meditate my sons.
to attain freedom, shun the experience of the senses as though they were poison and turn your attention to forgivness, sincerity, kindness, simplicity and truth. you are not your body, you are not the cells or the atoms, you are not your thoughts nor your memories nor your feelings. recognise these for what they are and let go of falsehoods.
Perception (the sight) does not exist separately from the Perceiver (the seeing eye) and the Perceived (the seen stone).
The Perceiver (the seeing eye) does not exist separately from the Perception (the sight) and the Perceived (the seen stone)
The Perceied (the seen stone) does not exist separately from the Perception (the sight) and the Perceiver (the seeing eye).
If there were perception without perceiver and perceived. It would be a perception of what? and by whom?
If there were a perceiver without perception and perceived. It simply would not be a perceiver. If the seeing eye could see without an object of vision - it would see itself - but doesn't.
If there were a perceived without perception and perceiver. It simply would not be a perceived thing. . If the seen stone could be seen without an subject viewer - it would be seen by itself - but it isn't.
Thus outside of these relationally derived imputations of perception...., there is nothing to be perceived, nothing to perceive and nothing which is perception.
The future doesnt exist.
The past doesnt exist.
They would have to exist in the present which is impossible.
The present doesnt exist. It would have to exist between the future and past, which have been shown not to exist.
Are the present and the future dependent on the past or not?
If they are dependent on the past they must some how exist in the past. This is not tenable.
If independent of the past, they do not need the past to happen to arise, and can thus arise during the past. This is not tenable.
Time therefore does not exist objectively
there is no self.
they say the self is the sum of the body, the thoughts, senses, feelings and the bodily functions (heart beating etc).
but where in any of these individually can you find the self? Is the self in the body which goes from baby to adult, which sees hair grow and fall out?
is the self in the thoughts that constantly come and go, imagined anew and freshly forgotten?
is the self in the sensual perceptions? in the new sights, smells, touching feelings? this would mean the self would be constantly changing with new information.
is the self in the feelings? are you yourself when you are happy? or isit when you are sad? do you stop being yourself with the change of mood?
is the self in the bodily functions of living? as long as your heart beats and your gut digests and your neurons fire is that you as a self - then you are no more a beating heart.
none of these are self. taken together they cannot be self since they are all shown to be in constant flux.
does the self exist separately from these things? then what sense would it be to even mention your body or thoughts or feelings ... in relation to self?
there is no self outside of the illusion of self
There are no real underlying objects in dreams or phantasms - yet the perceptions in these seems to gift you seemingly real objects.
Why does the same not hold for waking moments? Does substantial reality rely on the 2/3rds of the day you are awake and not dreaming and in the 1/3rd of the day non-substantial reality arises?
why would that be the case?
there needn't be an objective substantial reality for things to seem real
Does a bundle of sticks share the quality of oneness with a single stick?
Or is oneness not an objective reality (ie numbers and the relations between them lacking essence) but instead an imputation onto reality to make sense of it?
the only reason things are as they are is.
is because of the regularity of which an imputation that is imposed on it.
the glyph '1' only represents the number or concept 'one' because of conventions and the regularity of its application. it is not inherently one.
however even the number or concept 'one' only exists because of conventions and the regularity of its application, not because it actually exists.
if there were a different number say denoted by this glyph } that had a bunch of properties that defied conventional mathematics and was completely unobservable in nature, objectively speaking it would be no more or less existent than the established 'one' - however of course in convention and regularity of its application it would be totally non-existent.
Why is a made up impossible number that is so impossibly illogical that our minds cannot even comprehend it, on the same objective level as 'one' which seems so self-evidently true? because neither are really real, both are just conventions - '1' is just a more convenient and regular convention than the number '}'
all mental and perceptual conceptions lack essential nature and all is dependent on conditions, usefulness alone determines how 'real' they seem.
A cause must cease before its effect.
If it does not cease before its effect, it cannot be distinguished from its effect and there would be no cause since the cause would be the effect. If a cause can occur simultaneously with its effect without ceasing, its effect will continue to arise so long as it has not yet ceased.
However if a cause and effect have a gap between them (both temporarily but also in terms of identity), something must fill that gap and serve as an intermediate step (and but this also needs a gap and that gap also needs to be filled ad infinitum). And so between cause and effect would lie an infinte regress of intermediaries.
So causal relations are not tenable at an absolute level.
OOOOOMMMM MMMAAAANNNNIIIIIII PAAAADMEEEE HUUUUUUMMMMMM MAAANNNIIIII PAAADMMEEE HUUUUUMMM
OOOOOMMMMMM MMMAAAANNNNIIIIIIII PPPAAAAAADDDDMMMMMEEEEEE HHHUUUUUUUUUUUUUMMMMMMM
gay shit
ommmmm
Meditation makes me really sleepy. If I do it in the morning (even after breakfast) I just get tired for the rest of the day. How do I avoid this? And please don't tell me to just drink coffee/tea
>not gently drifting into lucid dreaming during meditation session
scrub
Well no.
In a dream there is no concrete distinction between the mind of actors in the dream and oneself.
But in reality others can possess hidden knowledge and feelings independent of your own.
Other minds exist and therefore reality exists even of we do not know it's exact nature.
Suppose you have two AIs simulated in a computer.
They use the same RAM and code, indeed for optimization purposes it is probable that similar memories in the separate minds would be deduplicated and yet I would say they are distinct minds because the feelings and memories do not cross over from one to the other.
And I would say the interactions and communications in the simulated reality are really real even if the simulation is not real.
The game is unreal but the conversation is not.
use mantra beads to keep yourself from sleeping.
>But in reality others can possess hidden knowledge and feelings independent of your own.
you first have to subscribe to the essential existence of others, which like in a dream is not a given.
nothing actually exists essentially. all depends on convention/mental fabrication/imputed relations, in dreams this is obvious but we reify waking reality for whatever reason.
I'm imagining a number between one and ten.
If we were one and the same you could guess it accurately.
Buy you can't, can you?
Like with the AI example it doesn't really matter if the base nature of reality has no concept.
Other selves still exist.
i myself am not one and the same. is my right hand the same person as my left? am i the same person who existed 5 seconds ago?
please do not reify nonsense. there is no self. others exist purely out of convention, not out of reality. the fact that i impute a self onto this collection of cells, memories and thoughts is entirely arbitrary just as me seeing the noises you make as distinct from the rest of the background noise or your shape as a distinct object in my vision etc. its all aribtrary and not inherent.
Did it for 1 year, realized it was cope and stopped.
Difference is a matter of degree.
I am a little different than yesterday, a lot different than when I was little and I am very different from you.
The left side of my body is a little different than my right but still clearly distinct from you.
You are making the classic continuum fallacy.
Reality is really real and not a dream because there are clearly distinct minds.
And there are clearly distinct minds because they do not have the same knowledge and emotions.
And yes people are not quite the same person from moment to moment or from their left to their right sid but they are still recognizably distinct and have distinct conversations.
Indeed, it is possible to have a conversation with yourself as with a diary.
you only know about distinct minds through the same way you know about the objects of dreams - that is through perception.
there is no objects, only heuristics to describe reality - for example cognising your body as a unitary thing is just a heuristic to deal with reality. understanding that minds you meet during your waking hours are real but those you meet during your dreaming hours are not real is a heuristic convention.
Are you sure you're really better off without it?
Even if it is "cope lmao," if it helps you be happier then who cares?
bunp
I imagine if Jow Forums meditated the board would be a lot better. Like light-years better