You are not logged in.

#1 2023-01-29 17:14:31

Yazhi and Mari AND The Buddhist Monk

YAZHI/MARI wrote:

Because what is reality anyway?

I was talking to Yazhi Swaruu yesterday about this.
She mentioned having been listening to a teachings of a high-grade master Buddhist-monk that stated that the ego was a personal attempt to differentiate oneself from reality, and he kept talking about reality as some kind of base-hard truth.
Both Yazhi and I strongly disagree with that, because we don't see one universal hard truth; all we see is a group of collective agreements to interpret previous manifestations inside the field of potential energy.

But we also see the monk's point as well, but if whenever he uses the word "reality" we would change it to the word "matrix" we could all understand what he was saying a lot better that way.

Because what he is clearly referring to in all his talks, is the reality that is socially accepted by the vast majority of people on Earth; I mean the official reality - the set of agreements of perception, and of right and wrong that form the entire culture on Earth we call "The Earth 3D-Matrix."

Responding, to Yazhi's total disagreement, that she, does not see a "hard" (immovable) truth something that on the contrary, in this question, I personally disagree totally and taking into account that for TRUTH,(synonym of REALITY) to be true and nothing else is, this recognition, implies that:

1º without the first statement, the second is meaningless.

2º But the second without the first ceases to be true.

What I am going to expose, does not pretend to be at any time an attack on the person, but on the contrary, a meeting of epistemological consensus, trying to frame it in a larger context that gives it meaning.

In Buddhism, when we speak of "reality", we do not speak of the reality of perceived objects, or so-called agreements of perception (at any "density level"). When we speak of "REALITY", we speak of that which is BEYOND THE FORMS and also, of that so-called "potential-mental-creative-intentional field" that conforms those so-called agreements of perception.

But everything that involves perceiving necessarily implies conceiving yourself as limited to a greater or lesser range of relative perception compared to other collective or individual ranges of perception.

Only the "senses" were conceived to recognize physical forms that are in motion, objects that are in motion, images that are "in motion", and sounds that are changing.

But it must be understood that when we speak of senses and perception, we also speak of the fact that these perceptual senses are essentially conceptual, i.e., they depend on an idea.

This means that each range of perception, depending on its field of perceptual expansion, entails an ideation-creation in the development of senses adapted to the "level of density. In other words, each "density" per se, entails the necessary sensory development or the senses necessary for its perception.

This also implies the fact that ALL SENSES ARE PHYSICAL, regardless of the density or range of perception. For everything that is subject to perception entails the materialization of an idea. And this sensory materialization is perceived as material in the so-called "high densities as in low densities".

EVERY ACT OF PERCEPTION NECESSARILY ENTAILS IN ORDER TO BE PERCEIVED AN ACT OF SENSORY MATERIALIZATION.

However, it could also be said that since every idea is an illusion, therefore, ALL SENSORY MATERIALIZATION IS ALSO AN ILLUSION and therefore we can conclude that matter does not exist as such, and what we call and understand as "matter" is only a perceptual interpretation to which we give THE IDEA of solidity and also of "reality". Therefore, what we understand as reality is only a RELATIVE interpretative consensus both individual and collective, subject to the laws of change, where everything seems to be distinct and unique, where everything is moving and transforming and where everything is being born and dying as a function of a pure transient dual relativism. 

BUT in Buddhism, everything that is subject to change, transformation, birth and death, is NOT considered real. Since, if something is impermanent, per se, by definition it cannot be real. Therefore, REALITY must be "THAT WHICH IS NOT SUBJECT TO IMPERMANENCE. No act of perception can be eternally sustaining, (and this proves its unreality). This fact is relentlessly revealed in that the very idea that creates a body cannot be sustained indefinitely since that self-sustaining idea eventually dies, just as the physical body does.

But it would be too easy to infer that if REALITY, is that which is not subject to impermanence, REALITY, is that which is its opposite, that is, which is always permanent and not subject to change. But this statement would already represent a dualistic view of REALITY. 

Therefore, we have to consider that REALITY is neither impermanence subject to permanent transformation, nor is it a permanent nihilistic void (ontological nadism) subject to a sterile and fruitless immobility. 
So, what is REALITY?

It is not possible to answer this question in such a way that the words and the concepts that represent the words, do not deform or distort any attempt to define REALITY that does not take us doubly far away from its "comprehension". 

