[FairfieldLife] Re: Reality...what a concept
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, endlessrainintoapapercup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: TurqB., you're a bit of a wild man, but that's all part of your charm. I enjoyed our conversation yesterday, but remain puzzled by the apparent lack of any congruence and understanding between us regarding the subject of reality/Reality. Reality is your crutch, dude, not mine. Don't expect me to get all passionate about it. :-) Hint: skip to the bottom of this post and read the headers and figure out who I was talking to. If you don't get it, I'll explain at the end. That's okay. I don't perceive myself to be any kind of authority on the subject, and have no vested interest in convincing you that there is any validity in anything I say. But I'd like to point out that the way you appear to be interpreting my words on the subject of reality does not actually represent my perspective at all. Perhaps we're dwelling in different... uh...realities. :-) Maybe you are referring to another conversation you had with someone else...? If it is our conversation you are referring to, you haven't actually understood what I said. Not that you're short on understanding, but words, such as reality, convey different conceptual meanings to each of us. See? You CAN get my point if you try. :-) That was it. Reality implies a perceiver. Without one there is no possibility of such a concept, or distinguishing reality from non-reality. And when there is a perceiver, there is a point of view. And where there is a point of view, there are other points of view on the same thing or things being perceived. I read the words you write, which appear to be an inferred representation of my understanding of reality/Reality, and they honestly don't represent my perception at all. Different realities, dude. :-) When you speak back what you think I'm saying, it becomes something else entirely. See? You CAN get these things if you try. :-) I'll make an effort to communicate more clearly and not assume that there is any kind of shared understanding in regard to future topics. There is no shared understanding at all. In the universe. It's all points of view, each unique, each trying to find some agreement with other points of view, endlessly. IMO, of course. And maybe you could resist the impulse to make statements about what you think I believe and experience? Unless that's too much to ask. Like I said, your wildness is part of your charm. Not a WORD of the rap below had anything to do with what YOU believe. The you's in the rap were rhetorical, or directed to Jim (Sandi Ego), whom I was conversing with, not you. The fact that you see the post as being directed to YOUR point of view when it wasn't tends to prove my point about points of view IMO, and rein- forces what Tom said. We color our perceptions by perceiving them; we project our selves into the things we perceive. You seem to have done so, and that's one kind of...uh...reality, I guess. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 sandiego108@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tomandcindytraynoratfairfieldlis tomandcindytraynoratfairfieldlist@ wrote: Barry writes snipped: I'm completely *comfortable* with the notion of there being a Saganesque billions and billions of realities. That poses no problem for me whatsoever. TomT: For me it appears to be a Baskin and Robbins store with trillions of flavors and ultimately the only thing you can know is the flavor of you the perceiver. It has your flavor as it is filtered through the DNA you are made of. You impart the flavor by the act of perceiving. Have fun. TOm so the Saganesque and Baskin and Robbins store containers are what each of you conceptually use as your metaphors for reality with a capital R. What I think we are saying (I hope Tom will forgive me for speaking for him) is that we don't feel any need to delude ourselves into thinking that 1) there is such a thing as Reality with a capital R, or 2) that we know what it is. reality (or realities) with a lowercase r is just fine for us. The point I've been trying to make is that reality is merely a *concept*. It can't stand on its own; it does not and cannot have an existence independent of a perceiver. It needs a perceiver to *perceive* reality, or to distinguish it from (if such a thing existed) non-reality. It's a codependent relationship. :-) And the moment you bring a perceiver into the equation, you have Point Of View. That POV, in the perceiver, has to color the nature of the perceived. Some claim that they can attain a state of consciousness or POV that is color- less, and that as a result what they perceive is accurate -- Reality. I don't buy it. (As an aside, you may feel that
[FairfieldLife] Re: Reality...what a concept
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snipThe you's in the rap were rhetorical, or directed to Jim (Sandi Ego), whom I was conversing with, not you. snip I see you understand Spanish too- lol.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Reality...what a concept
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: snipThe you's in the rap were rhetorical, or directed to Jim (Sandi Ego), whom I was conversing with, not you. snip I see you understand Spanish too- lol. By adopting that name, was your intention to identify with San Diego? That particular saint is mainly known for being a catechist, mean- ing a repeater of dogma. :-) Oh, he was also a married celibate. Whatever floats yer boat...I like Sandi Ego better; it seems to capture the essence of Jim.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Reality...what a concept
