Bliss Is Not A (Specific) Feeling

[Hyperion]

Just now, Wilhelm44 said:

But when the movie is done, the screen is as it always was.

There is no such thing as a screen that "renains" after the movie is "done". Screen and movie are two sides of the same coin; one cannot exist without the other.

3 minutes ago, Wilhelm44 said:

Ultimately the Absolute is not affected by the world of relative change.

The Absolute is the world of relative change, and it is also the world of relative changelessness.

[Wilhelm44]

5 minutes ago, Hyperion said:

The Absolute is the world of relative change, and it is also the world of relative changelessness.

Okay man, we can keep going in circles forever.

The point is that the world of relative change does not cause any permanent/actual change in the Absolute.

Because this would imply that God could be destroyed by his own creation.

Edited 9 hours ago by Wilhelm44

[Mellowmarsh]

15 minutes ago, Hyperion said:

The screen changes its appearance depending on what movie it shows, doesn't it?

No, the screen never changes. It never appears. Only the movie’s change or appear. The movie’s cannot change if the screen wasn’t motionless. . the tv screen doesn’t change its appearance, it doesn’t move, it’s always the motionless, unchanging backdrop on which all movement happens.
 

The screen is never seen, the screen is only known in relation to the movements appearing on it. When there’s no movement appearing on the screen, the screen remains ever motionless. The screen never moves or appears, it’s always there, while the images come and go. The screen doesn’t come and go. 

[Hyperion]

22 minutes ago, Wilhelm44 said:

Okay man, we can keep going in circles forever.

We certainly can.

22 minutes ago, Wilhelm44 said:

The point is that the world of relative change does not cause any permanent/actual change in the Absolute.

That's relatively (un)true.

22 minutes ago, Wilhelm44 said:

Because this would imply that God could be destroyed by his own creation.

See, you have been conditioned by religion and/or spirituality to believe that there is something that is "real"/unchanging which creates and exists independently from something which is "unreal"/changing, seemingly not realizing that this is nothing but a conceptual model of reality, not reality itself.

Don't mistake the finger that points the moon for the moon itself, my friend.

 

Edited 9 hours ago by Hyperion

[Hyperion]

10 minutes ago, Mellowmarsh said:

No, the screen never changes. It never appears. Only the movie’s change or appear. The movie’s cannot change if the screen wasn’t motionless. . the tv screen doesn’t change its appearance, it doesn’t move, it’s always the motionless, unchanging backdrop on which all movement happens.
 

The screen is never seen, the screen is only known in relation to the movements appearing on it. When there’s no movement appearing on the screen, the screen remains ever motionless. The screen never moves or appears, it’s always there, while the images come and go. The screen doesn’t come and go. 

Sure, that's relatively (un)true.

[Mellowmarsh]

Just now, Hyperion said:

Sure, that's relatively (un)true.

SO

[Mellowmarsh]

8 minutes ago, Hyperion said:

We certainly can.

That's relatively (un)true.

See, you have been conditioned by religion and/or spirituality to believe that there is something that is "real"/unchanging which creates and exists independently from something which is "unreal"/changing, seemingly not realizing that this is nothing but a conceptual model of reality, not reality itself.

Don't mistake the finger that points the moon for the moon itself, my friend.

 

How many rotations are there to this relative un/true story, exactly? Does the ever spinning record ever break, can the record break its own record?

Or does it just keep grooving deeper and deeper without reaching a bottom. 

[Mellowmarsh]

@Hyperion Your theory is pointless. You never had one, and will, now or ever have one.
 

 

Edited 8 hours ago by Mellowmarsh

[Hyperion]

25 minutes ago, Mellowmarsh said:

How many rotations are there to this relative un/true story, exactly? Does the ever spinning record ever break, can the record break its own record?

Or does it just keep grooving deeper and deeper without reaching a bottom. 

 

20 minutes ago, Mellowmarsh said:

@Hyperion Your theory is pointless. You never had one, and will, now or ever have one.

I love you too, cupcake. 😘

[Mellowmarsh]

7 minutes ago, Hyperion said:

love you too, cupcake. 😘

Don’t include the I 

Theres no need to include what’s already inclusive enough. You’re welcome, enough now.

