The Big SR Sticking Point

[haider]

infinitethoughts,

You said: "It removes them from your reality, not the reality."

"Whose" reality would you say "the" reality belongs to?

[absvan]

Originally Posted by haider

I think the primary fault in the arguments for SR in this thread is that they are based on a play on words.

For example, the distinction between "THE reality" and "my reality" is an incorrect distinction. "My reality" is a false label, and a misuse of the word "reality." If I don't like someone, and I choose to ignore him, he will still exist in reality. I can choose not to have him in my life by avoiding him, but this does not mean he does not exist in "my reality" (there is no such thing).

I believe your reality and my reality are different and are goverened by our own subconscious beliefs. So as an example if you believe in ghosts and spirits, you will have them in your reality and if I dont then I wont.

[infinitethoughts]

Originally Posted by haider

infinitethoughts,

You said: "It removes them from your reality, not the reality."

"Whose" reality would you say "the" reality belongs to?

The reality we all agree consensually on.
Consensual being the key word.

[AidanMatthews216]

Originally Posted by infinitethoughts

The reality we all agree consensually on.
Consensual being the key word.

Are there any beliefs, perceptions, or thoughts that every single conscious being has in common?

[DaveTyler]

well we all have reality in common, all our senses etc.
The only individual thing is your opinions and judgement and what you see in the mirror. Ofcourse you can manifest the type of experience of TEH REALITY you want. But if it rains in your city, you cant be walking on the street and the rain wont hit you. EXCEPT if you walk under some roof/umberella, but again: i learned this in kindergarden... nthn new

[Lychee]

This is my take.

I believe that the body/mind that dies....and thats in an objective reality. But the whole point of SR is that you are not your body. So if I stop indentifying myself with my body and when I rise above my mind, I will know my true nature - which is I am consciousness. Thats when I realize that I am an unlimited being.

I agree that identification with your physical body places more limitation on your consciousness. Subjective reality does exist to an extent.

I believe your reality and my reality are different and are goverened by our own subconscious beliefs. So as an example if you believe in ghosts and spirits, you will have them in your reality and if I dont then I wont.

Right. You won't be bothered by something you don't believe. It is absent from your perception of reality.

well we all have reality in common, all our senses etc.

Our individual realities are based on the common reality we all experience.

[Frans]

Originally Posted by haider

Frans, to be honest, I don't see what your experiment proves.

You have to realise that experimentation is subject to interpretation, and you should be aware of, and open to, the possibility that you have misinterpreted the results of your experiment. You actually jump to conclusions a lot throughout the experiment. For one thing, you conclude that the only thing that exists after closing your eyes is your "I." But this is not true, even with your eyes are closed! Your entire experiment is based on your thoughts, which are driven by words and, therefore, language.

In other words, when your eyes are closed, you are left with: words, thoughts and your consciousness. But this "consciousness" is not simply your "I". The reason why you can make sense of your thoughts - and can carry out your thought experiment - is that you are making use of your mind!

Therefore, you cannot think away everything apart from your "I", when the possibility of your thought experiment proves that you cannot think away words, language, thoughts, your mind, etc.

OK, haider. We'll start all over again, step by step.

I exist. This is the only certainty I have.

Do you agree?...

[haider]

absvan,

The example you used makes my life quite easy

If I believe in ghosts - no matter how strong the belief is - they will *not* exist! In other words, existence is not determined by my beliefs. My beliefs can either be accurate or inaccurate. I can believe that I'm the son of Zeus but this won't increase my kinship with him. Consequently, this is why fear of the boogie man is considered an irrational fear, because it is a fear of something that does not exist.

Again, you're playing on the word "reality." What I'm saying is that my beliefs are my beliefs, and not a "reality" (even if they are accurate, they only lead me to understand reality. They are not a "reality" in and of themselves).

infinitethoughts,

You're mixing two ideas together. You're assuming that just because something exists, it should belong to somebody. It doesn't have to. Existence and ownership are two separate things. And no matter how many people agree on one belief it does not make it true. I don't care how many people are racist, racism is wrong.

Frans,

I'm afraid I disagree. Why is this the *only* certainty you have? Why are you denying the validity of your senses, when there is no reason to deny them? If you *do* begin with this as a first step, then you are likely to conclude that subjective reality is the only possible conclusion.

It's like me saying: "Let's begin by accepting that God exists. Do you believe in God?"

