The major flaw of atheism

[Animus]

Indifference is just part of the difference<->indifference duality.

The concept of care or valuing only makes sense in contrast to indifference, but that does not mean I am incorrect to say that the universe is indifferent to human concerns. Right?

[/quote]

Not exactly, that makes it sound like humans were created in a vacuum and plopped into the universe completely disconnected from it. But that isn't the case, the universe has created human life, and is therefor sympathetic to human life. But I don't mean sympathetic in the sense of there being an inherently existing self within it. Also, that there is no inherently existing self in the human mind, the mind and the reality are equally sympathetic to each other. We just have the delusion of having an ego which is sympathetic differently. Now, I'm not saying that reality has emotions or thoughts even, I'm just saying that there is a difference in how one must perceive these things when the ego has been removed.

More to the point though, I think, is that the idea of a purposeful universe issues in accordance with our own inner sense of purposefulness,

Do you mean that when we attribute purposefulness onto the universe that we are just projecting?

Yes, and the same when we say the universe is purposeless

but this inner sense of purposefulness in many respects assumes an non-causal agency.

How so? Purposefullness is causal to it's very core, as anything dualistic is.

I mean to say that it doesn't have an agency which does not itself have a cause

Since such an agency does not exist, the idea that we are purposeful in the sense of originating from a non-causal agency is flawed.

I just don't understand why you think that purposefullness would need to originate from a non casual agency. Why do you see it that way?

Depends on what you mean by purposefulness, if purpose is simply the arbitrary dissection of a causal continuum then all of reality is purposeful and there is no need to suppose it is not.

It may in-fact be the case that the genuine kind of purpose that we do have, which does not include non-causal agencies, is no different than the kind of purpose owed to say a hammer.

I would say the purpose of a hammer is created by the mind, and without the mind there is no hammer and thus no purpose. I would say the same thing about a person.

[/quote]

Sure, there is nothing and not nothing in the absence of the mind, so the mind defines existence. Then we don't really have to inquire about a reality with no mind.

[Animus]

the major flaw of atheism...and any view...is that they are attachments...and...as with all attachments..if they are taken away from you (if you are attached to them), you can't find a place to hide...you're lost without your little belief system....if i told you guys that you think you know everything...but in reality..YOU KNOW NOTHING...you wouldn't believe it...you're so stuck on your own shit....you support each other like the KKK.

Ditto

At one moment you say you can tell us we know nothing and we won't believe it and then turn around a few posts later and claim others don't appreciate fact. I'm a bit confused, are you saying that Kunga is the only one who can know anything?

I understand Socrates sentiments and the Pyrrhonist claim "I cannot know anything, even this." but there is an irrationality inherent in it as well, and that is the part that follows the comma "even this". If you can't know that you can't know anything, because you can't know anything, then you can't make the statement honestly.

You said you were just starting to investigate the NWO. I spend a lot of time reading Prisonplanet, and watching online videos. I even got involved with a metallurgist from Norway who was producing a documentary suggesting a third-generation tritium nuke was used to take down WTC. In the end, I realized that you can believe whatever you want to believe. The idea of a secret order is thrilling and ego-rific. The reality however, might be that none of the so-called "NWO" are intentionally doing anything to enslave humanity, all-the-while their corporate interests and a failed socioeconomic system are bringing about our enslavement, or something like that.

I became skeptical of many of the claims and found the bulk of them to be misrepresenations or out-right falsifications. Or just an idiotic way of looking at the evidence.

[Cory Duchesne]

The concept of care or valuing only makes sense in contrast to indifference, but that does not mean I am incorrect to say that the universe is indifferent to human concerns. Right?

A: Not exactly, that makes it sound like humans were created in a vacuum and plopped into the universe completely disconnected from it. But that isn't the case, the universe has created human life,

I don't see any kind of real creation at all, but rather the eternal sameness is just changing without end and without any one specific agency being the ultimate cause.

