TL/DR: Life is subjective, illusion based, and nothing is real, you’ll die, ascend consciousness if lucky, or be stuck in some terrifying never ending cycle.
Always strive for Brahman though, as that’s the Eternity, the Many Faces, and the Nonduality, the God that is Nothing, the Nothing that is God.
What is Brahman, and why should I strive for it, and how could I strive for it if I wanted to?
Is it TRUE DEATH?
That which is outside of what I fear may be true: the inescapability of the continuance of my consciousness?
Is it an acknowledgement of one's past existences as other people?
Because in that case it is outside of my understanding of the way the universe works, since I don't think I ever was another person in a meaningful way. If I was another person, that person didn't know me as I currently am, and I don't know them as they were so what connects us to each other? And how could some hypothetical uber future self-aspect be able to acknowledge that tenuous connection we might have?
I agree, everything in this universe is made of the same basic stuff at the lowest level (probably), but I don't see how that meaningfully integrates a consciousness with the reality it's parts were made from.
Combinations of parts can have attributes that don't exist in any of the individual parts, and this suggests to me that combinations of parts of the universe can meaningfully separate it from the rest of the universe when looking at certain attributes. It could perhaps be the case, that the combination of universe parts that creates a perceptive consciousness separates the universe into observed and observer, and experienced and experiencer. When the consciousness dies, it doesn't rejoin the universe; it ceases to exist-the elevated attributes it obtained due to its pattern fall back to the background levels of the universe.
If all existence is fundamentally one thing, which space is derived from, then it itself exists nowhere, or only "here". There is nowhere "else" for anything to go at all. So all conscious observers are superimposed on top of each other, as are all observed things. Think of it like a hologram.
What is happening here in your post is a suggestion that the body or brain is not only something through which the singularity experiences, but that it generates consciousness and qualitative elements such as redness. As though each and every person's brain is generating its own separate and personal consciousness.
Turn this around. The finite selves and brains are inside of the source. The "I" (which is, fundamentally empty or nothing) that experiences me is the same "I" that experiences you and all things simultaneously. This is difficult to comprehend for a human because linear time is important to us, so religions might suggest reincarnation as though reincarnation happens sequentially. But I am saying it is not in sequence it is all at once. Time does not create the future or destroy the past as it moves. Like a book, we do not assume the future pages do not yet exist, it is just that we read it linearly. Outside of time the entire book front to back exists all at once like a block.
You say consciousness dies and ceases to exist. You mean the personal consciousness you believe you have (of course, otherwise who is mourning at your funeral!). I suggest that what dies is merely a vessel through which a finite form experiences things. Like when the dreamer stops dreaming of a character in a dream, the dreamer goes nowhere and the character vanishes but the character was never truly real.
But remember in any case, the suggestion that non-existence is the root OF existence and nothing and something are two sides of one coin. From nothing IS something. There is nowhere "else" to "go" because elsewhere is something only possible in space, not outside of space where division cannot happen.
If you open MS Paint make the canvas 1x1. Put down a pixel. That is say, an object like a tree, now take your finite mind, that is another pixel. Where do you place it? There is nowhere to place it except on top of the pixel that is the tree. With no space there is nowhere else for things to go.
I suggest that the only thing that exists is you. This is not Solipsism, because I exist too but I am also you, and you are me. And you are your computer and pet dog and family and keyboard and etc etc. You type a message to you (me) which I read on a screen made of you, and write a response back which is read by you. BRAIN-you and brain-me are separate, but so are two leaves on the same tree. Zoom out and see that it is all "tree". You are all that exists, you are eternal. Separate human-you from that which observes the thoughts and emotions and such that human-you has, and there is the real "you". There is God.
I further suggest that we do not go from something to nothing, but rather we are always in nothing. Just as in a dream you are really asleep here in bed. We are asleep in nothing and the something is the dream.
First off, this is simply me playing Advocate, for the sake of Philosophy. While I softly agree with some of what I’ll say, do not take it all as my 100% factual belief.
Okay, so now we’ve broached Concepts for sure, Concepts which usually stand by reason as the ‘building blocks’ of the Universe.
