Philosophy Now Forum

Ramu wrote: ↑Tue Oct 02, 2018 6:54 pm VA you keep saying brains are needed. Why do we need appearances to explain other appearances? Brains are not needed....Source manifests directly.

Obviously you are a materialist at heart. Its too bad children just get automatically brainwashed with this paradigm that quantum mechanics has actually debunked.

You will never "get it" if you can't escape this paradigm because its so SEVERELY limited.

He's just on a continuous cycle of replacing one illusion with another illusion - hes like the tar baby trying to stack feathers to the moon.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Oct 03, 2018 4:35 am Btw, I have had some 'spiritual experiences' i.e. altered states of consciousness [not as extreme as Jill Bolte's] and I thought I was special [belonging to the elite group].

For me, I have not had any spiritual experiences, nor have I had any altered states of consciousness. Nor have I taken any consciousness altering drugs, I do not smoke or drink or eat red meat. I have never thought I was special or belonging to an elite group. I have never attended any satsangs or spiritual meetings of any shape or form.
All I did was question ..Who am I? ..this was a spontaneous curious instinctive drive that came out of nowhere around the age of 5 years old.

I instinctively knew my named identity caused me to believe I was a separate self, which further endorsed the feeling that other named identities were separate from me as well, in that they were not me. But this feeling never felt right to me. What did feel right to me was when I realised I am not my named identity at all. And when I dropped the idea of being this separate named identity, the feeling that I had then was that all I was ..was this mysterious tacit reality that cannot be named. I was just life and everything else in life was also the same life. I could not see anything separating me from everything else except the the ''thought'' aka the label. I saw that labels was a human invention it was their activity to label things since humans had to commincate with each other, so they basically invented language which is basically separation which is a fiction. I knew this instinctively, no one taught it to me. I had to figure it out for myself, which I did.

When I dropped the idea of me being a fictional character - I became aware that I was nothing being aware of itself. That felt right to me. And that rightness was not that I was this separate identity, rather, I was Nothing and Everything.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Oct 03, 2018 4:35 amWhilst is "something" positive to experience, I was told by many 'teachers' and confirm by extensive reading not to give any special attention to such experiences.

Well, I just realised by myself that what I ''thought'' were my ''thoughts'' were not mine at all, they were just energetic sensations, ideas, concepts, coming and going in me, without ever affecting me at all. Although if I attached to these energies, then I would start to believe they were who I were, which didn't feel right, and so I knew not to attach to them. But at the same time I knew that these energies just also wanted to be a part of this dynamic that is this unamed unclaimed reality.

I was just being, and I didn't need a 'thought' in order to be, I didn't have to 'think' about being, I was just being. That was when I realised there was no separate ''me''..which led to the realisation that this assumed separate ''me'' had never even been born in the first place.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Oct 03, 2018 4:35 amFurther reading of such of my own experience and that of others, I learned they are basically neural activities triggered upon by various circumstances. I have made it a point to read whatever I can access to understand the topic deeply and I have done that and is continuing to do so.

I only ever read one book and that was titled ''Nobody Home'' by Jan Kersschot. I was instantly drawn to this particular book because I already knew that there was nobody in the form of a person inside my body ...but then was curious to see this book that someone esle was having those exact feelings about there being no one home ...So when I read that book, it confirmed what I already knew. So I didn't feel the need to investigate further by reading hundreds of other books... I stopped seeking there and then. I sometimes read books now just to see how other people have awakened to their non-selves, but not for the purpose of my own seeking, for I am not a seeker anymore, I have no more use for that kind of knowledge.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Oct 03, 2018 4:35 amIf you don't bother to read up, you have to count yourself as ignorant on this subject.

Well thanks for the tip, but your just singing to the already converted, I already knew instinctively from the age of 5/6 years old before I could even read a word. No one is ignorant of their true self,unless someone else has blinded them from their own self knowledge by informing them they are something that they are not, and then blindingly believing that information was true without questioning whether it was or not.

Please, give people some credit, not all people are as dumb as you'd like to think they are.

.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Oct 03, 2018 4:35 amQuestion 2 - ''who'' is it that you think or believe knows [God is an Impossibility?]
I am aware the above question will lead to the Metaphysical Perspective, i.e. Philosophy of Metaphysics which will result in illusory entities.
This is why I have proven why 'God is an Impossibility to be Real.'

