Reality, and our thoughts about reality

[bombadil.360]

I have died 13 times. I bring news from the other side. only sinners and the morally bankrupt are allowed through.

also, everyone is a huge Viking in the afterlife. women are amazons. there is constant warfare. god is a crazy floating head that mumbles and bounces off walls but is believed to be a genius. I only remain on earth to train for the Olympic games. not ours of course. I will compete against others in hand to hand and small arms close quarters combat. we fight with steel tipped dildos that can perforate the strongest of colons. I am also growing my hair out to braid it and wrap it around my ass like a thong.

you have to be a huge viking to get some of that amazonian punani, makes perfect sense.

 

[Luda]

I used to think manifestation was the way.

Well I still do.

However just hope wont get the universe moving in your direction.

Maybe it's not the universe that's to come in our direction maybe we need to go in the same direction as the universe.

In order for manifestation to come to fruition we must put ourselves in the right space of the universal line up.

Just like a surfing line up you have to be inline with the waves and also on time with them.

For me the easiest way to exist in this reality is complete surrender.

The point where nothing else matters including the self, I become one with the vast greatness.

Then there are no rules, there are no limitations only possibilities.

Life and the realty we live with are in tune with our own perceptions.

They have a huge impact on my life at the very least and in my mind our perceptions have a ringing effect in the world around us for good or bad.

Some time ago I stopped loving, I stopped loving my god and my self I shut it off just like you would turn off the water.

You know what happened ?

Nothing great.

Please fill yourselves with love and manifest a better way and remember; The path to fruition can be laborious and full of perils do not doubt your self just place one foot in front of the other and you will arrive exactly where you supposed to be.

nam yoho rengee kyo

 

[guest 77721]

I'm not so sure that people do or even can experience reality in it's raw form. It's always distorted by their tunnel vision of reality.

Here's a better example. There is a family with a sick child dying of Lukemia. The family is extremely religious and holds religious bedside vigils until.....

a) the child dies. The family accepts this as "God's Will" which preserves their reality tunnel.

b) the child gets well and it is a miracle of "Gods Will" due to their faith and prayers. This preserves their reality tunnel.

c) the child dies and the family blames God and loses their faith in the process. Their reality tunnel is shattered and a new reality tunnel is created in which their faith has changed to bitterness.

Most people are programmed to hold onto their version of reality and whatever happens around them is just fitted in and accepted. It's only until a significant event occurs that the programming might be changed.

Good to see that there is interest in this topic.

What I'm talking about in this thread, or trying to point out is that as human being, we have the ability to make DISTINCTIONS between A and B.

This ability allows us to see reality and our THOUGHTS about reality.

The wind is blowing, that is reality, it is what IS.

The wind shouldn't be blowing, I have made plans for a party today, and the wind is going to ruin everything...is a thought about this reality, and it is false, it contradicts the reality that the wind IS blowing.

This thought will cause emotional suffering because it is NOT in-sync with what is.

As soon as one accepts that the wind is blowing and that it should be blowing because IT IS BLOWING, the emotional suffering will go away because the false thought will let go of you.

This example can be used as a template for any experience that we have in life and where we experience pain and suffering from believing false thoughts that contradict reality.

What you are talking about in relation to that book is a little different than what I'm talking about in this thread. I am talking about making distinction between what we ARE experiencing or have experienced and our thoughts about these events.

I am saying that what occurs happens without our thoughts.

Our thoughts are distinct from what occurs.

In other words, everything is a distinction and different from everything else. When we don't make distinctions between what happens and what we think about what happens, we get into trouble, because we start to BELIEVE that our concepts are REALITY, and they are not.

 

[Duplicate]

This is the standard I am using in what I write. My own direct experience. I am writing about my direct experience, and I'm simply pointing that each one of us can use our own direct experience to make distinctions about the truth.

If it is raining, it IS raining. If you think it SHOULDN'T rain, this thought contradicts reality. What is reality. Reality is that it IS raining. Can you understand that?

I can understand that. I do believe in an objective reality just as you do yet the objective realities we believe in are quite different.

What is sin? Isn't it a man-made concept? Have you directly experienced sin yourself?

