Failure of Relativism

[Veritas Aequitas]

I mentioned brain but that is only a part of the whole of the human conditions which is the whole human being extending to its environment.
Whatever X, it is related to the human conditions [brain, mind, body, "I Think" etc.] not an independent 'I AM" which some claim survives physical death.

No thing ever died. That which lives never dies, and that which dies never lived. There is nothing in life that is everything herenow in relation with anything else. There is only everything here now. Nowhere.

"Relativism is/n't the only reality"

Seriously how can you state the above without your involvement at all?
So it has to be at least relative to you as a human being.

Let me give you one possible way out;

• 1. You can argue the moon existed before there were humans.
  2. So the existence of the moon cannot be relative to humans.
  or you can add;
  3. God created the moon before there were humans

The above appear to justify you claim there is an independent moon and absolutely independent God.

But still, 2 and 3 cannot be conceived or idealized without the human conditions, so its ultimate conclusion that follow has to be relative, i.e. relative to the human conditions.

Therefore relativity is the only reality.

[Dontaskme]

I mentioned brain but that is only a part of the whole of the human conditions which is the whole human being extending to its environment.
Whatever X, it is related to the human conditions [brain, mind, body, "I Think" etc.] not an independent 'I AM" which some claim survives physical death.

No thing ever died. That which lives never dies, and that which dies never lived. There is nothing in life that is everything herenow in relation with anything else. There is only everything here now. Nowhere.

"Relativism is/n't the only reality"

Seriously how can you state the above without your involvement at all?
So it has to be at least relative to you as a human being.

Oneness is relative to itself only. The divide between the knower and the known is illusory, knower and known exist in the exact same moment TOGETHER, here as this unhinged seamless NOW... there is here only not-knowing knowing. Reality is Nondual, duality is non-dual.

Nondual is not duality.

Let me give you one possible way out;

There is no way out of what was never entered.

All you, aka no thing, are doing is using conceptual ideas you believe to exist as a concrete thing in and of it self as being the knower. There is no such knower.

Condition implies a conditioner...there is no conditioner in that which is unconditionally here now one without a second. You have no arugment, sorry, there is no you because there is no other than you.

.

[Veritas Aequitas]

No thing ever died. That which lives never dies, and that which dies never lived. There is nothing in life that is everything herenow in relation with anything else. There is only everything here now. Nowhere.

"Relativism is/n't the only reality"

Seriously how can you state the above without your involvement at all?
So it has to be at least relative to you as a human being.

Oneness is relative to itself only. The divide between the knower and the known is illusory, knower and known exist in the exact same moment TOGETHER, here as this unhinged seamless NOW... there is here only not-knowing knowing. Reality is Nondual, duality is non-dual.

Nondual is not duality.

Let me give you one possible way out;

There is no way out of what was never entered.

All you, aka no thing, are doing is using conceptual ideas you believe to exist as a concrete thing in and of it self as being the knower. There is no such knower.

Condition implies a conditioner...there is no conditioner in that which is unconditionally here now one without a second. You have no arugment, sorry, there is no you because there is no other than you.

If I am not mistaken from some of your past posts I have scanned, your background is that of Advaita Vedānta;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advaita_Vedanta

Note I was into Advaita Vedanta for a long time.
Whilst I appreciate my exploration and experience in Advaita_Vedanta, I have graduated from it towards Buddhism-proper and then on my own.

I don't agree there is an atman that dissolved into Brahman.
While Brahman is claimed to be The Absolute there is still this sense of condition behind the scene.

Buddhism do not agree with an ultimate atman [contrary anatman] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatta
and Absolute Brahman and contrary to Brahman is nothingness -Śūnyatā
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%9A%C5%ABnyat%C4%81

then there is the more refined concept of;
the nothingness of nothingness.

the point is the mind has the tendency to cling to something [ultimately God] and as such trigger the cycle of birth and death, thus sufferings.

Nothing of nothingness is not solipsism nor nihilism because one is still interacting with the empirical world but with different spectacles of consciousness.

