False Teachings - Ultra Thread

[Osaid]

3 hours ago, zurew said:

In mathematics you can find claims about bigger and smaller infinities. Think of it this way: You can have a set of natural numbers that will contain numbers starting from 0 to infinite. However that set is smaller compared to the set of integers (which includes negatives as well). And that set is smaller than the set of rational numbers.

I am aware of the mathematical subsets of infinity, and yes that is different from what I mean.

Existential/metaphysical infinity = no limits or boundaries or divisions

When you say there is a "smaller infinity", it is not really existentially infinity because you are dividing experience into a smaller subset of itself. It is a division, and thus a limitation, and thus a boundary, and thus it is finite in some sense. 

There is a conflation happening where infinity is being conflated with an "infinite amount of things" when it is actually just "one thing that is infinite." If there are "things", that itself is finitude, because "things" are a division that your mind makes. It is your mind comparing and contrasting.

Edited March 20 by Osaid

[Someone here]

@Osaid Reality is an individualistic thing.. Every being experiences its own reality. Be open that there degrees to infinity . Remember that even mathematically speaking there is omega or infinity of infinities.  Which is what Leo (actually George Cantor) calls Absolute Infinity.

[Osaid]

7 hours ago, Davino said:

Many times before you realize something is a paradox you think it is a contradiction, isn't it so?

Not anymore. I might have used to think of it that way. It is very clear to me now what a paradox is though. It is just a failure of your logic to capture reality. Reality is not logic and logic was never meant to capture the whole of reality in the first place, that goes beyond its use. Therefore you get a paradox when you try to apply logic to certain aspects of reality.

There is actually a subtle difference in definitions which is well known linguistically. A contradiction will point to something entirely different existentially than a paradox.

Google defines contradiction as:

a combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another.

Google defines paradox as:

a statement or proposition that, despite sound (or apparently sound) reasoning from acceptable premises, leads to a conclusion that seems senseless, logically unacceptable, or self-contradictory.

I think this is a good succinct summary I found on Google:

Many people use the words paradox and contradiction in the same way, but there are subtle differences between them. A paradox defies logic and expectations. A contradiction is something that contradicts itself, meaning it says something is true, then says the same thing is false.

[Breakingthewall]

The infinite given its infinity has infinite manifestations, infinite dimensions, which means that ultimately they are all unreal, since in comparison with the infinite they are zero. only infinity itself is real. It is the same to know a lot or a little, since you cannot know everything. But you can know what infinity is because it is you. So at the end, only the substance matters, because the form is a mirage, that disappear when it's confronted with the infinity 

[Breakingthewall]

If infinity is the case, there is no creator of reality. This is pure duality and false. In the infinite, creation is not necessary, since everything is. Infinity is in perpetual movement given its absence of limits, and that movement is the creation of forms. there is no will or cause, there is existence, but existence is intelligence because has no limits, so that movement is intelligent without limit 

Edited March 20 by Breakingthewall

[r0ckyreed]

The idea that enlightenment will eliminate suffering and all of your problems is a false teaching. True Enlightenment has nothing to do petty human needs and suffering. Enlightenment is a state of consciousness beyond human and identity. 

Another false teaching is that everyone is already enlightened.

Edited March 21 by r0ckyreed

[Inliytened1]

On 3/19/2024 at 5:22 PM, r0ckyreed said:

Awakening, enlightenment, solipsism, etc. are all speculations, theory, and concepts. I 

Notice that this is an assumption.  This in itself is a conceptual theory.  Be very careful here.  Enlightenment is something prior to this- it is direct Consciousness or Being.   It is possible to awaken from the dream.   Notice that believing it is a speculation is a direct conclusion without any direct validation. 

Edited March 21 by Inliytened1

[Inliytened1]

1 hour ago, r0ckyreed said:

The idea that enlightenment will eliminate suffering and all of your problems is a false teaching.

Thats probably the only thing you got right.   Because suffering is of the ego....as long as the ego exists suffering will exist to some degree.  Enlightenment is the liberation from suffering in the present moment.  But enlightenment is not permanent.    Nothing is permanent but impermanence.

But you do gain the wisdom to rise above suffering.   That is key. 

Edited March 21 by Inliytened1

[UnbornTao]

"First take the plank out of your own eye..."

Edited March 22 by UnbornTao

[r0ckyreed]

5 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

Notice that this is an assumption.  This in itself is a conceptual theory.  Be very careful here.  Enlightenment is something prior to this- it is direct Consciousness or Being.   It is possible to awaken from the dream.   Notice that believing it is a speculation is a direct conclusion without any direct validation. 

I see your point, but I was referring to that it depends on your point of reference. The idea that you can awaken from this dream is an assumption because I believe it is true without direct evidence. We can’t really live life without assumptions. You are gonna assume either way or another. Your assumption is that you can actually awaken from the dream while yet still being inside the dream. I think you can be awake in the dream but I don’t see how you can awaken from the dream and live to tell the tale. Because as you start telling the tale, you are back in the dream. Do you follow? Awakening from the dream entirely is the same physical death. In the meantime, we can only be as awake as our biology allows us to.

[r0ckyreed]

Notice that “awakening, enlightenment, solipsism” are indeed all concepts, speculation, and theory at a certain state of consciousness. At another state, they are direct. I am just stating that these concepts are filled with hidden preconceived ideas associated with them. The idea that you can awaken is an idea right now until you actually awaken, which you would be too dead to even have anymore ideas of it if you actually awaken totally.