There are no ''who's'' or ''entities'' in reality which has no known begining nor ending..aka (Nothing and Everything) aka GOD

''Entities'' and ''Who's'' are temporal appearances within the dream of separation relative (knowledge) of the Absolute, aka Infinity Now.

.

No doubt your conditioning has caused you to loath the word GOD..as if it is some dirty word.

But that's a common myth, that needs to be flushed down the toilet where it belongs.

.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Oct 03, 2018 5:09 am
Where did I state 'we need appearances to explain other appearances?'
Appearances are merely a small element of the brain/mind.

There is no escape on "what is" without reference to your brain/mind and the collective mind of humans.

Reality does not take place inside of a brain.

No one has ever seen a brain or a mind...it is the belief in these things as real literal objects where the confusion arises.

You are using the brain as being the reference point of what you are trying to say. There is no such reference point. Reality is a groundless non-local phenomena, there is no central point of reference anywhere that can be touched, every apparent point of reference is an illusory appearance within reality without a centre, bascially the centre if that's what you want to use as a reference point is everywhere and nowhere ALL at once now here.


.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Wed Oct 03, 2018 1:32 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Oct 03, 2018 4:35 am Btw, I have had some 'spiritual experiences' i.e. altered states of consciousness [not as extreme as Jill Bolte's] and I thought I was special [belonging to the elite group].

For me, I have not had any spiritual experiences, nor have I had any altered states of consciousness. Nor have I taken any consciousness altering drugs, I do not smoke or drink or eat red meat. I have never thought I was special or belonging to an elite group. I have never attended any satsangs or spiritual meetings of any shape or form.
All I did was question ..Who am I? ..this was a spontaneous curious instinctive drive that came out of nowhere around the age of 5 years old.

....

I agree it is definitely a wise move to ask the question 'Who Am I?'

You stated it was spontaneous thus it has to be accepted but I don't think a five years old has sufficient competence of critical thinking to handle such a question efficiently and thus it could go either way. Fortunately there is nothing seriously negative in your direction.

I have stated, religion/spirituality rating [my own] there is an analogical equivalence from Kindergarten [10/100] to PhD [>90/100].
I would rate advaita vedanta philosophy/beliefs [similar to your beliefs ??] at 80/100 thus very much higher than those rated at 30-40/100. My assessment is, advaita_vedanta-proper despite being highly rated has its limitations in contrast to Buddhism-proper which I would rate at 90/100.

The non-duality principles of advaita-vedanta focus on the atman-Brahman linkage with the typical slogan of 'No You, No Me.'
The core approach in advaita-vedanta is to establish a state that will strip of ego to the ultimate atman then dissolve it and merely let the Brahman [Absolute] flow and manifest itself in whatever there is.

In advaita-vedanta there is the belief there is still the individual atman [soul] that transmigrate after the physical death of the person to another entity.
I had assumed you also believe in this but it appear you do not believe with this??

Nevertheless you believe in the Absolute, Oneness, Pure Awareness, and the likes.
I have argued this is an illusion. I invite you to prove me wrong on this point.

I believe the aggressive one sided slogans of non-duality and 'No You, No Me' is counter productive overall in life as such a view portrays the ego and personal identity as negative as if it is evil.

Buddhism-proper do not recognize the atman as a self [soul] that transmigrate after death to another entity. Noted the contentious idea of rebirth within Buddhism but the way it is presented is not in line with Buddhism-proper.
But Buddhism-proper via its principle of Two-Truths [P and not-P] besides the non-self also recognize the 'you' and 'me.' Along with the principle of the Middle Path, the caution is not to go the extreme of the "I_ness" 'You' and 'Me' in terms of narcissism, ego-maniac, and any move to the extreme that can turn evil.

In terms of the progress and evolution of humanity, the "I_ness" 'You' and 'Me' [avoiding the extreme clinging] has a critical role to play. The slogan of 'No You, No Me' in its extreme negative belief is counter productive to the progress of humanity.

Personally I believe reading just one book is not enough.
For any serious topic I will try to read at least 50 books [if not 20] or to the extent of the books I can get hold of. It is very easy to read 50 books because once we understand the core themes from two or three books, the rest can be covered by merely looking for the subtle differences.

