There is no external world...

[johnsinslot]

It wouldn't even abstain 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

Incorrect brotha, read this on the Ethics of Advaita

Spoiler: Gita texts, and explanation:

Every religion preaches that the essence of all morality is to do good to others. And why? Be unselfish. And why should I? Some God has said it? He is not for me. Some texts have declared it? Let them; that is nothing to me. Let them all tell it; and if they do, what is it to me? Each one for himself, and somebody take the hindermost—that is all the morality in the world, at least with many. What is the reason that I should be moral? You cannot explain it except when you come to know the truth as given in the Gita:
He who sees everyone in himself, and himself in everyone, thus seeing the same God living in all, he, the sage, no more kills the Self by the self.’ Know through Advaita that whomsoever you hurt, you hurt yourself; they are all you. Whether you know it or not, through all hands you work, through all feet you move, you are the king enjoying in the palace, you are the beggar leading that miserable existence in the street; you are in the ignorant as well as in the learned, you are in the man who is weak, and you are in the strong; know this and be sympathetic. And that is why we must not hurt others.

 

[RMQualtrough]

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.

It may do nothing, but I think it is true and I'm interested in understanding reality first and foremost. I'm not looking to be enlightened or escape suffering I just want to know what reality is.

I stumbled into this philosophy only due to a personal religious experience rather than seeking a belief system. I did not even know what Buddhism etc was until that experience I had caused me to look for nondual philosophies.

I suppose the apparent realization of my true nature has made me feel better about death because I see the bigger picture and do not attach myself to this body as much. I realize my finite self is merely an expression of the source. Even a materialist can come to this realization through their own paradigm.

There are many things that I have discovered on this path which my experience sent me down. I suppose I feel more empathy. I still get angry sometimes of course. I would say my life is improved in ways that I cannot really put my finger on.

 

[Maurice Caine]

If there's no external world, explain this:

 

[Fester Chavez]

Incorrect brotha, read this on the Ethics of Advaita

It may do nothing, but I think it is true and I'm interested in understanding reality first and foremost. I'm not looking to be enlightened or escape suffering I just want to know what reality is.

I understand the idea conjures empathy, and empathy is frequently a useful emotion to have. I would hope in the case that I'm about to wrong someone, I would be able to stop myself.
But I don't think seeing myself in the victim in a literal way is helpful to me.
Seeing myself in the victim's position probably would help though. But I don't see Buddhist ideas as necessary for me to do that.

 

[RMQualtrough]

If there's no external world, explain this:

Expressions of nothingness (God) dancing in nothingness to the sound of nothingness. Amazing really <3

 

[Maurice Caine]

Expressions of nothingness dancing in nothingness to the sound of nothingness. Amazing really <3

I'm just saying, your mind couldn't have made that up. I myself have seen things you couldn't even begin to imagine. The world exists, it will continue existing after your mind inevitably ceases to exist. I dunno why retards think that the world is some sort of theme park attraction tailor-made to them to gawk at. Really explains the cultural hellhole we're at.

 

[RMQualtrough]

I'm just saying, your mind couldn't have made that up. I myself have seen things you couldn't even begin to imagine. The world exists, it will continue existing after your mind inevitably ceases to exist. I dunno why retards think that the world is some sort of theme park attraction tailor-made to them to gawk at. Really explains the cultural hellhole we're at.

The term "your mind" is the mistake. My mind is an appearance in what we may term God's mind, get it?

Consciousness does not belong to me. I belong to IT. "In Soviet Russia, you do not have consciousness, consciousness has you" tier.

I have seen the things that you have seen, and you have seen the things I have seen. In fact I am just you talking to you. Seperate self-you from that which observes the thoughts happening in self-you's brain.

 

[johnsinslot]

But I don't think seeing myself in the victim in a literal way is helpful to me.
Seeing myself in the victim's position probably would help though. But I don't see Buddhist ideas as necessary for me to do that.