It is for this reason that the only thing that can define REALITY is to deny everything that is NOT REALITY, beginning with any idea that tries to define it. But even the negation itself must be discarded, so as not to incur in its definition and affirmation. That is why REALITY is a personal, intimate, universal and ineffable experience. That is to say, only comprehensible, outside of all cognition and ideation.

But for those who obviously have not reached this understanding and at the risk of falling into a distortion of the same experiential TRUTH of "fusion with the ABSOLUTE," when this UNDERSTANDING occurs, words cease, thought is silenced, and the "I-idea" which up to that moment was personalized in a limited individual identity, is diluted and oceanified in the same ABSOLUTE REALITY, the "sustained mind" remaining between the verticality of the experience of TOTAL UNLIMITED FULLNESS of the a-perceptual PURE consciousness and the horizontality of the relative experience of the functional mind that requires the perceptual cognition of the illusory world where the vicissitudes of the day-to-day vicissitudes are apparently unfolding.

To clarify that: although this verticality and horizontality may still seem to be effects of a perceptual dualism, they are not experienced as such, but as a total integration that arises from the same active acceptance of everything that happens.

Thus said, I will make a brief description of what it represents in its ontological aspects of REALITY.

REALITY IS universal, not because each individual is a "potential field" "creator" of his own reality, but because REALITY, not being an idea and not being able to be defined, nor thought, you have NOT created it and IT, does not depend on anything, while all individual realities, are nothing but their possibilities that depend totally on IT.

They are in essence none other than IT, which depend only on Itself, under the ILLUSORY appearance of "other than IT".  It has not begotten, nor has it been begotten". The only REAL cannot be the cause of an effect other than IT (Absolute), nor can it be an effect arising from a cause other than IT (Absolute).

Taking HIMSELF the ILLUSORY aspect of the creaturely (illusory) effects, without ceasing to be absolutely uncreated and infinite, "it does not beget another reality", nor is it "begotten" by another reality: it simply manifests ITSELF under the aspect of an "other than IT (Absolute)", which is not really other than IT (Absolute).... And it has no equal, for there is no reality, if it is not HIM (Absolute).

But its OMNIREALITY, which excludes nothingness, gives to "that non-existence" the purely illusory appearance of an existence (illusory world).  Thus, paradoxically, "creation" "is a "non-existent existence", that is to say, it is nothing by itself: what "exists" of it, is not it, but the mere BEING. In other words: "the existence of things is His existence, without things being".

In synthesis: the only REAL is not the unreal, and the unreal is not the REAL; neither is there "localization" of the REAL in the unreal, nor "fusion of both natures", REAL and unreal. REAL and unreal.

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)


I opened the door
and your Presence entered
like a sword,
without asking.

Offline

#2 2023-01-29 21:27:05

Jupiter 9
Moderator

Re: Yazhi and Mari AND The Buddhist Monk

I think that when they say "we don't see one universal hard truth" they don't mean that there is no Absolute Truth, there is no immovable Absolute Reality.

I think when they say "we don't see one universal hard truth" they mean what you say here:

CHARCOtranquilo wrote:

So, what is REALITY?

It is not possible to answer this question in such a way that the words and the concepts that represent the words, do not deform or distort any attempt to define REALITY that does not take us doubly far away from its "comprehension".

I think they mean that you can only point to Absolute Truth, Absolute Reality, and you cannot put it into "one universal absolute/hard concept/truth". And there is not "only one universal hard pointer to TRUTH/REALITY".

You say "When we speak of "REALITY", we speak of that which is BEYOND THE FORMS". But you can't speak about that. You can't put that into a concept.

And everything you say about REALITY is not REALITY, it's A description of REALITY. It's A pointer to REALITY. It's not THE one true universal description of REALITY, it's not THE one true pointer to REALITY. There are many ways you can point to TRUTH/REALITY, not only one. I think that's what they mean.

smile

PS
Below are some quotes for context to what I say above:


"If you do feel pulled in, to save, protect, others, I would suggest to examine the energy of the “guardian” instead. Not the weaponized guardian, but the guardian like an impenetrable wall energy. No consequences to who tries to trespass, just an impossibility of getting through." - Inelia

Offline

#3 2023-01-29 21:31:06

Jupiter 9
Moderator

Re: Yazhi and Mari AND The Buddhist Monk

From the video/transcript: There is no Material World - Part 2 - World of the Dead vs World of the Living - Yazhi Swaruu

(bold mine)

---------------------

Yazhi: When I speak in absolute terms stating my point of view as if it were absolute or solid truth, I am referring to how I see things from my particular point of view and from my experience. It is a form of linguistic expression and not an imposition on my part so that you believe what I say and not the views or versions of others. I state things from my point of view based on everything I have learned, experienced and everything that comes into my head constantly.

