Here's a short summary: 1. **Perception Without Thinking**: Rupert explains that the waking state without thoughts is like watching a movie without subtitles. This state is not extraordinary but a regular state devoid of the commentary of thinking. It's akin to perceiving a tree without engaging in thoughts about its type or age, as described by Eckhart Tolle. This state emphasizes direct perception over linguistic or conceptual interpretation. 2. **Multiplicity and Diversity in Perception**: Rupert discusses how perceiving and thinking together create a sense of multiplicity and diversity. Perception refracts the singular reality into many forms, and thinking adds another layer by naming these forms, further obscuring the singular reality. 3. **Collapse of Subject-Object Distinction**: When the layer of thinking is removed, a layer of separation between the subject and the object is also removed. This is evident in Zen teachings, where the distinction between the perceiver and the perceived collapses, leading to a state where only the perceived object remains. 4. **Zen and Cezanne's Approaches**: Rupert contrasts the approaches of Zen and the artist Cezanne. In Zen, the perceiver merges into the perceived (e.g., a mountain), losing the sense of self. Conversely, Cezanne's approach, closer to the Vedantic tradition, involves the perceived (the mountain) merging into the perceiver. Both approaches lead to the dissolution of the subject-object relationship but take different paths. 5. **Zen Paintings vs. Cezanne's Art**: Zen paintings often feature a tiny figure or an empty space, drawing the viewer into the painting and towards a focal point of emptiness. Cezanne, however, eliminated traditional vanishing points in his paintings, leaving the viewer without a directed path, thereby encouraging the viewer's attention to sink back into its source. This approach is seen as a form of self-inquiry through perception. 6. **Self-Inquiry Through Art and Perception**: Cezanne's method is described as a form of self-inquiry not through reason or thinking, but through perception. His paintings don't guide the viewer towards an object but instead invite the senses to move back towards the perceiver, fostering a deeper awareness of the self.
This reminds me of Escher's picture "The Gallery". The picture seems to be a reflection in itself, but it is a reflection in the awareness of the observer.
I really enjoy seeing people trying to describe the mental process of consciousness in their idea of reality. They may be completely wrong but it doesn't stop them from from getting paid to fumble along with the words that they believe are insegnifentalieous
Some things certainly seem to be far more real than others. This seems like a substantial problem that can hardly be addressed by merely speaking of "levels of vibration" and so on. And clearly, an insightful and ingenius individual can be right about some things and very wrong about others.
Former assistant physics instructor here. Of course that's true . . . in a sense depending on a redefinition of semantics. Anyone these days can learn the latest theories of modern physics online in a simplified form = no math. Quantum theory postulates all " MATTER " simply consists of energy wave - packets. In other words matter and energy are equivalent . . . as stated by Einstein's famous equation. E = MC^2. Mr. Spira is expressing the same idea in " SPIRITUAL " terms. But it is the same idea. Call it physical or spiritual . . . i don't care.
Thank you 🙏🏼 wonderful! at 4:36 now I pause as an awareness comes, in your unfolding and reducing in degree -- the layers of separation from the ONE. Case in point.The mountain is...I, the perceiver is. This rings bells for me. On this, Thich Nhat Hanh speaks of interbeingness; here, we can sense that the mountain and I -- Inter-are. There are elements of me as mountain and elements of me as not mountain. For me, this feels more closely pointing to Truth, than stating "i am THAT, i am". I like the inter-flowing, the non-separation of Oneness, honoring as well--unique individualization. Thay's "Interbeingness". 🌸may all beings be free 🌸
The reason I don't completely understand Rupert's answer about perceiving without thoughts is that not all thoughts are in the form of language (i.e., the subtitles of a movie). Also, not all thoughts are conscious; some are subconscious.