Sin is simply a man-made belief that has been passed down from other people, and thus is simply a concept, it is not true, and thus false.

Sin is the disobedience of God. You presume that God isn't real so it logically follows that sin cannot be real as well.

Have you directly died yourself yet? Obviously not. Other death is not your own direct experience.

Logically evaluated claims are concepts, and are not direct experience.

I would have to know your definition of "direct experience" to answer these questions to your satisfaction. The claims posit the very reason for "direct experience". Once believed to be true they become direct experience; as I understand it anyway.

His emotional state of disbelief is a THOUGHT, a false thought, it is false because he THINKS and thus believes that she should not have left, and THIS thought contradicts reality.

If you can't grasp this, read what I have written about this a couple of times, without your current CONCEPT, as if you are reading what I wrote the first time.



Obviously not. But in all the examples above, we were using examples that you would THINK that she shouldn't have died, or that it isn't fair that she die.

If you logically acknowledge that she doesn't live anymore then you are accepting reality.

You did not answer my question. Would that man say "Yes, my wife has left me" or would he say "No, she has not left me"? As I said before, I don't think emotions are logical. I don't see how this husband's non-literal "disbelief" that his wife has left him i.e. emotional shock contradicts anything as long as he says "yes, my wife has left me".
I believe you've contradicted your own logic here as well. You say:

Man's expectations about his wife being by his side all his life (i.e. she should not have left me) + unexpected reality = emotional state of disbelief is a THOUGHT, a false thought

If this is true then saying Man's expectations about his wife being by his side all his life (i.e. she should not have died in an accident today) + unexpected reality = Obviously not (with regards to answering the question am I contradicting the reality of her death?)

But in all the examples above, we were using examples that you would THINK that she shouldn't have died, or that it isn't fair that she die.

I was as well. It's implicit that the emotions come from unmet expectations.

Emotional shock is a logical contradiction if it is based on a belief that an event should not have happened.

As far as vows and what we think - obviously they have some effect, but if you give a vow or think that you will not get wet when you go outside under the rain without an umbrella, your vows or your thoughts will not matter much - YOU WILL GET WET.

Again, you're contradicting yourself somewhere. How can it be a "logical contradiction" and "Obviously not" at the same time. Either that or what you replied "Obviously not" to was misunderstood.

I think we both can agree that our emotions are products of our beliefs. Just like in your example. If you believe that your wife should not leave you and she doesn't then you will be happy (in that aspect of life anyways haha). If you believe that she should not leave you and she does, then you are sad. To feel emotions based on realizations of unmet expectations does not mean that you cannot logically understand and believe the reality of the situation. It would be like saying to someone coming out of one of the burning twin towers "Hey because you 'can't believe this is happening', you don't understand what's going on in reality (because that is implicitly what a logical contradiction would be). Or, really, because you are feeling emotions based on unmet expectations (however large or small) you don't understand the reality of the situation.

I would actually counter that to feel emotions would actually be evidence for implicit acknowledgement of the reality of the situation. Why would the man be sad, unless he logically believed that his wife left him? If his beliefs logically contradicted the reality that his wife left him he would actually believe that his wife has not left him.

Please know that I have no interest in arguing with myself so if I've mischaracterizedd anything you've said I apologize. There is nothing to be learned from arguing with straw men.

 

[headband 707]

The paradox is that while nothing changes - everything changes once you are aware that the true nature of Consciousness/Being is nothing. Life still goes on as before, except you are aware that Consciousness/Being is aware AS everything, and thus IS everything, including all stuff physical and non-physical that we are experiencing at the present moment, have experienced in the past, and most likely will experience in the future.

The most outrageous realization is that the past, the present, and the future, are all happening simultaneously NOW, because Consciousness/Being is ONENESS and thus ALL-INCLUSIVE.

There can be nothing added or taken away from Consciousness/Being.

This basically means that everything IS exactly the way it should be, and couldn't be any other way, because if it could it WOULD

Peace B

You guys are so deep what are you smokin?? I want some .... LOL lol headband 707

 

[southflorida]

I used to think manifestation was the way.

Well I still do.

However just hope wont get the universe moving in your direction.

Maybe it's not the universe that's to come in our direction maybe we need to go in the same direction as the universe.

