GENIUS FORUMS

Alex T. Jacob wrote:Quoting Kelly: "Spatial infinity not 'true' infinity?!"

Even I was able to understand this. Maybe, just maybe, I am making progress!

If I understood right, she is looking at the word infinite in its specific sense. We tend to think (well, loosers like me anyway: narcissistic aesthetes, universal history trivia-addicts, etc.) that 'infinity' means a universe expanding forever, with no limits. But for a group of interconnected reasons, those who are looking for solid, definite and 'absolute' definitions or bases with which to reason about the nature of existence and being, understand that this is not the part that holds the real seed to understanding. It is a sort of philosophical red-herring. Chase it at your own risk, oh Seeker of the Ultimate.

To say 'infinite' means there is no such thing as a discreet 'free-standing' thing. There are no finite things, all things are in-finite. The true recognition of infinity is in this.

Now, when you see that all things are not really 'free-standing' things, that they are only vague semblences (if you will), it tends to do a number on your view of your own self. First, there is really no specific container for the self. Truth be told you are really more like a cloud or a vapor-vortex in a 'world' of other vapor-vortexes. There is no beginning to you and, for the same reason, no end. If your container is 'infinite' in this sense, whatever are you going to think about what 'it' supposedly contains? Where exactly is your self? Do you feel...angst...depression...joy...fear? Think again, sage! You are just a vague floating wisp of indescreet vapor having a good or a bad day among other vague floating wisps of indiscreet, well---hallucination.

The world is made insubstantial so that one might assemble a true substance. The beginning of a 'sober mind' is here. With a sober mind one can approach real understanding.

These are 'first-order definitions', similar to the axioms of Euclid: they are so obvious and in that sense inarguable that they only need be presented axiomatically.

How'd I do, Kelly? (You might think I am making fun but I'm really not).

The quote was dejavu's, not mine. But I don't think you got it. You just transposed the mathematical, non-logical definition onto the idea of a finite thing. In other words, you just hid that you were still using mini-finite things within the so-called in-finite things.

Kelly wrote: "In other words, you just hid that you were still using mini-finite things within the so-called in-finite things."

Well, a person's got to start somewhere as I see things. I'm not claiming I have your level of realization. But even looked at in this way, what is 'mini' this week will next week be 'nano' and will keep shrinking until it disappears altogether.

I'm behind, I'm the first to admit, but I am gaining.

I see the fix though. Let's see what this does to my standing:

From:

"Now, when you see that all things are not really 'free-standing' things, that they are only vague semblances (if you will), it tends to do a number on your view of your own self."

To:

"So, when you see that all things are not really 'free-standing' things, that they are not even vague semblances, it tends to do a number on your view of your own self."

Alex T. Jacob wrote:He's a very advanced Jedi Master playing us on a three-level chess board, Kelly. There is a reason, but we can't see it.

Stop being a dickhead, for once, would you? Prancing around making fun of everything, and being an eternal kid with the added bonus of a malicious imagination, is not spiritual freedom, but the love of fucking others over. It's merely the love of irresponsibility, because you are afraid to do any hard graft.

Edit: Sorry if this was overly harsh. I saw dejavu's personality, and I responded to it, rather than the other parts of you which are obviously more sincere.

Alex T. Jacob wrote:"So, when you see that all things are not really 'free-standing' things, that they are not even vague semblances, it tends to do a number on your view of your own self."

An examination of personality types and their fluctuations can help reveal how fluid the self really is. Much like waves in the ocean.

Glad you saw your comment as overly harsh. I like to make fun of things, Kelly, and tend to do it more when I see people taking themselves seriously, but still I do take this seriously.

Kelly wrote: "An examination of personality types and their fluctuations can help reveal how fluid the self really is. Much like waves in the ocean."

I do see that. Do you say then that there is absolutely no self? I mean, no 'kernel'? I tend to think that the self is 'real' at the core but accretes many superfluous things, like those sea-creatures that attach algae.

Still, the idea or fact of a partial self is an important one.

When you come across a 'strong self' and a 'fractured self', how do you describe that?