Humanity, in an important sense has always existed, it has no beginning and will not end. The mind generates the illusion of a beginning and end to things, but really there is not one. Creation does not happen anywhere but in the mind.

I would also like to point out that even if we were to assume the practical model of evolution (that nature has created biological organisms via natural processes) that doesn't mean nature has done it deliberately, consciously or with any emotional concern.

Nature can whip up a species into existence and just as blindly destroy it the next moment. She doesn't really know what she's doing in any literal sense, only in a poetic one. And she definitely doesn't concern herself with human concerns.

It's a bit like an inventor in his workshop who is on the verge of discovering something amazing but then suddenly his histrionic wife comes in and whacks him over the head with a newspaper and calls him a fool for forgetting to pick up some milk. Humanity is the inventor and Nature is the wife, she's on a totally different agenda than humanity.

Also, that there is no inherently existing self in the human mind, the mind and the reality are equally sympathetic to each other.

I just hope you're being mindful of contexts here. This all started when Pye suggested that nature at large cares nothing for human concerns. She is correct. You seem to be using sympathetic in a highly unusual way which seems to change the context from something entirely different than where the discussion started, which I don't necessarily mind, just as long as you're aware that you are talking from a different context.

We just have the delusion of having an ego which is sympathetic differently. Now, I'm not saying that reality has emotions or thoughts even, I'm just saying that there is a difference in how one must perceive these things when the ego has been removed.

So is it egotistical of me to say the universe has no capacity to intelligently or emotionally involve itself with the concerns of life forms it unconsciously whips up into existence?

Depends on what you mean by purposefulness, if purpose is simply the arbitrary dissection of a causal continuum then all of reality is purposeful and there is no need to suppose it is not.

Purpose means: the reason for a things existence. Mind creates reason, meaning and purpose, but really there is no reason, meaning, and purpose objectively there for anything. We create it.

I would say the purpose of a hammer is created by the mind, and without the mind there is no hammer and thus no purpose. I would say the same thing about a person.

Sure, there is nothing and not nothing in the absence of the mind, so the mind defines existence. Then we don't really have to inquire about a reality with no mind.

I think we can inquire into such a reality on purely logical grounds, as clearly you can't say anything about "Reality beyond the mind" empirically.

[jupiviv]

If your point is that the totality is beyond opposites (not big, not small, not concerned, not unconcerned) then I agree, but that still doesn't invalidate the logic that that which is not big = not big.

If by "opposites" you mean duality, then the Totality is neither within nor beyond all opposites, which is why no distinction of "not something" applies to it.

the universe doesn't care about you, because it has no capacity to even consider you or consider anything.

So it can be indifferent to me, yet not be able to consider me? That makes no sense at all.

You may insist that for something to be indifferent it needs to consider a relationship between two things, but that is merely your insistence, your unique way of framing it, and does not invalidate the way I look at it.

Your point is that the Totality cannot care because it has no capacity for caring(in other words, because it cannot care.) But this is in relation to what? Besides, nothing whatsoever in the universe(including you) can care or be indifferent, because both of those things are a deluded perception of things.

A word about delusions - duality isn't deluded, but externalisation and duplicity are. Any set of opposites which are related to a single thing, and which need to be caused by each other(love-hate, concern-unconcern, big-small, motion-rest,) is a delusion.

[Nick]

Besides, nothing whatsoever in the universe(including you) can care or be indifferent, because both of those things are a deluded perception of things.

Just because an action such as caring or being indifferent can be considered delusional, does not mean that these things aren't in fact happening and real. Denying that these things can and do exist would be delusional though. It would be as if I told myself the sky doesn't exist, even though I see it every time I look upward while outside.

A word about delusions - duality isn't deluded, but externalisation and duplicity are.

It doesn't make sense to say that duality is deluded or not. Delusion by definition is something that can only be used to describe consciousness.

Any set of opposites which are related to a single thing, and which need to be caused by each other(love-hate, concern-unconcern, big-small, motion-rest) are a delusion.

