Philosophy Now Forum

According to Advaita Vedanta,

Wiki wrote:According to Advaita Vedanta, Brahman is the sole reality.

The status of the phenomenal world is an important question in Advaita Vedanta, and different solutions have been proposed. The perception of the phenomenal world as real is explained by maya (constantly changing reality) and avidya ("ignorance").

Other than Brahman, everything else, including the universe, material objects and individuals, are ever-changing and therefore maya.

Brahman is Paramarthika Satyam, "Absolute Truth",[156] and "the true Self, pure consciousness, the only Reality (sat), since It is untinged by difference, the mark of ignorance, and since It is the one thing that is not sublatable".

In relation to the above core principles of Advaita Vedanta, there is a community of non-dualists [including DontAskMe] who are very dogmatic in insisting there is no Me, No You, No Person, No Self, no-whatever.

Note in this discussion,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUSGiWV0kqE
even the interviewer has to remind himself not to use 'me' you, yours, person or self because Tony Parson DOGMATICALLY insisted there is no such things as 'me' you, yours, person or self.
When the interviewer naturally and spontaneously used 'person' or 'you' as anyone in any conversation he was sort of "reprimanded" and reminded as if he is unawakened and stupid!
I believe this is bigotry, stupidity and not being able to align with reality to understand and accept the reality of the EMPIRICAL 'me' you, yours, person or self.

My view is the concept of 'me' you, yours, person or self and objects emerged out of human reason for very necessary and critical "purposes" to facilitate the survival of the individual and the preservation of the human species.

However from the above impulses, there is also the tendency for the majority to reify the transcendental idea of 'me' you, yours, person or self and objects and exist permanently and independently as the soul that survives physical death or as thing-in-itself. The result of such thinking of independence is based on an illusion which results in terrible sufferings to the individual[s] and others.

However I claim it is ignorant and bigotry of anyone who cannot differentiate between the following;

• 1. The Empirical 'me' you, yours, person or self and objects
  2. The transcendental 'me' you, yours, person or self and objects

There is nothing wrong and it is perfectly natural and very necessary to use the terms of the empirical 'me' you, yours, person or self and objects but obviously it is necessary this cannot be taken as its transcendental equivalents, i.e. the illusory transcendental me or self.

I would propose, those non-dualists who are so prone to focus their attention on No-Me, No You, No Person, No Self MUST qualify theirs as No-transcendental-Me, No transcendental You, No transcendental Person, No transcendental Self.
In this case, whenever the terms 'me' you, yours, person or self and objects, they are by default empirical 'me' you, yours, person or self and objects which are verifiable by Science.

One point is, while the non-dualists of the advaita genre are conscious of calling out the illusion of the permanent self, me, you or person, they are ignorant in the sense of falling for the Transcendental-Absolute [aka God] as the really real. The Absolute aka God that these non-dualists insist is real is actually an illusion compelled by their internal psychological drive due to an inherent existential crisis.

Thus non-dualists who dogmatically insist there is No Me, No You, No Person, No Self without any qualifications are bigots.

Views?

Here some pretty good analysis on pseudo Advaita vs "real" Advaita. Unfortunately nowadays, pseudo Advaita is all the rage.

https://www.gurusfeet.com/blog/neo-adva ... thy-conway

Atla wrote: ↑Fri Oct 05, 2018 6:37 am Here some pretty good analysis on pseudo Advaita vs "real" Advaita. Unfortunately nowadays, pseudo Advaita is all the rage.

https://www.gurusfeet.com/blog/neo-adva ... thy-conway

Wow! great stuff.
You will note what are mentioned in the article I have already stated them in the many responses to DontAskMe. One of the pseudo-advaitin culprit mentioned in the article is Tony Parson which I had also mentioned in the OP and the Youtube Video.

However there is one exception.
I agree with the article's critique of how these pseudo-Advaitins are bigots re the extreme views of the illusion of the self in ignoring the criticalness of the empirical self, me, you, yours, person, things, and the likes in accordance to the Two-Truths Theory of Buddhism [mentioned in the article].

However where the truer-advaitins are still stuck with the Absolute, Brahman, aka God, and the likes, they are still caught up with an illusion. Thus while they are able to see through the illusion of the self, they are caught within the bigger and more complex transcendental illusion of the Absolute, Brahman, aka God, and the likes.
This is where the Four-Truths Theory * or Five-Truths of Buddhism need to be brought in to understand this transcendental illusion of the God.
* this is not the Four Noble Truths.

