Longwindedness strikes again!

{Vbul demands that a post not be longer than 12,000 characters. Go figure that one.}

Part II:

I'm not saying the state is beneficial to humanity, recognition of the truth results in recognition that humanity is maya. Benefits do not exist within the state!

"Within the state" - an abstract idea that none of us will ever fully realize, because, as you so aptly put it:

We would not all be 'in' that state, because we then would not be recognizing the maya that we are part of humanity.

You go on to confuse matters even more by saying:

But within the maya, recognition of what is true reality would be beneficial for cooperation and peace.

You don't know that, because you have no inkling of "what it would be like" if all people somehow simultaneously recognized that all is an illusion, and that the only truth is 'being'. It is literally impossible for you to finger the state of qualia that another person (or plant, or animal) experiences.

You may HOPE that that may be the outcome, you may HAVE FAITH IN the fact that it may be beneficial for cooperation and peace, but you do not know that to be a certainty, because it's never been done, and probably never will be, because most people are going to interpret it however they feel it best suits them, and apply it to their physical lives accordingly.

And so existence is being able to recognize that I exist? I do no think so.

I do not think so either, nor did I convey that when I posted:


Awareness of nothing isn't being. It's ceasing to be. Awareness is what allows you to assert that 'I AM'.

I said that AWARENESS is being able to recognize that you exist. Now who is misunderstanding who?

As with your tree-example, do you believe thats a tree exists because it is aware of its existence? Otherwise it would not exist, no?

I believe that a tree exists, but does not possess the faculties of awareness. I never said that awareness is a prerequisite for existence. In fact, I don't even claim to know "what it's like" to be a tree. Just that it doesn't exhibit any symptoms of awareness, which is recognition of 'I AM'.

So now you believe the computer in front of you is self-aware?

Hahaha, somehow that doesn't seem like you.

Of course it doesn't. Because I never posited that notion. You somehow surmised that by misunderstanding my point.


Again, for it to be true, you would be assuming you know that the thought processes and experiences which 'led' to it are real, not illusion. You do not know. You cannot.

Nor can you know for certain that they aren't illusions. Could you demonstrate how you are certain that they aren't, other than admitting that it is just what you want to believe? Can you even demonstrate how you know that the conclusions I reached are false, and somehow inferior to the conclusions you reach? Impossible. Don't assign me a task that you would be hard pressed to complete on your own.

(I decided to correct your misunderstanding of the difference between 'being' and 'I AM' here myself, because you've made similar mistakes about what I say so many times, that I don't even think pointing it out ever makes a difference. Do you do it deliberately? You've never apologized either, in fact, whenever it happens you seem to then ignore most of that reply except for a section or two.)

I appreciate you being diligent and taking it upon yourself to correct what you perceive to be an error in my thinking. Turnabout is fair play, and that is exactly what I'm participating in with you when I put forth my observations on why I feel your ideas are not beneficial to humanity. This, I do deliberately. This, I offer no apologies for.


If I never experience anything, then I have already 'arrived' at that truth. If I am not experiencing anything at all, then I am aware of nothing, I already am the truth!

But you will always experience something if you are existing right alongside me in this physical state of being. Your awareness and interaction is necessary for participation here. Thus, you have not arrived at the truth.

If you are aware of nothing, then maybe you are "the truth", but that doesn't amount to anything, because you are then somehow above me, beyond me, unreachable because I am an aware creature who experiences, and YOU are this big void that holds awareness of nothing. You have just separated yourself from the rest of humanity, by arriving at this "truth", but what does it accomplish as far as being a benefit to anyone but yourself? Nothing. Nada. Zilch. Zero.

Turnabout is fair play...This, I do deliberately.

Duly Noted.

So how was the concert?

Good of course. Its Blue Grass!

If that's the case, then why even acknowledge that all things outside of the state are illusions?

Because true reality is whats known to be true...and I do not know experiences to be true.

However, based upon what I do know to be true, they would become illusions. If you were to drop acid or go insane and develop hallucinations, based on what you currently believe to be true (the 'world around you' I assume by you argument), you would experience 'illusions'.

Calling them truths would imply that I know they are...and simply put, I don't. I only know one thing to be true. There is no difference between 'experience' and 'illusion', neither can be known.

If reaching the truth can be achieved either way, I fail to see the point of telling yourself that your experiences are illusions.

Because when reaching the state (awareness of nothing), actually reaching it and not just recognizing it ('I AM'), this helps. Its easier to loose awareness of what isn't real then what is. I believe it would be much harder to reach the state by realizing infinite possibilities are true.

can you demonstrate to me that you love your mother? It's nothing worth demonstrating, it's a feeling inside you that only YOU can recognize.

All experiences are only things YOU can recognize.

Does this make it an illusion?

It cannot be known that it is not illusion, and based on what is known to be true, it becomes an illusion to that truth.

All experience is illusion.

I prefer to think not. That is how I am certain that we are more than just "being".

You prefer to think not, which is what makes you certain experiences are real?

Hahahaha...

So experiences being real and all, the 'crazy man' who sees 20 people whom you and I cannot is experiencing truth, right?

I'm still waiting for a demonstration of known truth.

I haven't heard of you speak but of one way.

Realizing all possibilities/experiences (I suppose all possible maya is a good way of putting it) are true arrives at the same conclusion, the same 'state'.

From what you're saying, the only truth worth knowing is "being".

Another assumption that I have corrected many times before.

All experience can be considered worthwhile or worthless, its a matter of perspective. I am not saying 'being' is the only truth worth knowing, I am saying 'being' is all that is true.

Again, this is not to say experience is worthless. As that which experiences, I believe the opposite, and have not stated otherwise. I would, obviously, not be here if I thought so.

And, again, if you are going to imply there is more then one truth, please demonstrate.

Now, how is it that you have to arrive at the major revelation of "everything else is a lie" just to confirm this truth?

I said you did not have to in the very quote you are replying to!

BEING IS TRUE. EXPERIENCES ARE TRUE. Why do those two statements conflict for you?

Because being is known, experiences are not.

If experiences are true, then what you experience on drugs/while insane is true too. Doesn't seem like the kinda of thing you would agree with.

And they don't really conflict with me, illusion and experience are the same thing. Going the other route arrives at the same conclusion. I just believe 'awareness of nothing' is reached easier by first believing everything to be illusion, then believing everything is true.