All a Concept technically is, would be an idea that we apply to a certain “real logic,” for lack of better terms:
Gravity, Time, Light, Language, Knowledge, Truth, etc.
The issue is, by acknowledging these Concepts are logical in Philosophy, not Mental, which would inherently harm the argument perpetrated.
You could argue that they’re just words that we assign “meaningless meaning” towards, the issue remains that a Concept is technically Empirical, the direct opponent of Philosophical.
The only argument I’m aware of would be that Concepts point to direct experience, we simply cannot conceptualize something that isn’t within our reasonable mental capacity.
That could be an objective claim, but it would be made from a subjective ground.
& It would need a study group consensus to reasonably test it.
With that being said, by virtue of it any Concept thought of, or made “law” by man, is a Concept we’ve experienced.
“But I can imagine the Concept of a Dragon, or even a 40 foot tall Ape named King Kong!”
Yes, but that would be due to their normal conceptual make up, colors, shapes, etc.
We couldn’t conceptualize what a 9th dimensional hexagon looks like, or even a 4th dimensional Hyper?cube, because it’s not within the realm of plausibility to us.
So, while we may not be able to say what an External Reality would be, we can definitely say what it isn’t, due to these Laws, Concepts you say even exist in the dream like illusion of reality we stay in.
Space existing (in the terms of my sophism.) would imply that Space is the canvas we draw the illusions of Concepts upon.
Space is still apart of the Consciousness within this segment, but it’s only the Canvas we draw upon, and as such is subjective to our Reality/Experience.
Could Space be independent of us? Which would basically ask is Soce physical? Throwing aside my personal opinion, the argument I’m advocating is a big no as well, mainly due to our limited experience.
See how experience is the big advocate in this argument?
If Space was independent of our experience, it would be Physical, which would make Space objective, existing in the External/Material World. How could we describe an item, of that which is inexperiencable though,
“But just because we can’t imagine it, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.”
Meh, well it does kinda, you can’t say you imagine nothing at all, because you can’t. The/Your (not you specifically.) argument is that you’re imagining Nothing, which is complete opposite of Existence.
Time also doesn’t exist, “but why?! Are you retarded?!”
All Time is, would be a way to relate two separate events, or Experiences. You can’t conceive the future, you can’t conceive an events location in the past, only the experience it gave. Even if Time was objective we couldn’t tell the place an event that’s already happened, along the “span of Time” because it’s not an interactive Concept physically. & Any sort of mathematical representation of Time/Space can only do so, because they are assuming that Time/Space is objective to everything in relations due to Einstein I believe.
Everyone’s individual experience, creates their subjective Time, along a supposed Spatial “stream/linear set” of experiences, which only means that what happens now, has absolutely zero effecting cause to the past, there’s. no. connection
.
TL/DR: Life is subjective, illusion based, and nothing is real, you’ll die, ascend consciousness if lucky, or be stuck in some terrifying never ending cycle.
Always strive for Brahman though, as that’s the Eternity, the Many Faces, and the Nonduality, the God that is Nothing, the Nothing that is God.
This isn’t me claiming these are all true, or all false. Dualism sucks, there’s no such thing as ONLY two Truth Values, that’s just a conditioned route of belief. Fallacious in nature as a False Dilemma,
True or False is in nature, logically incorrect, Many-Valued Logic’s, while Non-Classical also exist, which is a good
Causal force of future verbs can be deterministic or probabilistic. The proposition: “If you let go of that rock, it will fall” expresses the speaker’s belief that there is no possibility that things might turn out otherwise [Rhoda, Boyd, & Belt 2006, 443]. The expressed probability contained in the speaker’s belief is 1. But, if a mother warns her child by saying: “Don’t go out without your jacket or you will catch a cold” it is not the causal inevitability which she means but only probability, which is less than 1 but greater than 0.
Which uses Rational-Choice Theory, or when we use “rational calculations” to make “rational choices” that have higher chances to achieve outcomes that we aligned with our own personal objectives, or Subjective Experience.
That’s all I got left in me I think as an Advocate, instead of speaking normally.
I usually require more simplified language with metaphors and similes to understand things. When you discuss 9th dimensional things or something, it brought to mind the concept of a "square circle".
