Johnny5

@Gesundheit So, what?

? ♥️?? @purerogue Thank you, much appreciated ?

@Shmurda Perfectly natural and valid phase. You may or may not be able to skip it. I sure as shit didn't... Good to be aware of it not being a totally one-sided development. And both sides are allowed to co-exist simultaneously (i.e. beware the trap of trying to repress one in favor of the other). When it's time to drop, you'll know.

@Leo Gura same thing ^^^^^ Rainbow = appearance Prism = consciousness (sorry @Nahm, too good to pass up)

@Someone here What I mean is that there's more going on with a conversation like this than just the speaking. @Dodo As usual, I'm not trying to prove the true, but to negate the false.

@Dodo @Someone here Content vs. structure.

Just the reification of appearances, which is what the mind does. That's the duality, and that's what I'm negating. Never said I was. No, that's you reifying it.

@Dodo If Leo happens to be wrong about something (or if you misinterpreted something he said), what's at stake for you?

Don't think that it's not possible to be mistaken in what you "take back" from a psychedelic trip. Happens all the time, if you haven't noticed.

Yes, but only everything that actually exists. Marlon Brando is not actually The Godfather. It's just Marlon Brando. There's no duality there, only Brando exists. Godfather is just Brando pretending. That doesn't validate the existence of The Godfather one iota, and it's not a duality or distinction that needs "collapsing" or reconciling one way or another. There never was a godfather, it was always just Marlon Brando pretending. Godfather is pure fabrication. The movie on a videotape is just videotape. There is no movie other than the videotape. No duality, no need to reconcile them. The videotape exists, the movie doesn't, except as a facade of the videotape. The movie is pure fabrication, can't possibly exist in its own right, and is thereby proof of the videotape even if nobody in the movie ever "experienced" the video tape. Nonduality refers to the videotape, not the movie. At most you could say that the movie is an expression of the videotape, and as such included in the nondual nature of the videotape. If appearance is anything, it's consciousness pretending. Sort of. Form is formless pretending. They are not identical in truth, one is a facade of the other, and only the other exists so no need to reconcile them. Relativity is the absolute pretending. Still no duality, still no actual relativity. It was always just the absolute pretending. Sort of. The absolute never actually does anything, it just imagines to be doing everything. Still no duality, still no need to reconcile. Only the absolute exists, relativity never did. Reality is not a strange loop, it only appears as a strange loop. Strange loop is the facade. Infinite regression is not the same as actual infinity. The former can't exist, the latter must exist. A strange loop is infinite regression. Relativity is infinite regression. Two hands drawing eachother is infinite regression. Escher's stairs are infinite regression. Duality is infinite regression. Infinite regression is not absolute, it is impossible. Infinity is absolute and necessary. Come on it's not that difficult... ?

Pretty much Yup Yessir Actually it is everyone's current experience all the time... but sure, I get what you're saying. And of course that's also what the biggest normie in town would say. So if that's good enough for them then I guess it's good enough for you? I mean, your call of course... Not really though Okay

Say that three times really fast! Seems vaguely familiar.... ? ?

For what? Truth? Or practical matters? Those are two very different things. Practical matters (and we) exist only in illusion. That's why this is a significant point to make. If you are looking for truth, it's good to know that you'll never find it here.