...a train of thought that will serve of little use to us while living in the only known cognitive state that we can report on.

I have already described why I disagree, I believe it would bring many benefits while continuing to experience maya.

...why is spiritual knowledge necessary to the cognitive state we are bound to in this realm?

What 'spiritual knowledge'?

By that, do you mean what I call the truth?

It is not necessary, but I believe it has benefits.

... it's a nice thought, but it's not applicable to this world

The maya which you believe is really there.

Can you demonstrate to me how you are certain dying is an illusion?

Of course not, as it is impossible to demonstrate anything to anyone. And I am not certain of but one thing, Femme. Try to remember what that is.

Now, based on that one thing which I know to be true reality, everything else (experience) becomes illusion to simply 'being'.

Death is an experience. It is the 'end' of a bigger experience, but not an end to experiencing. There is no 'end' to being, there never was a beginning...time doesn't exist within true reality. Death is the 'end' of awareness of that maya, not awareness. Awareness of nothing is all there is.

Only real-time reactions to our experiences is necessary to work together in harmony.

Assuming that others are real, right?

Can you acknowledge that maybe you are misunderstanding my point of view, also?

I sure hope I am.

That maybe both points of view are necessary to dissect in order for us to gain a greater understanding of each other's viewpoints?

Sure.

I just find it annoying explaining one thing you misunderstand, and then have you make the exact mistake over again a few posts later.

And in turn, I am claiming that viewing your own recognition of 'being' as an illusion is unnecessary.

Unnecessary to what?

What do you know exists, in which this philosophy is unnecessary?

Why do you think I believe anything is necessary? I do not!

Defining our experiences as illusions seems to be belittling the very purpose of our being!

Despite how my efforts in stating otherwise...

No, defining experiences as illusion does not belittle those experiences. Illusion does not imply worthlessness.

I am sure anyone who enjoys hallucinogenic drugs would agree.

But we are

Apparently you know this.

Hahahaha.

and it's not, except for maybe abstract discussion that doesn't really amount to much when it comes to enriching the lives of humanity as a whole.

I would disagree, for reasons previously stated.

You don't know that, because you have no inkling of "what it would be like" if all people somehow simultaneously recognized that all is an illusion, and that the only truth is 'being'.

True.

I believe humanity would become peaceful and cooperative.

And about not realizing the state, and confusing things more...you assumed I was talking of one thing, when actually talking about another.

I believe it is possible for everyone to reach the truth, I just don't think that itself would benefit humanity...for, as long we reside in 'the state', humanity doesn't exist. However, if we maintain recognition of humanity while recognizing what is true, I believe 'humanity' would experience peace.

You may HOPE that that may be the outcome

Yes, I do.

it's never been done, and probably never will be,

Yes.

I said that AWARENESS is being able to recognize that you exist.

I obviously disagree.

What you term awareness is having an experience to be aware of.

I believe the ability to recognize you exist, is an experience which 'being' can be aware of. But I do not believe awareness (that which experiences) needs experience to be. It can 'be' aware of nothing, that is true reality.

'Being' by itself is 'awareness of nothing', what you might term 'unaware'. I disagree that anything is absolutely unaware, for if it were not aware of even nothing, then it would not 'be'. But anything that is, is at least aware of nothing, as it is 'being'.

that it doesn't exhibit any symptoms of awareness

I believe mere existence is a symptom of awareness of nothing.

If it were truly unaware, it would not exist, IMO. Nothing, IMO, can be truly unaware, only unaware of certain experiences. If anything was truly unaware, it would not even be aware of nothing, it would no longer 'be'.

Could you demonstrate how you are certain...know...

No. I am not.

Thus, you have not arrived at the truth.

If I was at the truth, I would not be replying to you. I only recognize it.

...but what does it accomplish as far as being a benefit to anyone but yourself?

I never claimed arriving at the state would benefit humanity. I said understanding that 'the state' is the truth, would.

In fact, I believe I stated that if humanity did, all at once, arrive at the state...there would 'be' no humanity to benefit!

I physically smell a pile of steaming shit everytime you post Obbe. Is that an illusion?

Because true reality is whats known to be true...and I do not know experiences to be true.

As a child, did you ever accidently (or on purpose) stick your hand in fire? If so, I bet it burned. And I bet you recognized the pain, stored the "ouch" sensation somewhere in your brain, and during subsequent exposure to fire, you drummed up the "ouch, this burns" memory, believed it to be true, and didn't stick your hand in fire again.

If you didn't recall experiences you've had thus far, believing all of them to be false, "illusions", as you put it - you'd be far more apt to make simple mistakes over and over and over again. However, you likely didn't have to
experience "fire burns" sensation over and over again throughout your life ... because you have a stored set of
"truths" in your mind, ready to drum up when it serves your survival, buried deep when you don't need them.

Do even those experienced-based truths fail to be self-evident to you? If so, then your "all experiences are
illusions" cardhouse folds right before your very eyes.

If you were to drop acid or go insane and develop hallucinations, based on what you currently believe to
be true (the 'world around you' I assume by you argument), you would experience 'illusions'.

Calling them truths would imply that I know they are...and simply put, I don't. I only know one thing to be true.

There is no difference between 'experience' and 'illusion', neither can be known.

I tripped on hallucinogenic drugs for nearly a decade. I did this voluntarily, because I enjoyed the sensations and
because, quite frankly, I was at a point in my life where the discovery of all illicit drugs were something I was
determined to experience for myself. Man alive ... did I ever hallucinate. I'd suck on those little lysergic-acid diethylamide soaked papers and see/hear all kinds of crazy shit. I expected this, so I was able to "maintain" that I
was in the grips of some pretty powerful hallucinogens, so instead of freaking out, I was able to just lay back and
enjoy watching the wallpaper seams separate themselves from the wall they were plastered to and trace their
sticky entrails all over my body. This was the preferred outcome, the whole point to it - to be able to experience
what really wasn't there with the benefit of these hallucinogens. Anything less than these bonafide illusions would have left me sorely disappointed and liable to NOT buy acid from the same source again.

