that's the key question i think. what do we mean by real and
when the ancients used the terms unreal and illusion, did they mean
that things didn't exist at all or were they pointing to the designed
nature of the programming that kept changing?
Unreal/illusion,.........that which needs something else, apart from
it, separate from it, ........for it to appear to exist.
Aka, since it is evil which makes goodness,...good........and vice
versa,..... both "good" and "evil" are illusory concepts.
Functionally useful, no doubt.
some nonduality models
depend on the necessity of the changeless background in which changes
There is a lot of crap floating about in the name of non-duality
Advaita, meaning Not-Two, .......does not conclude to .........Only
One, call it uncaused Go, or the changeless background or
Advaita, is just Advait, .not-Two.
And there is a immediate cessation of the whole structure, when an
apperception strikes, with the question, ........Not-two, is relevant
within what gestalt?
It can only be relevant within a gestalt of duality.
Advaita, has a meaning only in relation to Dvaita.
Negation has a meaning, only when there is something to be negated.
A duality has to be posited first and then it can be negated.
If duality is a conceptual conjecture, it's negation cannot be
anything else but more conceptual conjecturing.
And thus the apperception of Advaita, is the end of the very concept
That ending is not a replacement of one with an other.
The organization which grows along any utterance, also grew around
the utterance of Advaita, and a changeless ParamBrahma, or
Consciousness was posited as the ultimate reality.
they call this changeless background Consciousness (with the
capital C). on the other hand, dualistic models trace the origin of
the changes in linear time to the uncaused cause or God (with the
The seeking entity, just cannot survive, unless it posits, a
something, a someone in charge, something on which the changes appear
With this positing, it is happy because now ParamBrahma becomes the
goal.In the process of moving towards the Advaitic goal, it even
notes the halo of spiritual evolution.
besides the definitions of real, what's also important is noticing
the motivation behind the belief systems (even a 'no belief'
A no-belief is an oxymoron.
For it believes there is a believer who has no beliefs.
is it possible to present or debunk any model of reality
without an emotional attachment or do we only builds/debunk models in
order to comfort ourselves?
what's the difference?
Both are hooplas.
One has the attachment of dispassion.
The other, ...passion.
Both are based on the premise that there is a substantivity, which
can be presented, ......
..... there is something substantial which can be debunked and thus
needs to be debunked.
The former are the scores of Gurus and Enlightened Masters who
enabled gosples to come up (including one of the finest..
...the later a "UG".
Hooping the hooplas
It did not go to the NDS List?
If you feel moved to, could you kindly repost on to the List, as I do
not have a copy of what got sent.