IntuitiveWanderer

Here you are.

A person who has no subjective experience/cosciousness cannot be subject to anything, he can only be an object in another's consciousnes experience. When you say that something is there, you say that you are having an experience of something, therefore if other people did not have an experience of that pod-person then they didn't. When we talk of objective reality, we are thinking and not experiencing reality. There is no such thing as objective reality, only consciousness which is neither objective nor subjective. But you make a good point about the fact that a real object can get you hurt while a hallucination cannot. For example you hurt your nose while bumping in the tree, just as I flew on mars in a dream last night. I didn't flew, it was just experience. Many patterns happened. It is like a fractal system, most likely. I don't have all the answers, a Taoist master would have known. Also, as a side note, neither chairs nor rocks are beings.

Hearsay.

Dude, you just argued that you don't need experience/consciousness in order to exist!

If every conscious being in the universe would cease to exist, would there still be a universe? Or, to put it more bluntly, is experience/consciousness absolutely necesary for existence? And if consciousness is necessary for existence, then it cannot come from matter since there would be no matter without consciousness. Therefore we must conclude that there is in fact objective consciousness. Or actually which is not objective, because that would require subjectivity. It is rather, absolute consciousness beyond duality.

If you were to lose all your ability to have sensory experience and your memory would be wiped clean, would you still exist? Existence IS consciousness, consciousness is the only self-subsistent thing there is. And if there is only consciousness then the material world is a manifestation of it, therefore there is no such thing as matter. Edit: The question may seem kind of strange because some could argue that if I see experience him as existing, then he exists. But just because I sense his presence does not mean that he exists, he would be an object and not a subject. Living beings are not objects and objects are simply phenomena of consciousness, there is no way of telling the difference between a realistic hallucination and a real sight. If I were to have a "full spectrum" hallucination, then it would exist, as a manifestation of consciousness.

If everything is constantly changing then there is only change and no object. Emptiness is form and from is emptiness. Edit: Since matter does not exist, the Tao cannot be material. To review why matter does not exist: 1. because it has no independent existence. 2. because it is always becoming but never is. You think* that there is solidity but that is only because you fluctuate at a slow rate, matter only seems to be, but in fact it never is.

Your argument is overwhelming, I surrender..

But in 24 hours, ok? This is too fun..and I have a predisposition towards social isolation and compusive internet behaviour (no, not that kind of internet behaviour).

It is a false superstition to believe that there is such a thing as objective consciousness, is it not?

If there would have been no earth then this would have not been. The fluctuating pattern that you call your self...would have not existed if anything would have been diferent than it is, since that would have implied different initial conditions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory#Sensitivity_to_initial_conditions

My mother had an uncle who fell off the edge of the Earth, are you saying that my mother is a liar...

Warning, you may experience multiple "eargasms", states of euphoria and, possibly, altered states of consciousness. Thou hast been warned, mortal. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1ll91YBdVE

How do you know that this is a planet or that there are 5 billion individuals? From hearsay. lol But seriously, there is only the Tao, there aren't any individuals in fact because it is all the totality manifesting here and now. Open your eyes man Only consciousness exists, all else is hearsay. Edit: Unless you would argue that all is not interdependent. In that case you need to get informed on the latest scientia. And it is quite logical that everything is interdependent, even without learning ideas. For example: I close my eyes and it is dark therefore I conclude that without my light my eyes cannot function...I see that the sun is the source of light, therefore I conclude that without the sun there would be no sight, I also conclude that without sight there would be no sun. Or, I block my nose and mouth and notice that I cannot breath because I need air, thus I conclude that lungs cannot function without air...I find out that oxygen is formed by plants through photosynthesys ( which itself involves many other factors) therefore I conclude that without vegetation there would be no breathing, and, ultimately, without breathing there would be no vegetation. In this way, we can conclude that form is emptiness, emptiness is form. Therefore there is, only consciousness. http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/mzb/oxherd.htm

Dis proves nothing....

How could there be free will if Will is of only one source?

Like the candle stick which melts in searing heat so do all thaw in the everflowing infinite.

"There are no facts, only interpretations." - Nietzsche

@manitou I agree with almost everything you said except that I disagree with the term "spiritual evolution", for the following reasons: 1. because it implies that the Will of the Absolute is blind and purposeless and 2. it implies that what is happening is not in perfect synchronization with the whole, as a Calendula in bloom, but is simply random. A more beffiting term would be "Completion", the completion of man. As the great Edmund Burke once said: "Man is not a finished creation." We are moving towards the point in which the finite rejoins with the infinite, towards the completion in a design of delicate nobility and exalted beauty, the most wondrous of works, the culmination of Reason! As the Son embraces the Father through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, thus dost man transcend himself, merging once more with the Divine. Who could oppose such a beautiful ideal? What blind and brutish beast would do violence against this? Only vulgar and abysmally ignorant collectives such as the far right, who use deceptive populist rhetoric in their propaganda, which is aimed specifically at the unthinking masses and naive youths, while in their inner circles they speak of RaHoWa, the "racial holy war", fantasizing of massive bloodshed, in accordance with the 14th chapter of their guidebook, projecting their madness upon the world, in the form of crazed violence. Indeed, only a malicious madman or a foolish peasant who cannot see beyond the length of his nose would stand in oposition to the ideal of fair proportion and holistic harmony, the ideal of Completion. If one is sincere, then everything is clear. History follows the logical path toward its conclusion.... Rta. "I, that am curtailed of this fair proportion, Cheated of feature by dissembling nature, Deformed, unfinished, sent before my time Into this breathing world, scarce half made up, And that so lamely and unfashionable That dogs bark at me as I halt by them— Why, I, in this weak piping time of peace, Have no delight to pass away the time, Unless to see my shadow in the sun And descant on mine own deformity." - William Shakespeare, Richard iii: Act 1, Scene 1 ...just wanted to get this off my chest.

Hello, I am a young adult male, originally from eastern Europe, and I am interested in the truth. I appologize in anticipation for the strangeness of my expression, due to English not being my first language. I will first give a very minimal summary of how I got to the point of joining a forum which deals with the topic of Taoism in particular and Eastern philosophy in general. So, after discovering Alan Watts 3 years ago, I became very intersted in eastern philosophy, especially Zen. But after having read Alan Watts's biography by M. Furlong, I realized that he was actually (shockingly for a man so knowledgeable and eloquent) ignorant of the truth because he led a life composed of substantial vices and immorality. Thus, in a foolishly reactionary manner, I had abandoned all interest, particularly in eastern philosophy, and ontology, religion, mysticism in general. This has been the case until a few months ago when, upon realizing how deeply repulsive the idiotic ignorance and the materialist philosophy on which the modern and post-modern world is based really is, I decided to initiate my journey anew. I have very superficially looked over western philosophies and religions (such as christianity, stoicism, neo-platonism), but, in my personal opinion, they are definitely lacking that wonderful breadth of insight, clarity and "philosophical completion" which I had formerly witnessed in the presentations of Alan Watts, so I have decided to take up eastern philosophies once more, particularly Hinduism instead of Zen, for the simple reason that Hindu philosophy is much more broadly developed and richer in its philosophical disertations than Zen and also because Hinduism is more profoundly religious, and thus it also has a more authoritative stance on morality. We need a sense of the Sacred. Some may ask why I joined a forum which is primarily about Taoism instead of joining a forum which is specialized on Hinduism. The answer would be that, firstly, I like the feel of this forum, secondly, I am not here for academic purposes, I am interested in following the way of Truth as undoubtedly valuable in itself. So, hello to everyone once more.