jupiviv wrote:Cory Duchesne wrote:You obviously aren't experiencing all of the totality at once, only an aspect of it
On the contrary, I am experiencing all of it. I couldn't possibly be experiencing only an aspect of the totality, otherwise what I would be experiencing wouldn't be the totality.
You can experience a thing in different ways, obviously. I can experience a piece of chicken by tasting it, or I can experience a chicken by looking at it, either way, I am experiencing only aspects of the chicken, never experiencing the whole thing at once. Of course, the chicken itself is not an independently existing thing, only a facet of the infinite.
Any experience is exclusionary, yet when you experiencing any one particular thing, you are, in a sense, experiencing everything - indirectly. If you can't understand this point, Jup, you've got some work to do.
we never experience all of anything, do we
Of course we do. If I define a shark's fin to be the shark itself, then I'm experiencing the shark.
But that's not what I meant. Consider an iceberg. When we experience an iceberg from a shoreline or a boat, we only experience about 20% of the iceberg. But just because we only experience some of it, does not mean we can't logically infer that all of it is there. It's the same with the totality, we only experience the finite, yet we can logically infer that the finite is infinite. So when we experience the finite, we are, in a sense, experiencing the infinite.
If I define it to be just a shark's fin, then it's just that. If we didn't experience all of a thing in the moment we are experiencing it, then A=A wouldn't be true. Instead, we'd have A=2A, A=A/2, etc.
A=2A is just fine, actually, as it rests on A=A. A can equal B, but first you must accept that A=A and B=B.
If I define any manifestation as merely an outcropping of a hidden essence, then I don't need to limit myself in the same way you seem to prefer.
The totality is a unity of everything including myself.
See, here you are making a distinction between yourself and everything else, and then deducing that together you form the Totality. If on the other hand you posit the Totality as unified without any duality, then you have to think of it as separate from yourself.
I don't actually. This is your own mental block, and I hope you can reason your way around it in the near future.
jupiviv wrote:The delusion is real, but the thing that it is a delusion about is not real. I've covered this already.
You can't escape it, you are just attributing delusion to something else, but the same logic applies: it is a real delusion.
I'm saying that delusions are real in the sense that they exist as delusions in the minds of people. But this doesn't make the delusions themselves true/real. The delusion of Santa Claus means that the delusion of Santa Claus is real, not Santa Claus. The term "real delusion" is self-contradictory and meaningless. Do you yourself know what you mean by it?
Some people get hung up on the idea that nothing inherently exists, and from this truth, they get confused and decide it's appropriate to believe that people aren't actually having experiences of love and thingness. These experiences are happening and it's perfectly logical to inquire whether or not other minds are having the same delusional experiences that oneself is having, because after all, these are genuine experiences, it's just that the nature of those experiences are something different than most people think. "Real delusion" isn't meant to be taken in any kind of literal or technical sense, it's more like a Koan.
Spiritual progress:
Ignorance: The mountain exists (sense of realness)
Progress: The mountain doesn't exist (sense of illusion)
Enlightenment: The mountain exists again (sense of the illusion being real)
If I'm teaching mathematics to a kid, then it's perfectly reasonable to question whether or not he has "got it" or not.
Who is ultimately the judge of that? Yourself. That's why Jesus taught - "judge not others lest ye be judged thyself." When we attempt to judge others we are only judging ourselves.
That's actually you just cherry picking and seeing what you want to see, not taking that passage (Matt. 7:1) in the context it was meant to be presented in:
Matthew 7:2-5
"For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?
How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye?
You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."
Jesus here was being entirely un-solipsistic, not denying that there are different minds, and also not denying the appropriate task of making judgments of others.
It(the totality), in it's entirety, lacks the capacity to be related to anything.
But you have said this earlier:
You wrote:I never said it lacked a relation to something.
I should have bolded "something" as well, because you clearly needed that extra hint. Jup, I'm doing my best to point to a truth in different phrasings hoping the light bulb might turn on in your head, but I don't think there's any chance of that happening.
Here's a fun little recap of your pedantry:
Cory: Hey Jup, did you know that my pet Parrot lacks the capacity to swim?
Jup: No Cory, this is the wrong way to think. You can't say that about your parrot. Think about it, the parrot lacks the capacity to swim to
where?
Cory: It just lacks the capacity to swim.
Jup: Swim
to where?
Cory: I never said it lacked the capacity to swim
to somewhere. It just can't swim.
Jup: Swim
to where?
Cory: It simply lacks the capacity to swim to anywhere
Jup: Ah, gotcha. You just said
to. Earlier you bolded the word to, like this: (
to). See?
Cory: Hey Jup,
guess what?