> > I found this post on KnifeForums:
> > Ok did you know that if the 11 dimensions of reality
> > proposed by string theory are correct....
> > Every range of choices you have ever made, from turning
> > left or right in car, to larger and more complex decisions...
> > it may be true that you make all of those choices but your
> > sensory reality and perceptive awareness defined within a
> > given dimension leaves you unable to perceive the "other"
> > realities that were created by you making the other choices.
> > You are left, by dimensional design, only being aware of a
> > single choice, perceiving that single and limited aspect
> > of awareness as "reality". Because of the dimensional
> > separation and your inability to perceive beyond those
> > limits, you find a "reality" only appearing to experience
> > the repercussions and results of the single choice you made.
> > Yet some aspect of your larger self is learning from,
> > suffering from, celebrating, regretting, etc... and
> > experiencing them all, at once. The other dimensional
> > realities may even influence future choices, and feelings,
> > and all the aspects of what you experience within the single
> > dimension your mind perceives as real, trapped within the
> > perceptual awareness limited by the structure of the universe.
> Hi Bob:
> Long time no see.
> this message caught my eye because I have a view on this subject.
> the idea that choices not made create an alternate reality does not
> appeal to me. The idea of alternate realities does not either.
> My view is this, and anyone can feel free to challenge it.
> The mental scape and inner thoughts do not constitute reality. In fact
> the mental world is exactly why the sages have written about reality,
> to get people to stop being caught up in their life as if it were real
> rather than a set of beliefs and misconceptions.
> for instance:
> If I get mad at my neighbor because of a property line dispute and
> decide to get my pistol and go settle it texas style by going over and
> have a few words that end in a fight, then my mental scape is just
> that would be my world, full of choices made and not made.
> But reality, (Prakriti), would be more like this:
> A man (me) grabs a hunk of metal and walks across a portion of land
> and fights another man (neighbor).
> No reasons or other thoughts in my head exist anywhere else or at any
> time other than when I am thinking them.
> Bobby G.
>I differ very much from your view. Sages have enquired onto the
>nature of mind because they knew that any point of view (subjective
>or objective) is relative, so they enquired onto the roots of mind to
>find out what reality is about.
Hi Maria Luisa:
I appreciate your point of view. I agree that the sages inquired into
the roots of mind to know reality.
>After their enquiry, and in some
>cases only, they applied themselves to communicate their findings,
for they found the benefits of understanding this issues and felt
>like sharing them for the sake of others who suffered their personal
>stories in the ignorance of their true nature.
I think this is true also. Except that I think they responded to
to relate the info rather than had an agenda themselves.
>Something isn´t more real just because there aren´t interpretations,
>emotions, or psychic motivations involved.
>The true nature of reality is that Consciousness is what you are,
If reality=consciousness, and
I am reality.
>the awareness of these events, allowing even different and infinite
>possible points of view about them, but it, itself, does not move an
inch, nor does it ever change.
>Whatever that can be seen from different angles is an object of
>perception. In this example you are placing, the fight is an object
>of perception. It is a reflection in consciousness, not reality, even
>if you see it objectively. The fight is in itself a thought as
>impermanent as any other thought. It is real, as real as pain or
anger, but there is no consistence in sustaining that it constitutes
>reality on the basis that it can be observed in a dispassionate way.
I follow you. I am not of the opinion that an objective point of
view is reality. My story was to point out that there is an
or unseen nature, which can be called prakriti. I, as consciousness,
am of that nature. the story I make up about property lines and reasons
for fighting are unreal by comparison to that.
>Stories are stories, more or less real, but do not constitute
>reality. Stories depend on a sequence of perceptions we call events.
Then by the tool of memory which is as well sustained in
>consciousness, a chain is created which we call a story. Reality is
>that the story is possible because there is awareness of these
>perceptions. That is the nature of reality. And you are that.
the set of
ideas and descriptions that make up my world are a story known
only to me.
Everyone has a 'world'.
If one assumes that the undifferentiated world ground,
Prakriti (nature), is in their world then they make an error of
Physicists, of all people should not make that mistake.