GENIUS FORUMS

David,

Logic is quite powerful and cannot be rationally ignored. There is no other method by which one can realize the limitations of logic and reach the point at which concepts must be abandoned. We can't wish, imagine, pretend, or stumble our way there. Logic must be relentlessly employed in order to reach the point where logic ends. Nagarjuna and Chuang Tzu are primary examples of this.

In a sense, we agree on the importance of logic, although we apparently disagree on what it can do. I'm not even sure that is the main issue, to be honest. I think our primary difference regards what sort of attitudes and behaviors result from the engagement and completion of the Eastern philosophical process.

The difference, coarsely put, is that that you are a traditional religious salvationist while I am a humanistic psychology type. They are complementary modes of expression which speak to different personality types.

David Quinn wrote:

Blunt the power of logic in one's own mind, make it relatively ineffective, and then preach to the world the great truth that logic is limited in its scope as though it were a profound fact of the Universe.

Then Unidian wrote:

Logic must be relentlessly employed in order to reach the point where logic ends.

Yes, that was the point Quinn, in the beginning Logic burns strong, and has a relationship to the degree of confusion and suffering within the individual, but eventually logic burns itself out. And that is the limitation of logic. The only reason the individual uses logic after he achieves clarity is to point out the illogical nature of others who are trying to be logical.

U.G understood this, but the problem is that he became complacent in his daily life. He negated everything, and lived a life aligned with the Tao for some time, but then indulged quite a bit, became slack, and put his feet up so to speak. He probably didn’t logically alter his behavior because he wasn’t suffering enough to give him reason to.

He achieved a state of very little suffering, and he couldn’t be bothered to refine his teachings and be more logical in his dealings with others. The fire burnt out, and with it, his desire for perfection. And he made that quite clear to those that he spoke with. However, I agree that he could have put a bit more effort into altering some his flaws.

Ryan,

Yes, that was the point Quinn, in the beginning Logic burns strong, and has a relationship to the degree of confusion and suffering within the individual, but eventually logic burns itself out.

I would put it differently. Enlightenment is reached when illogic is burnt out completely. When this happens, the enlightened person no longer has to engage in logical reasoning to resolve spiritual issues for himself, since it is the case that all philosophical and spiritual questions fundamentally arise out of illogical thinking. Once all of the illogical thinking goes, then the need to resolve philosophic and spiritual issues also goes.

All that the enlightened person is left with is his awareness of emptiness and his logical thought, which Lao Tzu quite rightly describes as "heaven". He can then use his awareness and logic to perfect himself by burning away all the subtler, more instinctual delusions that he, like all of us, has inherited from his genetic past. In this sense, logic is still a very important tool for the enlightened person, and it is at this point that UG began to fail.

The trouble with latching onto the idea that logic is limited is that it undermines a person's motivation to (a) summon up the intensity needed to burn away all illogic in one's mind, and (b) challenge all of the remaining false attachments in one's life. The end result is a person with a limited or narrow understanding of Reality and a plethora of major unchecked, unexamined character flaws.

-

Ryan,

Ryan: What is wrong with an argument for intelligent design?

Cory: It disregards logic. For instance, this super-creative-intelligence, What created it?

Ryan: Existence isn’t logical to being with.

But that doesnt mean it's illogical.

Have you ever considered that [understanding existence] is beyond the realm of thought to understand, and our consciousness is too limited to be able to see the entire picture?

But that doesnt mean you are warranted to pacify your ego with recycled JK-UG inspired drivel! You seem to believe that your brain had totally been turned off by a mystical cosmic consciousess (why?) yet while this happened, you were able to feel terrified, make an effort to think, and remember the whole thing afterward (how's this possible?) and this you seem to attribute to some sort of soul. Your conclusions seem far too reckless, arbitrary, and seem to reflect your conditioning, influences and attatchments more than they reflect the truth.

You can understand all these subtle and related interactions, but you still don’t understand anything.

I understand that what appears to be is all that we can go by. Logically, it appears superfluous to come to a conclusion that deviates from logic. Irrational conclusions seem to only strengthen the ego.

Science doesn’t reveal the truth of creation; natural selection doesnt give the entire picture, only a mechanical fragment that is linear and time-based.

Do you think timelessness, non-duality, is an experience?

Cory: As mentioned above, aboriginals also found it quite easy to conjure spiritual explanations.

Ryan: I was only flirting with the idea, but I dont think you can be absolutely certain that the universe is not the result of intelligent design.

