Philosophy Now Forum

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Oct 17, 2024 10:53 am

Fairy wrote: ↑Thu Oct 17, 2024 10:42 am

Walker wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2024 7:11 pm
The thread begins with reference to the "supernatural God," so the OP applies to that, if "this" refers to the OP.

Reference is of past tense, which is dead, reference is a pointing to something that is already the case, else it could not be pointed to. What is already the case does not have a secondary reality.

Reality never refers to itself, because there is no other, reality is still and motionless, it's self-evidently self-illuminating and self-standing, all one one without a second.

Things cannot know they exist.

Things are known by no 'thing', a thing in and of itself, cannot know. No more than a machine can never knows it's maker.

The knowing mind is not a thing, but that which knows all things...the mind is a bubbling cauldron of synthetic nothingness, no thing, not a thing...appearing as everything..

You are not a thing like a dog toy is a thing. You are a set of experiences: the dog toy is nothing but its own history.
As you know, I agree with your view of the absolute (which you refer to as "reality"). But you don't and cannot live
without an ego self. The Indian sages who attempt to do so are kept alive by communities of other people.

Yes, and I've never once denied all that. Simply because there's just what's happening, and no one or thing is making what's happening happen, nor is there any one or thing making what's happening, unhappen.

I don't know how many times I have to repeat that to you.

Experiences are happening, but they are not happening to an 'experiencer' simply because the idea there is an ''experiencer'' is simply another experience.

No sage is attempting to live without a self, simply because it's impossible to experience the absence of experience. I'm not denying the ego, like you seem to think I am.

Fairy wrote: ↑Thu Oct 17, 2024 12:19 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Oct 17, 2024 10:53 am

Fairy wrote: ↑Thu Oct 17, 2024 10:42 am

Reference is of past tense, which is dead, reference is a pointing to something that is already the case, else it could not be pointed to. What is already the case does not have a secondary reality.

Reality never refers to itself, because there is no other, reality is still and motionless, it's self-evidently self-illuminating and self-standing, all one one without a second.

Things cannot know they exist.

Things are known by no 'thing', a thing in and of itself, cannot know. No more than a machine can never knows it's maker.

The knowing mind is not a thing, but that which knows all things...the mind is a bubbling cauldron of synthetic nothingness, no thing, not a thing...appearing as everything..

You are not a thing like a dog toy is a thing. You are a set of experiences: the dog toy is nothing but its own history.
As you know, I agree with your view of the absolute (which you refer to as "reality"). But you don't and cannot live
without an ego self. The Indian sages who attempt to do so are kept alive by communities of other people.

Yes, and I've never once denied all that. Simply because there's just what's happening, and no one or thing is making what's happening happen, nor is there any one or thing making what's happening, unhappen.

I don't know how many times I have to repeat that to you.

Experiences are happening, but they are not happening to an 'experiencer' simply because the idea there is an ''experiencer'' is simply another experience.

No sage is attempting to live without a self, simply because it's impossible to experience the absence of experience. I'm not denying the ego, like you seem to think I am.

But a set of experiences may or may not include an ego sense . Some people at times can exclude self from experience. Experience however can't be denied whether or not ego is part of the experience. I hope you see that I agree with your first paragraph.

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Oct 17, 2024 12:49 pm But a set of experiences may or may not include an ego sense .

To know the concept of 'experience' demands an 'experiencer'
To know an experience has occurred requires a knower ( an identity ) a concept known.
The concept of knower is still only a concept known, and not known by the concept, because concepts known, know nothing.

There is no such experience of non-inclusiveness, as in (may not include). There's just everything, all inclusive. . . any apparent parts of everything are illusory.

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Oct 17, 2024 12:49 pm Some people at times can exclude self from experience.

No they cannot, this is simply what some, not all of the enlightened masters would have you believe. It's called spiritual ego (imagination)

As above, so below. "the empyrean domain where human will and God's will became as one" · "the empyrean heights of the imagination"

In reaching for the Empyrean all we find is the Abyss