It's time to wake up!

You can't have both of them be true just because you claim they are different perspectives.

ETA: Especially since you can't prove that one of those perspectives actually exists.

I actually can prove that consciousness exists and that meaning is an illusion.

I can't claim both are true and that is not what I am saying. I am saying there is only one absolute truth. The rest is an appearance or an illusion within the absolute which should not be denied. We can pretend it is real to function, all the while knowing it isn't.

Basically, you are saying if everything is an illusion and nothing matters then the illusion isn't real and doesn't matter. And that is true, but relative to our experience it does matter, because less suffering is better more is worse. Suffering is not bad on the absolute, relatively we can use this word as a tool. But it only matters relatively, not absolutely.

originally posted by: Andy1144
Basically, you are saying if everything is an illusion and nothing matters then the illusion isn't real and doesn't matter. And that is true, but relative to our experience it does matter, because less suffering is better more is worse. Suffering is not bad on the absolute, relatively we can use this word as a tool.

No, I'm saying that if you claim that everything is an illusion and nothing matters then you can't also claim that suffering matters on the relative or anywhere else.

If you claim that it does matter then you can't claim that everything is an illusion and nothing matters.

a reply to: daskakik

No, I'm saying that if you claim that everything is an illusion and nothing matters then you can't also claim that suffering matters on the relative or anywhere else.

Wrong, if you claim everything is an illusion and nothing matters on an absolute (then that's true for the relative as well) BUT you can still talk about the types of illusions because on the level of experience (illusion) it matters. On the absolute it still doesn't take away anything because it does not matter. This logic is not broken anywhere.

On a relative it only matters relatively, not absolutely.

originally posted by: Andy1144
On a relative it only matters relatively, not absolutely.

That is something else that you have not proven to be true.

It's just another idea with nothing to back it up.

a reply to: daskakik

This is what your point was. If everything is an illusion then you can't say anything is real. While that is true, the paradox is that the illusion is real.

On the absolute the illusion isn't real. But it is experienced as real. Experience relatively matters.

The illusion is not real, nothing is. Only the experience is real. Everything is unreal but the experience. So experience does matter on some level.

originally posted by: Andy1144
This is what your point was.

My point is that you have no proof.

Everything is unreal but the experience.

Did you just do a 180º?

a reply to: daskakik

Did you just do a 180?

I turned 180º south.
I have to go.

a reply to: Andy1144

Well someone seems to be having plenty of free time..

So my point was, everything is unreal but the experience. The experience is the only thing which is real. I may have said everything is an illusion. But I don't think I mentioned clearly what was real. It is consciousness.

a reply to: Andy1144

Actually you just said:

I am saying there is only one absolute truth. The rest is an appearance or an illusion within the absolute which should not be denied. We can pretend it is real to function, all the while knowing it isn't.

You don't seem to be too sure.

a reply to: daskakik

"I am saying there is 1 absolute truth" but I didn't say what it is. It is consciousness, the rest is an illusion.

But just because the world is an illusion doesn't just mean we disregard. We still need to play by it's rules and use concepts like right and wrong to function within in world.

My main point is, there is no self. So how can you see through the self if there is none? It is an illusion and appears as a self, so the illusion can be seen.

Do you personally understand that the self is an illusion?

Let's just start from the beginning. The self is an illusion. the sense that there is separate entity located between our eyes controlling thoughts. Is this entity real? Or is it just an illusion? Can thoughts really be controlled? If yes then by who?

Do you agree there is no free will and no self pulling the shots? Do you agree that only causes can influence effects and that causes cannot be controlled.

originally posted by: Andy1144
Let's just start from the beginning. The self is an illusion. the sense that there is separate entity located between our eyes controlling thoughts. Is this entity real? Or is it just an illusion? Can thoughts really be controlled? If yes then by who?

I'd say you need to go further back and establish what "reality", "seperate", "entity", "thought" and "illusion" mean.

Do you agree there is no free will and no self pulling the shots? Do you agree that only causes can influence effects and that causes cannot be controlled.

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with anything.

a reply to: daskakik

Real means what is happening in our direct experience, immediate sense perceptions, not assumptions about those experiences. Assumptions about those experiences are illusions. If there is no control/free will and if there is a thought that says "I have control" that thought is based on a false assumption that this "I" exists.

