Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Michael K.
Blessings EWWERRIN...
... and not Absolute.
regards michael.
|
Something that stands out, may exist or not exist. But if the thing that stands out, dissapears, then existence still remains. All things depend on existence to exist. Without existence, nothing would exist. But non existence, BY DEFINITION, does not exist. So there is only existence. And so everything exists.
Wether they stand out or not, is irrelevant. When I refer to existence, I am talking about unconditional existence. The unknowable existence. The existence that is one thing. Beingness. Without any thing that exists. Existence does not necesserily mean "something". It can be everything and nothing both at the same time. But non existence doesn't exist. By its own definition it is non existent. It does not exist. It is not relative.
I am also not talking about time. Time depends on existence to exists. Existence does not depend on time to exist. Understanding depends on existence to exists. Existence does not depend on understanding to exist.
And since non existence literally does not exist, then there is only existence and it is indivisble, unique, in the absolute sense, there being no likeness or unlikeness to existence. It is only one eternal and infinite existence.
And part of existence is consciousness. But consciousness depends on existence to exist. But existence does not depend on consciousness to exist.
________
About words and what is ment by them, being very frustrating for sure:
I tried reading Ramana Maharshi his work. But the translations are very strange, and it is impossible to know what he ment by what word he uses. Unless there could be a direct one on one conversation, then one could ask him what he ment or means by whatever word he uses, and the combinations of such. And often even using the same word, meaning something completely different in a different context. Very confusing.
I like the saying "translations of translations of translations of translations." When referring to any kind of information. Especially old ones.
It seems he says he is beyond consciousness and yet he mentions a self. Where as most nonduality understandings refer to no self, unnamable unknowable. Or the unknown. Or mystery.
Yet I found translations of Ramana Maharshi speaking about things as if we all understand what is ment by the words he used.
This relative usage of words is cause for great confusion coming from even nonduality speakers who are even alife right now. For example, some say "consciousness" means to know something, or something that "sticks out" and thus is an illusion and not real and not existing, not absolute.
Yet when people describe to them, "something is being observed." They say "yes, alright. Very good."
And then they say, there is no consciousness.
And it becomes very confusing. Because they use dictionary definitions of words, such as consciousness.
And they say it doesnt exist. But something exists, that no one knows, no one exists to know anything. So there is no self. Yet they don't really clarify what "self" means to them when they use that word. They say it is an illusion. But it appears to exist. As everything is appearant.
We simply cannot know what anyone means when they speak about nonduality.
They could very well deny consciousness in english terms. But maybe have no word for the kind of no self/no awareness that they speak about. If there is something beyond these things for them, maybe there is still consciousness there for it to be experienced. And yet they even say experience is not it.
Nonduality can be so radical that often people assume they cannot know it untill they die. But this is rejected by nonduality speakers. In the sense of it being absolute, thus they are already as dead as they can be, to realise that whatever exists is the absolute. Even relativity and consciousness which appear within the absolute but are not it. Most say that nonduality can never truely be known. Because knowledge implies seperation.
Its allot of word salad. Words being used in many different ways. And usually, the more radical the nonduality speaker is, the more difficult it becomes to identifiy what is ment by what word they use. Even if they say that it is very simple. Like "this is the absolute. The end. Whatever appears appears. And everything is appearant, except consciousness and individuality being a total illusion."
And then there are people who refer to similar nonduality understandings, but through awareness of awareness. Some kind of unchanging timeless and absolute consciousness/awareness that is the indestructable core of existence itself, or the all that is all knowing, living within each person. Everyone being the same one person with the same one consciousness.
And it cannot be known what people mean by this.
In nonduality there are funnily enough, two different groups of speakers.
One refers to the all knowing one and all.
And the other refers to the unknowable one everything¬hing. Where all consciousness is relative and thus not absolute.
And it is not easy for me to identify wether they ultimately are referring to the same thing or not.
I can only guess that consciousness requires self and other, or some kind of self resonance/radiation at the very least, that it cannot be nondual/absolute. But if all consciousness is literally the same one consciousness, then it can be said to be the absolute. I can't confirm or deny that. I have absolutely no idea.
I would have to investigate personally on a one on one basis. To really confirm what is ment by what term any one person uses. And if it ultimately converges or not.
And to make matters worse, many nonduality speakers also say that words are not the point. Even unimportant pointers that points to something that is beyond anything and everything that can possibly be known. Speaking from nothing? No one speaking but speaking happening? All kinds of strange things in nonduality talks.
Linear Mode
