Are we ourselves before being a part of reality, or are we a part of reality before being ourselves?

[Pattern-chaser]

But what if by existing as a distinct, isolated, and independent being, we paradoxically become a part of reality because reality is a set of whatever that exists? And what if being a part of reality (= existing as something) in turn makes us distinct, isolated, and independent?

This seems all turned around. By existing, we are necessarily part of reality. It's the distinct and isolated stuff that is confused, I think. It's difficult to see how being part of something could make someone or something "distinct, isolated, and independent".

[AmericanKestrel]

Why not choose something even better then, for example that we are divine souls and this "environment" is just a temporary illusion? And then derive human fulfillment from that?

That is precisely what samadhi/meditation is. To actively see our selves as the Reality, the only Reality, the essence of existence, awareness, and complete fullness, lacking nothing, and NOT the ‘environment’ or the body and mind which perishes.

[Atla]

That is precisely what samadhi/meditation is. To actively see our selves as the Reality, the only Reality, the essence of existence, awareness, and complete fullness, lacking nothing, and NOT the ‘environment’ or the body and mind which perishes.

No, I literally meant (individual, separate) souls.

Otherwise what you say is still only half true, and half escapism/narcissism. Yes technically we are Reality, but that has nothing to do with fullness / lacking nothing, that's just how we human individuals want to see it. Existence and awareness are the same thing, there is no such thing no essence.

We don't need any nondualism if our goal is just escapism/narcissism. It's much simpler and faster to just go all-out on the narcissistic ego state of mind, where we are the Special Divine Soul of absolute entitlement, and we will get into Heaven after we die, and everybody else is an ant. Better yet, why not just believe that we are a Western God in human form. Some people do actually believe that and they seem pretty fulfilled, if they can remain functional in everyday life.

[AmericanKestrel]

That is precisely what samadhi/meditation is. To actively see our selves as the Reality, the only Reality, the essence of existence, awareness, and complete fullness, lacking nothing, and NOT the ‘environment’ or the body and mind which perishes.

No, I literally meant (individual, separate) souls.

Otherwise what you say is still only half true, and half escapism/narcissism. Yes technically we are Reality, but that has nothing to do with fullness / lacking nothing, that's just how we human individuals want to see it. Existence and awareness are the same thing, there is no such thing no essence.

We don't need any nondualism if our goal is just escapism/narcissism. It's much simpler and faster to just go all-out on the narcissistic ego state of mind, where we are the Special Divine Soul of absolute entitlement, and we will get into Heaven after we die, and everybody else is an ant. Better yet, why not just believe that we are a Western God in human form. Some people do actually believe that and they seem pretty fulfilled, if they can remain functional in everyday life.

Advaita is only one way of understanding the nature of our bodily self, and the consciousness that seems to exist but does not seem to have a location. It is only one way to understand the ever changing world we experience, the cause of suffering, and the means to end it. To understand that the cause and effect both are us, our actions, our choices, not something external to us.
We are free to choose to view this relationship as we please, and we do.
Except that, as the other thread indicates, do we really have a choice in what we believe and how we act?

[Atla]

That is precisely what samadhi/meditation is. To actively see our selves as the Reality, the only Reality, the essence of existence, awareness, and complete fullness, lacking nothing, and NOT the ‘environment’ or the body and mind which perishes.

No, I literally meant (individual, separate) souls.

Otherwise what you say is still only half true, and half escapism/narcissism. Yes technically we are Reality, but that has nothing to do with fullness / lacking nothing, that's just how we human individuals want to see it. Existence and awareness are the same thing, there is no such thing no essence.

We don't need any nondualism if our goal is just escapism/narcissism. It's much simpler and faster to just go all-out on the narcissistic ego state of mind, where we are the Special Divine Soul of absolute entitlement, and we will get into Heaven after we die, and everybody else is an ant. Better yet, why not just believe that we are a Western God in human form. Some people do actually believe that and they seem pretty fulfilled, if they can remain functional in everyday life.

Advaita is only one way of understanding the nature of our bodily self, and the consciousness that seems to exist but does not seem to have a location. It is only one way to understand the ever changing world we experience, the cause of suffering, and the means to end it. To understand that the cause and effect both are us, our actions, our choices, not something external to us.
We are free to choose to view this relationship as we please, and we do.
Except that, as the other thread indicates, do we really have a choice in what we believe and how we act?

That location-free consciousness is, again, simply the same thing as existence. People who are looking for this consciousness in deep meditation, are still missing the point, still chasing a different form of ego.

Suffering has no karmic cause and there are no such means to end it. Karma doesn't exist.

[AmericanKestrel]

That location-free consciousness is, again, simply the same thing as existence. People who are looking for this consciousness in deep meditation, are still missing the point, still chasing a different form of ego.