What he’s explaining is truly unexplainable, and it’s contradicting to explain something that is empty. If you’ve experienced the state in which he talks about, you understand. If you haven’t, you’ll never experience it by thinking about it or questioning it. You have to give all that up,
A definition of "thought" is the linear interpretation of physicality in non-physical ways. When you think or have a thought, it is the non-physical expression of physical reality because the words used to "think" are also used to describe the world. All waking thoughts (the focused awareness) will always be in terms of language/descriptive/definitions because that is how the waking state understands what it is perceiving (both visually and mentally through awareness) as physical reality. Physical reality is experienced as the "many-not-me" or "not-the-One", and the experience of "many" creates the need for language since each of the "many" needs a definition for it to be part of the "many". Even without names, you would think conceptually "that thing" vs "that other thing" regardless of the language used. If you experienced everything as the "One", then you are also the "One", and therefore there is nothing else to define. The non-thinking state is action (you "are" the thing you are perceiving). You don't think and then act in the non-waking state just as you do not think on your bodily functions. There is no need for language when thought is not needed. The "sub-conscious" is action. What you experience through the waking-state, it did not start from a "sub-conscious" thought, but rather the "sub-conscious" simply acted (act meaning it expressed whatever it is expressing). The focused awareness of consciousness then perceives the action as an experience and interprets it, which is a thought. Perceiving without thought is simply the act of being aware without translating it into words. The act of translating goes through the filters of beliefs which language is a part of.
I think he is using 'language' as an example of the type of abstract conceptualization that we might partake in when viewing the mountain for example. So we are trying to pigeonhole or label the object as defined by our own understanding of our perceived reality. The subsconcious programming that is running below the conscious mind may also be reinforcing a false idea of what the mountain is by throwing out into the conscious mind, more narrative, emotions, images which may or may not be related to the truth of the 'mountain'.
~ Why? Who cares? Who's there to care? Down the rabbit hole we go. Never ending. Like a black hole. Why try? Who's trying? Isn't it obvious? Isn't it sublime. Oh my. Oh my. Oh my... I am in union with this Father. This Father of spirits. This Father of spirit. Cutting. Fading. Dying. Melting. Ashes. Rising. Seeing. Unfettered. Free. No questions left. No answers given. What has happened? Stillness. Silence. Home.
It is not hard to find one's eternal nature. It is found in nature, in the eternal cycle of life and death. Having a garden and a compost pile has told me more about eternity than anything. Things grow from seeds, produce fruits that we eat, die back in the autumn, get thrown on the compost where they rot to be spread on the garden and used as nutrients for the new crop, on and on forever. When I die, I will become part of the eternal cycle, to provide nutrients for new fruits and flowers.
I like that Rupert engages in philosophical speculation about the nature of reality, as it is an invitation for scientists working on the hard problem of consciousness to debate with him. But Rupert seems to adhere to what in Tibetan Buddhism is known as the 'Mind-Only' school of thought, which is viewed as having certain rational flaws. The school regarded as the pinnacle of Tibetan thought is Madhyamika, which holds that any statement about inner and outer reality, whether objects in awareness are objectively real or not cannot be determined by the rational mind. The closest we've gotten to this view in physics is that objects could be said to exist in a state of quantum indeterminacy until observed, which is what the predominant testable theory of consciousness, Orchestrated Objective Reduction, developed by Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff, holds. "Consciousness causes collapse."
@@RJM12345 What you've stated sounds an awful lot like Madhyamika. The subject-object duality cannot be rationally pinned down, and whenever you try to do so, it moves. It's not idealism, although the two are often confused. Buddhism even has a hard time putting a name on it, hence such words as "Suchness" and "Isness", or in Vedanta Hinduism, which states the same thing in different words, Brahman, described as _sacitananda,_ "existence-consciousness-bliss". I have no experiential understanding of any of this stuff, this is all still intellectual for me. Much to my intense frustration. The brain is just a big f*cking mess of sludge that certain very fortunate people like Rupert happen to have shift the right way. Generally, these experiences tend to cluster in one's 20s and 30s, after the brain consolidates and reaches a critical mass of connections but before it ossifies too much. I've beaten the shit out of mine through unscrupulous doctors, so repairing it is a lot of work. They have found, however, that by stimulating certain parts of the brain, the subject-object distinction collapses and the Self drops out of existence, leading to exactly the experience described. They're trying to develop a reliable means of replicating it to help bring enlightenment to the masses, so to speak. Psychedelics also induce neuroplasticity in the brain that allows it to return to the state of a child's, opening up a vast area of research into mystical and enlightenment states.
