buddhism and reality critic Options

[PANCHO]

If I understand you correctly…beliefs are created through a sensing, and this sensing then runs through ones psyche as a subtle or underlying current that the mind then reasons with.

Interesting that beliefs are not conscious ‘things’…or ‘created’ through reasoning…what’s more interesting is that most think that they are.

People seem to be afraid of trying different things. I know I have encountered that. How does one try different things is they bump into a subconscious or conscious fear/belief?

Believes are not expressed explicitly like ideas. They are deeper inner assumptions (but still thoughts like ideas). They "install" in the mind. The installation process is not always the same. Most of the believes are picked up unconsciously during childhood without awareness. Once installed, a believe cannot usually be eliminated by reason probably because they run in a deeper level or have some higher priority. They can however be replaced. Believes give sense/orientation to life as opposed to ideas. Believes can be about anything like science or every day things. They don't have to be only about religion.

If you want to replace a believe, you can try creative methods like for example counter intuitive things. For example, try to be afraid of things (fear could be caused by a believe) you are not afraid and see yourself being afraid of. Other way could be like trying to take the fear away from a dog (ie. they have negative believes about thunderstorms). So for a dog, it may take time getting used to lighting/noise of a thunderstorm. You could incrementally take steps of exposing yourself to a fear till you become comfortable and little by little replace how you react.

But some fears, while uncomfortable, are good.

[Joesus]

I can see and understand the appeal of looking for things that make one immortal. I respect that.

Nothing makes one immortal within the relative. Immortality is inherent just like the world was round before man believed it was so.

Indeed, we all need meaning to live better. That is part of being human.

Meanings are relative to beliefs. Reality beyond beliefs requires the experience and understanding to rise above the need to lean on a belief to live life.

Being human is subjective as well as objective. There are no limits to the human condition other than those which are self imposed.

[Dianah]

If I understand you correctly…beliefs are created through a sensing, and this sensing then runs through ones psyche as a subtle or underlying current that the mind then reasons with.

Interesting that beliefs are not conscious ‘things’…or ‘created’ through reasoning…what’s more interesting is that most think that they are.

People seem to be afraid of trying different things. I know I have encountered that. How does one try different things is they bump into a subconscious or conscious fear/belief?

Believes are not expressed explicitly like ideas. They are deeper inner assumptions (but still thoughts like ideas). They "install" in the mind. The installation process is not always the same. Most of the believes are picked up unconsciously during childhood without awareness. Once installed, a believe cannot usually be eliminated by reason probably because they run in a deeper level or have some higher priority. They can however be replaced. Believes give sense/orientation to life as opposed to ideas. Believes can be about anything like science or every day things. They don't have to be only about religion.

If you want to replace a believe, you can try creative methods like for example counter intuitive things. For example, try to be afraid of things (fear could be caused by a believe) you are not afraid and see yourself being afraid of. Other way could be like trying to take the fear away from a dog (ie. they have negative believes about thunderstorms). So for a dog, it may take time getting used to lighting/noise of a thunderstorm. You could incrementally take steps of exposing yourself to a fear till you become comfortable and little by little replace how you react.

But some fears, while uncomfortable, are good.

I agree, beliefs are not expressed explicitly like ideas, they are as you shared assumptions, and I also understand that most beliefs are implemented when we are children…when our ego is not mature enough to use reason. I also sense that there are such things as soul patterns…or the DNA/memory we are born with. What is your understanding of this?

Again I agree that beliefs cannot usually be eliminated by reason…from my understanding only, reason is a conscious action, where as beliefs are a subconscious or unknown impulse that the mind reasons with.

Maybe its better to use a creative method of counter intuitive imagery, like seeing oneself not afraid of something they are afraid of? If that is done on a consistent basis it could perhaps create a new belief. I like the concept of reconditioning responses by exposing yourself to a fear, its kind of like not ‘feeding’ the subconscious belief, and thus replacing the belief via responses.

Fear can be beneficial…but is there ever a time within the ‘growth’ of a psyche that fear no longer serves a purpose? Or perhaps fear is perceived with a purpose, in which case fear is no longer the ‘controller’ of ones responses?