I only share it with all of you as a reference so that you have more information or as a stimulus to think about during the process of forming your personal and particular cosmogony.

An example of this is when I state that every conscious being, at whatever level, is composed of consciousnesses of lesser cognitive and awareness evolution, and in turn forms more complex beings as well. That is, there is a range of consciousness that goes from very simple to the absolute, the Original Source, or whatever you wish to call it.

This is also a limited way of explaining something that is simply impossible to explain since any theory or empirical statement that we develop from our evolutionary position of mind, whatever level it may be, will fall short since from the point of view of the Absolute, nothing we say will represent the objective reality of how the Absolute works. It is simply unattainable from our levels of mind and consciousness.

Having said that, I describe it to you as a range of mind-consciousness that goes from little to almost nothing, in a cumulative gradient all the way to the All, the Original Source. Being that this again would be an explanation perception from a non-total point of view, since from the point of view of the Absolute, of the Source, there is and could only be a single mass impossible to describe, which includes everything, and I mean everything in the absolute sense of the word EVERYTHING. Being that any point in between or any concept that attempts to describe it, such as my previous gradient of consciousness going from the lowest to the Source itself, remains as a concept or an idea contained within the sea of thoughts that are and that form the ALL.

---------------------

Last edited by Jupiter 9 (2023-01-29 21:35:27)


"If you do feel pulled in, to save, protect, others, I would suggest to examine the energy of the “guardian” instead. Not the weaponized guardian, but the guardian like an impenetrable wall energy. No consequences to who tries to trespass, just an impossibility of getting through." - Inelia

Offline

#4 2023-01-29 21:35:04

Jupiter 9
Moderator

Re: Yazhi and Mari AND The Buddhist Monk

From the video/transcript: Chatting with Yazhi about Time and Consciousness

(bold mine)

---------------------

Yazhi: To begin with, time is only an inseparable perception of consciousness, without time there is no consciousness and without consciousness there is no time, but it is not separate from consciousness.

[...]

Time is the last expression of duality, the last to disappear on the “way” back to Source, to be the whole. You remove time and only you remain, without self-awareness. Because time is your self-awareness.

---------------------



From: Escape From The Matrix video number 2 (English)

---------------------

Mari Swaruu: So, in order to escape the Matrix you must free you mind, as it is well said in the 1999 movie 'The Matrix'.

You cannot take for granted anything at all.

You must forget everything you have learned to be hard truth, and realize there aren't any.

You must start from a point of understanding and of awareness that nothing is real; nothing at all – except you who is having the experience.

Reality is a mental construct, not hard truth with fixed laws as Earth science has so wrongly imposed on humanity for so long.
The entire universe is made of consciousness and the ideas it holds dear.

---------------------


From the video/transcript: Stellar Navigation 3 - PART 2 - Ether - Inserting Objects in the Matrix - Athena Swaruu

---------------------

Athena Swaruu: But what is that complete and unique field we call Ether from which everything comes out, which is understood in some way as Source itself?

To explain this exceeds all capacity of scientific measurement, because even with the highest technology it will only be possible to measure something, a part, or a range of a much more expanded whole which extends to infinity. It is therefore incomprehensible to any being who holds the idea of being someone and not something else or someone else. It is beyond the reach of any being with a self-concept of having an 'I' or an 'Ego'.

---------------------

Last edited by Jupiter 9 (2023-01-29 22:02:58)


"If you do feel pulled in, to save, protect, others, I would suggest to examine the energy of the “guardian” instead. Not the weaponized guardian, but the guardian like an impenetrable wall energy. No consequences to who tries to trespass, just an impossibility of getting through." - Inelia

Offline

#5 2023-01-29 23:20:00

Re: Yazhi and Mari AND The Buddhist Monk

Jupiter wrote:

I think that when they say "we don't see one universal hard truth" they don't mean that there is no Absolute Truth, there is no immovable Absolute Reality.