Only flirting? With that idea, maybe, but when it comes to your idea about your brain totally shutting off, I'd say that you went to the alter and said your vows.

Cory: If your brain shut off totally, then how could you be horrified? What is it that is being horrified? Certainly the brain.

Ryan: Horror is felt at the very center of ones being.

Cory: So emotions like horror are not brain processes, but belong to a metaphysical center of ones being - a soul?

Ryan: Emotions are of the center. They are of the heart, not the brain.

Cory: The frumpiest new age books in existence say this very thing I'm afraid.

Ryan: They got it right. Check for yourself.

How do I check it out for myself?

Wasnt it Soren Kierkegaard that stated religious faith can only come through intuition

You'll have to dig up the exact quote. His book 'the Sickness unto death' paints a picture of religious faith that is quite a bit more demanding and rather nothing like what you seem to be leaning toward.

Cory: cause and effect, a metaphyiscal truth, is derived via rational reflection. It's a logical truth.

Ryan: I thought you said cause and effect is a fiction. Which is it? Either it’s a logical truth or a fiction.

All manifest things are caused. However - if you use logic and push cause and effect to its limits, manifestation can logically only be regarded as an illusion. And manifestation is cause and effect. Cause & effect does not exist as something apart from manifestations themselves, and manifestations themselves can only logically be understood as empty, lacking inherent existence. In that sense, cause and effect is a fiction. But if we are to use the word understand in any meaningful way, it all depends on cause & effect, logic. It's our only way of knowing. And by applying this knowing to its limits, we become unknowing. That's what is meant by ending logic.

But we certainly shouldn't abandon logic when we have all sorts of emotional attatchments and fears. With logic, we know that the animal mind is duped, tricked into thinking it knows something, when in reality, we can only logically be unknowing.

You have not demonstrated that you are unknowing. On the contrary you fancy to know all sorts of unreasonable things.

Just to clarify, and in response to David's points above, I guess I should stress that I'm not suggesting that a person who comes to the end of the "spiritual problem" (so to speak) has no further use for logical thought. That would be pretty absurd. There's no further need to seek philosophical answers, but there are tons of other things that still call for logical thinking. As David suggests, the subconscious stuff imprinted in our brains can be cleared away with rational thinking, although this can be a slow process. I've been getting started on a lot of that recently.

Ryan,

S: Well, in my opinion, after his realization, UG turned into not a believer through logical deduction, but it itself.

R: I agree, U.G did understand the limitations of logical deduction.

What did you agree to, Ryan? It seems you did not understand what I said, for two reasons.

That each mind has a totally different overall picture, which becomes his being, and sees the rest of the world through that; hence what one says will be interpreted differently by another, because he sees it through his own entire being. (Or total understandings)

And secondly, that my English is screwed up.

He did not abandon logic per say, thinking that IT has limitations, but became IT, A=A. That is what guided his being. He did not “apply” IT to absolutely anything at all.

No one can understand this unless he has some sort of idea what it means to be and not-be at the same time. Be one and all at the same time. Or, the understanding, that in absolutely any-which-way there is absolutely no way that I am NOT A=A, logic, pure and simple consciousness at the core of it ALL.

It is NOT the limitation of LOGICAL DEDUCTION, it is the ultimate breakthrough through them, that one becomes a consciousness that becomes LOGIC through understanding that I am but that. Deductions (thence applications) disappears, NOT - LOGIC = A=A = Consciousness.

And such realizations create different individuals, for the simple reason that each and every damn THING, is absolutely unique, in and of existence.

We can keep arguing until kingdom come, that “enlightenment” is this… no no, it is THAT… It should be like THIS… like THAT… but tell me honestly oh world, why are we trying to pin down “enlightenment” or anything else, when absolutely nothing can really be pinned down, save for an unadulterated consciousness itself? Once its done; its done.

David,

Nowadays I think of him as someone who became too comfortable with his attainments and who therefore squandered the opportunity to go further.

Really? Go where? There was no further for HIM! You cannot judge what you don’t know, and you will never actually know another, just as no one will ever actually know you. Do you need others confirmations as to what you ARE? So why would HE care for your approval?

At the core of judging other things, lies false-ego. Consciousness judges nothing, for what is it that needs to be judged. And that is what he reflected. The way he lived was the reflection of his understandings, so is that true of every individual.

R: I agree, U.G did understand the limitations of logical deduction.

D: Ah, so that was why he failed to apply logic more deeply in his own life? I thought there must have been a reason.