[PANCHO]

relative to beliefs. Reality beyond beliefs requires the experience and understanding to rise above the need to lean on a belief to live life.

Being human is subjective as well as objective. There are no limits to the human condition other than those which are self imposed.

The earth is round but the earth is an object and that can be verified. Mental concepts are not objects and they are a product of the mind. Besides, the universe had a beginning, suggesting that nothing has ever existed for ever, including absolute ideas or concepts. Concepts can be like guiding maps about something that helps you reach places. Eventually, if that 'something' changes, or your understanding of it changes, so should the map. There are no absolute maps.

[PANCHO]

I agree, beliefs are not expressed explicitly like ideas, they are as you shared assumptions, and I also understand that most beliefs are implemented when we are children…when our ego is not mature enough to use reason. I also sense that there are such things as soul patterns…or the DNA/memory we are born with. What is your understanding of this?

Again I agree that beliefs cannot usually be eliminated by reason…from my understanding only, reason is a conscious action, where as beliefs are a subconscious or unknown impulse that the mind reasons with.

Maybe its better to use a creative method of counter intuitive imagery, like seeing oneself not afraid of something they are afraid of? If that is done on a consistent basis it could perhaps create a new belief. I like the concept of reconditioning responses by exposing yourself to a fear, its kind of like not ‘feeding’ the subconscious belief, and thus replacing the belief via responses.

Fear can be beneficial…but is there ever a time within the ‘growth’ of a psyche that fear no longer serves a purpose? Or perhaps fear is perceived with a purpose, in which case fear is no longer the ‘controller’ of ones responses?

Sorry, I don't know much about DNA memory. That is quite complex but interesting. Soul patterns are also be complex. People thing that brekaing down things make thing simpler, but that only happens in macro scenarios. Sometimes, going smaller and breaking things down is going in the direction of more complex. Smaller is not simpler.

I think that purpose comes from a person and it is not the same for everybody as it also depends on things like circumstances. The purpose of a purpose could be unreachable but makes things interesting.

[Joesus]

The earth is round but the earth is an object and that can be verified. Mental concepts are not objects and they are a product of the mind.

Mental concepts are mental concepts, and they can lack experience.

Besides, the universe had a beginning, suggesting that nothing has ever existed for ever, including absolute ideas or concepts. Concepts can be like guiding maps about something that helps you reach places. Eventually, if that 'something' changes, or your understanding of it changes, so should the map. There are no absolute maps.

The universe is created thru consciousness, it's beginning is a concept.

[Dianah]

I agree, beliefs are not expressed explicitly like ideas, they are as you shared assumptions, and I also understand that most beliefs are implemented when we are children…when our ego is not mature enough to use reason. I also sense that there are such things as soul patterns…or the DNA/memory we are born with. What is your understanding of this?

Again I agree that beliefs cannot usually be eliminated by reason…from my understanding only, reason is a conscious action, where as beliefs are a subconscious or unknown impulse that the mind reasons with.

Maybe its better to use a creative method of counter intuitive imagery, like seeing oneself not afraid of something they are afraid of? If that is done on a consistent basis it could perhaps create a new belief. I like the concept of reconditioning responses by exposing yourself to a fear, its kind of like not ‘feeding’ the subconscious belief, and thus replacing the belief via responses.

Fear can be beneficial…but is there ever a time within the ‘growth’ of a psyche that fear no longer serves a purpose? Or perhaps fear is perceived with a purpose, in which case fear is no longer the ‘controller’ of ones responses?

Sorry, I don't know much about DNA memory. That is quite complex but interesting. Soul patterns are also be complex. People thing that brekaing down things make thing simpler, but that only happens in macro scenarios. Sometimes, going smaller and breaking things down is going in the direction of more complex. Smaller is not simpler.

I think that purpose comes from a person and it is not the same for everybody as it also depends on things like circumstances. The purpose of a purpose could be unreachable but makes things interesting.

I agree

[PANCHO]

The universe is created thru consciousness, it's beginning is a concept.