When you say you die and ascend consciousness, I suggest to you that what dies is your finite form. The real you, which is Brahman, Nothing, (etc) goes nowhere, it is ever-present and unchanging. When you die you see your body through the eyes of your grieving relatives. Right now you see my room and my screen. That is, the true ultimate you. It is the finite you that is limited and vanishes. Ask yourself what, right now, sees the sight that your brain and eyes have produced, and consider for a moment that it is God. Not even you and God (because when we say me etc. we instinctively bring finite elements into it), just God. Consider passed loved ones, that is them. I am there too. Because that is all that exists objectively. Everything is THAT you. God-you. Brahman.
The unchanging element of consciousness is important but a different topic from discussion of an external world.
For Nondualism Brahman is According to Advaita metaphysics, Brahman—the ultimate, transcendent and immanent God of the latter Vedas—appears as the world because of its creative energy (māyā). The world has no separate existence apart from Brahman.
It is the pervasive, infinite, eternal truth and bliss which does not change, yet is the cause of all changes.[1][3][6] Brahman as a metaphysical concept refers to the single binding unity behind diversity in all that exists in the universe.
Imagine a movie. Brahman is the screen, existence is what appears on the screen. Things on the screen are impernanent and change as the movie plays. The screen manifests as these objects (its pixels light up different colors or w.e. to create form). The screen itself never changes.
I suggest to you that what dies is your finite form. The real you, which is Brahman, Nothing, (etc) goes nowhere, it is ever-present and unchanging. When you die you see your body through the eyes of your grieving relatives. Right now you see my room and my screen.
It was relevant to my end goal, which was I’ve given all the outward information I can. & Everything from here on out will be my 100% true opinion on the topic.
Imagine (well we can’t actually) but play along, imagine a 4D Hyper Cube, now a 9th Dimensional Sphere is nine-dimensional vector space over any field, such as a nine-dimensional complex vector space, which has 18 real dimensions.
or would look like this
But remember in any case, the suggestion that non-existence is the root OF existence and nothing and something are two sides of one coin. From nothing IS something. There is nowhere "else" to "go" because elsewhere is something only possible in space, not outside of space where division cannot happen.
Off-topic, but I remember reading a physics theory sometime ago similar in scope to this. The idea was that as an ancient universe progresses through its heat death, its state becomes more similar to the state one would expect within the singularity just prior to the big bang. Nothing happens in a dead universe, and everything is everywhere the same-so time and space are meaningless. The idea therefore is that the dead universe is the precursor to a new big bang.
If all existence is fundamentally one thing, which space is derived from, then it itself exists nowhere, or only "here". There is nowhere "else" for anything to go at all. So all conscious observers are superimposed on top of each other, as are all observed things. Think of it like a hologram.
If you open MS Paint make the canvas 1x1. Put down a pixel. That is say, an object like a tree, now take your finite mind, that is another pixel. Where do you place it? There is nowhere to place it except on top of the pixel that is the tree. With no space there is nowhere else for things to go.
The thing is I don't see how on my scale of observation and experience, I could be said to be the 1x1 pixel. On my scale there is a lot of extra space for things other than me to exist.
I understand how you can say "all existence is fundamentally one thing", but the way I would rephrase it is "all existence can be placed into one set". Within that set are more sets containing still more sets. One of those sets would be me, which would contain still more sets within me. There are also sets within the all-existence set that do not contain me. These sets would be external to me.
I do share your view how time within certain perspectives can become meaningless forwards as well as backwards (as well as sideways assuming sideways is an option). My view of immortality allows for the possibility that the self who dies in a car-crash can continue living in a universe 10^[large number] cycles in the past or a simultaneously occuring local universe 10^[large number] light years away.
I agree along the premise of what my thought train was, yes.
It was relevant to my end goal, which was I’ve given all the outward information I can. & Everything from here on out will be my 100% true opinion on the topic.
Imagine (well we can’t actually) but play along, imagine a 4D Hyper Cube, now a 9th Dimensional Sphere is nine-dimensional vector space over any field, such as a nine-dimensional complex vector space, which has 18 real dimensions.
or would look like this
I'd be glad and happy to discuss the permanent and fixed nature of consciousness, I just thought it might distract people so didn't dive into that.
