Thread: Reality Is Not Perception

Originally Posted by Spi

Interesting thoughts. I'll show this to my friend. He's always super-relativist idealist and can a bit naive when I discuss about things relative to this at times. I always didn't like how he goes "Nothing is absolute." how arrogant of him when he is One. axasndnasdnwalfawenfawelfe!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Well some people do not say there is an Absolute because they are only paying attention to what is not Absolute. They could simply be pointing out that everything is transitory and limited, however on the other hand, they may be ignoring the actual context in which that is an natural possibility.

If somebody says "nothing lasts forever", they cannot conclude "therefore forever does not exist", because "forever" is the context for the first statement. On a side note, sometimes people think that "forever" involves time, but since it illogically doesn't, "forever" can be witnessed in a moment. In this way it is better said to be "timeless."

Originally Posted by bcomp

Thanks, really... really, really. You've opened my eyes to a whole new world of subjective pseudo-philosophy.

Thanks for your contribution to the thread. That is a perfect example of how a perception can be projected into the world, and thereafter be believed and reacted to as Reality. Of course, your perception of what I said had no external existence, even if it was preferably metaphorical - in which case I'd still prefer more elaboration.

Originally Posted by really

Thanks for your contribution to the thread. That is a perfect example of how a perception can be projected into the world, and thereafter be believed and reacted to as Reality.

Mmhmm. Just like the OP: neither are reality.

Originally Posted by really

Of course, your perception of what I said had no external existence, even if it was preferably metaphorical - in which case I'd still prefer more elaboration.

So in your statement, you just... assume the existence of the 'absolute truth,' as opposed to mine, which you're passing off since it's merely a perception of your perception? Sounds like you've set up a pretty one-way discussion here. A bit closed-minded really.

Has it ever occurred to you that your 'absolute truth' concept may simply be a philosophical phantom that you accept because of the way the specific events of your life have moulded your own perception?

Your line of thought is interesting none the less... it sounds similar to arguments for the existence of God, except that you've merely substituted 'truth' in the place of 'God.'

Originally Posted by bcomp

Mmhmm. Just like the OP: neither are reality.

[...]

Has it ever occurred to you that your 'absolute truth' concept may simply be a philosophical phantom that you accept because of the way the specific events of your life have moulded your own perception?

Yes it has occurred to me, but it doesn't mean anything. "Moulding" is inevitable part of human life, whether something correlates as True or not.

If you consider what I am saying, you'll understand that I cannot perceive it under my definition of perception. If it uses another definition (such as the Websters) it is really beside the point and may not make it clear for others what I am saying. That is why I defined it myself. Even so, it is well accepted in philosophy/spirituality according to my research.

Originally Posted by bcomp

So in your statement, you just... assume the existence of the 'absolute truth,' as opposed to mine, which you're passing off since it's merely a perception of your perception? Sounds like you've set up a pretty one-way discussion here. A bit closed-minded really.

I don't assume it, because it is already confirmed and existing. Just because it cannot be proven doesn't mean it cannot be confirmed or witnessed. Otherwise, explain how the Absolute is not Real?

How is it that "No, no. You see, 1 + 1 isn't really equal to 2 because I've defined "1" as "5," so, therefore, 1 + 1 = 10. And even though we cannot comprehend this equation that is meaningless beyond meaning, we will be able to better understand how calculators work, even though they can't make 1 + 1 = 10." is not a perception or impression you made?

Originally Posted by bcomp

Your line of thought is interesting none the less... it sounds similar to arguments for the existence of God, except that you've merely substituted 'truth' in the place of 'God.'

Well they are really indifferent. God can be said to be All That Is; All That Is can be said to be True as it Is, and also both are as Reality.

Does it make sense to say that Truth ultimately is, that which is?

I'd like to bump this thread by making an exemplary explanation.

Time does not exist.

"Time" is a perfect example of how perception distorts actual Reality. How believable, how arrogant, how projecting and how assuming, human perception really is. Yet, it is supposed to be like this, otherwise you would not survive. You believe what you think because your perceptions are self-created. You believe it, therefore you see it. But what about Reality itself, that which does not change, that which is beyond belief, reason and thought?

Looking and perceiving what the world calls "time", even as you read this, a timeless existence seems absurd. You might think:

Timelessness would be nonsense. Of course time exists. The Universe began and everything will end. I have plans. Yesterday was _______. Tomorrow will be _______? What did I do yesterday, what shall I do now and what will I do tomorrow? I regret _______. I have _______ tomorrow. Most importantly: I will cease to exist.