To be conscious, you would need to be conscious about something. Then, what was the consciousness about before anything existed, nothing? A concept requires something. But if there is nothing to make the concepts about, then, there can be no concept, as there is nothing to be about.

[PANCHO]

Fear can be beneficial…but is there ever a time within the ‘growth’ of a psyche that fear no longer serves a purpose? Or perhaps fear is perceived with a purpose, in which case fear is no longer the ‘controller’ of ones responses?

There can be unconscious thoughts, or system of thoughts, specially self created to protect other thoughts and induce fear. Fear implies some kind of protection. But protection could emerge because of not knowing and not trusting and its cause could come from a false assumption.

[Joesus]

To be conscious, you would need to be conscious about something. Then, what was the consciousness about before anything existed, nothing?

Everything that ever can exist, will come about as consciousness draws it into manifestation. Every invention or idea exists in potential/Consciousness, and man draws it from potential/Consciousness as he evolves into greater abilities in re-cognition of that which is already in potential. As such, nothing new is ever invented but rather brought out from the darkness of ignorance (ignoring that which is), and into self awareness. The idea that nothing ever existed is a mental concept born of limited thinking. Man in ignorance assumes there was a time of nothing before there was a something.... but that is just a concept born out of a lack of imagination and experience of consciousness.

A concept requires something. But if there is nothing to make the concepts about, then, there can be no concept, as there is nothing to be about.

As I said the Consciousness that maintains the appearances of the Universe is hardly a nothing. I think you may want to associate consciousness with the mechanical operation of the human brain (the firing of electrical impulses) which often gives rise to the thought that consciousness does not exist until the mechanism is built to give birth to self awareness as consciousness. Superstition has in the past, been the dominant force in human awareness to give birth to distorted ideas like the Earth is flat and the sun rotates around it,... or before the birth of the human body the consciousness of a man or woman does not exist, nor does it continue to exist after the death of the body.
These concepts are not formed from greater truths than superstition or ignorance. They are filtered thru the variegated beliefs and the programs of indoctrination created by ignorant minds. Man seems to love to give all sensibility away to the authority that dictates reality in terms of scientific and religious theory, where the loudest voice seems to create a majority, and an idea becomes a fact regardless of whether there is any real truth behind it.

[antonyanil]

Hi.

First post.

I just finished reading a book about Buddhism and I have crossed feelings. The book is called "Awakening the Buddha within.' It does make good points but when the author keeps repeating over and over that Buddhism is the Truth it puts me off. It is as if he thinks he "knows" and nobody else knows anything and is lost. They repeat this so many times that I had put the book 2/3s of the way through. He does no leave room for doubts and he does not question his conclusions. Either you accept or you don't know. This is being done in a smooth (slick) way, mixing good points, and then later jumping to pie in the sky conclusions that are kind of romantic idealizations to create a meaningful story.

Opinions?

Buddha kept silent about God indicating that God is unimaginable. This means that the existence of God is accepted but the imaginable possibility is not accepted. But, the followers of Buddha took that the existence of God is also not accepted. The reason is that anything exists if it is imaginable only. That which is unimaginable does not exist. This is the norm of the psychology of general public. Buddha also propagated that the creation does not exist with respect to God. Therefore, the followers of Buddha have taken that neither God nor the creation exists. This resulted in Shunyavada, which means that nothing exists. This is the result of misunderstanding of Buddha and the result is misinterpretation.

When Shankara came, this was the situation and every one became an atheist of extreme. Generally, atheist negates the existence of God but not the existence of the creation. The followers of Buddha are extreme because not only God but also the creation is negated. The followers of Shankara accept the existence of God but negate the existence of creation. The atheists are vice-versa, who accept the existence of creation but negate the existence of God.