[Wilhelm44]

1 hour ago, Hyperion said:

We certainly can.

That's relatively (un)true.

See, you have been conditioned by religion and/or spirituality to believe that there is something that is "real"/unchanging which creates and exists independently from something which is "unreal"/changing, seemingly not realizing that this is nothing but a conceptual model of reality, not reality itself.

Don't mistake the finger that points the moon for the moon itself, my friend.

 

You know i said earlier that was just a human analogy to illustrate a point. Point is, there is no such thing as Absolute change. If there were, the Absolute could die just like our bodies.

You're the one who keeps spinning in circles. We get it, words are not the Absolute. 

 

 

Edited 7 hours ago by Wilhelm44

[Wilhelm44]

@Hyperion if i say God is an old man with a beard in the clouds, is that also relatively (un)true, or is that just plain not true ?

[Hyperion]

7 minutes ago, Wilhelm44 said:

Point is, there is no such thing as Absolute change.

There is also no such thing as absolute changelessness. Like all relative opposites, change and changelessness are two sides of the same coin that cannot exist (and be experienced) without each other.

9 minutes ago, Wilhelm44 said:

If there were, the Absolute could die just like our bodies.

Death is simply change of form. And reality (aka. the Absolute which is all there is) changes its form constantly, in each and every moment, from nanosecond to nanosecond.

13 minutes ago, Wilhelm44 said:

You're the one who keeps spinning in circles.

It takes two to tango, my friend. 

[Hyperion]

1 minute ago, Wilhelm44 said:

@Hyperion if i say God is an old man with a beard in the clouds, is that also relatively (un)true, or is that just plain not true ?

Any conceptual story is part of reality, making it relatively (un)true.

[Wilhelm44]

@Hyperion  The Changeless is not the opposite of change. The Changeless is that which has no opposite. Changeless is just another word for the Absolute. Its Changeless because nothing affects it.

[Hyperion]

3 minutes ago, Wilhelm44 said:

@Hyperion  The Changeless is not the opposite of change. The Changeless is that which has no opposite. Changeless is just another word for the Absolute. Its Changeless because nothing affects it.

If you say so, then I guess it must be relatively (un)true.

To me it makes little sense to say that "not XYZ" is not the opposite of "XYZ", but hey... whatever floats your boat.

[Mellowmarsh]

10 minutes ago, Wilhelm44 said:

@Hyperion  The Changeless is not the opposite of change. The Changeless is that which has no opposite. Changeless is just another word for the Absolute. Its Changeless because nothing affects it.

Yes, so you can’t know the absolute, because you are the absolute. You are the noumenal phenomenonal.

Knowledge is relative to the observer specific to a limited frame of reference. Omnipotence is absurdism within a limited reference frame. The relative cannot know or touch the Absolute because it is it, no more than two sides of the same coin ever see each other or touch each other because they are both one.

 

 

[Wilhelm44]

16 minutes ago, Hyperion said:

To me it makes little sense to say that "not XYZ" is not the opposite of "XYZ", but hey... whatever floats your boat

“That which is changeless and unaffected by the passing of time, which remains the same in the past, present, and future, is the Absolute Reality.”
— Adi Shankaracharya

“The world changes, but the Self remains changeless. The body is born and dies, but the Self is unborn and immortal.”
— Ramana Maharshi

[Wilhelm44]

1 minute ago, Mellowmarsh said:

Yes, so you can’t know the absolute, because you are the absolute. You are the noumenal phenomenonal.

Knowledge is relative to the observer specific to a limited frame of reference. Omnipotence is absurdism within a limited reference frame. The relative cannot know or touch the Absolute because it is it, no more than two sides of the same coin ever see each other or touch each other because they are both one.

 

 

Everything you say is relatively (un)true 

[Mellowmarsh]

Just now, Wilhelm44 said:

Everything you say is relatively (un)true 

LoL

 

That’s why the non conceptual can’t be conceptualised. 😜 Because a concept has no concept of a none existing concept. 😂