Suffering has no karmic cause and there are no such means to end it. Karma doesn't exist.
[/quote]

Karma only means action, unless you mean something else. Every act has consequence. If we cannot eliminate suffering, we can at least be mindful of acting in ways that do not cause it or add to it. We can choose to act in a way that relieves suffering.
To know that one exists requires consciousness. To know the self in the 60 year body is the same as it was in the 6 year old, is consciousness. Subject and object cannot be the same. The observed and the observer are not the same.

[Atla]

Karma only means action, unless you mean something else. Every act has consequence. If we cannot eliminate suffering, we can at least be mindful of acting in ways that do not cause it or add to it. We can choose to act in a way that relieves suffering.

That's what they always say, karma only means action, karma only means cause and effect. Like in physics and in psychology. There is nothing "extra" there.
And then they come up with these huge philosophies that deal with these non-existent "extra" parts in order to end suffering, to end the cycle of rebirth, to blow out, to reach a certain kind of enlightenment etc.

To know that one exists requires consciousness. To know the self in the 60 year body is the same as it was in the 6 year old, is consciousness. Subject and object cannot be the same. The observed and the observer are not the same.

To know that one exists requires self-awareness which is part of the individual human brain/mind. Most people have it. The individual self in the 60 year body is different from the individual self in the 6 year old body. They are only the same in the sense that they are both part of the same world across space and time, in other words they are both part of existence which is the same thing as "the" consciousness.

[GrayArea]

But what if by existing as a distinct, isolated, and independent being, we paradoxically become a part of reality because reality is a set of whatever that exists? And what if being a part of reality (= existing as something) in turn makes us distinct, isolated, and independent?

This seems all turned around. By existing, we are necessarily part of reality. It's the distinct and isolated stuff that is confused, I think. It's difficult to see how being part of something could make someone or something "distinct, isolated, and independent".

It only counts when that "something" that one gets to be a part of is reality. To exist as a distinct, isolated, and independent is to exist anyway, and that by itself is enough to be part of reality.

[GrayArea]

They're both very true. Our existence is proof. These are simply just two different ways to describe the same phenomenon.

The self and reality are purposefully split up in order to divide this single phenomenon of existence into two different sides of the same coin—even though they don't have to. And the reason for this is because we too, are split into two as well by being born as us, but also as a part of reality.

We, being a self rather than the entire reality, are incapable of embracing both sides of the coin. Only reality can, as reality is the coin while we are but parts and fragments of the coin, having to explore it and choose our tiny domains to exercise our will on the coin instead of existing as the full coin.

To talk more about this: Both choices are inversely correlated when embraced at the same time by a self within reality—a part of reality at best—as opposed to the ENTIRETY of reality(because reality is the source of this one single phenomenon before it even divides).

We are only capable of choosing. It is our only way to reconcile with this conundrum.

To choose between these two ways of description, and furthermore to embrace it, will lead to two different instances of human fulfillment.

This is because I believe that the ultimate human fulfillment comes from embracing the ultimate human nature. How they exist.

If we accept that we are but fragments of reality, then we would be fine letting our environment(when I say this word, I mean the total combination of whatever is not ourselves) affect, dominate, and consume us in exchange for doing something for what is within the environment—self sacrifices and continuous acts of sharing and such. One would be fine with this because one identifies as the same as their own environment—ultimately, to them, there is no self. Only reality. Only what they DO as a part of reality to affect other parts of reality.

If we accept otherwise, that we are our own cause of existence, then everything would be the opposite. One who believes in this philosophy will strive to embrace their nature through not letting the environment decide their course of action. They would think that their environment is a threat to their self-fulfillment and will act as to whatever is in his environment. When taken to the extreme this can be the cause for Egoism(Though debatable), Anti-technology, etc.

Can we really choose to be in-between? In this particular case, to choose one and go with it is not to ignore, but outright deny the other. They are inversely correlated. If we don't make the choice, then we will choose neither, instead of choosing both—as each choices requires us to take them to the extreme in order to embrace it fully. We will be missing out quite a lot, being much less fulfilled and more powerless.

To escape this horrible dualism, one has to realize that to escape this dualism is not to find the better option, but to simply choose the option no matter the essence of the option. This dualism only annoys us because both sides possess the same caliber of essence. As they say in Existentialism, "Existence precedes essence". At the end, there is nothing inherently wrong with not choosing and just going with the flow, we won't automatically perish out of existence because we refused to take our fulfillment to the next level. This is simply a guide to make life more worthwhile.

I don't understand these extreme ways of thinking, too many non-sequiturs, a made-up absolute inverse correlation. You seem to be saying that ultimate human nature is what we choose it to be, not what it actually is as best we can tell.

Why not choose something even better then, for example that we are divine souls and this "environment" is just a temporary illusion? And then derive human fulfillment from that?

That's one way of deriving fulfillment. But if we don't do anything in our lives because we are already "divine souls" and we disregard whatever is not us or possibly what we are as nothing but illusions, as well as disregard the two paths in which we can carve our existence to reality, we are not going to lead a productive life. We will be nothing more than dust in the Universe. So what if we're all divine? It's still better to be divine AND productive. I want to be more.