The followers of Buddha negate the existence of both God and creation. The followers of Ramanuja and Madhva accept the existence of both God and creation. Thus, there are four categories:

1) The followers of Buddha negate both God and creation

2) The atheists negate God but accept creation

3) The followers of Shankara accept God but negate creation

4) The followers of Ramanuja and Madhva accept both God and creation


Neither Buddha nor Shankara nor Ramanuja and Madhva misunderstood truth. But, their followers and atheists have misunderstood truth and misinterpreted truth. The truth is that God exists but is unimaginable. The creation does not exist with respect to God but exists with respect to the souls. The soul can not negate the existence of the world because it is a part and parcel of the world. If the soul negates the world it negates itself, which is meaningless. Therefore, you cannot give a single statement about the existence of the world. You cannot demand us to say whether the world exists or does not exist. A single angle is impossible in the case of creation. You cannot conclude about the existence or non-existence of the world. Such a situation is represented by the Mithya, which means neither it is existent nor non-existent. It is a special case. This is the concept of Shankara about the world (Sadasat Vilakshana). This is the concept of Buddha, Ramanuja and Madhva also because all these four are incarnations of the same God.

The total concept is known to all the four incarnations. But according to the then existing situation, a convenient part of the concept is stressed. This does not mean that the other part of the concept is negated. The silence about the other part of the concept is due to the requirement of the then existing situation. If the total concept is stressed, people may not digest. Therefore, based on the relevant requirement, the relevant part is only stressed. This mechanism is called as psychology, which must be followed by the teacher. This serves the purpose and the first generation of the followers were always rectified.

But, the other generations of the followers of the same school always misunderstand due to the absence of the original preacher of the school. To clarify the misunderstanding, God appears again and again. This process is continuous and God also gets the opportunity of continuous engagement.

[PANCHO]

Buddha kept silent about God indicating that God is unimaginable. This means that the existence of God is accepted but the imaginable possibility is not accepted.

I was under the impression that anybody can become a Buddha. So any recent Buddhas should have as much weight on the matter as the original one.

[Joesus]

Is that like saying anyone here can tap into intelligence and say something intelligent, so everyone here carries the same weight when it comes to impressing others?

[PANCHO]

Is that like saying anyone here can tap into intelligence and say something intelligent, so everyone here carries the same weight when it comes to impressing others?

Yes. The weight is in the "substance" not in the person expressing it. Someone not very intelligent can say something very intelligent, just like someone very intelligent can say non intelligent things. Anyway, a person is not always intelligent. Maybe he/she is intelligent in only a specific subject but not all. A person may only be intelligent for a small time depending on what he/she says not on who she/he is. She/he could live a long time and only be intelligent for a brief moment, not the entire span of life.

[Joesus]

.......a person is not always intelligent. Maybe he/she is intelligent in only a specific subject but not all.

So what is a "Buddha",.. and what do you know of becoming a "Buddha"?

[PANCHO]

.......a person is not always intelligent. Maybe he/she is intelligent in only a specific subject but not all.

So what is a "Buddha",.. and what do you know of becoming a "Buddha"?

How do you use the verb "to be". What does it mean to you?

To be is only an associative mental map. It is an interpretation. Things _are_ not fixed entities. They are human inventions, mental cratches. So what _is_ Buddha? Not sure. How do you _be_come a Buddha? Don't know as I don't know what is Buddha.

[Joesus]

.......a person is not always intelligent. Maybe he/she is intelligent in only a specific subject but not all.

So what is a "Buddha",.. and what do you know of becoming a "Buddha"?

How do you use the verb "to be". What does it mean to you?

To be is only an associative mental map. It is an interpretation. Things _are_ not fixed entities. They are human inventions, mental cratches. So what _is_ Buddha? Not sure. How do you _be_come a Buddha? Don't know as I don't know what is Buddha.

Then the following impression was imagined and not one of knowledge/intelligence or experience?..

I was under the impression that anybody can become a Buddha. So any recent Buddhas should have as much weight on the matter as the original one.

[PANCHO]

Then the following impression was imagined and not one of knowledge/intelligence or experience?..

I was under the impression that anybody can become a Buddha. So any recent Buddhas should have as much weight on the matter as the original one.

Then? ... You mean that what you just wrote is a logical step?

I've read a book that says that anybody can become a Buddha (supposedly by someone knowledgeable). That is what I was relaying to you. It has nothing to do with my imagination, knowledge, or experience.

