geo-Seizures of the Spiritual.

[Guest guest]

Hi Geo,

 

, "geo" <inandor@u...> wrote:

> I`d rather say that this matrix of Cause and Effect is also an

> aspect of what is - truth.

 

Seen here, there's really no point debating "truth" and "falsehood"

on the level of causality.

 

Truth/falsehood is a duality, that can't be denied. Advaita does not

seek to destroy the notion of duality, but to reconcile

or "transcend" duality.

> It is not psoosible to label it, but conversing and knowing the

> limitations of words or symbols in general, it is possible to

> perhaps touch the same ground.

 

Well, what ground are you seeking to touch -- to affirm the "reality"

of causation? i don't concur, but admit that there is an appearance

of causation viewed through a lens of time. However, that

appearance "depends" entirely on time, which in turn "depends" on

memory and thought.

 

Namaste,

 

Omkara

[Guest guest]

Hi Geo,"geo" wrote:> I`d rather say that this matrix of Cause and

Effect is also an > aspect of what is - truth.O>Seen here, there's

really no point debating "truth" and "falsehood" on the level of

causality.

 

geo> Hi omkara. No debate. From here is more like two lines in this

adimensional space joyfully drawing colorful drawings. So... if one pictures

truth as a kind of living *quality*, then either all is truth or there is no truth

at all. I agree there is no way to define truth in the level of manifested

causality.

O> Truth/falsehood is a duality, that can't be denied. Advaita does

not seek to destroy the notion of duality, but to reconcile or

"transcend" duality.

 

geo> Yes. Non-dual perception doesn`t entail not contemplating the plurality

of manifestation. The former means no separate observer-perceiver-consciousness,

and the later is the obvious multiplicity of the world. A dog is not a log, a frog is not

a... a..... a.... girl from Ipanema.geo> It is not psoosible to

label it, but conversing and knowing the > limitations of words or

symbols in general, it is possible to > perhaps touch the same

ground.O> Well, what ground are you seeking to touch -- to affirm the

"reality" of causation? i don't concur, but admit that there is an

appearance of causation viewed through a lens of time. However, that

appearance "depends" entirely on time, which in turn "depends" on

memory and thought.

 

geo> Interesting. What you say is certainly true. Without memory there wouldn`t

be time and both depend on thought. How intriguing. But we can say that *memory*

being a possibility as manifestation, it is real. Without this universal memory there

wouldn`t be manifestation, humanity, life. In the realm of humanity I see two main levels

of being: one centered in that imagined inner entity and the other not so. But it seems

from here that both can only exist within the world of causality. In fact I don`t think that

duality is based upon the contrasting causal - noncausal aspects of the world, but

upon the projection of a separate observer from observed. It is possible to contemplate

both causal - noncausal aspects from a non-dual non-centered point of view.

 

Namaste,Omkar

-geo-