Putting ''Immanuel Can'' In The Religious Spotlight Part 2

[Dontaskme]

It's a bit like an orange is never anything more than a coloured fruit.

If it's so automatic, then why would people ever resist the obvious, logical conclusion that the claim "all truth claims are false" is simply absurd? But it's clearly not automatic, because when faced with its inescapability, many people "escape" into illogic. They say, "Well, the claims of logic don't work...they're "patriarchal,"" or "Eurocentric," or some other nonsense pejorative term.

To do that is not a real "escape," though, far less an enlightenment; it's a kind of informal lobotomy. And ironically, they do it by appealing to things like truth and reality: they say, "Well, this is the true way of things." ...which again, makes absolutely no sense at all.

Mannie, stop with the high sounding words, it's unnecessary, lets keep it simple eh? we don't have to overthink this.

We have to listen more to what's ''actually'' being pointed to - rather than what we just subjectively interpret what is being pointed to according to our own personal self-bias conditioned beliefs.

I said all truth claims are false. So what did I mean by that?
I'm talking about individual truths. There are many characters each with their own subjective truth, that may or may not differ according to the individual self-bias conditioned belief of each believer. In-so-much as every 'believed religion' appear to have their own personal unique way of self-approving a truth claim, as being thee only truth.

Notice, Islam is different to Christianity, and Hinduism is different to both of them entirely. So to get to the actual point. If one religious persons truth is their truth, and that truth then differs from another religious persons truth, and so on and so on, then all we got is a whole bunch of ''different'' truth claims that are subject to change according to belief.

That's why I like the Nondual teaching, because it's does not purport to be a religion, it's a knowledge that does away with all religious beliefs and gets straight to the heart of the actual unchanging truth - forever pointing us to the fact that there is no person who has truth, instead there is only truth, and we are all the one and only truth. People do not know or have the truth, they ARE truth. No person ever becomes enlightened or is enlightened. There is only ENLIGHTENMENT.
Animals are already in the pure state of enlightenment and they have no conceptual knowledge of an individual self as belonging to them. That's what is true enlightenment.

I personally enjoy the teachings of Jesus, because they are extremely accurate and trusting and indicative of the human psychological condition. So on a human level, the teachings of Jesus are a positive teaching for human successful living and being.

But aside from the human condition which is just another material expression within evolution's history, I am always more drawn to the teachings of Nonduality simply because to me personally, it's pointings are 100% accurate.


Even the Bible depicted an excellent Nondual pointing very well here

( "I live, yet not I, but Christ - the eternal Logos - liveth in me. " (Gal 2:20).

Truth does not claim. Truth is an eternal and unchanging truth.)

[Immanuel Can]

It's a bit like an orange is never anything more than a coloured fruit.

If it's so automatic, then why would people ever resist the obvious, logical conclusion that the claim "all truth claims are false" is simply absurd? But it's clearly not automatic, because when faced with its inescapability, many people "escape" into illogic. They say, "Well, the claims of logic don't work...they're "patriarchal,"" or "Eurocentric," or some other nonsense pejorative term.

To do that is not a real "escape," though, far less an enlightenment; it's a kind of informal lobotomy. And ironically, they do it by appealing to things like truth and reality: they say, "Well, this is the true way of things." ...which again, makes absolutely no sense at all.

Mannie, stop with the high sounding words,

The only "high sounding" ones are the ones in quotations, which are from the illogicians.

I said all truth claims are false. So what did I mean by that?

Given the word "all," I think it has to be pretty clear.

I'm talking about individual truths.

There are truths that an individual knows, and there are truths that everybody knows; but all truths are reallycommontruths, in that if they are true, they are totally true statements about the thing to which they refer.

...subjective truth...

...is a nonsense term.

If one religious persons truth is their truth, and that truth then differs from another religious persons truth, and so on and so on, then all we got is a whole bunch of ''different'' truth claims that are subject to change according to belief.

Aristotle explains very nicely what this means. It means somebody's wrong...not that all are right.

That's why I like the Nondual teaching, because it's does not purport to be a religion,

If it is a religion, there's no advantage to it failing to "purport" to be one; so maybe it ought to.

...there is no person who has truth, instead there is only truth, and we are all the one and only truth. People do not know or have the truth, they ARE truth.

Then Nondualists don't have truth. That would follow from that statement. So I don't think you're going to stand behind that one. Your discussion so far is essentially a denial of it, because you argue in favour of Nondualism. If you thought it was true, you wouldn't be arguing at all.

Animals are already in the pure state of enlightenment

What data have led you to believe this? I've watched my dog...I don't find him particularly "enlightened." And he's a fairly bright animal, for an animal.

I personally enjoy the teachings of Jesus,

Which ones?

What do you think of His claim to be the only way to God?