[Dontaskme]

Seriously how can you state the above without your involvement at all?
So it has to be at least relative to you as a human being.

Oneness is relative to itself only. The divide between the knower and the known is illusory, knower and known exist in the exact same moment TOGETHER, here as this unhinged seamless NOW... there is here only not-knowing knowing. Reality is Nondual, duality is non-dual.

Nondual is not duality.

Let me give you one possible way out;

There is no way out of what was never entered.

All you, aka no thing, are doing is using conceptual ideas you believe to exist as a concrete thing in and of it self as being the knower. There is no such knower.

Condition implies a conditioner...there is no conditioner in that which is unconditionally here now one without a second. You have no arugment, sorry, there is no you because there is no other than you.

If I am not mistaken from some of your past posts I have scanned, your background is that of Advaita Vedānta;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advaita_Vedanta

Note I was into Advaita Vedanta for a long time.
Whilst I appreciate my exploration and experience in Advaita_Vedanta, I have graduated from it towards Buddhism-proper and then on my own.

I don't agree there is an atman that dissolved into Brahman.
While Brahman is claimed to be The Absolute there is still this sense of condition behind the scene.

Buddhism do not agree with an ultimate atman [contrary anatman] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatta
and Absolute Brahman and contrary to Brahman is nothingness -Śūnyatā
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%9A%C5%ABnyat%C4%81

then there is the more refined concept of;
the nothingness of nothingness.

the point is the mind has the tendency to cling to something [ultimately God] and as such trigger the cycle of birth and death, thus sufferings.

Nothing of nothingness is not solipsism nor nihilism because one is still interacting with the empirical world but with different spectacles of consciousness.

Advaita_Vedanta is the end of KNOWLEDGE.

It's not for the mind to know or don't know.

The mind is known by the unknown.

You simply have no arugment except with yourself who ever that self is believed to be.

There is no self to deny itself nor proove itself...it's totally self standing...self evident and it's not what mind thinks it is.

.


Advaita_Vedanta is pointing to the not-knowing known.

It does this by using concepts known, it's a story like everything else known.

The truth about stories is that no one wrote them. They are fictions appearing real as known.

No one is into knowledge, you are knowledge.

The problem is clear, you have looked into nonduality, but have not understood what nonduality means, rather you have been identified with the story instead of that in which the story is arising known only to that one only...which is this nondual mind.

The mind that believes it exists is not the ultimate KNOWER....so cannot disclaim anything let alone know the disclaimed to be the ultimate truth.

The mind cannot say whether something exists or not, without creating those things in the same moment.

The mind only knows concepts, which are illusory and have no existence or substance outside of that arena.

In other words, there is no thing here to say whether there is a God or not, or whether there is any thing or not.

It's All concepts all the way down...

WHO says there is no God...find that one?

.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Oneness is relative to itself only. The divide between the knower and the known is illusory, knower and known exist in the exact same moment TOGETHER, here as this unhinged seamless NOW... there is here only not-knowing knowing. Reality is Nondual, duality is non-dual.

Nondual is not duality.

There is no way out of what was never entered.

All you, aka no thing, are doing is using conceptual ideas you believe to exist as a concrete thing in and of it self as being the knower. There is no such knower.

Condition implies a conditioner...there is no conditioner in that which is unconditionally here now one without a second. You have no arugment, sorry, there is no you because there is no other than you.

If I am not mistaken from some of your past posts I have scanned, your background is that of Advaita Vedānta;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advaita_Vedanta

Note I was into Advaita Vedanta for a long time.
Whilst I appreciate my exploration and experience in Advaita_Vedanta, I have graduated from it towards Buddhism-proper and then on my own.

I don't agree there is an atman that dissolved into Brahman.
While Brahman is claimed to be The Absolute there is still this sense of condition behind the scene.

Buddhism do not agree with an ultimate atman [contrary anatman] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatta
and Absolute Brahman and contrary to Brahman is nothingness -Śūnyatā
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%9A%C5%ABnyat%C4%81

then there is the more refined concept of;
the nothingness of nothingness.

the point is the mind has the tendency to cling to something [ultimately God] and as such trigger the cycle of birth and death, thus sufferings.