It's always the same story. Blunt the power of logic in one's own mind, make it relatively ineffective, and then preach to the world the great truth that logic is limited in its scope as though it were a profound fact of the Universe.

The cunning of the ego knows no bounds.

No doubt about that. But where 'cunning' is involved, I call that false-ego, for the real sense of "I", never really disappears even in thinking that I am not I. So what would one call that?

All that the enlightened person is left with is his awareness of emptiness and his logical thought, which Lao Tzu quite rightly describes as "heaven".

Sure, but only for that particular individual.

The trouble with latching onto the idea that logic is limited is that it undermines a person's motivation to (a) summon up the intensity needed to burn away all illogic in one's mind, and (b) challenge all of the remaining false attachments in one's life.

Very much so.

Cory: All manifest things are caused. However - if you use logic and push cause and effect to its limits, manifestation can logically only be regarded as an illusion. And manifestation is cause and effect. Cause & effect does not exist as something apart from manifestations themselves, and manifestations themselves can only logically be understood as empty, lacking inherent existence. In that sense, cause and effect is a fiction. But if we are to use the word understand in any meaningful way, it all depends on cause & effect, logic. It's our only way of knowing. And by applying this knowing to its limits, we become unknowing. That's what it means by ending logic.

UG reflected exactly just that. But it all depends on how one looks at it. So of course, another has the right to his opinion, as do I. Absolute certainty cannot be found in judging others; it wll always remain a matter of degree.

Cory wrote:

Only flirting? With that idea, maybe, but when it comes to your idea about your brain totally shutting off, I'd say that you went to the alter and said your vows.

Only because that’s what it felt like. It’s not dangerous because I really don’t care one way or the other, perhaps the brain totally shut off, perhaps it didn’t, I was only trying to describe an experience that happened. And I agree that experiences aren’t important, and a non-dual state is not an experience.

Cory wrote:

All manifest things are caused. However - if you use logic and push cause and effect to its limits, manifestation can logically only be regarded as an illusion. And manifestation is cause and effect. Cause & effect does not exist as something apart from manifestations themselves, and manifestations themselves can only logically be understood as empty, lacking inherent existence. In that sense, cause and effect is a fiction. But if we are to use the word understand in any meaningful way, it all depends on cause & effect, logic. It's our only way of knowing. And by applying this knowing to its limits, we become unknowing. That's what is meant by ending logic.

Well yes, that’s the fancy smantcie way of putting it, and I agree. That is what I stated to Quinn, but with less subtlety of language, and I didn’t use the ideal words.

Cory wrote:

You have not demonstrated that you are unknowing. On the contrary you fancy to know all sorts of unreasonable things.

Its only speculation, don’t be so uptight, you judge with such certainty, but you don’t really know. You judge me with the same severity that Quinn judged U.G, however, this momentary and short-lived metaphysical idea is not rigid in my mind because emptiness is primary.

You see when I read that statement, there is absolutely no reaction, there is no opposition here, nothing to conquer, nothing to change, nothing that cares, there is absolutely no emotional interest in what you have written. that judgement is not a massive blow to my false-ego because there is nobody home.

Sapius wrote:

Absolute certainty cannot be found in judging others;

There is a limitation of judgment when dealing with individuals that possess some degree of clarity because you can never know what is going on behind the words. It is always an interpretation based on what you would like you see, rather than on what is actually there.

For instance: If someone's use of language doesn’t meet your standards, or if they are flirting with something that you have deemed dangerous based on your own past experience, then you react with the iron fist. However, judging through your own subjective filter is not the way.

If emptiness is there, I can flirt with whatever metaphysical ideas I want, and nothing negative can ever happen to me, I am never in jeopardy. Nothing stays, it just falls away, both the rational assertions and the incomplete ones.

Ryan, sorry for the delay.

Since this is a worldly forum, I guess I can speak at length through my subjective views. I don’t expect any of you to agree, since I will be speaking from my personal experiences only. And philosophically speaking, one cannot sue or hang me for that :)

Ryan to Cory,

Only because that’s what it felt like. It’s not dangerous because I really don’t care one way or the other, perhaps the brain totally shut off, perhaps it didn’t, I was only trying to describe an experience that happened. And I agree that experiences aren’t important, and a non-dual state is not an experience.