What you're basically saying here is that "duality is a delusion", even though you just gone done saying "duality isn't deluded", so you would be contradicting yourself. In any case, it doesn't make sense to say that duality is either delusional or non-delusional as I explained above.

[Nick]

You really do need to be banned now.

[jupiviv]

Just because an action such as caring or being indifferent can be considered delusional, does not mean that these things aren't in fact happening and real.

The delusions themselves are real, and happen, but the things the delusions are actually about aren't real, which is what makes them delusions.

[Cory Duchesne]

If your point is that the totality is beyond opposites (not big, not small, not concerned, not unconcerned) then I agree, but that still doesn't invalidate the logic that that which is not big = not big.

If by "opposites" you mean duality, then the Totality is neither within nor beyond all opposites, which is why no distinction of "not something" applies to it.

The totality is beyond duality in the sense that it lacks the capacity to be dual. Not big, not small. Not something, not nothing.

the universe doesn't care about you, because it has no capacity to even consider you or consider anything.

So it can be indifferent to me, yet not be able to consider me? That makes no sense at all.

It is indifferent precisely because it can't consider you. Just like a rock. A rock does not care about you because it lacks the capacity to care about anything. Much like a vegetable lying comatose in a hospital bed. This is not difficult, Jup.

You may insist that for something to be indifferent it needs to consider a relationship between two things, but that is merely your insistence, your unique way of framing it, and does not invalidate the way I look at it.

Your point is that the Totality cannot care because it has no capacity for caring(in other words, because it cannot care.) But this is in relation to what?

It doesn't have to be in relation to anything. Most people conceive God as caring and interested in human concerns. The point, that Pye started, is the universe in fact lacks the capacity to care or be interested in human concerns, she might think this because she presumes it is not conscious, of if she's like me, she thinks this because she knows the totality, by definition, cannot relate itself to anything.

Besides, nothing whatsoever in the universe(including you) can care or be indifferent, because both of those things are a deluded perception of things.

Conscious entities can experience the feeling of caring, despite such an experience is an illusory one. As for indifference, to me, there are different ways at looking at the meaning of such a word. I can respect and work within the parameters you want to work in (e.g., that indifference must involve conscious consideration of relationships), but I'm also able flexible enough to apply the word indifference to a comatose patient who can't consider anything, to a tree or a rock.

[jupiviv]

The totality is beyond duality in the sense that it lacks the capacity to be dual.

The Totality lacks nothing, which is precisely why it is the totality.

It is indifferent precisely because it can't consider you. Just like a rock. A rock does not care about you because it lacks the capacity to care about anything. Much like a vegetable lying comatose in a hospital bed.

The perception of the rock not caring for me arises only after I pose the deluded question of whether it can indeed care for me. It's like the fox in the Panchatantra who said the grapes are sour(I remember I got a 9.5/10 for explaining the moral of that story in an examination):

"I cannot reach those delicious grapes! Why must this be? Oh I know...because they are sour and not delicious at all! Why spend any effort on them? Let the stupid things hang where they are!"

Your point is that the Totality cannot care because it has no capacity for caring(in other words, because it cannot care.) But this is in relation to what?

It doesn't have to be in relation to anything.

If the totality isn't in relation to anything, then it cannot lack anything.

Conscious entities can experience the feeling of caring, despite such an experience is an illusory one.

See the post by me above your post.

[Nick]

Just because an action such as caring or being indifferent can be considered delusional, does not mean that these things aren't in fact happening and real.

The delusions themselves are real, and happen, but the things the delusions are actually about aren't real, which is what makes them delusions.

It doesn't make any sense to say they aren't real. It's just that they are false. The falseness is what makes them delusions.

[jupiviv]

Just because an action such as caring or being indifferent can be considered delusional, does not mean that these things aren't in fact happening and real.

The delusions themselves are real, and happen, but the things the delusions are actually about aren't real, which is what makes them delusions.

It doesn't make any sense to say they aren't real. It's just that they are false. The falseness is what makes them delusions.

