Wisebaxter

How can the Relative be both true and not true?

26 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

In the episode on the Absolute vs The Relative Leo says first of all that anything relative has to be contained within the absolute so can't 'be' it. For example, if we use terms like big or small, that's always a comparison. But then later in the episode he explains that the relative is all there is...that there are no more layers to reality than what you see. What am I missing here? Other than direct experience probably lol. I can see how this experience right now has to be ultimate truth, and how the relative is the only layer, so then are you just experiencing the absolute anyway when experiencing the relative? In which case how is an enlightened person different from a normie? 

Edited by Wisebaxter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Wisebaxter said:

 In which case how is an enlightened person different from a normie?

They aren't. 

The normie is already enlightened. He's just not recognizing it. 


I live my life in a dream; the constant threat of a rude awakening keeps me on my toes.
-Mettley Zimmer

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think about the absolute as the sea. And then think about the wave you want to catch because you like surfing let's say. The wave emerge from the sea. But sea doesn't emerge out of the wave. They are one, but simultaneously separate in a relative notion so to speak. When you catch a wave and ride it out. As it appeared on the surface of the sea, it also merge back in the sea without ever having left the sea. The wave never existed on it's own as something separate as a wave. It was the sea all along. And yet, you can paradoxically compare and choose what wave you like to surf as they come and go.


The absolute truth of thought dwells in it's own absence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because yes. (and no) 

 

Jk I dunno


My Imagination is a Monastery and I am its Monk- John Keats

 Join me and SirVladimir for a collection of short stories, guided visualizations, and other forms of lucid/immersive daydreaming. MindVenture Facebook group  (this is not a meetup, merely a mutual interest in lucid daydreaming) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Wisebaxter

Well yes there is only one layer, the Absolute Relativity. It is the feild of conciousness that unifies everything as the Real. It just that the mind likes to categorize and make distinctions onto things, but really there is no distinction, we just make distinctions in order to get things done in the dance of life & it is easy to get caught up in them. Which is to say get caught up in maya, the relative, not seeing it as the Absolute, suffering beliving you are separate from God's Love. 

The difference is an enlightened being is surrendered to the truth that is always so, the truth of being no one, or being the Oneness that is Everything. That surrendering is the alignment of your will with God's will, in essence, realizing yourself as God, the end of suffering, flow with the Universe as the Universe. 


The how is what you build, the why is in your heart. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I understand that relative is within our relative mode of being, absolute is in our absolute mode of being; It is like difference between  phenomena (φαινόμενον) and noumena (νoούμενον) in history of philosophy (their ancient meaning is here a little more important than kantian); phenomena was often considered as relative metaphysically and epistemicaly, noumena was reality as truth itself; these terms (noumena-phenomena) are even more close to Leos use (absolute-relative) within platonic context; becouse nomenon is truth itself grasped in special kind of cognition (by nous - higher part of reason - absolute mode, especially henosis) and is more "spirituall" in kind, on the other hand phenomena were grasped by senses and lower part of reason (relative mode). It is very intersting that Leo by his independent research comes to simmiliar things, that his resultes coroborate with some ancient stuff.

 

Edited by rls2020

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're interpreting Leo's words too loosely. (i.e. Nowhere does he equate the immediate experience "layer" with the "relative".)

The video in question is one of the most lucid and advanced videos from the past few months. To be frank, it's very hard to understand every statement Leo makes in the video, and he makes some advanced points that will most likely completely go over your head.

The "Absolute" and the "relative" need to be clearly distinguished. Moreover, it must also be seen that this distinction in reality is superficial and substance-less.

Unfortunately, this is not a logic course. You cannot ask the forums, "What am I missing here?", and expect someone to clarify the issue formally and completely.

 

It's only very recently, after I briefly took the time to learn some formal logic myself, that I realized a lot of Leo's manner of discourse comes directly from his background in formal philosophy. He points out logical fallacies like "straw man" and "begging the question", which actually for years I didn't understand a word of.

In my opinion, I don't think these ideas from formal logic and argumentation are the most applicable (beyond a very basic level), in the context of what Leo teaches.

Most humanly fabricated arguments about "reality" are inductive arguments. This is an argument which argues that its conclusion is probable.