Alex T. Jacob wrote:Glad you saw your comment as overly harsh. I like to make fun of things, Kelly, and tend to do it more when I see people taking themselves seriously, but still I do take this seriously.

Attacking your dejavu-like flippancy was part of my answer to your question on the nature of the self. It can help to analyse all one's personalities, to see the fluidity of the self, rather than fall into the deception that there is a real me.

As to the poking fun, it's fine so long as you realise it is never a rational argument, and no substitute. That's why dejavu is such a empty, ghost-like character. He so rarely offers any substance.

Kelly: An examination of personality types and their fluctuations can help reveal how fluid the self really is. Much like waves in the ocean.

Alex: I do see that. Do you say then that there is absolutely no self? I mean, no 'kernel'? I tend to think that the self is 'real' at the core but accretes many superfluous things, like those sea-creatures that attach algae. Still, the idea or fact of a partial self is an important one.

There is no self, absolutely, partial or full. By that, I mean that what is taken as self doesn't exist inherently; it's not really there. It exists like all other things, like waves in the ocean. Just like waves, and it is obvious that there is no absolute or partial wave. There is just the flux and ebb of the single ocean (continue that thought out into the rest of the totality), which for practical purposes the mind distinguishes into separate things like "waves", "foam", "mist", "current", "atmosphere", and so forth.

The self is a construction of many things, some more "kernel-like" and other things more superfluous. At the core of all the constructions is a basic switch, that of identity (A=A). Needless to say, the mind's ability to identify is not existing inherently either. It's just part of the flux.

When you come across a 'strong self' and a 'fractured self', how do you describe that?

As a strong self and a fractured self.

Humor is a very peculiar thing, it is quintessentially human I think. There are times when humor trumps rationality. I suggest that you let go of Deja-vu. He is only in your mind.

Kelly wrote: "There is no self, absolutely, partial or full. By that, I mean that what is taken as self doesn't exist inherently; it's not really there."

I see this as romantic projection, to be truthful. Self certainly exists. But when looked at closely it has amorphous characteristics, like anything/everything. It is less substantial than it seems. I have seen and spent time with some 'enlightened' souls and the evidence of their own selves, which are altered I admit but still remain (until they pass out of the body), is proof that 'self' exists.

Now, when you say 'what is taken as (self)' opens up into another category. Like the sea-creature whose work and project is to accrete to itself algae and detritus that is not original to it, in that sense there is much to our selves which is 'false'. You (almost) say as much with:

"The self is a construction of many things, some more "kernel-like" and other things more superfluous. At the core of all the constructions is a basic switch, that of identity (A=A). Needless to say, the mind's ability to identify is not existing inherently either. It's just part of the flux."

My intuition tells me there is a substantial part, but it is not what we think it is.

To use the ocean/wave analogy is problematic since different schools of thought use it. Supreme theists use it to describe 'the ground' of all being in a Supreme Personality. David is hard to pin down on this. I don't know what Kevin thinks.

What is the Ground ('ocean') from which self arises?

Kelly wrote: "As a strong self and a fractured self."

I knew you'd answer that way but hoped you wouldn't. I've noticed what seems like an unusual proportion of people who pop in here with 'fractured' selves. It is a peculiar quandary. I often wonder how you would councel someone to 'put themselves back together again' only to explain to them they don't inherently exist. It could become a little Kafkaesque!

It seems to me a person needs, at a fundamental level, permission to 'have self'. If that isn't offered, you've got a very problematic philosophy.

guest_of_logic wrote:

guest_of_logic: It seems that your key assertion can be summed up as this: everything is interdependent. There doesn't seem to be any need to bring infinity into it.

Loki: But the nature of these interdependencies renders an individual thing as literally non-existent. Any given thing is not truly there. That which doesn't truly exist (that which has no true boundaries) is not finite, hence infinite.

Oh boy. Look, you're buying into a "logic" and set of definitions that I choose not to buy into myself.