"I live, yet not I, but Christ - the eternal Logos - liveth in me. " (Gal 2:20).

Paul says, "I am crucified with Christ," just before this: have you also been crucified with Christ?

Truth is an eternal and unchanging truth.

Well, I do believe so. But you said above that there is no such thing. So I don't know what to make of this claim now.

[Dontaskme]

I'm talking about individual truths.

There are truths that an individual knows, and there are truths that everybody knows; but all truths are reallycommontruths, in that if they are true, they are totally true statements about the thing to which they refer.

I agree.

But only within the illusory dream of separation can there be a claimed truth. But it's an apparent truth.
This is Advaita speak, so you might not agree with it. But having said this, what you are talking about is probably on a different level of understanding to the way I personally see this, but your way will also be correct nonetheless according to how you are seeing it.
This is why I mentioned in an earlier discussion about not being able to know other peoples minds and how they understand what it is they are attempting to understand regarding these discussions.

...subjective truth...

...is a nonsense term.

I cannot see how it is nonsense, as I've already stated how truth claims are false, they can only exist within the mind that believes them, within the dream of separation which is the belief one has a mind, not that one is the mind. Argh!! ..it's no wonder people reject nondual speak...

If one religious persons truth is their truth, and that truth then differs from another religious persons truth, and so on and so on, then all we got is a whole bunch of ''different'' truth claims that are subject to change according to belief.

Aristotle explains very nicely what this means. It means somebody's wrong...not that all are right.

Ok...I get that.

That's why I like the Nondual teaching, because it's does not purport to be a religion,

If it is a religion, there's no advantage to it failing to "purport" to be one; so maybe it ought to.

It's a pointing back to natural state of not-knowing being that's all. The stateless state prior to knowledge coming online within the mind.

...there is no person who has truth, instead there is only truth, and we are all the one and only truth. People do not know or have the truth, they ARE truth.

Then Nondualists don't have truth. That would follow from that statement. So I don't think you're going to stand behind that one. Your discussion so far is essentially a denial of it, because you argue in favour of Nondualism. If you thought it was true, you wouldn't be arguing at all.

I agree, nondualists don't have truth, because a nondualist is only the messenger of truth that no one has.

You said to me, that you had listened to Tony Parsons after I suggested you do so, he is the nondual speaker, but after you had listened you said you didn't believe it. You didn't believe the nondual message.
The thing is, I personally believe strongly in the nondual message to be truth. That's why I struggle to come to terms with the God and human relationship idea.

Animals are already in the pure state of enlightenment

What data have led you to believe this? I've watched my dog...I don't find him particularly "enlightened." And he's a fairly bright animal, for an animal.

I mean there is no personal ego in an animal, they are always enlightened but they are not conscious of their enlightened status.
To me, enlightenment means there is no self other than self, in other words, there is no self because there is no other than self. Buddha Self.

I personally enjoy the teachings of Jesus,

Which ones?

All of them, everything about him.

What do you think of His claim to be the only way to God?

I can only interpret that as meaning back to the natural state of pure being prior to identification with thought which is the artificial divide.

"I live, yet not I, but Christ - the eternal Logos - liveth in me. " (Gal 2:20).

Paul says, "I am crucified with Christ," just before this: have you also been crucified with Christ?

Yes...if you mean I lose my sense of separate identity...and see all other creatures as myself.

Truth is an eternal and unchanging truth.

Well, I do believe so. But you said above that there is no such thing. So I don't know what to make of this claim now.

I mean truth is absolute not relative.

[Immanuel Can]

...your way will also be correct nonetheless according to how you are seeing it.

I would ask more. I would ask, "Which 'way' is the truth?"

People have plenty of their own preferred delusions. And sometimes we mistake respecting the person for having to agree with his/her illusions. But one can disagree respectfully. And it is in no way an act of kindness to leave somebody deluded, when you know that they are deluded.

People should be tolerated and given respect. Ideas should be challenged, examined and disputed. Those are two different issues entirely.

I've already stated how truth claims are false,

Well, that one is, self-evidently.

...there is no person who has truth, instead there is only truth, and we are all the one and only truth. People do not know or have the truth, they ARE truth.

Then Nondualists don't have truth. That would follow from that statement. So I don't think you're going to stand behind that one. Your discussion so far is essentially a denial of it, because you argue in favour of Nondualism. If you thought it was true, you wouldn't be arguing at all.

I agree, nondualists don't have truth, because a nondualist is only the messenger of truth that no one has.

Then they have no "message." They don't "have" anything to offer. But I doubt you're going to support that conclusion, even though your words would compel it.

I personally believe strongly in the nondual message to be truth.

I know. But then you insist it can't be, perhaps because you don't want to be pressed as to its truthfulness. Nonduality does not stand the test of logic: that's why it seems necessary to deny logic.

