Johnny5

Who knows, maybe there are two nondualities (btw I'm sure everyone has a different "view" on it, but no view is "it")

Hope they got nothing burgers for lunch!

?

I gotta get me one of those shirts...

Come on don't leave it hangin'....

@Javfly33 Imagine any possible answer that you might be given or that you might want to hear. Would any of them be in any way helpful or satisfactory? Is there any possibility of an answer that settles it for you?

@roopepa Reality, world and mankind is projections of yourself, i.e. everything literally changes as you change. It's your dream. And it was always going where it's going. Now you're noticing it, that's all.

Actually never mind... Enjoy samadhi ?

Then how is samadhi enlightenment?

So what you were looking for was not truth but samadhi?

@Arzack How is a state of samadhi any more true than any other state?

? awesome Glad to hear, thank you too. ? My crusade was in the "experience is never direct" thread, but it doesn't really explain the relativity thing. The best explanations that I know of are the buddhist "Emptiness" philosophy, and Jed McKenna's book "Theory of Everything". The buddhist philosophy is dry, boring, long-winded and contemplation-heavy, Jed's books are easy and funny. Also Buddhists generally think their philosophy is the truth, when in my view it's really just a corrective. Another bomb that destroys the universe. But I didn't realize that until after I had read Jed's ToE, chapter Agrippa's Trilemma (that's basically a no-nonsense approach to the same conclusion). Alan Watts is, among other things, an accessible introduction to emptiness and the interdependent origination of duality. David Quinn's version of causality is essentially the same thing, although he makes the same mistake as the buddhists: http://www.naturalthinker.net/dquinn/Books/Wisdom/WisdomContents.htm Greg Goode has books, articles and references about it if you really want to explore the literature and philosophy: https://greg-goode.com/topic/nonduality/ And of course my personal favorite, Jed, who skips all the extraneous mindgames and gets right down to brass tax: https://www.wisefoolpress.com/toe/ Another way of saying bottomless regression, is lack of foundation, or something from nothing. Perhaps the easiest way to get at the impossibility of strange loops (which extends to the impossibility of duality, finiteness, relativity, etc.), is to consider this image that someone else posted recently: When both hands are dependent upon eachother for their own existence, then it's a chicken/egg problem. That's bottomless regression, a.k.a. lack of foundation, a.k.a. something from nothing. And that's also at the core of buddhist emptiness and dependent origination. Neither one of those two hands in the picture could ever come into being without the other, which means that neither of them can exist at all. The key point here is that when you think about it, it's exactly the same with everything else. If you understand why those hands could never exist, then you understand why the universe could never exist. Hence the term "ground of being". When it becomes clear that being is groundless, and that this is an impossibility, you go looking for the ground, i.e. the foundation, i.e. the truth underlying all of reality without which it would be impossible. And the only possible candidate for that is consciousness.

Isn't it lovely that different people have different tastes

You must have missed my recent crusade Strange loops are impossible for the same reason why duality/relativity/finiteness is impossible: Bottomless regression. In other words a strange loop can't actually exist, it can only appear to exist. Same as our shared dream "reality", which is indeed a strange loop, and which is indeed impossible. Everything about the dream is impossible, that's how you know that none of it exists beyond perception. And that's how you know that whatever you perceive is a lie (existentially speaking). Yes it's a kinda obvious and self-evident tautology, just like "truth exists" and "falseness doesn't". Revelations tend to be like that they hit you with something that's only obvious in hindsight, after it clicks in your mind. And even then, the full ramifications often haven't really sunk in yet... Yes, you just answered your own question . Basically the line is between correcting wrong-knowing (contemplation), or constructing wrong-knowing (mental masturbation). The latter never reaches a conclusion because you can keep constructing any artifice you wish endlessly. The former reaches a conclusion when the wrong-knowing is corrected (eliminated). Like the proverbial thorn removing a thorn. Agree, but even so, one has to start somewhere. We always start over our ears in a mountain of mental diarrhea, and the "journey" or "process" is to find a way out. So in a sense it boils down to using the mind against itself.

It's essentially the inversion of Jed McKenna's diamond bullet: "Truth exists." --> Eliminate the false, and only truth remains. If it's false, it's impossible (and v.v.): "Falsehood does not exist." --> Eliminate the impossible, and only the possible remains. Same thing. In short, it's a bomb, if you know how to use it. Set it off and it destroys the universe.

Good thing there's only one possible candidate... ?

It's already neutral to consciousness. It may or may not be neutral to the organism, either way doesn't prove anything.

@Kshantivadin ? ?

? Nothing that exists is impossible. Nothing that's impossible exists.

@Kshantivadin I'll stick with chocolate thank you ? Must be the wisdom of my direct experience...

@dyslexicCnut Glad you liked it, have at it.

?

Yes, definitely and knowably.

@Gesundheit ?