God is the Greatest, God is the Greatest, praise and glory be to God! He Hears and Answers Prayers, and He is the One who rise the fallen, and Who aids the outcasted and dejected, and nor the angels or demons or spirits can refuse His Command! -------- Science doesn't exist. It's a concept altogether which will never find God (Absolute Truth) lol There is no hard problem of consciousness. God is consciousness. The brain virus in the human's mind is annihilated in God- Consciousness, the brain does not produce consciousness or other shit... Objects subjects this is silly work... There are no subjects nor objects... God is.
Thinking is like breathing; not thinking is like holding your breth. ... It's too bad Rupert's position neuters meaningful dialog, because the analogy between spirit and air is ages old and very helpful.
I tested this hypothesis as a thought experiment. Af 11:40 am, I set an alarm clock next to a sound-activated light switch, in a room that was otherwise sound-proof. No other people or animals were in the room. The alarm was set for 12pm. I left the room and closed the door until 12:01pm. I then opened the door and peeked inside. My observation was that the light had indeed turned on. My conclusions were that 1) these material objects, the clock and light switch, did in fact continue to have reality and existence while no human being was conscious of them, 2) the RU-vid video was being a bit flakey in its claims.
I'm no kind of expert in this but I can see where a non-object self might be able to move between a meta consciousness in the world and also that of their body. In your example you never left the meta consciousness in yourself, which means you as self didn't move between levels but was restrained to one. Instead of One, part of one, which is useful when objectified, bound up, traded in an exclusive way, stressful but informative, information from stress and information from observing, the latter a sharing with other than human.
'A bit flaky' is an understatement. It's a mental exercise in over complicating the bleeding obvious, to the point where the individual hampers or overwhelms oneself with this kind of thinking, leaving them more disempowered and confused.
My mind is set on higher things. I aim to solve an ancient philosophical problem. I have been onto Amazon, and ordered a chicken, and an egg. I´ll let you know ...
@@kerryburns6041 Agree. It appears that our friend in this video has way too much time on his hands to the point where his philosophy on things is eating him up alive. It reminds me of the guru's from India in the 1970s, fleecing the unknowing public in the first world. And there are the cults who were very deadly.
How does he know matter is only a perception? A perception could still be a perception of real existing matter in the objective world. A perception can still be a translation of something real. What if one is perceiving matter because matter is real? I mean it's only his perception that matter isn't real right? He doesn't know that what he's perceiving isn't real. He's not questioning whether his assumption that matter is just a perception is correct.
I think what Rupert means means by matter being only a perception is that it is the VR headset (perceptions + our minds making sense of what we perceive) that creates in our minds 10.000 objects for that 'matter'. Which is very useful to deal with the practicalities of our existence in this dimension.
@@Misslotusification I mean of course we have to translate reality through our senses into our consciousness, therefore the perception may not tell us everything about the nature of the material world, but it is still there. We perceive and decode the objective world in just the way God intended us too. Could we perceive it more accurately? Possibly. As for material objects I do believe that there are distinct objects one from another, and, at the same time, all matter is connected and one. This is a paradox, but the best analogy I can give is of a car being one car, yet there are distinct parts that make up the car and cause it to operate. I think there's a oneness to matter and distinction between the sum of its parts. As for consciousness I think there are distinct consciousnesses one from another, or distinct souls. Sure there may be interconnections between souls, but each one has it's own will and intentions, and is clearly distinct from another. The idea there is only one consciousness flies in the face of personal experience, especially when we talk to other human beings and can see they appear conscious just like we are. They have their own will, intentions, etc and my conscious experience isn't there's. There really are different ghosts in the machines as it were. Your self is immaterial, whereas your body is the vehicle your self uses to express itself. It's an extension of yourself, but not yourself.