Had someone slipped liquid acid on a cookie and I ingested it without knowing I dosed, then there would definitely
be a short time frame (depending on how long the leg was) that I would be pretty convinced that my hallucinations were real. After coming down, back to reality, if you will - I could have made sense of it all, and would then be able to recognize it as an illusion.

While I haven't gone certifiably insane, I've had extreme stress play funny tricks on my mind. A false sense of irritability while doing something I loved, or feeling anxious at times when I normally could hold it together. That was another bonafide illusion, something I've chalked up to my mind taking an escape route when it no longer felt like handling what was put before it, so it draws up false emotions in order to protect itself.

Ever been in the throes of a really high fever? The kind of really high fever that makes you have semi-waking nightmares and hear loud ringing in your ears that no one else can hear? Bonafide illusion #3. Easily recognizable and leaves the "victim" able to report their symptoms (sometimes) when the fever breaks.

These experiences are true illusions, and should be easily separated from the rest of our hallucinations from drugs, emotional distress, or high fevers.

So yes, there is a difference between 'experience' and 'illusion'.


I'm still waiting for a demonstration of known truth.

Why you yanking my chain, Obbe? Asking me to perform for you when you cannot reciprocate?

Obbe says: I'm still waiting for a demonstration of known truth.

Obbe says: if you are going to imply that there is more than one truth, please demonstrate

Yet, in the same thread, very same post, when I ask YOU to demonstrate the very opposite:

it is impossible to demonstrate anything to anyone

Mercy, man.

Death is an experience. It is the 'end' of a bigger experience, but not an end to experiencing. There is no
'end' to being, there never was a beginning...time doesn't exist within true reality. Death is the 'end' of awareness
of that maya, not awareness. Awareness of nothing is all there is.

I obviously disagree. Epicurus said it better than I could put it:

Death is nothing to us, since when we are, death has not come, and when death has come, we are not.

Death isn't a process, it's an event that can barely be chalked up to a bonafide experience, save for those precious few seconds before one expires. After it occurs, awareness fades out. If we could still experience awareness, then we wouldn't be deemed dead.

Something tells me this particular subject is just something we're going to have to agree to disagree on. At the very least, it's another topic and could use it's own thread.

Assuming that others are real, right?

Why would we assume otherwise? To do so would be to discount the fact that they aren't living, breathing,
feeling, emotion-carrying real human beings who are equal to ourselves ... and that doesn't seem very
beneficial AT ALL towards living side-by-side in peace and harmony, does it?

I disagree that anything is absolutely unaware, for if it were not aware of even nothing, then it would not 'be'.

Is my cell phone sans even the batteries unaware that I've chunked it in the trash because the damn thing won't
hold a charge? If so, I'd best dig it up, coddle it, and treat it with the same respect and reverence I'd treat my brother, my cat or my philodendron plant. We both know it's unaware of anything, not even it's own existence as a cell phone in the bottom of my trash. But can it still "be"? Of course. I could take a photo, if you like, as a demonstration. You'll just have to take my word that I won't photoshop it for theatrical purposes.

I never claimed arriving at the state would benefit humanity. I said understanding that 'the state' is the truth,
would.

Most of humanity can agree that "just being is true". So what is there to understand about "the state", and more
importantly - since we're already fully aware of that fact, how has it benefitted humanity so far? It hasn't. And turning the philosophy into a New-Age religion of Hyper-Unawareness won't benefit anything, either.

In fact, I believe I stated that if humanity did, all at once, arrive at the state...there would 'be' no humanity to
benefit!

Then by all means, let's discard this entire philosophy, given the miniscule possibility of all of humanity reaching
"the state" at once. We don't very well want to extinguish humanity in it's entirety, do we?

I liked your idea of Obbe decapitating his illusions of a brain filled head attached to a body.

If you didn't recall experiences you've had thus far, believing all of them to be false, "illusions", as you put it - you'd be far more apt to make simple mistakes over and over and over again. However, you likely didn't have to experience "fire burns" sensation over and over again throughout your life ... because you have a stored set of "truths" in your mind, ready to drum up when it serves your survival, buried deep when you don't need them.

Again,

Truths within maya. It is not known that my memories, and the things which I find to be truth (such as ever touching fire, hurting myself because of it, the sensation of pain, 'who' I believe I am, and the world I believe is around me) are themselves true.

I cannot know if fire will burn me, just as I cannot know that it exists, or that the sensation of pain caused is real. Compared to what I know to be true, any experience is an illusion.

Do even those experienced-based truths fail to be self-evident to you?

Again,

Self-evident, within the maya. That character at the end of this sentence is a period.

But you don't really know that. You don't even know if this text is real.

This was the preferred outcome, the whole point to it - to be able to experience what really wasn't there with the benefit of these hallucinogens. Anything less than these bonafide illusions would have left me sorely disappointed and liable to NOT buy acid from the same source again.

You base your conclusion that those experiences are illusions on the belief that what you otherwise experience is true. My point, is that you do not know 'the norm' to be true.

After coming down, back to reality, if you will - I could have made sense of it all, and would then be able to recognize it as an illusion

You would recognize them as illusion by basing that on the belief that you have come back to 'reality'. That what you term reality is true.

You do not know that.

That was another bonafide illusion,

Exactly as valid as your 'bonafide truths'...they exist within maya.

You define it as an illusionary experience compared with what you define as true experiences. Which you do not in fact know to be true. If you were to compare the expereince with what you actually know to be true, it would still be an illusion, but so would whatever you previously defined as true reality.

The difference between 'true' experiences and illusion is definition. They are the same thing, they are experiences. And experiences are not part of the truth.

Bonafide illusion #3

Same as above.

So yes, there is a difference between 'experience' and 'illusion'.

Besides definition, besides differences in what the comparative 'truth' is, how do you know this?

You believe this experience to be real. That is no different then a crazy person believing what they see is real.

There is no difference between expereince and illusion.

Why you yanking my chain, Obbe?

Because you continually claim to know things are true. I don't really want you to demonstrate it, I know you cannot!

You don't really know those things to be true. Thats why I'm yankin' yer chain!

After it occurs, awareness fades out.

You are speaking of maya, and of awareness of maya.

Awareness of nothing is the base of all. It will never not be, and you are it. You will never not be.

At the very least, it's another topic and could use it's own thread.

Perhaps. But, of course, I would just stand by my belief, as you would your own.