I don't care what you do or do not buy into, frankly. :)

To be "truly" there; to "truly" exist - what do these mean? No, wait, you don't have to answer, because the answer comes prepackaged, from The Holy Scriptures and the Enlightened Word: to truly exist is to exist non-relationally; "non-inherently" (there's another entirely questionable definition).

I think you're mixed up. A thing which exists non-relationally would exist inherently. The word "inherently" just means to exist in a permanent, separate, independent sense.

And we all know that such an existence is impossible... except, how could we? If it did occur, then we would have no access to it.

I know such an existence is impossible for things which conform to my definition of a thing. A thing is that which appears to consciousness, and a thing cannot logically be conceived as anything but an appearance of consciousness that arises through causation and duality.

And yet, on the other hand, we know that it does occur: "the Totality" exists non-relationally.

The totality, in it's entirety, cannot appear to consciousness, it cannot exist as a finite thing. Therefore it is not really a thing. But it's not nothing either.

So... relational existence is not enough for you, huh? If it's relational, it's not "true".

There are things we can say about "the relational" that are true, so you are off the mark. We can correctly say that they are appearances, that they have shape, form, that they lack an independent, inherent being. We can say many true things about "the relational".

I can see what's coming... you're going to hit me with the whole "boundaries are arbitrary" doctrine, aren't you? Uh huh. Well go ahead - let it all hang out.

Larid, are you trying to make a point? It doesn't seem like it. I don't know exactly what I would call your behavior, but it certainly isn't sensible.

Loki wrote:Infinite means not-finite, unbounded, immeasurable.

Right, and to apply infinity to the finite set of appearances in my field of vision (as it seems you would, since you brooked no objection to my framing of the situation in those terms) is just a contrivance.

*shrug* If you would actually make a logical argument rather than just level accusations, I could make a more substantial reply, but you're not giving me much to work with.

Loki wrote:I remember you took issue with the fact that my usage of infinite is at odds with conventional definitions. However, isn't Buddhism a very old tradition?

Consider this bit from Hui Heng (638 - 713AD):

What is Maha? It means 'great'. The capacity of the mind is as great as that of space. It is infinite, neither round nor square, neither great nor small, neither green nor yellow, neither red nor white, neither above nor below, neither long nor short, neither angry nor happy, neither right nor wrong, neither good nor evil, neither first nor last. All Buddha-Lands are as empty as space. Intrinsically our transcendental nature is empty and not a single dharma (thing, phenomena) can be attained. It is the same with the Essence of Mind, which is a state of "Absolute Emptiness" - that is, emptiness of form.

You agreed that "infinite" means something roughly like "unlimited in extent".

In hindsight, I was being too accommodating to your grip on conventional thinking. Infinite, in the context of Wisdom, would mean "non-limited", non-finite, unbounded, sizeless.

What in good heavens does that definition have to do with what Hui refers to? "Neither this nor that"... what does that have to do with limitless extents? Nothing... nothing at all. The word he's looking for is not "infinite" - it's "inscrutable", or "ineffable".

Ok, it's time now for you to let go of this. I don't care if my application of infinity fails to live up to your and societies expectations.

However, I looked up infinite in the dictionary, and the 4th definition was "unbounded" anyway, so it turns out that the conventional dictionary offers a definition that I use.

That's the game you're going to be playing from here on in, now that you've declared your affiliation in this thread. "None of us will ever be as enlightened as the Mighty QRS, but I'll fight to be recognised as more enlightened than you!!!" And that's the thing: you never will be recognised as an equal with QRS. You will be the perpetual "beta" male, fighting it out with the other "betas" (which include not only men, but also a couple of women) for some scraps of enlightenment-recognition, all the while reinforcing your "beta" status by conforming to the definitions and "logic" handed on down from the alphas.

Thanks for the laugh. Your paragraphs above hints more toward your own hunger for recognition, equality, and sensitivity to your beta status. Having a more secure ego, I really don't care about any of the things you talked about very much at all. I will take what I can from this forum and eventually move on.

