Nonsensical non-dualist and dualists

[Guest guest]

All these teachings are nonsensical.

 

As long as nonsense has it appropriate context,

it is fine. Nonsense imparted within an appropriate

nonsensical context makes perfect sense.

So, teach nonsensical advaita

teachings at an advaita convention, and teach

nonsensical mechanical teachings at a mechanics

convention. Trying to take a teaching out of its context

makes it even more nonsensical, for example by trying

to make a teaching " universal " , for all folks at

all times, in all cultures.

 

If no one has anything to teach me, I am fine as

I am. If someone claims to have something to

teach me, an " outside " position has been created

from which to observe " me " and " what I supposedly

lack, and need to learn. "

 

There is nothing whatsoever to teach, as there is

no outside position. And - as there is no outside, anything

can be taught. As long as the teaching fits the context,

there isn't any problem.

 

Now, take the word " absolute. "

 

Who is saying this word?

 

" Absolute " compared with what?

Being told to whom?

 

The silliest and most useless teachings ever

invented are teachings about " the absolute " ...

 

Some other very silly teachings are about the

nature of " relativity " , but at least those

can claim some kind of context ...

 

Namaste,

Dan

 

 

 

 

> Non-dualists teachings says that only the " Brahman-Nirguna " is

real, and

> the individual soul and the empiric world is illusory. So we coulde

say

> that the Absolute has no shape and no individual consciousness.

Let's

> analyse this more closely.....

> If truth is " one " , unchangeable, and all the whole cosmic diversity

is

> originating from this said Absolute....Sholdn't the very Absolute

behold

> teh qualities of the things (illusories or not) originated of

> it....including the individual personality? And if the nature of

world and

> of the " Jivatman " is illusory, but even this illusion is

> Brahman...so...Brahman manifests itself sometimes as illusory and

sometimes

> as non-illusory...is it so???

> When someone says that individuality is illusory...What does it mean

by

> individuality? Does some of us really know the diference between

> individual and non-individual??...

> Atman=Brahman you say.......how can you say that kinda thing?

> If there's no individuality.....why would you folks worry to defend

the

> advaita-view-point answering this post???

>

> Abraços!

> DI GAMA SANTA