In order for manifestation to come to fruition we must put ourselves in the right space of the universal line up.

Just like a surfing line up you have to be inline with the waves and also on time with them.

For me the easiest way to exist in this reality is complete surrender.

The point where nothing else matters including the self, I become one with the vast greatness.

Then there are no rules, there are no limitations only possibilities.

Life and the realty we live with are in tune with our own perceptions.

They have a huge impact on my life at the very least and in my mind our perceptions have a ringing effect in the world around us for good or bad.

Some time ago I stopped loving, I stopped loving my god and my self I shut it off just like you would turn off the water.

You know what happened ?

Nothing great.

Please fill yourselves with love and manifest a better way and remember; The path to fruition can be laborious and full of perils do not doubt your self just place one foot in front of the other and you will arrive exactly where you supposed to be.

nam yoho rengee kyo

...some interesting thoughts, thanks for taking your time to write this

 

[southflorida]

I'm not so sure that people do or even can experience reality in it's raw form. It's always distorted by their tunnel vision of reality.

Raw reality can be experienced: it is nothing. And we are all currently experiencing without knowing about it. Since we have no way of knowing this, we use our mind to make interpretations and provide meaning to this nothing. The mind or intellect cannot grasp this and thus all we are left with is our interpretation, or what you are calling tunnel vision of reality

Here's a better example. There is a family with a sick child dying of Lukemia. The family is extremely religious and holds religious bedside vigils until.....

a) the child dies. The family accepts this as "God's Will" which preserves their reality tunnel.

b) the child gets well and it is a miracle of "Gods Will" due to their faith and prayers. This preserves their reality tunnel.

c) the child dies and the family blames God and loses their faith in the process. Their reality tunnel is shattered and a new reality tunnel is created in which their faith has changed to bitterness.

these are good examples and show what I'm calling thoughts about reality, which are distinct from what actually simply occurs as itself, without any meaning or interpretation.

Most people are programmed to hold onto their version of reality and whatever happens around them is just fitted in and accepted. It's only until a significant event occurs that the programming might be changed.

...this is what I have observed also, including in my own direct experience.

 

[southflorida]

I can understand that. I do believe in an objective reality just as you do yet the objective realities we believe in are quite different.

You mean in your reality it does not rain when it is raining?

Sin is the disobedience of God. You presume that God isn't real so it logically follows that sin cannot be real as well.

I presumed we all have beliefs. Some are the same, some are different, but fundamentally, they are all false.

God, is a conceptual entity. It is invented in the mind. Sin is the same. Both of these concepts have been passed down you from other people, and thus they are NOT based on your DIRECT EXPERIENCE.

I also have conceptual beliefs, but I am aware that they are as false as yours.

I would have to know your definition of "direct experience" to answer these questions to your satisfaction. The claims posit the very reason for "direct experience". Once believed to be true they become direct experience; as I understand it anyway.

Direct experience is what you directly experience in your life. You do directly experience beliefs, but this does not make them true, it simply means that at the moment you believe a belief, you are directly experiencing it, even though it is conceptual.

You did not answer my question. Would that man say "Yes, my wife has left me" or would he say "No, she has not left me"? As I said before, I don't think emotions are logical. I don't see how this husband's non-literal "disbelief" that his wife has left him i.e. emotional shock contradicts anything as long as he says "yes, my wife has left me".
I believe you've contradicted your own logic here as well. You say:

Man's expectations about his wife being by his side all his life (i.e. she should not have left me) + unexpected reality = emotional state of disbelief is a THOUGHT, a false thought

If this is true then saying Man's expectations about his wife being by his side all his life (i.e. she should not have died in an accident today) + unexpected reality = Obviously not (with regards to answering the question am I contradicting the reality of her death?)

I am saying that if the wife left, then she left period. That is reality.

Everything else that he thinks about the FACT that she left, are his thoughts.

And yes, emotions have a conceptual structure, they are not simply raw feelings. Before we feel an emotional charge, we have thoughts, it just happens so quick we don't notice.

But I have made distinctions in emotions and can clearly see that our emotions have a conceptual structure, and are thus all based on thoughts.

