Christian Nonduality

[zorkan]

I don't believe in belief.
I'm even atheist to atheism.
As I am to all crackpot beliefs, except one.

I was personally visited by the angel Zarani on behalf of the goddess Zorka to reveal the truth about life and the universe.
It was described on gold plates which I have now buried, but to you my friends I am willing to divulge it if you wish me to do so.

[Me_Be]

thoughts are processes. They can touch reality through triggering proper outputs. Even if we grant the premise that thoughts cannot touch reality, however, how do you arrive at the conclusion that it is because reality is inconceivable? Being inconceivable is not a bar from being touched in any way physically or metaphorically, so... Yeah.

To think of nonduality is paradoxical by association via the process of thought.  The human mind can conceive of everything except that which is in and of itself conceiving.
 In order to call reality nondual you have to define it, draw a border around it, and then instantly you have duality, never nonduality.
You can never ever touch nonduality.

[Me_Be]

I don't believe in belief.
I'm even atheist to atheism.
As I am to all crackpot beliefs, except one.

I was personally visited by the angel Zarani on behalf of the goddess Zorka to reveal the truth about life and the universe.
It was described on gold plates which I have now buried, but to you my friends I am willing to divulge it if you wish me to do so.

So you have but ONE belief; the one that was described to you by an angel. Okay!

There are many beliefs, and yet no 'believer' has ever been seen or touched.

[zorkan]

There is always a paradox.
Just like atheism is both belief and non-belief.
I don't believe in atheism but people tell me they do believe in it as a non-belief.
I've been reading a book called Atheism. I don't see what the author (Graham Oppy) is trying to prove, because he can't.
He talks about the Innocents, people who cannot possibly know one way or the other. Like children or mental health sufferers.
I class atheism as an intellectual subject and theism as more like a feeling.

Yet what we call life and the universe does exist and probably only in our brains.

PS. Meaning of life and the universe as revealed is simply to convert waves into mesons into electrons.
There is no need to debate anything else.

[Old Seer]

Everyone is a duel personality, good guy, bad guy. Those two are the basics one relates to others. Personality is determined by others under which of the two is the prominent of the person.

[The Magic Pudding..]

Everyone is a duel personality, good guy, bad guy. Those two are the basics one relates to others. Personality is determined by others under which of the two is the prominent of the person.

Bullshit

[Recusant]

It may be comforting to have access to a bountiful font of it though.

[zorkan]

Everyone is a duel personality, good guy, bad guy. Those two are the basics one relates to others. Personality is determined by others under which of the two is the prominent of the person.

Oh, please.
I can understand Roger Penrose far better.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/andreamorris/2023/10/23/testing-a-time-jumping-multiverse-killing-consciousness-spawning-theory-of-reality/?sh=32793ff1209b

To sum up: It's not consciousness that collapses the wave function, but the other way around. Simples.

[Me_Be]

To sum up: It's not consciousness that collapses the wave function, but the other way around. Simples.

The field of truth is ultimately unknowable and concept free. It is only 'thought' which collapses the wave function into a duality of projected separately named objects where there are none.
 The word ''thing'' is the false separation, it is the 'thought thing' that collapses the superposition of the unified field of truth.

Conceptually speaking, knowledge is false, because it is born of conceptual thought. It is the mind/consciousness that gives life to a 'word' that at it's fundamental core is a false empty deception believed to be real and true, but is not.

Knowledge is formed of words and thoughts which are false even though they are related to the physical world that is seen as a real truth which is actually thought-free or concept-free, in other words, simply this immediate unknowing.

Beautifully put into words by the following quote...
'' The mind loves the unknown. It loves images whose meaning is unknown since the meaning of the mind itself is unknown. ''

[Me_Be]

Yet what we call life and the universe does exist and probably only in our brains.

The universe only exists as a believed conceptualised ''thought'' that cannot be found anywhere neither inside or outside the brain. In the same context ''senses'' are a physical phenomena which detect and inform the existence of a real physical world, but in and of themselves, the ''senses'' cannot be detected as having an exact location as being inside or outside of the brain, as the brain knows of no such polarity as an inside or outside of itself, except in this conception.
 So yes, the world as it is thought to be - is not what thought thinks it is. And so this thought too is the absurd paradox of not-knowing knowing.

 When there is no thought about the universe; it does not exist for the thinker. A paradox must come into play within knowing when the non-universe still exists whether is it thought about or not thought about; the non-universe must first exist for it to be brought to life by giving it the label (UNIVERSE) So the universe is both a non-universe and a universe in superposition until ''thought'' collapses the unity into separation. In other words, into a not-knowing named known thing.

There is no need to debate anything else.

And there is no thing, nothing, not a thing debating anything else. That's the non-conceptual non-dual paradox of reality.

[Asmodean]

The field of truth is ultimately unknowable and concept free.

What is the reasoning behind it being unknowable, concept free and even existing?

A specific truth is a model of reality which is intersubjectively verifiable. It may be true while not being "the whole story" or just being a "good enough" approximation for a purpose.

Conceptually speaking, knowledge is false, because it is born of conceptual thought. It is the mind/consciousness that gives life to a 'word' that at it's fundamental core is a false empty deception believed to be real and true, but is not.

Once again, your conclusion does not follow from your premise. How does conceptual thought necessitate that the knowledge arising from it is false?