I think when they say "we don't see one universal hard truth" they mean what you say here:

CHARCOtranquilo wrote:

So, what is REALITY?

It is not possible to answer this question in such a way that the words and the concepts that represent the words, do not deform or distort any attempt to define REALITY that does not take us doubly far away from its "comprehension".

I think they mean that you can only point to Absolute Truth, Absolute Reality, and you cannot put it into "one universal absolute/hard concept/truth". And there is not "only one universal hard pointer to TRUTH/REALITY".

You say "When we speak of "REALITY", we speak of that which is BEYOND THE FORMS". But you can't speak about that. You can't put that into a concept.

And everything you say about REALITY is not REALITY, it's A description of REALITY. It's A pointer to REALITY. It's not THE one true universal description of REALITY, it's not THE one true pointer to REALITY. There are many ways you can point to TRUTH/REALITY, not only one. I think that's what they mean.

smile :

Hello Jupiter smile

As I have already said, of REALITY, everything that tries to define it, is a total lie.
The only thing we can define is illusion, but that too is a total lie, since by definition all illusion has NO existence, per se.
Therefore, when all that is not true has been eliminated, "WHAT REMAINS" is that which is BEYOND ILLUSIONS. That "WHAT REMAINS" is where words and definitions have NO place; it is the DIRECT "experience" of REALITY/TRUTH. And as ACIM says: and then we are silent.


I opened the door
and your Presence entered
like a sword,
without asking.

Offline

#6 2023-01-29 23:56:16

Re: Yazhi and Mari AND The Buddhist Monk

Yes, but you cannot say this....

Jupiter wrote:

Yazhi: This is also a limited way of explaining something that is simply impossible to explain since any theory or empirical statement that we develop from our evolutionary position of mind, whatever level it may be, will fall short since from the point of view of the Absolute, nothing we say will represent the objective reality of how the Absolute works. It is simply unattainable from our levels of mind and consciousness.

Having said that, I describe it to you as a range of mind-consciousness that goes from little to almost nothing, in a cumulative gradient all the way to the All, the Original Source. Being that this again would be an explanation perception from a non-total point of view, since from the point of view of the Absolute, of the Source, there is and could only be a single mass impossible to describe, which includes everything, and I mean everything in the absolute sense of the word EVERYTHING. Being that any point in between or any concept that attempts to describe it, such as my previous gradient of consciousness going from the lowest to the Source itself, remains as a concept or an idea contained within the sea of thoughts that are and that form the ALL.

---------------------

....and then this other because it falls into a total contradiction, that is, one thing negates the other...

Yazhi / Mari wrote:

Because what is reality anyway?

I was talking to Yazhi Swaruu yesterday about this.
She mentioned having been listening to a teachings of a high-grade master Buddhist-monk that stated that the ego was a personal attempt to differentiate oneself from reality, and he kept talking about reality as some kind of base-hard truth.
Both Yazhi and I strongly disagree with that, because we don't see one universal hard truth; all we see is a group of collective agreements to interpret previous manifestations inside the field of potential energy.

we also see the monk's point as well, but if whenever he uses the word "reality" we would change it to the word "matrix" we could all understand what he was saying a lot better that way.

Because what he is clearly referring to in all his talks, is the reality that is socially accepted by the vast majority of people on Earth; I mean the official reality - the set of agreements of perception, and of right and wrong that form the entire culture on Earth we call "The Earth 3D-Matrix."

Last edited by CHARCOtranquilo (2023-01-30 00:08:26)


I opened the door
and your Presence entered
like a sword,
without asking.

Offline

#7 2023-01-30 02:24:28

Jupiter 9
Moderator

Re: Yazhi and Mari AND The Buddhist Monk

I read those two quotes many times but I don't see the contradiction. smile
What are they saying in the second quote that contradicts the first quote?

In what you emphasized in bold they are talking about what the monk is saying, Mari and Yazhi are not saying something in that part so I am confused why you emphasized that part.

PS
I assume from your name that you are Spanish. I was surprised to see the DeepL, cause I remember your english was good and I wouldn't have suspected that you are using a translator. Although it explains why you called Yazhi "he" once haha 

And are you reading these quotes in Spanish or are you reading them using the translator?