To paraphrase and interpret Kant's, this is why the wisest of men could understands the principles and illusions of the Two-Truths of the self and things, but they will always be deceived by their own mind unless they have understood the principles within the Four-Truths Theories.

Atla wrote: ↑Fri Oct 05, 2018 6:37 am Here some pretty good analysis on pseudo Advaita vs "real" Advaita. Unfortunately nowadays, pseudo Advaita is all the rage.

https://www.gurusfeet.com/blog/neo-adva ... thy-conway

There really is no difference between the two paradigms...except what 'ego' puts there by demonizing what is essentially all illusions anyway.

There really is no 'this version' verses 'that version' except what the egoic mind puts there in its illusory attempt to reject in favour of accept.
Such an activity is to bastardize the sacred underpinning message that is being expressed in the first place, which is essentially the same, albeit expressed differently.

Generally, the most genuinely open minded, intelligent,ardent, diligence seekers of truth don't look for differences, they have the innate sense of sensibilty to be able to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Don't forget, the true seeker already knows itself, the true self is a listener. The true self is not concerned by some fancy fly-by-night skepticism. The true listener in the pyrrhonism sense 'knows itself' absolutely. It does not listen to being told ''how'' or ''how'' not to be. It makes its own mind up for itself, by listening to what it already knows deep within its core of being.

Not everyone is distracted from their chosen path, despite the fact that there are a lot of conflicting and counter intuitive view points out there, but the true seeker already intuitively knows that all ''view points'' are bascially saying the same stuff, including the myriad of religious dogma we have in the world today, its all the same message, many are the paths, but the destination is always the same.

Some seekers are very serious, and stay firm and solid on their path, they are not easily swayed, diligent open minded seekers will never stray from their path, just because they hear something from someone else that is not computing with them. So as you can see, in this sense, it makes no sense to assume there can be any this verses that, that is just absolutely not true, its just another illusion.




.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Oct 05, 2018 7:48 am However where the truer-advaitins are still stuck with the Absolute, Brahman, aka God, and the likes, they are still caught up with an illusion. Thus while they are able to see through the illusion of the self, they are caught within the bigger and more complex transcendental illusion of the Absolute, Brahman, aka God, and the likes.
This is where the Four-Truths Theory * or Five-Truths of Buddhism need to be brought in to understand this transcendental illusion of the God.
* this is not the Four Noble Truths.

To paraphrase and interpret Kant's, this is why the wisest of men could understands the principles and illusions of the Two-Truths of the self and things, but they will always be deceived by their own mind unless they have understood the principles within the Four-Truths Theories.

Difficult to say, I think the "real" Advaita could be further broken down into two subgroups (or rather it's sort of a continuum):
- those who really reify the Brahman, the Oneness, which is ultimately an illusion / transcendental illusion
- and those who realize that the above is a tool that points to the "highest" form of nondual understanding; approaching it from the fullness/oneness perspective

I think the parallel in Buddhism is that Buddhism in general can be further broken down into two subgroups (or rather it's sort of a continuum):
- those who sort of reify emptiness, get caught in emptiness too much, which is ultimately an illusion
- and those who realize that the above is a tool to reach the "highest" form of nondual understanding; approaching it from the emptiness/nothingness perspective

I think it's fair to say that there are several times more Buddhists who are approaching this "highest" form of nondual understanding, than there are Advaitans. Perhaps I've seen it expressed the most clearly in Zen Buddhism.

On the other hand, all things considered, I think the Advaita approach would be the most optimal philosophy for humanity in general. (Half-full approach is psychologically superior to the half-empty approach. And to me, Buddhism also seems to be unnecessary convoluted compared to Advaita.)

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Fri Oct 05, 2018 8:06 am

Atla wrote: ↑Fri Oct 05, 2018 6:37 am Here some pretty good analysis on pseudo Advaita vs "real" Advaita. Unfortunately nowadays, pseudo Advaita is all the rage.

https://www.gurusfeet.com/blog/neo-adva ... thy-conway

There really is no difference between the two paradigms...except what 'ego' puts there by demonizing what is essentially all illusions anyway.

No Difference? What???