Why would we assume otherwise? ... that doesn't seem very
beneficial AT ALL towards living side-by-side in peace and harmony, does it?

You would assume otherwise if you understood what I speak of.

It does actually, because it brings the realization that separation is illusion, we are all one. That unity would bring cooperation, peace and harmony.

Is my cell phone sans even the batteries unaware that I've chunked it in the trash because the damn thing won't hold a charge?

Yes, it is unaware of that maya, but it is aware of nothing.

And no, unaware is not awareness of nothing.

Saying that it is unaware of maya, or unaware of you, is more accurate.

But can it still "be"? Of course.

Yes, because 'being' is awareness of nothing. Otherwise, no, it would not be.

I could take a photo, if you like, as a demonstration

It would prove nothing, because it would only be an illusion to what I know to be true.

Most of humanity can agree that "just being is true".

No, I don't think most of humanity would agree that "just being is true", I think most of humanity would insist "many things are true", as most of the people on the board have, yourself included.

Things they cannot know to be true.

since we're already fully aware of that fact, how has it benefitted humanity so far? It hasn't.

Because we quarrel over what else is and isn't true, while nobody actually knows either way.

We don't very well want to extinguish humanity in it's entirety, do we?

Why?

And why would humanity not be able to return? Its comes forth from the state already. You think the state is an 'end'?

Someone should start a new thread for this conversation. It's really far from where this thread was intended to go, not to mention it would be easier to keep track of haha.:D

Someone should start a new thread for this conversation.

It'll happen when this one gets a little bigger, and consequently closed.

Then it'll be the duty of the person who need to reply next, I guess.

Again,

It is not known that my memories, and the things which I find to be truth (such as ever touching fire, hurting myself because of it, the sensation of pain, 'who' I believe I am, and the world I believe is around me) are themselves true.

I cannot know if fire will burn me, just as I cannot know that it exists, or that the sensation of pain caused is real. Compared to what I know to be true, any experience is an illusion.

Are you suggesting that you have to burn yourself over and over again, rather than relying on the experiences you've had beforehand to be true? That is horseshit, Obbe. And you can call horseshit an illusion too, but at the end of the day ... you touch fire, you burn. Are you saying that you don't rely on past experiences to make your judgement calls by?

Don't you see this is where your entire "concept" ravels?

That character at the end of this sentence is a period.

But you don't really know that. You don't even know if this text is real.

In this instance, I know it's a period. Because I see it. And you typed it. In fact, you wouldn't be commenting on the "that charactar at the end of this sentence is a period" if there weren't a period there that you typed, that I saw, and that you are now commenting on.

My point, is that you do not know 'the norm' to be true.

You do not know that.

Which you do not in fact know to be true



Do you see what you're doing there? It's pretty apparent.
I not only know it's true, but I know that (from past experience), that there are certain things I can rely on to be true all of the time, not just one time in, or in one situation. See: Fire Burns

Obbe, it's all good and fine if you want to be an entheogen-testing, abstract-loving purporter of "illusions" and claim that nothing is true to you. But to report that none of MY experiences are real ... is horseshit. I'll tell you why why this silly little "concept" of yours will never catch on, Obbe: It's because it doesn't make a lick of sense to try and tell another living, breathing human being that their personal experiences and perceptions aren't real. That just won't fly with a great majority of people.

There is no difference between expereince and illusion.

There is a huge difference, and I've already addressed it. Again, all you can reply back with is fluff. Philoso-babble-FLUFF. All that text, all that prose ... just to boil it all down to "It's not true. It's an illusion" - for other people's experiences! It was cute at first, now it seems a bit audacious.

Because you continually claim to know things are true. I don't really want you to demonstrate it, I know you cannot!

You claim to know that experiences are just illusions. I don't want you to demonstrate it, because you can't, and even if you could ... you could only attempt to demonstrate it on a personal level, not the experiences of all of humankind.

Perhaps. But, of course, I would just stand by my belief, as you would your own.

It's a good thing you "stand by" your belief, Obbe. Because besides all the text you type in it's support, that's about all it has going for it. It wouldn't stand up on it's own, for the simple fact that humankind is not going to believe that their experiences are illusions. They aren't going to believe that it would be enriching to their lives to believe so, and besides the fact that it holds zero suggestions when it comes to explaining how it COULD help humanity ... you just fail to make yourself clear.


You would assume otherwise if you understood what I speak of.

I would assume otherwise if any of what you're speaking of made any practical sense, other than a New-Age philosophy of self-denial. You might hook a few drugged-up teenagers who may think it's cool to discount reality for these "illusions", but that'll be about the extent of it. Come to think of it ... is that why you're spreading it over Totse? Because this is a hotbed for drugged-up, confused, impressionable teenagers?

It does actually, because it brings the realization that separation is illusion, we are all one. That unity would bring cooperation, peace and harmony.

But you forget the main part, the part where you're going to have to convince them to discount their experiences as illusions, assume everything is a lie, and ...

It just won't ever fly. I'd bet my left tit (which I again insist is real, not an illusion) on it.


No, I don't think most of humanity would agree that "just being is true", I think most of humanity would insist "many things are true", as most of the people on the board have, yourself included.

Things they cannot know to be true.

Dare I ask, Obbe ... how can you be so bold as to question the perceptions of humankind? Are you next going to claim that this belief somehow gives you the insight into other's perceptions?


Because we quarrel over what else is and isn't true, while nobody actually knows either way.

Dear Obbe. You are the only one quarreling in favor of your position. Has that slipped by you, unnoticed?

Pray tell ... what does it feel like to be the only enlightened one, in a sea of fools who are just somehow too ignorant to see your position? :rolleyes:

That character at the end of this sentence is a period.

But you don't really know that. You don't even know if this text is real.

^ I cannot believe I even acknowledged this kind of silliness with a reply.

This kind of shit belongs in Half Baked, not MGCBTSOOYG.

I feel like shortening things up a bit. Though, don't hesitate to mention if you feel something was left out.

...I know many things...

I think that sums up the above.

My reply?

You do not know anything besides 'I AM'. You only believe you do.

...it doesn't make a lick of sense to try and tell another living, breathing human being that their personal experiences and perceptions aren't real.

Why, when even their existance is only an illusion?

