Kevin Solway wrote:To me, all the above just looks like a cat-fight - and pointless. There's more name-calling than anything else.
But his is too damned interesting to go on with my trip without saying a few words before I leave.
Essentially, the core issues is; what Truth IS, is irrelevant of someone else defining it for the individual who indulges in it him self, for the other can never ever get into his head and comprehend his totality. Agreements can ever arise only partially, not in its totality, for then, that would nullify the utter uniqueness of any individual thing, and the fact remains that there can be no two things exactly and absolutely the same as another.
If, Victor, truly has come to a conclusion, that Absolute Truth in and of its self cannot exist, then that exactly IS an absolute truth for HIM, but not necessarily ABSOLUTE, because that itself depends on what he is not, which includes all Absolute Truthâ€™s claimed by multitude of others.
Truth cannot be devoid of Duality, nor can Duality be devoid of Truth, which essentially cancels out both of them. So the question is, not what WE are left with, but what exactly is THERE to begin with? And since duality itself is questionable, in the sense that it creates a Logical Sense of an individual, who although logically deduces duality, cannot ever PROVE it as being there, for that would be a circular reasoning.
Hence, totality cannot be an existence devoid of an individual logical sense of being, and the fact that an individual is absolutely nothing without which that he is not, hence that which is not is permanently creating just a SENSE of being, which each and every individual thing feels, but in actuality, there is absolutely nothing really there, just a sense of being, which simply IS.
To contrast this sense of being, so that one may understand that such a sense in not actually nothing whatsoever, some sensible teaches have pointed to what they call â€œemptinessâ€, but essentially, what is, IS, and there is absolutely nothing beyond that that such a sense may be contrasted against, ITSELF. There is no such thing as unconsciousness, for consciousness is all that there is, which simply IS.
At the core of it all, The â€œIâ€, Self, who hangs on to HIS particular Truth, is at no fault at all, since the Self is no more than what it is not; and what it is, is merely the reflection of the rest of the totality that depends on HIS sense (logical of course) of view, which does not exist inherently, nor all that IT concludes.
Self comes and goes, and along with it Absolute Truths; No-thing ever remains, for there is absolutely nothing really there, not even Truth, or Un-Truth, right or wrong, good or bad, existence or non-existenceâ€¦. so on and so forth; all the way down to duality and merely a Sense of IT being there, thatâ€™s all, and just IS.
In reference to beyond of this sense of IS, there is no room for absolutely anything at all; and if you still ask me; sayâ€¦. butâ€¦ howeverâ€¦ does that meanâ€¦. Or whatever you can counter argue with; the only response then I am left with isâ€¦
Otherwise, Iâ€™m all open to logically discussing any thing at all, absolutely, within the realm of IS-ING, which itself isnâ€™t really actually there, but thatâ€™s different story all togetherâ€¦
All the best to all.
If one things that I am contradicting myselfâ€¦ sue me! I am all ready to face final judgmentâ€¦ Let it come with all its fury!
Until then, then :)