You fit into the exact mould of the pseudo-advaitins criticized therein as evidenced by the contents of what you have posted.
Your response above [cursed as illusion] is predictable as from that same mould.

4) The aloof pseudo-advaitin condemns any forms of engaged spirituality (politically aware-active spirituality) as “mâyâ” (illusion) or “buying into samsâra” (the cycle of cause-effect, death-rebirth).

For the pseudo-advaitin, matters of justice and injustice (e.g., economic justice, environmental justice, gender justice, racial justice, political justice, etc.) have no meaning and are simply absurd, not worth bothering about.
Of course, this makes a mockery of everything the Buddha and other sages taught about morality, virtue, ethics, and a just society.
Engaged spirituality heroes and heroines like Mahâtma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., Dorothy Day, et al., according to this stunted view of spirituality, were just wasting their time. A woman is being raped or a child is being physically abused on the street? No problem for the pseudo-advaitin. “It’s all just a dream.
Nothing’s really happening. Whatever happens is God’s will, the insubstantial play of the One.” (This is staying stuck at "levels two and/or one" in my earlier-mentioned model of "the three simultaneously true levels of Nondual Reality.)

https://www.gurusfeet.com/blog/neo-adva ... thy-conway

You need to read the article a few time to get a grasp of it.

Your views were reconciled to Jan Kersschot's who sort of respect Tony Parson who wrote the Preface is Jan's book, The Myth of Self-Enquiry.
https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0125/ ... _pages.pdf

There really is no 'this version' verses 'that version' except what the egoic mind puts there in its illusory attempt to reject in favour of accept.
Such an activity is to bastardize the sacred underpinning message that is being expressed in the first place, which is essentially the same, albeit expressed differently.

Generally, the most genuinely open minded, intelligent,ardent, diligence seekers of truth don't look for differences, they have the innate sense of sensibilty to be able to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Don't forget, the true seeker already knows itself, the true self is a listener. The true self is not concerned by some fancy fly-by-night skepticism. The true listener in the pyrrhonism sense 'knows itself' absolutely. It does not listen to being told ''how'' or ''how'' not to be. It makes its own mind up for itself, by listening to what it already knows deep within its core of being.

Not everyone is distracted from their chosen path, despite the fact that there are a lot of conflicting and counter intuitive view points out there, but the true seeker already intuitively knows that all ''view points'' are bascially saying the same stuff, including the myriad of religious dogma we have in the world today, its all the same message, many are the paths, but the destination is always the same.

Some seekers are very serious, and stay firm and solid on their path, they are not easily swayed, diligent open minded seekers will never stray from their path, just because they hear something from someone else that is not computing with them. So as you can see, in this sense, it makes no sense to assume there can be any this verses that, that is just absolutely not true, its just another illusion.

Yours above is a strawman to the points raised in the article.
( anticipate you will insists there is no 'yours' and 'you' as per the article)

In your current state, I don't foresee you have the ability* to understand the essence of the critique of pseudo-advaitins and get on track in alignment with the 'truths' of 'reality'.
* you deliberately refuse to update yourself with knowledge from a variety of sources.

Thus the only alternatives is for you to accept the points raised by blind faith [not recommended] or to read up as much as possible to keep up [which you prefer to avoid].

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Oct 05, 2018 8:36 am
Thus the only alternatives is for you to accept the points raised by blind faith [not recommended] or to read up as much as possible to keep up [which you prefer to avoid].

Blind faith in what?

What are you talking about? First you have to be in order to have thoughts about ideas?

So who is this thinker? Who is being the thinker?

Is that ''thinker'' not just taken on blind faith?

If not, prove the thinker? ..what is it, where is, and how is it?

I want the exact location please.

.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Fri Oct 05, 2018 8:57 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Oct 05, 2018 8:36 am
Thus the only alternatives is for you to accept the points raised by blind faith [not recommended] or to read up as much as possible to keep up [which you prefer to avoid].

Blind faith in what?

What are you talking about? First you have to be in order to have thoughts about ideas?

So who is this thinker? Who is being the thinker?

Is that ''thinker'' not just taken on blind faith?

If not, prove the thinker? ..what is it, where is, and how is it?

I want the exact location please.

.

I don't think you read the article fully.

The above is another "oneupping" stratagem of the pseudo-advaitins; i.e.