Loki to jupiviv wrote: And could it be possible that you, ultimately, will buy into the same game at some point, seeing as how much you've already bought into? Maybe, or maybe you'll quickly ascend into the higher parts of the hierarchy of disciples: where overt competitiveness is shunned on the understanding that recognition-rewards from the alphas will instead ensue. Either way, you'll never be allowed to match the "masters".

I've observed as you came here attracted by the missionaries and the preachers, taking part in Bible studies; asking difficult questions of the preachers and disciples; copying the exchanges to other forums to see if others had better responses to the preachers and disciples than you; gradually acclimatising yourself to the belief system that, ultimately, you were always going to adopt if given a satisfying enough framework. Thing is, you haven't realized where that framework really places you - do you really think that QRS et al have a serious clue about "enlightenment"? Or does the whole thing actually play out as a game of status within a hierarchy, with the concepts being preached being secondary to the status within the hierarchy? I think that you know what the answer to that "truly" is.

And do I have an alternative for you? In terms of a neat prepackaged set of interlocking ideas like those of QRS... no, I don't. All I can offer is the advice to continue in the freethinking spirit that you clearly are capable of: don't declare allegiance to anyone; give your personal power away to neither man nor woman, but always look to the other side of the equation.

Ok, thanks for the warning, I guess.

I've been attracted to eastern philosophy and stoicism long before I came to this forum, probably due to my dabbling in mysticism and ethneogens. And I don't see how the concept of emptiness, non-inherent nature of things is unique to this forum, I've seen it described quite well elsewhere, but I find the people here to be the most level headed when reasoning about such matters.

Alex T. Jacob wrote:Oh boy, this is getting funner and funner! I'm really getting into this. Now I understand why you dudes like this stuff so much. Mastery is within sight!

Loki wrote: "The other sense of exist means for a thing to be independent, bounded and objectively real, apart from the mind."

There are two existences, is more realistic and intuitively sensible: one is the existence of the 'thing' apart from you and anyone: it is not as tangible as we normally think, it may even be cloud-like, unfixed and non-finite, but still, there it is.

I don't really see things as necessarily apart from me. Things I perceive are part of my being.

And the second is the existence of that thing in your own mind, which is indeed a special case, a special sort of 'existence'. For example, you could take a pill that would inhibit you from perceiving walls, but if you walked into a wall you'd still bump your nose. Or, you could take a pill that would make you think there are walls everywhere, and you'd think you're stuck. But, perhaps just out of frustration, as if you didn't care, you maybe all of a sudden started to run and just passed through the 'walls' you thought were blocking you.

Good, stimulating examples, Alex. I'm not denying there are laws we can know through science or mundane observation, but these laws have no inherent essence either, like all things.

When I was a kid a neighbor boy told me a very convincing story about a rat swimming up into the toilet through the sewer-lines when he was taking a shit. It so freaked me out that I didn't take a shit for a week! I got terrible constipation.

A rat had an 'existence' in my mind, but no objective existence.

Things exist, apart from the mind. But, 'things' also exist in the mind. This is not a case of A=A.

But these things that exist objectively apart from the mind can't be known as they truly are, so they are just subjective interpretations, limited angles upon that which cannot be completely experienced and known.

Loki wrote:
I don't really see things as necessarily apart from me. Things I perceive are part of my being.

You've been to see Avatar in 3D haven't you?

Kelly Jones wrote: why it is you are excessively frustrated with people who express ideas you disagree with? why is it you're getting so uptight?

Kelly Jones wrote:how fluid the self really is.

Fluid ???? i thought being fluid was feminine ..........................................................................

Kelly Jones wrote: Sorry if this was overly harsh.

Kelly Jones wrote:Stop being a dickhead,

Kelly Jones wrote:making fun of everything,

Kelly Jones wrote:dejavu'

Kelly Jones wrote: you are excessively frustrated with people who express ideas you disagree with?

Kelly Jones wrote:Stop being a dickhead,

Kelly Jones wrote:why is it you're getting so uptight?

jupiviv wrote:I'm definitely not enlightened all the time(or even half the time), but I believe I have a complete understanding of reality. It's really hard to stay enlightened, as the mind has a tendency to drift from it. It's even harder if you're surrounded by ordinary, deluded people

Loki wrote: puff yourself up

Pincho Paxton wrote:

Loki wrote:
I don't really see things as necessarily apart from me. Things I perceive are part of my being.