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with anything.

Why? Don't be shy.

originally posted by: Andy1144
Real means what is happening in our direct experience, immediate sense perceptions, not assumptions about those experiences.

Sounds OK but what about stuff you are not there to experience?

Tree in the forrest falling, does the world stop when you are sleeping, that kind of stuff.

Assumptions about those experiences are illusions.

Do the assumptions materialize?

If there is no control/free will and if there is a thought that says "I have control" that thought is based on a false assumption that this "I" exists.

Control of what, by whom?

a reply to: daskakik

Sounds OK but what about stuff you are not there to experience?
Tree in the forrest falling, does the world stop when you are sleeping, that kind of stuff.

Well DE means what you personally experience directly. The world stops from your point of view. So I am speaking about personal subjective experience.

Do the assumptions materialize?

The point here is different. You can figure out how to make a house and that is a form of a thought materializing if thats what you mean. But by assumptions I stricktly mean assumptions which aren't real in reality. That's what I wan't to focus on.
What we think is reality VS what is actually is.

Control of what, by whom?

Control of thoughts by a sense of self/me/I. I argue that sense of a "me" making choices is an illusion because thoughts actually just pop up by themselves, there is no thinker.

So if there actually is no control and there is a thought which assumes it has control, then it is a false thought based on a feeling and or assumption.

originally posted by: Andy1144
Well DE means what you personally experience directly. The world stops from your point of view.

This is all just relative?

The point here is different. You can figure out how to make a house and that is a form of a thought materializing if thats what you mean. But by assumptions I stricktly mean assumptions which aren't real in reality. That's what I wan't to focus on.
What we think is reality VS what is actually is.

You don't mean anything material so, what is "reality"?

Control of thoughts by a sense of self/me/I. I argue that sense of a "me" making choices is an illusion because thoughts actually just pop up by themselves, there is no thinker.

So you say that there is someone experiencing but, he can't think?

So if there actually is no control and there is a thought which assumes it has control, then it is a false thought based on a feeling and or assumption.

What is a real thought?

a reply to: daskakik

This is all just relative?

Subjectivity is all we have, what else could it be?

You don't mean anything material so what is "reality".

Whatever is happening in experience and can be verified directly. So in reality, what is the experience of the body like? Without assuming how it is like. For example, we assume that there is a separation in experience when our fingers touch the keyboard. But in reality, it's just one experience. Thoughts assume things about experience and assume that is reality. Just whatever is happening now minus thoughts about it.

In reality, it looks like we are here and the screen is over there. But beyond this assumption, what is reality like? The screen is just being seen. It's just being seen, that's it. Saying there is a "me" seeing it, is to assume something about direct experience/reality. Here and there have no basis in reality, because "there" implies something tangible "here". But there is no such thing in reality.

So you say that their is someone experiencing but he can't think?

No, there is also no experiencer, the experience is just happening. Saying the experience is happening to me is to assume it happens to thought/assumption. In reality experience is just happening to consciousness, not to a separate person living in the head. This is an assumption. Experience doesn't belong to someone does it? That's just an assumption.

What is a real thought?

There are two levels. On one, no thought is real. On the relative, Santa is not real, Jim Carrey is. In reality no thought is real, however thoughts must still be used to function.

originally posted by: Andy1144
Subjectivity is all we have, what else could it be?

You do realize that that is going to throw a wrech into everything else you propose afterwards?

Just whatever is happening now minus thoughts about it.

Everything is the same except for thoughts about it.

No, there is also no experiencer, the experience is just happening. Saying the experience is happening to me is to assume it happens to thought/assumption. In reality experience is just happening to consciousness, not to a separate person living in the head. This is an assumption. Experience doesn't belong to someone does it? That's just an assumption.

Back to the all there is is the now sentiment.

There are two levels. On one, no thought is real. On the relative, Santa is not real, Jim Carrey is. In reality no thought is real, however thoughts must still be used to function.

And here is the wrench.

You just can't get away from this can you?

You just said "Just whatever is happening now minus thoughts about it."

and a couple lines down "thoughts must still be used to function".