I could not find Jan Kersschot's Nobody's Home to download.
I visited his site and have just read 20 pages of The Myth of Self-Enquiry by Jan Kersschot's
https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0125/ ... _pages.pdf
to get an idea of his views.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 04, 2018 4:18 am
I could not find Jan Kersschot's Nobody's Home to download.
I visited his site and have just read 20 pages of The Myth of Self-Enquiry by Jan Kersschot's
https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0125/ ... _pages.pdf
to get an idea of his views.

What I should have mentioned but forgot, was that Jan Kersschot changed the title of his book from ''Nobody Home'' to ''Coming Home''
Not quite sure why he did that, but the narrative was exactly the same.. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Coming-Home-In ... 8189658417

I had a copy of the original title Nobody Home...before he changed it to Coming home. I don't have the book anymore I gave it away to a friend.

And yeah, the ''myth of self inquiry'' was just saying that some of us can be born with a hunger pang to belong to something much greater than just this separate little me, that we cannot yet grasp hold of, but know exists, a feeling that doesn't feel right in the sense of having this sense of separate identity that has been imposed upon us by our parents...so in essence the book is saying, there is no one to come home in the literal sense ...in that you are already home always, you have never left home, this is home, it's all you.

I only read snippets of the ''myth of self inquiry'' online.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 04, 2018 4:18 am
You stated it was spontaneous thus it has to be accepted but I don't think a five years old has sufficient competence of critical thinking to handle such a question efficiently and thus it could go either way. Fortunately there is nothing seriously negative in your direction.

But it's not up to you to judge or speak up about something that is not your direct experience. No one can know what goes on in the mind of another person, especially the mind of a child. I really don't believe that we can ever know the mind of another, and so to think we do is a grave error, because we are each and all a ''never to be repeated'' unique expression of infinity. Anyone who begs to differ is in my opinion coming from a closed shallow constricted limited mindset.

I was a naturally inquisitive and deep thinking child. Children are not what adults think or believe they are, they are in essence just mini adults. They can remind grown-ups a thing or two about things that they themselves have forgotten about, they can remind adults how to be blissfully peaceful and always in the moment. Really, most adults today are just children inside, I am one of them, the child within me has never left me, and never will.

That doesn't make me a weak person who cannot defend myself. I obviously had to learn some pretty tough skills on how to interact with the big ego people, but I never faltered or fainted. I was incredibly strong emotionally. Never did I shy away from growing my sense of belonging to the bigger picture rather than just accepting the lie that I was just this one isolated separate little ''me'' and the world out there was separate from 'me'


For some reason,something when awry as we moved out of the child stage of our lives..as we became more competitive and ego driven we kind of left the garden so to speak, but this didn't feel right for me, I didn't feel comfotable with this ego life, I wanted to return to the garden that was my natural home, from where I came from which was the child within me. I learnt to be my own mother and father, lover and best friend to myself. Yes, I learnt that only I was going to love me and stay with me, yes, I was definitely the one.

At home with the beloved.

.

.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 04, 2018 4:18 amIn advaita-vedanta there is the belief there is still the individual atman [soul] that transmigrate after the physical death of the person to another entity.

I have never heard of such. And besides, this kind of belief can be interpreted in as many ways as the imagination can stretch. But to me, all it means is there's just this one energy that cannot be created nor destroyed, aka its infinite without any KNOWN beginning nor ending, its the groundless unchanging substrate aka source of all manifestation..and this boundless constant unchanging unmoved mover, by constrast is constantly changing in the illusory sense from one form to another, which feels about right to me. Obviously other people are going to make up their own minds about how they vision their reality.

Advaita, the bible, the koran, or just about any other esoteric knowledge you can think of is of no acceptation, in that they're all just like any other story written by the mind that is human imagination. It's all dream story at the end of the day, because no one has ever seen a mind.

Also, the belief that belief is real, is just a myth, its a mentally created fictional story. The belief in any thing has to dispelled, you do not have to believe in reality, reality ''JUST IS'' with and without the belief.