Pray tell ... what does it feel like to be the only enlightened one, in a sea of fools who are just somehow too ignorant to see your position?

I wouldn't know, as I am but a fool myself.

This kind of shit belongs in Half Baked

Hahahaha.

Why? Because you believe you know many things to be true?

EDIT-

You claim to know that experiences are just illusions.

You sure love to imply things about me/that I have written things I have not.

No, I never did, not once. I have only claimed to know one truth.

I base the belief that all other experiences are illusions on the comparison of those experiences to what I know is true.

You claim to know that experiences are just illusions.


You sure love to imply things about me/that I have written things I have not.

No, I never did, not once. I have only claimed to know one truth.

You have said it several times in many threads and here is a quote from this thread:



The only truth is I AM, that which experiences. The experiences themselves are illusions.

Smells like somebody is full of illusiory shit, eh, Obbe?

My reply?

You do not know anything besides 'I AM'. You only believe you do.

No, Obbe.
You only believe you know what it's like to possibly know what others know. How you could possibly make such a broad guesstimate, imposing what it is you think you know about the experiences of anyone but yourself ... is ludicrous.


Why, when even their existance is only an illusion?

Remember: This is only what you believe. You are the one claiming that the only possible thing anyone can know to be true is 'being'.

Your concept is engineered so that the subscriber must take into belief that all human beings have the same "recognition" methods of their experiences. Not only that, but you claim to know that what other people are experiencing are illusions, untrue. That's magic, man. Hocus-Pocus. Wishful thinking.

And you use the word "truth", "maya" and "illusion", all of them loosely defined so that the only way to effectively drive your point home is to have the person question the very perception they use to survive with and write it off as an illusion.

You report that inanimate objects have awareness, memory recollections are a gamble, at best - and that death doesn't really happen. A great deal of people may buy into that third concept, but the first two are a bit questionable, don't you think?

Hahahaha.

You laughing like a hyena really brings forth to the reader a kind of arrogant elitism that is usually reserved for the religious fundie nutjobs.

FYI.

Because you believe you know many things to be true?

I do, yes. Many things. I certainly don't believe I know everything, and admit I still have a lot to learn still. But the one thing I can know and can really count on throughout the course of my being is this:

Our experiences are the only reality we will ever be aware of.


I base the belief that all other experiences are illusions on the comparison of those experiences to what I know is true.

Can anyone else make heads or tails of this?! ^
:confused:

You have said it several times in many threads and here is a quote from this thread: The only truth is I AM, that which experiences. The experiences themselves are illusions.

I'm clearly capable of mistakes too.

The 'I AM' is the only truth thread was one of them. 'I AM' is not the only truth, its recognition of what is true.

And that truth is all I do know.

I am insanely curious:

How did you come to believe this? What led you to it? Or did you just always know?

No, Obbe.
You only believe you know what it's like to possibly know what others know.

Exactly my point.

Likewise, you only believe you know many things.

Remember: This is only what you believe.

Obviously.

Is it as obvious to you that you only believe you know more then one truth?

...the first two are a bit questionable, don't you think?

Obviously I think the validity of everything is questionable.

...arrogant elitism that is usually reserved for the religious fundie nutjobs.

FYI.

Everyones a nutjob, religious or not. Its better to laugh at it.

But the one thing I can know and can really count on throughout the course of my being is this:

Our experiences are the only reality we will ever be aware of.

That sentence can mean so many different things...

Sorry, but I disagree that it is known. I believe that you believe you know that.

Can anyone else make heads or tails of this?! :confused:

My belief that experience is an only illusion, is based on the comparison of those experiences to the one thing I know to be true.

Much like your belief that you hallucinated on LSD, is based on the comparison of those experiences to what you believe you know is true.

Clearer?

How did you come to believe this? What led you to it?

Read the last reply above.

Or did you just always know?

To know 'I AM' is an experience, an illusion.

I believe it is always known while experiencing, perhaps it is the base experience outside 'the state'.

But in completely true realty, it is not even know. 'Being' just is.

Geez, Obbe. Just answer the damned question and stop speaking in riddles, just once. Just for this question.

Do you understand the question?

Do you understand the question?

I do not understand which one you are talking about, as you did not signify this.

I am going to assume you are talking about my last reply, what led to my belief that expereince is illusion.

* * *

We deem experiences illusions when they do not seem true to what we believe we know to be true.

You believe 'all this' to be true. You take some LSD, expereince something else.

By comparing what you experienced on LSD to what you believe to be true, we 'discover' you were having an illusion whilst on LSD.

But you do not know 'all this' to be true. You believe you do.

By comparing what you experience to what you know is true, we 'discover' expereince is an illusion to that truth.

***

Or did you mean 'Or did you always just know?'

In that case, you can only know the truth while experiencing maya. By being able to experience, you know that 'I AM'. Knowing is an experience.

However, while in 'the state', you just are. There is no 'do', simply 'be'. Awareness of nothing, not even that 'I AM'. So no, I would not know it then.

Specifically:

What led you to believe this?

What led you to believe this?

Maya.

Can I rely on mankind's definition as posited in the dictionary, or will one of those far-out Obbe-esque clarifications be needed?

I'm clearly capable of mistakes too.
So thinking that you never claimed that experiences are just illusions was a mistake? I find that hard to believe as you've made that statement no less than 25 times in various threads and have caused others to argue with you over it for pages. Now you want to take it back?

...will clarifications be needed?

Undoubtedly, if I believe in past experiences.

Ha-ha.

What led me to believing this? Realizing that I actually only know of one thing to be true.

Then comparing my experiences to that truth, in the same manner one would compare their experiences on LSD to what they believe to be true.

Which led to the belief that all experience is illusion.

Which implies that my perception of you, myself, and the above text are included as illusion (or 'maya' as I like to say)

...have caused others to argue with you over it for pages. Now you want to take it back?

Yes, it was my bad, as when I choose to do this I set out without a clear understanding of how to communicate such a concept.

I think its pretty good now.

What led me to believing this? Realizing that I actually only know of one thing to be true.


Really? Sure you didn't read about it somewhere, customize it to fit your own comfort level and are changing it up somewhat as you go along?

Really? Sure you didn't read about it somewhere, customize it to fit your own comfort level and are changing it up somewhat as you go along?

