I would like to introduce the concept of realization. Realization is the way to true knowledge. To realize means that you become aware of something that was always there. This is what I practice.
In the West, the theory for gaining knowledge is that it must be learned. On a very basic level I agree. However, you will not see the big picture. Besides that, you are wasting a lot of time and energy.
What many scientists do not understand is that we exist in consciousness. All knowledge is contained in it since we can not experience anything outside of it. You then ask, if we all possess consciousness, then why don't we know everything? Why do we learn as if things exist outside of our awareness? The problem is the mind and senses. They are limited. They create the illusion of something "out there". If you follow the full implications of what I am saying, then there is nothing out there to learn. That means it's already in you waiting to be "realized". Intuition is a form of realization and scientists already accept this! It is knowledge that comes to you without learning.
Where does God come in? It comes from you realizing that you are omniscient, and everything exist in you.
Is intuition a product of realization or learning?
Please offer me a scientific reason for relying on learning over intuition.
Realization leads to God
Moderator: Moderators
- Goat
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 24999
- Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
- Has thanked: 25 times
- Been thanked: 207 times
Re: Re:
Post #21When you perceive with the bodily senses, then you see things separate from you. When you are able to perceive without your senses, then you realize that everything exist as part you. Someone might inquirer about which perception is correct? I do not frame the issue as true or false but rather one leads to a greater awareness.
[/quote]
That does not follow. You are trying to support claims with more claims that you don't support with anything more than the logical fallacy known as 'argument from personal belief'. There is no reason to accept your claims.
There is something very important that is missing from your narrative. There is a lack of reason to show that anybody should accept it at allIf I explained the evidence then it would lead to too much thinking and not enough experiencing. Debating never changes any minds, but plenty have changed their minds after they've experienced.
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�
Steven Novella
Steven Novella
- Dimmesdale
- Sage
- Posts: 776
- Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 7:19 pm
- Location: Vaikuntha Dham
- Has thanked: 28 times
- Been thanked: 89 times
Re: Realization leads to God
Post #22Yes you can. Consciousness can be the precondition for experience, but it itself is not its own experience. They are different. An experience is also separable, and different from all other experiences. When I experience the taste of a fruit pie I am not experiencing the smell of a veggie burrito. They are separate. Likewise, there can be consciousness or the feeling "I am" or "isness" with no other content. So what you are saying is just wrong.
Perhaps. I would agree wholeheartedly with existence. Anything "in" the world is a part of the world, and since the world exists, that part of it also exists. When it comes to bliss, that's a little trickier -- not everything is blissful -- is breaking your leg, and the feeling in the nerves in your broken leg blissful? Perhaps if you are enlightened, otherwise not so much. Awareness is also interesting. I believe matter is not by itself conscious. Although I believe it can be spiritualized in a sense.
I agree with you here. If you don't exist, there is no one to experience. And consciousness is the prerequisite again for any experience.
Experience and meditation are well and good, but there are more things in your spiritual and philosophical tool box than just those two things. If not, I believe you are impoverished.Swami wrote: ↑Thu Jan 28, 2021 11:13 pm I do not ask people to believe nor to even think. None of those two will convince you. In my philosophy, the best way to learn is through experience, and meditation allows us to experience any and everything in the Universe. You do not need telescopes, microscopes, and you don't even need your senses. You just need meditation.
- William
- Savant
- Posts: 14003
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 906 times
- Been thanked: 1629 times
- Contact:
Re: Realization leads to God
Post #23I am not sure that it is wrong - Feeling "I am" or "Isness" with no other content, is still experience/experiencing.Dimmesdale wrote: ↑Sun Apr 04, 2021 10:15 pmYes you can. Consciousness can be the precondition for experience, but it itself is not its own experience. They are different. An experience is also separable, and different from all other experiences. When I experience the taste of a fruit pie I am not experiencing the smell of a veggie burrito. They are separate. Likewise, there can be consciousness or the feeling "I am" or "isness" with no other content. So what you are saying is just wrong.
