Do we realize we use time as a stage?
Are we the writers
Do we realize we use time as a stage?
Do we realize we use time as a stage?
Are we the writers
Below is my attempt to introduce some of the greatest insights ever dreamed, and they suggest there’s another mindset available to us, and as the mindset sets in, the sages say a person becomes harder and harder to offend.
Indian sages have described reality as having three parts:
The main reality is the world of truth. Truth is everything existing. Us too. All is truth. Only truth can exist. When a lie is told, it will always be true a lie was told. Situations cannot be any other way.
The next part of reality is non-truth. It is composed of nothingness: the total nonexistence of physical things, non-truth = non-being, non-existing
The last part of reality is dreaming and is called maya. The dictionary definition of maya is “the illusion or the appearance of the phenomenal world” which is to say dreaming is the illusion or the appearance of the world which comes about when we experience our surroundings via our senses.
Maya has no real existence because it’s not physical, but it’s also truth in a way because the dreaming actually happened. Maya is a combination of the first two parts of existence: the real and the not real together at the same time.
Why think about maya? We dwell on maya in order to realize we dream even when we are awake. The brain is full of maya and produces it automatically. Maya is the state between being and non-being developed by the brain.
Our minds interpret what we sense, so what we get is secondary and not primary. The primary is reality itself. And between the primary and the secondary the sages say a dream is formed. (The dream might be of having a better wife or wanting a more caring husband or thinking about a friend who’s a real friend or thinking of friend who might be an enemy or the dream of having a new car, etc., etc.) Dreams aren’t real but they have happened and are happening.
All of this means dreams don’t last but atoms do. The search for fulfillment could be called Let’s get to know the Atoms. Since dreaming keeps one’s identity in place, I dream therefore I am. By daily interrupting the unbroken dreaming habit, one can come to know truth.
What advice, if any, would you expect here? If you are searching for that something extra in life, start meditating
(classical meditation: relax by sitting comfortably with eyes closed and repeating a mantra and/or relax by sitting comfortably with eyes closed and paying attention to the breath)
and read what the sages have left for us. Do these things (daily is best) and you may experience being an actual part of the Universe knowing for sure you are not separate and knowing you belong.
Don’t rush because you are able to rush. The trip is the thing. Become constant with the philosophy “easy does it.” Life’s greatest adventure is not a dash for the finish line. Not having to complete life’s greatest adventure will bring it within reach. So be cool.
If you don’t know where to start, I recommend Zen Mind, Beginner’s Mind (Informal talks on Zen meditation and practice) by Shunryu Suzuki. Also, the recorded conversations (in book form) of Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh are excellent regardless of the mess he got into here in the U.S.
Is everything real
are we dreaming it’s real?
Are we dreaming
missing the everything?
enter the real?
Is there a conscious state we’re missing
because our pure awareness is
being covered by words?
Do we have to recognize our beings
by stopping our language
habit for a while
don’t we get
the bull by the horns?
Is it because we’re afraid?
Loosing our position of captain?
Are we really
If so why adventure?
The remaining twenty-one years of his life established Spinoza as the most dangerous man in Europe, read secretly everywhere in spite of the official prohibition of his few texts.
The most explosive of those published in his lifetime was the Tractatus Theologico-Politicus of 1670, a tract which portrayed God as the immanent cause of the natural world, and nothing more.
Employing his training as a Hebraist, Spinoza pointed out the startling coincidence between biblical authors and the ideas about God and law that they put forth.
Undertaking an extensive investigation of the motivations of each author, he showed that what generations had taken to be the deep truths of Scripture were really just the result of various authorial perspectives, and often ignorant ones at that.
Not understanding nature, and desiring the universe to be shaped according to their own personal natures, these authors called ordinary events miraculous and ventured absurd and self-serving notions of how God worked in the universe.
Pressing the point further, in the notorious Chapter VI, Spinoza argued against the reality of miracles, stating that they were either ordinary events viewed by people unschooled in the workings of nature or fits of imagination bleeding over into reality.