Nothing of nothingness is not solipsism nor nihilism because one is still interacting with the empirical world but with different spectacles of consciousness.

Advaita_Vedanta is the end of KNOWLEDGE.

It's not for the mind to know or don't know.

The mind is known by the unknown.

You simply have no arugment except with yourself who ever that self is believed to be.

There is no self to deny itself nor proove itself...it's totally self standing...self evident and it's not what mind thinks it is.

Advaita_Vedanta is pointing to the not-knowing known.

It does this by using concepts known, it's a story like everything else known.

The truth about stories is that no one wrote them. They are fictions appearing real as known.

No one is into knowledge, you are knowledge.

The problem is clear, you have looked into nonduality, but have not understood what nonduality means, rather you have been identified with the story instead of that in which the story is arising known only to that one only...which is this nondual mind.

The mind that believes it exists is not the ultimate KNOWER....so cannot disclaim anything let alone know the disclaimed to be the ultimate truth.

The mind cannot say whether something exists or not, without creating those things in the same moment.

The mind only knows concepts, which are illusory and have no existence or substance outside of that arena.

In other words, there is no thing here to say whether there is a God or not, or whether there is any thing or not.

It's All concepts all the way down...

WHO says there is no God...find that one?

Actually I did not make the point, there is NO God and from there enter into a debate about it.
I stated the question of 'God is real' is moot and a non-starter.
Thus there is no question of whether there is a real god or not because God is an impossibility.

Nevertheless one can think of a 'God' whatever that is just an one can think of anything in mind, i.e. as long as the mind can generate the thought, even a square-circle.
But critical point is whether one insist what is thought is real or not.

There are people who think of God but accept that such a God is an illusion in the mind.

There are some people think they are God or God's messenger until they are given medicines or counselled.
Note; Ramachandran - Temporal Epilepsy and God
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIiIsDIkDtg

There is a problem when people believe there is a real God which deliver holy texts via their messenger or prophet which include commands that are evil laden that exhort believers to kill non-believer as a divine duty in exchange with greater rewards of eternal life in paradise. This is a reality with the Abrahamic religions especially the worst being Islam.

Advaita_Vedanta is the end of KNOWLEDGE, but there is still a residual of a very subtle inkling of something [atman then to Brahman] which many equate with energy or god particle with regard to the idea of Brahman.

Buddhism on the other hand let go of everything, thus,
'If you see Buddha on the road, kill him'.

The Gita stated, "do not be attached to the fruits of action" but should have gone further than non-dual to non~non-dual.

If Buddhism is incorporated into the Gita, it will state.
"do not be attached even to Brahman" or 'Kill Brahman'.
But because most Hindus view Brahman as God or the Absolute, there is no way they will dare to assert 'Kill Brahman' due the psychology involved.

[Dontaskme]

If Buddhism is incorporated into the Gita, it will state.
"do not be attached even to Brahman" or 'Kill Brahman'.
But because most Hindus view Brahman as God or the Absolute, there is no way they will dare to assert 'Kill Brahman' due the psychology involved.

It's just a story...for a story to be known there has to be a knower.


That knower is not known by the characters in the story, the characters in the story are the known. The story is talking about killing the illusory character as being the knower....not the knower itself. You cannot kill what you are, you can only kill - lose what you are not.

This leaves a very big question mark over the real identity of the knower...that mystery is who you are, and when the mystery is solved by the mystery itself, then all becomes crystal clear.

.

[Veritas Aequitas]

If Buddhism is incorporated into the Gita, it will state.
"do not be attached even to Brahman" or 'Kill Brahman'.
But because most Hindus view Brahman as God or the Absolute, there is no way they will dare to assert 'Kill Brahman' due the psychology involved.

It's just a story...for a story to be known there has to be a knower.


That knower is not known by the characters in the story, the characters in the story are the known. The story is talking about killing the illusory character as being the knower....not the knower itself. You cannot kill what you are, you can only kill - lose what you are not.

