The Truth Trap.

[FallingLeaves]

Originally Posted by Ground

From the perspective of rationality: Since everything is impermanent to assume permanence would be speculation.
Referring to experience: It is of no concern whether impermanent or permanent because in certainty/imperturbability not even time exists.

From the perspective of rationality: Life and all phenomena imputed to life are impermanent so fixation on or attachment to this or that is futile because all phenomena including life are like empty bubbles ready to disintegrate every moment.
Referring to experience: In lucid emptiness nothing is of concern since self and other are spontaneously freed.


From the perspective of rationality: Since everything is only imputedly existent even the phenomenon called 'what may be hidden' is only imputedly existent. And both 'escape' and that from which escape is imagined, these exist depending only on imputation too. What remains when conceptual and intuitive imputations subside?
Referring to experience: How could that which is empty of inherent existence be distorted? It is impossible. How could contradiction arise from that which is empty of inherent existence? It is impossible.
When conceptual and intuitive imputations disintegrate what remains is certainty/imperturbability and what is thus revealed is that certainty/imperturbability has been spontaneously present from the outset.



From the perspective of rationality: you should not speculate about where I am since your sphere of knowing is your sphere of experience.

Referring to experience: I cannot affirm 'the track' (metaphorically for 'inspiration') being always the same since inspiration continually changes although the certainty/imperturbability that pervades inspiration does neither change nor come nor go.

just out of sheer curiosity, how did you go about proving everything is impermanent?

[Ground]

Originally Posted by FallingLeaves

just out of sheer curiosity, how did you go about proving everything is impermanent?

Impermanence is change from moment to moment. Every phenomenon called 'X' of moment t(n+1) differs from phenomenon called 'X' of moment t(n). That is common knowledge in natural science.

The misperception of permanence is caused by the conventional use of the same identifier 'X' for what doesn't remain the same from one moment to the next moment. In ordinary mind depending on an identifier which is a linguistic expression imputation arises that causes the sentiment of inherent existence of that which is imputed. Non-analytically, i.e. in the absence of rational analysis, a sentiment of permanence is concomitant with a sentiment of inherent existence or truth.

[Ground]

Originally Posted by Iamit

Have it your way my friend.

I think we already agreed and accepted that every individual necessarily has its own way because every individual's conditioning is different.

Originally Posted by Iamit

Contact me when it all crumbles:)

Hmh ... it seems that you are still attached to some illusionary truth nevertheless.

Originally Posted by Iamit

Until then I am done with this repetition.

The sentiment of repetition, i.e. a later arising being identical with an earlier arising, usually occurs in one still being subject to innate truth habits.

[iamthat]

Regarding permanence vs impermanence:

That which changes is not real.
That which is real does not change.

The nature of form is change. Form includes the physical universe, the astral planes and the mental worlds. All form is limited and thus subject to change. Therefore it can be said that these are all impermanent.

Permanence is only found in the states of formlessness beyond form (and even this is only a relative permanence, but that is another discussion). For our purposes, formlessness is the state of limitless unity and thus does not change.

Peace.

[Ground]

Often the word 'real' is used as synonym for 'truely existing'. If so then using it in the affirmative is a manifestation of the misperception caused by innate truth habits.

[iamthat]

Hi Ground

I have no idea what you are trying to say.

Peace.

[FallingLeaves]

Originally Posted by Ground

Impermanence is change from moment to moment. Every phenomenon called 'X' of moment t(n+1) differs from phenomenon called 'X' of moment t(n). That is common knowledge in natural science.

The misperception of permanence is caused by the conventional use of the same identifier 'X' for what doesn't remain the same from one moment to the next moment. In ordinary mind depending on an identifier which is a linguistic expression imputation arises that causes the sentiment of inherent existence of that which is imputed. Non-analytically, i.e. in the absence of rational analysis, a sentiment of permanence is concomitant with a sentiment of inherent existence or truth.

ok it is by definition and therefore doesn't need proof. So THAT begs the question, how do you know your definition is right?

[Ground]

Originally Posted by FallingLeaves

ok it is by definition and therefore doesn't need proof. So THAT begs the question, how do you know your definition is right?

What I have responded wasn't meant to be a proof for those believing in truths.
Are you after some truth(s)? If so then you are missing the thrust of this thread.

Since I do not want to repeat all the expressions I have already applied in the context of the conversation with Iamit I advise you to look them up there if you are interested in my view.

[Ground]

Originally Posted by iamthat

Hi Ground

I have no idea what you are trying to say.

Peace.

When you say 'That which is real does not change.' then - provided the common use of 'real' - this is an expression of mere belief. However you may define 'real' from your perspective to show that you use it not the way it is commonly used.

[Shivani Devi]

Namaste.

After getting past the whole confusion the modern world displays in regards to what is 'true news' and what is 'fake news' I had an epiphany.

Any truth apart from the ultimate Truth (Brahman) is subjective and relative. If it were not so, there wouldn't be so many damned versions of it, with each claiming their 'truth' to be 'true'.

I could say that my 'truth' is 'true' and have somebody else say that I am a 'liar'...to which I would merely reply 'personal opinion =/= fact either way' and we still are none the wiser as to the role the Russians played in the US presidential election or if any phones were tapped...

With the advent of 'alternate facts/truths' regarding what may or may not be so pertaining to just about anything these days, I was left in a state of total confusion as to what is the truth and who is telling it? One could pull their hair out or go crazy trying to find the answer to that one, because whatever set of statistics you find, there will always...always be another set of statistics from another 'reputable source' showing exactly the opposite trend has occurred...e.g climate change.

Yes, at first I was confused about who is 'telling the truth' here, until I realised that nobody is because the Truth cannot be told. All of these people just believing whatever makes them happy and being entitled to believe whatever they want to, meant that nobody else could ever say squat about it, even if, they themselves exercised their entitlement to disbelieve, based on whatever piece of evidence they found which suited their beliefs and agendas.

Yes, at first I was confused...but then I was happy that there was a reason why this was happening - to blatantly illustrate the whole point and purpose that opposed to an 'ultimate Truth (Brahman)' any human concept of truth is just another lie, no matter how it is dressed up.

Carrying duality to the max only goes to show and expose the whole non-duality of the entire scenario and human condition.