The God of Spinoza does not act in the world, does not have emotions, does not support one people over another, does not wish for things, and does not ask for worship. He is, rather, the substance underlying the universe, a completely indifferent source of natural law to whom prayers and sacrifice are nothing whatsoever.
This view of God, one who could not be bribed or pleased, and who offered neither punishment nor advice, was a trident in the heart of standard theology.
While theologians argued over aspects of God and definitions of good and evil, Spinoza offered the sober reality that, if even the authors of the Bible couldn’t clear away their local historical prejudices in interpreting God’s nature, a man coming thousands of years later, with an incomplete knowledge of the base languages involved and a totally different historical context, had no chance of saying anything except the pre-existing content of his own religious fancy.
Good and evil are just what we call things that are useful and appealing to us or not, but nature makes no such distinction. Tragedy is inflicted upon the innocent as often as triumph is meted out to the villainous, all following rigidly mechanical laws emanating from the structure of the universe, and there’s nothing to be done about any of it.
He would expand these ideas in his posthumous masterwork, the Ethics, which had to be smuggled out of his house in an unmarked crate lest it fall into the wrong hands and be destroyed in manuscript. It is a towering work which attempted to display Spinoza’s complete system with geometric precision, the philosophical counterpart of Euclid’s Elements. It was his final statement of belief, and if written in a more sober tone than the Tractatus, was even more radical in its content.
Since God is essentially just a nom de guerre for nature, and nature is governed entirely by mechanistic cause and effect, there can be no such thing as free will in any meaningful sense. Rather, there are just people, striving to actualize their personal natures to the fullest extent possible, and forming societies to do so.
When such people come across something that meets their needs, they have a natural tendency to think it was made specifically for them, and so they craft notions of Providence from crude matter, and when they are foiled in their ambitions, they seek an outer source to propitiate, and thus are born superstition and the power of priests.
Spinoza exhorts us to turn away from anything that demands the sacrifice of our reason, or the freedom to investigate the workings of nature. Any government or church that claims power over minds or knowledge of God’s thoughts is unworthy of its authority.
Each person must employ the full power of his or her reason to understand his nature, work against self-defeating desires, and pursue the needs of his particular self in joint purpose with his fellow human beings.
Because the universe is fully determined, along with our actions in it, there is no need to feel envy for those who happen to have done better, nor to feel superior to those who have had a rougher lot in life.
Instead, we are to approach other humans with compassion and understanding, realizing that their conception of good might not be our own, and that there is no way to judge one person’s path as objectively better than another’s.
In a Europe still finding its feet after the destruction wrought by the Thirty Years’ War, Spinoza’s call to relinquish self-satisfied superiority in favor of a broad-based sympathy was strikingly original, and formed the positive ethical core of modern humanism.
By combining scriptural critique with an uncompromising materialism, and welding both of those onto a new secular ethics of inclusivity, Spinoza produced the foundation of not only the Enlightenment, but the basic vocabulary of present humanism.
Throughout his life, Spinoza’s motto was caution. He kept the sensibilities of his Christian audience in mind, seeking to wean them of their dependence on Jesus Christ by degrees, focusing on the Old Testament and letting the implications trickle through to the New.
For all his caution, however, the consequences of his philosophy were plain to all, and Spinoza watched friend after friend turn vehemently upon him, upbraiding him for his arrogance in supposing that he, and he alone, knew better than thousands of years of religious experts.
He was called the most vile, foul, and dangerous human being in the history of religion. His friends, the Koerbagh brothers, were put on trial for espousing atheistic doctrines.
Van den Enden traveled to France to foment his beloved Normandy rebellion and was hung for his troubles. Leibniz, the greatest mind in Europe, eagerly sought him out in private, and condemned him vehemently in public.
And yet, his life went on, supported by a handful of true friends and a growing army of those attracted to his views but too afraid to be seen publicly defending him. He was never arrested, never driven from his home country, and lived, to all appearances, precisely the life he desired, a simple life of the mind.
When he died, it was suddenly, without warning, though his health had always been precarious. Within a year, his Ethics was published, along with some of the secret correspondence that had flown between his humble rented rooms and the rest of Europe.