You've been to see Avatar in 3D haven't you?

Don't know about Avatar - i didnt see it, but he is problably talking about the 'larger'(it is not large nor small, hence 'larger') self, Nature(the infinite).

Your own self is an appearence like ice-cream trucks and planets, but everything must be that 'being', the eternal being, the infinite... (as discussed in the thread).

@ Kunga, don't be overly concerned with the words, worry about the meaning instead.

The reason both the self and femininity seems fluid is because the self is a thing, and is subject to change, and femininity, being the opposite of consistency and thought, is actually a 'go with the flow', clay to be molded, kind of thing. Man molds himself, Women molds herself around man.(generally).

The feminine or unconscious is swayed more easily by 'man', they adopt views, and inherits the world for it's own pleasure, flowing whereever the world takes them, there is no differentiating between truth and false, hence, there is authority instead; Which is made up of religion, culture, meme's.

it takes on the shape of the world and submits to the shape the world demands, since it has no capacity of discerning right and wrong, true or false, there is no other choice.

The regular self is continually changing, like any thing, is not solid, but depends on other things, it's like the fashions of society, it's fluid because things have no real substance.

What strikes me as interesting about Laird's attitude to QSR "metaphysics" is that he only ever displays such attitude with respect to us. Clearly, it's not about our metaphysics at all. If it was, he'd show the same attitude towards someone like Naturyl, who shares such metaphysical views almost precisely.

Anders Schlander wrote:Man molds himself

http://www.artknowledgenews.com/files20 ... seAndI.jpg



i really do appreciate your help Anders, in trying to comprehend the feminine mind....i know i am still bucking it...but at the same time it's sinking in a little too....also i felt a warmth from this exchange...like a father explaining to me (i never had a father)

Thankyou

_/\_

I still don't know what anybody is talking about??? Does this take a high IQ, or a low IQ? Is it one of those things that takes no IQ.. switch your brain off?

He doesn't have any attitude with Naturyl because Nat's not game to apply his understanding. He doesn't believe it enough to jettison his comfortable place in society (that of the stray cat walking softly at night, wailing at the moon).

OMG...Anders ! i just realized you are so young !!! Man are you mature for your age !!!!!
Much respect to you !!!!

Alex T. Jacob wrote:Humor is a very peculiar thing, it is quintessentially human I think. There are times when humor trumps rationality. I suggest that you let go of Deja-vu. He is only in your mind.

I forgot him as soon as I dealt with him. Those who don't understand the nature of the self often get upset by critique, and don't want it to happen. Or their thoughts linger on it, for the reason that they feel threatened.

Kelly: "There is no self, absolutely, partial or full. By that, I mean that what is taken as self doesn't exist inherently; it's not really there."

Alex: I see this as romantic projection, to be truthful. Self certainly exists. But when looked at closely it has amorphous characteristics, like anything/everything. It is less substantial than it seems. I have seen and spent time with some 'enlightened' souls and the evidence of their own selves, which are altered I admit but still remain (until they pass out of the body), is proof that 'self' exists.

Now, when you say 'what is taken as (self)' opens up into another category. Like the sea-creature whose work and project is to accrete to itself algae and detritus that is not original to it, in that sense there is much to our selves which is 'false'. You (almost) say as much with:

"The self is a construction of many things, some more "kernel-like" and other things more superfluous. At the core of all the constructions is a basic switch, that of identity (A=A). Needless to say, the mind's ability to identify is not existing inherently either. It's just part of the flux."

My intuition tells me there is a substantial part, but it is not what we think it is.

To use the ocean/wave analogy is problematic since different schools of thought use it. Supreme theists use it to describe 'the ground' of all being in a Supreme Personality. David is hard to pin down on this. I don't know what Kevin thinks.

What is the Ground ('ocean') from which self arises?