I mean there is no personal ego in an animal, they are always enlightened but they are not conscious of their enlightened status.

Well, I doubt my dog is all that "enlightened." And since I've observed his habits, tending his way does not attract me. He's certainly clueless about himself, but I don't think he has a clue about "Buddha" either.

I personally enjoy the teachings of Jesus,

Which ones?

All of them, everything about him.

But you refuse what he says, it seems. And at the start of the other message to me, you said you don't even know if His words are His words...

I mean truth is absolute not relative.

I agree. But then there's no such thing as "subjective truth," because that "truth" is claimed to be relative to the subject. There's just absolute truth.

[Dontaskme]

...your way will also be correct nonetheless according to how you are seeing it.

I would ask more. I would ask, "Which 'way' is the truth?"

The way it is seen from the perspective of your knowledge of it. As long as you are happy with your findings then what more is there to find or see. Remember, we both agreed that we cannot know the mind of another. We can only know our own mind, the mind can know itself.

People have plenty of their own preferred delusions. And sometimes we mistake respecting the person for having to agree with his/her illusions. But one can disagree respectfully. And it is in no way an act of kindness to leave somebody deluded, when you know that they are deluded.

We can agree or disagree according to what I believe to be a resonance. Again, we cannot know for sure that another view is deluded, except as a projection. And besides, it's irrelvant, in that truth seekers may or may not be further along the path than others, so no one can be deluded in actual fact, rather, they are just not as advanced along the path, that's all. Surely we all reach the same destination eventually anyway.

People should be tolerated and given respect. Ideas should be challenged, examined and disputed. Those are two different issues entirely.

Sure, we are all just walking each other home.

I agree, nondualists don't have truth, because a nondualist is only the messenger of truth that no one has.

Then they have no "message." They don't "have" anything to offer. But I doubt you're going to support that conclusion, even though your words would compel it.

Well this sounds like the same can be said about the message of God. Who has ever seen God? and we are expected to believe this invisible things message..huh

There is only the message IC... we listen, we do not speak, we listen, and in listening, we learn what is the truth and was is not the truth...anyways.. it just seems we confuse each other, but no matter, that's the failure of trying to put the nondual message into words I suppose, all nonduality does is invites us to listen, and hopefully look beyond the actual words to what the word is pointing to and hopefully find some sort of resonance, some sort of familiar knowing that is already innate within us.

I personally believe strongly in the nondual message to be truth.

I know. But then you insist it can't be, perhaps because you don't want to be pressed as to its truthfulness. Nonduality does not stand the test of logic: that's why it seems necessary to deny logic.

I have no idea what you are meaning here.

I mean there is no personal ego in an animal, they are always enlightened but they are not conscious of their enlightened status.

Well, I doubt my dog is all that "enlightened." And since I've observed his habits, tending his way does not attract me. He's certainly clueless about himself, but I don't think he has a clue about "Buddha" either.

Well I think very differently on this matter, so no matter.

I personally enjoy the teachings of Jesus,

Which ones?

All of them, everything about him.

But you refuse what he says, it seems. And at the start of the other message to me, you said you don't even know if His words are His words...

I meant no words are our words, they are only symbols of knowledge that we use to understand our reality and environment and our selves on a pyschological human level. No one speaks, there's just listening to sounds heard as words with apparent meaning or not.

I mean truth is absolute not relative.

I agree. But then there's no such thing as "subjective truth," because that "truth" is claimed to be relative to the subject.

But then I did already say to you that subjective truths are false truth claims.

There's just absolute truth.

Yes.

But there is no one to know absolute truth, no one can have the absolute truth because all truth claims are relative within the dream. There can only be absolute truth, that is always right here now being.

[Immanuel Can]

As long as you are happy with your findings then what more is there to find or see.

Oh, plenty. I think we both know there are many things that people do to make themselves "happy" that are not at all good things.

...we cannot know for sure that another view is deluded...

Often, we can...as when that "view" is contrary to the obvious facts or the data. Or when somebody sees a thing, but nobody else can see it, even though they should be able to, if it were real. Or when the events the "view" predicts turn out not to happen. Or when two views are mutually contradictory, we can be absolutely certain that at least one of them is wrong. Or when the "view" itself is logically incoherent. There are lots of ways.

Who has ever seen God?

Jesus said, "He who has seen Me has seen the Father." (John 14:9).

I personally believe strongly in the nondual message to be truth.

I know. But then you insist it can't be, perhaps because you don't want to be pressed as to its truthfulness. Nonduality does not stand the test of logic: that's why it seems necessary to deny logic.

I have no idea what you are meaning here.

That the denial of things like truth and logic is a common dodge people use when they are at pains to avoid facing the truth.