Again, you're contradicting yourself somewhere. How can it be a "logical contradiction" and "Obviously not" at the same time. Either that or what you replied "Obviously not" to was misunderstood.

I think we both can agree that our emotions are products of our beliefs. Just like in your example. If you believe that your wife should not leave you and she doesn't then you will be happy (in that aspect of life anyways haha). If you believe that she should not leave you and she does, then you are sad. To feel emotions based on realizations of unmet expectations does not mean that you cannot logically understand and believe the reality of the situation. It would be like saying to someone coming out of one of the burning twin towers "Hey because you 'can't believe this is happening', you don't understand what's going on in reality (because that is implicitly what a logical contradiction would be). Or, really, because you are feeling emotions based on unmet expectations (however large or small) you don't understand the reality of the situation.

If you have emotions of unmet expectations, then you are saying that reality SHOULD BE DIFFERENT than it actually is!

You can understand the experience on some level, but if you are thinking that this shouldn't have happened, or this is not fair, or anything else, you are arguing with reality.

This mental argument with reality (saying something should have happened in a different way than it actually happened, or it is not fair that it happened this way, etc...etc...etc) IS what causes UNNECESSARY pain and suffering.

This is what I'addressing in this thread.

I would actually counter that to feel emotions would actually be evidence for implicit acknowledgement of the reality of the situation. Why would the man be sad, unless he logically believed that his wife left him? If his beliefs logically contradicted the reality that his wife left him he would actually believe that his wife has not left him.

This depends on what THOUGHT is causing the emotion. If it contradicts reality, then it has nothing to do with acknowledging the reality of the situation, but instead has to do with arguing with reality, saying or thinking that reality should be different than it is.

The man is sad NOT because the wife has left him, but because he believes and thinks she SHOULD NOT have left him.

Obviously he understands she left, but he THINKS she should not have left, or that it is unfair, or whatever.

This is the part you are not grasping. A person understands reality, but he/she starts arguing with it, saying it SHOULD BE DIFFERENT than it is.

If he thinks she left, and she should have left, there is no contradiction, because it is in-sync with what happened.

 

[bombadil.360]

God, is a conceptual entity. It is invented in the mind. Sin is the same. Both of these concepts have been passed down you from other people, and thus they are NOT based on your DIRECT EXPERIENCE.

sf,

if we notice carefully though, without the prejudices associated with terms/words such as 'God'; and keeping in mind one of your examples of how 'distinctions' produce 'subjective realities' out of 'nothing', like a screen using the 'nothingness' of its pixels to manifest anything; there is a 'power' in our fundamentally 'void' 'consciousness' that allows us to 'create/manifest' such distinctions.

this is what I was trying to point out with the question: whence movement?

how do we explain that there is the ability for consciousness/oneness to act the way it does?

God is the primal mover, or the fundamental animator that allows us to conceptualize any which way we choose out of 'nothingness'. without this fundamental 'spark', this vast 'voidness' couldn't act the way it does. without this 'creative spark' within us and without us, there would actually and literally be nothing at all, and we would not even be here discussing this.

peace

 

[southflorida]

if we notice carefully though, without the prejudices associated with terms/words such as 'God'; and keeping in mind one of your examples of how 'distinctions' produce 'subjective realities' out of 'nothing', like a screen using the 'nothingness' of its pixels to manifest anything; there is a 'power' in our fundamentally 'void' 'consciousness' that allows us to 'create/manifest' such distinctions.

this is what I was trying to point out with the question: whence movement?

how do we explain that there is the ability for consciousness/oneness to act the way it does?

imho...Consciousness is aware AS every distinction.

This awareness AS every distinction allows Consciousness to pull off this illusion in the NOTHINGNESS that is the true nature of reality.

Movement is also a distinction, just like a rock is a distinction, just like the weight, or the color or the temperature of the rock are distinctions.

Absolutely everything is a distinction.

And since Consciousness is aware AS every distinction, it means that there is absolutely NOTHING inside of Consciousness that is not a distinction.

Distinction IS NOT a concept. Every distinction IS exactly what it is. A rock is a rock, pain is pain, a bong is a bong.

Making a distinction is simply creating in our Consciousness a particular awareness or experience - this is then that distinction.

But the nature of a distinction is NOTHING.