@@monsterhuntervideos4446 Everything is connected because everything is made out of the same 'stuff', but our senses are gross so they translate what they perceive as objects. Besides, we perceive the world quite accurately to be able to navigate in it without bumping into things and finding our way out of a maze. There are, indeed, different body-minds, that what makes the world so rich and amazing, isn't it? But one same shared consciousness, that makes us perceive 8 billions different worlds looking very similar in many ways, and yet quite different. Paradoxical, you said? Thank you for this conversation.
@@Misslotusification There is no shared consciousness. As you were conscious of writing your comment to me that was not my consciousness. If it were all one I would be experiencing everyone's experience at the same time. Each person has his own conscious sense of self, has his own will, intentions, and makes his own choices. My conscious choices aren't your conscious choices, for example. I'm responsible for my choices, because I'm my own conscious entity who makes them. This is a properly basic belief and goes with real world experience. It also matches my Christian faith that certainly teaches there are different souls. We'll have to agree to disagree. Interconnectedness doesn't mean everything is 100% the same thing. Well it can mean that in philosophy, but it can also mean one thing's effect on another. It's all one in the sense of cause and effect because we all share the same home. My choices have affects on others (good or bad), but I'm still distinct from others as a chooser who is conscious.
@@monsterhuntervideos4446: The point is that what people ordinarily think of as "matter" is just a set of sense perceptions coming together to give that impression, especially if the perception is tactile and the object in question thus tangible (phenomena pertaining exclusively to the other senses, the ones that are not tactile, are typically not considered material); in other words, even if there is an external noumenal realm that lies beyond what we perceive, calling it "material" would be a grave mistake, because if that is even the case at all there's virtually no chance that what is informing the senses is anything at all like the high-level perceptions we refer to as material, just like various icons and applications on your computer are nothing even remotely like the actual goings-on within the circuitry of the computer. Also, keep in mind that the term "reality" refers to the perceptions you have (from Latin "res", meaning "thing", thus "reality" meaning "that which is of or pertaining to things", a "thing" being an arbitrarily delineated object of perception), and not to any purported noumenal realm underlying it; Rupert himself makes this mistake, and it's one made by most people, as it's quite a subtle metaphysical point, but one that is necessary for the precision required to talk about these topics in a meaningful way. It is summed up quite nicely by e.g. what Morpheus says in _The Matrix_ ("If you're talking about what you can feel, what you can smell, what you can taste and see, then 'real' is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain."), or the point Chalmers makes in his latest book, _Reality+_ (i.e. that all forms of virtual reality are just as "real" as what you experience to be "real" otherwise, as there's ultimately no qualitative difference at all). Additionally, you also seem to not distinguish properly between different referents that are all referred to by the word "consciousness" in English, which quickly gets confusing. For example, you're talking about how there are "multiple consciousnesses", but what one would more accurately say is that there are multiple minds, hence what is known in metaphysics as "the problem of other minds" (the problem of not being able to know any other mind than your own directly, which is all you ever know). Consciousness itself, in the way Rupert refers to it, refers to the quality of being aware, and this quality is universal across all conscious beings; in other words, there's no such thing as "my consciousness" or "your consciousness", as we both use the exact same faculty of consciousness to experience the contents of our minds, even if our minds are separate. Some go even further and argue that there are other shared qualities for certain groups of organisms, such as Averroes famous claim about the unity of the intellect, i.e. the claim that all humans share the same intellect too, just like all conscious beings share the quality of consciousness. Lastly, keep in mind that the points being made by Rupert here are fully valid for the reasons mentioned in the beginning, and that it's any claim of dualism that is on shaky epistemological grounds due to the fact that whatever noumenal realm underlying the directly experienced phenomenal reality of perception is wholly conjectural, since it cannot possibly be known in any way. This is something even Kant came to terms with towards the end of his life, stating more and more that he doubted the existence of such a noumenal realm, thus expressing more of a metaphysically idealist view, rather than the more dualist-leaning form of transcendental idealism he initially wrote about. The reason I mention this is that you seem to make quite a few statements positing such a dualism as somehow being fact, when there's no good evidence of that being the case at all.