TomT: Have Fun! Barry: Always. You, too, I trust... TomT: It seems that is our purpose or so it seems. Barry: This could be interpreted as a throwaway comment on your part, but I don't see it as one, because I thoroughly agree. I think that fun is one of the most misunderstood principles in the universe, and the one that can show us the most about whether we're as on the path as we think we are. TomT: This takes us back to a conversation we had a few years ago about appreciation. Fun is the gross version of appreciation. I some times use them interchangeably even though they are not. It appears to me now, that appreciation is our finest purpose and that ultimately leads to intimacy with it all. For me it seemed to be ever increasing amounts and degrees of appreciation and then the intimacy kicked in like the Saturn Booster Rocket. Things have not been the same since. It is now a love affair with it all and it is all me. Tom
[FairfieldLife] Re: Reality...what a concept
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 sandiego108@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: snipThe you's in the rap were rhetorical, or directed to Jim (Sandi Ego), whom I was conversing with, not you. snip I see you understand Spanish too- lol. By adopting that name, was your intention to identify with San Diego? That particular saint is mainly known for being a catechist, mean- superficially-- I was born there. ing a repeater of dogma. :-) Oh, he was also a married celibate. Whatever floats yer boat...I like Sandi Ego better; it seems to capture the essence of Jim. as usual you are full of, uh, assumptions.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Reality...what a concept
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, endlessrainintoapapercup endlessrainintoapapercup@ wrote: TurqB., you're a bit of a wild man, but that's all part of your charm. I enjoyed our conversation yesterday, but remain puzzled by the apparent lack of any congruence and understanding between us regarding the subject of reality/Reality. Reality is your crutch, dude, not mine. Don't expect me to get all passionate about it. :-) I think you ARE pretty passionate about it, Turq. That was it. Reality implies a perceiver. Without one there is no possibility of such a concept, or distinguishing reality from non-reality. I was not separating the perceiver from what is perceived. The perceiver is part of reality. And when there is a perceiver, there is a point of view. And where there is a point of view, there are other points of view on the same thing or things being perceived. On the level of individual perception, everything that is perceived is part of reality, including the perceiver and the process of perception--and this would include the existence of all other apparent individuals and their own POVs and experience of reality. . There is no shared understanding at all. In the universe. It's all points of view, each unique, each trying to find some agreement with other points of view, endlessly. IMO, of course. Well, it's true that I was operating from an assumption of a certain commonality among enlightenment traditions despite different POVs. But you can't say there is no shared understanding at all. We live in a collective reality which is based on shared understanding, and all communication is based on it. Not a WORD of the rap below had anything to do with what YOU believe. The you's in the rap were rhetorical, or directed to Jim (Sandi Ego), whom I was conversing with, not you. The fact that you see the post as being directed to YOUR point of view when it wasn't tends to prove my point about points of view IMO, and rein- forces what Tom said. We color our perceptions by perceiving them; we project our selves into the things we perceive. You seem to have done so, and that's one kind of...uh...reality, I guess. I wasn't referring exclusively to this post-- rather to several of your posts on this thread. But you say I'm projecting, and that you weren't making any statements intended to reflect my beliefs or my experience. OK. I continue to be interested in your point of view, and the questions that have arisen for me in regard to it. If you can suffer my 'obsession with reality', I'd like to keep talking to you about it a little further...? Now, though, I have to go to work. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 sandiego108@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tomandcindytraynoratfairfieldlis tomandcindytraynoratfairfieldlist@ wrote: Barry writes snipped: I'm completely *comfortable* with the notion of there being a Saganesque billions and billions of realities. That poses no problem for me whatsoever. TomT: For me it appears to be a Baskin and Robbins store with trillions of flavors and ultimately the only thing you can know is the flavor of you the perceiver. It has your flavor as it is filtered through the DNA you are made of. You impart the flavor by the act of perceiving. Have fun. TOm so the Saganesque and Baskin and Robbins store containers are what each of you conceptually use as your metaphors for reality with a capital R. What I think we are saying (I hope Tom will forgive me for speaking for him) is that we don't feel any need to delude ourselves into thinking that 1) there is such a thing as Reality with a capital R, or 2) that we know what it is. reality (or realities) with a lowercase r is just fine for us. The point I've been trying to make is that reality is merely a *concept*. It can't stand on its own; it does not and cannot have an existence independent of a perceiver. It needs a perceiver to *perceive* reality, or to distinguish it from (if such a thing existed) non-reality. It's a codependent relationship. :-) And the moment you bring a perceiver into the equation, you have Point Of View. That POV, in the perceiver, has to color the nature of the perceived. Some claim that they can attain a state of consciousness or POV that is color- less, and that as a result what they perceive is accurate -- Reality. I don't buy it. (As an aside, you may feel that your SOC is colorless, but it took less than two days for most people here to figure out who you were when you began posting under another ID. How colorless is that?) I
