Absolute Truth Contradiction (?)

[Natasha Tori Maru]

@Joshe so to understand @Sincerity you might have to ask him for his definition. Before slapping yours on him.

13 minutes ago, theleelajoker said:

NOBODY TRULY KNOWS WTF HE/SHE IS TALKING ABOUT.

Yo 🫠🫠🫠🫠

[Sincerity]

7 hours ago, Joshe said:

People mistake the practice of channeling awareness for expanding.

Thanks for your perspective. What practices expand awareness, according to you? Does self-inquiry channel or expand awareness?

Where did you get the distinction from? Have you validated it in experience?

In my experience, focused contemplation on eg. „what am I?” leads to expanded awareness. After I shift in state (having focused for some time), I can let loose and bask in the glory of self-recognition (expanded awareness). Or go deeper.

Edited 8 hours ago by Sincerity

[Ziran]

2 hours ago, theleelajoker said:

NOBODY TRULY KNOWS WTF HE/SHE IS TALKING ABOUT.

^^ Paradox ^^

If this is true, then:

Nobody truly knows... or not.  It's a nonsensical statement.

[theleelajoker]

2 hours ago, Ziran said:

^^ Paradox ^^

If this is true, then:

Nobody truly knows... or not.  It's a nonsensical statement.

You mean: How can he know that no one knows?

How can he say that nobody can make a claim such as "no individual person can make big metaphysical claims about enlightenment" while as an individual, he makes an generalized statement about others?

Hehe yes that's a valid question 😎

And the answer is simple: others say "it's like this and that". They pretend to have "facts". I have subjective experiences and opinions.

And my opinion: The maximum you can do is say "my experience is....XYZ" and that's about it. Fuck the rest you're just pretending to know to gain some false safety and security in this fluid world  that you're continuously co-creating  and changing 🌎 

Edited 4 hours ago by theleelajoker

[Leo Gura]

5 hours ago, theleelajoker said:

NOBODY TRULY KNOWS WTF HE/SHE IS TALKING ABOUT.

And that's where you're wrong.

[Ziran]

12 minutes ago, theleelajoker said:

You mean: How can he know that no one knows?

 It's essentially the "liar's paradox".  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liar_paradox

If nobody knows, literally nobody, then the author of the assertion is included and is equally clueless.

If the author of the assertion is equally clueless, then the assertion is not an assertion.  It's a coin-toss in disguise.

When an assertion unconditionally asserts unknowing, the assertion is inverted into unconditional ambiguity. 

[Ricard_Perez]

Yeah I see the tension you’re noticing there.

What I’d say to you is the contradiction mostly comes from mixing two different layers of the teaching. Realization of absolute truth doesn’t suddenly turn the human character into a magical god-avatar with powers. The body-mind still functions according to its conditioning, biology, and circumstances. So enlightenment doesn’t mean you suddenly bend reality or spawn miracles on command. But what does tend to shift is identification. When the sense of being a separate self relaxes, the motivations built on lack, fear, and manipulation often weaken naturally. Not because a rule says they must, but because the psychological structure that fed them isn’t being taken as seriously anymore. That’s why compassion or honesty often deepen, they don’t come from moral obligation but from less separation.

The important part for you to see is that enlightenment isn’t about gaining abilities, it’s about seeing through the one who was trying to gain something in the first place. Powers, purification, mystical experiences, all of those are still things appearing within consciousness. Some people might have unusual capacities, most won’t, but none of that is really the point of the realization itself. The deeper shift is simply recognizing what you are prior to the character and its desires. From there the character may still have tendencies, but they’re no longer the center of identity. I appreciate the depth of your question, you’re really thinking carefully about these ideas 😊🙏

[zurew]

4 hours ago, Ziran said:

It's a nonsensical statement.

Its not though, the claim is perfectly intelligible  and the claim can be true irrespective of how justified the author is who asserts the claim.

[theleelajoker]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

And that's where you're wrong.

Amazing how you managed to convince me that I'm wrong.

So eloquently, so sharp and precise, so on point with your undeniable arguments.

Can't believe how impressive that was. I definitely stay corrected. 

You are clearly a special little thing, nobody else knows but with this post you showed me that YOU DEFINITELY KNOW what's going on. 

Edited 2 hours ago by theleelajoker

[Ziran]

1 hour ago, zurew said:

Its not though, the claim is perfectly intelligible  and the claim can be true irrespective of how justified the author is who asserts the claim.

" ... can be true ... " 

Maybe it was intended to be written this way?  Idk

 

Edited 48 minutes ago by Ziran

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, theleelajoker said:

Amazing how you managed to convince me that I'm wrong.

You should know by now that I'm not in the business of convincing people of things.

I point out self-deception. It is your responsibility to follow up on that and correct yourself. If you care about truth.