May meeting

Interesting session this morning we watched a Ted video about Alzheimer's. Heard how nuns in the USA who had on autopsy shown full blown Alzheimer's but during her life showed no signs.
Religion or social activity had saved them?.
Learn new things is part answer and get a good night's sleep.

We usually describe the world in terms of trees, mountains, rivers, clouds, cars, houses, people, and so on.

But a chemist could say: “No, this is not how things truly are! The world is basically composed of molecules which are ceaselessly combining one with another at random”.

However a physicist would reply: “Not at all! Reality is actually made up of intermingling fields of energy/matter where the dance of waves/particles takes place ceaselessly”.

Who is right? Who is wrong?

All of them are clearly mere conceptual descriptions that can just supply a relative view of reality.

We do not actually live in ‘reality’, but rather in a description of it, that is like a ‘bubble’ of concepts and words all around us, which in time builds up a fictitious view of ourselves and the world.

Even non-dualism (as any other -ism without exception) is just a conceptual description of reality, that hopelessly tries to point to the unknowable ‘Whatever it is’: in so far as it becomes an ideology that relies on words and thoughts, it is unable to enjoy the taste of Being.

So we live in concepts without realizing it.

We blindly believe that reality is just as our thought represents it.

Science gives us an ‘objective’ description of the material world that, to some extent, can be very useful for the improvement of humankind, however relative and incomplete it is.

Non-duality – as far as it still relies on words and thoughts – is just another conceptual description of reality, though its understanding of non-separation can dispel a huge amount of suffering in one’s life.

Neither of them is more or less right, and both are useful.

But as long as we rely merely on them, we remain trapped in the net of concepts.

Just as the fisherman’s net can catch only fishes, but not the water that passes through it and even supports it, so the thinking mind can grasp only concepts, but not the awareness that perceives it as an object: the ‘water of awareness’ can never be detected by the net of the thinking mind.

Indeed, awareness is a paradoxical mystery: on the one hand its evidence is undeniable for the very fact that we are aware of objects, but on the other hand it is unknowable, just as the existence of the eye is undeniable for the very fact that we can see objects, though it always remains invisible, outside the picture.

However, even ‘awareness’ is just a concept: through it, we are ultimately confronted with the unknown ‘bottom line’ of any human knowledge.

No understanding whatsoever can touch the unknowable Source of everything.

What if any idea about who I am, including even the idea of ‘consciousness’, totally collapses?

What if any idea about reality, including even the idea of ‘non duality’, totally collapses?

What if even these very words you are reading now lose any meaning whatsoever and fall away?

What remains when every attempt to understand or to know reality reveals its utter futility?

Then, out of frustration, the thinking mind cannot help saying “I don’t know” and finally quits.

But when that “I don’t know” plunges off the head into the heart, the philosopher dies and the mystic is born.

It is not a process in time. It is a singularity where all the known collapses and disappears.

It is a timeless explosion of pure wonder and awe that blows away everything else.

And what remains is a wild, free, spontaneous, and utterly unknowable aliveness, within the glowing darkness of the Mystery that we ultimately are.


It isn't just Eastern thought that knows the world is not what it seems.

Hume’s Theory of the External World: scepticism about the existence of the external world

Our consciousness presents us with a reality that seems coherent and predictable. Philosophical reflection upon this common sense belief has, however, often resulted in scepticism about whether we can safely conclude that there is indeed a material world outside our consciousness. David Hume (1711–1776) wanted to find out how we come to this ingrained belief in the external world.

Hume distinguished between the “vulgar opinion”—the common sense belief that perception and external objects are the same—and the philosophical view, in which perception and the perceived object are distinct from each other. Hume believes that the philosophical view of representative realism is worse than the naive realism of the common sense view, because the philosophical view takes no stand on whether our perceptions are continued, identical and independent or whether they are dependent, interrupted and different. The philosophical view tries to justify the belief in external objects on these contradictory assumptions, which results in a ‘system of double existence’.

Hume investigated what kind of cognitive processes give rise to the common sense belief that there is an external world. He argued that our common sense belief in the existence of things outside the mind depends on two inferences: one from constancy and the other from coherence. Hume believes, however, that these inferences are flawed and he can only find ‘contradictions and difficulties in every system concerning external objects’.

Beauty in things exists in the mind which contemplates them.

David Hume was a Scottish philosopher, historian, economist, and essayist, who is best known today for his highly influential system of radical philosophical empiricism, skepticism, and naturalism.