Philosophy Now Forum

Posted: **Thu Aug 23, 2018 6:56 am**

Ramu wrote: ↑Wed Aug 22, 2018 8:04 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Aug 22, 2018 7:22 am But Veritas, Dontaskme isn't talking about religion. She's talking about non duality. A HUGE difference!!
Read the OP again.

Posted: **Thu Aug 23, 2018 7:08 am**

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Wed Aug 22, 2018 2:28 pm In an ontological sense, everything begins and ends with the void (the true vacuum state).
The void can never really be conceptualised, but for the purposes of developing a conceptual system, we can conceptualise the void as nothingness, an empty space of potentiality, or undifferentiated (non-dual) consciousness (awareness).

As you can see you could not resist reifying a noun [the void] which is actually an illusion generated by your brain/mind.

That reified "void" is not conceptualized but rather is idealized based on pure thoughts and a psychological drive re an existential crisis.

The idea of "Ontology" is an illusory thing that the brain/mind has duped the self to reconcile a cognitive dissonance out an existential crisis.

Kant argued the idea of ontology is never a possibility to be real.
The Rejection of Ontology (general metaphysics) and the Transcendental Analytic
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant ... nMetTraAna

Posted: **Thu Aug 23, 2018 9:00 am**

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Aug 23, 2018 7:08 amAs you can see you could not resist reifying a noun [the void] which is actually an illusion generated by your brain/mind.

I don't understand why you keep on coming up with excuses one after the other.

Please answer...what is this ''brain/mind'' that can generate the illusion of otherness? ...how does it do that?
If you are so sure that the ''brain/mind'' is generating the illusion of otherness...then you can explain how it does that, how it works...you've obviously pronounced this is what's happening...now if you can know that, then explain how you know that?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Aug 23, 2018 7:08 amThat reified "void" is not conceptualized but rather is idealized based on pure thoughts and a psychological drive re an existential crisis.

Why would an illusional character generated by the brain which you have yet to explain how... have an existential crisis? ...until you can explain why and how this happens, then your assumptions are of no significance whatsoever.

And do not post me quotes by other people...explain this in your own words please? I'm sick of wading through reams and reams of info, just to get straight to a point?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Aug 23, 2018 7:08 amThe idea of "Ontology" is an illusory thing that the brain/mind has duped the self to reconcile a cognitive dissonance out an existential crisis.

Alright, we get that, as you've continued to keep repeating this...

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Aug 23, 2018 7:08 amKant argued the idea of ontology is never a possibility to be real.

But Kant is dead, how could he know what is real or not?
Kant was an idea in the brain/mind..please explain what an idea is..and how the brain generates an idea and why?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Aug 23, 2018 7:08 amThe Rejection of Ontology (general metaphysics) and the Transcendental Analytic

Stop quoting other peoples ideas and give me your own ideas about what you think is doing the rejecting here...and what is it that is being rejected, and who the rejector is, and why does it reject ?

You see all you are doing is regurgitating conceptual knowledge as if that knowledge is actually true.

Is knowledge true?

What is knowledge, where does it comes from, why is there knowledge, what's it's purpose, who wrote it, who knows it, how is knowledge known?
Does it come from the brain/mind? ..how does brain /mind generate knowledge? .. where is the actual source of knowledge located?

Do you even know what you are talking about?

If you do, then you will be able to answer all the above questions with absolute certainty ...won't you?

Look forward to reading all your answers.

And until you can answer all the questions properly,that make absolute sense, then I'm just going to have to reject outright everything you say to me as nothing but a great big pile of regurgitated gobbledegook that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

.

Posted: **Thu Aug 23, 2018 10:10 am**

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Thu Aug 23, 2018 9:00 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Aug 23, 2018 7:08 amAs you can see you could not resist reifying a noun [the void] which is actually an illusion generated by your brain/mind.
I don't understand why you keep on coming up with excuses one after the other.

Please answer...what is this ''brain/mind'' that can generate the illusion of otherness? ...how does it do that?
If you are so sure that the ''brain/mind'' is generating the illusion of otherness...then you can explain how it does that, how it works...you've obviously pronounced this is what's happening...now if you can know that, then explain how you know that?

No new excuses, I am repeating the same principle which you are unable to grasp.