[FairfieldLife] Re: Reality...what a concept
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tomandcindytraynoratfairfieldlis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: TomT: Have Fun! Barry: Always. You, too, I trust... TomT: It seems that is our purpose or so it seems. Barry: This could be interpreted as a throwaway comment on your part, but I don't see it as one, because I thoroughly agree. I think that fun is one of the most misunderstood principles in the universe, and the one that can show us the most about whether we're as on the path as we think we are. This takes us back to a conversation we had a few years ago about appreciation. Fun is the gross version of appreciation. I remember the chat about appreciation, but I don't agree about fun being in any way gross. I think that people who have odd preconceptions about what fun is may think that, but I don't. To me fun is what being in tune with the Tao *feels* like. It is the perception of the infinite flowing through you. I some times use them interchangeably even though they are not. I wouldn't consider them interchangeable. One can appreciate without having fun, and vice- versa. It appears to me now, that appreciation is our finest purpose and that ultimately leads to intimacy with it all. For me it seemed to be ever increasing amounts and degrees of appreciation and then the intimacy kicked in like the Saturn Booster Rocket. Things have not been the same since. It is now a love affair with it all and it is all me. Tom I can never argue with a person's personal experience. I like the notion of fun better than the notion of appreciation partly because fun traditionally gets such a badrap in spirit- ual circles. People talk about serious seekers, serious students, taking the study seriously. I don't think serious is quite as admirable a quality it has been made out to be. I tend to agree with the words of that wonderful Christian philosopher, G. K. Chesterton, who said, Seriousness is not a virtue. One can appreciate something and still be all serious. But if you're really having fun, it's tough to pretend to be all serious. And to me, fun is an indicator that one is doing something right, spiritually, whereas serious- ness has absolutely NOTHING to do with spirit- uality. Fun to me is a certain liveliness that happens when you are in the groove, in tune with things. The things *themselves* don't matter. You could be shoveling shit and still be having fun. Whereas you could be getting laid and not having any at all, and be all serious about it. Fun to me implies being able to *be* in the moment and appreciate it flowing through you. Whereas you could sit back and convince your- self intellectually that you were appreciating the moment, while remaining distant from it. I honestly think that the spiritual path was designed to be FUN. If it isn't, that path may not lead where you think it does.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Reality...what a concept
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, endlessrainintoapapercup endlessrainintoapapercup@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: snip I guess what I'm trying to say is that reality seems to be a concept that people whose realities don't change very quickly are interested in. They stay in pretty much the same state of consciousness for long periods of time. When reality changes on you more quickly -- say, dozens of times in an hour -- you lose your fascination for the concept. Or at least I did. (Note the implied value judgment, BTW.) It was noted. I was wondering whether or not to take it personally... Naah. We're all in the same boat here relative to Barry. I should point out, just for the fun of it, that there is no implied value judgment in my original statement. It is merely a *descrip- tion* of two different ways of living. T'would seem that at least two people are so sensitive about the subject of pace of change (how quickly their state of consciousness shifts radically enough for them to notice) that they perceive anyone who even brings the subject up as making a value judgment. I don't think I was. I see no real value in a fast pace of change itself, as long as there is steady, perceivable change. I'd see having one's reality change radically many times a day or week as being no more potentially valuable or interesting than having it change radically every month. Or year. Your reality *has* changed radically in the last year, right? Or, at least it's changed radically since the time you started TM, right? Oh. Never mind. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Reality...what a concept
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tomandcindytraynoratfairfieldlis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Barry writes snipped: I'm completely *comfortable* with the notion of there being a Saganesque billions and billions of realities. That poses no problem for me whatsoever. TomT: For me it appears to be a Baskin and Robbins store with trillions of flavors and ultimately the only thing you can know is the flavor of you the perceiver. It has your flavor as it is filtered through the DNA you are made of. You impart the flavor by the act of perceiving. Exactly. Reality is IMO another way of saying interdependent origination. There is no reality that stands on its own, independent of a perceiver. Have fun. TOm Always. You, too, I trust...