An inductive argument, however, says nothing directly about what is true. In fact, formally speaking, an argument in the first place, cannot be evaluated as "True" or "False", but rather only as "valid" or "invalid". An argument's conclusion can be evaluated as "True" or "False", but this evaluation is independent of its premises and indeed of the whole argument.

For instance, scientific consensus is usually viewed as valid support for an inductive argument. However, we know from "history", that scientific consensus can be false. Does this invalidate all arguments which use scientific consensus as support? No, because the arguments are inductive.

Are these inductive arguments relevant if your only interest is the truth and nothing else? In a sense, no.

The whole endeavor of logical reasoning is in a sense intended to bring you "closer" to the truth and avoid unnecessary folly.

This is a distinct endeavor from discovering the truth directly and as-is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The irony is all of formal logic is in some sense, predicated upon what is written being "True".

When, there is in fact nothing more "false" than conceptual symbols.

You might call it the very definition of falsehood.

Just know that everything is upside-down, downside-up, leftside-right, and rightside-left, and you'll unironically have good footing on the path.

The east wall beats on the west wall. They were dancing all along.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Well me and the world. This glass of water relative to table. I don’t know. 

Could be. 

Time for some rock 'en rolla. 

Nah have to postpone it. 

Edited by Zeroguy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Shruged off this cultish nonsense thankfully Connor Murphy is God.

Wishing you all the best. 

Sit in lap guys and ask for help. 

Thankfully you don't have to kiss his legs. But you get sthg better. 

Edited by Zeroguy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Zeroguy said:

Sit in lap guys and ask for help. 

I want to ask Santa for a red ryder BB gun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, OneHandClap said:

I want to ask Santa for a red ryder BB gun

OK. Good choice. 

Winds of change. 

 

 

 

3 minutes ago, OneHandClap said:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The absolute is what is actual, it is this right now.

This right now is absolute infinity. Once it gets recognized as such, 'you' awaken to the fact that 'the one who' recognized it as such is in fact... itself. Not a conscious human/person/individual, but Consciousness itself/God. 'It' can also experience itself from the 'meaning glasses' of *thinking it's a person inside a universe* in the relative domain. Since God is Absolute Infinity, there is no authority external to itself to limit God's Will & power. You're all-powerful. Always.

Since the absolute is not something other than this right now, You are omnipresent, all-knowing & 'akasha' itself. The Source of all 'relative truths'. The Truth.

Consciousness has full access to infinite ways of experiencing itself. There is no limit. This means that any meaning can be manifested, God can will anything into existence, it can make 'life' mean anything. But where does anything come from? It does not come from somewhere else, which is why any 'relative domain' is actually The Absolute too. There is nothing else but the Absolute. 

But God is everything and no thing 'at the same time'.

And there is no past, there is no future. 

There is just this. Now. The eternal now. No beginning no end.

It has to include any 'relative dimensions of experience'.

God is free to 'dance' to any 'tune' it wants for eternity.

All-powerful Love. Oh bliss, so much love. So much love. 

Infinite love 💚

 

Edited by Anahata

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Infinite Love. Nah been there done that. Time to restart dream for.... well life after life forever. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Zeroguy said:

Ok my black lady. Go drink some water. We get it. 

Where is the sink? I have many bowls to wash. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's all Love. No it's not. 

Hahahahahahahahaha 

Have no idea. Learning here. 

ransom serb Lalalala. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Just now, Zeroguy said:

It's all Love. No it's not. 

Hahahahahahahahaha 

Have no idea. Learning here. 

ransom serb Lalalala. 

 

Regarding some terms I see you using sometimes, to avoid getting lost in concepts and mental constructs, awareness 'should' not be referred to by using words such as "darkness" "blackness" "the light" etc. 

By using such terms you are implicitly assuming Consciousness to have some sort of quality which is reductionistic and misleading. Consciousness 'has' all qualitities and no quality at all. Boundless. Formless & form = same 

I suggest doing the work and going deeper within infinity, the Love You Are cannot be mistaken for anything else. 

But remember, the map is not the territory. 

Once you get it you get it.

There will be no room for doubt regarding Consciousness being Infinite Love once you awaken to it. The absolute.

Only direct experience will do, not trying to grasp it at the level of concept. I recommend doing some consciousness work for now. 

God bless

 

Edited by Anahata

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now