I was just wondering what Rupert Sipra's take on art / aesthetics might be, since he was trained as an artist. And wouldn't you know it, I happened upon this video, which offers insights into both a giant in modern western art and Zen aesthetics.
The hard problem of consciousness is indeed really hard. We may never know what it is. Awareness seems to be similar to some kind of intentionality that processes information. I don't think the separation between consciousness and material things is helping. It's just a human concept. We really are not in a position to distinguish firmly and objectively what material is and what mental is. For a game character, what is mental and material? Is photon material or mental? It has no mass. If a photon is just a mental projection, then we would first need to observe or be aware of something to project from. What is it that we project that photon from? Where does the awareness of all living things come from?
I don't really see it as that hard. Animals are fully aware of, conscious of, their surroundings, and develop memories so they know where to go to find food or shelter or to avoid foes. It was only when we humans became self-aware that we started to be aware and conscious of the precise fact that we were aware and conscious. We became aware of our memories, and a bit later projecting our memories into the future. For some odd reason it astonishes us that we are aware of being aware, and we have tried to figure out how this came about, including all sorts of supernatural and spiritual ideas. We created the terms "concrete" and "abstract" to define the difference between material and imagined realities. Awareness comes from our senses, something we share with the tiniest of insects.
@@michaelmcclure3383 I would say that awareness comes exclusively from our senses. We have no other way to be aware of anything. And then we self-aware humans use our intellect to interpret what our senses detect.
We gave everything a name. Once you're in the Holy Zone/Heaven lables and the concepts behind them become obsolete. You go amongst a crowd of people and there is no-body else. There is only "one" (or One) of "us" here. And if there is "no-body out there" "you" are not a "body" either it stands to reason. Everything else becomes just abstract objects with no meaning as well. It was and is Pure Awareness, Pure Consciousness existing as I am. No "yesterday" no "tomorrow" there were no concerns about either but in the moment at that moment. Time ceased to exist. Absolute Reality. God.
Think about the tree, taking it apart piece by piece with your thoughts take the beauty of that tree away. To experience the beauty of the tree, you need to take it in and feel it with your soul.
But what's left without perceptions and thoughts/imagination? Isn't watching the knowing element without manifested perceptions and thoughts/imagination drab and dull? Isn't just watching screen without its colourful script and activies drab and dull?
we don't control our thoughts or anything else - amazing how many people there are on earth and yet not a single one of us has any clue as to what is going on but we love to follow people we think have a clue.
For a moment I felt sadness for the commenters that lambasted the content of the video as nonsense because they haven't yet had experiences to help them understand. Just a moment though.
I still believe consciousness emanates from matter in a very very long time and process. We are matter and i believe our consciousness evolves even at this stage by being embodied- an evolution that will get to its pure consciousness in billions and billions of years. Therefore, consciousness exists at different stages in the universe, always evolving. Is there a limit? Maybe, maybe not, but matter is the basis in its primitiveness.
@@mihaliprefti2507I think your view is fairly general among scientists, and although I am interested in science I also follow an interest in metaphysics, which of course enables people of different views to dismiss me (and Planck) as superstitious idiots. However I have found this two-pronged approach very interesting, and while not falling into the trap of believing anything, I find it raises interesting questions and must inevitably form part of the complete picture. The accepted view not only resembles the genie coming out of the lamp, it imbues the lamp with the ability to create the genie. I prefer to think the genie created the lamp. I do agree that consciousness is evolving, I think it achieves this by incarnating in as many forms as possible, an idea which tends to inculcate a feeling of reverence and respect for all matter. I think that is a direction in which science should lead us.
THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE AND THE WORLD IS AN ILLUSION. IF ILLUSION ITSELF IS ILLUSORY , HOW CAN THERE BE ANY QUESTIONS OR ANSWERS. Find out who is asking the questions. FIND OUT WHERE DO THE QUESTIONS ARISE.
C'est zen et Cezanne... the autotelic principle only the self is complete in itself as its self. Only the self knows itself as I and only the self is itself as am...
Thoughts are not always words or sentences...what about perceptions,are they not thoughts drawn out of knowledge one gathers from his life....are they not thoughts.
We are no supposed to worry about the reality we live in. This is God's concern. We are supposed to be working on ourselves. All these people are wasting precious energy on what might be. But how the dark one diverts the i from its path.
I projects names and forms of the illusory universe.I or Ego grabs forms or itself manifesting as diverse objects. I , the subject spreads as objects.Ultimately the I is illusory as the subject. This unreal I with Chit aspect has to dissolve in its source!.
Object is seen by the eye and eye can only see the mirror image the eye cannot see the outside object in this case the observer eye and the object in the same coin head and tail there is neither the observer neither the object separately. It is one thought
The only problem is that, you are neither the mountain nor the eye. The consciousness just makes you aware of yourself and your environment. Namely, you are different from both of them. Otherwise, merging in the mountain, or merging the mountain in the eyes would be impossible What distinguishes you from the others?
If you look at the space between atoms, all matter should be invisible, such as your desk or your hand, but it is not and that is an actual manifestation that is not explainable
Matter is an Illusion playing out through the False Sense of Self of a belief in a life separate and apart from Infinite, Incorporeal Omnipresent Being, or CONSCIOUSNESS.....!! I Am the Invisible Infinite... I...(my seeming Individual consciousness)and My Father....(God Consciousness)are One....!!
- живиш у духу божијем по својој слободној вољи иначе нико и ништа живо неће бити - значи нека божија реалност гдје он хоће да је све љубав а ви хоћете што ви хоћете _ онда у томе имаш тијело и имаш "зрнце љубави у срцу свом" да би био жив _ све на молекуларном нивоу изгледа тако нестварно заправо и не постоји - али у ма којем облику то се физички види _ свијетло - и нижа врста свијелта сва материја _ и када досадите богу - он притисне као прекидач за сијалицу и све бива мртво - све се апослутно све угаси и нема одлагања и нема бјежања и нема чекања ///замислити да ти неко у трен извади из срца ту тачку зрнце љубави и сав разум - крај постојања _ то је прави бог што ради а не ти ваши смијешни цртани филм божићи _ прије је некада била само два града содома и гомора сад је читава цивилизација - али зашто смо тада живи - ваљда нас воли а не то што ви манијаци мислите //зашто има рат ако нас воли - та не прави бог ратове него америка жидови србија _ бог хоће да смо сви срећни ма ко овуда, да ма ко овуда - а то што ви причате овуда за бога - ја то нећу да слушам - то мене не занима и није ме никада ни занимало _ зашто има глад - та глади има и у америци у филаделфији и другдје али пара нема за то има за украјину како томе што ко вели 100 милијарди јавно 400 милијарди на црно - за израел - ко је то онда ко прави глад бог или ви _ холандија - банка мора добро јести и возити мерцедес али ми можемо мање и све мање - та није то бог тако рекао - него они немају морале вјере да веле чекај не може тако - зашто отимате од њих ако су вам они дали и они вас купили _ и онда ја то нећу да слушам такве глупе приче
Perceive a flower without naming it because you have given the name to the flower as a man , God did not. Do this to every creature and notice the wonder ✨✨. Just like a small child who knows nothing but love and energy of the object.
