Absolute "perspectives"

[Dodo]

2 minutes ago, egoless said:

Even saying that they are true absolutely is perspective. They are not True absolutely. And I have my own arguments for that which may be very long topic.

It's a perspective, but the opposite perspective also implies this perspective is true. For you to write 'My perspective is that I am not in the present moment and that I am not aware' you need to be in the present moment and to be aware.

This is exactly the reason why I put perspective in brackets in the topic title. Because this perspective corresponds to something true absolutely true in experience. 

We cannot be sure whether this is dream or a 'real reality', but what we can be sure is is that we are aware and that it is now. That much we can be sure of. The rest is perspectives, but this, how can this be a perspective  

Edited January 5, 2018 by Dodo

[egoless]

1 minute ago, Dodo said:

It's a perspective, but the opposite perspective also implies this perspective is true. For you to write 'My perspective is that I am not in the present moment and that I am not aware' you need to be in the present moment and to be aware.

As I added: The closest you can get is Nothing=Absolute. 

Remember everything, how absolutely true it might not appear to you is relative. He won’t  need to be aware that He is aware to write that. In “his reality” he is not awareness..

Contemplate what true non duality means. It means truth=false

[Dodo]

4 minutes ago, egoless said:

As I added: The closest you can get is Nothing=Absolute. 

Remember everything, how absolutely true it might not appear to you is relative. He won’t  need to be aware that He is aware to write that. In “his reality” he is not awareness..

Contemplate what true non duality means. It means truth=false

True nonduality is a concept. Also if true nonduality means that truth = false, than it's the same as saying false nonduality means truth = false. Contemplate  That's not an absolute statement. An absolute statement does not exist, but a pointer can point to what is absolute right here and now - in experience. The only thing we can know. Are you going to believe your experience or your thoughts about experience? 

Edited January 5, 2018 by Dodo

[egoless]

11 minutes ago, Dodo said:

True nonduality is a concept. Also if true nonduality means that truth = false, than it's the same as saying false nonduality means truth = false. Contemplate  That's not an absolute statement. An absolute statement does not exist, but a pointer can point to what is absolute right here and now - in experience. The only thing we can know. Are you going to believe your experience or your thoughts about experience? 

I understand what you mean and to some extent that’s “true”. No statement can be true. But no perspective can be absolutely true as well. Even infinite god’s perspective can not be “absolutely True” in my opinion and let me explain why. It would imply that finite perspective is false which can not be true because ultimately finite=infinite. It is a strange loop.

Edited January 5, 2018 by egoless

[Dodo]

22 minutes ago, egoless said:

Even saying that they are true absolutely is perspective. They are not True absolutely. And I have my own arguments for that which may be very long topic.

the closest you can get is Nothing=absolute

Nothing is absolute only on the level of mind/thought. That's precisely why you need a long explanation and you can't just point to it in my experience here now.

Edited January 5, 2018 by Dodo

[egoless]

15 minutes ago, Dodo said:

Nothing is absolute only on the level of mind/thought. That's precisely why you need a long explanation and you can't just point to it in my experience here now.

I understand what you mean now but your first post was way too ambiguous. Your “issue” here is that you try to label something which can not be labeled. True and false are relative notions. There is no such thing as absolute Truth. 

There is just isness. Existence=non existence.

when you say: “Here's what is an absolute perspective - a perspective that is always true”

as soon as you shift the perspective that is no longer the Truth in that perspective... see? You must understand that Truth is relative notion. There coupd not be the absolute Truth. Truth only exists in relativity.

Edited January 5, 2018 by egoless

[Monkey-man]

2 hours ago, Dodo said:

This is just meshing up a bunch of theories though. What I'm interested in is what is the common between all theories which will be absolutely true no matter what.

One, whatever it is it has to be known, otherwise it's not relevant. Two, it has to be your present moment reality, because if it isn't it's again not relevant to talk about it.

For example, let's take heaven and eternal nothingness.  There needs to be a witness to know that heaven and there needs to be a witness to know that eternal nothingness,  otherwise it will be just a "skip" action until the knowing appears.