1) Many neo-advaita teachers, not fully balanced or compassionate in their living and teaching, exploit the two-level nature of discourse by repeatedly, chronically one-upping their dialogue-partner, their interlocutor.

For instance, they respond to questioners' legitimate queries and concerns with:

• Who is asking the question? or
  What are you before your thoughts and feelings arise? or
  What happens when all such concerns entirely stop?

Such questions subrate or undermine the finite, personal sense of self and intuitively point to the Infinite, Transpersonal Vastness of our abiding, eternal Reality.

Now granted, going to the ultimate, absolute level of discourse is an ancient way for the Guru to undermine false thinking and ego-identification by a disciple. When used in certain circumstances, at the right time, it can have a beautifully liberating effect.

The problem is that many so-called spiritual teachers in the neo-advaita movement evidently feel a contrarian compulsion (it is definitely characteristic of the “mis-matcher” personality style or temperament) to repeatedly prove their superiority over any and all dialogue partners by using this technique in chronic oneupsmanship manner to stay “on top” in any relationship by posturing as the Guru of Infinite Awareness mentoring the lowly disciple, still identified with the finite self.

This is just egocentric attachment to power over others in a posture of “being right”—it is not compassionate, skillful means (upâya) to help sentient beings fully awaken.

A true sage, one who is authentically free, feels entirely at ease to communicate on either the absolute or conventional truth-level, at any time in any situation. A true sage acknowledges the partner/interlocutor (a disguise of the God-Self) as both Infinite Awareness and wonderfully, poignantly human.

And the usual human being will naturally have some legitimate concerns and questions from time to time, deserving care-full consideration, not just the "oneupping" strategem.

Atla wrote: ↑Fri Oct 05, 2018 8:15 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Oct 05, 2018 7:48 am However where the truer-advaitins are still stuck with the Absolute, Brahman, aka God, and the likes, they are still caught up with an illusion. Thus while they are able to see through the illusion of the self, they are caught within the bigger and more complex transcendental illusion of the Absolute, Brahman, aka God, and the likes.
This is where the Four-Truths Theory * or Five-Truths of Buddhism need to be brought in to understand this transcendental illusion of the God.
* this is not the Four Noble Truths.

To paraphrase and interpret Kant's, this is why the wisest of men could understands the principles and illusions of the Two-Truths of the self and things, but they will always be deceived by their own mind unless they have understood the principles within the Four-Truths Theories.

Difficult to say, I think the "real" Advaita could be further broken down into two subgroups (or rather it's sort of a continuum):
- those who really reify the Brahman, the Oneness, which is ultimately an illusion / transcendental illusion
- and those who realize that the above is a tool that points to the "highest" form of nondual understanding; approaching it from the fullness/oneness perspective

I think the parallel in Buddhism is that Buddhism in general can be further broken down into two subgroups (or rather it's sort of a continuum):
- those who sort of reify emptiness, get caught in emptiness too much, which is ultimately an illusion
- and those who realize that the above is a tool to reach the "highest" form of nondual understanding; approaching it from the emptiness/nothingness perspective

I think it's fair to say that there are several times more Buddhists who are approaching this "highest" form of nondual understanding, than there are Advaitans. Perhaps I've seen it expressed the most clearly in Zen Buddhism.

On the other hand, all things considered, I think the Advaita approach would be the most optimal philosophy for humanity in general. (Half-full approach is psychologically superior to the half-empty approach. And to me, Buddhism also seems to be unnecessary convoluted compared to Advaita.)

Note Advaita Vedanta was introduced in the 8th Century to counter the popularity of Buddhism.

Although its roots trace back to the 1st millennium BCE, the most prominent exponent of the Advaita Vedanta is considered by the tradition to be 8th century scholar Adi Shankara.
-wiki

The central core principles of advaita as below is the Atman with Brahman.

