Realization leads to God

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Swami
Sage
Posts: 510
Joined: Mon Dec 27, 2010 1:07 am
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 14 times

Realization leads to God

Post #1

Post by Swami »

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.

User avatar
Goat
Site Supporter
Posts: 24999
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 207 times

Re: Re:

Post #21

Post by Goat »

Swami wrote: Thu Jan 28, 2021 7:22 pm
Goat wrote: Wed Jun 10, 2020 6:47 pm "There is one Consciousness that fills all space. It appears as everything both within and without everybody. It is only by our illusive conception of it that we take it in different lights."
How do you know that 'nothing exists outside consciousness'?
When 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.
Goat wrote: Wed Jun 10, 2020 6:47 pm What evidence can you present me that it is not limited to the body? Can you back up your claim with objective and tangible evidence? What do you have that you can show me that your statements are true.
If 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.
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 all
“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

User avatar
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 #22

Post by Dimmesdale »

Swami wrote: Thu Jan 28, 2021 11:13 pm
Consciousness is experience itself. You can not separate the two.
Yes 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.
Swami wrote: Thu Jan 28, 2021 11:13 pmIn my philosophy, everything in the world consist of 3 things:
Bliss, awareness, and existence. Nothing can exist without these 3 things.
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.
Swami wrote: Thu Jan 28, 2021 11:13 pm I have experienced without the body, without the mind, but no one can experience without existence and consciousness. These are fundamental.
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.
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.
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.

User avatar
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 #23

Post by William »

Dimmesdale wrote: Sun Apr 04, 2021 10:15 pm
Swami wrote: Thu Jan 28, 2021 11:13 pm
Consciousness is experience itself. You can not separate the two.
Yes 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.
I am not sure that it is wrong - Feeling "I am" or "Isness" with no other content, is still experience/experiencing.

User avatar
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 #24

Post by Dimmesdale »

William wrote: Mon Apr 05, 2021 1:17 pm
Dimmesdale wrote: Sun Apr 04, 2021 10:15 pm
Swami wrote: Thu Jan 28, 2021 11:13 pm
Consciousness is experience itself. You can not separate the two.
Yes 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.
I am not sure that it is wrong - Feeling "I am" or "Isness" with no other content, is still experience/experiencing.
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.
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." - Albert Einstein

User avatar
Swami
Sage
Posts: 510
Joined: Mon Dec 27, 2010 1:07 am
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 14 times

Re: Realization leads to God

Post #25

Post by Swami »

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.
Experience requires subject and object. The entire Eastern philosophy is based on idea that subject and object are one. Their duality is an illusion.

This truth is revealed very beautifully in the practice of meditation where consciousness is both the subject and object. You experience self.


User avatar
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 #26

Post by Dimmesdale »

Swami wrote: Mon Apr 05, 2021 3:14 pm
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.
Experience requires subject and object. The entire Eastern philosophy is based on idea that subject and object are one. Their duality is an illusion.

This truth is revealed very beautifully in the practice of meditation where consciousness is both the subject and object. You experience self.

You 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.

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

User avatar
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 #27

Post by William »

Dimmesdale wrote: Mon Apr 05, 2021 1:20 pm
William wrote: Mon Apr 05, 2021 1:17 pm
Dimmesdale wrote: Sun Apr 04, 2021 10:15 pm
Swami wrote: Thu Jan 28, 2021 11:13 pm
Consciousness is experience itself. You can not separate the two.
Yes 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.
I am not sure that it is wrong - Feeling "I am" or "Isness" with no other content, is still experience/experiencing.
In that instance, maybe.
Why only "maybe"?
Consciousness is its own experience.
Essentially experiencing itself as being real.
But in other cases, experiences vary, yet the consciousness that experiences those experiences is the same. So they are different.
Consciousness is the same. The form [experiences] are different so in that Consciousness remains the same while behaving differently.

Differently than it would if there was no form to experience.

User avatar
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 #28

Post by Dimmesdale »

William wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 5:05 pm
I am not sure that it is wrong - Feeling "I am" or "Isness" with no other content, is still experience/experiencing.
In 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

User avatar
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

Post by William »

[Replying to Dimmesdale in post #29]
William wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 5:05 pm Why only "maybe"?
I do not think consciousness can experience itself by simply "being itself."
I think that if there is nothing else to experience, but itself, then consciousness can experience itself as being conscious.

What that might mean for it, as in "I am [exist as a conscious self awareness] therefore "What Am I?" is different...
I think it has to fold in back upon itself. In which case it needs an experiencing mode, to know itself.
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.

Without objects one can simply say "I Am" rather than objectify what "I Am" is ["What Am I?"]
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.
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.
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.
Again it is not a question of "Who 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....

User avatar
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 #30

Post by Dimmesdale »

William wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 11:07 pm [Replying to Dimmesdale in post #29]
William wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 5:05 pm Why only "maybe"?
I do not think consciousness can experience itself by simply "being itself."
I think that if there is nothing else to experience, but itself, then consciousness can experience itself as being conscious.

What that might mean for it, as in "I am [exist as a conscious self awareness] therefore "What Am I?" is different...
Even within consciousness alone, there is a dynamism. It isn't a static oneness, in other words. There are two parts: "I" and "am".

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."
William wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 11:07 pm
I think it has to fold in back upon itself. In which case it needs an experiencing mode, to know itself.
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.

Without objects one can simply say "I Am" rather than objectify what "I Am" is ["What 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.

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.
William wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 11:07 pmAgain it is not a question of "Who 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....
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

Post Reply