3 Matching Annotations
  1. Jul 2022
    1. we cannot have a discussion about reality unless it's it's it's it's a discussion there's courses involved 01:35:20 but all the discussions i didn't know about reality um as far as i know happened um through sounds or writing in which atoms were 01:35:32 moving so we cannot have a discussion without atoms right um and so on i could i could so then atoms are fundamental no uh 01:35:44 the fact that something is it's it's part of our discussion about this doesn't mean that uh it's primary with respect to the rest i think we have to take this that's my that's my own personal um 01:35:56 view of that so of course we talk about uh from today from within our consciousness of course and of course we have information about reality from within our senses and of course we talk in 01:36:08 english we talk in tibetan we talk in pali but that's not because english tibetan empire consciousness or atoms are a necessary starting point for understanding the rest i think it's uh 01:36:20 that's exactly the uh the the uh what i read in a gardener's uh uh uh chapter about the self um 01:36:33 it's uh we recognize his dependence uh of of i i would i would say levels of the pieces of the story one respect to the other one 01:36:45 and uh uh but also at a clear at a clear logical analysis this is what nagajuna does none of this stands up as primary with 01:36:57 respect to the other that's my reading uh professor halcyas georgios my dear friend and colleague um i agree with you when we talk about reality we are we are talking not about 01:37:13 reality uh we're talking about reality it's not reality and that is not the reality of the uh of nagarjuna nevertheless it's very useful because 01:37:35 without this conventional reality of words and concepts that are correct in understanding nagarjuna without that it's very difficult for us to have that experience that non-conceptual experience of reality so you know 01:37:49 there's a kind of a metaphor that's used is you you know you take a boat and you cross the river and then uh you leave the boat or the other analogy is you you're out in the forest and it gets cold and you 01:38:02 take two sticks and you rub them together and with a friction you get fire and the fire then burns the sticks so the sticks are conceptuality as was the boat that got you across the 01:38:14 river not any conceptuality but very clear understanding of nagarjuna and of course the buddha his discussion on on the buddhist wisdom

      The answer to the question given does not feel satisfactory. The question appears to be a variant of the "If a tree falls in the forest, does anybody hear". Does reality have an objective, autonomous existence? In other words, the question asks: does objective reality exist?

    2. i think we must bear in mind that any any sort of verbalization about reality um is dependent on consciousness it's not possible to have a discussion about what is real 01:33:02 and not have consciousness in the discussion uh especially when we are to verbalize it i mean of course any reality that is independent of consciousness is not dependent on consciousness 01:33:15 is beyond verbalization and i think the buddhist position is very clear on that and i think arjuna if i read him correctly it's very clear that the when it comes to the ultimate reality to um 01:33:28 it's something that actually we cannot talk about and basically all discussion all this course is very much uh within the level of conventional the conventional real 01:33:42 uh so this is a very interesting i think um a point that i wanted to make that i think i can also raise it as a point for the two of you to respond uh from your respective uh 01:33:54 perspectives um because if consciousness from my understanding is primary to this discussion of what is real uh and if consciousness does not inherently exist 01:34:07 right well at least i mean barry also talked about the different kinds of minds um then how does all this discussion about 01:34:20 what is real what kind of claims can we ultimately make about what is reality now i think i have a feeling that carlos comes from a different perspective 01:34:31 then barry in answering that question so i'd like to really point to this question about can we make any claims about reality and if so based on what 01:34:44 from your respective disciplines so that's my um my question and comments

      The question raised here is how can we talk about ultimate reality unless consciousness is involved? All discussions about ultimate reality must, as Nagarjuna pointes out must take place within conventional reality.

      Perhaps a shorter question is this: Does objective reality exist?

  2. Nov 2015
    1. Further, even though you have been highly distressed at times during these past two weeks, it has in no way retarded the work that we are doing together. This also should allow you to relax somewhat, because it is evidence—you might say “objective evidence”—of the fact that there is something real occurring here. It is not simply a figment of your imagination. you will know soon enough for an actual fact, that these communications are not fictitious, but that must wait in order for fulfillment of purpose to be accomplished.

      Raj uses the example of Paul's stress and then the ongoing communication to demonstrate that all that is going on in the 3d experience does not affect Reality.