Beautifully put into words by the following quote...
'' The mind loves the unknown. It loves images whose meaning is unknown since the meaning of the mind itself is unknown. ''

Nah, it's neither linguistically impressive, what with being too heavy on the word "unknown" used towards the same end,* nor particularly meaningful in itself.

"The meaning of the mind?!" It has its functions. Abstractly speaking (also, outside those functions) the Meaning(tm) of a mind is precisely the same as the Meaning(tm) of that rock over there. They "just are." The rest of this quote simply describes curiosity.

*Here, let me try; The mind loves the mysterious. It loves the images whose meaning is unknown, since that is what it sees when looking upon itself. (Do please note that I didn't make it hold any more water than before - just "prettier" to this particular reader)

[Me_Be]

What is the reasoning behind it being unknowable, concept free and even existing?

A specific truth is a model of reality which is intersubjectively verifiable. It may be true while not being "the whole story" or just being a "good enough" approximation for a purpose.

The reasoning is in the model of reality which is a construct of the mind only. A descriptive reconstruction of unknowning reality is a falsely imposed reality, it's a claim to know reality without ever knowing how knowing knows. In other words knowing knows it does not know, therefore knowledge can only point to the illusory nature of a knowing reality which is ultimately unknowing.

The idea that there is a bunch of 'someone's' who are all able to agree upon there being an intersubjectively verifiable reality that all can witness is a conceived concept within infinity which in and of itself cannot conceive.

But yes, there are apparent concepts that appear as YOU that are about being (OTHER)than infinite therein being conceived.

Once again, your conclusion does not follow from your premise. How does conceptual thought necessitate that the knowledge arising from it is false?

'' The mind loves the unknown. It loves images whose meaning is unknown since the meaning of the mind itself is unknown. ''

Nah, it's neither linguistically impressive, what with being too heavy on the word "unknown" used towards the same end,* nor particularly meaningful in itself.

"The meaning of the mind?!" It has its functions. Abstractly speaking (also, outside those functions) the Meaning(tm) of a mind is precisely the same as the Meaning(tm) of that rock over there. They "just are." The rest of this quote simply describes curiosity.

*Here, let me try; The mind loves the mysterious. It loves the images whose meaning is unknown, since that is what it sees when looking upon itself. (Do please note that I didn't make it hold any more water than before - just "prettier" to this particular reader)

Okay.
But for me, flowery pretty words are simply analogous to water-colour painting upon the blank screen of transparent watery consciousness that serves only to obscure the real reality of thought free, concept-less unknowing conscious being awareness behind but never hidden from the known picture upon the screen which is then seen to be known, but compared only to a dream. Meaning; life is but a dream within a dream ad-infinitum. Real, but unreal, both, yet neither.

[Asmodean]

The reasoning is in the model of reality which is a construct of the mind only. A descriptive reconstruction of unknowning reality is a falsely imposed reality, it's a claim to know reality without ever knowing how knowing knows. In other words knowing knows it does not know, therefore knowledge can only point to the illusory nature of a knowing reality which is ultimately unknowing.

Besides suffering from the same fallacious assertions as I originally reacted to, this answers precisely none of what I asked.

A description of reality does not impose reality. A desscription of reality does not need to be false. Understanding algorithms, statistics and the rules by which reality operates is how knowing functions, or "knows," as you put it. (How does a potato potate? Here is a simplified algorithm: https://www.ehow.com/facts_5802696_life-cycle-potato-plant.html)

Further questions, in addition to the unanswered three from above; how does "illusory" come into play? What is the significance of reality as seen as a single system not having any overarching knowledge or the capability of knowing? Can you demonstrate how the conceptualisation is done within infinity? (That which has no starting and/or end condition, which "all" knowledge does)

Okay.
But for me, flowery pretty words are simply analogous to water-colour painting upon the blank screen of transparent watery consciousness

You were the one to say that the idea was "beautifully put into words" in the quote you provided. I merely pointed out that from a different angle, it's a lackluster expression of a flawed idea.

...that serves only to obscure the real reality

What makes that reality the real one? Is it real as opposed to, or in addition to, other available realities?

[EDIT:] What I'm asking for here, more than anything else, is for you to define your constants, variables and methods. I'm not looking for a nebulous non-answer. If all else fails, I'd suggest arranging it as a direct exercise in logic. A simple example: Red is a colour. Crimson is also a colour because crimson is a subset of red. [/EDIT]

of thought free, concept-less unknowing conscious being awareness behind but never hidden from the known picture upon the screen which is then seen to be known, but compared only to a dream. Meaning; life is but a dream within a dream ad-infinitum. Real, but unreal, both, yet neither.

Thing is though, without justification (as in, the factual basis and the applicable algorithm with which to approach the data) this is little more than a word soup. What does it convey? For instance, what makes a finite life a dream ad-infinitum? (Where is the methodology expressed? How do I go about falsifying it?)

[The Magic Pudding..]

Meaning; life is but a dream within a dream ad-infinitum. Real, but unreal, both, yet neither.

I want to ask what real is.
Don't
But I want to
Oh alright then.
What is real, is there really any real real at all?

[zorkan]

The mind loves the unknown. It loves images whose meaning is unknown since the meaning of the mind itself is unknown.

Rene Magritte was a surrealist artist, so he would say that.