"Nothing" is just what we call the absence of phenomena. Phenomena being perception. In this sense you could consider consciousness the noumenal, as opposed to the phenomenal. In other words the "source" or "cause" of perception, rather than perception itself. The existential status of perception was never at issue, even science and philosophy generally doesn't mistake it for reality (at least in theory). Because that would be what is called "naive realism". Instead, this is identified as "the veil of perception". Which means that perception veils the actual reality underlying it. The only mistake of science and (western) philosophy is that they take perception to be indicative of an objective reality underlying it, in other words they assume the noumenal to be "out there", behind perception as it were. But really, perception is only indicative of consciousness, the noumenal "in here", prior to perception. Prior to perception... In the same way that a mirror is prior to any image in it. And in that same way, the mirror is reality, the image is not. That's not a duality, the mirror is what's nondual. Appearances don't factor into this equation one way or another, except as proof of the existence of consciousness. In the same way that any image in a mirror is proof of the existence of the mirror. The only significance of the image itself is that it is proof of the only thing that actually exists, i.e. the mirror. That's it. Nothing more. But since you can't see the mirror itself, we call it "nothing". When actually it's the only thing that exists, and the image is just a trick of light. When you say "everything", you are refering to the trick of light, which in truth is nothing. When you say "nothing", you are referring to the mirror, which in truth is the only thing that exists. You can't reconcile the image with the mirror, and it makes no sense to try. There's no need. The image in itself has no relevance whatsoever. So when you say perception is consciousness, you're saying the image is the mirror. In a way, yes, but not in the way you think. Only the mirror exists, and there is no image other than the mirror. But that doesn't ever make the image identical to the mirror. Nor self-created, nor self-perceived, nor self-reflected. And certainly not absolute.

My point. It's not about the word games.

+1 I'm sure I'll stop indulging some day... Unsure...

No, we initially make it up with language and then argue about its existential status. What's the existential status of something that we just made up ourselves... can you guess? Here's the deal: The existential status of relativity is that it's a complete fabrication. There is no such thing, it's simply not possible. Strange loops are not possible... Wait what? Yeah that's right! Strange loops are not possible, what a novel concept! ? Holy shit I just fell out of my chair. Are you saying strange loops are impossible? Fuck yeah that's what I'm saying. What, you didn't know? Can God be so all-powerful that it creates itself? No of course not! Shit, does this really need explaining? It doesn't matter how powerful anyone or anything is, it can't do anything whatsoever if it doesn't already exist. How does a clever little bullshit "paradox" like absolute = relative even make it through the filters??? Is that what passes for "open mindedness" these days?

Right, because as we all know, the absolute comes and goes and changes in time..... ?

Whatever is, is absolute. Relativity isn't. They are not identical, one exists the other does not. There is no distinction because relativity doesn't exist, so no distinction comes up in the first place. The whole point I'm trying to make is that you can't reconcile truth with appearance. And there's no need because appearance is nothing more than appearance. There is nothing actual about it. There isn't even anything making an appearance, there's just the appearance of something where there's actually nothing. But hey I've only been arguing this point with Leo for close to 5 years. Nobody is obliged to go all the way, I don't even know that I will. But I'm not the one with the website and the business. Maybe someone on here wants to hear this, I don't know. Either way I said it. FWIW. You live and breathe dualities, might as well use them productively. The only reason to talk about appearance is because you're stuck with it. Doesn't mean there's really anything to say about it,, except that if you want to wake up then you might want to stop mistaking it for reality. ?‍♂️

No, it really isn't... What do you even base that on? Brahman is awareness without form, Atman is form and alll form is a mirage. When you see everything as yourself, that's Atman, and that's still a step removed from truth. Yes Atman is the self and unifies those three states. Brahman is no-self, and for Brahman there are no states. No! That's the whole point Atman = THIS Brahman = Not even...

There is no "everything"..., Your mind is trying to reconcile appearance with "the absolute". The mirage with the desert. The image with the mirror. It's nothing more than a flickering of light, nothing ever actually happened here. That's not a duality, only the mirror/desert/absolute actually exists. @Fran11 +1

@Nahm There is no Phil to be in the blank..... /sigh

Careful not to reify qualia as self-existing. They don't. If everything were self-perceiving, then the absence of everything could never be perceived. If you suddenly became blind or deaf, you wouldn't even know it. And there would be no reports of nothingness or "the void". The union of perceiver-perception-perceived is the dream as such, not truth and not absolute. It is Atman (I Am), not Brahman (Void). Atman is self, Brahman is no-self. There is no "everything" in any way shape or form. Brahman exists, Atman is a mirage, a "thought" of Brahman. A mirage can't be self-perceiving, there's nothing really there.

Yep!

Haven't you heard? Beauty is an absolute... Can't wait to find out how many more absolutes there are.