How I know that?
I have already shown you the following demonstration;

The above indicate there is something [neural processes] going on in yours [mine and others] that is generating an illusion to dupe/deceive the mind from seeing the real distorted face.

I have a general idea of how it works [not necessary for me to go into details on this] but we will have to wait for more precise scientific findings to tell us exactly how it works, i.e. which neurons are firings etc.

My critical point is the above empirical fact is the above face demonstration display the same principles of how your brain is deceiving into thinking and accepting the illusory idea of a God as real when it is really an illusion.

I don't expect you to accept my views but at least you could acknowledge there is a challenge [empirically demonstrated] to your view that God [Brahman, absolute, etc.] is absolutely real.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Aug 23, 2018 7:08 amThat reified "void" is not conceptualized but rather is idealized based on pure thoughts and a psychological drive re an existential crisis.
Why would an illusional character generated by the brain which you have yet to explain how... have an existential crisis? ...until you can explain why and how this happens, then your assumptions are of no significance whatsoever.

It is not that the illusion generated an existential crisis.
It is the inherent and unavoidable existential crisis that compel the brain/mind to generate the illusion that there is a real God when there is no God at all.
Why and how did such things happen? This is quite a long story that require personal exploration of philosophical knowledge.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Aug 23, 2018 7:08 amThe idea of "Ontology" is an illusory thing that the brain/mind has duped the self to reconcile a cognitive dissonance out an existential crisis.
Alright, we get that, as you've continued to keep repeating this...

Where the issue is complex, repetition is critical, if not for you but generally for most people.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Aug 23, 2018 7:08 amKant argued the idea of ontology is never a possibility to be real.

But Kant is dead, how could he know what is real or not?
Kant was an idea in the brain/mind..please explain what an idea is..and how the brain generates an idea and why?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Aug 23, 2018 7:08 amThe Rejection of Ontology (general metaphysics) and the Transcendental Analytic

And do not post me quotes by other people...explain this in your own words please? I'm sick of wading through reams and reams of info, just to get straight to a point?

Stop quoting other peoples ideas and give me your own ideas about what you think is doing the rejecting here...and what is it that is being rejected, and who the rejector is, and why does it reject ?

My purpose of quoting the above is merely to point out and to show you there are counters i.e. ontology is not possible in opposition to your view on ontology. I mentioned Kant [among others] because Kant is the greatest [if not one of] Western philosopher of ALL times.

I don't expect you to understand Kant's point fully merely from reading that article I quoted.

It the past, posters were throwing Kant's quotes at me and I was quite lost on them.
I have to spent 3 years full time [6-7 hours a day] to research on Kant to get a reasonable grasp of his philosophy.
So I don't expect you to understand Kant reasonably merely from the quotes and articles I have linked.

In philosophy, there is no free lunch, one has to do the necessary work to fill up various necessary knowledge gaps to understand [not necessary agree with] them.

You see all you are doing is regurgitating conceptual knowledge as if that knowledge is actually true.

Is knowledge true?

What is knowledge, where does it comes from, why is there knowledge, what's it's purpose, who wrote it, who knows it, how is knowledge known?
Does it come from the brain/mind? ..how does brain /mind generate knowledge? .. where is the actual source of knowledge located?

Do you even know what you are talking about?

If you do, then you will be able to answer all the above questions with absolute certainty ...won't you?

Look forward to reading all your answers.

And until you can answer all the questions properly,that make absolute sense, then I'm just going to have to reject outright everything you say to me as nothing but a great big pile of regurgitated gobbledegook that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
It is a default to be skeptical of all proposals until you are personally convinced they are credible. So I would not advise you to accept what I have posted blindly.

Perhaps you are aware as in most Eastern philosophies, theory is theory [Jnana] is limited and one need the necessary practice [mental and experiential] to align with reality. So I am not just talking [which the only thing one can do in a forum] but I have to do the necessary practices. Practice is something personal, so it cannot be shared.

Posted: **Thu Aug 23, 2018 10:28 am**

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Aug 23, 2018 10:10 am
Perhaps you are aware as in most Eastern philosophies, theory is theory [Jnana] is limited and one need the necessary practice [mental and experiential] to align with reality. So I am not just talking [which the only thing one can do in a forum] but I have to do the necessary practices. Practice is something personal, so it cannot be shared.