[Joesus]

I've read a book that says that anybody can become a Buddha (supposedly by someone knowledgeable). That is what I was relaying to you. It has nothing to do with my knowledge, or experience.

That would be what I was getting at by someone expressing something that has no weight behind the expression.

I was under the impression that anybody can become a Buddha. So any recent Buddhas should have as much weight on the matter as the original one.

I've read a book that says that anybody can become a Buddha (supposedly by someone knowledgeable). That is what I was relaying to you. It has nothing to do with my imagination.

But it does. It has everything to do with your imagination if you took on the impression without the experience or knowledge.
You had assumed an imagined idea as your impression when you brought if forward into this conversation as a viable statement. Like a religionist who assumes reality when it is dictated by an authority (Someone you put forward as an authority) to validate the statement or belief as a reality.

Why did you use this impression of yours as if it had meaning to you? Or since you want to have us assume it has nothing to do with you (in your imagination knowledge or experience),.. why did you present it as your impression if it had no meaning to you?

What were you trying to convey when you said you are under the impression of an idea or thought, and then bringing it (the idea or thought) forward into the conversation?


I would think the next logical step would be to understand your presentation of the English language if there is any confusion regarding what you are saying or trying to express.

[PANCHO]

I think you are picking on minor things and blowing them up out of proportion. When I said "I was under the impression," I did not think I had to explain the cause of the cause of the cause till you feel satisfied. Words can have many meanings and you are picking the ones that suits you best. When I said "I was under the impression" somehow you translate it into "I don't know shit." While all it meant to me was that in my head, because I had read the Buddha book, my perception was that anybody can become a Buddha. That's what the book said. My native language is not English.

I found interesting your Q and I would like to return it if you may:

So what is a "Buddha"?

[Joesus]

I think you are picking on minor things and blowing them up out of proportion.

You think a lot of things I don't agree with.

When I said "I was under the impression," I did not think I had to explain the cause of the cause of the cause till you feel satisfied.

You don't, but I figured the statement you made (when you said it) was to add value according to something you had an idea about. I had intuited that you had no idea about what you were saying, and you affirmed my sense of your knowledge.

Words can have many meanings and you are picking the ones that suits you best.

I took the statement for its face value. You presented words, but the intent behind the words have energy and resonance, a subtle thing that can be sensed and understood.

When I said "I was under the impression" somehow you translate it into "I don't know shit."

No I didn't translate the words into the meaning you don't know shit. I knew that you didn't know shit about what you were saying when you said it because of the way you have been presenting yourself all along, which would be inclusive of those words at the time when you wrote them.

While all it meant to me was that in my head, because I had read the Buddha book, my perception was that anybody can become a Buddha.

That's what I call imagination. You imagined something to have value and meaning when you read it, whether you understood or believed it.

That's what the book said. My native language is not English.

No Shit..... I kinda got that.

I found interesting your Q and I would like to return it if you may:
So what is a "Buddha"?

A Buddha is one who has achieved a level of consciousness and has realized the Buddhi within. Kinda like someone who has reached a level of conscious awareness and has become Christed or has the Christ within.
Jesus was said to have been anointed with the stick of knowledge or "Christed." In different terms to be a Buddha and to be the Christ is the same thing.
Anyone can become a Buddha, but not everyone will in their present lifetime.

[Quantum Sunlight]

A Buddha is one who has achieved a level of consciousness and has realized the Buddhi within. Kinda like someone who has reached a level of conscious awareness and has become Christed or has the Christ within.
Jesus was said to have been anointed with the stick of knowledge or "Christed." In different terms to be a Buddha and to be the Christ is the same thing.
Anyone can become a Buddha, but not everyone will in their present lifetime.

I agree with this. I see Jesus and Buddha both as enlightened men.

In my own interpretation, an enlightened being is one who has seen and understands his or her tiny but critical role in the "one-ness" of all living things. He (or she) no longer has any fear of death, or attachment to the temporary material things of this world, because they clearly see the eternal nature of their spirit. This is why buddhist monks light themselves on fire in acts of protest- they have no fear of death, and an unwavering belief that a karmic rebirth at an even higher level awaits them for their act of the ultimate sacrifice...