These phrases are common perceptions and mindful wonderings. Your mind must keep busy, and you must not get bored, right? All of this is in your imagination. Yet you cannot imagine timelessness. Although these thoughts can be seen as linguistic references and expressions for their own sake, they have no actual Reality or any solid point of reference.

Tomorrow never arrives. Now does not move. Yesterday was never overtaken. Transcend time, and forever remains untouched.

Timelessness exists.

I like you!

I like him too!

Lol, I'm glad you both understand.

Anyone have a strange perceptual block? Does anybody have any problematic issues they'd like to be conceptually resolved? Haha.

Originally Posted by really

I don't assume it, because it is already confirmed and existing. Just because it cannot be proven doesn't mean it cannot be confirmed or witnessed. Otherwise, explain how the Absolute is not Real?

How is it that "No, no. You see, 1 + 1 isn't really equal to 2 because I've defined "1" as "5," so, therefore, 1 + 1 = 10. And even though we cannot comprehend this equation that is meaningless beyond meaning, we will be able to better understand how calculators work, even though they can't make 1 + 1 = 10." is not a perception or impression you made?

I never said it wasn't, because it is. In fact, what I did with that little satire was to condense you idea down and attempt to explain it in different terms... which is essentially what you're doing to the 'pure reality,' assume it exists of course. That's an important part of my argument: that when you witness something, you're not taking all of it in, there's an element of summarizing that occurs when you witness, or feel, or transcend.

And I'm really failing to understand how something can be confirmed, but not proven. Self-confirmed you mean? Because if it's only a subjective realization, then you'd have to acknowledge the possibility that your 'absolute truth' may not exist... then you'd have to provide a good reason to still believe it.

Originally Posted by bcomp

I never said it wasn't, because it is. In fact, what I did with that little satire was to condense you idea down and attempt to explain it in different terms... which is essentially what you're doing to the 'pure reality,' assume it exists of course. That's an important part of my argument: that when you witness something, you're not taking all of it in, there's an element of summarizing that occurs when you witness, or feel, or transcend.

When you witness something, there is simply existence. There is awareness, and it is not getting involved in form, but merely being and watching. This is beyond perception.

Originally Posted by bcomp

And I'm really failing to understand how something can be confirmed, but not proven. Self-confirmed you mean? Because if it's only a subjective realization, then you'd have to acknowledge the possibility that your 'absolute truth' may not exist... then you'd have to provide a good reason to still believe it.

Self-evident, self-existent, self-fulfilling, self-conformational. Does Reality need proof? Because the Absolute and Reality are indifferent. How are you going to tell me that the Absolute does not exist?

Originally Posted by really

When you witness something, there is simply existence.

No.

When you're witnessing, you're doing something more than "simply existing." You're... witnessing. Why is that hard to understand?

Originally Posted by really

Self-evident, self-existent, self-fulfilling, self-conformational. Does Reality need proof? Because the Absolute and Reality are indifferent. How are you going to tell me that the Absolute does not exist?

How are you going to tell me it does?

Originally Posted by bcomp

No.

When you're witnessing, you're doing something more than "simply existing." You're... witnessing. Why is that hard to understand?

They go hand in hand. It is hard to understand for some people because one cannot "look for" witnessing, and it is non-dualistic. It happens as an a priori quality of consciousness and awareness. Awareness, witnessing, being, are not of perception and seeking. This is also why some say that one cannot seek the Absolute, for it is All That Is.

Originally Posted by bcomp

How are you going to tell me it does?

As I already have. Perhaps I don't need to say anything? The point is, although it is self-evident with high awareness, it cannot be "told". What I have already said can merely be something to contemplate and perhaps serve as a source of inspiration or insight. Are you still finding this hard to know?

Take my "time" example (Post#30) for example. How can timelessness not be? It can only seem to "not be", within perception - in the life of the average human.

Originally Posted by really

They go hand in hand. It is hard to understand for some people because one cannot "look for" witnessing, and it is non-dualistic. It happens as an a priori quality of consciousness and awareness. Awareness, witnessing, being, are not of perception and seeking. This is also why some say that one cannot seek the Absolute, for it is All That Is.

So you're saying existence and witnessing go hand in hand. Does that mean dirt is "witnessing us?" And if so... does that in turn mean all inanimate objects are in fact... conscious?

And it's not fair of you to bundle seeking together with perception, since the first is intentional, while the second isn't.