I understand it cannot be shared from a persons own personal experience.

But it can be understood silently as the conceptual pointers are being read when the seeker looks beyond the words to what the words are pointing to.

Nonduality is not a theory or a religion.

A true philosopher is a Doctor of knowledge.

Knowledge informs the illusory nature of a separate knower..aka the named I ... Not that there is no I period.

In nonduality. . The I is not a practice, you cannot practice being ON

You are ON...you don't have to practice being what you already are.

Children for example are naturally born with a nondual mind...it's only when mummy or daddy tell them their name is Johnny does that childs mind go out of sync with real reality... this is when the idea of ''otherness'' takes hold, the phantom self...so to speak.
That doesn't negate that the being that was the child before it was named doesn't exist either...that's what nonduality is pointing back to..the being before it was named, before it was conceptualised into otherness, the world of duality, a myth.

.

.

Posted: **Fri Aug 24, 2018 4:56 am**

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Thu Aug 23, 2018 10:28 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Aug 23, 2018 10:10 am
Perhaps you are aware as in most Eastern philosophies, theory is theory [Jnana] is limited and one need the necessary practice [mental and experiential] to align with reality. So I am not just talking [which the only thing one can do in a forum] but I have to do the necessary practices. Practice is something personal, so it cannot be shared.

I understand it cannot be shared from a persons own personal experience.

But it can be understood silently as the conceptual pointers are being read when the seeker looks beyond the words to what the words are pointing to.

Nonduality is not a theory or a religion.

A true philosopher is a Doctor of knowledge.

Knowledge informs the illusory nature of a separate knower..aka the named I ... Not that there is no I period.

In nonduality. . The I is not a practice, you cannot practice being ON

You are ON...you don't have to practice being what you already are.

Children for example are naturally born with a nondual mind...it's only when mummy or daddy tell them their name is Johnny does that childs mind go out of sync with real reality... this is when the idea of ''otherness'' takes hold, the phantom self...so to speak.
That doesn't negate that the being that was the child before it was named doesn't exist either...that's what nonduality is pointing back to..the being before it was named, before it was conceptualised into otherness, the world of duality, a myth.

Babies are born as babies are. There is no question of a non-dual mind.

When you introduce a non-dual mind, you do not realize you are in fact unconsciously engaging in duality, i.e.

a dual mind versus a non-dual mind.

All humans are born with an inherent tendency to grab on to something and the mind in this course lead and dupe theists to think [idealize] there is a real God when there is no real God at all. Some theists [not you] who are entrapped in such illusion commit terrible evils and violence to defend such illusions.

This is where practice is necessary to modulate and control such primal impulses.
So I don't see why you insist practice is not needed.

This is what Kant warned;

Kant in CPR wrote:They [ideas-illusions of God, Soul, Whole-Universe] are sophistications not of men but of Pure Reason itself.
Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them.
After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error; but he will never be able to free himself from the Illusion, which unceasingly mocks and torments him.
B397

This is why practice [nb: a lot to discuss on this] is critical to ensure the mind do not deceive, mock and torment oneself to the illusory God.

Posted: **Fri Aug 24, 2018 11:02 am**

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Aug 24, 2018 4:56 am There is no question of a non-dual mind.

That's because a non-dual mind would need a mind to have a question.
The Non-dual mind doesn't have a mind. It is the mind without question, doubt or error. That's what Non-dual mind means.
It means the mind is Not dual, it only appears that way, since what the heck would Non-dual mind even mean without comparison by contrast?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Aug 24, 2018 4:56 am When you introduce a non-dual mind, you do not realize you are in fact unconsciously engaging in duality, i.e.

Both create the other in the same instant. There is nothing to divide the apparent two. The 'You' is Non-dual reality. There is no 'You' because there is no other than 'You'.

No one is being 'You', there is only 'You' being Every ONE = Non-dual mind appearing to itself as mind. A mirror reflection of the Non-dual mind.

How can anything be known without the contrast of not-knowing?
It's not a person that knows, a person is known, by not-knowing.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Aug 24, 2018 4:56 am a dual mind versus a non-dual mind.