[Max Power]

Originally Posted by Frans

I exist. This is the only certainty I have.

Do you agree?...

That's funny, ironic and fairly irrelevant when you think about it.

The only certainty you have is that you exist and then you ask someone presumably who doesn't exist wether they agree.

I agree that you exist only because I intend your exsitance.



Max Power
"The only power that exists"

[Frans]

Originally Posted by Max Power

That's funny, ironic and fairly irrelevant when you think about it.

The only certainty you have is that you exist and then you ask someone presumably who doesn't exist wether they agree.

I agree that you exist only because I intend your exsitance.

OK. To avoid misunderstandings about SR and comments like this one, I'll say it again (and I'm afraid, I have to say it again in the future ):

When I speak about SR, I always advise the reader to read and interpret my text as if he (the reader) would have written it.
If I write: "I exist. This is the only certainty I have", you should see yourself as the "I" (the subject) in that text.

Did I make myself clear?

[Frans]

Originally Posted by haider

Frans,

I'm afraid I disagree. Why is this the *only* certainty you have? Why are you denying the validity of your senses, when there is no reason to deny them?

I already talked about that:

I can only perceive reality through my body's senses.
As my senses cannot register everything, and as not everything what I perceive is "real", I can safely assume that I cannot see reality "as it is".
With the filtered input from my senses, I construct a mental image of reality.
What I call "reality" is only a mental image, a perception of reality.
This personal perception of reality is per definition a "subjective reality".

So, you'll never know whether your senses give you true information about reality.

Can you give me other "certainties" you have?

[absvan]

Originally Posted by haider

If I believe in ghosts - no matter how strong the belief is - they will *not* exist! In other words, existence is not determined by my beliefs. My beliefs can either be accurate or inaccurate. I can believe that I'm the son of Zeus but this won't increase my kinship with him. Consequently, this is why fear of the boogie man is considered an irrational fear, because it is a fear of something that does not exist.

Again, you're playing on the word "reality." What I'm saying is that my beliefs are my beliefs, and not a "reality" (even if they are accurate, they only lead me to understand reality. They are not a "reality" in and of themselves).

Haider,

I think you need to pay attention to the idea I am trying to convey rather than the words. I am using the word "reality" accurately. I dont see any ambiguity here.

Your beliefs are your beliefs where they are accurate are not. - Yes I agree. But how can you say that your beliefs wont influence your reality. I am not talking about wishful thinking here but a strong belief.
If you believe in ghosts, you may or may not see a ghost....and thats not what I am trying to tell you. What I mean is in your life you would take actions with the idea that ghosts exist. So you would do stuff that people to to either ward off or invite ghosts. If you here a strange noise or see a shadow in your bedroom in the night, you might first think if its a ghost........Do you get my point here.

Do you truly believe that you are the son of Zeus without an ounce of doubt???? If you do then you will see things happening in your life thats congruent with what you believe. I am not saying that someone will give you a certificate of proof or all the greece will worship you........In fact I dont know what will happen.....you will experience it because it will happen to you in your reality.

But our beliefs can change too based on the experience/events that happen to us.

[mysterygal]

People don't poof out of existence when you stop thinking about them. People aren't merely in existence for your enjoyment. People think. People feel. People are real. - Do these statements undermine subjective reality? Or can subjective reality still be valid if the believer recognizes that these statements are true?

[infinitethoughts]

Originally Posted by DaveTyler

But if it rains in your city, you cant be walking on the street and the rain wont hit you.

Sure you can.

[DaveTyler]

Sure infinite why are you on this forum, you are Bill Gates arent you? I mean, clearly if your God like that you would be richest man on earth ATLEAST. You'd not even have internet cause it would be waste of time. Your the kind of guy that can walk into the street in rushhour and not get hit, you can just think of "oh I need a couple hundred millions so I can buy Empire Statebuilding. Cause in REALITY those things are easier than dodging the rain without anything over your head when it rains

[SecretSeven]

Good point Dave!!!!! I still can't believe that some people....I won't name any names...still believe that we only exist when that person is thinking of us...

[infinitethoughts]

Originally Posted by DaveTyler

Sure infinite why are you on this forum,

I'm on this forum to learn just like you. By talking to other 'I am's and their viewpoints, I'm learning a lot.

[SecretSeven]

MAx, do you really believe that you are the only conscious one?

[Sam988]

Reading through all these posts i realize that SR is so confusing that people get completely confused trying to interpret it.