I'm sure the only way I could have come about the realization is through many contributing experiences. And yes, I have changed it, where I thought I was wrong.

How do you 'know' you know many things?

Did you read about them somewhere, customizing your beliefs to fit your own comfort level? Do you change it as you go along?

That could be said of everyone.

Really? Sure you didn't read about it somewhere, customize it to fit your own comfort level and are changing it up somewhat as you go along?

Isn't that what we do with... everything?

I mean, if your not reading it your learning it or being shown it or come across it or make it up yourself, "customize it to fit your own comfort level and are changing it up somewhat as you go along."

Although organzied religion doesn't change itself up, but science does. Religion is only borrowed and interpreted to fit whatever it wants, while science is changed and molded to fit into everything else that we "know."

I'm sure the only way I could have come about the realization is through many contributing experiences.

You mean... illusions, right?

The point of my question (thank you for answering literally) was - How could you have possibly come to the conclusion of your "one truth" without having relied on these illusions to guide you there? How can you believe these experience/illusions to be untrue if they are what led you to the one truth??

Like the fire burns, you have to admit that you rely on these illusions to be true a great deal of the time, and with success. Amirite? Amirite?

Furthermore, why would it be necessary to define them as illusions (not true) if they are indeed reliable as a 'past experience' model of known truth?

How do you 'know' you know many things?

Because consistent, no-fail repetitive experience tells me it is so. I can rely on my past experience of "fire is hot" to not burn myself after that first initial exposure. I know that if I try to breathe underwater, I choke. I remember these things. And I keep on experiencing, and learning from those experiences, because that is all I can possibly rely on to make my judgments by.

That could be said of everyone.

Yes, but most people cite their inspirations, especially when they copy it so closely.

Does The Divine Prakriti (http://www.hinduwebsite.com/maya.asp) ring any bells, or is this the biggest coincidence in internet history... ever?

Let's give Hinduism credit where credit is due.

Isn't that what we do with... everything?

I mean, if your not reading it your learning it or being shown it or come across it or make it up yourself, "customize it to fit your own comfort level and are changing it up somewhat as you go along."

Although religion doesn't change itself up, but science sure does...

That's exactly my point, FreedomHippie. His experiences with what he's come to "know" through his awareness is what led him to hold the beliefs he experiences today. If he dismissed them all as an illusion, or as false, he would not have come to believe in the concept he is telling us about.

Our experiences are all we can know to be true - they are the one thing we hold that is unarguably our own, and to dismiss them as being untrue, illusions - is to depreciate the greatest value of our being cognitive.

That's exactly my point, FreedomHippie. His experiences with what he's come to "know" through his awareness is what led him to hold the beliefs he experiences today. If he dismissed them all as an illusion, or as false, he would not have come to believe in the concept he is telling us about.

Our experiences are all we can know to be true - they are the one thing we hold that is unarguably our own, and to dismiss them as being untrue, illusions - is to depreciate the greatest value of our being cognitive.

I have to agree, I mean Obbe, the only truth is "I AM" but the recognizition of such a thing is an illusion itself. Existing is just another experience, ergo by your belief system, is an illusion as well.

Your only truth is stuck in its own paradox.

I mean, you said existance is the only true thing. You can't have existance unless there would be something to exist in, but you say that which we exist in(reality) is an illusion. How can you take one aspect and classify it as being beyond reality/illusion and saying that its the only truth?

You mean... illusions, right?

I guess you still believe theres a difference.

How can you believe these experience/illusions to be untrue if they are what led you to the one truth??

Because I cannot truly know them to be true. I do not even know if theres experiences were separate events that actually happened in a given time frame, or if I simply believe they have happened in a given time frame.

When compared to what I know to be true, it becomes evident that they are illusory to that truth.

I could ask you, how can you believe your experiences on acid were untrue?

Because you compare them to what you have already believe to be 'reality', what you already believe is known to be true.

Like the fire burns, you have to admit that you rely on these illusions to be true a great deal of the time

Again, true within maya.

As posted AtomicZagnut yesterday "Yes, 2+2=4, but only because a four is defined as two twos in a base 10 counting system."

I can only believe I have truly had past experiences experiences with fire, I can only believe it truly hurts if I touch it, I can only believe any of this is true.

Furthermore, why would it be necessary to define them as illusions...

It isn't, as I have said many times that the same conclusion is reached going the opposite way.

Believing experience is an illusion is the result of comparing experience with what is known to be true.

Because consistent, no-fail repetitive experience tells me it is so.

You do not truly know if its consistent, no-fail repetitive expereince, some complex series of illusions, one giant illusion, or anything!

I remember these things.

You believe you do, at least. But they may be an illusion, for all you know about them.

And I keep on experiencing, and learning from those experiences, because that is all I can possibly rely on to make my judgments by.

As long as you continue to interact with the maya you expereince, thats the logical thing to do. But please realize, you do not know its reality, you do know if you are actually making any judgments of any kind.

Does The Divine Prakriti (http://www.hinduwebsite.com/maya.asp) ring any bells, or is this the biggest coincidence in internet history... ever?

Actually, I have never heard of whatever that is.

But if its related, I'm sure I'll find it interesting. Thanks for the link.

Let's give Hinduism credit where credit is due.

Yes, parts of Hinduism are very close to what I'm talk about, same with other religions.

Minus all the tales and stories and lies and such.

I have to agree, I mean Obbe, the only truth is "I AM" but the recognizition of such a thing is an illusion itself. Existing is just another experience, ergo by your belief system, is an illusion as well.

Your only truth is stuck in its own paradox.

I mean, you said existance is the only true thing. You can't have existance unless there would be something to exist in, but you say that which we exist in(reality) is an illusion. How can you take one aspect and classify it as being beyond reality/illusion and saying that its the only truth?

I believe that simply existing is true reality.

I do not understand why the recognition of 'being' as an illusion would imply that the truth is also illusion.

If there is nothing which exists, then what is experiencing?

I believe that simply existing is true reality.

I do not understand why the recognition of 'being' as an illusion would imply that the truth is also illusion.

If there is nothing which exists, then what is experiencing?

You see it as "truth" because of the recognition. Thats the point im making...

If nothing exists, than nothing experiences, thats exactly the point I am making as well. You say that you believe that reality is an illusion, but your "one truth" comes from that very illusion.