Both the Dual mind and the Non-dual mind are ONE. One reflects the other, itself. It's a two way mirror. But the mirror is ONE.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Aug 24, 2018 4:56 amAll humans are born with an inherent tendency to grab on to something and the mind in this course lead and dupe theists to think [idealize] there is a real God when there is no real God at all. Some theists [not you] who are entrapped in such illusion commit terrible evils and violence to defend such illusions.

Non-dual Consciousness and the contents of that Non-dual Consciousness are the same ONE ...Emptiness appearing Full is Known as Duality Known by Not-Knowing Non-dual Consciousness. Can't have Knowing without Not-knowing Knowing.

Emptiness cannot appear, it never appears, it's everything, it's doesn't have to appear, what appears to be fullness in the form of things/images..is in in fact empty fullness an appearance IN emptiness THAT NEVER APPEARED.

.

Emptiness doesn't need to practice being ON.. It's permanently ON

.

Posted: **Sat Aug 25, 2018 5:07 am**

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Fri Aug 24, 2018 11:02 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Aug 24, 2018 4:56 am There is no question of a non-dual mind.
That's because a non-dual mind would need a mind to have a question.
The Non-dual mind doesn't have a mind. It is the mind without question, doubt or error. That's what Non-dual mind means.
It means the mind is Not dual, it only appears that way, since what the heck would Non-dual mind even mean without comparison by contrast?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Aug 24, 2018 4:56 am When you introduce a non-dual mind, you do not realize you are in fact unconsciously engaging in duality, i.e.
Both create the other in the same instant. There is nothing to divide the apparent two. The 'You' is Non-dual reality. There is no 'You' because there is no other than 'You'.

No one is being 'You', there is only 'You' being Every ONE = Non-dual mind appearing to itself as mind. A mirror reflection of the Non-dual mind.

How can anything be known without the contrast of not-knowing?
It's not a person that knows, a person is known, by not-knowing.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Aug 24, 2018 4:56 am a dual mind versus a non-dual mind.
Both the Dual mind and the Non-dual mind are ONE. One reflects the other, itself. It's a two way mirror. But the mirror is ONE.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Aug 24, 2018 4:56 amAll humans are born with an inherent tendency to grab on to something and the mind in this course lead and dupe theists to think [idealize] there is a real God when there is no real God at all. Some theists [not you] who are entrapped in such illusion commit terrible evils and violence to defend such illusions.

Non-dual Consciousness and the contents of that Non-dual Consciousness are the same ONE ...Emptiness appearing Full is Known as Duality Known by Not-Knowing Non-dual Consciousness. Can't have Knowing without Not-knowing Knowing.

Emptiness cannot appear, it never appears, it's everything, it's doesn't have to appear, what appears to be fullness in the form of things/images..is in in fact empty fullness an appearance IN emptiness THAT NEVER APPEARED.

Emptiness doesn't need to practice being ON.. It's permanently ON

Note there are many levels of the mind.
At one level of mind-X you cognized
a dual mind versus a non-dual mind
which is duality,

but then at another level mind-Y,
you state both are ONE as the same thing.
At level-Y you cognize Oneness in every duality of X.

But the point you are stuck with a mind-Y which is not obvious but it is nevertheless dualistic as there are other mind-Ys.

Emptiness doesn't need to practice being ON.. It's permanently ON

Who say that?
That can only be qualified to the emprical "I" which is subjective and dualistic.

Posted: **Sat Aug 25, 2018 8:15 pm**

Veritas, please remember that everything is first person subjective. Even 3rd person objective is really first person subjective, because 3rd person objective came from (or rather is couched in) 1st person subjective. So no matter how much external validation we can give something using the 3rd person objective its always occurring in the 1st person subjective. Always.

Posted: **Sun Aug 26, 2018 4:06 am**

Ramu wrote: ↑Sat Aug 25, 2018 8:15 pm Veritas, please remember that everything is first person subjective. Even 3rd person objective is really first person subjective, because 3rd person objective came from (or rather is couched in) 1st person subjective. So no matter how much external validation we can give something using the 3rd person objective its always occurring in the 1st person subjective. Always.

That is the point.
So how can one get from 1st person subjective to an independent God objective?

The reason is the 1st person's psychological drive that conjure [reify] the idea of a God objective out of nowhere.