Edited March 21 by r0ckyreed

[Inliytened1]

14 minutes ago, r0ckyreed said:

I see your point, but I was referring to that it depends on your point of reference. The idea that you can awaken from this dream is an assumption because I believe it is true without direct evidence. We can’t really live life without assumptions. You are gonna assume either way or another. Your assumption is that you can actually awaken from the dream while yet still being inside the dream. I think you can be awake in the dream but I don’t see how you can awaken from the dream and live to tell the tale. Because as you start telling the tale, you are back in the dream. Do you follow? Awakening from the dream entirely is the same physical death. In the meantime, we can only be as awake as our biology allows us to.

Well - no - you become awaken fully - its the whole deal.  You will completely wake up as God.   But then, you will go back into the dream because you are not ready to let it go forever.   Thats why with enlightenment you are still appearing to be in the body.   You're speaking of Masamadhi.   Or permanent Awakening or change of form. This to me now is simply a concept because I have no direct validation.   But I can tell you that enlightenment is all it's cracked up to be.  You will die and become God.  The physical body returns because of the attachment to this particular dream.

Edited March 21 by Inliytened1

[r0ckyreed]

On 3/19/2024 at 5:34 PM, Osaid said:

Or maybe, it indicates a fundamental error or corruption in the method for accessing truth.

That is always a possibility, but contradiction is a feature of nonduality. 

[r0ckyreed]

12 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

Well - no - you become awaken fully - its the whole deal.  You will completely wake up as God.   But then, you will go back into the dream because you are not ready to let it go forever.   Thats why with enlightenment you are still appearing to be in the body.   You're speaking of Masamadhi.   Or permanent awaking or change of form. This to me now as simply a concept because I have no direct validation.   But I can tell you that enlightenment is all it's cracked up to be.  You will die and become God.  The physical body returns because of the attachment to this particular dream.

Right. This is where I am coming from that awakening via death is speculation. We assume that there is something after death and that death actually happens. We can also assume that there is an afterlife or no afterlife. We are in this assumption game no matter what we do. 

How can you be fully awake if you are still in the human form? As we know from direct experience, the human form is limited, finite, and full of self-deception. Our human brain cannot even begin to comprehend a fraction of God. The part cannot grasp the whole. In order for the part to grasp the whole, it has to become the whole. But if that happens, there is no longer any part.

If you “awaken” to the whole of God and then come back as a part, then you will be missing the understanding of wholeness because a part has to deal with self-deception survival games to maintain the identity of a part. That’s what people don’t get here is that you haven’t awakened fully because you still have to focus on survival to maintain selfishness to some degree. It’s impossible to be fully awake to Absolute God because God is Absolute Selflessness.

God is too profound to be comprehendable by the human brain. God is infinite which means no matter how far your understanding of God goes, you won’t be any closer to the end than when you began. Your understanding will still be at an ant level even after all of your psychedelic/meditation trips.

Edited March 21 by r0ckyreed

[Inliytened1]

5 minutes ago, r0ckyreed said:

Right. This is where I am coming from that awakening via death is speculation.

No.. death is not what you think it is.  Death and ego death are the same thing.  The changing of form or the relinquishing of the dream is not death it is change.  Nothing can physically die it can just morph into something else...the death is the relinquishing of the idea of what you were before.  

Edited March 21 by Inliytened1

[r0ckyreed]

10 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

No.. death is not what you think it is.  Death and ego death are the same thing.  The changing of form or the relinquishing of the dream is not death it is change.

Thanks for your clarification. But how does something die if it never existed in the first place? 

My thoughts are that the ego is identity that was imagined/created, so it was technically “born” and technically exists. But this doesn’t answer to the fact that you still have an ego even after “awakening.” Hence, you still have to play these ego games of survival. You are still maintaining an attachment to form and all attachment is ego right?

Edited March 21 by r0ckyreed

[Inliytened1]

18 minutes ago, r0ckyreed said:

Thanks for your clarification. But how does something die if it never existed in the first place? 

My thoughts are that the ego is identity that was imagined/created, so it was technically “born” and technically exists. But this doesn’t answer to the fact that you still have an ego even after “awakening. Hence, you still have to play these ego games of survival. You are still maintaining an attachment to form and all attachment is ego right?

Death does not exist other than an as an idea.  Correct but it does not negate enlightenment 

Edited March 21 by Inliytened1

[Osaid]

33 minutes ago, r0ckyreed said:

but contradiction is a feature of nonduality. 

No. Contradiction is a feature of logic and intellect, which you presuppose onto non-dual reality. Reality is not intellect, and non-duality is not intellect either. Only intellect can contradict because only intellect can compare and contrast. To consider reality as intellect is anthropomorphization. Contradiction is a statement you make which opposes itself. You imagine that reality should be a certain way when it isn't, then you perceive this as contradiction. Contradiction is also different from paradox. More on that here:
 

 

 

[Inliytened1]

@Osaid its not a feature of logic it is a feature of reality.   Contradiction is non-logical because it is paradox.   Logic and Contradiction are both features of reality. 

[Osaid]

3 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

Logic and Contradiction are both features of reality. 

They are features in that they are both imaginary divisions and dualities. Nothing else.

Edited March 22 by Osaid