"If you do feel pulled in, to save, protect, others, I would suggest to examine the energy of the “guardian” instead. Not the weaponized guardian, but the guardian like an impenetrable wall energy. No consequences to who tries to trespass, just an impossibility of getting through." - Inelia

Offline

#8 2023-01-30 13:56:06

Re: Yazhi and Mari AND The Buddhist Monk

It is evident that we do not have the video of the Buddhist monk to be able to have a complete information of what he was meaning with the concept "reality". But, nevertheless, and at the risk of being wrong, having only a meager sentence taken out of a broader context that gives it meaning... I will say the following:

1º Yazhi first states that "nothing we say about the Absolute will represent the objective reality (reality=truth) of how it works. But yet he states at another point that objective reality is the matrix ( illusion=lie)  the set of collective agreements to interpret previous manifestations within the field of potency energy.

One affirmation denies the other: El ABSOLUTO   ≠ MATRIZ

2º When the Buddhist monk affirmed that "the ego was a personal attempt to differentiate itself from reality". He was symbolically referring to the original separation of the "I" as "individual soul" (as a rhetorical symbol) from the Source (ABSOLUTE). That "differentiation" is the original separation and the origin of duality [in all densities (this is a clarification of mine)] which for Buddhism is the origin of suffering and from here is born the longing to "return to the SOURCE. That is to say, when he speaks of "reality" he was pointing out in himself THE ABSOLUTE. This is why the Buddhist monk, as Yazhi relates, continues to speak of REALITY, as a kind of "basic and hard truth".

3º The Buddhist monk is NOT referring to the reality of the "3D matrix". NO. Because to say that the matrix is the "reality" is wrong, because the matrix (I don't care if it is 3D, 5D, 6D, 7D and so on to infinity "D") is by definition, the illusion or the illusory world of perception. And in the "world of illusions" there is NO "universal truth".

There is only an individual or collective relative LIE". BECAUSE BASICALLY, EVERY MATRIX IS A LIE PERCEIVED IN DIFFERENT GRAUDUATIONS THAT WHEN CONTRASTED WITH EACH OTHER, ARE GIVEN THE NAME OF "RELATIVE TRUTHS". That is to say, one could conclude that "the matrix" is a "universal lie" that is individualized in the infinite points of attention, as limited and limiting cognitive biases to an individual consciousness. And this has absolutely nothing to do with the REALITY OF THE ABSOLUTE or ABSOLUTE TRUTH.

TRUTH with capital letters, as I have already said, can NOT be reduced to the ego's idea of what truth is. That is beyond the scope of its comprehension. But there IS a UNIVERSAL TRUTH outside of all cognitivity and which has nothing to do with the relative universal lie of the world of illusions. 

And I conclude with the same sentence of my previous post.
Understanding is the recognition that TRUTH is TRUTH, and nothing else is. Without the first statement the second is meaningless. But without the second, the first ceases to be true.

But there are still many souls who have not accepted both parts of the statement.

Last edited by CHARCOtranquilo (2023-01-30 14:17:23)


I opened the door
and your Presence entered
like a sword,
without asking.

Offline

#9 2023-01-30 20:15:05

Jupiter 9
Moderator

Re: Yazhi and Mari AND The Buddhist Monk

CHARCOtranquilo wrote:

1º Yazhi first states that "nothing we say about the Absolute will represent the objective reality (reality=truth) of how it works." But yet he states at another point that objective reality is the matrix ( illusion=lie)  the set of collective agreements to interpret previous manifestations within the field of potency energy.

One affirmation denies the other: El ABSOLUTO   ≠ MATRIZ

But I don't remember hearing Yazhi or Minerva or Athena saying anything like that. So do you mind providing the exact quote where she says that, so we are more concrete and precise about what we are referring to.

Are you talking about this quote?

"Both Yazhi and I strongly disagree with that, because we don't see one universal hard truth; all we see is a group of collective agreements to interpret previous manifestations inside the field of potential energy."

Cause in this quote Yazhi is not stating that. The sentences and choice of words the Swaruus use are always very precise. If she wanted to say that objective reality is the matrix she would have said that in a very clear and precise manner.