For the moment, just stay open to the possibility that consciousness may not be totally dependant on a brain. And stay firm on what you said - ‘a non-dual state cannot be experienced’. However, experiences are all that we have to KNOW a conscious state, but not what ‘consciousness’ itself is. (It’s a bit difficult to explain what I mean, so please have patience.) But don’t think that experiences aren’t really important, because “you” are BUT a reflection of the totality that “you” experiences, including the “I”, and that is not a lie, in and of duality. Your experiences are actually YOU, nothing beyond that.

this momentary and short-lived metaphysical idea is not rigid in my mind because emptiness is primary.

Why is “emptiness” primary? Why not truth that you can find for yourself? In what sense is ‘emptiness’ primary to you? In my opinion, don’t hang on to such words and interpret your experiences accordingly. You may have not yet experienced things much beyond the experience you may have already had. Wait and see. Have patience.

What UG says is ‘Knowledge’, is not only the word ‘enlightenment’, but all that has been said about it is the knowledge that you already carry in your head. So in a manner of speaking, you already assume, or rather come to believe, that it must exist, hence you go about trying to look for it. And he claims that this “knowledge” died in him. Which means, he totally stopped inferring meaningful concepts to words, and hence experienced Death.

I was aware of this guy quite recently when he was mentioned here, might be a year or two ago. He sounded interesting, so I skimmed the net and found that there is hardly a thing I would disagree to, except certain of his conclusions which emerge from an almost direct experience of what consciousness is sans “body”, but were hampered to go any further due to his own firm philosophical beliefs which he had before that happened.

This experience, which he calls a ‘calamity’, a real ‘Death’, experienced by him when he was… I think in Switzerland… which changed the entire thought process of his being. That sense of sparks around his body, et all… him forgetting what “soup” means after that calamity, and that he had to relearn most of what he knew before. I can understand that perfectly well. But only if his own philosophical understandings were a bit different, it was most possible for him to experience further in that direction, but since he interpreted that experience according to his firm philosophical understandings, he concluded that “knowledge” itself is the enemy of mankind, and he stopped interpreting his experiences through any kind of ‘knowledge’ from his side, and said that what he is, is simply a reaction to whatever is thrown at him, but not an ACTION that initiates in him. Pure and simple - Cause and effect. Simply a logical reaction at the core of it, to what is logically thrown at him by a logically consistent causality. His daily life included.

Where I don’t agree with him is, his belief that absolutely everything is based in and of biology, which to him includes a world of thought on the one hand, but that particularly is a mistake in evolution, since it applies ‘meaning’ to everything directly experienced. Hence the birth of an unnecessary ‘knowledge’, that keeps us going round and round in a conceptual world, because in fact, according to him, and of course many others, reality/existence at its Ultimate core is ‘meaningless’. Well, that’s a beautiful realization, except that to realize such ‘meaninglesness’ of reality/existence at its ‘core”, one has to necessarily hold THAT as a meaningful concept, otherwise it falls apart. And by what logic can one conclude that meaningfulness is not a part of reality/existence, and that once meaning falls apart, the “I” falls apart, and with it, reality/existence falls apart, because it is equally true, nothing exists beyond consciousness, and yet somehow believe that it does. Strange…

Now just as ‘enlightenment’, ‘emptiness’ is not a real THING that needs to be grasped or experienced as such, it is but a conceptual realization, that’s all.

Now keeping in mind that there is no such real THING as “emptiness”, nothingness, Tao, or whatever, that one is trying to “point” to, and then saying that it is not exactly that, which in itself does not hold much water, since, it seems to be the same thing as saying that you cannot know GOD, but it is THERE. Well… What the hell is then really there my friend? Except a preconceived concept we chase in the name of ‘religion’, or ‘wisdom’ and ‘Truth’, as being really there. There is absolutely nothing there except consciousness and what it is not = unadulterated duality, the sense of every “I”.

Further down, I will talk about ‘consciousness’, and try to show that that is but a reflection of all that it is not… say the rest of totality, and it does not exist inherently either. Not only that, but since “things” and “consciousness” are inseparable, there could have been no time that both did not exist in some form or level, because it is impossible for a single thing to be around, in and of duality, and duality is but consciousness against what is not it, without any presumably physical things being around.

If you really did experience what I think you did, you need to be logically clear on many issues, for which patience is required, and you will then know it on your own.

Now lets talk about your personal experience, and see where it leads.

It was night; which is when the body and brain are the most sensitive, and it was dark, and it was fairly quiet as it was past 11:00pm. The eyes were not opened.