Advaita Vedanta (/ədˈvaɪtə vɛˈdɑːntə/; Sanskrit: अद्वैत वेदान्त, IAST: Advaita Vedānta, literally, "not-two"), originally known as Puruṣavāda,[1][note 1] is a school of Hindu philosophy and religious practice, and one of the classic Indian paths to spiritual realization.[2] The term Advaita refers to its idea that the soul (true Self, Atman) is the same as the highest metaphysical Reality (Brahman).
The followers of this school are known as Advaita Vedantins, or just Advaitins,[3] and they seek spiritual liberation through acquiring vidyā, meaning knowledge,[4] of one's true identity as Atman, and the identity of Atman and Brahman.
-wiki

I agree Advaita Vedanta is more optimal then in the 8th century and even now. That is why advaita was able to regain its popularity from Buddhism during that time and now because the majority are still very supraliminal grasped by the dreaded impulses of the existential crisis which can optimally be soothed by some sort of entity [Being] i.e. Brahman deemed as the most real of all reality. The fundamental is still psychological.

If Advaita_Vedanta -proper is exactly the same as Buddhism-proper, why the need to reintroduce Advaita after 1200 years to replace Buddhism in India to kick it [diluted] out to Sri Langka and South East Asia?

Buddhism-proper introduced within 500 BCE was too advanced for its time then and even during the 8th century and even now. This is why Buddhism-proper had to be diluted [in some instance highly diluted] then and now to accommodate the current spiritual status of believers.

But there is truth to the following so claimed [highly disputed] Einstein's quote on Buddhism

• ”The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion.
  It should transcend a personal God and avoid dogmas and theology. ... If there is any religion that would cope with modern scientific needs, it would be Buddhism.”

As humanity is evolving exponentially the ultimate potential of Buddhism-proper is unfolding and gaining popularity.

Note my point, in the future, all elements of religiosity [including Buddhism-proper] should be weaned off to be replace by fool proof spiritual self-development programs.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Oct 05, 2018 9:29 amI don't think you read the article fully.

Oh I understand the article fully, don't project what you only think you know about other peoples understandings, as if you really know for real, when in truth you have no clue about. So, unlike you, I don't have to keep repeating my own knowledge back to myself like a parrot on steroids.

Now, stop avoiding the issue here, please answer the question about blind faith?

Bilnd faith in what?

What are you talking about? First you have to be in order to have thoughts about ideas?

So who is this thinker? Who is being the thinker?

Is that ''thinker'' not just taken on blind faith?

If not, prove the thinker? ..what is it, where is, and how is it?

I want the exact location please.

.

You can't just keep referring to knowledge and not know who or what is the knower of that knowledge ...or is that just taken on ''blind faith''?

Where /who is the knower?

I want the exact location please, else all you are saying is nothing at all really, which is about the gist of all assumed knowledge holders.

.

I must admit VA, your posts do make me giggle.

.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Oct 05, 2018 10:04 am I agree Advaita Vedanta is more optimal then in the 8th century and even now. That is why advaita was able to regain its popularity from Buddhism during that time and now because the majority are still very supraliminal grasped by the dreaded impulses of the existential crisis which can optimally be soothed by some sort of entity [Being] i.e. Brahman deemed as the most real of all reality. The fundamental is still psychological.

If Advaita_Vedanta -proper is exactly the same as Buddhism-proper, why the need to reintroduce Advaita after 1200 years to replace Buddhism in India to kick it [diluted] out to Sri Langka and South East Asia?

Buddhism-proper introduced within 500 BCE was too advanced for its time then and even during the 8th century and even now. This is why Buddhism-proper had to be diluted [in some instance highly diluted] then and now to accommodate the current spiritual status of believers.

The way I see it, to put it as simple as I can, compared to each other Buddhism says no to life and Advaita says yes to life.

Buddhism has its main focus on the existential crisis you speak of; thus actually making that existential crysis worse. Advaita isn't preoccupied with such a crysis at all, I think that's just a misperception coming from a theist/Buddhist perspective.

Atla wrote: ↑Fri Oct 05, 2018 10:17 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Oct 05, 2018 10:04 am I agree Advaita Vedanta is more optimal then in the 8th century and even now. That is why advaita was able to regain its popularity from Buddhism during that time and now because the majority are still very supraliminal grasped by the dreaded impulses of the existential crisis which can optimally be soothed by some sort of entity [Being] i.e. Brahman deemed as the most real of all reality. The fundamental is still psychological.

If Advaita_Vedanta -proper is exactly the same as Buddhism-proper, why the need to reintroduce Advaita after 1200 years to replace Buddhism in India to kick it [diluted] out to Sri Langka and South East Asia?

Buddhism-proper introduced within 500 BCE was too advanced for its time then and even during the 8th century and even now. This is why Buddhism-proper had to be diluted [in some instance highly diluted] then and now to accommodate the current spiritual status of believers.