This is why we need to focus on that psychological drive which is the most real rather than on an illusory God that could end up inspiring SOME evil prone theists to commit terrible evils and violence as a divine duty.

Posted: **Sun Aug 26, 2018 12:38 pm**

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Aug 25, 2018 5:07 am Note there are many levels of the mind.
At one level of mind-X you cognized

The mind that appears to be cognising as a 'thing known' .. is an ''illusory thing KNOWN ...in re-cognition the I AM is known to be not-a-thing. As I am the only KNOWER of myself.

The knowing of a thing,.. is a ''thing known''......but not known by the thing known( re-cognised)....a ''thing known'' (re-cognised) is known only by not-a-thing.

In knowing a thing... not-a-thing is also known ...Re-cogniton is KNOWLEDGE appearing in this immediate NOT-KNOWING (I AM)
To know I AM is to also know I AM not.

The I AM is the knower of the thing I AM not.....The same ONE not-knowing knower.
In knowing I don't know. Everything is known.

No ''thing'' has ever been seen, ''things'' are only known by not-a-thing...which is unborn awareness...this inconceivable conception.

Here, it appears that the mind claims to be the knower..but it's not the knower..the mind is the known...for reasons I've already given above...

That which is ''known'' cannot know it is the knower - it cannot know it is not the knower.

Why?

Because... To know you know requires ( I AM) to be split into two halves.. into a knower here separate from the known there...there is no such separation, the mind is the illusory divider of that which is indivisible, the mind is knowledge, and knowledge informs the illusory nature of reality, in that there is no separate knower...both knower and known ARE one unitary action. There are no actions in reality, only re-actions, the illusory re-cognition of knowledge KNOWN BY NO THING.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Aug 25, 2018 5:07 ama dual mind versus a non-dual mind
which is duality,

but then at another level mind-Y,
you state both are ONE as the same thing.
At level-Y you cognize Oneness in every duality of X.

It's the same one dreaming difference where there is none.
I've explained this loads of times how oneness knows itself through other, it's own self.
Awareness knows itself as an aspect of itself mirrored through the mind. No thing is doing this. As soon as the mind latches on to itself as a thing, it appears as if it is that thing, when in truth, the thing is no thing appearing as a thing.. No thing is doing, yet no thing is left undone.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Aug 25, 2018 5:07 amBut the point you are stuck with a mind-Y which is not obvious but it is nevertheless dualistic as there are other mind-Ys.

No, this is where you are stuck IN believing there are ''other minds''...other minds are illusory appearances of the one mind. The mind is the knowing aspect of not-knowing awareness known in what it reflects. There is no separation between the mirror that is awareness and what the mirror reflects, aka it's mind.. It's all ONE appearing as the many, many of one.

Emptiness doesn't need to practice being ON.. It's permanently ON

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Aug 25, 2018 5:07 amWho say that?
That can only be qualified to the emprical "I" which is subjective and dualistic.

No one is saying it...there is no I in a subject, the subject is emptiness appearing as a subject known.
A subject known is an object..
An object is the subjective projection known by awareness...the knower and experiencer of the object, inseparable from the object. There is no object existing outside of this aware arena...no object has ever been seen...it's a mirage projection of the light, an image of the imagless.

An object is a known concept in the seer that has never been seen, for it is the seeing, inseparable from the seen.

.

Posted: **Sun Aug 26, 2018 1:22 pm**

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Aug 26, 2018 4:06 amThat is the point.
So how can one get from 1st person subjective to an independent God objective?

The reason is the 1st person's psychological drive that conjure [reify] the idea of a God objective out of nowhere.

This is why we need to focus on that psychological drive which is the most real rather than on an illusory God that could end up inspiring SOME evil prone theists to commit terrible evils and violence as a divine duty.

There is no psychological drive happening here except the deluded belief there is. How many more times are you going to talk about this psychological drive ?

This ''assumed'' psychological drive does not belong to a person...it's a false belief, appearing in here, it's no thing.

In the dream of separation, where no thing is dreaming, believing, imagining, it is a ''human being'' that somehow develops a psychological drive in order to protect itself by inventing a creator God that will save it from all evil...doesn't exist...it's a story arising from nothing. Not-a-thing. YOU
YOU have invented the story yourself, it is the dream you are dreaming. And while dreams may come and go in you. YOU do not come and go. YOU are the eternal NOW in which every dream is arising.