Sorry for butting in. :-)

[PANCHO]

A Buddha is one who has achieved a level of consciousness and has realized the Buddhi within. Kinda like someone who has reached a level of conscious awareness and has become Christed or has the Christ within.
Jesus was said to have been anointed with the stick of knowledge or "Christed." In different terms to be a Buddha and to be the Christ is the same thing.
Anyone can become a Buddha, but not everyone will in their present lifetime.

I agree with this. I see Jesus and Buddha both as enlightened men.

In my own interpretation, an enlightened being is one who has seen and understands his or her tiny but critical role in the "one-ness" of all living things. He (or she) no longer has any fear of death, or attachment to the temporary material things of this world, because they clearly see the eternal nature of their spirit. This is why buddhist monks light themselves on fire in acts of protest- they have no fear of death, and an unwavering belief that a karmic rebirth at an even higher level awaits them for their act of the ultimate sacrifice...

Sorry for butting in. :-)

THANK YOU THANK YOU both for returning to a positive conversation.

When people speak of "the lost of fear" they talk as if that was something positive. But if one does not care about his life he/she is more eager to do foolish things like risking his/her life. If one cares about his/her life, then that person would act because of courage not lack of fear. So, what is the distinction between courage and fear? Would it be better to talk about courage instead of fear? Courage to me is an affirmation of something while fear is a reaction. So having no fear would be having no reaction. Thus, an act of courage would have more merit than an act of no fear.

[KoolK3n]

I agree with this. I see Jesus and Buddha both as enlightened men.

In my own interpretation, an enlightened being is one who has seen and understands his or her tiny but critical role in the "one-ness" of all living things. He (or she) no longer has any fear of death, or attachment to the temporary material things of this world, because they clearly see the eternal nature of their spirit. This is why buddhist monks light themselves on fire in acts of protest- they have no fear of death, and an unwavering belief that a karmic rebirth at an even higher level awaits them for their act of the ultimate sacrifice...

Sorry for butting in. :-)

Don't treat Enlightenment as it has an end goal. There is always something at the end of the horizon.

[Joesus]

I agree with this. I see Jesus and Buddha both as enlightened men.

In my own interpretation, an enlightened being is one who has seen and understands his or her tiny but critical role in the "one-ness" of all living things. He (or she) no longer has any fear of death, or attachment to the temporary material things of this world, because they clearly see the eternal nature of their spirit. This is why buddhist monks light themselves on fire in acts of protest- they have no fear of death, and an unwavering belief that a karmic rebirth at an even higher level awaits them for their act of the ultimate sacrifice...

The self sacrifice scenario played out in this situation is not necessarily the act of an enlightened being. Like you say, if one knows the role in one-ness, or the At-one-ment of all things, then one also knows of the reality that there is purpose in all things and actions. In that regard there is no need to sacrifice ones self to atone for anything that is a part of God and one-ness. Self sacrifice in this scenario would be where one would believe God was absent from creation and one would need to sacrifice themselves to bring God or the awareness of God into reality and atone for the sins of others. (Sin being the absence of God awareness). An enlightened being would also be aware of the fact that everyone follows a script of their own design and like fruit, one does not ripen before their own time.
The Buddhist belief in reincarnation is not the Teaching of Buddha but an interpretation of Buddhas teaching. The transformation that takes place when the death of the limited ego gives birth to the rise of the ego in service to consciousness has been misconstrued. Since incarnations are not bound to the idea of time, all incarnations are in constant change and have an open ended outcome that is working with all other incarnations at the same time. Consciousness is not separated by time and space. Time and space is a construct to facilitate the experience of both separation and union of consciousness and its reflections of personalities. Only the unenlightened are unaware of this reality.

Enlightenment has more than one face. It does not have one face. If you were to read the Teachings of Patanjali (reference the Yoga Sutras) he describes 4 out of the 7 known states of conscious awareness. The first three being the most familiar as sleeping, dreaming, and waking states, and the latter 4 as enlightened states. Each state of consciousness is stated as having its own subjective and objective experience.
The first stage of enlightenment being the experience of the underlying unified field which all things come from and are created with, the rest are refined states of integrated awareness in which that becomes more real than any temporary relative experience.