The way I see it, to put it as simple as I can, compared to each other Buddhism says no to life and Advaita says yes to life.

Buddhism has its main focus on the existential crisis you speak of; thus actually making that existential crysis worse. Advaita isn't preoccupied with such a crysis at all, I think that's just a misperception coming from a theist/Buddhist perspective.

The focus on living life fully and optimally is implied in Buddhism proper.

The Four Noble Truths focused on sufferings and the mother of all sufferings as the critical bottleneck to living life fully [whatever that is].

We humans cannot define the purpose of life, but once the most terrible bottleneck blockage is modulated, then life will flow.

In positive psychology, flow, also known colloquially as being in the zone, is the mental state of operation in which a person performing an activity is fully immersed in a feeling of energized focus, full involvement, and enjoyment in the process of the activity.

In essence, flow is characterized by complete absorption in what one does, and a resulting loss in one's sense of space and time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_(psychology)

Just like the dams are removed from a river system, the water will flow naturally in alignment with the contours of the Earth toward the ocean.
Note, the mentioned of the '10 oxen' in that article.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Oct 05, 2018 10:27 am

Atla wrote: ↑Fri Oct 05, 2018 10:17 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Oct 05, 2018 10:04 am I agree Advaita Vedanta is more optimal then in the 8th century and even now. That is why advaita was able to regain its popularity from Buddhism during that time and now because the majority are still very supraliminal grasped by the dreaded impulses of the existential crisis which can optimally be soothed by some sort of entity [Being] i.e. Brahman deemed as the most real of all reality. The fundamental is still psychological.

If Advaita_Vedanta -proper is exactly the same as Buddhism-proper, why the need to reintroduce Advaita after 1200 years to replace Buddhism in India to kick it [diluted] out to Sri Langka and South East Asia?

Buddhism-proper introduced within 500 BCE was too advanced for its time then and even during the 8th century and even now. This is why Buddhism-proper had to be diluted [in some instance highly diluted] then and now to accommodate the current spiritual status of believers.

The way I see it, to put it as simple as I can, compared to each other Buddhism says no to life and Advaita says yes to life.

Buddhism has its main focus on the existential crisis you speak of; thus actually making that existential crysis worse. Advaita isn't preoccupied with such a crysis at all, I think that's just a misperception coming from a theist/Buddhist perspective.

The focus on living life fully and optimally is implied in Buddhism proper.

The Four Noble Truths focused on sufferings and the mother of all sufferings as the critical bottleneck to living life fully [whatever that is].

We humans cannot define the purpose of life, but once the most terrible bottleneck blockage is modulated, then life will flow.

In positive psychology, flow, also known colloquially as being in the zone, is the mental state of operation in which a person performing an activity is fully immersed in a feeling of energized focus, full involvement, and enjoyment in the process of the activity.

In essence, flow is characterized by complete absorption in what one does, and a resulting loss in one's sense of space and time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_(psychology)

Just like the dams are removed from a river system, the water will flow naturally in alignment with the contours of the Earth toward the ocean.
Note, the mentioned of the '10 oxen' in that article.

Well you can flow in a similar way in Advaita too, it just tends to be more joyful, colorful, usually. Assuming that life is dukkha, is already a distortion.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Fri Oct 05, 2018 10:14 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Oct 05, 2018 9:29 amI don't think you read the article fully.

Oh I understand the article fully, don't project what you only think you know about other peoples understandings, as if you really know for real, when in truth you have no clue about. So, unlike you, I don't have to keep repeating my own knowledge back to myself like a parrot on steroids.
...

I am assessing your understanding based on what you posted in comparison to what is written in that article.

If you have understood that article effectively, you would not have asked me those questions.
I won't be wasting my time on them because you lack foundation thus not be able to understand [not necessary with] my point to counter it effectively.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Oct 05, 2018 10:27 amJust like the dams are removed from a river system, the water will flow naturally in alignment.

Maybe you need to follow your own advice and stop damming up the flow with your blind faith based believed assumptions that there are distinctions to be found anywhere in reality.

Where are those distinctions located exactly?

I want the exact locations of the disinctions please, else your just making meaningless sounds that are meant to sound impressive..but aren't... much like a barking dog.

.