Well… yes, night, or darkness, is the only time that a mind is not flooded with visual or light based information’s, which in my opinion take up much of the mental processing space. A distraction to the mind so to speak, without which, focuses its energies on what can be achieved otherwise.

Come to think of it…. Once a mind knows what “light” is, it does not really require “light” to be around to “see” things. Only the memory of lighted patterns once seen is enough. Otherwise, how would it be possible to dream where “light” is not around since your eyes are shut? What is the real source of light that reflects off empty objects, and lights up images never ever seen before even with “light” being around otherwise?

Now say the memory of a “tree”. The word, or its sound, or a picture of an actual “tree” resides nowhere as a whole at all. It is simply a causal process that is really there, and it is literally empty on its own, because it is actually inseparable from the things that we assume is causing them. Which will keep us baffled until we scientifically discover that All the there is, is simply an inter-dependant process in and of its self, and does not really rely on inference of any kind, from absolutely any thing at all. Which renders absolutely anything in particular that I may “think” of as some-“thing”, redundant.

The tricky part though is, that to realize just the above, one has to necessarily indulge in inferences, to eventually get out of them; which means be ONE with reality, in a conceptual sense only, not literally. Now one argues that being “one with reality” is a concept itself too, so how can you assume that you are out of “conceptualizing”. What the hell!? Isn’t ‘conceptualizing’, and absolutely All that one can think of, ‘reality’ at its core itself? Now this part is a bit hard for one to digest because he perpetually experiences and judges what he himself is, and logically finds that individual minds, or their reasoning’s and conclusions thereof, do not co-inside with mine, and it is only that “I” know the best compared to any other “I”, and I should convince others in the name of wisdom, or Truth. Whereas, what he knows and others don’t, AND what he doesn’t and others do, ALL INCLUSIVE, is nothing but REALITY. Which is hard to really believe irrelevant of it being known as a philosophical truth. And this can really be sunk in only through experiencing consciousness, or its variants there off. Where the variants are what one interprets his experiences to be, whereas such an experience will not need any interpretation to a SELF. If fully realized by a SELF.

In fact, if one really understands what “reality” means in the above context, he wouldn’t be calling it so, because there is absolutely nothing that can be compared to it, and absolutely nothing that is not it; so what exactly makes ‘reality’ a ‘reality’? We keep chasing our own tails in calling it so, because it automatically infers that there is some-thing that is NOT reality, because that is the genius of language and yin/yang. The opposite must exist in your mind for that word to make sense. And no sense actually applies there, so I prefer to call it existence. Which encompasses Duality in every sense of the word, since the non-existence of a nod-dual state can be perfectly understood, without sacrificing our logical senses to an ambiguity, found in the concept of “reality” as explained, where nothing is actually said.

Now understanding this, (existence), simply changes the perspective of the one who understands it so, (doesn’t really matter as to how one really reaches a realization and through which concept or means), and his reactions could be anything from a dissatisfied crusader wanting to spread wisdom, for he finds the greatest joy in what he has found, and would like every one else to have it; to an utterly humble personality, who believes he has found absolutely nothing real, and is yet as joyful as the other, and wants to share it in his own way. Just that the humble one, does not really bother if another realizes or not, hence is not a crusade for him, whereas the crusader still has some goal to fulfill, of course, a causally “created” crusade that is. So be it… When since when did causality create any thing at all… one simply says that that too is “illusory”, but does not really realize, that that is not really there at all…. Its merely a reflection of what one is not. Well… each to his own…


But the bottom line is, there is absolutely nothing that is not “reality”, (I use the word simply for the sake of communication as others understand, I would rather use “existence” as I mentioned.), and one should not really be bothered about the results, for all struggle and results inclusive, crusading and humbleness inclusive, realizations and non-realizations inclusive, are just what they are. Nothing more - nothing less; which is existence; in and of its logically clear dual nature. Otherwise, nothing is.

That does not mean one should stop struggling any more… (Now this is the one and the only advice one throws at another after explaining the utter helplessness in and of causality… this does not mean… that all… no one actually says why? Well, I am about to…) because WILL is what is the driving force of existence it self, which is “causing” things to move. In us as it manifests as reasoning, and in other things as instinct, and further down the line in things as a reactive force against what that particular thing faces. But the movement is nothing more than an exploring will, driven by itself. So there is nothing determined by what “happened” earlier, but what is “happening” NOW, and this NOW has no reference in time, for that is perpetually here and simply IS, a flux, in and of duality.

If I have said absolutely nothing in the above… then so be it. I must be blind.

