The Final Truth, a Theory of Everything

[ken]

There is nothing so far that we know of that suggests there is a self other than the brain and body.

You mean, 'i' instead of 'we', right?

You can only speak for yourself sth; not for others, and especially not for Me.

Do you have any data or evidence which shows that there is a self independent of the brain and body?

Do you have any data or evidence which shows that there is not a self independent of the brain and body?

Actually, while we are at it, do you know what the 'self' actually is?

[ken]

Just let it go, dude. You win. I lose. I told you already. What the fuck do you want from me? Just ignore me.I honestly find your line of questioning very infantile. And I cannot deal with you. You will always win.

Just let WHAT, exactly, go?

I have said it before and I will say it again, there is no win or lose here. Just some are becoming wiser.

Do you want me to stop questioning you so that you can then say and claim whatever you like?

What I want from you is to answer some very simple, infantile (if you like) questions in regards to your beliefs, claims and statements.

If you want Me to ignore you, then do not say things that ask for clarity, nor claim things without proof or evidence.

I have continually said I am only asking very, very simple straight forward [infantile] questions, so why are they so hard for you to answer? Could it may be because the truthful answers will, in of themselves, dispute what you so desperately want to believe and want to insist is true? If you can not answer, what you find very infantile questions, then what impression do you think you are providing others of your claims?

If I WILL always "win" just by asking questions, then imagine what else WILL happen when all the evidence and proof is noticed and seen for what it is within these writings? Just maybe, with the help you are providing here, I WILL have proved with evidence what I have already claimed. Actually maybe I WILL, with your help, achieved what I am actually creating right NOW?

Wow. You are like a monitor lizard, aren't you? You just won't let go.

What do you propose I will not let go of exactly?

[sthitapragya]

Just let WHAT, exactly, go?

I have said it before and I will say it again, there is no win or lose here. Just some are becoming wiser.

Do you want me to stop questioning you so that you can then say and claim whatever you like?

What I want from you is to answer some very simple, infantile (if you like) questions in regards to your beliefs, claims and statements.

If you want Me to ignore you, then do not say things that ask for clarity, nor claim things without proof or evidence.

I have continually said I am only asking very, very simple straight forward [infantile] questions, so why are they so hard for you to answer? Could it may be because the truthful answers will, in of themselves, dispute what you so desperately want to believe and want to insist is true? If you can not answer, what you find very infantile questions, then what impression do you think you are providing others of your claims?

If I WILL always "win" just by asking questions, then imagine what else WILL happen when all the evidence and proof is noticed and seen for what it is within these writings? Just maybe, with the help you are providing here, I WILL have proved with evidence what I have already claimed. Actually maybe I WILL, with your help, achieved what I am actually creating right NOW?

Wow. You are like a monitor lizard, aren't you? You just won't let go.

What do you propose I will not let go of exactly?

Shoo!

[ken]

Wow. You are like a monitor lizard, aren't you? You just won't let go.

What do you propose I will not let go of exactly?

Shoo!

Is that your response to anyone who asks you clarify your claims and beliefs.

You do not have any data, evidence, proof, nor any answers for your claims and beliefs but you expect everyone else to provide data, evidence, and proof for their claims.

[sthitapragya]

What do you propose I will not let go of exactly?

Shoo!

Is that your response to anyone who asks you clarify your claims and beliefs.

You do not have any data, evidence, proof, nor any answers for your claims and beliefs but you expect everyone else to provide data, evidence, and proof for their claims.

No. This is just my response to you. Now Shoo!

[ken]

Shoo!

Is that your response to anyone who asks you clarify your claims and beliefs.

You do not have any data, evidence, proof, nor any answers for your claims and beliefs but you expect everyone else to provide data, evidence, and proof for their claims.

No. This is just my response to you. Now Shoo!

I will if you stop trying to speak for Me

[ken]

jmaf6556

I am not sure if you missed my question before:

How did you come to this discovery/realization?

[thedoc]

Oh no, not again.

Bloody hell. Let's go for a drink, doc. (I don't even drink.)

Sorry I missed this, but I'm having a nice glass of wine now, and will be for the rest of the evening, so raise a glass of your favorite liquid refreshment and we can drink together.

[jmaf6556]

Thanks Ken for your message, and for your keen understanding.