- Dimmesdale
- Sage
- Posts: 776
- Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 7:19 pm
- Location: Vaikuntha Dham
- Has thanked: 28 times
- Been thanked: 89 times
Re: Realization leads to God
Post #24In that instance, maybe. Consciousness is its own experience. But in other cases, experiences vary, yet the consciousness that experiences those experiences is the same. So they are different.William wrote: ↑Mon Apr 05, 2021 1:17 pmI am not sure that it is wrong - Feeling "I am" or "Isness" with no other content, is still experience/experiencing.Dimmesdale wrote: ↑Sun Apr 04, 2021 10:15 pmYes you can. Consciousness can be the precondition for experience, but it itself is not its own experience. They are different. An experience is also separable, and different from all other experiences. When I experience the taste of a fruit pie I am not experiencing the smell of a veggie burrito. They are separate. Likewise, there can be consciousness or the feeling "I am" or "isness" with no other content. So what you are saying is just wrong.
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." - Albert Einstein
Re: Realization leads to God
Post #25Experience requires subject and object. The entire Eastern philosophy is based on idea that subject and object are one. Their duality is an illusion.Dimmesdale wrote: ↑Mon Apr 05, 2021 1:20 pm
In that instance, maybe. Consciousness is its own experience. But in other cases, experiences vary, yet the consciousness that experiences those experiences is the same. So they are different.
This truth is revealed very beautifully in the practice of meditation where consciousness is both the subject and object. You experience self.
- Dimmesdale
- Sage
- Posts: 776
- Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 7:19 pm
- Location: Vaikuntha Dham
- Has thanked: 28 times
- Been thanked: 89 times
Re: Realization leads to God
Post #26You are right that experience requires subject and object. That doesn't mean they are each the same thing. You need both sides, you need duality.Swami wrote: ↑Mon Apr 05, 2021 3:14 pmExperience requires subject and object. The entire Eastern philosophy is based on idea that subject and object are one. Their duality is an illusion.Dimmesdale wrote: ↑Mon Apr 05, 2021 1:20 pm
In that instance, maybe. Consciousness is its own experience. But in other cases, experiences vary, yet the consciousness that experiences those experiences is the same. So they are different.
This truth is revealed very beautifully in the practice of meditation where consciousness is both the subject and object. You experience self.
You are wrong that all Eastern philosophy is based on the idea that subject and object are one without any distinction. The school of Advaita Vedanta, or monistic dualism, may teach that, but there are others that don't. There is Vishishtadvaita (qualified non-dualism) where everything is Brahman, but distinctions are still real.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vishishtadvaita
I believe there are objects and subjects and there is real distinction among them.
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." - Albert Einstein
- William
- Savant
- Posts: 14003
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 906 times
- Been thanked: 1629 times
- Contact:
Re: Realization leads to God
Post #27Why only "maybe"?Dimmesdale wrote: ↑Mon Apr 05, 2021 1:20 pmIn that instance, maybe.William wrote: ↑Mon Apr 05, 2021 1:17 pmI am not sure that it is wrong - Feeling "I am" or "Isness" with no other content, is still experience/experiencing.Dimmesdale wrote: ↑Sun Apr 04, 2021 10:15 pmYes you can. Consciousness can be the precondition for experience, but it itself is not its own experience. They are different. An experience is also separable, and different from all other experiences. When I experience the taste of a fruit pie I am not experiencing the smell of a veggie burrito. They are separate. Likewise, there can be consciousness or the feeling "I am" or "isness" with no other content. So what you are saying is just wrong.
Essentially experiencing itself as being real.Consciousness is its own experience.
Consciousness is the same. The form [experiences] are different so in that Consciousness remains the same while behaving differently.But in other cases, experiences vary, yet the consciousness that experiences those experiences is the same. So they are different.
Differently than it would if there was no form to experience.
- Dimmesdale
- Sage
- Posts: 776
- Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 7:19 pm
- Location: Vaikuntha Dham
- Has thanked: 28 times
- Been thanked: 89 times
Re: Realization leads to God
Post #28In that instance, maybe. [/quote]
Why only "maybe"?[/quote]
I do not think consciousness can experience itself by simply "being itself." I think it has to fold in back upon itself. In which case it needs an experiencing mode, to know itself. Hence consciousness is not necessarily independent in "feeling" itself. Maybe in order to experience itself, it (consciousness) has to filter itself through an experiential prism, in other words. There are mystics after all who say that at the highest level there is no experience even, just "being." That actually I think is an illusion - or only one aspect of the full truth - a subtle aspect perhaps, to be sure - but not exhaustive of experience. There has to be an experiencing "medium" otherwise you are unconscious, asleep, etc. The "highest level" that mystics experience therefore, I would say is only a subtle influence acting upon existing experiential content. It may augment the experience, but it is actually not the full deal.