THANK YOU THANK YOU both for returning to a positive conversation.

When people speak of "the lost of fear" they talk as if that was something positive. But if one does not care about his life he/she is more eager to do foolish things like risking his/her life. If one cares about his/her life, then that person would act because of courage not lack of fear. So, what is the distinction between courage and fear? Would it be better to talk about courage instead of fear? Courage to me is an affirmation of something while fear is a reaction. So having no fear would be having no reaction. Thus, an act of courage would have more merit than an act of no fear.

Courage may be misplaced and misdirected. When fear is given a firm grip in the belief system and awareness it can distort the perceptions of reality. Fear is created from illusions of reality. When fear overshadows love, love is suppressed. Love being the supporting structure of reality (not the emotional romantic love) it allows all experiences to reveal themselves at their origin of thought and desire in consciousness itself.
Courage in the face of fear is not necessarily enlightened action but a force of reason which can be from ignorance of truths that are more than relative beliefs that are constantly changing. It is said that it takes a true act of courage to overcome the feelings of fear and rise above them into greater states of intellectual understanding and conscious awareness, but compared to the courage to step into self destruction, one would be an act of wisdom and another of ignorance.

[PANCHO]

When fear is given a firm grip in the belief system and awareness it can distort the perceptions of reality. Fear is created from illusions of reality. When fear overshadows love, love is suppressed.
Love being the supporting structure of reality (not the emotional romantic love) it allows all experiences to reveal themselves at their origin of thought and desire in consciousness itself.
Courage in the face of fear is not necessarily enlightened action but a force of reason which can be from ignorance of truths that are more than relative beliefs that are constantly changing. It is said that it takes a true act of courage to overcome the feelings of fear and rise above them into greater states of intellectual understanding and conscious awareness, but compared to the courage to step into self destruction, one would be an act of wisdom and another of ignorance.

We seem to have a fixed idea of reality. You talk as if reality was something single and unique, but maybe you are talking about "your" reality, the one you feel, see, and understand. Let me ask you a Q. Before you discovered your reality, didn't you feel lost? Didn't you search for a satisfactory reality? Didn't you search for the "truth"? Maybe, your single custom reality is what you were looking for. Maybe people are looking for custom realities and because there are different people, there are different realities and headbangings about what reality is and should be. But feeling lost and dissatisfied form the base from which realities emerge. Maybe that is the only thing that all realities share. Wouldn't a person that accepts being lost be closer to reality, or is reality always custom fiction?

[Joesus]

We seem to have a fixed idea of reality. You talk as if reality was something single and unique, but maybe you are talking about "your" reality, the one you feel, see, and understand.

Personal realities are personal. The reality I speak of is that which underlies all personal realities. That which is the underlying reality of personal realities and who or what each individual is in respect to the unified field that everything is connected to and created from. No personal reality can exist without it and all are made of it.

Let me ask you a Q. Before you discovered your reality, didn't you feel lost?

No. Like you I had no idea I was creating my future ahead of me, nor did I realize how my personal reality reflected who I thought I was and how I thought the universe worked. I was living my reality. The reality I live now is not owned by me nor can anyone own it. The reality I live is the reality of everything and everyone.

Didn't you search for a satisfactory reality?

Before I became aware of the underlying nature of reality I searched for whatever would give me sensory stimulation to satisfy a need. The needs always came from a lack of understanding about the nature of reality. Once I decided that no one could tell me who I was because they themselves did not know who they were, I searched for knowledge and experience of my Self.

Didn't you search for the "truth"?

I assumed like you that there was no truth that was greater than relative truths of Societal mores until I came to realize that there must be something more than personal truth, since personal truth keeps destroying people, governments, health and systems of belief.

Maybe, your single custom reality is what you were looking for.

Before I was aware of the underlying nature of reality, I lived as most do, in a custom reality but was ignorant of how I created it, and I saw all problems and suffering as being created by some force outside of my own making.

