the purpose of self

and bliss is life.

 

A big question. The ego or self, does it exist? Does an idea exist? Compared to the "physical" plane, it appears unsubstantial, unreal. Compared to nothingness, it might seem very real, measurable as an electrical activity in the brain.

If we include ideas as reality, then the ego exists as idea, even for those not identified with it. For those "individuals" who are identifed as the ego, it is reality for them, though illusion for others, much like a mirage. We can say there is only awareness, as some do. Yet that awareness is is an individuation on some level.

No ego or self does not mean no individuation. There is an individual presense and body tapping this keyboard and it is not everything in the universe that is doing that, it is jnanic.

As Wittgenstein said, it is about different language games and world views, what we are identified as: ego, the I am or nothing. Each has a different outcome. And that's OK too.

Peace and love to you, brothers and sisters
Jnanic

 

That which is by essence real is real at all times to all observers, just as that which is sweet is sweet at all times and to all observers. No idea or thought has the nature of reality, because it is impermanent. It's reality is only fleeting, due to it's association with the real, just as the visibility of an object is due to it's association with light.

 

This seems like so long ago. No more tests.

 

Yet all observers cannot agree on what is real, which is why this discussion takes place at all. And one person's sweetness is another's sickliness, so no, these are not universals. All things of the senses are not universal but relative. Only that which is unconditional is changeless or absolute or permanently real. And many do not perecieve that at all, much to their loss and as the behaviour in the world shows.

As you say Bhaskar, the nature of thought is a fleeting reality, so it is still reality, even for a moment. Clearly it is not wise for anyone to claim it is permanent reality or the changeless. That thought is not. So both the object and the light exist.

Peace and love
Jnanic

 

Jnanic, any example, if stretched beyond it's intended limits, loses it's validity. That is what you did with my example of sugar.

And while sugar may be sickly to some, it is sickly sweet. I never said the reactions to sugar are the same, but only that the sensory input it gives is.

If you prefer, I will amend to the example of fire - even you must accept that anyone who sticks his hand in the flames of a woodfire will be burnt.

 

Bhaskar - I was simply taking your point about sense perception to its logical conclusion, that's all. I was talking more about beliefs before that anyway, rather than the senses. Here my point is that the senses can shape our perception of sensory input to the point that we may not know what that sensory input really is anyway.

Also, I have seen a man put his hand over a flame for two minutes and not be burned whilst others were forced to pull away their hands after a few seconds. He said his beliefs created a different reality for him.

Back to my main point - many believe that our beliefs determine our experience or perception of "reality". If a man believes in God, then God is everywhere. For the atheist, God is nowhere. They will never agree on reality as long as they hold those beliefs. That is the simple point I thought I was making when I talked about different language games or world views. I was not denying that there can only be one reality beyond senses or beliefs. Just that senses and beliefs cannot be trusted as verifying reality. I would have thought we could all agree on that.

Nevertheless, my main point to your point is that fleeting reality is still reality, albeit momentary, just as quantum particles appear to have momentary reality. And I never said that there was not a reality beyond language! Just that there can be different description patterns or perceptions of "reality". I had thought this is obvious too.

Peace and love
Jnanic

 

I will also add that reality has proven to be far more complex and bizarre than many originally thought, especially those with a religious inclination. Also, many cannot conceive of reality that consists of multiple layers of existence for instance.

Peace and love
Jnanci

 

Reality can be verified, though as you say, not through senses or belief. It can be verified by being it.

 

As regards my examples, I will be the first to admit they are limited to the scope of normal day to day life. You can go beyond that to the supernatural and by siddhis everything from gravity to fire can be defied, but that is because, from the ultimate standpoint the nature of sugar is not sweetness, nor is the nature of fire heat, the nature of both is Buddhahood alone.

But to the vast majority, sugar is sweet and fire is hot, because those properties are intrinsic to them in the limited sense.

 

Yes indeed Bhaskar

I understand by Buddhahood you may mean pure being or ultimate existence.

Being reality as you say, for me now is to empty the mind and let go of thoughts, beliefs etc about whatever true reality is, espeically outside this body but also within it. As the mind is emptied, I can perceive reality more clearly without projection.

Once non attachment to reality outside the body is realised, then the only thing that truly matters about that reality is the compassionate service and love of the life of it as oneself. Blessed be friend.

Peace and love
Jnanic

 

What is interesting is that we are already Buddhas.