[FairfieldLife] Re: Reality...what a concept
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, endlessrainintoapapercup endlessrainintoapapercup@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: snip I guess what I'm trying to say is that reality seems to be a concept that people whose realities don't change very quickly are interested in. They stay in pretty much the same state of consciousness for long periods of time. When reality changes on you more quickly -- say, dozens of times in an hour -- you lose your fascination for the concept. Or at least I did. (Note the implied value judgment, BTW.) It was noted. I was wondering whether or not to take it personally... Naah. We're all in the same boat here relative to Barry. I should point out, just for the fun of it, that there is no implied value judgment in my original statement. It is merely a *descrip- tion* of two different ways of living. No, it's a value judgment, yet another instance of your exalting your own spiritual development and denigrating that of others. You do it *constantly*. It's obvious from the way you write about it, from the tone of your descriptions. (And you aren't commenting just for the fun of it, either.) T'would seem that at least two people are so sensitive about the subject of pace of change (how quickly their state of consciousness shifts radically enough for them to notice) that they perceive anyone who even brings the subject up as making a value judgment. Uh, no. We perceive *you* to be making a value judgment because of the way you write about it. Others here don't give the same impression at all. I don't think I was. I see no real value in a fast pace of change itself, as long as there is steady, perceivable change. I'd see having one's reality change radically many times a day or week as being no more potentially valuable or interesting than having it change radically every month. Or year. Strategic backpedal. Your reality *has* changed radically in the last year, right? Or, at least it's changed radically since the time you started TM, right? It's changing constantly, yes indeed. Hard to say if it's radical without knowing how much change is yet to occur.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Reality...what a concept
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, endlessrainintoapapercup endlessrainintoapapercup@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: snip I guess what I'm trying to say is that reality seems to be a concept that people whose realities don't change very quickly are interested in. They stay in pretty much the same state of consciousness for long periods of time. When reality changes on you more quickly -- say, dozens of times in an hour -- you lose your fascination for the concept. Or at least I did. (Note the implied value judgment, BTW.) It was noted. I was wondering whether or not to take it personally... Naah. We're all in the same boat here relative to Barry. I should point out, just for the fun of it, that there is no implied value judgment in my original statement. It is merely a *descrip- tion* of two different ways of living. No, it's a value judgment, yet another instance of your exalting your own spiritual development and denigrating that of others. You do it *constantly*. It's obvious from the way you write about it, from the tone of your descriptions. As opposed to say, *denigrating* another person's spiritual development and/or character constantly. Say, for example, in a total of 72 posts ragging on him and trying to provoke him into an argument since he said clearly that he wasn't going to get sucked into arguing with you? :-) (And you aren't commenting just for the fun of it, either.) Ah, but I am. You just can't understand that because your crusade against me ISN'T fun for you. It's a way to use the mechanics of karma to keep your own state of attention comfortably low. Whatever floats yer boat. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Reality...what a concept
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tomandcindytraynoratfairfieldlis tomandcindytraynoratfairfieldlist@ wrote: Barry writes snipped: I'm completely *comfortable* with the notion of there being a Saganesque billions and billions of realities. That poses no problem for me whatsoever. TomT: For me it appears to be a Baskin and Robbins store with trillions of flavors and ultimately the only thing you can know is the flavor of you the perceiver. It has your flavor as it is filtered through the DNA you are made of. You impart the flavor by the act of perceiving. Have fun. TOm so the Saganesque and Baskin and Robbins store containers are what each of you conceptually use as your metaphors for reality with a capital R. What I think we are saying (I hope Tom will forgive me for speaking for him) is that we don't feel any need to delude ourselves into thinking that 1) there is such a thing as Reality with a capital R, or 2) that we know what it is. reality (or realities) with a lowercase r is just fine for us. The point I've been trying to make is that reality is merely a *concept*. It can't stand on its own; it does not and cannot have an existence independent of a perceiver. It needs a perceiver to *perceive* reality, or to distinguish it from (if such a thing existed) non-reality. It's a codependent relationship. :-) And the moment you bring a perceiver into the equation, you have Point Of View. That POV, in the perceiver, has to color the