Oops! We were talking about your experience, Rayan; I beg your pardon. But this is a part of understanding that is relevant… I will try and show it to you later; it’s a huge jigsaw puzzle, that needs to be understood piece by piece to begin with, and thence the big picture will automatically appear.

There was mental effort to think, but the vastness was all that was possible.

So one thing is for sure, that you were aware of the vastness at least. So your did not loose the sense of a self against this vastness. Keep that in mind. Moving on…

There was a realization of the futility of forcing thought, but this realization was not a thought in itself. The realization was more like a intuition, there were no movements of images, which is how I typically define ‘thought’

So lets think about “thought” in a different way.

May be you felt panicked (may be that is) because it was the first time you experienced being a ‘thought”, rather than having a ‘thought’, and tried forcing yourself through feelings to THING in a logical manner, that otherwise you are use to experiencing. (I don’t expect others to understand what I mean). However, that might not be clear enough to you too, because you have not yet come to experience more such episodes, and your understanding will depend on those experiences.

If you can for a moment realize, that a thought is nothing else than a caused result in and of duality of totality, of which “YOU” (the consciousness, which is none other than “thoughts”, including that of possessing a body) are but an individual result or thoughtful-ness of duality, which is necessary for thoughtful-ness to occur, against that that is not thoughtfulness. Hence, making each and every individual ‘thoughtful-ness’ - consciousness - absolutely unique, and one and the same thing at any give moment because they all are a result of the same duality, rendering time and causality inconsequential in and of its self.

Please note; there is no such thing as a universal or cosmic consciousness. That is actually impossible.

I think I’m talking too much at one go, but it is essential since all of it is so connected.

The deep vastness state went away, and the regular daily awareness state returned. When this state returned I was able to think normally, and then I asked the question “I wonder what that experience was all about?”

That is but natural, one will wonder. You see, we generally conclude that things are things, and ‘thoughts’ are things too, but for some other obviou logical reasons, we don’t really believe that. We take “consciousness” to be something being a result of something being conscious of something else, and hence consciousness is a different “thing” created as an awareness that takes place between the first two things, hence assuming it to be the third.

What we don’t really realize, or say really are convinced about, irrelevant of that heavily – logically - reasoned realizations, that consciousness’ lives off of that which is not consciousness, that’s all.

For the simple reason, that things and consciousness are not separate “things”, but one and the same thing as far as any particular thing is concerned, and that is true for any particular “thing”. At the core of it all, all that is needed is TWO things to be around, as in Duality, where consciousness is one thing, and that which is reflected in another. We simply assume, through logical reasoning of course, in thinking that there has to be two things for consciousness to “occur”, and that consciousness is the third thing that the two things create. Where as there are but two things; consciousness, and what it is not, and that comprises totality, in an infinite sense.

To put it another way, if consciousness and things are inseparable, and we know that as the Truth, then were is consciousness itself? It is necessarily merely an interactive reflective-ness, of one thing to another. In a sense, it is this reflective-ness, which is actually empty, except for what is being reflected, other things, which in turn are also empty because that too is a reflective-ness in its own right. So where exactly is “conscious-ness” that one can speak of separately?

People will never really understand UG, when he says; “there is no mind…. There is nothing THERE…. Show me?!” And I wouldn’t blame them.

So where exactly does this put an “I” in the picture… would be the question. Hey! but don’t you already know, nothing exists beyond consciousness??? “Your” consciousness, which is actually “YOU”, is but a reflection of what you are NOT, and ad infinitum to what “you” are not. So what are you? YOU are in fact but an EMPTY reflection, and so are absolutely all other things in return.

...and then I asked the question “I wonder what that experience was all about?”

Is it getting at least a little bit clear?

Think slowly on what I have said; give it time, and then get back if need be.

In my opinion, it is possible to retain a sense of Self through the sense of awareness of what it is not, against whatever, without the necessity of just the physical body, or a brain that you think you were forcing to think, for absolutely all that there is, stands against each individual consciousnesses, which in turn are merely reflections of all that there is. There isn’t anything really there, making absolutely everything in and of consciousness, REAL.

S: Absolute certainty cannot be found in judging others; (it wll always remain a matter of degree.)

R: There is a limitation of judgment when dealing with individuals that possess some degree of clarity because you can never know what is going on behind the words. It is always an interpretation based on what you would like you see, rather than on what is actually there.

Well put, and that is exactly what I mean by "it wll always remain a matter of degree."

Wow! what a huge crap! :D