[Pattern-chaser]

But what if by existing as a distinct, isolated, and independent being, we paradoxically become a part of reality because reality is a set of whatever that exists? And what if being a part of reality (= existing as something) in turn makes us distinct, isolated, and independent?

This seems all turned around. By existing, we are necessarily part of reality. It's the distinct and isolated stuff that is confused, I think. It's difficult to see how being part of something could make someone or something "distinct, isolated, and independent".

It only counts when that "something" that one gets to be a part of is reality. To exist as a distinct, isolated, and independent is to exist anyway, and that by itself is enough to be part of reality.

I am trying to communicate that we/one/I can't be part of something, and at the same time be "distinct, isolated, and independent". That, and only that, is the one point I'm trying to make.

[I think we are all agreed that existing automatically makes us a part of Reality.]

[GrayArea]

But what if by existing as a distinct, isolated, and independent being, we paradoxically become a part of reality because reality is a set of whatever that exists? And what if being a part of reality (= existing as something) in turn makes us distinct, isolated, and independent?

This seems all turned around. By existing, we are necessarily part of reality. It's the distinct and isolated stuff that is confused, I think. It's difficult to see how being part of something could make someone or something "distinct, isolated, and independent".

It only counts when that "something" that one gets to be a part of is reality. To exist as a distinct, isolated, and independent is to exist anyway, and that by itself is enough to be part of reality.

I am trying to communicate that we/one/I can't be part of something, and at the same time be "distinct, isolated, and independent". That, and only that, is the one point I'm trying to make.

[I think we are all agreed that existing automatically makes us a part of Reality.]

Well in that case I agree when it doesn't come to this particular subject of "reality", which has isolated-ness or distinct-ness as a subset.

[Gee]

Overall that's a great analogy, aside from the fact that individual water molecules do exist. Nonetheless, I completely understand your point that this is all just a matter of us defining individual parts out of the one big whole that is fluid, and that we do not have to continue with our act of defining and simply just be.

Above is your response to my post on the first page.

You may be wrong about the "water molecules", as that is what I thought when I first started to use the analogy. But a bunch of science guys jumped all over me and explained that water molecules do not really exist, and that the water molecules that I may have seen in books are an abstraction of the chemicals that we know make up water. So maybe water can be "individual" and maybe it can't, but I am sure that some respondents in this thread would have preferred if I had not stated "a part/piece" of the "everywhere" water.

It makes me wonder if the Covid virus is as pretty as it looks in the pictures. Maybe, maybe not.

I was never trained in philosophy, so I sometimes have problems following the conversations of others, and often have my own ideas . . . so regarding reality and water . . . I have been told that water has memory, so what if a little abstract molecule of water was floating in the Mediterranean sea under the summer sun, worrying about evaporating into nothing, and yearning for the time that it was a snowflake? Or I could say, what happens to experience, memory, and knowledge when we die?

I can accept that the nature of reality could be subjective, but that would not necessarily make it aware or even self-aware. According to science, awareness requires focus and focus requires a point to focus from and something to focus on -- two points, so time and space and matter is required in order for awareness to exist.

A tree is aware as is evidenced by its survival instincts, self-preservation instincts, but is it self-aware? I doubt it. I suspect that it does not differentiate between its roots and the ground, between a feeling of warmth and the sun, between water and the refreshing feeling of water. It would not be able to differentiate between itself and other, so everything would be subjective.

I think that the brain provides us with a rational aspect of mind and because of this we can be the observed and the observer because the rational aspect of mind is much like a mirror, which reflects us onto ourselves and also provides a perspective that is objectivity. Or am I lost here?

Gee

[GrayArea]

Overall that's a great analogy, aside from the fact that individual water molecules do exist. Nonetheless, I completely understand your point that this is all just a matter of us defining individual parts out of the one big whole that is fluid, and that we do not have to continue with our act of defining and simply just be.

I think that the brain provides us with a rational aspect of mind and because of this we can be the observed and the observer because the rational aspect of mind is much like a mirror, which reflects us onto ourselves and also provides a perspective that is objectivity. Or am I lost here?

Gee

Yep, you are getting on the right track. However, this claim could be modified. It is true that the mind can acknowledge both the self and reality from a metaphorical bird's-eye-view, while also being the "self" that it observes. But the self that the mind observes is a false self, because if it were to be a real self, then it would be impossible to observe itself. The best we, the true selves, could do to observe the true self, is to exist as us. We cannot observe it.

[GrayArea]

I've come to realize that it's foolish to derive an answer from this. There is no answer. It's all a process.

[Pattern-chaser]

I agree when it doesn't come to this particular subject of "reality", which has isolated-ness or distinct-ness as a subset.

So now you propose a definition of "reality" such that it can 'contain' something that is not part of itself, and co-exist alongside these things that are not part of ... 'reality'?