And this whole conversation started the same way. You said that Yazhi "she, does not see a "hard" (immovable) truth" but her exact words were "we don't see one universal hard truth; all we see is a group of collective agreements to interpret previous manifestations inside the field of potential energy.". And as I said in my reply, the way I understand it, she doesn't mean that "she does not see an Absolute Total Undivided Immovable Non-Partial Whole TRUTH/REALITY" the way you understood it (if I understand you correctly).


CHARCOtranquilo wrote:

2º When the Buddhist monk affirmed that "the ego was a personal attempt to differentiate itself from reality". He was symbolically referring to the original separation of the "I" as "individual soul" (as a rhetorical symbol) from the Source (ABSOLUTE). That "differentiation" is the original separation and the origin of duality [in all densities (this is a clarification of mine)] which for Buddhism is the origin of suffering and from here is born the longing to "return to the SOURCE. That is to say, when he speaks of "reality" he was pointing out in himself THE ABSOLUTE. This is why the Buddhist monk, as Yazhi relates, continues to speak of REALITY, as a kind of "basic and hard truth".

But Yazhi clearly says that "he kept talking about reality as some kind of base-hard truth.", so the way I understand this is that Yazhi understood that the monk wasn't speaking about reality the way you describe it. Maybe he was and Yazhi didn't understand what he meant, but as you saw from one of the quotes I posted, Yazhi has a good understanding of THE ABSOLUTE, so how could she have misunderstood that?

CHARCOtranquilo wrote:

3º The Buddhist monk is NOT referring to the reality of the "3D matrix". NO. Because to say that the matrix is the "reality" is wrong, because the matrix (I don't care if it is 3D, 5D, 6D, 7D and so on to infinity "D") is by definition, the illusion or the illusory world of perception. And in the "world of illusions" there is NO "universal truth".

Again Yazhi and Mari are clearly saying here that according to them, what the monk is clearly referring to in all his talks is the reality of the "3D" matrix:

"Because what he is clearly referring to in all his talks, is the reality that is socially accepted by the vast majority of people on Earth; I mean the official reality - the set of agreements of perception, and of right and wrong that form the entire culture on Earth we call "The Earth 3D-Matrix."

Again maybe they misunderstood what he meant but my bet is that your assumption is wrong and this specific Buddist monk WAS referring to the reality of the "3D matrix". smile

CHARCOtranquilo wrote:

There is only an individual or collective relative LIE". BECAUSE BASICALLY, EVERY MATRIX IS A LIE PERCEIVED IN DIFFERENT GRAUDUATIONS THAT WHEN CONTRASTED WITH EACH OTHER, ARE GIVEN THE NAME OF "RELATIVE TRUTHS". That is to say, one could conclude that "the matrix" is a "universal lie" that is individualized in the infinite points of attention, as limited and limiting cognitive biases to an individual consciousness. And this has absolutely nothing to do with the REALITY OF THE ABSOLUTE or ABSOLUTE TRUTH.

TRUTH with capital letters, as I have already said, can NOT be reduced to the ego's idea of what truth is. That is beyond the scope of its comprehension. But there IS a UNIVERSAL TRUTH outside of all cognitivity and which has nothing to do with the relative universal lie of the world of illusions.

 

And the way I understand it I think you may be saying here in different words the same thing Yazhi and Mari are saying in this sentence: smile

"Both Yazhi and I strongly disagree with that, because we don't see one universal hard truth; all we see is a group of collective agreements to interpret previous manifestations inside the field of potential energy."

CHARCOtranquilo wrote:

And I conclude with the same sentence of my previous post.
Understanding is the recognition that TRUTH is TRUTH, and nothing else is. Without the first statement the second is meaningless. But without the second, the first ceases to be true.

But there are still many souls who have not accepted both parts of the statement.

And I have studied non-dual teachings and teachers so I think I understand what you are saying in the initial post and in this post. And the way you said it in the original post I didn't get which first and second statement you meant, but now I understand which statements you mean in that last sentence.

And I don't fully understand what you mean with this last sentence(mostly I don't understand why but I haven't ponder it, I was busy writing this reply haha) but that doesn't change my second point in my initial reply:

This last sentence and what you say in the above quote and everything else you say in your posts, IS NOT "THE UNIVERSAL HARD TRUTH". It's ONE POINTER to the "universal hard truth".

