Copy: What Is the nature of Reality?

[D.O.]

What is reality? Is reality free from the extremes of both monism and plurality? Mādhyamaka says:

a. Everything appears as mere labels (thoughtforms) designated upon causes and conditions. This applies to yourself, deities, time, the causes and conditions themselves, and even the principle of causality itself.

b. By its very nature conceptual thought is dichotomizing, yet "reality" (or lack of it) is free from all extremes.

c. There is a primordial freedom from grasping your mind. Mind being defined as the thing always on the Three Times (past, present, future).

[ButterflyWoman]

What is the nature of reality? My goodness. That's only a question that has been the topic of theology, religion, psychology, physics, philosophy, and other disciplines since the dawn of time! :lol:

[farewell2arms]

The nature of reality is the nature of you.

[ButterflyWoman]

Or... YOU are the nature of reality. ;)

[CFTraveler]

What is reality? Is reality free from the extremes of both monism and plurality? I'm glad that someone made a copy of this, because it's not really a question, it seems to me.
What is reality? Depends on what you consider reality to be. Is it subjectivity? Is it objectivity? Is it either? If I had to guess, I'd say that I think reality is probably noncausal, and possibly indescribable.



b. There are discrepancies between thoughtforms and reality. For example a thoughtform of a person is singular and relatively stable, yet thoughts and emotions are many and constantly fluctuating. I find this observation interesting, because my experience is completely different. I find that projection is the rule, so that people are more stable than the emotions I project on them.
So this seems then very subjective, doesn't it?

[psionickx]

i find this line of thinking extremely ,for a lack of more accurately descriptive word "amusing" ...in the sense that ,lets assume for arguments sake that you work out the very nature and laws of "reality" and jurisprudence of these constitutive laws in ways both objectively and subjectively.

what then?

if you know that hydrogen and oxygen compound together to constitute water does this water quench thrist any differently than water whos composition was ,to you unknown?


hmmm i dont know if i got to articulate what i actually was thinking.

[CFTraveler]

i find this line of thinking extremely ,for a lack of more accurately descriptive word "amusing" ...in the sense that ,lets assume for arguments sake that you work out the very nature and laws of "reality" and jurisprudence of these constitutive laws in ways both objectively and subjectively.

what then?

if you know that hydrogen and oxygen compound together to constitute water does this water quench thrist any differently than water whos composition was ,to you unknown?


hmmm i dont know if i got to articulate what i actually was thinking. I get what you mean. Like someone saying "This is real and this isn't". Does it mean I'm going to enjoy my dreams any less? Or consider them less important?
Considering that we process everything we perceive with our mind, it is not unreasonable to consider that 'reality' is a subjective concept, even if it attempts to describe the objective.

[sleeper]

Are you asking about reality, perception, conscious-awareness, maya(illusion) or all of it?

In my worldview, it is the subtlety of our perceptive abilities that determines the power of our faculties in correctly seeing and interpreting what we see of the world. In other words, it requires skill that comes from practice.

[D.O.]

I edited my post

[sleeper]

I edited my post

why did you edit it?

[GRANT]

Reality is now, where you are aware.
In my opinion, delusion is when we're out of the norm.
Grant

[-asalantu-]

¡Hi, all!

At Part 2 of his Treatise on Projection, Robert Bruce states:

The commonly accepted names for the seven known levels of existence, from lowest to highest, are: Physical, Astral, Mental, Buddhic, Atmic, Anupadaka and Adi. These higher planes are similar in structure to the astral dimension but at a much higher level of consciousness and are completely separate from it. In between the different levels are intermediary areas or buffer zones, sometimes called lower sub planes.

¿Really? ¿No more than seven levels? Seems to be a boring reality to reach the top... and, then... ¿what happens?

For me is more realistic to be able of to reach as high as own capacity allows, and evolve limitless. As the more we progress, new challenges arises, new capabilities need to be developed and mastered.

Above ladder always there is space. God level is unreachable.

Sincerely,
Ángel

[GRANT]

Hi Gang,
I believe levels expand just like fractals. Observe the Mandelbot fractal---if you traveled too deeply, how would you ever how to get back to that place. Although similiar, the realms may not be exactly the same--as the Mandelbot shows. Its possible to believe you're where you think you are, because of the similiarities. Maybe that's why some dreams are confusing; you're where you think you are; but you're not, you're in a similiar place. One wrong turn and confusion takes place, because you know where you are, but things are not quite right and you can't figure out why.
Grant