Have you already forgotten the topic of this very thread? I thought I made it very clear that the Infinite is all there is, and that what we perceive as finite is actually the seamless flux and flow of the Infinite. That is the "substrate" present in all the appearances. The self is just such an appearance.

When a person dies, they no longer have a self. When they are in deep sleep, they don't have a self. The self is a construct of consciousness, not something other. The enlightened person's self is consciously related to the Truth, so there is no ego. The unenlightened do not know the Truth, and so their self remains a deluded construct.

Kelly: "As a strong self and a fractured self."

Alex: I knew you'd answer that way but hoped you wouldn't. I've noticed what seems like an unusual proportion of people who pop in here with 'fractured' selves. It is a peculiar quandary. I often wonder how you would councel someone to 'put themselves back together again' only to explain to them they don't inherently exist. It could become a little Kafkaesque!

It seems to me a person needs, at a fundamental level, permission to 'have self'. If that isn't offered, you've got a very problematic philosophy.

Well, since you didn't define what you meant by the words, and given the context, how else did you wish me to answer? Fractured self could mean something that is broken in a good way.

I'm still not sure. Perhaps what you're getting at is mental illness, or psychological instability. I posted my thoughts on steviedisco's thread on the fallacy that mental illness and enlightenment have anything in common. It should be obvious that such mindstates, or those of psychological unstability, preclude the ability to examine the nature of things, the nature of Reality, and the nature of self, in any coherent way.

Pincho Paxton wrote:I still don't know what anybody is talking about??? Does this take a high IQ, or a low IQ? Is it one of those things that takes no IQ.. switch your brain off?

Pincho, try focusing on the point I made earlier about the non-inherent existence of things

Focus on a specific thing like a leaf.

What is meant when I tell you about the "non-inherent existence" of a leaf? Am I saying that the leaf does not exist at all? - Not quite - The leaf exists as an appearance, but like everything in this world, its existence depends entirely on other phenomena. There is nothing in a leaf that is inherent to that specific leaf or to leaves in general. Properties such as being pliant, water repellent, moist, green, thin are not intrinsic to leaves. Other objects which are not leaves have similar properties, for example grass and flowers. The leaf's properties and components are neither leaves themselves nor do they imply "leafness" on their own. The causes that make a leaf is not the leaf itself. The shape is not the leaf. The behavior and function of the leaf is not the leaf. Only all these aspects together make up the leaf. Hence, we can say that for an object to be a leaf we require a collection of specific conditions to exist. It depends on the combination of behavior, shape, color, thickness, base material, and all of the leaf's other aspects. Only if all these conditions exist simultaneously does the mind see "leafness" in the object. If one condition ceases to exist, for instance, if the leaf's moisture is somehow entirely drained, the leaf loses some or all of its leafness, because the object's behavior, texture, color, its shape, as well as the appearance of leafness is disrupted. The leaf's existence thus depends on external circumstances.

It's physical essence remains elusive, empty, boundless and non-finite.

I hope that helps.

Loki wrote:

Pincho Paxton wrote:I still don't know what anybody is talking about??? Does this take a high IQ, or a low IQ? Is it one of those things that takes no IQ.. switch your brain off?

Pincho, try focusing on the point I made earlier about the non-inherent existence of things

Focus on a specific thing like a leaf.

What is meant when I tell you about the "non-inherent existence" of a leaf? Am I saying that the leaf does not exist at all? - Not quite - The leaf exists as an appearance, but like everything in this world, its existence depends entirely on other phenomena. There is nothing in a leaf that is inherent to that specific leaf or to leaves in general. Properties such as being pliant, water repellent, moist, green, thin are not intrinsic to leaves. Other objects which are not leaves have similar properties, for example grass and flowers. The leaf's properties and components are neither leaves themselves nor do they imply "leafness" on their own. The causes that make a leaf is not the leaf itself. The shape is not the leaf. The behavior and function of the leaf is not the leaf. Only all these aspects together make up the leaf. Hence, we can say that for an object to be a leaf we require a collection of specific conditions to exist. It depends on the combination of behavior, shape, color, thickness, base material, and all of the leaf's other aspects. Only if all these conditions exist simultaneously does the mind see "leafness" in the object. If one condition ceases to exist, for instance, if the leaf's moisture is somehow entirely drained, the leaf loses some or all of its leafness, because the object's behavior, texture, color, its shape, as well as the appearance of leafness is disrupted. The leaf's existence thus depends on external circumstances.