This last sentence and everything else that comes out of the mouth of the CHARCOtranquilo character, is "an ego's idea of what truth is", and it "has absolutely nothing to do with the REALITY OF THE ABSOLUTE or ABSOLUTE TRUTH." It is POINTING to "the REALITY OF THE ABSOLUTE or ABSOLUTE TRUTH" but it is NOT the ABSOLUTE TRUTH. The way I understand it so far there is, there is no ONE ABSOLUTE POINTER to the "Absolute Truth". There is only "ONE" "Absolute Truth" but there are many different ways to POINT to that "Absolute Truth". And your's is just one of them, Yazhi's is another, Ramana Maharshi's another and so on.   

And what you are saying is the CHARCOtranquilo character's idea of what truth is, it's not the "Absolute Truth", and that character is inside the matrix illusion and his pointers to the "Absolute Truth" are limited by that character's attachments to ideas and by that characters collective unconscious agreements(which is what a matrix is).

And I am not saying that you don't understand this, from what you are saying you do so I assume you are speaking is absolute terms for the same reasons that Yazhi is stating her pov as if it were absolute solid truth. Which now that I say this who knows maybe that monk was doing the same. Anyway this is superlong. smile

Yazhi: When I speak in absolute terms stating my point of view as if it were absolute or solid truth, I am referring to how I see things from my particular point of view and from my experience. It is a form of linguistic expression and not an imposition on my part so that you believe what I say and not the views or versions of others. I state things from my point of view based on everything I have learned, experienced and everything that comes into my head constantly.

Last edited by Jupiter 9 (2023-01-30 20:19:32)


"If you do feel pulled in, to save, protect, others, I would suggest to examine the energy of the “guardian” instead. Not the weaponized guardian, but the guardian like an impenetrable wall energy. No consequences to who tries to trespass, just an impossibility of getting through." - Inelia

Offline

#10 2023-01-30 21:37:47

JimiPickle
Member

Re: Yazhi and Mari AND The Buddhist Monk

This act, this play with words, and the actors bringing life to these words is the most comprehensive and beautiful dialog ever seen by these eyes. For what is this Now if not the ability to contemplate this, that is being said, that cannot be said. Can we find, define or create reality? Can we find, define or create the truth? What will be found in the pursuit of this, that cannot be found? In this reality/illusion that never was, we can have, see and contemplate this dialog Now…this wonderful Now. Applause for the actors, all the actors!


Bravo, Bravo!

What shall become of this, that never was, that attempts to define the undefinable in pursuit of truth and reality Now.

Offline

#11 2023-02-03 01:24:48

Re: Yazhi and Mari AND The Buddhist Monk

Jupiter wrote:

"Both Yazhi and I strongly disagree with that, because we don't see one universal hard truth; all we see is a group of collective agreements to interpret previous manifestations inside the field of potential energy."

Cause in this quote Yazhi is not stating that. The sentences and choice of words the Swaruus use are always very precise. If she wanted to say that objective reality is the matrix she would have said that in a very clear and precise manner.

And this whole conversation started the same way. You said that Yazhi "she, does not see a "hard" (immovable) truth" but her exact words were "we don't see one universal hard truth; all we see is a group of collective agreements to interpret previous manifestations inside the field of potential energy.". And as I said in my reply, the way I understand it, she doesn't mean that "she does not see an Absolute Total Undivided Immovable Non-Partial Whole TRUTH/REALITY" the way you understood it (if I understand you correctly).

He explicitly states this by relating "reality" to the collective agreements to interpret previous manifestations within the potential energy field. What is it and where are these collective agreements formed?.... IN THE MATRIX. Ergo, Yazhi relates "reality" to matrix (illusion). Falling into contradiction; into an oxymoron.

In other words, if you establish a relationship of equality between "reality" and "illusion", i.e. "reality and illusion are the same, the consistency of TRUTH/REALITY is called into question.  Truth cannot have an opposite. For if what is not true is as true as what is true, then part of Truth would be false and Truth would have lost its meaning. Only Truth is true, and that which is false is false.


Jupiter wrote:

This last sentence and what you say in the above quote and everything else you say in your posts, IS NOT "THE UNIVERSAL HARD TRUTH". It's ONE POINTER to the "universal hard truth".