And in that sense one moves away from belief to the clarity that is right here now always right in front of our face, closer that our very own skin.
Obviously if we are to hold onto the belief we are ''separate beings'' then without that belief there is no movie of ''I''
So in essense we are basically creating our own dream world of what we believe to be HERE, in this dream world full of believed fictional characters within the dream of separation...in that if there is No belief, there is no movie of ''I''

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 04, 2018 4:18 amNevertheless you believe in the Absolute, Oneness, Pure Awareness, and the likes.
I have argued this is an illusion. I invite you to prove me wrong on this point.

But like I've explained above, the belief is in the dream of separation. In reality there is no requirement for belief, for you are without doubt or error, you don't have to believe you are. Throw away the belief which is fictional, and see beyond the belief to the sea of clarity.

Obviously and I repeat, you ARE no thing and everything, but in order to be a ''separate someone'' that dynamic requires a belief. One FIRST needs to BE before one can be (another) aka a (belief). The 'other' is your 'identity' as believed, the fictional story of separation. A dream within the infinite dreamer, which is always and ever YOU this immediate self evident ''first person appearance'' where all ''other'' appearances are couched always and forever within that ''first person subjective appearance'' it can't be any other way.

That there appears to be ''others'' outside of you, is an assumptive belief,which is not real. For there is no ''objective world'' existing outside of your ''first person appearance.'' its all IN YOU.

Now, you either ''get this'' or you don't. If you don't, then there is no way in hell anyone is ever going to convince you OTHERWISE from your own belief as to what you believe reality IS...''getting it'' is to see that there is nothing to get, and to see that you are THIS without having to believe you are.

YOU cannot be an experience, neither can YOU experience the absence of YOU. The ''experience'' is within the dream of separation, the fictional story of I
All couched within what is always here and real aka ONENESS. It's this right here / nowhere.
NO ONE is being IT, ..IT, is being no one and everyone.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 04, 2018 4:18 amI believe the aggressive one sided slogans of non-duality and 'No You, No Me' is counter productive overall in life as such a view portrays the ego and personal identity as negative as if it is evil.

No it's not really, because it's all but a mind story arising and falling in you, just as any thought arises and falls within you, just as any sensation arises and falls within you. Notice that you never arise and fall, you don't change, only thoughts you have about you change.

This is so difficult to explain to someone who doesn't get it, so its pointless to even try. But here is another rub, 'you' don't ever 'get this' anyway. THIS realisation 'gets you', only when life evloves that in 'you' and not one second before.

.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 04, 2018 4:18 am
In terms of the progress and evolution of humanity, the "I_ness" 'You' and 'Me' [avoiding the extreme clinging] has a critical role to play. The slogan of 'No You, No Me' in its extreme negative belief is counter productive to the progress of humanity.

Well it depends which way you look at this..you can look at it from the whole or the part. From the positive or the negative aspect.
The only reason it feels negative is because during the realisation that there is no ''separate ego'' that thought suddenly becomes a threat to the (ego) its like the ego is all of a sudden aware of its own emptiness, and in that confrontation with its true identity, the thought arises ''how can I not exist, of course I exist.'' come up and it doesn't like that.

... so the ego becomes a monster in its futile attempt to take centre stage, which is granted to it by the universe anyway, because the universe doesn't care about handing over its authority, control and reign over to the ego, because it already knows its real authentic self, so allows the monkey mind to have its all its own way, knowing full well it is the only one in control anyway. The monkey mindset will aways fail, because it does everything from the sense of selfishness instead of the selfless one that is the whole enchilada anyway including the selfish one. The selfish one always returns to the selfless one because it gets sick and tired of all the hurting it does to itself, and the universe knows this, it knows the ego will always seek truth, for hurting and suffering is not a natural way to be, so in that desperation for truth, it will seek for equilibrium and the inner peace of its real selfless self.

Awakening to the dream of separation (ego)to oneness ...is every much a part of this human evolution. The idea there is an I (ego) there to cling to is the illusion within the dream of separation, but this is all inclusive of oneness anyway, its an integral role within the whole.
It's all about knowing the difference between the real you and the fictional you. ..but this is something that cannot be taught, you have to do this inner work yourself, it will be your direct experience, no one can make that happen for you.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 04, 2018 4:18 amPersonally I believe reading just one book is not enough.
For any serious topic I will try to read at least 50 books [if not 20] or to the extent of the books I can get hold of. It is very easy to read 50 books because once we understand the core themes from two or three books, the rest can be covered by merely looking for the subtle differences.