I replied to you a while back, in my post in which I also addressed Dalek and sthita. Here's what I wrote:

"Ken, I agree with your answer to sthitapragya's question, it seems that you might understand the meaning of my post, and self-inquiry/jnana yoga as a whole . Regarding your question, it was a long and hard journey to figure out this spiral explanation in which everything including the mathematical explanation of God and peace and love clicks and makes sense, the idea of a spiral was given to me by Spirit, my part was to clarify the direction of progression as being towards the origin, the type of spiral as being logarithmic, and the significance of the two qualities of zero amplitude and infinity frequency. It's an original idea, I haven't seen it anywhere else, so I'm doing all I can to get it out to more people, because I think it provides profound spiritual understanding. For one thing it provides a mathematical answer to the whole Advaita/Dvaita debate."

Feel free to pm me if it'll help us to converse more clearly.

[SpheresOfBalance]

I too am sharing ideas. For those who don't want to click, I'll post the script of the audio summary:

"This part of the site discusses the ultimate Truth and is noteworthy, so here’s an audio summary for those who like to listen in addition to reading.

This section is about self-realization and discusses a Theory of Everything that says that the absolute, everpresent and unchanging Truth is one’s true Self and heart, or God, and that life forever grows towards it, just as a logarithmic spiral can be seen as forever approaching its origin. The Self, heart, or God is compared to a perfectly balanced and infinitely fast spinning top or UFO, just as the amplitude of a logarithmic spiral’s rotations decreases towards zero, and their frequency increases towards infinity, as the spiral approaches its origin. Low amplitude is identified as peace, and high frequency as love, as in passion, the result is a mathematical explanation of the final Truth, and its relationship with this key pair of values, which are matched with yin and yang, receiving and giving, the all-pervasiveness and almightiness of God, the Divine Feminine and Divine Masculine, and more."

Sounds like a bunch of hogwash to me! But if it floats your boat, you can use it to keep yourself afloat. But only in your waters of course!

[jmaf6556]

I always wonder about people who react like this, I recently had a quite unpleasant conversation with a couple of random atheists on the internet. I wonder if you've understood the message, then determined it to be false, or if you just don't understand the message in the first place. Because no offense but I don't think it's responsible to attack things as being false on the basis of you not understanding or having experienced them on your end. A lot of complex philosophy questions and math and physics equations seem like gibberish to the ordinary layperson, but this doesn't mean they are, the reality is that the ordinary layperson simply doesn't understand them. At least Spheres wasn't as offensive as many others are, I do appreciate that.

[SpheresOfBalance]

I always wonder about people who react like this, I recently had a quite unpleasant conversation with a couple of random atheists on the internet. I wonder if you've understood the message, then determined it to be false, or if you just don't understand the message in the first place. Because no offense but I don't think it's responsible to attack things as being false on the basis of you not understanding or having experienced them on your end. A lot of complex philosophy questions and math and physics equations seem like gibberish to the ordinary layperson, but this doesn't mean they are, the reality is that the ordinary layperson simply doesn't understand them. At least Spheres wasn't as offensive as many others are, I do appreciate that.

Nothing personal, which is often hard to understand, when something that is born of one, is criticized. I'm not an atheist. I'm an Agnostic that 'knows' that no one can neither prove nor disprove that there is a creator of the universe. Sometimes we weave words (concepts) together so as to build a grand complexity that can be so hard for a receiver of such information to digest, because in truth it's creator only half understands the concepts used. If only one idea is out of place, is false, the entire complexity crashes to the ground as really just so much hype. Wishful thinking is a great thing to toy with, as it can indeed be fun, and that's about it.

[sthitapragya]

I always wonder about people who react like this, I recently had a quite unpleasant conversation with a couple of random atheists on the internet. I wonder if you've understood the message, then determined it to be false, or if you just don't understand the message in the first place. Because no offense but I don't think it's responsible to attack things as being false on the basis of you not understanding or having experienced them on your end. A lot of complex philosophy questions and math and physics equations seem like gibberish to the ordinary layperson, but this doesn't mean they are, the reality is that the ordinary layperson simply doesn't understand them. At least Spheres wasn't as offensive as many others are, I do appreciate that.

It is not about not understanding. Your whole theory is based on a lot of assumptions which you have taken as true. In a philosophy forum, you are first expected to establish your assumptions as true. If that is not done, everything that is derived from those assumptions become invalid and worthless.
Your website starts with :
The One, Self-Knowledge "Know Thyself", the Truth

God:
The one supreme being
The one universal spirit
The one true Self of all
Who is
Who we really are
The Heart
The origin and source of life energy, intuition, and conscience
The essence of all things
Consciousness
Awareness
The present moment
The Truth
Reality
The absolute

Uniting with God is the purpose of mysticism, the heart of spirituality.

Self-inquiry (jnana yoga): concentrating on God using key thoughts such as:
Who is? (Who am I?) and God is (I am [that])

Surrender and service to God (bhakti yoga): synonymous with self-inquiry.