This false belief is an illusory appearance, (a dream)..in YOU...it's an idea that there exists a world in which all sorts of evil acts are commited in the name of God...but this idea is just imagined fear where there is none. There is no one here to fearful. Fear pertains to the imaginary idea that there is a someone here and that someone is fearful of being no one...SO THIS IMAGINED CHARACTER invents a creator of itself, in the form of another aka God. It doesn't see that it's it's own creation, just as fear is it's own creation. And that which is created can be uncreated. And that that which is uncreated can never be created.

So what you have to realise Veritas Aequitas..is that war cannot be avoided in the world of knowledge the realm of opposites where violence and non-violence are going to be known, can't know peace without knowing war and vice versa.

Where there is knowledge, there are going to be opposites, can't know non-violence without knowing violence.

The hardest concept to grasp is that non-violence is actually violence.

.

All the while, what you are essentially is the awareness that is beyond the knowledge of opposites, you are beyond the realm of duality. You are NON-DUAL awareness.

What you are essentially is that which is aware of opposites....you are that which is looking on with complete detachment, ever unharmed or defiled or effected by any thing appearing on the screen of awareness. Notice the sky is never effected by it's contents, it's content will appear and disappear, while the sky is a constant ever unchanging background. That's what the SELF is, the SELF is like the sky, the SELF is unchanging awareness, it's the unchanging background of everything that appears and disappears in /ON it.

The identified mind of the ''separate me'' will reject this message of course because the mind is indentified as being an object thing, it's lives in duality of birth and death, it's fearful. But beyond the mind, which is not really beyond, it's right here now. Now doesn't claim it's existence, it is existence.

.

When this consciousness awakens to itself as the indestructable love that is all allowing everything to be, then it will see that it can consciously choose to be or not be, amid all the chaos that being brings, and to know that whatever chaos may bring, this ONE being was never harmed or effected in any way shape or form by being what ever it chooses to be.

Any choice was always a choiceless choice.

Any being was always a beingless being.

No one is dreaming itself into existence.

Do you not understand that?

.

Posted: **Sun Aug 26, 2018 2:06 pm**

Individual minds may be illusions of the one mind but those illusions are so powerful that they are taken to be real
And this is why I cannot accept the notion of the one mind as my own mind does not want to deny its individuality

Posted: **Mon Aug 27, 2018 5:34 am**

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sun Aug 26, 2018 1:22 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Aug 26, 2018 4:06 amThat is the point.
So how can one get from 1st person subjective to an independent God objective?

The reason is the 1st person's psychological drive that conjure [reify] the idea of a God objective out of nowhere.

This is why we need to focus on that psychological drive which is the most real rather than on an illusory God that could end up inspiring SOME evil prone theists to commit terrible evils and violence as a divine duty.
There is no psychological drive happening here except the deluded belief there is. How many more times are you going to talk about this psychological drive ?

This ''assumed'' psychological drive does not belong to a person...it's a false belief, appearing in here, it's no thing.

Why can't I discuss the 'psychological drive'. Note this is a serious topic within the Psychology Community.
We have not delved into this 'psychological drive' in detail yet.

I had introduced a clue on it here,
viewtopic.php?p=371106#p371106

Posted: **Mon Aug 27, 2018 5:47 am**

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sun Aug 26, 2018 12:38 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Aug 25, 2018 5:07 am Note there are many levels of the mind.
At one level of mind-X you cognized
The mind that appears to be cognising as a 'thing known' .. is an ''illusory thing KNOWN ...in re-cognition the I AM is known to be not-a-thing. As I am the only KNOWER of myself.

The knowing of a thing,.. is a ''thing known''......but not known by the thing known( re-cognised)....a ''thing known'' (re-cognised) is known only by not-a-thing.

In knowing a thing... not-a-thing is also known ...Re-cogniton is KNOWLEDGE appearing in this immediate NOT-KNOWING (I AM)
To know I AM is to also know I AM not.

The I AM is the knower of the thing I AM not.....The same ONE not-knowing knower.
In knowing I don't know. Everything is known.