But still this is just your own belief that you perhaps believe you have to read hundreds of books, its as if you think and believe there is something to get. But this is your experience unique to you. This does not mean that everyone else believes that. We're all different in how we approach things like this.

For me, I was fortunate to already know there was no such thing as a separate self (ego)..so it wasn't important to me to read tons of books just to validate what I already knew. My epithany was spontaneous like I've already explained to you, it came to me, I did not go to it. It's just one of those things that happens, you cannot make this happen, it either happens in you or it doesn't. One can read a million books and seek out the company of a thousand spiritual gurus and still never get it. It all depends whether you are meant to get it or not.

Of course this self-realisation is very different to the ego journey, the journey of wanting to be a ''somebody'' ..this is within the dream of separation, in the dream of a specific character role...this one has to do a huge amount of reading and learning to aquire the skill in order to carry out the role of its choice, be it an airplane pilot or a brain surgeon... you can't just be a ''someone'' without aquiring knowledge of that subject aka the role you want to play.
But being a ''no one'' ''nobody'' doesn't require any knowledge at all to be, that's just a given.

Not everyone is the same, we all hold to our own selves of what is unique to our own understandings.

The crux of the matter is, that once one has awakened to the dream of separation, there really is no going back to ego living. Once one gets a taste of the oneness that is no thing and everything there is no return ticket, the realisation is permanent.

And one of the benefits of awakening is that it changes everything we ever believed about reality. It absolutely changes everything, and puts it all into crystal clear clarity. This is positive and has a wide and profound impact on the world in general, the paradigm shift impacts everyone you meet and its addictive in a very postive way, so as you see, its not the evil that you think it is, its quite the opposite, its actually pure unconditional love for everything and everyone, its precious beyond belief.

.

DAM, wonderfully said. My 180° turn came when I realized that my mind was not in this fictional brain, but rather my body was in the mind.

Everything is pure Source energy, including this illusion of being this "body". An object cannot perceive itself.

You are not your brain. There is no brain. It exists as a mere concept and nothing more.

Question to the pseudo-Advaitans, if the brain is just a concept then what is this:

Ramu wrote: ↑Thu Oct 04, 2018 11:45 am DAM, wonderfully said. My 180° turn came when I realized that my mind was not in this fictional brain, but rather my body was in the mind.

Everything is pure Source energy, including this illusion of being this "body". An object cannot perceive itself.

You are not your brain. There is no brain. It exists as a mere concept and nothing more.

Thankyou, Ramu, I agree with you.

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Oct 04, 2018 12:12 pm Question to the pseudo-Advaitans, if the brain is just a concept then what is this:


brain.jpg

Okay, you asked for it.

From the ''first person appearance'' perspective only aka yourself.


This is an image appearance of an object conceptually known as a brain...appearing in your mind believed to be an object outside you. It's the object that you believe all your sensory experiences of being you comes from. But this is a myth, for no object has any reality apart from the one perceiveing it, aware of it. You cannot be inside your brain, for you have never seen your own brain to know a brain even exists.

It's not until you see the conceptual image of the brain does that something then exist, but it only exists as a known concept in your mind. The object in and of itself has no reality. You're mind is a non-physcial phenomena in which the illusory physcial objective world arises and falls.

So the brain or any other conceptual object is inside of you, not outside of you. For there is no thing in the world separate from that which is looking at it. And that which is looking is the non-physcial looking upon itself as a fictional object. One is real, the other is fiction. That which appears to be outside of vision is only a reflection of the one looking at it. The physical is a reflection of the non-physical.

The perceiver is non-local and cannot be pinned down to one exact location, or be seen with the physical eye, for the physcial eye is the instrument of seeing, not the seeing itself....the physical eye does not see anything, it is a conceptual appearance, its the instrument of seeing..seeing sees itself as and through that instrument, but it not the instrument, aka the object seen. The object seen is a known concept of seeing that cannot be known by the object.

Mind ..cannot experience itself as an object, the object is the ''experience'' an appearance within Mind...not outside of mind.