My question back then, take no point by it, I am simply conjuring the possibility up:
First you must understand, this more “lacking morals” Advaita isn’t the real Advaita, it’s New Age.
Known as, the man Vivekānanda, who made several changes to this original system of Advaita Vedānta. When he added an extra component to Advaita Vedānta in the form of an ethical implication. Saying that if a man realizes his identity with brahman, the all-powerful Absolute, then he should feel the power of his abilities is as unlimited as brahman itself, giving him boundless self-confidence and irresistible power. Such a person would thus be able to work for the spiritual recovery of India. I.E ego chasing.

In contrast to this Vedānta teaches an ontological monism whereby the very nature of the soul is to be one with brahman, which is true regardless of
whether the soul chooses this identity or not. Second, ethics assumes relationships, which Advaita Vedānta effaces (because the relationship is unnecessary when we are all One Atman(Soul). Therefore, there appears to be no ethical implication embedded within Advaita Vedānta.



Now, question: If your moral compass scares you so badly, that the idea of no punishment for your actions drives you to undeniably being evil.
Would you be following the real Advaita, or the new, manipulative one written/changed to direct good from the US, to the “you?”

 

[Fester Chavez]

Now, question: If your moral compass scares you so badly, that the idea of no punishment for your actions drives you to undeniably being evil.
Would you be following the real Advaita, or the new, manipulative one written/changed to direct good from the US, to the “you?”

I was just mentioning the idea of being immoral to consider whether the beliefs had value for me in giving me moral structure. I'm not confident that it will. I don't see any empirical reason to take on these Buddhists beliefs, similar to how I don't really have true empirical reasons (although I do have pseudo-empirical reasons) to think I'm immortal.

I figured if I didn't see implicit truth in Buddhist belief, perhaps there's some practical reason to believe in it.

 

[RMQualtrough]

I was just mentioning the idea of being immoral to consider whether the beliefs had value for me in giving me moral structure. I'm not confident that it will. I don't see any empirical reason to take on these Buddhists beliefs, similar to how I don't really have true empirical reasons (although I do have pseudo-empirical reasons) to think I'm immortal.

I figured if I didn't see implicit truth in Buddhist belief, perhaps there's some practical reason to believe in it.

I think the Buddha said not to take his words as gospel and to seek truth for yourself. If you don't believe it is true then there is no reason to follow it. I just happen to believe the Zen/Taoist arena of Buddhism is literally true. Like I legitimately think it is right, not just because I want to.

 

[johnsinslot]

I'm just saying, your mind couldn't have made that up.

I think you’re either trolling, or just not fully understanding what’s been said man.
So, I’ll try to explain it again, simpler hopefully.
1. So you don’t agree? Okay, why would we mind your not believing?
We by nature don’t expect Dualism, this isn’t a you’re right or wrong, kind of situation to us. You’re allowed to do whatever you want, you’re still stuck in the dualistic route of thinking, and that’s fine. Just understand that I, don’t care what you believe in. You are allowed your belief, as I am mine, and yes that does mean you can insult us/me for it. Do as you wish.
2. You don’t think the mind could make up, simple Concepts such as light? color? sounds? anything? I’ll bite. I believe there’s even been studies upon it, but I’d have to research a bit, but our consciousness has two sides; in part it is consciousness of our own selves, which is will, and in part consciousness of other things. Or, 1st Consciousness being Gross Body, 2nd Subtle Body, 3rd Casual Body, Awareness - Dreaming - Deep Sleep - Turiya as the state of liberation, where according to the Advaita school, one experiences the infinite, or non-different/dualistic.
3. You don’t take Advaita to direct heart, not 100% even the best of its Teachers would call that ridiculous. It’s a path of self knowledge, and what knowledge lies beyond. It’s fine to not agree, it’s fine to agree, in the end you aren’t hurting us, we aren’t hurting you.

