illusion. As I said even the universe is an illusion.
5. Consciousness, a property belongs to something. Brahman and its consciousness are different.
6. If you have no thought, you are a cabbage.
7. Brahman has no property of joyfulness or sorrow. They belong to humans, whose existence is illusory. Brahman is not concerned with what these illusory creatures do.
8. Atoms too are illusory. Perhaps a force field or many exist. We have not yet arrived at a 'Unified Field Theory':
"In physics, a unified field theory (UFT) is a type of field theory that allows all that is usually thought of as fundamental forces and elementary particles to be written in terms of a pair of physical and virtual fields. According to the modern discoveries in physics, forces are not transmitted directly between interacting objects, but instead are described and interrupted by intermediary entities called fields."
9. ".. And there's a principle in quantum mechanics, which is called the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, which says you're not allowed to sit still. And the field has to obey this. So even when there's nothing else there, the field is constantly bubbling and fluctuating in what's, quite honestly, a very complicated way. These are things that we call quantum vacuum fluctuations."
David Tong is actually describing Brahman here.
10. We can never see the things as they are. Our sense organs do not have that capacity. We will see only what our mind makes us see. Thousands of generations of humans have lived without the answer to this. I would be one more. How does it matter? Sure, It would be a long time before science is able to get answers. But even then, I would not jump to a wrong conclusion. I know that I am none other than Brahman and death is only an illusion.
11. There are two kinds of changes. One that David Tong was talking about, the inherent property of Brahman. The other kind of change is what you perceive in the world. This latter change is 'maya'.
12. You rightly say that Jiva does not become Brahman, Jiva always is Brahman, all things here are Brahman (Sarvam Khalvidam Brahma) even air, water, stones, not just the Jiva. Because nothing other than Brahman exists (Eko sad, dwiteeyo nasti). But the jiva is dependent on what its senses feed it, how brain's chemical and electrical processes sort it and finally how the human mind finally pictures it. It is not Brahman's consciousness. As I said in #11, the two things are very different.

There is one more long post of yours that I have not yet replied. I will do that too quite soon.