However, people always conflate consciousness with the contents of consciousness. And I ask them what they think would happen if we imagine for a moment that all creatures generate their own consciousness, and I swapped the consciousness of an ant with yours. From their reply it is then easy to correct the mistake.
With the dimension stuff, there was a video on YouTube, it had something like toybox or playroom in the title? And someone made a physics simulation of higher dimensions. You could throw cubes around in it and when they entered the 4th dimension it'd partly disappear to us. Like 2D creatures walking ground and coming upon a stone. To them the stone is a flat thing blocking the path completely, but there is actually a Z axis that can navigate around it they just can't see it.
Off-topic, but I remember reading a physics theory sometime ago similar in scope to this. The idea was that as an ancient universe progresses through its heat death, its state becomes more similar to the state one would expect within the singularity just prior to the big bang. Nothing happens in a dead universe, and everything is everywhere the same-so time and space are meaningless. The idea therefore is that the dead universe is the precursor to a new big bang.
The thing is I don't see how on my scale of observation and experience, I could be said to be the 1x1 pixel. On my scale there is a lot of extra space for things other than me to exist.
I understand how you can say "all existence is fundamentally one thing", but the way I would rephrase it is "all existence can be placed into one set". Within that set are more sets containing still more sets. One of those sets would be me, which would contain still more sets within me. There are also sets within the all-existence set that do not contain me. These sets would be external to me.
I do share your view how time within certain perspectives can become meaningless forwards as well as backwards (as well as sideways assuming sideways is an option). My view of immortality allows for the possibility that the self who dies in a car-crash can continue living in a universe 10^[large number] cycles in the past or a simultaneously occuring local universe 10^[large number] light years away.
The 1x1 pixel seems impossible because you are looking outwardly
Think of the movie screen, everything that happens in the movie appears IN the screen. I am saying everything that happens is taking place inside the singularity in much the same manner. There can be multiplicity (and indeed the appearance of duality arises by necessity), but it does not mean these things are somehow external to the singularity. Much as how nothing happening on the movie screen could somehow come out of the screen.
Space is required for division to be possible. If there is nowhere "else" in existence, where can you form a division between two things as being here and there? The divisions that are allowed for happen inside space, but space exists in that singularity. So ultimately all things are sort of superimposed on top of each other.
That screen at the theater and the movie, well search inwards and you will find the screen. That is the emptiness in which all things appear. That is the 1x1 pixel.
I still don't see how I could become brahma, or why I would want to. I feel it has the same issues with when I try to imagine myself as a different person. In order to truly BECOME the different person I would have to remove all things that make me me, and in doing so there is no me that is experiencing being the other person. What parts of me would be retained in becoming brahma?
I had the same issue when I was told of the suppos-ed true nature of the Christian heaven. In which I would be praising God and Jesus forever and ever, and be happy. But I do not see any way that I, in my current state, could be happy in doing that. So the person in heaven who would ostensibly be me could not, in actuality, be me.
Like 2D creatures walking ground and coming upon a stone. To them the stone is a flat thing blocking the path completely, but there is actually a Z axis that can navigate around it they just can't see it.
Yea I saw a pretty nifty text the other day talking about how most 3D animals don’t see in 3D.
As in, from a mile distance, a stationary is fixed along a 2 point plane. If there’s no shadows, no prior experience, and no conditioned knowledge. We’d see it as a 2D structure, until we got up to it, and moved along our variable Axis(s) to see the 3D nature.
To see 3D in totality it was argued that we’d need to be 4D capacity with visuals, then we’d see the whole image, as if it were showing all sides and angles to us at once.
I still don't see how I could become brahma, or why I would want to. I feel it has the same issues with when I try to imagine myself as a different person. In order to truly BECOME the different person I would have to remove all things that make me me, and in doing so there is no me that is experiencing being the other person. What parts of me would be retained in becoming brahma?
I had the same issue when I was told of the suppos-ed true nature of the Christian heaven. In which I would be praising God and Jesus forever and ever, and be happy. But I do not see any way that I, in my current state, could be happy in doing that. So the person in heaven who would ostensibly be me could not, in actuality, be me.
FYI Brahma is a theistic God, Brahman is not, they're different things.