Can you see how many assumptions there are which you expect people to take to be true? You have simply declared what is God without in anyway establishing the existence of God or how you concluded that these are the characteristics of God. Then you have explained what to do to unite with God. Essentially, you are trying to cater to theists, who "understand" what you mean and give them your own take on God and whatever else. This belongs basically to a theology forum and not a philosophical forum. You have also posted it in the wrong place , because this is not general philosophy. It is not even philosophy of religion. However, it might have been more appropriate there.

To an atheist, your complex philosophy is complex simply because you put God into the equation. If you remove God, life and everything becomes very easy to understand. Theists also make the assumption that all atheists are born that way. We are most of us born theists. I am a Hindu. I have read all the upnishads, and I am a fan of Adi Sankaracharya who I believe is the greatest writer the world has ever seen and can kick Shakespeare's ass any time. I am one of the few people who has been able to explain the "Vivekchudamani" to my father and his friends. So your assumption that atheists don't "understand" is just plain wrong. I just don't believe in it anymore as I have found enough reasons to reject the concept for now. There are other atheists like me who "understand" what God is. They just don't agree with the concept anymore.

As long as you guys keep saying we don't "understand", you imply that you have better understanding than us. Which is an insult and is rude too and which is replied to in kind by us in language which you consider unpleasant and rude. It is a tit for tat thing.

Also always remember. Among all those considered "enlightened", Buddha was one. And he was an atheist. How did that happen?

Oh, and since you are a hindu, here is another question no hindu ever asks. Krishna actually showed Arjun what God was and what the ultimate reality is. Arjun is the only guy who has actually seen God in It's true form. How come Arjun was not enlightened? Did you ever even think of that? Well, technically even Sanjaya saw It, but even he is not considered enlightened. Why is that?

[jmaf6556]

Alright. It seems there are major shortcomings to discussing things through typing over the internet. And it's ok.

Sthita, I've already explained to you what the word "God" in this context means, that I've simply used the word in the way I've defined it to describe an objective concept, I've not assumed the existence of a preconceived, controversial being. The meaning of the word "God" is so subjective, that's why I've defined it in a certain way that I don't think is consistent with your interpretations:

"You have simply declared what is God without in anyway establishing the existence of God or how you concluded that these are the characteristics of God."

Yes, exactly, I've defined the word "God" as I think appropriate and used the word as I've defined it, I've not assumed that whatever someone else's understanding of God might be, that that thing exists. And intuition, conscience, the Heart and source of love, etc., basically your spirit/life energy, I think the existence of these things is self-evident based on personal experience, and if it isn't to you, well, at least it is to me and many others.

I'm glad to hear you're familiar with Advaita Vedanta. I'd think you'd enjoy what I've written even more so then, because it's a mathematical explanation of what the Self is all about. I actually agree with the shortcomings of the concept of enlightenment, that's why what I've written is original, it suggests there is no such thing as final enlightenment, just as the logarithmic spiral never reaches its origin, which I've compared with the Self, the Heart, God as I've defined it, etc., and which represents infinity. Instead, there's eternal, infinite growth towards that absolute One. The Creator is itself a part of a larger whole, which is itself part of a larger whole, ad infinitum, so I think the concept of attaining a certain final goal is questionable. So I also wouldn't necessarily say I'm a Hindu. And so my answer to your questions is, I think the concept of enlightenment is itself flawed, because the truth is oneness, not duality, enlightenment too is a matter of degree on one continuous spectrum, and emphasizing a dichotomy between enlightened and unenlightened is itself dualistic and hypocritical.

This is also why I think my post relates to philosophy, because it's essentially about a concept that can be understood intellectually and which I've explained in mathematical terms, it's not about religious/theological fantasies.

[sthitapragya]

Yes, exactly, I've defined the word "God" as I think appropriate and used the word as I've defined it, I've not assumed that whatever someone else's understanding of God might be, that that thing exists. And intuition, conscience, the Heart and source of love, etc., basically your spirit/life energy, I think the existence of these things is self-evident based on personal experience, and if it isn't to you, well, at least it is to me and many others.


This is also why I think my post relates to philosophy, because it's essentially about a concept that can be understood intellectually and which I've explained in mathematical terms, it's not about religious/theological fantasies.

Pointing to personal experience as evidence is not doing philosophy. And that is the whole point here. What you are discussing here is actually just religious belief which suits a theology forum more.

Also there is no mathematical explanation of anything anywhere in your Web page. I saw the whole thing and I didn't encounter any maths other than some geometric references.