Distinction is a FUNCTION of Consciousness, or to say it another way, distinction constitutes all that IS, and in every way that it IS, and yet the nature of distinction is not something that it IS.

Its nature is NOTHING.

Distinction is what Consciousness uses to create this reality, and this obviously includes movement, without which this reality would be even more absurd than it is now

God is the primal mover, or the fundamental animator that allows us to conceptualize any which way we choose out of 'nothingness'. without this fundamental 'spark', this vast 'voidness' couldn't act the way it does. without this 'creative spark' within us and without us, there would actually and literally be nothing at all, and we would not even be here discussing this.

This NOTHING is what IS now. Without this nothing, something could not appear as a distinction in our awareness.

It is a wild realization. NOTHING is what IS - and yet here we are, in a cannabis forum discussing stuff

 

[sso]

the truth is that he FEELS he was fucked over, it is NOT that he was fucked over. He might think and believe he was fucked over, but the truth is that what happened, happened, period.



yes it does. If what should have happened, DID happen, how did he get fucked over? In his thoughts maybe, in reality, what happened IS what happened, period.

Reality IS what happens. Our thoughts are our thoughts, they are distinct from reality. And it doesn't matter if our thoughts contradict reality or not, they are still distinct.



Not when it relates to what actually happened, it is simply a statement that is IN-SYNC with what happened.




actually, it DOES mean it should have happened.



If you don't admit the truth, and choose to live with your concepts, most likely you will not be able to accurately observe current reality, and will have difficulties making the right choices in the present moment.



don't get this.



saying it should have happened if it DID happen is accepting reality instead of arguing with reality and will help to completely avoid feeling unconstructive anger.

btw...there is no constructive anger, since any anger is always about somthing that happened in the past, even if it was a second ago, anger is absolutely always about the past.



saying "it should have happened" - is simply accepting what was or what IS, it is not about blaming anything or anyone.



seeing what IS without the FILTER of concept is not philosophy.

concepts and thoughts that contradict reality are personal philosophies and beliefs that actually lead to emotional pain and suffering.

so,,, if i raped you in the ass and then robbed you blind?


you didnt get fucked over?


things just happened and now you got a sore ass and empty pockets?


and the next time you see me, you are just gonna say hi, cause things just happened?

 

[sso]

ahm, a rock is a rock, but getting fucked over, does not exist, cause things just happen.


what self help books have you been reading?

 

[bombadil.360]

sf, we have been using the term 'distinction' differently I see.

your definition of distinction as a function of consciousness surely clears for me how you have been using it, it is a good definition btw.

the way I've been using 'movement' is the same as your def/ of 'distinction'. fyi, this def. of movement is the classic philosophical def., at least in western philosophy.

let me re-phrase using your terminology: without the function of distinction, consciousness could not manifest our realities; whence the ability for the function of distinction to do so?

that's what I called the 'creative spark', or to use a more philosophically accepted term: the primal/original 'emanation' animating consciousness and its functions from the 'unknown' i.e: 'God'.

 

[bombadil.360]

sso, your point is very valid and relevant.

this is why things like 'sin' can also be said to be functions of consciousness (to phrase it using sf's terminology).

when we do something we know is inherently wrong (knowledge of good and bad also being a function of consciousness), we are 'judged' and 'justice' is manifested in proportion to the action that was done; hence varying degrees of suffering or enjoyment depending on what kind of actions we use.

in a class for my magister in philosophy, there was an excellent way to understand 'karma', which is nothing more but platonic 'justice'.

karma/justice being functions of consciousnes; functions which the nature of consciousness posseses, independent of our opinions or desires on whether or not these should 'exist' or be 'real'.

all emanating from the unknown

 

[sso]

constructive anger.


someone is attacking me.

i get angry and bash his head in, INSTEAD OF MINE.

why?

cause he´s a dick and deserves what he wants to give (you get what you give)


and i dont want my head bashed in.

sure ill try to avoid it. and in fact, most often these people can be talked down.

but the reality is, assholes exist, and getting angry can help.



and btw, ive stopped most fights with a joke or conversation, but those rare cases do exist, where id rather be free of anything but knucklepain (assholes arent worth that pain.)