You don't "become" Brahman, you ARE it. Right now you already ARE Brahman. All things are Brahman. Brahman is the source, Brahman is fundamental reality. It is the Tao (Taoism is a Buddhist approach. All these things are the same though).
The religion of Advaita Vedanta is about realizing this. Realizing your true nature which is infinite.
I feel it has the same issues with when I try to imagine myself as a different person. In order to truly BECOME the different person I would have to remove all things that make me me, and in doing so there is no me that is experiencing being the other person.
Yea I saw a pretty nifty text the other day talking about how most 3D animals don’t see in 3D.
As in, from a mile distance, a stationary is fixed along a 2 point plane. If there’s no shadows, no prior experience, and no conditioned knowledge. We’d see it as a 2D structure, until we got up to it, and moved along our variable Axis(s) to see the 3D nature.
To see 3D in totality it was argued that we’d need to be 4D capacity with visuals, then we’d see the whole image, as if it were showing all sides and angles to us at once.
Are you talking about Turiya, the basis of the 3 states of Consciousness?
We could probably just discuss that on your wall tbh, so we wouldn’t derail.
Yeah feel free to write me any time. My visits here are sporadic. Or of course people might get something from reading this too so maybe post here anyway? Not sure. Either way is cool.
Anyway, I don't think I refer to Turiya (not familiar with that term) because I don't believe there are any levels of consciousness. There is only one. Even in a materialist paradigm it is binary, on or off. Either something is completely and utterly oblivious to anything and everything, or it is aware of something. Awareness of even the slightest miniscule amount is the only amount of awareness there is. What changes are the contents inside it.
E.g. through a human, consciousness is filled with many things like memories and sights and sounds. The consciousness itself though, like the screen, is fixed, permanent, never-changing.
FYI Brahma is a theistic God, Brahman is not, they're different things.
You don't "become" Brahman, you ARE it. Right now you already ARE Brahman. All things are Brahman. Brahman is the source, Brahman is fundamental reality. It is the Tao (Taoism is a Buddhist approach. All these things are the same though).
The religion of Advaita Vedanta is about realizing this. Realizing your true nature which is infinite.
I have some suspicions as stated earlier of my own perception of my infinity--one of a similar nature to that suggested by the concept of quantum immortality, although my idea expands on it a bit. Does my idea and that of Brahman mesh at all?
Three states of consciousness are familiar, which are wakefulness, dreaming, and sleep. The most interesting and unusual is the fourth state called Turiya, which is;
“They consider the fourth quarter as perceiving neither what is inside nor what is outside, nor even both together; not as a mass of perception, neither as perceiving nor as not perceiving; as unseen; as beyond the reach of ordinary transaction; as ungraspable; as without distinguishing marks; as unthinkable; as indescribable; as one whose essence is the perception of itself alone; as the cessation of the visible world; as tranquil; as auspicious; as without a second. That is the self (atman), and it is that which should be perceived. Turiya is also mentioned in other Upanishads, Turiya is not simply another state of consciousness but is considered the basis of all the other three states of consciousness. Given this conceptualization, the possibility of Turiyahas important implications for theories of consciousness.
I have some suspicions as stated earlier of my own perception of my infinity--one of a similar nature to that suggested by the concept of quantum immortality, although my idea expands on it a bit. Does my idea and that of Brahman mesh at all?
Hm... Well in this dream called the universe, immortality would not be possible due to entropy. That is the catch with "things". Things are always impermanent and changing. The no-thing (Brahman) is what is fixed, eternal, and never-changing. You are that. You are Brahman.
Clinging to afterlifes or eternal life for the finite self, is due to associating the finite self as being your true nature. But it is not. If I said you will reincarnate as another person, would you be comforted? Reincarnation is similar enough that a person could believe in it without needing to go the extra confusing mile to get at real apparent truth, which is that they are all things and all people and animals and plants and rocks and atoms at once.
Here is an example... If you feel sad you might say "I am sad!" as if to imply that what you fundamentally are is sadness. Yet when the feeling passes and you feel happy, you do not vanish. To associate with the finite self is like that. You will find that when it goes, the true you goes nowhere.