If you were to strip away everything and have only existing, would you even be able to call it existing than? I mean that kind of takes the entire meaning of existance out when you strip away everything that makes it up.

If he dismissed them all as an illusion, or as false, he would not have come to believe in the concept he is telling us about.

As the experience of time is an illusion to what I know to be true, I never 'came to believe' what I do, except of course within maya.

If I dismiss all experience as illusion, all that is left is the truth I would recognize while experiencing 'I AM'.

Our experiences are all we can know to be true

No, sorry.

...Does The Divine Prakriti (http://www.hinduwebsite.com/maya.asp) ring any bells, or is this the biggest coincidence in internet history... ever?

The similarities between them are merely illusion ;)

If nothing exists, than nothing experiences, thats exactly the point I am making as well.

Obviously, but I am not saying that nothing exists. I am saying YOUR perception of a reality is an illusion. The big capitalized 'your' implies you exist.

You say that you believe that reality is an illusion, but your "one truth" comes from that very illusion.

No, I say recognition of that one truth comes from the illusion. I am saying recognition of that one truth is an illusion.

The illusion, comes from that one truth. Everything is possible, because of existance.

If you were to strip away everything and have only existing, would you even be able to call it existing than?

I would. I would call it true reality, or 'awareness of nothing'. Or God.

As the experience of time is an illusion to what I know to be true

To what you know to be true? That makes no sense. You say the only thing you no for sure is 'you are', but you are again saying that the experience of time is an illusion. You're not saying it may be an illusion, you're saying it is. How can you be sure?

You just refuse to believe that anything can be true outside of the one thing you really believe in to be the ultimate truth.

Fanaticism? Nah. That could only apply if the concept you believed in wasn't a self-refuting paradox of the most unnecessary proportions. But it is, so we'll just have to call it "Obbe's Fantasy" from here on out.



The similarities between them are merely illusion ;)

Yes, and how silly of me to think that Obbe could have possibly borrowed a few of his philosophies from another source!

Clearly, he was born with this insight and didn't rely on any instances of personal experience that he could trust to be true.

:)

So the illusion of reality comes from this one truth, yet you can't recognize the one truth because that itself would be an illusion. So right there you tell me that you don't know that the one truth is "I AM". You are only assuming that or at best hoping for it to be true.

You're not saying it may be an illusion, you're saying it is. How can you be sure?

...an illusion to what I know to be true.

As in compared to.

...an illusion to what I know to be true.

As in compared to.

Obbe, have you considered that what you know to be true is an illusion itself?

You just refuse to believe that anything can be true outside of the one thing you really believe in to be the ultimate truth.

No, I just can't know anything is.

...an illusion to what I know to be true.

As in compared to.
That makes no sense. Something is either an illusion or it isn't. It doesn't need to be compared to something you're sure of.

So right there you tell me that you don't know that the one truth is "I AM".

No, right there I tell you that knowing...anything...is an illusion to the truth. Even recognizing truth, because the truth is simply 'being', and recognizing it is not simply 'being'.

You are only assuming that or at best hoping for it to be true.

Obbe, have you considered that what you know to be true is an illusion itself?

If it were true that 'I AM NOT', then I would not be experiencing this great illusion.

That makes no sense. Something is either an illusion or it isn't. It doesn't need to be compared to something you're sure of.

Sure it does.

Like with the drug example, you only consider those experiences illusions, because you consider how you would otherwise experience to be the truth. To be true reality.

What I'm saying here, is you do not know this to be true reality.

No, I just can't know anything is.

But if you make a habit of NOT pressing your hand against a hot surface or open flame, then it's pretty safe to say that you trust these illusions to be true a great deal of the time, don't you? If they consistently save you from getting burned, why call them an illusion? In reality, if you use it - it just might save your life.

I know you'll post again. Prove me wrong. Demonstrate how I could possibly not know that.
:cool:

Sure it does.

Like with the drug example, you only consider those experiences illusions, because you consider how you would otherwise experience to be the truth. To be true reality.

What I'm saying here, is you do not know this to be true reality.
That's right. I don't know. But that doesn't mean it's not reality. YOU are the one stating "the experience of time is an illusion to what I know to be true".

The "to what I know to be true" part is meaningless.

Time may not be an illusion at all. Saying it is, is saying that you know more than "you are".

But if you make a habit of NOT pressing your hand against a hot surface or open flame, then it's pretty safe to say that you trust these illusions to be true a great deal of the time, don't you?

Yes, because anything I do is maya to simply 'being'. Those experiences are part of my maya.

If they consistently save you from getting burned, why call them an illusion?

Because that is how you define something which you do not know to be true, and is not true to what you do know to be true.

In reality, if you use it - it just might save your life.

In true reality, I would not 'do' anything, 'use' anything, 'recognize' anything, or be 'alive'...or 'dead'. I simply am.

The only use of those illusions are within bigger illusions. Within maya.

I know you'll post again. Prove me wrong. Demonstrate how I could possibly not know that.

You don't, you assumed it based on what you believe to be past expereince.

That's right. I don't know. But that doesn't mean it's not reality.

No, it doesn't, until you compare it to something true.

And theres only one thing you know to be true.

YOU are the one stating "the experience of time is an illusion to what I know to be true".

Because when compared to what I know to be true, it is.


The "to what I know to be true" part is meaningless.

How?

Time may not be an illusion at all. Saying it is, is saying that you know more than "you are".

I say I believe it is. All I know is that 'I AM'.

I believe it is illusion, when compared to what I know truth to be.

Thats all for now, folks!:D

You don't, you assumed it based on what you believe to be past expereince.

Just as you assume that you know there is only one truth? What i want to understand is if everything is an illusion, how do you come to the conclusion that one specific thing isn't?

If it were true that 'I AM NOT', then I would not be experiencing this great illusion.

Does that automatically mean that you are not? I have a computer screen in front of me. You would tell me that the screen is an illusion. Whether it is an illusion or not does not change the fact that I an experiencing it. This is waht I am talking about. Your existance could just be a small illusion of this whole illusion we call reality, existance being an illusion does make it non-existance.

No, it doesn't, until you compare it to something true.
What I experience is either reality or it isn't, even when compared to something I'm sure about.