This leaves a very big question mark over the real identity of the knower...that mystery is who you are, and when the mystery is solved by the mystery itself, then all becomes crystal clear.

Nah you don't get it with "kill the buddha .."
The fundamental of this problem is to deal with one's last bit and remnant of primal impulse, i.e. that ultimate impulse that drive one to cling to a God or some deity.

The main body of philosophy and practices [meditation, yoga, etc] of Hinduism [advaita vedanta] and Buddhism are mainly the same except for this last final bit of philosophy of letting go totally [anatman & sunyata].
On this point re anatman-sunyata, Buddhism and Hinduism [atman-Brahman] stand in extreme opposites.

[Dontaskme]

Nah you don't get it with "kill the buddha .."
The fundamental of this problem is to deal with one's last bit and remnant of primal impulse, i.e. that ultimate impulse that drive one to cling to a God or some deity.

The main body of philosophy and practices [meditation, yoga, etc] of Hinduism [advaita vedanta] and Buddhism are mainly the same except for this last final bit of philosophy of letting go totally [anatman & sunyata].
On this point re anatman-sunyata, Buddhism and Hinduism [atman-Brahman] stand in extreme opposites.

I know exactly what you are pointing at here, so you don't have to tell me I don't get it because I know exactly what you mean by letting go.

But have to say, you are wrong, so very wrong on the idea that God is an impossibilty.

You are also fixated with the idea that belief structures such as Buddhism and Hinduism are opposites, that's another illusory story, the thing is all religous belief is a self to self comunication...it's all the same one self, aka no self being every self.

.

[Eodnhoj7]

Relativism is an approximation of absolute truth and is fundamentally a deficiency in the unified nature of reality by observing it in parts which move through relation.

The statement you claim, where everything is "relative", is a constant statement as it cannot change...hence either relativity contradicts itself, it acts as a negative limit to the absolute (proving only the absolute exists) or both.

If the statement contradicts itself, we are left with the absolute.

If the statement is a negative limit, it can only be observed through absolute truths (such as the statement "everything is relative") as a negation of them. For example if I say "x" does not exist, this is a relative statement as "x" must "exist" if it is to be negated, but considering "x" must exist if it is being negated it must not exist in relation to "y" or "z".

Note my point in my above post,

"Relativism is the only reality " is a fundamental fact and so obvious, i.e.
whatever the X, it is relative to the human conditions and its environment [which is also relative to the human conditions].

There is no absolute thing that can exists independent of the human conditions.

So "man as measurer" is the constant? And if this is the case, then all "evil" is subject to the state of man, considering God is made up by man?


You may want* to think there is more than the above [i.e. an absolute] because it is seemingly 'logical' [based on crude pure primal reason] BUT you in fact is only speculating without facts and on mere wishful thinking.
* that wanting is driven by a psychological motive.

Crude pure primal reason...awe...how nice of you to say....who am I?: "I am the Law of Entropy".

The philosophical issue is contested between the non-relativist Philosophical Realists [below] and the Philosophical anti-realists [various schools].

Yes a constant state of dualisms between one positive value and one negative value, which each school containing an existing stance that acts as the negation of another existing stance relative to the beginning point of measurement (school) one applies.

In philosophical ontology, realism about a given object is the view that this object exists in reality independently of our conceptual scheme. In philosophical terms, these objects are ontologically independent of someone's conceptual scheme, perceptions, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc.

Realism can be applied to many philosophically interesting objects and phenomena: other minds, the past or the future, universals, mathematical entities (such as natural numbers), moral categories, the physical world, and thought.

Realism can also be a view about the nature of reality in general, where it claims that the world exists independent of the mind, as opposed to anti-realist views (like some forms of skepticism and solipsism, which deny the existence of a mind-independent world). Philosophers who profess realism often claim that truth consists in a correspondence between cognitive representations and reality.[1]

Realism is just a perspective where certain variables are considered foundational axioms from which the philosophical school builds a logical structure...this applies to all philosophical schools and is the foundation of the philosophical school...the choosing of axioms and building structures from them.