I mean truth is absolute not relative.

I agree. But then there's no such thing as "subjective truth," because that "truth" is claimed to be relative to the subject.

But then I did already say to you that subjective truths are false truth claims.

The simpler way is just to say, "They're false." There's no "subjective truth." There's just truth and mistakes.

[Dontaskme]

As long as you are happy with your findings then what more is there to find or see.

Oh, plenty. I think we both know there are many things that people do to make themselves "happy" that are not at all good things.

That's not what I would say, nor think in regards to what I actually meant.

...we cannot know for sure that another view is deluded...

Often, we can...as when that "view" is contrary to the obvious facts or the data. Or when somebody sees a thing, but nobody else can see it, even though they should be able to, if it were real. Or when the events the "view" predicts turn out not to happen. Or when two views are mutually contradictory, we can be absolutely certain that at least one of them is wrong. Or when the "view" itself is logically incoherent. There are lots of ways.

I don't agree.

I can only see this my way.

Who has ever seen God?

Jesus said, "He who has seen Me has seen the Father." (John 14:9).

Meaningless and yet could mean anything, yet nothing at all.

I personally believe strongly in the nondual message to be truth.

That the denial of things like truth and logic is a common dodge people use when they are at pains to avoid facing the truth.

Hogwash.

You've already said you do not believe the nondual message. So maybe it's because you find nothing in it. There's nothing in it for you, the ego, so be it. But you miss the mark, you miss understand, it's not a denial at all. But you won't see that until you do. No matter, dodge if you prefer your own truth, that's always your prerogative. Two minds can never meet. So quite frankly I don't care about your position on the matter, we are welcome to our own opinions.

But then I did already say to you that subjective truths are false truth claims.

The simpler way is just to say, "They're false." There's no "subjective truth." There's just truth and mistakes.

Nah, I'll stick.

...with my way.

[Immanuel Can]

As long as you are happy with your findings then what more is there to find or see.

Oh, plenty. I think we both know there are many things that people do to make themselves "happy" that are not at all good things.

That's not what I would say, ...

It's pretty obvious.

...we cannot know for sure that another view is deluded...

Often, we can...as when that "view" is contrary to the obvious facts or the data. Or when somebody sees a thing, but nobody else can see it, even though they should be able to, if it were real. Or when the events the "view" predicts turn out not to happen. Or when two views are mutually contradictory, we can be absolutely certain that at least one of them is wrong. Or when the "view" itself is logically incoherent. There are lots of ways.

I don't agree.

I can only see this my way.

That may be true. But you could see it differently. It's just a matter of changing your perspective.

You've already said you do not believe the nondual message.

Right. It's incoherent. So it's not merely a matter of "belief," but of the integrity of the idea itself, which one can logically see is lacking.

Nah, I'll stick...with my way.

That's always an option. But not always a good one.

[Dontaskme]

Right. It's incoherent. So it's not merely a matter of "belief,"

I think people create religion to explain things they can't.

Nonduality points the seeker to ultimate clarity. . . effortlessly.

The magic trick, once explained, can no longer deceive.

[VVilliam]

Right. It's incoherent. So it's not merely a matter of "belief,"

I think people create religion to explain things they can't.

Rather people support religion as a way of having things they can't explain, explained to them by those who mold religions and hold position of power within said religions.

[Immanuel Can]

I think people create religion to explain things they can't.

I think that's sometimes right. It has to be, given the proliferation of 'religious' ideas out there, many of which contradict.

But if there is any 'religious' view that is truthful, then it's not true in all cases.

[VVilliam]

I think people create religion to explain things they can't.

I think that's sometimes right. It has to be, given the proliferation of 'religious' ideas out there, many of which contradict.

But if there is any 'religious' view that is truthful, then it's not true in all cases.

It has not been shown that any religious view is true in any case...even your own...

[Immanuel Can]

It has not been shown that any religious view is true...

That's what you think, I understand.

And if the sum of knowledge were what you know, you might have a case. But apparently, there are things you don't know.

[VVilliam]

It has not been shown that any religious view is true...even your own...

That's what you think, I understand.

And if the sum of knowledge were what you know, you might have a case. But apparently, there are things you don't know.

Let's see now...perhaps Immanuel Can's religious view is true...but even if it were, it has not been shown to be the case...

[Dontaskme]

It has not been shown that any religious view is true...

That's what you think, I understand.

And if the sum of knowledge were what you know, you might have a case. But apparently, there are things you don't know.

What is known is known, what isn't known will eventually become known. But what is unknowable will never be known.

The illusory claim ''I know'' is within the dream of imaginary separation via knowledge sourced nowhwere and everywhere. In no thing and everything.

No thing knows, things are known by no thing.

The 'dreamt character' within the dream ( duality) is being known, it is not the knower.