 

[Maurice Caine]

I think you’re either trolling, or just not fully understanding what’s been said man.
So, I’ll try to explain it again, simpler hopefully.
1. So you don’t agree? Okay, why would we mind your not believing?
We by nature don’t expect Dualism, this isn’t a you’re right or wrong, kind of situation to us. You’re allowed to do whatever you want, you’re still stuck in the dualistic route of thinking, and that’s fine. Just understand that I, don’t care what you believe in. You are allowed your belief, as I am mine, and yes that does mean you can insult us/me for it. Do as you wish.
2. You don’t think the mind could make up, simple Concepts such as light? color? sounds? anything? I’ll bite. I believe there’s even been studies upon it, but I’d have to research a bit, but our consciousness has two sides; in part it is consciousness of our own selves, which is will, and in part consciousness of other things. Or, 1st Consciousness being Gross Body, 2nd Subtle Body, 3rd Casual Body, Awareness - Dreaming - Deep Sleep - Turiya as the state of liberation, where according to the Advaita school, one experiences the infinite, or non-different/dualistic.
3. You don’t take Advaita to direct heart, not 100% even the best of its Teachers would call that ridiculous. It’s a path of self knowledge, and what knowledge lies beyond. It’s fine to not agree, it’s fine to agree, in the end you aren’t hurting us, we aren’t hurting you.

 

[johnsinslot]

What a derail & dead thread since he’s shown up, darn.

 

[Hellbound Hellhound]

Physicist and pioneer of quantum theory, Erwin Schrödinger, once famously said that "we cannot stand behind consciousness", which is true: there is an inherent qualitative distance between the observer and the observed which is apparently unbridgeable. With that said, none of this necessarily means that the external world doesn't exist.

The way I see it, if the external world is merely an illusion, then I am every bit the product of that illusion, in which case, it makes no qualitative difference either way. Or, as pulp fiction author Robert E. Howard once put it:

"Let teachers and priests and philosophers brood over questions of reality and illusion. I know this: if life is illusion, then I am no less an illusion, and being thus, the illusion is real to me. I live, I burn with life, I love, I slay, and am content." ~ Conan the Barbarian.

 

[RMQualtrough]

Physicist and pioneer of quantum theory, Erwin Schrödinger, once famously said that "we cannot stand behind consciousness", which is true: there is an inherent qualitative distance between the observer and the observed which is apparently unbridgeable. With that said, none of this necessarily means that the external world doesn't exist.

The way I see it, if the external world is merely an illusion, then I am every bit the product of that illusion, in which case, it makes no qualitative difference either way. Or, as pulp fiction author Robert E. Howard once put it:

Schrödinger was a proponent of Vedanta, quite fervent in fact. He wrote books around that subject like "What Is Life?"

Realizing you are ALSO part of the illusion is one of the highest realizations possible.

Every element of the external world we experience as being "like" something which is how we learn to navigate it. Different creatures can perceive the same exact objects or sounds etc in different ways. There is a piece called "What's it like to be a bat?" that you might like.

If you envision for a moment you exit your mind and you see the world exactly as it is separate from perceptions... Describe it... What does it look like in actuality? But you see looking like something itself requires the act of seeing and seeing = a perception. And we are trying to eliminate this... If absolutely anything you could possibly see the world as being cannot possibly be how it is (as it appears external from perception) because to see it as being like a thing requires perception, then what it is must be the only thing that could never possibly be seen. Which is nothingness.

You can also play around with the limitless nature of qualitative experience. A human sees a certain set of colors, other creatures may see others that we could never conceive of. If there are unlimited colors that could potentially be seen (since color is an immaterial phenomena I see no reason it would be limited) then the odds of any single one being accurate to what is really out there drops to 0%, because it's 1 in infinity. And then it must be the only color which cannot be perceived. Which is nothingness.

There are various angles of attack.

 

[Spooky Doot Skelly]

You don't understand Buddhism.