Even so, I'd have to maintain my argument that awareness is not separate from perception. Pretend for a moment that we are standing on a world inhabited entirely by buckets. Two of these buckets are filled with water. The first bucket is wholly unchanged by the experience, sitting in exactly the same spot, yes with new content, but entirely unaware. However, the second bucket is different than the first: when it's filled with water, it is aware of its contents... it perceives the water as being inside of itself. If the bucket did not perceive the water, it wouldn't be aware of it.

Awareness without perception is like a horse-less carriage.

And as a footnote, I'm not talking about perception in the context of social, cultural, or personal biases - just the basic, literal act of perceiving something.

I'm almost certain that I'm just me. Right here. Right now.

Originally Posted by bcomp

So you're saying existence and witnessing go hand in hand. Does that mean dirt is "witnessing us?" And if so... does that in turn mean all inanimate objects are in fact... conscious?

The bridge between the non-linear and the linear domain can be said to be the human being - a "probe." Sadly, the human consciousness does not know the Context from which it has the capacity to exist and be aware.

Existence and witnessing can be said to be the same because, as I said, witnessing is non-dualistic. To know there is existence, of no matter what quality or form, that it is - is witnessing. There is no seperate "witnesser" and that which is "witnessed", because they are One. This is the formless intangibility of consciousness, which pervades all existence.

So when I look at someone, when I witness them in a high state of awareness, I see my Self in them and I am everywhere, bound by no seperation. It is not that dirt is witnessing me, but that I am witnessing dirt in my Self.

Originally Posted by bcomp

And it's not fair of you to bundle seeking together with perception, since the first is intentional, while the second isn't.

I don't think it matters whether they are intentional or not. They are the same category; to perceive. How can one seek the Truth, when one would merely be seeking Reality? Why look for what is everywhere present?

The only way that "seeking" can be seen differently, is when the word itself is replaced with a more appropriate word, such as "surrendering" or "devotion." Otherwise, one would be looking for Reality, in the Presence of Reality; for something else one has in mind. You cannot be seeking the Truth, for that may imply that you know what it Is, yet denying it. If you know the Truth, you do not seek it, and if you deny it, you cannot know it and if your belief was true you would not actually exist. Thus, there is no way to deny the Truth (apart from ignorance) and no way to seek it.

Originally Posted by bcomp

Even so, I'd have to maintain my argument that awareness is not separate from perception. Pretend for a moment that we are standing on a world inhabited entirely by buckets. Two of these buckets are filled with water. The first bucket is wholly unchanged by the experience, sitting in exactly the same spot, yes with new content, but entirely unaware. However, the second bucket is different than the first: when it's filled with water, it is aware of its contents... it perceives the water as being inside of itself. If the bucket did not perceive the water, it wouldn't be aware of it.

Awareness without perception is like a horse-less carriage.

And as a footnote, I'm not talking about perception in the context of social, cultural, or personal biases - just the basic, literal act of perceiving something.

I understand what you're saying. What you are describing is movement and relativity. As a rocket pilot, you may not perceive the rocket to be moving if it is not accelerating (and with no external frames of references, etc).

Perception identifies with form and movement. It does this because its mechanisms are also physical and sensory (include thoughts also). It plots assumptions and projects imaginations onto Reality, while believing them. Is there anybody who does not believe what they think?

Awareness is aware of form and the formless Reality, intrinsic to conscousness. It is not subject to what the body perceives. Witnessing phenomena, rather than perceiving it, one is aware that it is a non-local Reality, rather than a local perception. This is because awareness is beyond relationships and seperations, prior to perception. Before one can perceive specific forms of existence, there first must be the conscious awareness itself; a True Identity that exists.

Having said that, without awareness, there is oblivion. Beyond perception, there is awareness.

Originally Posted by SpecialInterests

I'm almost certain that I'm just me. Right here. Right now.

But what do you mean - "just me"?

Originally Posted by really

So when I look at someone, when I witness them in a high state of awareness, I see my Self in them and I am everywhere, bound by no seperation. It is not that dirt is witnessing me, but that I am witnessing dirt in my Self.

I just smacked my desk in the face. You're both witnexisting, so you should be rubbing your reddened cheek in pain now, yeah?

Obviously not, so you're not really a part of the things you co-exist with. I'd have to say your imagined synonymity is nothing more than an illusion that's borderline narcissistic.

Originally Posted by really

I understand what you're saying.

Nope.

"Perception," aside from other uses, is simply a different word for "observation." So from what I gather, you're saying awareness can, paradoxically, exist apart from observation. Is that right? See, all I'm saying is that awareness is an entirely different action or attribute than existence.