It's physical essence remains elusive, empty, boundless and non-finite.

I hope that helps.

That doesn't help at all, because I already asked right at the beginning if you meant that all things are alike at the plank scale. You replied that you weren't talking about actual science, and nature. But this new quote goes back to plank scale again, and how it creates illusions of reality as it is built up from its components. So really this is about plank scale, which is what I said at the beginning.


http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/525347 Click (Play)

Oh, sorry, I have no idea what the Planck scale is. I just thought you were looking at my images and assuming they were scientific models or something. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Pincho exclaimed: "I still don't know what anybody is talking about??? Does this take a high IQ, or a low IQ? Is it one of those things that takes no IQ.. switch your brain off?"

Well, neither high nor low IQ, nor brain in fact. Switching it off won't help. It doesn't inherently exist anyway.

Still: hang in there, you are obviously on the verge of an avalanch-like breakthrough.

If the self falls (collapses) don't try to stop it, like hors d'oeuvres on a slippery tray, just stoically watch it all fall down. It will crumble and then go fluid, like a puddle with the wind blowing over it. Still, don't do anything. Don't react. Don't give it the satisfaction. You'll see some movement, like a shivering, and it will then reassemble itself, rise up, and become you all over again.

Alex T. Jacob wrote:Pincho exclaimed: "I still don't know what anybody is talking about??? Does this take a high IQ, or a low IQ? Is it one of those things that takes no IQ.. switch your brain off?"

Well, neither high nor low IQ, nor brain in fact. Switching it off won't help. It doesn't inherently exist anyway.

Still: hang in there, you are obviously on the verge of an avalanch-like breakthrough.

If the self falls (collapses) don't try to stop it, like hors d'oeuvres on a slippery tray, just stoically watch it all fall down. It will crumble and then go fluid, like a puddle with the wind blowing over it. Still, don't do anything. Don't react. Don't give it the satisfaction. You'll see some movement, like a shivering, and it will then reassemble itself, rise up, and become you all over again.

Nah.. that's Magic Mushrooms. Shapes that shift. Reality doesn't shift shapes. When I was a baby holding a toy car, it was still the same toy car that I see today. My intelligence didn't shift its shape at all.

Kelly wrote: "Have you already forgotten the topic of this very thread? I thought I made it very clear that the Infinite is all there is, and that what we perceive as finite is actually the seamless flux and flow of the Infinite. That is the "substrate" present in all the appearances. The self is just such an appearance."

The topic of the thread is 'I have Realized the Infinite'. Realized is capitalized as is Infinite, placing special emphasis there. And no, I had not forgotten.

I do see what you mean. All that is, is infinite in all senses. And no thing really inherently exists. Within that eternal flux and flow, the 'self' arises. But, at death, it is abandoned. The self is epiphenomena within the eternal flux of matter. Nothing more and nothing less than the sum total. Still, though it is attractive (or perhaps vain) to think differently, this self or 'psyche' as I like to say, has no independence, and no discreet existence. It is only its previous causes and is determined down to the last detail. What I have written here, what you said and what you will say, is strictly caused behavior. It is not even 'us' doing it, not really.

"When a person dies, they no longer have a self. When they are in deep sleep, they don't have a self. The self is a construct of consciousness, not something other. The enlightened person's self is consciously related to the Truth, so there is no ego. The unenlightened do not know the Truth, and so their self remains a deluded construct."

I get that. Death=end of self.

But therefor 'Truth' can only be a construct of consciousness, because the enlightened person is 'consciously related to truth', and consciousness is an epiphenomenon.

When you die Truth must therefor die too.

You got some 'xplainin to do...

If Truth refers to what is absolutely true and reliable, i.e. the Infinite, then ........