Maybe I'm not getting the context right, but I don't see the difference between "false" and "not real."

[Cory Duchesne]

The totality is beyond duality in the sense that it lacks the capacity to be dual.

The Totality lacks nothing, which is precisely why it is the totality.

It lacks the ability to be seen (with sense organs) in it's entirety. When you experience the totality, you are only experiencing part of it (a leaf, water, etc). So it lacks the ability to be "totally" seen. That's why I said it is non-dual, because duality implies mind, and mind implies discrimination, and discrimination implies something is absent.

It is indifferent precisely because it can't consider you. Just like a rock. A rock does not care about you because it lacks the capacity to care about anything. Much like a vegetable lying comatose in a hospital bed.

The perception of the rock not caring for me arises only after I pose the deluded question of whether it can indeed care for me. It's like the fox in the Panchatantra who said the grapes are sour(I remember I got a 9.5/10 for explaining the moral of that story in an examination):

"I cannot reach those delicious grapes! Why must this be? Oh I know...because they are sour and not delicious at all! Why spend any effort on them? Let the stupid things hang where they are!"

I don't know anything about the fox in the Panchantantra, but I can assure you that questioning whether a rock can care for me is no more of a deluded question than asking whether a rock can have thoughts.

In other words, it is not a deluded question.

Your point is that the Totality cannot care because it has no capacity for caring(in other words, because it cannot care.) But this is in relation to what?

It doesn't have to be in relation to anything.

If the totality isn't in relation to anything, then it cannot lack anything.

Obviously it lacks a relation. It lacks the ability to be totality seen. If it lacks the ability to be totality seen, then it, in it's entirety, is colorless, formless, lacking sound, etc.

[jupiviv]

When you experience the totality, you are only experiencing part of it (a leaf, water, etc).

If I'm experiencing a part of the totality, then I'm experiencing the part, not the totality.

So it lacks the ability to be "totally" seen. That's why I said it is non-dual, because duality implies mind, and mind implies discrimination, and discrimination implies something is absent.

Duality consists of mind and everything else - that is the totality.

I can assure you that questioning whether a rock can care for me is no more of a deluded question than asking whether a rock can have thoughts.

Caring and indifference is a delusion to begin with. Similarly, if you define thoughts to be something that you have, then the question of something else having them does not arise.

Obviously it(the Totality) lacks a relation.

Whatever it lacks a relation to must be separate from it, by definition. But that isn't possible, is it? Similarly, it is nonsensical to say we are either connected to or separate from other things.

[Cory Duchesne]

When you experience the totality, you are only experiencing part of it (a leaf, water, etc).

If I'm experiencing a part of the totality, then I'm experiencing the part, not the totality.

Depends on how you frame it. If I was visiting a remote part of India, I would still be experiencing India, despite the fact that I was limited to a small remote region of it. In the same way you can reside in a country but never experience all of it at once, you can reside in the totality and experience the totality, despite not experiencing it all at once. However, conversely, you cannot experience the entirety of the totality at once, so in that context, you cannot experience the totality, because anything that can be experienced can only be experienced in time, and time is exclusionary, generating duality by it's very nature. The totality itself is not dual, but only the experiences happening within it are dual.

So it lacks the ability to be "totally" seen. That's why I said it is non-dual, because duality implies mind, and mind implies discrimination, and discrimination implies something is absent.

Duality consists of mind and everything else - that is the totality.

Duality is division, and division is illusion. The totality is not dual, it is unified.

I can assure you that questioning whether a rock can care for me is no more of a deluded question than asking whether a rock can have thoughts.

Caring and indifference is a delusion to begin with.

In the context we're debating from, I don't think it matters. Just because something is a delusion doesn't mean people don't act out of that delusion as if it were real. A mother believes she cares for her child and acts out that feeling of caring, which the child has a tangible experience of. It's a real illusion.

Similarly, if you define thoughts to be something that you have, then the question of something else having them does not arise.