The subject ''first person appearance'', aka the perceiver DOES NOT and CANNOT know where seeing, or any of the senses, experiences, feelings,thoughts, ideas, concepts, beliefs,dreams,etc etc.. are happening or where they are located EXACTLY... for they are everywhere and nowhere all at once couched within the one without a second. This is infinity NOW, ..the absolute appearing as the finite.

The belief that there is you looking inside a brain that say thats where I am happening, thats where I am, is a myth... its not true, you are not inside a brain because that still does not solve the problem of who is looking inside the brain. You cannot look inside your own brain, its inside of you. You are MIND, not an object. An object cannot do anything.

Looking for you on an MRI image of the brain ..believing that is where your existence resides ..is like looking for the music inside a radio, or looking for the characters inside your dream at night ...you cannot look at you brain and be in there and at the same time be the one outside the brain looking at the you in the brain.

That's like looking for your beloved pet inside the meat market.

.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Thu Oct 04, 2018 1:47 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Oct 04, 2018 12:12 pm Question to the pseudo-Advaitans, if the brain is just a concept then what is this:


brain.jpg

Okay, you asked for it.

From the ''first person appearance'' perspective only aka yourself.


This is an image appearance of an object conceptually known as a brain...appearing in your mind believed to be an object outside you. It's the object that you believe all your sensory experiences of being you comes from. But this is a myth, for no object has any reality apart from the one perceiveing it, aware of it. You cannot be inside your brain, for you have never seen your own brain to know a brain even exists.

It's not until you see the conceptual image of the brain does that something then exist, but it only exists as a known concept in your mind. The object in and of itself has no reality. You're mind is a non-physcial phenomena in which the illusory physcial objective world arises and falls.

So the brain or any other conceptual object is inside of you, not outside of you. For there is no thing in the world separate from that which is looking at it. And that which is looking is the non-physcial looking upon itself as a fictional object. One is real, the other is fiction. That which appears to be outside of vision is only a reflection of the one looking at it. The physical is a reflection of the non-physical.

The perceiver is non-local and cannot be pinned down to one exact location, or be seen with the physical eye, for the physcial eye is the instrument of seeing, not the seeing itself....the physical eye does not see anything, it is a conceptual appearance, its the instrument of seeing..seeing sees itself as and through that instrument, but it not the instrument, aka the object seen. The obejct seen is a known concept of seeing that cannot be known.

Mind ..cannot experience itself as an object, the object is the ''experience'' an appearance within Mind...not outside of mind.

The subject ''first person appearance'', aka the perceiver DOES NOT and CANNOT know where seeing, or any of the senses, experiences, feelings,thoughts, ideas, concepts, beliefs,dreams,etc etc.. are happening or where they are located EXACTLY... for they are everywhere and nowhere all at once couched within the one without a second. This is infinity NOW, ..the absolute appearing as the finite.

The belief that there is you looking inside a brain that say thats where I am happening, thats where I am, is a myth... its not true, you are not inside a brain because that still does not solve the problem of who is looking inside the brain. You cannot look inside your own brain, its inside of you. You are MIND, not an object. An object cannot do anything.

Looking for you on an MRI image of the brain ..believing that is where your existence resides ..is like looking for the music inside a radio, or looking for the characters inside your dream at night ...you cannot look at you brain and be in there and at the same time be the one outside the brain looking at the you in the brain.

That's like looking for your beloved pet inside the meat market.

.

Word salad, didn't even read it all.

Pseudo-Advaitans are idiots who are unable to consider two things at the same time:

- individual experiences are in the head, in the individual brain/mind
- but all is Brahman, including the individual brain/mind; we are it

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Oct 04, 2018 1:54 pm Word salad, didn't even read it all.

Well you wouldn't read it all, because you already know all this.
But you only care for your own version of it, no problem.

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Oct 04, 2018 1:54 pmPseudo-Advaitans are idiots who are unable to consider two things at the same time:

No, that's just your distorted assumptive view point that you believe, doesn't make it true.

Actually, awakened people already know what you have pointed out below, so that does not make them an idiot, your just being a crank, and they are as common as muck.

- individual experiences are in the head, in the individual brain/mind (fiction)
- but all is Brahman, including the individual brain/mind; we are it (real)


.