Realists tend to believe that whatever we believe now is only an approximation of reality but that the accuracy and fullness of understanding can be improved.[2] In some contexts, realism is contrasted with idealism. Today it is more usually contrasted with anti-realism, for example in the philosophy of science.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Relativism is an approximation of absolute truth and is fundamentally a deficiency in the unified nature of reality by observing it in parts which move through relation.

The statement you claim, where everything is "relative", is a constant statement as it cannot change...hence either relativity contradicts itself, it acts as a negative limit to the absolute (proving only the absolute exists) or both.

If the statement contradicts itself, we are left with the absolute.

If the statement is a negative limit, it can only be observed through absolute truths (such as the statement "everything is relative") as a negation of them. For example if I say "x" does not exist, this is a relative statement as "x" must "exist" if it is to be negated, but considering "x" must exist if it is being negated it must not exist in relation to "y" or "z".

Note my point in my above post,

"Relativism is the only reality " is a fundamental fact and so obvious, i.e.
whatever the X, it is relative to the human conditions and its environment [which is also relative to the human conditions].

There is no absolute thing that can exists independent of the human conditions.

So "man as measurer" is the constant? And if this is the case, then all "evil" is subject to the state of man, considering God is made up by man?

Note "Man is the measure of all things" by Protagorus;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protagoras

There is no ontological evil floating around independently for man to discover.
Yes, in that case 'evil' is subjected to the state of man.

This is the critical point that evil is man-made.
Because evil is man-made, evil can be man-prevented and eliminated by man.

The other claim is God is real and created Satan where only God can control but humans cannot control Satan so evil will be an eternal thing.

When the reality is God is an illusion manifested in man.
Thus when humans understand God is an illusion, then eternal evil is also an illusion. So man will be able to manage and eliminate man-made evil.

Another critical point is man cannot get rid of the idea of God without finding fool proof alternatives to deal with the inherent unavoidable psychological crisis that generated the idea of the illusory God.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You may want* to think there is more than the above [i.e. an absolute] because it is seemingly 'logical' [based on crude pure primal reason] BUT you in fact is only speculating without facts and on mere wishful thinking.
* that wanting is driven by a psychological motive.

Crude pure primal reason...awe...how nice of you to say....who am I?: "I am the Law of Entropy".

Yes, you may need to research on "Crude pure primal reason" from Kant's Critique of Pure Reason.

Re Primal, note;
The Evolution of Reason: Logic as a Branch of Biology
(Cambridge Studies in Philosophy and Biology)
https://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Reason ... 0521791960

There are more to it.

The philosophical issue is contested between the non-relativist Philosophical Realists [below] and the Philosophical anti-realists [various schools].

Yes a constant state of dualisms between one positive value and one negative value, which each school containing an existing stance that acts as the negation of another existing stance relative to the beginning point of measurement (school) one applies.

What?

Realism is just a perspective where certain variables are considered foundational axioms from which the philosophical school builds a logical structure...this applies to all philosophical schools and is the foundation of the philosophical school...the choosing of axioms and building structures from them.

You need to understand the essential principles of the two above schools which is relevant to the OP.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Nah you don't get it with "kill the buddha .."
The fundamental of this problem is to deal with one's last bit and remnant of primal impulse, i.e. that ultimate impulse that drive one to cling to a God or some deity.

The main body of philosophy and practices [meditation, yoga, etc] of Hinduism [advaita vedanta] and Buddhism are mainly the same except for this last final bit of philosophy of letting go totally [anatman & sunyata].
On this point re anatman-sunyata, Buddhism and Hinduism [atman-Brahman] stand in extreme opposites.

I know exactly what you are pointing at here, so you don't have to tell me I don't get it because I know exactly what you mean by letting go.

But have to say, you are wrong, so very wrong on the idea that God is an impossibilty.

You are also fixated with the idea that belief structures such as Buddhism and Hinduism are opposites, that's another illusory story, the thing is all religous belief is a self to self comunication...it's all the same one self, aka no self being every self.