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." - Albert Einstein
- William
- Savant
- Posts: 14003
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 906 times
- Been thanked: 1629 times
- Contact:
Re: Realization leads to God
Post #29[Replying to Dimmesdale in post #29]
What that might mean for it, as in "I am [exist as a conscious self awareness] therefore "What Am I?" is different...
Without objects one can simply say "I Am" rather than objectify what "I Am" is ["What Am I?"]
or "What Am I?" as experience...
But simply a state of "I Am"
I Am experiencing itself, without the props....as it were....
I think that if there is nothing else to experience, but itself, then consciousness can experience itself as being conscious.I do not think consciousness can experience itself by simply "being itself."
What that might mean for it, as in "I am [exist as a conscious self awareness] therefore "What Am I?" is different...
But this would mean it is 'knowing itself' through objects which is only really knowing itself through objects. These would amount to other experiences - experience with objects "What am I like within a human form?" might bring about some interesting things in relation to the question "What Am I?" but in that, the answer could only be "In a human form, I am [such and such]" which in and of itself, does not really answer the question.I think it has to fold in back upon itself. In which case it needs an experiencing mode, to know itself.
Without objects one can simply say "I Am" rather than objectify what "I Am" is ["What Am I?"]
You appear now to be confusing human experience with Consciousness - ...lets say "Consciousness in It's Default Setting" [= Without form] - not 'asleep/unconscious' of its self.Hence consciousness is not necessarily independent in "feeling" itself. Maybe in order to experience itself, it (consciousness) has to filter itself through an experiential prism, in other words. There are mystics after all who say that at the highest level there is no experience even, just "being." That actually I think is an illusion - or only one aspect of the full truth - a subtle aspect perhaps, to be sure - but not exhaustive of experience. There has to be an experiencing "medium" otherwise you are unconscious, asleep, etc.
Again it is not a question of "Who Am I?"The "highest level" that mystics experience therefore, I would say is only a subtle influence acting upon existing experiential content. It may augment the experience, but it is actually not the full deal.
or "What Am I?" as experience...
But simply a state of "I Am"
I Am experiencing itself, without the props....as it were....
- Dimmesdale
- Sage
- Posts: 776
- Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 7:19 pm
- Location: Vaikuntha Dham
- Has thanked: 28 times
- Been thanked: 89 times
Re: Realization leads to God
Post #30Even within consciousness alone, there is a dynamism. It isn't a static oneness, in other words. There are two parts: "I" and "am".William wrote: ↑Tue Apr 06, 2021 11:07 pm [Replying to Dimmesdale in post #29]
I think that if there is nothing else to experience, but itself, then consciousness can experience itself as being conscious.I do not think consciousness can experience itself by simply "being itself."
What that might mean for it, as in "I am [exist as a conscious self awareness] therefore "What Am I?" is different...
Is it the "I" that says "am" (and hence sees itself through "am") or is it that "am" points to I in the first place, being the precondition for it? Actually, I think it's a neverending loop. "I am that I am" can be read forwards and backwards. "Am I that Am I."
I think there is content in the experience of "I am" if you look at it long enough. I don't think it is contentless. It is inexpressible, at one level, but there is more to it.William wrote: ↑Tue Apr 06, 2021 11:07 pmBut this would mean it is 'knowing itself' through objects which is only really knowing itself through objects. These would amount to other experiences - experience with objects "What am I like within a human form?" might bring about some interesting things in relation to the question "What Am I?" but in that, the answer could only be "In a human form, I am [such and such]" which in and of itself, does not really answer the question.I think it has to fold in back upon itself. In which case it needs an experiencing mode, to know itself.
Without objects one can simply say "I Am" rather than objectify what "I Am" is ["What Am I?"]
Just because the Absolute Truth is not another (limited) being, doesn't mean it isn't a being in its own right. It is a unique being, but still a being.
A simple state of "I am" is boring to me and I am not interested in it very much. It's the beginning for me, not the end.
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." - Albert Einstein