nature of the perceived. Some claim that they can attain a state of consciousness or POV that is color- less, and that as a result what they perceive is accurate -- Reality. I don't buy it. (As an aside, you may feel that your SOC is colorless, but it took less than two days for most people here to figure out who you were when you began posting under another ID. How colorless is that?) I feel that the state of consciousness of UC or BC is *just* as colored as any other, and that what beings in that state of consciousness perceive from the POV of UC or BC is *just* as much a consensual reality based on interdependent origination as the reality perceived by someone in total ignorance. It's just a *different* reality, that's all. I don't get the seeming need to believe that one knows what Reality (capital R) is, or to claim that one perceives it. It seems to be just another way of saying, I'm the best. I'm content with enjoying the parade of realities as they go by. As someone said recently somewhere else, its a lot like ignorance, only with that 'darned' fullness. It's EXACTLY like ignorance, INCLUDING the fullness. The fullness is present in ignorance as well. And neither state has anything whatsoever to do with Reality IMO. Just one more reality. Chop wood, carry water, ad infinitum. If you bristle at this idea, doncha think it might have something to do with being attached to not only thinking that you know Reality but convincing others that you know it?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Reality...what a concept
Barry writes snipped: Have fun. TOm Always. You, too, I trust... TomT: It seems that is our purpose or so it seems. Anyway it seems a lot that laughter is the constant and that being around people is the source of amusement. The recognition there is only one of us and it has our flavor because we are the experiencer is a real hoot after all these years of chasing, seeking and being on the path and to find we are IT. Thanks for all the joy that comes from reading all the ways I can express myself. Tom
[FairfieldLife] Re: Reality...what a concept
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tomandcindytraynoratfairfieldlis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Barry writes snipped: Have fun. Always. You, too, I trust... TomT: It seems that is our purpose or so it seems. This could be interpreted as a throwaway comment on your part, but I don't see it as one, because I thoroughly agree. I think that fun is one of the most misunderstood principles in the universe, and the one that can show us the most about whether we're as on the path as we think we are. Anyway it seems a lot that laughter is the constant and that being around people is the source of amusement. The recognition there is only one of us and it has our flavor because we are the experiencer is a real hoot after all these years of chasing, seeking and being on the path and to find we are IT. Thanks for all the joy that comes from reading all the ways I can express myself. Tom Indeed. There was an old seminal science fiction novel that I liked called The Sheep Look Up. In it, there is a character who is perpetually stoned on the designer psychedelics of the day. His idea of fun is looking at the TV News and saying over and over, Wow! What an *imagination* I've got! :-) If all of you guys and gals are me, we are doing a fine job of being entertaining and amusing IMO.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Reality...what a concept
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip No, it's a value judgment, yet another instance of your exalting your own spiritual development and denigrating that of others. snip As opposed to say, *denigrating* another person's spiritual development and/or character constantly. This is funny. Barry repeats my exact words and prefaces them with as opposed to, as if he thought he had changed them to their opposite. I'll take that as his inadvertent acquiescence to what I wrote about him.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Reality...what a concept
TurqB., you're a bit of a wild man, but that's all part of your charm. I enjoyed our conversation yesterday, but remain puzzled by the apparent lack of any congruence and understanding between us regarding the subject of reality/Reality. That's okay. I don't perceive myself to be any kind of authority on the subject, and have no vested interest in convincing you that there is any validity in anything I say. But I'd like to point out that the way you appear to be interpreting my words on the subject of reality does not actually represent my perspective at all. Maybe you are referring to another conversation you had with someone else...? If it is our conversation you are referring to, you haven't actually understood what I said. Not that you're short on understanding, but words, such as reality, convey different conceptual meanings to each of us. I read the words you write, which appear to be an inferred representation of my understanding of reality/Reality, and they honestly don't represent my perception at all. When you speak back what you think I'm saying, it becomes something else entirely. I'll make an effort to communicate more clearly and not assume that there is any kind of shared understanding in regard to future topics. And maybe you could resist the impulse to make statements about what you think I believe and experience? Unless that's too much to ask. Like I said, your wildness is part of your charm. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 sandiego108@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tomandcindytraynoratfairfieldlis tomandcindytraynoratfairfieldlist@ wrote: Barry writes snipped: I'm completely *comfortable* with the notion of there being a Saganesque billions and billions of realities. That poses no problem for me whatsoever. TomT: For me it appears to be a Baskin and Robbins store with trillions of flavors and ultimately the only thing you can know is the flavor of you the perceiver. It has your flavor as it is filtered through the DNA you are made of. You impart the flavor by the act of perceiving. Have fun. TOm so the Saganesque and Baskin and Robbins store containers are what each of you conceptually use as your metaphors for reality with a capital R. What I think we are saying (I hope Tom will forgive me for speaking for him) is that we don't feel any need to delude ourselves into thinking that 1) there is such a thing as Reality with a capital R, or 2) that we know what it is. reality (or realities) with a lowercase r is just fine for us. The point I've been trying to make is that reality is merely a *concept*. It can't stand on its own; it does not and cannot have an existence independent of a perceiver. It needs a perceiver to *perceive* reality, or to distinguish it from (if such a thing existed) non-reality. It's a codependent relationship. :-) And the moment you bring a perceiver into the equation, you have Point Of View. That POV, in the perceiver, has to color the nature of the perceived. Some claim that they can attain a state of consciousness or POV that is color- less, and that as a result what they perceive is accurate -- Reality. I don't buy it. (As an aside, you may feel that your SOC is colorless, but it took less than two days for most people here to figure out who you were when you began posting under another ID. How colorless is that?) I feel that the state of consciousness of UC or BC is *just* as colored as any other, and that what beings in that state of consciousness perceive from the POV of UC or BC is *just* as much a consensual reality based on interdependent origination as the reality perceived by someone in total ignorance. It's just a *different* reality, that's all. I don't get the seeming need to believe that one knows what Reality (capital R) is, or to claim that one perceives it. It seems to be just another way of saying, I'm the best. I'm content with enjoying the parade of realities as they go by. As someone said recently somewhere else, its a lot like ignorance, only with that 'darned' fullness. It's EXACTLY like ignorance, INCLUDING the fullness. The fullness is present in ignorance as well. And neither state has anything whatsoever to do with Reality IMO. Just one more reality. Chop wood, carry water, ad infinitum. If you bristle at this idea, doncha think it might have something to do with being attached to not only thinking that you know Reality but convincing others that you know it?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Reality...what a concept
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip I guess what I'm trying to say is that reality seems to be a concept that people whose realities don't change very quickly are interested in. They stay in pretty much the same state of consciousness for long periods of time. When reality changes on you more quickly -- say, dozens of times in an hour -- you lose your fascination for the concept. Or at least I did. (Note the implied value judgment, BTW.) I'm completely *comfortable* with the notion of there being a Saganesque billions and billions of realities. That poses no problem for me whatsoever. Anybody else out there feel that way, or is it just me? I'd be surprised if anybody here *didn't* feel that way. I suspect you're preaching to the choir. But when someone here speaks of the One Reality, as I said earlier, they don't mean one privileged relative reality among many; they're talking about Ultimate Reality, i.e., the reality that encompasses all the others, the reality *of* many realities. (There's also what's called consensus reality, of course, which is the everyday reality most of us operate in most of the time. In a sense, it's privileged because it's largely shared. Often those who live primarily in alternate realities have a bit of difficulty functioning.)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Reality...what a concept
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: snip I guess what I'm trying to say is that reality seems to be a concept that people whose realities don't change very quickly are interested in. They stay in pretty much the same state of consciousness for long periods of time. When reality changes on you more quickly -- say, dozens of times in an hour -- you lose your fascination for the concept. Or at least I did. (Note the implied value judgment, BTW.) It was noted. I was wondering whether or not to take it personally... I'm completely *comfortable* with the notion of there being a Saganesque billions and billions of realities. That poses no problem for me whatsoever. Anybody else out there feel that way, or is it just me? I'd be surprised if anybody here *didn't* feel that way. I suspect you're preaching to the choir. As a choir member, I can vouch for that. But when someone here speaks of the One Reality, as I said earlier, they don't mean one privileged relative reality among many; they're talking about Ultimate Reality, i.e., the reality that encompasses all the others, the reality *of* many realities. (There's also what's called consensus reality, of course, which is the everyday reality most of us operate in most of the time. In a sense, it's privileged because it's largely shared. Often those who live primarily in alternate realities have a bit of difficulty functioning.) Or they just go mad. I decided to find the Real for the sake of avoiding total madness. It's touch and go.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Reality...what a concept