Maybe people are looking for custom realities and because there are different people, there are different realities and headbangings about what reality is and should be.

That is true, and those who are looking are looking because they do not know the nature of how they create their own reality. Nor do they realize that others are reflections of themselves, and that all differences in opinions and the fear of conflict is being manifest by them in those around them. So they seek to destroy the opposition on the outside instead of changing the beliefs and improve the vision and awareness of reality from the inside to alter the perceptions of illusions that are the perceptions of stress.

Wouldn't a person that accepts being lost be closer to reality, or is reality always custom fiction?

No someone who is lost is not closer to reality. The nature of reality resides within each individual and it is ignored because beliefs steer one away from it. We are taught thru the fears and beliefs of parents who are hypnotized by illusions of being victim to forces outside of ourselves. Customized and fictional realities are created by the delusional/ignorant. They are imagined from beliefs in illusions that are the relative truths of those who are given authority as teachers of Society, and those illusions are passed down from parent to child.
The results of those beliefs are self evident. We ignore our starving brothers and sisters in favor of our own ideals. We create war instead of art and music as a whole. People fight for their individual realities because they feel threatened by the opposing thoughts of other individual realities, and they feel they need to establish their truth and defend it. And they do... often till death!
No one is closer or further away from reality since reality is why they exist, one is connected to it or disconnected to in awareness and experience. Whether you hold it in your hand and are blind to it or you see it it is not distant or close, it is in your hand.

[PANCHO]

I agree that there could be an underlying human reality. Reality cannot be independent of the observer (a stone cannot interpret reality). So if the living beings interpreting reality are similar, then there could be an underlying reality, which would be based on shared group similarities. But from my point of view I would not see the different realities of other people as illusions. Neither I would see my past realities as illusions. So reality to me is not an illusion but more like a relation. As I change my reality changes and my relation with the everything else changes. Whether it'll reach a fixed point I don't know. Maybe reaching a fixed reality is because I chose to settle on what I find comfortable, or because I have stopped changing myself.

[Joesus]

I agree that there could be an underlying human reality. Reality cannot be independent of the observer (a stone cannot interpret reality).

A stone comes from consciousness as does the human. The conscious activity of a human and a stone is relative to their realities.

So if the living beings interpreting reality are similar, then there could be an underlying reality, which would be based on shared group similarities.

No. Shared group realities are possible because of the underlying unified field of consciousness. It is possible that a shared experience would reveal the underlying nature that exists within the personal reality and the personal experience. The underlying field is not dependent on human perception any more than the world would be flat when the entire human population decided it was so.

But from my point of view I would not see the different realities of other people as illusions. Neither I would see my past realities as illusions. So reality to me is not an illusion but more like a relation. As I change my reality changes and my relation with the everything else changes.

As you change levels of conscious awareness what is real also changes. Children imagine monsters in the shadows of their room at night until the light is turned on and the shadows vanish. Humans also imagine things at certain levels of consciousness that are not there as they ascend levels of consciousness.

Whether it'll reach a fixed point I don't know. Maybe reaching a fixed reality is because I chose to settle on what I find comfortable, or because I have stopped changing myself.

The basis of conscious awareness that is called absolute is within all things. Whether you decide to look for it will determine whether or not you will find it or experience it. You cannot help but change. You can resist it but resistance is futile.

[PANCHO]

The underlying field is not dependent on human perception any more than the world would be flat when the entire human population decided it was so.

I think we are getting close to the core of the subject. How does one know when a tree in the middle of a forest fall if nobody is there to see it? As far as the interpretation of reality goes, no tree falls if you are not aware of it. In the same way, there are many things that are going on right now but that you are not aware of. And yet, somehow you think you are immersed in your reality. So you are unaware of many things right now but you do have a reality. Why is this different than when people thought the earth was flat? Those people were probably more sure of their reality than you are now of yours as nothing let them to believe otherwise.

Reality is always an interpretation and needs a "head" to custom filter the stuff and come up with reality. A stone without someone seeing it or noticing it, does not exists to nobody. There is no reality without a head. And every head sees a different reality.