The point of Knowing is empty, it doesnt create duality. Even if it's only nothingness,  then that nothingness knows itself, in order for this to be a possible afterlife. Or the heaven knows itself, although the concept of heaven allows for a wiggle room for there to be an actual ego self experiencing something external to itself which is amazing. 

i mean philosophical debates and cosmology and hidden aspects of physical reality and global issues and nondual understanding of the world.

those has no absolute true perspective. otherwise you would already know it

the best is to combine all together and try to see structure, system, pattern, order in all these.

usually it works. all the free will vs determinism and many more debates can be sort of solved with such method

[Dodo]

13 minutes ago, Monkey-man said:

i mean philosophical debates and cosmology and hidden aspects of physical reality and global issues and nondual understanding of the world.

those has no absolute true perspective. otherwise you would already know it

the best is to combine all together and try to see structure, system, pattern, order in all these.

usually it works. all the free will vs determinism and many more debates can be sort of solved with such method

This could be only if you are looking for an absolute content, not the absolute in which all content appears. 

 

Edited January 5, 2018 by Dodo

[Dodo]

48 minutes ago, egoless said:

when you say: “Here's what is an absolute perspective - a perspective that is always true”

as soon as you shift the perspective that is no longer the Truth in that perspective... see? You must understand that Truth is relative notion. There coupd not be the absolute Truth. Truth only exists in relativity.

I mean that the "perspective" is absolute in a sense that it points to that real thing within which that very perspective appears. The opposite of that perspective will also appear in the same field pointed to by the 'absolute perspectives' that I mentioned, although they are not pointing towards it.

The string of words and the pointer are not absolute, but what they point to, that's what I'm trying to communicate that is absolute. Don't get caught up on words. 

Edited January 5, 2018 by Dodo

[egoless]

@Dodo in order the perspective to be absolute your illusion- maya should completely disappear and you should become absolute infinity. Any other perspectives can’t be absolute. So I don’ Really understand why are you trying to fit words here. Where they are unnecessary imho. This is just a distraction for you is not it?

[Dodo]

31 minutes ago, egoless said:

@Dodo in order the perspective to be absolute your illusion- maya should completely disappear and you should become absolute infinity. Any other perspectives can’t be absolute. So I don’ Really understand why are you trying to fit words here. Where they are unnecessary imho. This is just a distraction for you is not it?

There are no distractions, for all distractions appear in That also. For That is what my inquiry targets, not the content. The content can be this or the opposite of this, but I find it helpful for the content to have arrows pointing me in the right direction. Like a well charted map.

An absolute perspective or a point of view about experience is a perspective/point of view which cannot be proven untrue in experience even if you tried. It is also true for everyone, whether they know it or not! 

Try to go outside the now. Try not to be aware. It's that simple! You can lose your form identity, you can lose eeeeeverything else and everyone will at some point, but those two no-things you cannot lose. Those are eternal and ever present. And perhaps (most likely lol)  they are not two, but one/zero, being pointed at from two angles.

Edited January 5, 2018 by Dodo

[egoless]

@Dodo see how we try to prove our perspectives to each other without any success. That alone could be a minor prompt to you that Truth is relative notion. What about absolute? Absolute is only infinite god=infinity of perspectives= no perspective. But you can’t label absolute as Truth. Truth is always relative. The word itself implies it to be relative. In absolute there is only oneness so you can’t really call the oneness the Truth because relative to what? Is there anything else which is false? 

Anyways good luck on your endeavors!  

[Joseph Maynor]

Thank you for this Dodo.  Recognizing the plethora of perspectives is a key thing to keep us humble and focused on being the Watcher instead of trying to make our limited perspective the litmus-test of reality.  There is no right perspective.  A perspective is a story.  Reality just is.  Furthermore, a perspective is highly influenced by culture, whereas reality is not.  Reality is a-cultural.