Reincarnation is similar enough that a person could believe in it without needing to go the extra confusing mile to get at real apparent truth, which is that they are all things and all people and animals and plants and rocks and atoms at once.
Hm... Well in this dream called the universe, immortality would not be possible due to entropy. That is the catch with "things". Things are always impermanent and changing. The no-thing (Brahman) is what is fixed, eternal, and never-changing. You are that. You are Brahman.
Clinging to afterlifes or eternal life for the finite self, is due to associating the finite self as being your true nature. But it is not. If I said you will reincarnate as another person, would you be comforted? Reincarnation is similar enough that a person could believe in it without needing to go the extra confusing mile to get at real apparent truth, which is that they are all things and all people and animals and plants and rocks and atoms at once.
I would not feel anything especially at the idea of reincarnating as another person, since I have no sensation of continuity in that happening. The case in which I die and cease to exist is indistinguishable from the one in which I die, and am reincarnated as a person who is entirely disconnected from my former self.
Just to confirm, this is Buddhism, right?
Do Buddhists truly believe the Dalai Lama reincarnates into his successor whenever he dies? Because that idea seems too fantastical for me to believe. My view would be that he would continue to live, but not in a local reality. So the people who saw the person die will never see that person again.
I would not feel anything especially at the idea of reincarnating as another person, since I have no sensation of continuity in that happening. The case in which I die and cease to exist is indistinguishable from the one in which I die, and am reincarnated as a person who is entirely disconnected from my former self.
Just to confirm, this is Buddhism, right?
Do Buddhists truly believe the Dalai Lama reincarnates into their successor whenever he dies? Because that idea seems too fantastical for me to believe. My view would be that he would continue to live, but not in a local reality. So the people who saw the person die will never see that person again.
Not just Buddhism, also many sects of Hinduism, as well as philosophy.
There are many sects of Buddhism. I do not believe in reincarnation like that because I do not believe in a permanent self. I believe instead that "all that exists is me" in the non Solipsistic sense that ANYONE who said that sentence I would say is correct as we are all one and the same: There is only the infinite field of nothing which takes the form of somethings like images on a screen.
In other words, I do not reincarnate because there is nobody TO reincarnate! I am an appearance in consciousness. Where do dream characters go when the dreamer dreams of a different scene? Do they reincarnate as something new? No because they were never real. I am only real by illusion. What is not illusory is the permanent thing that is the dreamer, that is nothing, and that is what we are.
I don’t know about the innate specifics, but Dali Lama is apart of the Tibetan Buddhism, which is a mixture of Mahayana, Zen, Tibetan, & another I forget.
Advaita Vedanta is “Not Two,” Mahayana Buddhism is a rejection of the Atman (Soul) I think.
Advaita accepts the Soul as the one true self, Mahayana rejects it.
Buddhism believes there exists nothing permanent and unchanging, within or without man.
Advaita accepts that all we see/experience as knowledge is valid which has for its object something that is nonsublated. Nonsublatablity is considered as the ultimate criterion for valid knowledge.
Edit Added ~ Mahayana Buddhism is also Dualism, (Two), the exact opposite of Advaita Vedanta (Not Two)
Not just Buddhism, also many sects of Hinduism, as well as philosophy.
There are many sects of Buddhism. I do not believe in reincarnation like that because I do not believe in a permanent self. I believe instead that "all that exists is me" in the non Solipsistic sense that ANYONE who said that sentence I would say is correct as we are all one and the same: There is only the infinite field of nothing which takes the form of somethings like images on a screen.
In other words, I do not reincarnate because there is nobody TO reincarnate! I am an appearance in consciousness. Where do dream characters go when the dreamer dreams of a different scene? Do they reincarnate as something new? No because they were never real. I am only real by illusion. What is not illusory is the permanent thing that is the dreamer, that is nothing, and that is what we are.
The thing is, I could take that same view that you take, but it would do nothing for me. If I were convinced that I am you, then in what way am I you that makes anything new or different? The person speaking to you is never going to become you, and be able to reflect on the fond memories that I have created. I just don't see the point in obtaining that belief, as it doesn't change anything for me.
It wouldn't even abstain me from an immoral victimizing act if I were to find myself about to commit one. Since as I said, I wouldn't be the victim in a way I would find meaningful.
