The Primacy of Consciousness (4 of 7)
Uploader Comments (metedude2)
Top Comments
-
the buddha compared the universe to a vast net woven of a countless variety of brilliant jewels, each with a countless number of facets. each jewel reflects in itself every other jewel in the net and is, in fact, one with every other jewel....
All Comments (125)
-
big-ups to spinoza, leibniz, kant, and the german idealists who already systematically worked this out centuries ago.
-
Im confused on the part of what we experience in our mind is not really what happens in reality. Im sitting here eating rice...is this not really rice? is this something my mind made up? So does that mean we all have the same mind? Because if i ask someone "hey, is this rice?" they'll say "yeah thats rice" sooooo im so confused. What is reality then. Is there a reality? I feel like high right now
-
Who flips the hourglass over? God? hahahaha
-
How about this biblical deep truth.
These three remain Faith hope and Love and the greatest is love.
Only NOW exists. We have faith now in our memories of a past gone forever.
We have hope now in our spirit for a future that is not here and never will be because when it arrives it will be now.
Why is Love the greatest? Because we can only use it NOW to build a better future with all our nows.
All this to enjoy our perception of reality NOW.
-
@jagg1951 Quite appropriate. I'm not religious at all. I think all religions, every single one of them, are cults that have alot of followers. Anyone who pretends to KNOW the deepest truths of existence has lost all credibility in my eyes. But...I think all religious texts are vitally important for understanding consciousness...like you mentioned. Mainly because, until recently, science didn't touch consciousness. Spiritual paths have learned alot...through trial and error...and are important.
-
So we recognize this mystery of the illusion we call life and yet we must play our part within the boundaries and paramaters of this "virtual reality" game we are a part of. The bible says "We wrestle not against flesh and blood but against spiritual wickedness in nhigh places" how appropriate is that verse for this understanding of the illusion of reality.
-
@jagg1951 And that's the mystery. :) Once you really dig into reality and ask those sort of questions you realize two things. One...just how flimsy "reality" is. We barely know what we're even dealing with. When you let go of the mental and social norms that dictate most behavior, you confront the mystery head on. And two...you realize how inept words are at describing reality. Words are symbolic representations of an ineffable reality. But often we use words to describe things we cannot know.
-
Just like the people in my dream were never there. But while they may not ever have existed in reality, they were in my dream, just as though you may deny it, you are in my perception of reality, my dream.
-
Can we ever see "light" without it being just a PERCEPTION of light? Is there such thing as demons and ghosts and extra terrestials and other dimensions? Or is the reality that what we perceive of as life is just a dream. Just the firing of synapses, whatever that is, And we awake and the dream never existed as anything other than a thought. Could all we perceive of as life be just a thought?
i believe the universe is like an hourglass. the narrow part in the middle represents BOTH the big bang singularity..and the eventual convergence of all consciousness in the universe as technology is used to do MORE within SMALLER substrates..eventually birthing infinite consciousness in practically nothing. then, the cycle begins anew. Or rather, every stage of the cycle is "happening"..now, always. the top and bottom of the hourglass are the same thing..the most separate state of consciousness
avedic 10 months ago 3
@avedic nice, thanks for the comment. sounds like your theory would somewhat agree with terence mckenna's views on increasing complexity :)
metedude2 10 months ago
what does he mean by "hagan values in a wave ecuation" ?(minute 7:24) cheers
kromus77 2 years ago
i think he says "they're Eigenvalues in a wave equation"... i'm not sure if he's being sarcastic or not, but it's a mathematical reference to how people in the past have described the properties of electrons :)
metedude2 2 years ago