Edited January 5, 2018 by Joseph Maynor

[egoless]

@Joseph Maynor don’t separate those “two”. Reality is the perspectives. You are not one who looks through the lenses... you are the lenses 

[Forestluv]

12 hours ago, Dodo said:

1) It's always the present moment is true, it's not a perspective. Meaning Even if you take the opposite perspective, it's still true for you that you're in the present moment.

2) You are aware. This is again not dependent on perspective.  You are aware whether or not your perspective is that you are aware. 

3) You don't know what you don't know - Again, even if your perspective is that you do, you still don't know what you don't know - It's an objective fact independent of subjectivity/perspective. 

So perhaps we can go ahead and hold these "things" as concrete, as anchors one can use to ground to reality. They are objective reality. Im not saying the list is exhausted, it's just the nuggets that I've found. It's not all perspective... That's my perspective, but based on the three things that are undeniably Not a perspective. 

PS: By the way I've also had this idea and said it to my buddhist friend once, when I was an atheist that we should together try to have different relligions each week and see how different it feels :D 

 

1) I don't accept the assumption it is always the present moment. How could you objectively demonstrate it is the present moment? It is like assuming an anthropomorphic god exists that directs all happenings and being unable to describe what it would look like if a god did not exist. What would it look like if it was NOT always the present moment? What is the present moment in the experience of a dog? Of a tree?. . . The concept of a present moment is relative to concepts of "past moments" and "future moments". Timelines are conceptual frameworks of evolved humans. What other potential evolutionary paths could have been?

2) Define "aware".

3) That is a perspective. Another perspective is that all of existence, all knowledge, is within my mind. When something "new" enters my mind it comes into existence.  Another perspective is that there is no separate "you". You are within knowledge and there is no "knowing" or "not knowing".

I've found these types of conceptual "absolute" truths break down under high doses of psychedelics.

Edited January 5, 2018 by Serotoninluv

[Dodo]

1 hour ago, Serotoninluv said:

1) I don't accept the assumption it is always the present moment. How could you objectively demonstrate it is the present moment? It is like assuming an anthropomorphic god exists that directs all happenings and being unable to describe what it would look like if a god did not exist. What would it look like if it was NOT always the present moment?

2) Define "aware".

3) That is a perspective. Another perspective is that all of existence, all knowledge, is within my mind. When something "new" enters my mind it comes into existence.  Another perspective is that there is no separate "you". You are within knowledge and there is no "knowing" or "not knowing".

I've found these types of conceptual "absolute" truths break down under high doses of psychedelics.

Hi and thanks for the questions. I'll give a go at answering, although your direct experience can answer these better than I can.

1) It is Not conceptual - why? Because it is here always in direct experience. All concepts, if they appear, appear in it - it is the space that allows for concepts(or anything) in the first place.

What I am talking about when I speak of the present moment is not what happens in the present moment, but the space in which it happens. The space of now is irreducible in nature, unchanging and unmoving. It is a dimensionless point (like any point is, but that's another topic). It's not a confined space, it is rather eternal and inescapable. 

The concept of the present moment and anything else are always, without exception experienced in the space of the present moment - It's rather evident, but at the same time it's empty nature allows for confusion if you start thinking about it. The present moment is not an object you can point to and say " Aha! There it is". 

2) Aware means to know. Aware of experience - to know experience. 

3) While you could have these other perspectives on the matter (probably for feel-good purposes) it's still an objective fact that you don't know what you don't know. 

Taking those other perspectives is simply closing an eye / being ignorant of the fact that noone can know what they don't know.

If you really know everything,  this will be one of the things you would definitely know. Because it is impossible to know what you dont know, because you cant even know what that is. Why? Simply because its outside of your knowing.

Perhaps if you are God that one breaks.

Edited January 5, 2018 by Dodo

[star ark]

6 hours ago, egoless said:

@Joseph Maynor don’t separate those “two”. Reality is the perspectives. You are not one who looks through the lenses... you are the lenses 

the lens is the body

brain damaged lens, different reality.

the lens in the receiver and the I is channeled by the lens

body is the temple not the god