Because when compared to what I know to be true, it is.
Again, that makes no sense. An experience is either real or not. You may be less sure an experience is real as compared to something you're sure of ("you are"), but that doesn't mean that the experience necessarily wasn't real. An experience may be just as true as "you are" whether or not you're sure of it. This does not make the experience "an illusion to what you know to be true". If it all ends up being real, it surely wasn't an illusion " to what you know to be true" because in that case it wouldn't have been an illusion at all..





I say I believe it is. All I know is that 'I AM'.

I believe it is illusion, when compared to what I know truth to be.
Again, makes no sense.

Lets say all bags have either one apple in them or two. I have two bags in front of me. I look in one of the bags and see one apple. I now know this bag has only apple in it. I can't say the other bag doesn't only have one apple in it as compared to the bag I'm sure about. It either does or it doesn't, and I can be more sure about one bag than the other, but I can't say "Bag number 2 does not have one apple in it as compared to bag number 1".

Yes, because anything I do is maya to simply 'being'. Those experiences are part of my maya.

Anything you do is your reaction to the experiences thrusted upon you in this reality. This reality is the only reality you can be sure to ever know.

Using the word "maya" to death until it becomes out of context, as an adjective or a noun or however you feel it suits your missive ... is making it lose it's meaning very fast. For me, it was back on page 6 or so.

Because that is how you define something which you do not know to be true, and is not true to what you do know to be true.

Open your mind, Obbe. Allow yourself to be able to grasp on one given truth ("being"), but don't let it make false all the wonderful discoveries you can stand to soak up in your brain from now until it's time for you to merge with your fantasy state of being. Rely on those experiences to enrich the only state of reality you will ever get the pleasure of experiencing.


In true reality, I would not 'do' anything, 'use' anything, 'recognize' anything, or be 'alive'...or 'dead'. I simply am.

Imagine all the people...
living life in peace
(woo-hoooo)
You may say
I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one

Let us all trip acid, munch on shrooms, and doubt our very own perceptions. Let us all gather 'round a big old cloud of doubt and lie to each other about what we're experiencing. Then let's hold hands, chant: "Release me from this painful Maya" and hope against all hopes that we all implode into a single grain of sand, slipping back into the earth from whence we came...

:rolleyes:

No, let's not - and say we did. Let's just go on believing our experiences to be bonafide representations of our interaction with the world outside our mind, and do more practical things to benefit self and humanity with.

Whattya say? Whattya say?

You may be less sure an experience is real as compared to something you're sure of ("you are"), but that doesn't mean that the experience necessarily wasn't real. An experience may be just as true as "you are" whether or not you're sure of it. This does not make the experience "an illusion to what you know to be true". If it all ends up being real, it surely wasn't an illusion " to what you know to be true" because in that case it wouldn't have been an illusion at all.

This is something i'v been trying to get around too but i couldnt explain what i was thinking. Obbe, you have individually decided that what you know to be true is only one thing, and because of this in your eyes everything else is an illusion.

You can go see a magician do an illusion where he makes a tiger float. Is it an illusion that the tiger is floating? Well obviously not because you can see that it is, you are aware of this. The illusion part of it is what is going on behind the curtain, the part you don't see.

The illusion is not the tiger floating itself, but rather what is making it float, or lack there of that is the illusion.

On another note...

Illusions distort reality and sensory perceptions. Obbe, what i understand of your view is that if something is not the specific one truth it is an illusion. An illusion is not the opposite of a truth, it is a distortion of a specific perception.

Truth and illusion are both products of reality, they are not seperate from each other, and can very well be one in the same in come cases.

"I AM", not saying or protraying it, but being aware of it is just that, being aware. It doesn't automatically make it the only truth that all other things are an illusion to.

Maybe we should have another truth thread, because i think Obbe fails to realize that his "truth" is subjective and only relative to the individual to believes it is "truth." Although Obbe would probably just say that truth is "I AM" and thats it anyway...

I am tired of arguing this. Arguing was not my intention, explanation was.

Whether you seem to understand me, or misunderstand me, it doesn't really matter.

I am not a troll, I really believe what I have tried to describe here, and continue to believe it. I know that 'I AM', not believe it. And its all I'll ever know to be true.

My belief that all experiences are illusions, is based on the comparison of expereince to what I know is true. That makes sense to me, although I realize it may not to you.

But whatever you think of reality, existance, these concepts, or myself...doesn't really matter to me, because to me you're only ever gonna be an illusion.

Thats all I have to say about that.

I know that 'I AM', not believe it. And its all I'll ever know to be true.
But you have continually contradicted yourself and added that experiences ARE illusions, not may be. This is knowing more than "YOU ARE".

You are now trying to get around this by adding "an illusion to what I know to be true" which as I explained, makes no sense. If you're going to state that something IS an illusion, you can't state that the ONLY thing you know to be true is "YOU ARE".

But you have continually contradicted yourself and added that experiences ARE illusions, not may be. This is knowing more than "YOU ARE".

I don't know experience to be illusion, I believe it to be.

You are now trying to get around this by adding "an illusion to what I know to be true" which as I explained, makes no sense.

And I have explained this many times, using our method of defining experiences (on LSD, or as a crazy person, for instance) as illusions. By comparing such experiences to what we believe we know is true.

I use the same method, but expand from one expereince to all experience, and compare it with what is known to be true, not what is believed.

But, I don't want to get into the whole rigamarole of trying to explain myself and correct misunderstandings again. This is, hahaha, my 'Obbe-scure' belief and you have your own.

And I have explained this many times, using our method of defining experiences (on LSD, or as a crazy person, for instance) as illusions. By comparing such experiences to what we believe we know is true.
You're still not getting it or you're just denying it to avoid admitting your contradictions. An "an illusion to what I know to be true" is still an illusion. You are saying IT IS an illusion. That's not saying it MAY BE an illusion.

You can't say something is an illusion compared to something else and expect any English speaking person with some intelligence to think that makes one iota of sense. Something is an illusion or it isn't. It's not an illusion as compared to this or that.


This is, hahaha, my 'Obbe-scure' illusion and you have your own.
There you go again. You are declaring your experiences ARE illusions and not MAY be. You have made this statement over and over and for some reason don't realize how contradictory this is to the other statement you have repeated over and over that the only thing you know is "YOU ARE".

You're still not getting it

Neither are you.

:)