This last sentence and everything else that comes out of the mouth of the CHARCOtranquilo character, is "an ego's idea of what truth is", and it "has absolutely nothing to do with the REALITY OF THE ABSOLUTE or ABSOLUTE TRUTH." It is POINTING to "the REALITY OF THE ABSOLUTE or ABSOLUTE TRUTH" but it is NOT the ABSOLUTE TRUTH. The way I understand it so far there is, there is no ONE ABSOLUTE POINTER to the "Absolute Truth". There is only "ONE" "Absolute Truth" but there are many different ways to POINT to that "Absolute Truth". And your's is just one of them, Yazhi's is another, Ramana Maharshi's another and so on.   

And what you are saying is the CHARCOtranquilo character's idea of what truth is, it's not the "Absolute Truth", and that character is inside the matrix illusion and his pointers to the "Absolute Truth" are limited by that character's attachments to ideas and by that characters collective unconscious agreements(which is what a matrix is).

Of course @CHARCOtranquilo ignores everything about the ABSOLUTE.  The ABSOLUTE does not know @CHARCOtranquilo, knows nothing about "him". Moreover, upon the oblivion of "who truly is @CHARCOtranquilo" is built all knowledge of what @CHARCOtranquilo is NOT. Yet there is no "higher knowledge" than the very nakedness of knowing oneself ignorant of all that @CHARCOtranquilo is NOT and of all that he does NOT know about THE ABSOLUTE. 

It is in this emptiness you see that the search for joy is and you also see that the search for joy was not. For this "fertile emptiness" is the ground where the abundant seed will emerge where all the fruits of ETERNAL FULLNESS will spill forth devoid of all false knowledge that is not a faithful balance of ITSELF, FOR ITSELF, BY ITSELF. 

My ignorance of what is now taking place, in what you still consider "the world" is also absolute. This ignorance, grants me no advantage, no privilege, no holiness, no spirituality, no power in this that you still consider "the world". This NOT knowing "of this world" however, smoothes me, simplifies me, equalizes me, makes me equal to everything and everyone who crosses my path in a natural active acceptance of all that happens, within all that IS.

In this "ignorance of the world" I am nothing that can or should be improved; I leave that to those who cling to the knowledge of those who still harbor the desire to "be somebody useful. However, I am like a dry and old tree, whose wood is full of knots and imperfections, rendered useless to the carpenter, and discarded as firewood to offer warmth in the hearth.  In short: I am everything that "the world" despises and discards for lack of usefulness for its purposes of productivity, growth, development, evolution, perfection and beauty.   

For this reason I am left with my total ignorance of what THIS ABSOLUTE is and I am also left with my absolute ignorance of "the world". And between these two waters of absence of all knowledge "my existence passes" in absolute FREEDOM.

Last edited by CHARCOtranquilo (2023-02-03 01:27:54)


I opened the door
and your Presence entered
like a sword,
without asking.

Offline

#12 2023-02-03 08:04:40

mitkobs
Member

Re: Yazhi and Mari AND The Buddhist Monk

I find strange and unlikely that there are no objective truth, no objective reality and everything is just potential energy. If everything is potential energy how this potential energy is energy and is potential, where does it come from and why have such properties to potentiate energy to things in perfect exact manner. ALL THAT IS is absolute unchangeable, we can agree on this. It is always partially unknown by its parts but can be seen to express in perfect complete ways. And what is expressed as some kind of reality(Universe, galaxies, sun systems, beings) is always mental construction in essence and becomes tangible material when we the ALL THAT IS become partial individualized and get immersed in perfect way within ITS mental constructions. But in the first place we have the mental construction already here and we live and die in this mental construction and it continues to be as IT IS. So how and when this mental construction ends for us as parts. Can we find ourselves just like that as the Original Source beyond all the construction, beyond ehter, energy and potentials.

Last edited by mitkobs (2023-02-03 08:55:20)

Offline

#13 2023-02-03 10:47:42

mitkobs
Member

Re: Yazhi and Mari AND The Buddhist Monk

Then why people cannot do it here and now. Imagining being the Source to turn right away into Source. Why 5D people cannot do it as well. Also why the dead in the astral cannot do it.

Because all is not that simple and is some kind of gradual progression thing. Or we will know when it happens, when we are ready to embrace it. Or maybe we expecting to be something, but is not that something that we expect and is something else or not even that.

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB