Well, again, there is no such thing as consciousness if there is nothing to be conscious of.AlexW wrote: ↑Sun Apr 22, 2018 2:23 amNo, things are never known and therefore there is also nothing unknown - there is only knowing (maybe replacing the term knowing with consciousness works better to understand what I am referring to?)Serendipper wrote: ↑Fri Apr 20, 2018 6:46 pm Well, nothing could be known unless there was something unknown.
Yes, it's codependent origination. If there is a heads side to a coin, there must be a tails side. We can't have one without the other and together they make a coin. But we also cannot have a coin unless there is something that is not the coin, so in the same way a coin depends on everything that it is not.There is no good or bad in the non-dual. If one is looking for only the good then he will automatically also create the bad. They come hand in hand - just like everything in duality.Serendipper wrote: ↑Fri Apr 20, 2018 6:46 pm this desire to have a nondual solution of all-god and no not-god is just another manifestation of splitting duality in half
So it doesn't make any sense to think about only god existing because there would have to be something that is not god in order for god to exist. In order for god to be conscious, there would have to be something that is not god for god to be conscious of. God would have to express himself in something that is not himself and in that way he could observe aspects of himself that are manifested in that expression.
If god is "knowing", then he'd need something to know in order to be "knowing". If god, as you say, can only know himself, then he is already known and now god will require something new to know in order to be "knowing".Agree, but "God" does not exist as a thing - "he" is beyond existence and non-existence as these are still concepts that work only in duality - you need some thing to exist or not exist, but as I said "God" is not a thing and thus he doesn't exist in relation to anything nor is he an abstraction. He is not an idea, but always the knowing presence itself.Serendipper wrote: ↑Fri Apr 20, 2018 6:46 pm Existence is not abstract, but relational. If god exists, then he exists in relation to something and not in abstraction.
I don't understand being above and beyond existence. However, I do consider "being" and "non-being" to be part of existence. A light can be on (potential to be off), a light can be off (potential to be on), or a light can be non-existent (no potential for anything). So, god could be above and beyond "being", but not existence.
Yes because I define reality as the interaction between subject and object. Rainbows are real because I observe them, but they are not real in an objective sense. Objective reality cannot have an observer and therefore cannot be real-ized. If there is no observer, then there is no real.Yes, but the border is again an idea. Is an idea real?Serendipper wrote: ↑Fri Apr 20, 2018 6:46 pm Ideas have borders or else we couldn't know what the idea is not.
There is no base-reality if there is no one there to observe it. Subjects and objects cannot exist without each other and the interaction between the two causes reality.Yes, in a way... What if this thing also produces everything else... what if there is nothing besides it and everything it produces is not just like it, but IS it?Serendipper wrote: ↑Fri Apr 20, 2018 6:46 pm Something has to produce those thoughts, but the thing that produces the thoughts also produces the ego and therefore one cannot find the other because they are produced by the same thing.
It might seem that this no-thing, as a logical consequence of producing all things, also produces the ego, but while thoughts are real the stories/beliefs they contain are not. Thoughts are required for the idea/structure of the ego to arise, but ego itself, including all of its judgements, is only an acquired, every-changing story based on past and current learning and conditioning - a process that produces an abstraction of reality (including a separate self) that can as such never be real. It will always only be a map of reality, which is initially not a bad thing - it can be very helpful - but when this map is out of sync with base-reality it will not be able to guide you on your path through life. Only if the map is true, and as such in tune with reality is it of any value - and to know if it is true, you first have to know what truth/reality is.
We don't exist in separation, but we share a wall which is part of the continuum. If there weren't that wall, there would be no you or me. A coin is a coin and there are no separate parts, but there is a heads and tails side. You and I are not separate things, but codependent things.The wall exists only in the wrong map that I have been referring to before. Correct the map and you find that neither of us exists in separation (simply because there is no us, but only I).Serendipper wrote: ↑Fri Apr 20, 2018 6:46 pm If that were true, then you wouldn't have to try because I would already know what you know, but clearly there is a wall separating what is you from what is me and neither of us could exist if it weren't so.