No ''thing'' has ever been seen, ''things'' are only known by not-a-thing...which is unborn awareness...this inconceivable conception.

Here, it appears that the mind claims to be the knower..but it's not the knower..the mind is the known...for reasons I've already given above...

That which is ''known'' cannot know it is the knower - it cannot know it is not the knower.

Why?

Because... To know you know requires ( I AM) to be split into two halves.. into a knower here separate from the known there...there is no such separation, the mind is the illusory divider of that which is indivisible, the mind is knowledge, and knowledge informs the illusory nature of reality, in that there is no separate knower...both knower and known ARE one unitary action. There are no actions in reality, only re-actions, the illusory re-cognition of knowledge KNOWN BY NO THING.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Aug 25, 2018 5:07 ama dual mind versus a non-dual mind
which is duality,

but then at another level mind-Y,
you state both are ONE as the same thing.
At level-Y you cognize Oneness in every duality of X.
It's the same one dreaming difference where there is none.
I've explained this loads of times how oneness knows itself through other, it's own self.
Awareness knows itself as an aspect of itself mirrored through the mind. No thing is doing this. As soon as the mind latches on to itself as a thing, it appears as if it is that thing, when in truth, the thing is no thing appearing as a thing.. No thing is doing, yet no thing is left undone.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Aug 25, 2018 5:07 amBut the point you are stuck with a mind-Y which is not obvious but it is nevertheless dualistic as there are other mind-Ys.
No, this is where you are stuck IN believing there are ''other minds''...other minds are illusory appearances of the one mind. The mind is the knowing aspect of not-knowing awareness known in what it reflects. There is no separation between the mirror that is awareness and what the mirror reflects, aka it's mind.. It's all ONE appearing as the many, many of one.

Emptiness doesn't need to practice being ON.. It's permanently ON

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Aug 25, 2018 5:07 amWho say that?
That can only be qualified to the emprical "I" which is subjective and dualistic.
No one is saying it...there is no I in a subject, the subject is emptiness appearing as a subject known.
A subject known is an object..
An object is the subjective projection known by awareness...the knower and experiencer of the object, inseparable from the object. There is no object existing outside of this aware arena...no object has ever been seen...it's a mirage projection of the light, an image of the imagless.

An object is a known concept in the seer that has never been seen, for it is the seeing, inseparable from the seen.

You are beating around the bushes with the above and other posts.

You have not declared but I assumed you are into advaita vedanta, if not, let me know which fundamental philosophy are you relying on?

Basically I can reduce our discussion to two main areas, i.e.

1. Advaita Vedanta [yours']
versus
2. Buddhism proper [mine*].

* in my case, there is more to Buddhism, but here I will just refer on it.

In Advaita Vedanta we have its ultimate, i.e. Neti Neti and Tat Tvam Asi.

Tat Tvam Asi (Devanagari: तत्त्वमसि), a Sanskrit phrase, translated variously as "Thou art that," (That thou art, That art thou, You are that, or That you are, or You're it) is one of the Mahāvākyas (Grand Pronouncements) in Vedantic Sanatana Dharma

In Buddhism-proper there is 'Sunyata' i.e. nothingness and nothingness-of-nothingness.

Thus Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta stand in total contrast from one another.

Note, however you explains Advaita Vedanta I have no problem understanding [agree to a certain extent but not completely] what you are trying to say.
However you don't seem to understand [not necessary agree with] the principles of Buddhism-proper.

Philosophy Now Forum

Life is not Religious. Life is not a Religion.

Re: Life is not Religious. Life is not a Religion.

Re: Life is not Religious. Life is not a Religion.

Re: Life is not Religious. Life is not a Religion.

Re: Life is not Religious. Life is not a Religion.

Re: Life is not Religious. Life is not a Religion.

Re: Life is not Religious. Life is not a Religion.

Re: Life is not Religious. Life is not a Religion.

Re: Life is not Religious. Life is not a Religion.

Re: Life is not Religious. Life is not a Religion.

Re: Life is not Religious. Life is not a Religion.

Re: Life is not Religious. Life is not a Religion.

Re: Life is not Religious. Life is not a Religion.

Re: Life is not Religious. Life is not a Religion.

Re: Life is not Religious. Life is not a Religion.

Re: Life is not Religious. Life is not a Religion.