Fathomless Inexplicable Absolute Transcendence FIAT

[Ewwerrin]

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&nothing. 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.

[Ewwerrin]

sorry I cannot post nor eddit. It said it wasn't posted, but it turns out it did post 3 times even.
Please delete duplicate errors.

[Ewwerrin]

sorry I cannot post nor eddit. It said it wasn't posted, but it turns out it did post 3 times even.
Please delete duplicate errors.

[Ewwerrin]

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&nothing. 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.

[Ewwerrin]

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&nothing. 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.

[Ewwerrin]

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&nothing. 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.

[Ewwerrin]

Sorry I can no longer delete the reply duplicates.
There was a submit and eddit server error. I got redirected to a white page with an error text.
And I could not see what was posted and what not.
And one post I've seen I could not edit. It also redirected me to error page.

[FallingLeaves]

so even the space between things that exists, exists?

the problem with words is they are handles to concepts... when you are out in the real world the words seem to have obvious meanings (although this itself is also an illusion if you start really digging, it is itself similar to what I'm about to say when you really get into it)

But when you are talking to an eastern master, for example, you start by seeing the tip of the iceberg, which is above the water, and that is what you think the words being 'said' 'mean'. The master has been below the water though, exploring the rest of the iceburg... so... he has a broader idea of what an iceburg looks like, e.g. what the words mean. And so when you speak, and when he speaks, you are both speaking of very different things even though you are using the exact same words. the concepts you have handles to are different, you consider only the visible part of the iceburg, which is above the water, but he has a deeper understanding consisting also of what is below the water.

He's been where you are, so he knows that. You haven't yet been where he is, so you don't yet know that.

Following a path is like learning to go below the water yourself, to see what the words might mean beyond just the tip of the iceburg....

unfortunately different traditions have different understandings when they look at what is below the water so the actual meanings to words differ from one tradition to another....
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
personally I've recently found it a waste of my time to get into any situation where we are talking about naming this place for what it is... I would much rather have fun playing in my sandbox lol... so the specific words you were discussing would be meaningless to me anyway.... but that is a lot of what 'masters' have spent their lives doing... sigh....

[Ewwerrin]

Originally Posted by FallingLeaves

so even...
... doing... sigh....

That reminds me of the story of bablyon. Where people started speaking different languages or something in those lines, and they all scattered across the world. Polarised and split up.

And ofcourse everything exists. But the question is, if awareness is limited to a dualistic view of everything, meaning, vibrational and relative, then how can awareness know all that exists. So perhaps awareness is not absolute.

I mean, it would explain that no one can ever come to agree on who or what the absolute is. Maybe the absolute is simply beyond consciousness. Just pure unconditional existence. Beingness without becoming. No change.

In our reality of consciousness, change is a constant.

And if the absolute is one of consciousness or sentient, then there is a paradox. Because the absolute cannot be the relative. Or rather, the relative can be the absolute. And the absolute can be relative, obviously. We are relative. But can consciousness be absolute? Can consciousness be unchanging and permanent? I don't think so. But maybe I'm wrong.

And how can I lose myself? My own awareness and knowledge? Do I simply find a way to die? Even if I could get rid of my own awareness, the fact remains that relativity exists, the absolute exists. And so the absolute is opposite to the relative. Which means, it is not absolute.

Absolute would necesserily have to unaware, otherwise there are some big paradoxes that one can waste their entire life trying to solve it.

And if I just give up, and surrender, and let go of seeking the absolute. Well, then I can say it's all absolute. But that's not my experience. I don't understand people who have no self identity, knowing or awareness. They literally say there is a nothing and appearantly speaking happens. A response from nothing.

If I hear this, as the explanation of the absolute, then I am tempted to denie the whole of everything. It's like, ok, I dont exist. Then nothing exists. Then I can make this dream/illusion into whatever I want it to be.

But what if my desire is to wake up? To realise the absolute. Not a relative absolute, but a real absolute. I can ask an illusion to show me what is real. And maybe "real" does not even exist. Everything I say might aswell not exist, if I don't exist. but non dual speakers say that nothing changes. I already have never existed. So what we experience is just nothing appearantly happening. Like a dream I guess. Yet nothing beyond that dream.

Nondual speakers say that seeking the absolute is divinely hopeless. Because it is already everything. But then I have to say, Ok so why do things change if it is absolute? If everything is just being and not becoming. And they would say, the illusion is what changes. And it's not real.

Well, I don't know. I can't speak to nondual people.

And not to mention how rare nondual people are. Most nondual people claim they know nonduality. And knowing requires self the knower and the other, the known thing. That's dualistic, relative.

I can't seem to find God. It's mentally exhausting to find the absolute leading to unawareness and me being an awareness. Maybe even an eternal awareness.

[FallingLeaves]

cool you picked up on the bablyon angle lol...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
you seem to be facing the big problem this place poses: the 'mind' for lack of a better word endlessly turns out fantasies, and then you either give up and say none of it is real so don't pay attention to any of it, or you choose one seemingly at random and say this is real and then live with it.

The former solution can (and often does) become itself just another way to choose a fantasy being turned out and calling it real (only now instead of using the word real you might use the word unreal)... and meanwhile if you don't choose any of the ones presented to you you very much risk THAT becoming the fantasy you have chosen to live out.

And you can't just comletely shut the mind down either, it just keeps going and going and going lol...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
it is explicitly designed to be unbeatable... which makes the whole thing very frustrating when you are trying to get to the 'better' place it is meant to keep you from... lol...