I think the SR idea is just a blurred way of thinking thats subject to each one's interpretation. If you think SR is this or that, great, thats not wrong or right, just interpret it the way it will work best for you in your life and thats it.

No one is going to learn anything discussing it, because, as i just said, each one's point of view is different and theres no right or wrong point of view.




May each one of us interpret it the way it fits best for ourselves, and THATS IT. No trying to convince others of whatever...

[absvan]

I dont recall how many times I have mentioned this but I will do it again

Originally Posted by Sam988

Reading through all these posts i realize that SR is so confusing that people get completely confused trying to interpret it.

Stop identifying the you as your body. You are not your body and you will begin to understand SR.

Originally Posted by Sam988

I think the SR idea is just a blurred way of thinking thats subject to each one's interpretation. If you think SR is this or that, great, thats not wrong or right, just interpret it the way it will work best for you in your life and thats it.

No one is going to learn anything discussing it, because, as i just said, each one's point of view is different and theres no right or wrong point of view.
...

There are no versions/interpretations of SR..like your, mine etc. There is just one philosophy - Brahman(creator) and Atman(self) are one.

If you really want to understand SR then read this http://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/200...ve-reality-qa/ line by line. Its explained so clearly.

Another link which will help you with an introduction to SR Nonduality - Rising Above Illusion and Identification

[Max Power]

Originally Posted by SecretSeven

MAx, do you really believe that you are the only conscious one?

The big problem with understanding SR is in the fact that most people identify consciousness as their physicality, their mind, their body.

You are real, I am real, the world is real, does it all flash out of existance when I'm not there observing it?? That has to be possible, as crazy as it may sound because it's unprovable that it doesn't.

Consciousness is the container for everything. Ego's, avatars, are all inside the container. For all of us to be conscious together means we are all the container operating the illusion together, while that also may be possible, it's not the structure of SR.

I can never know if anyone else other than myself is conscious, telling me you are is hardly proof, all I know for sure is that I consider myself to be conscious and aware right now and that places everything else in doubt.

The secret here is not to argue who is conscious (even though it was my initial question, which I realise is now redundant) the important part is to consider if SR can help you in your quest for answers and knowledge.

SR is useless if it's of no assistance to your life, if it's unfathomable then it's not helpful.

Max

"You can wake up tomorrow and believe whatever you want to believe"
Morpheous to Neo

[Sam988]

Originally Posted by absvan

There are no versions/interpretations of SR..like your, mine etc. There is just one philosophy - Brahman(creator) and Atman(self) are one.

If you really want to understand SR then read this http://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/200...ve-reality-qa/ line by line. Its explained so clearly.

Another link which will help you with an introduction to SR Nonduality - Rising Above Illusion and Identification

Its so simple isnt it? I wonder why people keep discussing about it and each one has a different opinion.....

Originally Posted by Max Power

SR is useless if it's of no assistance to your life, if it's unfathomable then it's not helpful.

Thats just what im trying to communicate. People should use SR immediatly after they have been explained the idea, and not waste their days trying to understand other people's point of view of it. Just use it and interpret it the way it will be best for your life.

[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by Sam988

People should use SR immediatly after they have been explained the idea, and not waste their days trying to understand other people's point of view of it. Just use it and interpret it the way it will be best for your life.

And then they misunderstand, thinking it means they can sit in their lounge room thinking of a fancy new car, and then dismiss it all as a load of BS when that car fails to materialise.

That's the danger of misinterpretation which considerate, patient discussion can overcome.

[Max Power]

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

And then they misunderstand, thinking it means they can sit in their lounge room thinking of a fancy new car, and then dismiss it all as a load of BS when that car fails to materialise.

That's the danger of misinterpretation which considerate, patient discussion can overcome.

SR is a POV, a way to consider and/or believe how reality works. LoA and IM are the tools for creation inside the system/plane/reality that some choose to believe is the SR model.

I think many people confuse SR with Loa and IM.

If there is a discussion about SR and you're interested in the concept, then that's great and maybe helpful, but there are people here so opposed to SR and the people interested in it that they mock, swear and treat those people looking for answers with disdain and anger, even trying to make them feel inadequate in a vain attempt to 'save' them.

Where does anger come from?? Fear. Where does fear come from?? The inability to understand.