Spinozism became synonymous with atheism, and his philosophical system proved fresh for generations of intellectual outsiders.
His comments about the consequences of linguistic degradation for religious exegesis found their way into Herder’s revolutionary linguistic theory, while his observations about humans crafting gods in their own image inspired Feuerbach’s dialectic critique of Christianity.
From being the outcast’s outcast, he has become the philosopher’s philosopher.
Thank you Wikipedia!
Could it be as simple as…Everything is as it is and that’s what truth is? Hollywood speak: “It is what it is” actually fits the definition of truth, but…
Is truth too easy to talk about? We have vague imaginings of everything humming along together in a constantly changing now, but is this reality slippery when we try to experience it via mindfulness or attempting to feel ourselves as safe in a very snug part of the mystery?
Why is it so hard to feel perfectly included? Is there something in the way? If so, what is it?
Is it the something which usually takes credit for all of the human animal’s talents? What would happen…if I, the identity, the ego, the entity my animal created to handle things were put in charge of my being’s immune system and its eyesight? I would be blind almost immediately and soon die from a small infection.
Am I hardly more than a chooser and companion? These are my talents, and I’m scared I’ll loose my seat of power if I ever give it up, but is this very unlikely because I’m needed by the animal to choose and get along in society.
But can I trust my own reasoning?
Why fear change when change is the the game everything is participating in? Is change humming along with or without our awareness of it?
If life is a search for purpose and completion (often called “meaning”), what type of life is best? One type is about the desire of making lots of money and is tempting but crowded with sharks of many descriptions where large sums of money can be made and lost by participating.
There are other ways to live where there is one satisfactory completion after another and where there’s love, joy, peace, and gratitude.
Both rich and poor and almost all in-between are in existence’s constant here and now-ness and are constantly thinking, breathing, getting thirsty, working, being hungry, interacting with people, and getting older, yet we don’t know we are missing most of reality, and for humanity, it has been this way for a long-long time.
So, I ask myself, do I have to be rich or famous to live a meaningful life, and I’m thinking…of course not, living a meaningful life is what freedom is about. How do we opt out of the race for fame and/or riches for an normal, everyday life, given the chance?
Maybe by asking “Is there more to life than the race to have fame and more than enough money to survive and retire on”? Why can’t we have our cake and eat it too? Is it up to us?
Here’s the key question. Why wait to become rich or famous in order to relax and savor life? If we wait, relaxing and savoring life may never happen for us. Why do we keep straining?
Knowing we’re already home and set (not having to have the expensive toys of wealth) gives us different options. Plus, taking time to slow down can allow us to see better the speed and direction to go. Relaxation and savoring life has a way of bringing interesting thoughts and trails into our lives.
As we slow down, we are able to notice and appreciate more of what life is full of.
One can be relaxed while building a fortune if one knows a sure way to build a fortune and is willing and able to apply the knowledge without worry or stress by knowing it’s just a matter of time.
What is the need to worry or hurry when we are already content? It’s strange but true…not having to have something makes it easier to obtain.
Can unapplied knowledge come back to haunt us? Yes, it’s called guilt. It’s a psychological instrument we know how to use…by pushing it on others or having to pull it.
Notice guilt for what it is…a reminder. It bothers us or it doesn’t, depending on what it’s about. How strong can guilt be when it’s rightly ignored? Guilt is part of the “would-a” “could-a” “should-a” tradition and has a use or it wouldn’t exist.
Why do we use our biases quickly, and without a lot of conscious thinking, and use only parts of the information which harmonize with our beliefs, and then use it to establish or decide what is right and wrong?
Once we have an opinion or belief, it’s our nature to want to hang on to it because it feels so good to be without a doubt, right, correct, in the know and on the way.
We add new information when it comes along if it compliments what we already think or believe. And it’s rejected if it conflicts with what we already think or believe. We are all guilty and can change this by becoming more aware.
Science calls this confirmation bias, and confirmation bias gives us reasons to form alliances with like minded folks.
Is it that truth doesn’t care
if it’s recognized
In the entire universe
can only life