All is made of gasses as hydrogen and oxygen makes water, hydrogen and carbon with nitrogen oxide makes suger ,nitrogen ,carbon dioxide makes carbon.and so on all matter making all material things
If i close my eyes and focus in the breath, i can walk anywhwre without colliding with anything. 🤦🏿🤦🏿♀️🤦🏼♂️🤦🏼♀️🤦♀️🤦🏽♂️🤦🏻♀️🤦🤦🏻🤦🏻♂️🤦🏿♂️🤦🏽♀️🤦🏾🤦🏼🤦♂️🤦🏽
the human brain has much grey matter. feed it more and more and it will create more and more illusory perceptions. just like the big bang is wrong but another view makes it look right
You still have to eat your dinner weather this is real or only a perception 😅 diversity is a direct result of evolution. Back to having dinner. Life has the impulse to be. Weather all this is real or perception
I don't know how you perceive something with your mind if it isn't real, apart from dreaming of course. If all there is is perception of perception, but not perception of the real material world then my family, friends, the ground I walk on, the sky, etc isn't real. this is just silliness to the highest degree. The material world certainly exists. We experience it and translate it through our senses. i mean what else would our senses be for if not to sense real objective phenomena? Are they really sensing nothing? Is it all in the mind? If so why do I even need eyes, ears or senses at all? There maybe a translation process when we perceive the world around us, and that translation may only give us a glimpse into the full nature of the reality around us, but it's still obviously there. It's just we perceive it in just the way the creator intended us to. Maybe a cow or a fish is designed to perceive it from a different angle, or with lesser clarity.
@@monsterhuntervideos4446 Of course the world exists, Rupert doesn't deny it, but he suggests that it might not be quite as the VR headset presents it to our minds. In the meantime, referring to what we perceive through the headset by naming it 10.000 things is useful to deal with the practicalities of this dimension...
The thing is that consciousness basically gives reality to everything. And everything is consciousness, your own consciousness. Perception is mental. Yet, in the realm of the mental you find solid state of matter. I know that Rupert would disagree, but that is true, from my point of view. That is what is going on
If the world is just an illusion created by your consciousness, then we can blame every victim for not deluding themselves hard enough. Me thinks it's a narcissistic tactic of... well... victim blaming.
@@3william714Is this you thinking, perceiving, or sensing from your brain, mind, higher mind etc...., because it seems to be a bit divisive here in this non-duality illusion. (sarcasm). 😂 I love to hear all the made up distinctions that don't exist. 😅
@@tej9739 But the point is, there are way too many words, thus implying you just don't get you so let me show you you with some word puzzles. In a sense, and due to mental exhaustion, I do retreat to meditation, making it effective. 🤕
Humans are just a collective intelligence. Our own cells are autonomous biological agents that have a goal function to create an individual. We just experience ourselves at a certain level of granularity/abstraction
The universe is 95.5% dark energy and dark matter. Only 4.5% of the universe is "regular" matter.... And that regular matter is 99.99999999% empty space.
Buddhism has got noting to do with Vedas. There is No creation, No Brahma, No caste, jati gothra, no Moksha, No reincarnation, No soul, No Gods or deities in Buddhism. It only happened to be originated in one of Mahajanapadas in the Subcontinent, NOT in India, as India is NOT one country even today (which is a UNION of independent nations)
If your thinking is correct then you as an object does not exist and if you don’t exist then what you saying does not exist and is not real so how can we know that you telling the truth?
When in very deep meditation one can take their consciousness outside the body, and be hyper aware of more reality. The body limit's your consciousness what we see through our eyes is not waht reality really is the body filters. Out so much of reality people can debate but unless they do meditation to explore they won't know, it then becomes guess work.
You lack inner experience. Consciousness is not real as we never had at birth apart from emptiness. The void is beyond infinite. Consciousness is infinite as the void created consciousnesses with five senses for infinite possibilities. Then the mind with limited three d possibilities. The last one is temporary including objects yet they exist. Consciousness isn't everything without emptiness.
