Immaterialism 5

First topic message reminder :

This is the continuation of the Immaterialism 4 thread.......

The original topic reminder post https://openmindsforum.forumotion.com/t320-immaterialism
should be substituted here......

............

I know you are likely afraid.

That’s why you argue with your self.

Let fear go.

Let what you know go.

Just be here open and wide eyed.

Don’t abstract the real, be real.

That’s all of it.

Just breathe.

Be with your breath.

The Way is relaxed and follows the breath and flow of water.

The Tao is a Watercourse Way.

I do not worry my self about prophecy, the future is now.

I practice living every day.

Living light and relaxed.

The mind wants to abstract and distract us from what is always real and here now.

Don’t let it.

Don’t try, just drop the distractions.

Now
Now
Now

Aaron wrote:Hehehe

This is amusing.

I'm just enjoying the pretenders show.



The way is with and without words.

The way is the way.

The play is the play.

The pretenders show is just beginning.

Take a listen starting around 1:26:53

There is a good old Yorkshire saying .
pot calling kettle black.

That's You who wants Me to remain silent in their presence.

hobbit

That was GRANDCRU, I said GRANDCRU and who said I wasn't to mention Him/Her??? in any further posts, that's GRANDCRU  who then declared I was "a disinfo troll"


Pot calling kettle black.


Those who shout loudly and call others this and that, show their reflection clearly.


Hobbit

Those who judge are always reflecting themselves.

Those who judge have no voice left to sing.

http://www.parareligion.ch/dplanet/staley/staley5.htm

Discussing this article with a certain Smelly Goat appearance.

Some points to note...

“At this point it is instructive to compare the picture we have arrived at with traditions such as Advaita Vedanta, Taoism, Mahayana Buddhism and the like. It is axiomatic to these traditions that the universe is really beyond description - because language is based on dualistic concepts, and hence incapable of giving adequate expression to anything not itself dualistic. This is not to condemn language as erroneous or inadequate; it is a very useful tool, but has its limitations. ”

“The most that can be hoped for is that language be used as a pointer. In other words, although reality is non-dual, yet in the first instance an admittedly dualistic language structure must be used as an early stage of its transcendence. Admittedly, this early stage entails replacing one concept with another; and since all concepts are false this might seem distinctly odd, not to say futile. Yet, by evolving a chain of imagery that seems to lead in a certain direction, the hope is that intuition will fathom what cannot be expressed in language. ”

“This process can only be taken so far, however, and is limited. The idea is not to point at some non-dualist “Truth”, however vaguely, but rather to demonstrate the futility and emptiness of dualism. ”

“If it is not realised that all of the so-called opposites or dualities are relative rather than real, conceptual rather than actual, then “the chain of imagery” will in fact be circular. This is because, no matter how subtly the language is stretched, it remains dualist - and subtle dualism is just as bad as the more common-or-garden variety - more so, in fact, since the practitioner thinks he is getting somewhere. ”

Hmm...

So we think we are getting somewhere but we are fooled by our own projected illusion.

Nowhere to go but here now...

Death is a lie

Birth is a lie

Only goat burps are real.



Catch up Muppets, the truth is obvious...

Aaron,

Nice post..

Thanks for this

My pleasure.

I believe that I just knew Jonathan had something to teach me

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgkk0Hdwmo8&index=8&list=PLzjKwUpIdWFEwsRkTQcbVWECY9D4KsBJn

“We have come some way, in that we have reduced supposed dualism to the One Substance, the Whole. This, however, is not enough: a further refinement is necessary. We have been using the term “one” or monism only in contrast to “two” or dualism. This is itself, of course, a duality - and hence, as we have seen, purely conceptual. Since there is no multitude, then neither is there the contrast of “one”. The fact is, that the universe is no more One than Two.

We can go on and on with this process of apparently resolving a duality, only to discover that the supposed resolution or abolition itself leads to another duality. The reason for this is that our intellect, our reason, is firmly embedded in the concept of dualism. Every thought is born out of dualistic concepts and is thus inherently untrue, given our conclusion that dualism is supposed rather than actual. Simply, everything that we can say about the universe is essentially untrue, a lie! We seem to be up against a brick wall here. If our intellectual processes are inherently dualistic, if whatever we could say about the universe is untrue, then should we not give up the struggle, ungird our loins, and despair?”

There is no need to despair my fellow muppets.

In truth, this realization that words and reason fall short of the actual is a relief.

Now we can go beyond logic and duality, and cross over to the other shore of direct intuitive insight.

Just sit back and enjoy the ride.

The spirit of truth is not what you say but how you say it.

Wu Wei

Lose yourself bitches!

What it’s like to walk among the dualistic UFO MAGA muppets.

Smelly is just a socialist muppet.



No better than the MAGA muppets except he thinks he has a heart.

Bwahahaha

Lose yourself bitches!

https://youtu.be/i2EioursdXc

Mom's Spaghetti!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YyBtMxZgQs

Thank you, Aaron, for the Reference to Michael Staley’s Going Beyond.  

Michael’s piece rather succinctly pigeon holes our own dear little smelly.  

It points to, but does not explicitly mention, the essential flaw in Advaita.  

In a backhanded way it points to the simple fact that, without a self, there is nothing.  

This was also the Cartesian Cogito, but, yes, Descartes used his Cogito as the royal path to dualism.  

Here is another way to look at the issue........

The Advaitist would say, in effect, that without an object, there can be no subject, and then proceeds to deconstruct objects.  

Ergo..... no objects, no self.  

My little trick, which smelly cannot grok, but which Aaron is warming to, is to take the Advaita and turn it around and upside down.  

Advaita........ I am that.  

Prophetic.......... I am that I am.  

Yes, it is true that Atman = Brahman.  

But what is Brahman?  In Advaita, Brahman is simply the Infinite.  

No, saith chicken little....... Brahman = I am that I am.

smelly doesn’t get it.  Aaron is onto it.

So, finally, why is there something rather than nothing?  

It must have something to do with the I Am.

The I Am is the bootstrap of existence.  

That bootstrap was incarnated by the j-man, who foresaw a -j & j2.

On occasion I claim to be both, along with 4m/k.  

I would be the seal of the prophets....... end of story...... if folks could understand the resolution to the I Am problem.  

In physics, bootstrap theory, as almost everything else goes back to John Wheeler. John understood that there might be, perhaps must be, something tautological about physics.

Geoffrey Chew was the last proponent of this S-Matrix bootstrap, until he abandoned it.

Ok, then, let me revive it, following John.....

John’s partipatory universe, leads us to Owen’s final participation.

Yes, the quantum bootstrap necessarily includes a subject.

But astronomers, observing the vast universe despair of an I Am, and so they substitute a Big Bang.


(cont........)

dan / when you reference the concept nothing. do you mean materialist nothing ? or do you imply the no awareness ,material ,spirit or otherwise ?

Doug,

When I say nothing......... I mean Nothing....... zilch, nada, nicht, etc........

...... Why is the something rather than NOTHING?

Comprene?


(cont......)

It is I who is moving Dan, I am Tao.

Who do you think gave Aaron the article Dan.

No-thing is full potential.

I am this and that.

Catch up.

dan / one would need awareness to ponder the concept

Doug,

Exactly!

There can’t even be nothing without a subject!


Naturally, scientists are reluctant to postulate a primordial subject.  

Thus do we have the Big Bang...... how better to sweep philosophy under the rug.  

Personalism stands scientistism on its head.  

The next point is just realizing that there can’t just be one person.  

Persons are essentially social....... the I Am necessarily entails a social bootstrap.  

And what is a society to do, but play games with itself, and thus the Mayan Pokatok.  

Where are these games occurring.  In the Yucatán?  

No, they are occurring in the collective consciousness/unconsciousness of the trinity, if you will...... somewhere down the cosmic rabbit hole/holodeck that we now call the Earth......... the Sun and sky?   Those are left as exercises for the reader.  


1:45........

smelly,

You should have read your own article.  

Have we pulled the rabbit out of the hole....... gotten something from nothing?  

No.  As Doug pointed out, you can’t have nothing without something.  

But what something?  

It had to be the best possible something...... for someone.  

Why?  Because this is our dream of Eternity.  This is our microcosm.  What else would we have pulled out of the hat of Eternity?  

And, yes, we are all still pulling...... but our very best efforts are somehow residual...... just don’t ask me how.  


(cont......)

yes dan! now be careful, the EX muppets will be on us any moment.


legend
ex= existentialist

**YAWN**

Catch up muppets.

Getting warmer.

Just breathe.

KEEPING STILL

Looking for nothing in particular,
wholly without ambition,
good-naturedly doing not doing,
you arrive at the center of
yourself and find the
whole universe waiting there.

—Wei Wu Wei - One fine tin pot

Ok, smelly,

The only difference between me and you is the historians who will have to pin the tail on the donkey, poor guys and gals.

I get two stars........ -j & j2.  

Which stars do you get?  

Let me think.........

How about the Maitreya star?

Or we could just agree to share. You like to share...... don’t you, smelly?



(cont......)