Consciousness is empty

Wrong. Read “mind like fire unbound” and get back to me.
buddhism deals with stress and freedom from it. Emptiness is not something that is real or even possible. You have no idea what it even is. Thanks for trying.

it’s clear OP took shrooms or DMT and is now convinced that reality doesn’t exist. Despite the fact that if physicalism was false he would’ve never had those experiences in the first place. Drugs being able to alter your “consciousness” is direct proof that you are not some “field of awareness” in front of you. All that he’s discovered is that information and knowledge has to come from physical senses as its genesis. This is something pretty much everyone knows.
Seriously he types two paragraphs of mucho texto and says absolutely nothing.

“describe the external world” why is it my responsibility to recreate a full mental model of the external world for you. This is what physics is trying to do. Go read griffiths or some other text if you want an accurate physical MODEL of reality.

 

[johnsinslot]

Physicist and pioneer of quantum theory, Erwin Schrödinger, once famously said that "we cannot stand behind consciousness", which is true: there is an inherent qualitative distance between the observer and the observed which is apparently unbridgeable. With that said, none of this necessarily means that the external world doesn't exist.

The way I see it, if the external world is merely an illusion, then I am every bit the product of that illusion, in which case, it makes no qualitative difference either way. Or, as pulp fiction author Robert E. Howard once put it:

This response as a whole was informative, and worthy of a heart. I am conflicted.

 

[johnsinslot]

If you envision for a moment you exit your mind and you see the world exactly as it is separate from perceptions

Which is essentially the Separation/Oneness argument comes to play, Seer vs Seen; Without those past: memories, ideas, concepts, knowledge, you’d see no separation; neither would you “feel” separation either.

 

[johnsinslot]

it’s clear OP took shrooms or DMT and is now convinced that reality doesn’t exist

It’s clear you don’t understand the difference in schools of Buddhism my guy, honestly. For someone claiming to have a better inherent knowledge on it, you’re acting the opposite.
If we want to technical, if I remember right Advaita Vedanta is one of the oldest branches…maaaaybe?¿ even more so than Mahayana (Tibetan Buddhism.)
Though I say that hesitatingly.


Edit- Think I was wrong ^

 

[RMQualtrough]

Wrong. Read “mind like fire unbound” and get back to me.
buddhism deals with stress and freedom from it. Emptiness is not something that is real or even possible. You have no idea what it even is. Thanks for trying.

I know very well what it is. Consciousness is empty by nature, things appear IN the field of awareness. This is the no-thing side of the Tao, the some-thing part is the observed. Things exist in an interdependent manner like that. Manifest requires unmanifest. Peaks require valleys. That is actually the reason why the Yin Yang symbol is designed that way, to show that form requires formlessness.

Consciousness is something that takes place when experience happens. Experienced always necessitates experiencer hence the dependency upon each other.

No drug has ever altered my consciousness. No drug ever could, because consciousness is the screen, it never changes. They have altered the contents that appear on the screen. The only thing which can happen that could be seen as an alteration (if you think brains make consciousness) is that all sensory input is turned off and the perception from the finite self ceases, giving an effect similar to general anaesthetic.

Brains are an appearance inside the universe-dream. It is via these localizations that experience happens. In normal dreams at night, the moment any part of the dreamed landscape is seen, you are localized in that dream. It creates an appearance of duality because in total nonduality there could not be experience. Brain-you is what God experiences this dream through. It is an appearance in the field of no-thing. Drugs are an appearance in the field of no-thing. The two interact thusly. A more obvious thing would have been to say general anaesthesia or blowing your brains out with a shotgun. DMT alteration is weaksauce since consciousness does not change or go anywhere at all unless you smoke so much you blackout like the anaesthetic effect.

It’s clear you don’t understand the difference in schools of Buddhism my guy, honestly. For someone claiming to have a better inherent knowledge on it, you’re acting the opposite.
If we want to technical, if I remember right Advaita Vedanta is one of the oldest branches…maaaaybe?¿ even more so than Mahayana (Tibetan Buddhism.)
Though I say that hesitatingly.


Edit- Think I was wrong ^

Advaita Vedanta is a Hindu philosophy, but it is essentially the same as Zen, Dzogchen, and the metaphysical views found in Taoism.