Max Power

[impaul99]

Originally Posted by infinitethoughts

I'm on this forum to learn just like you. By talking to other 'I am's and their viewpoints, I'm learning a lot.

Make that 2 of us.

[impaul99]

Originally Posted by Max Power

SR is useless if it's of no assistance to your life, if it's unfathomable then it's not helpful.

Exactly. Another way to put it is if SR doesn't CHANGE your beliefs about your understanding of life/reality, then it doesn't help you. Clinging onto old pre-SR beliefs makes SR useless.

The tough thing with SR is that it must be experienced, not logically debated.

The first time you truly "create" something that logically has no explanation, there is a moment of awe that changes everything. Before that moment, it's impossible to convince anyone of it's existance. After that moment, it's impossible to convince anyone of it's non-existance.

[Max Power]

We really need a seperate topic just for SR, so people interested in it can discuss it without having to defend it. Some people have a strong opinion about how it's not the best way to view reality, but I don't want to try and show someone why they should adopt it, I want to discuss it with others who are really interested in it as a way to view reality without having to defend and explain it to anyone who thinks it's crazy.

I suggested a seperate topic for SR, it didn't happen, but I think SR is important enought to warrant it's own topic.

Max

[Max Power]

Originally Posted by impaul99

Exactly. Another way to put it is if SR doesn't CHANGE your beliefs about your understanding of life/reality, then it doesn't help you. Clinging onto old pre-SR beliefs makes SR useless.

The tough thing with SR is that it must be experienced, not logically debated.

The first time you truly "create" something that logically has no explanation, there is a moment of awe that changes everything. Before that moment, it's impossible to convince anyone of it's existance. After that moment, it's impossible to convince anyone of it's non-existance.

I think like minded discussion is helpful as long as everyone is on the same page. SR shouldn't be confused with IM or LoA, they are the tools that consciousness would use to create, but SR is the system or reality POV.

SR is where you view reality and everything (you/me/house/tree) as a creation of consciousness. Consciousness uses LoA/IM to create within the the SR framework.

The big sticking point is who is that consciousness.

Max

[Lychee]

If I believe in ghosts - no matter how strong the belief is - they will *not* exist! In other words, existence is not determined by my beliefs. My beliefs can either be accurate or inaccurate. I can believe that I'm the son of Zeus but this won't increase my kinship with him. Consequently, this is why fear of the boogie man is considered an irrational fear, because it is a fear of something that does not exist.

I think haider's got a point. But his example doesn't have to be limited to his calling himself the son of Zeus. A child who grows up thinking Person X is his biological father while Person Y is truly his biological father does not change the reality that Person Y is really his father. The child may believe Person X to be his father, but he is incorrect. The child's belief does influence his reality to support the assumption of Father X, but his reality is based on a false belief.

The first time you truly "create" something that logically has no explanation, there is a moment of awe that changes everything. Before that moment, it's impossible to convince anyone of it's existance. After that moment, it's impossible to convince anyone of it's non-existance.

SR surely exists, but it's not the only reality that exists. We "create" events in our lives that match our beliefs, but what created our lives for us to experience our beliefs? (I know the answer I guess it's a rhetorical question.)

[Max Power]

Originally Posted by absvan

Stop identifying the you as your body. You are not your body and you will begin to understand SR.

Exactly and that's the hard part, to unidentify with your body. I'm nowhere inside my body, the thing that is me, that has thoughts is not the body I occupy, heck it doesn't even look that familar in the mirror. I'm using it to interact with reality, but it's interesting to consider exactly where I may truly be. When I dream I believe I leave my body and create a reality outside or inside somewhere, somehow, but that place is hard to define.

SR helps me consider consciousness as primary using this body to enjoy the physical reality that it builds, but I sense that consciousness is not shared, therefore can only be mine. Now that is not a POV from my ego/mind/body, but a POV from my consciousness. I don't say that in the sense that I'm god and you're not, but from being the only one that seems to have this unique awareness.

Now you could say you have a unique awarensss also, but I can't sense that on any level, I can only sense it being true for me. The added problem is that when I say that it comes across as arrogance, but it's not intended like that.

SR is a very noodle baking idea, but it's the only one I've come across that feels very accurate and I can see that other people are interested in it too, but there's the rub, from that SR POV everyone is me, all of us as one trying to understand but who is the one? It can't be shared, because that's not SR, so it must be the consciousness that I sense.

Maybe words can't truly define it, but it's an interesting discussion none the less.

Max