Sure it does. You can wonder if other people have what you have. Perfectly logical.

Obviously it(the Totality) lacks a relation.

Whatever it lacks a relation to must be separate from it, by definition.

I never said it lacked a relation to something. I clearly meant it lacks the ability to be related by the nature of it's definition.

Similarly, it is nonsensical to say we are either connected to or separate from other things.

It all depends on the context, I can think of examples where it is correct to state one is connected to other things, and other examples where it is correct to say one is separate, furthermore, contexts where it is correct to say that connected and separate are both inapplicable.

[Anders Schlander]

Duality is division, and division is illusion. The totality is not dual, it is unified.

Seperation or Unity all depend on the context, of which the Totality has none. God doesn't have context, there is nothing other than God so God cannot be in any context. You can't explain God as unified, already, this implies that God is unified rather than seperate, but how can the All lack anything?

Why does it follow that division is illusion?

I totally agree that it depends on context, it is both right to say in one situation that we are all connected through the internet, the air we breathe etc. And it is also right in another to say that we are seperate, in different countries, unable to talk in person, and inhabiting different minds that may have different views of things.

to conclude, both seperation and unity are appearances, and have it's uses, but they are not ultimate reality. It's thus not 'more' ultimate to say that things are connected or that things are seperate, things are both different and same, existence demands contrast, and yet, light and darkness are nothing without eachother, having the same essence.

[Cory Duchesne]

Duality is division, and division is illusion. The totality is not dual, it is unified.

Seperation or Unity all depend on the context, of which the Totality has none. God doesn't have context, there is nothing other than God so God cannot be in any context.

It has context in the same way a whole pie cut up in slices has context with it's individual slices. In other words, you can logically talk about the pie as a whole precisely because you can talk about it's slices, and vice versa, the parts create the conception of the whole and vice versa.

After all, that is how the totality is initially conceived, by first acknowledging the parts, and logically deducing that those parts make a total. The totality, as a concept, doesn't even make any sense unless you take into account parts.

You can't explain God as unified, already, this implies that God is unified rather than seperate, but how can the All lack anything?

It lacks the ability to manifest it it's entirety, no? It lacks the ability to have a relationship, right?

Why does it follow that division is illusion?

Division is an illusion in the sense that there are no objectively real boundaries. Meaning, there are no boundaries "out there" outside of the mind. The mind is creating differentiation, and upon closer examination of a division, there really is no division.

So we can make divisions like we can do real magic tricks. It's not real magic, but it is a real magic trick, and likewise it's not a real division, it is a real illusion.

[jupiviv]

you can reside in the totality and experience the totality, despite not experiencing it all at once.

This argument is self-contradictory. If you experience the totality then you experience all of it at once, or you experience something else. If I believe I'm experiencing India from a remote part of it, or from a map of it, then I am experiencing all of it by definition.

Duality is division, and division is illusion. The totality is not dual, it is unified.

You can only say that the totality is unified if you think of it as separate from yourself.

Just because something is a delusion doesn't mean people don't act out of that delusion as if it were real.

The delusion is real, but the thing that it is a delusion about is not real. I've covered this already.

You can wonder if other people have what you have. Perfectly logical.

They can't, since they are other people/things. If you see some similarity between yourself and them, then you are only seeing yourself in them.

I clearly meant it(the totality) lacks the ability to be related by the nature of it's definition.

The ability to be related to...what?

I can think of examples where it is correct to state one is connected to other things, and other examples where it is correct to say one is separate

If these words are used wisely(in the wise "context") then there is certainly no problem.

[Cory Duchesne]

you can reside in the totality and experience the totality, despite not experiencing it all at once.

This argument is self-contradictory. If you experience the totality then you experience all of it at once, or you experience something else.

It is an indirect experience. You obviously aren't experiencing all of the totality at once, only an aspect of it, but we never experience all of anything, do we?

Here's another example: you're looking at the ocean and you see a shark fin break the water. Clearly, you have experienced the shark, but not all of it. But even if you caught the shark and hung it up on a hook on a deck in broad daylight, you still only experience the outside of the shark. We never really experience all of anything, aside from the appearances themselves.

Duality is division, and division is illusion. The totality is not dual, it is unified.

You can only say that the totality is unified if you think of it as separate from yourself.

How so? The totality is a unity of everything including myself.

Just because something is a delusion doesn't mean people don't act out of that delusion as if it were real.

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.

You can wonder if other people have what you have. Perfectly logical.

They can't, since they are other people/things. If you see some similarity between yourself and them, then you are only seeing yourself in them.

If I'm teaching mathematics to a kid, then it's perfectly reasonable to question whether or not he has "got it" or not. The same would apply if I'm in a foreign country and looking for someone who speaks English. It's logical to be inquisitive about who can speak English and who can't, or who knows the Math and who doesn't. Obviously you can't know for certain if the other person is experiencing exactly what you experience when you do Math or Language, it has more to do with empirical modeling. We make models of what is occurring outside of our mind, knowing full well these models are not absolutely true.

I clearly meant it(the totality) lacks the ability to be related by the nature of it's definition.

The ability to be related to...what?

It, in it's entirety, lacks the capacity to be related to anything. Conversely though, a person who becomes aware of the logical nature of totality, can identify himself with the totality(God). So in that sense, the totality becomes self reflective, but it still cannot step outside of itself and see itself completely. It knows itself logically, rather than through the senses.

[Anders Schlander]

trying to edit quotes, hang on. Fixed now.

Duality is division, and division is illusion. The totality is not dual, it is unified.

Seperation or Unity all depend on the context, of which the Totality has none. God doesn't have context, there is nothing other than God so God cannot be in any context.

It has context in the same way a whole pie cut up in slices has context with it's individual slices. In other words, you can logically talk about the pie as a whole precisely because you can talk about it's slices, and vice versa, the parts create the conception of the whole and vice versa.

After all, that is how the totality is initially conceived, by first acknowledging the parts, and logically deducing that those parts make a total. The totality, as a concept, doesn't even make any sense unless you take into account parts.

Yes, but when you are relating a part of the Infinite to something, you're relating something that is not-that-part, giving it a finite quality. You can only relate finites to other finites.

You can't explain God as unified, already, this implies that God is unified rather than seperate, but how can the All lack anything?

It lacks the ability to manifest it it's entirety, no? It lacks the ability to have a relationship, right?

Yes, yes, agree.

Division is an illusion in the sense that there are no objectively real boundaries. Meaning, there are no boundaries "out there" outside of the mind. The mind is creating differentiation, and upon closer examination of a division, there really is no division.

So we can make divisions like we can do real magic tricks. It's not real magic, but it is a real magic trick, and likewise it's not a real division, it is a real illusion.

In the sense there are no objectively real boundaries, i.e. they are caused, there is also no objectively real non-boundaries. Non-boundaries are also caused just as boundaries are. So Reality isn't objectively infused with non-boundaries/unity, not is it infused with boundaries/division.

[jupiviv]

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.

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. 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.

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.

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?

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.

It(the totality), in it's entirety, lacks the capacity to be related to anything.

But you have said this earlier:

I never said it lacked a relation to something.

[Blair]

If we didn't experience all of a thing in the moment we are experiencing it, then A=A wouldn't be true.

Understanding A=A correctly means you don't experience any thing.

[Anders Schlander]

Is understanding A=A also not experiencing anything?

[Blair]

Yes because your consciousness is not localized. You are in effect, everything, therefore, no thing.

Although concepts and ideas are still "experienced", they have no value other than the identity of what they actually are, ie. an illusion.

[Cory Duchesne]

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.

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:

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?

[Kunga]

omg...... :D




ok i got another one....suppose the major flaw of atheism is they don't know what God not to not belive in....nor do they know exactly what a GOD is....



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-YjxWWk ... re=related