Is your 'reality' just thought? (page 2)

Sassy

interesting thought.......

I just tonight got done rewatching The Truman Show, with the suggestion of watching it as reference to the JW world... and the reality of lack there of....

it was interesting watching that with a different prospective

Markfromcali

At this point I have to point out that what makes this topic interesting is not just the thought itself, but that you guys no doubt see the truth it points to to some degree.

This is why I talk about mind control in terms of the mind itself rather than specific thoughts or set of thoughts. The fact is if you don't have this kind of clarity, you'll always be under mind control in some way. Granted that may not be nearly as dysfunctional as the JW experience, but the essential behavior is the same, you're functioning at the same level. By simply questioning the behavior of referring to thought as reality, it undercuts the belief based view of reality without directly challenging specific beliefs. This may not elicit immediate change in behavior, but ultimately it goes deeper.

I am reminded of the JW (and fundies) teaching that meditation is emptying your mind, thus opening yourself up to demon posession. Actually, not all meditation is emptying your mind anyways, and even (or especially) if you try it is not very easy to do. You don't even have to go there, you can just sit there (close to nature if you like) with your eyes open and take in the experience without imposing a thought over the experience, or tying it in with a thought even if thoughts come up. Isn't this what we just naturally do at times?

Larry

Ok I found them: The Ending of Time - J. Krishnamurti and David Bohm. & The Future of Humanity - J. Krishnamurti and David Bohm. Bohm is a difficult read (at least for me) but K says the same thing on a simplier level. I will post some of K's stuff soon. LL :)

Narkissos

interesting thought.......

onacruse

Well, Mark, here we go again! LOL

Our thoughts are the only reality we have, and out thoughts are formulated in words, all of which we have inherited from the rest of humanity; therefore our thoughts are not our own, but merely a reflection of our human sociological conditioning (except for those handful of millisecond-long flashes of self-realization that we [read "I," since I can only speak [subjectively] about myself] have experienced).

But then, in the course of daily existence and pragmatism, we take "possession" of our thoughts, and analyses, as if they are our own, when they're not.

How many layers of an onion are there, anyway?

onacruse

Schopenhauer (Religion, A Dialogue; Psychological Observations):

The will to live, which forms the inmost core of every living being, exhibits itself most conspicuously in the higher order of animals, that is, the cleverer ones; and so in them the nature of the will may be seen and examined most clearly. For in the lower orders its activity is not so evident; it has a lower degree of objectivism; whereas, in the class which stands above the higher order of animals, that is, in men, reason enters in; and with reason comes discretion, and with discretion, the capacity of dissimulation, which throws a veil over the operations of the will. And in mankind, consequently, the will appears without its mask only in the affections and the passions. And this is the reason why passion, when it speaks, always wins credence, no matter what the passion may be; and rightly so. For the same reason the passions are the main theme of poets and the stalking horse of actors. The conspicuousness of the will in the lower order of animals explains the delight we take in dogs, apes, cats, etc.; it is the entirely naïve way in which they express themselves that gives us so much pleasure.

The sight of any free animal going about its business undisturbed, seeking its food, or looking after its young, or mixing in the company of its kind, all the time being exactly what it ought to be and can be?what a strange pleasure it gives us! Even if it is only a bird, I can watch it for a long time with delight; or a water rat or a hedgehog; or better still, a weasel, a deer, or a stag. The main reason why we take so much pleasure in looking at animals is that we like to see our own nature in such a simplified form. There is only one mendacious being in the world, and that is man. Every other is true and sincere, and makes no attempt to conceal what it is, expressing its feelings just as they are.

Siddhashunyata

onacruse writes: " How many layers of an onion are there, anyway? "

Krishnamurti asks " Is there a way for all the layers to fall away at once? He answers "Yes ! " but no one and no teaching can do it for you. It takes unwavering "attention" to the mind's action (ie noting the action, being "aware" of the action) in every relationship ( to people, things , the body, thoughts, everything. ( Here's the hard part : the attention or noting must be done without trying)

Markfromcali

Hi Craig,

Our thoughts are the only reality we have, and out thoughts are formulated in words

What is it like without those thoughts, those words? The way Bohm defines thought includes quite a bit more as well, but I would suggest simply doing this as an experiment. What is left? It may seem like nothing, as much as it may seem like thoughts are the only things or everything - but clearly you are still there in the absence of thought. So the question becomes who am I, or what is in the absence of thought. Of course that implies the question is not to be answered with another thought. We're turning the mind back on itself, thinking would be the opposite direction.

On Schopenhauer's thought:

The main reason why we take so much pleasure in looking at animals is that we like to see our own nature in such a simplified form.

I say forget pleasure for a second, just look at expression of form - animate as well as inanimate. People often think something like rock with the inanimate, but it doesn't have to be objects in nature (in terms of mother nature) - a rubber band or some lint will do. This is to look at our own nature in a deeper sense, the nature of the looking, the nature of mind itself. The Buddha said: "Just as the ocean has one taste, the taste of salt, so my teaching has one taste, the taste of freedom." But it's really not so narrow as a teaching, which is just more thoughts. Obviously I mean something more basic here. There is not even a Buddha on the road that can be killed. As the 9th zen patriarch Pai Chang said:

There has never been such a thing as 'Buddha'--do not understand it
as Buddha. 'Buddha' is a medicine for sentient beings. Without
disease, one shouldn't take medicine. When medicine and disease are
both dissolved, it is like pure water; Buddhahood is like a sweet
herb mingling with the water, or like honey mixed with the water--it
is most sweet and delicious. (But) if you judge from the standpoint
of the pure water, it is not affected; it is not that it doesn't
exist--it is originally there.

Markfromcali

Siddha said:

It takes unwavering "attention" to the mind's action (ie noting the action, being "aware" of the action) in every relationship ( to people, things , the body, thoughts, everything. ( Here's the hard part : the attention or noting must be done without trying)

During a lecture Suzuki Roshi had said that life was impossible.

"If it's impossible, how can we do it?" a student asked.

"You do it everyday," Suzuki answered.

frankiespeakin

Reality without thought???

I would say reality is not something you can't experience as in say "absolute" reality. We only can percieve what our very limited senses relay to our minds,, and this is not accurate in any absolute degree.

Example:

We see a table it looks solid but with more powerful sensing devices we see it is not solid,,, but mostly, just empty space,,mainly electromagnetic feilds (electrons) make it "appear" solid. The closer we examine anything we find it is not what it appears to be. Our sense allow us to understand many thing but only on the level that they operate.

Take our eye for instance,,we can only see a very limited spectrum of light,,there is light that is shining and we don't see it,,it is beyound the spectrum of visible light. Our view of reality is very flawed. Our symbols (metaphores) for talking about reality is very limited.

Is it important to understand reality??? I dunno,,maybe there is a big prize if you do,,LOL. I think it is enough to know you don't know,,be happy the world is and you are a part of it,,learn to live in it,,take advantage of it,,and grow old very gracefully.

Is your 'reality' just thought?

Share this