 

[sso]

sso, your point is very valid and relevant.

this is why things like 'sin' can also be said to be functions of consciousness (to phrase it using sf's terminology).

sin is usually a result of misunderstanding,

when we do something we know is inherently wrong (knowledge of good and bad also being a function of consciousness), we are 'judged' and 'justice' is manifested in proportion to the action that was done; hence varying degrees of suffering or enjoyment depending on what kind of actions we use.

"no one does anything wrong", they´ve always justified it in their minds, "i killed him, he deserved it, he got in the way" "i am the only thing that matters, cause thats how everyone thinks" "i steal, because everyone should be sharing, and they are not"

in a class for my magister in philosophy, there was an excellent way to understand 'karma', which is nothing more but platonic 'justice'.

karma/justice being functions of consciousnes; functions which the nature of consciousness has independent of our opinions or desires on whether or not these should 'exist' or be 'real'.

all emanating from the unknown

politicians would die young if there was such a thing as a system of karma.

here´s how it works,

if you pee in the wind , long enough, you are gonna get some on you.

 

[southflorida]

sf, we have been using the term 'distinction' differently I see.

your definition of distinction as a function of consciousness surely clears for me how you have been using it, it is a good definition btw.

the way I've been using 'movement' is the same as your def/ of 'distinction'. fyi, this def. of movement is the classic philosophical def., at least in western philosophy.

let me re-phrase using your terminology: without the function of distinction, consciousness could not manifest our realities; whence the ability for the function of distinction to do so?

that's what I called the 'creative spark', or to use a more philosophically accepted term: the primal/original 'emanation' animating consciousness and its functions from the 'unknown' i.e: 'God'.

Well, I'm glad I wrote it all out, and now we know we are talking about the same thing, only using different words.

For me personally, this insight hit me after realizing that I don't really know what anything is until I interpret something and provide it with meaning.

Until that moment whatever is there in my awareness simply IS.

Without interpreting this IS - it is simply what it IS - a distinction, that is different from anything else.

If there was NO distinction between stuff, there would be NOTHING, which is what the true nature of distinction and Consciousness - IS.

For example if there was only white, there would be NOTHING.

For something to appear, there would have to be a second distinction, for example black.

Simple and intereseting, hah?

 

[sso]

well, if i dont interpret what is and make distinctions.


how am i then gonna avoid stinging my fingers on that cactus?

 

[bombadil.360]

sso, I do not disagree with some of what you're saying; however, just because someone is not aware of having been 'judged' and has 'gotten what he gave', does not mean it is not happening.

how many times have we seen people who only several years after having done fucked-up things become aware of their regret?

our layers of 'willful ignorance' keeps us blind of these things, usually until it is too late and all the shit comes pouring down a you like an apocalypse

 

[guest 77721]

Hey SouthFlorida,

Your interpretation that reality is created by our consciousness is an idea prevalent in Buddhism.

"All that we are is based on all we have thought..."

Thinking in terms of SHOULD and SHOULD NOT, is Rule based thinking. It's easy to see that people all around you practice this form of thinking but harder to see it in yourself.

Let's go back to your original idea that people who think in terms of should and should not experience pain when their version of reality doesn't match reality around them. The first thing to understand is that Truth is relative. We experience objective Truth through our own experiences.

For instance a while ago people thought that the world was flat. When enough travellers and scientists discovered or experienced the objective truth of a round world, this idea became the new relative truth.

It is easy to see how people create an objective truth on any subject or belief. It is extremely difficult to get people to change their beliefs because of the Thinker/Prover circuit. The more that the belief is challenged, the stronger the prover circuit will work to maintain the belief.

What is harder to do is to change your own programming...

Here's an exercise

1. Imagine vividly that there is a quarter and imagine vividly that you will find this quarter on the street. Look for the quarter everytime you go for a walk, meanwhile continuing to visualize it. See how long it takes to find the quarter.

2. Explain the above experiment by "selective attention" and the fact that there are lot's of lost quarters out there. Go look for the second quarter.

3. Explain that experiment by the alternative "mystical" hypothesis that the mind controls everything. Believe that you made the quarter manifest in the universe. Go looking for a second quarter.

Send me the $.50 when you have completed this exercise...