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, endlessrainintoapapercup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: snip I guess what I'm trying to say is that reality seems to be a concept that people whose realities don't change very quickly are interested in. They stay in pretty much the same state of consciousness for long periods of time. When reality changes on you more quickly -- say, dozens of times in an hour -- you lose your fascination for the concept. Or at least I did. (Note the implied value judgment, BTW.) It was noted. I was wondering whether or not to take it personally... Naah. We're all in the same boat here relative to Barry.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Reality...what a concept
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tomandcindytraynoratfairfieldlis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Barry writes snipped: I'm completely *comfortable* with the notion of there being a Saganesque billions and billions of realities. That poses no problem for me whatsoever. TomT: For me it appears to be a Baskin and Robbins store with trillions of flavors and ultimately the only thing you can know is the flavor of you the perceiver. It has your flavor as it is filtered through the DNA you are made of. You impart the flavor by the act of perceiving. Have fun. TOm so the Saganesque and Baskin and Robbins store containers are what each of you conceptually use as your metaphors for reality with a capital R. As someone said recently somewhere else, its a lot like ignorance, only with that 'darned' fullness.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Reality...what a concept
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Some comedian said that. I forget which one. But, as far as I can tell, he nailed it. Reality IS a concept. 1980 comedy album by Robin Williams: http://tinyurl.com/2gopuu I'm just not convinced that the concept has...uh... reality *outside* of being a concept. My experience, and the words of a few teachers I respect, has shown me that there are many realities, probably as many as their are points of view. And, to me, UC or BC as defined by Maharishi are Just Two More Points Of View. What individuals in this state of consciousness see is Just What They See, not reality. So for me reality is an empty concept; it doesn't float my boat. It just doesn't have any legs as philosophical concepts go. Others may find the concept fascinating. So it goes. I'm more comfortable with realities. As in one or more for every point of view in the universe. As in Maharishi's Knowledge is structured in consc- iousness. As in Castaneda's A Separate Reality. Reality kinda loses its meaningfulness when you've sat in the desert and been flipped in and out of dozens of states of consciousness in an hour, and in and out of an equal number of the *realities* that go with each of those states of consciousness. In one of those states of consciousness, it's just a normal night out in the desert. You've got yer stars, the sand, the wind, a bunch of humans sitting in a circle watching another human as he stands in the center of the circle. In another of those states of consciousness, the human in the center of the circle steps up off the sand and walks around about three feet off the ground. In another the stars start to move around. In another the human in the center of the circle disappears. In yet another, *you* disappear. Which of these was reality? Which not? I think they were all reality -- from a particular set of points of view and states of consciousness, as seen by individuals who don't exist, at a certain moment in time, which also doesn't exist. :-) The thing that I think Castaneda just nailed in his books is not that each of these separate realities have different sets of rules -- operating systems or laws of nature -- that apply to them. They also require different states of consciousness to be *in* them. You can't fully remember these states of consc- iousness and their attendant realities *after* you're no longer *in* them. You can't even fully *conceive* of what they were from a different state of conscious- ness and point of view and *its* reality. It's just the most frustrating thing in the world. But at the same time, it's a heckuva lot of fun. I guess what I'm trying to say is that reality seems to be a concept that people whose realities don't change very quickly are interested in. They stay in pretty much the same state of consciousness for long periods of time. When reality changes on you more quickly -- say, dozens of times in an hour -- you lose your fascination for the concept. Or at least I did. I'm completely *comfortable* with the notion of there being a Saganesque billions and billions of realities. That poses no problem for me whatsoever. Anybody else out there feel that way, or is it just me?