You don't seem to understand that Buddhism at its core was a 180 degree paradigmatic shift from strong Vedic oriented Hinduism?
Otherwise the Buddha would not have founded a different and contrasting non-vedic religion in India.

Both Hinduism and Buddhism do get involve with 'letting go.'
The point is while Hinduism believed it has let go of everything somehow it is still stuck with some remnant [re Brahman] it is not aware of.
Buddhism on the other hand, given the benefit of Hinduism's limitation introduced the idea of giving up everything [sunyata] but yet of course engaged in reality.

Note there are many schools of Buddhism ranging from even pseudo-theistic to non-theistic to cater for the differently spiritual inclination and competence of existing followers. However the ultimate of Buddhism-proper is total nothingness while engaging with reality.

[Dontaskme]

You don't seem to understand that Buddhism at its core was a 180 degree paradigmatic shift from strong Vedic oriented Hinduism?
Otherwise the Buddha would not have founded a different and contrasting non-vedic religion in India.

Both Hinduism and Buddhism do get involve with 'letting go.'
The point is while Hinduism believed it has let go of everything somehow it is still stuck with some remnant [re Brahman] it is not aware of.
Buddhism on the other hand, given the benefit of Hinduism's limitation introduced the idea of giving up everything [sunyata] but yet of course engaged in reality.

Note there are many schools of Buddhism ranging from even pseudo-theistic to non-theistic to cater for the differently spiritual inclination and competence of existing followers. However the ultimate of Buddhism-proper is total nothingness while engaging with reality.

So what has all that fictional story got anything to with this immediate ISNESS that is right here right now shining?

We can talk about endless stories and descriptions until we are blue in the face but ain't nothing going to change or effect this ever shining 'WHAT IS' right here right now, nowhere...where no 'thing' is happening, and no 'thing' is watching itself.

.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You don't seem to understand that Buddhism at its core was a 180 degree paradigmatic shift from strong Vedic oriented Hinduism?
Otherwise the Buddha would not have founded a different and contrasting non-vedic religion in India.

Both Hinduism and Buddhism do get involve with 'letting go.'
The point is while Hinduism believed it has let go of everything somehow it is still stuck with some remnant [re Brahman] it is not aware of.
Buddhism on the other hand, given the benefit of Hinduism's limitation introduced the idea of giving up everything [sunyata] but yet of course engaged in reality.

Note there are many schools of Buddhism ranging from even pseudo-theistic to non-theistic to cater for the differently spiritual inclination and competence of existing followers. However the ultimate of Buddhism-proper is total nothingness while engaging with reality.

So what has all that fictional story got anything to with this immediate ISNESS that is right here right now shining?

We can talk about endless stories and descriptions until we are blue in the face but ain't nothing going to change or effect this ever shining 'WHAT IS' right here right now, nowhere...where no 'thing' is happening, and no 'thing' is watching itself.

What fictional story. You are insulting both Hinduism and Buddhism on this.

There are principles involved.
You have to be solidly familiar and understand [not necessary agree with] Buddhism to see the fundamental differences for philosophical [since we are in such a forum] sake. Else one should be a hermit [there are many] and stay in a mountain cave.

[Dontaskme]

You are insulting both Hinduism and Buddhism on this.

One simply cannot insult a character in a story book, unless you believe that character is real...haha! ..this is not disney world you know.

There are principles involved.

Yeah, and they are all empty principles.

You have to be solidly familiar and understand [not necessary agree with] Buddhism to see the fundamental differences for philosophical [since we are in such a forum] sake.

Yeah, I see the differences, but like I keep repeating, it's all the one love in action dreaming difference where there is none, all fictional stories - much-a-do about nothing, and nothing to get hung over. really, unless you like aruging with yourself.

Else one should be a hermit [there are many] and stay in a mountain cave.

Nah, who told you that rubbish, just an old wives tail is that one...at the end of the day the dream is meant to be lived, it's one experience after another, one adventure after another, dare to dream is my motto..wooh hoooo....chop wood,carry water, chop wood carry water, same old same old, same as it ever was. Eh?

.
.