Finally linking this fecal-storm back to the OP...

Without perception - in the strictly observational sense - awareness is not possible. One cannot be aware the 'absolute reality' of existence, since they would have to absorb it in some capacity by some means of observation; we can be aware of existence, just not aware of it in the totally comprehensive, pure way the OP suggests is possible. If the 'absolute' reality cannot be truly observed, then it cannot fit into our reality, since our reality is generally based on what is practically applicable (though, of course, we can discuss it.)

So, sure, there may be an unseen, unfettered, unfathomable reality that's right under out noses, but since it has no bearing on our lives, what does it matter?

But hey, stepping away from the matter a bit, our reality is definitely rampant with misconceptions and prejudice that tear away parts of our humanity and do separate us from truth. Your proposition, though a bit shaky philosophically, is good in that it can promote others to drop these faulty "perceptions" and seek peace with themselves and others.

Whew. I think I'm done. This was definitely interesting. Really. Really, really. Hahaa

Originally Posted by bcomp

I just smacked my desk in the face. You're both witnexisting, so you should be rubbing your reddened cheek in pain now, yeah?

Obviously not, so you're not really a part of the things you co-exist with. I'd have to say your imagined synonymity is nothing more than an illusion that's borderline narcissistic.

Are you not familiar with what can be called Cosmic Unity?

Originally Posted by bcomp

Nope.

"Perception," aside from other uses, is simply a different word for "observation." So from what I gather, you're saying awareness can, paradoxically, exist apart from observation. Is that right? See, all I'm saying is that awareness is an entirely different action or attribute than existence.

Finally linking this fecal-storm back to the OP...

Without perception - in the strictly observational sense - awareness is not possible. One cannot be aware the 'absolute reality' of existence, since they would have to absorb it in some capacity by some means of observation; we can be aware of existence, just not aware of it in the totally comprehensive, pure way the OP suggests is possible. If the 'absolute' reality cannot be truly observed, then it cannot fit into our reality, since our reality is generally based on what is practically applicable (though, of course, we can discuss it.)

I think you keep missing the point. How can you observe, absorb or comprehend the Absolute Reality? Having said that The Truth, The Absolute, and You, are All That Is, what would be the meaning of it?

"hey daddy i am a car *broom-broom*"

Originally Posted by bcomp

So, sure, there may be an unseen, unfettered, unfathomable reality that's right under out noses, but since it has no bearing on our lives, what does it matter?

If it has no bearing in your life, it probably doesn't matter. It really depends upon your focus in life.

Nothing is what it seems.

Originally Posted by really

I think you keep missing the point. How can you observe, absorb or comprehend the Absolute Reality? Having said that The Truth, The Absolute, and You, are All That Is, what would be the meaning of it?

Nothing. Nothing at all. Just my point.

Originally Posted by really

If it has no bearing in your life, it probably doesn't matter. It really depends upon your focus in life.

I find focusing on bettering life - as opposed to meta-existential quandries - gets more good done.

Originally Posted by bcomp

Nothing. Nothing at all. Just my point.

That wasn't your point, otherwise you would not have asked such questions. The relationship of my questions was here:

How can you observe, absorb or comprehend the Absolute Reality? Having said that The Truth, The Absolute, and You, are All That Is, what would be the meaning of it?

Having asked that, none of those things need to be done. Do you keep thinking that The Absolute is some sort of separate objective existence "out there"? If so, that is a perceptual assumption and I have tried to make it further clear that "You" are it (capitalized just as the Self-Identity). This is probably what is the center of confusion, if not, spell it out to me clearly why you see the concept of "The Absolute" the way you do.

"If the doors of perception were cleansed, everything would appear as it is, infinite"

What a refreshing thread.... thank you

Originally Posted by dreamingofdreaming

"If the doors of perception were cleansed, everything would appear as it is, infinite"

William Blake! And so true, but easily forgotten.

Thanks for mentioning that, nice quote.

Let's take a nostalgic trip back to my first post.

Originally Posted by bcomp

What point is there to acknowledging the existence of a reality that cannot be viewed for the very act of viewing (or acknowledging) it makes it something other than what it is?

Perhaps you misunderstood, but that was a rhetorical question. I'm implying that there is no point in acknowledging the pure reality. So, yes, that was my point.

Morpheus: "What is real? If real is what you can feel, smell, taste and see, then 'real' is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain."

It is assumed reality can exist independant of individual perception. If reality required consciousness to exist, then how could life, and eventually individual consciousness itself come into existence? Please don't say god.