Paul Rogers94 said:Isn't the individual—the conscious entity—also a part of the universe?
This level of discourse actually makes sense now... I liked how you explained things to David Vaughn75, pointing him toward that transcendental "category," or Brahman.
Things are finally becoming clear and simple enough;
so they can be easily summarized:
You’re taking the stance that the phenomenal universe exists independently of the subject (the viewpoint).
I, however, believe that appearance and the subject are interdependent—they are one single entity, and one cannot exist without the other.
You overlooked—or perhaps just ignored—the crucial points I previously noted:
That the subject itself is merely a part of the phenomenal universe; they are one whole.
Which means the distinction between the subject and the phenomenal universe is an illusion.
So, how can the phenomenal universe be independent of the subject, or vice versa?
Where is the line? Where does the subject end and appearance begin—if the subject is part of the appearance itself?
Intellectual gymnastics won't solve any of this. We're trapped using the categories of the mind—and language is nothing more than a function of the mind anyway. You've "picked a side," much like some solipsist would pick the exact opposite. I am arguing that the division is illusory, and I'm attempting to explain it my way. Whichever side anyone chooses through mere mental reasoning, they miss the mark; the only solution is direct insight, nothing else. Once you try to force this into mental terminology, you end up with nonsense like: "Only Brahman is real. The universe is unreal. Brahman is the universe"—along with countless other apparent contradictions found in any serious spiritual text. Intellectual clarity and the clarity of impersonal insight are worlds apart.
Yeah, that's a real thing. And look, I’m not just throwing this out there because I felt like being a smartass—it’s actually backed up by solid philosophy, ancient traditions, and even hard science in a ton of ways. The whole kicker is that the universe is relative. That’s just a straight-up scientific fact. Time, space, even you as an individual—they’re all relative. But just because things are relative doesn't mean they aren't real. That "perspective" you're talking about? That’s just a product of the person experiencing it. It’s tied to time and space, which are both relative. Think about it like this: how fast you’re moving or how close you are to a massive gravitational center—like if you were orbiting near a black hole—is going to mess with your mass, your physical dimensions, and even how fast time ticks for you. If someone was watching you zoom past in a rocket at light speed, their experience of what's happening would be totally different from yours. Everything depends on where you're standing. Time is relative. Space is relative. We've proven it in practice.
Paul Rogers94 said:Isn't the individual—the conscious entity—also a part of the universe?
This level of discourse actually makes sense now... I liked how you explained things to David Vaughn75, pointing him toward that transcendental "category," or Brahman.
Things are finally becoming clear and simple enough;
so they can be easily summarized:
You’re taking the stance that the phenomenal universe exists independently of the subject (the viewpoint).
I, however, believe that appearance and the subject are interdependent—they are one single entity, and one cannot exist without the other.
You overlooked—or perhaps just ignored—the crucial points I previously noted:
That the subject itself is merely a part of the phenomenal universe; they are one whole.
Which means the distinction between the subject and the phenomenal universe is an illusion.
So, how can the phenomenal universe be independent of the subject, or vice versa?
Where is the line? Where does the subject end and appearance begin—if the subject is part of the appearance itself?
Intellectual gymnastics won't solve any of this. We're trapped using the categories of the mind—and language is nothing more than a function of the mind anyway. You've "picked a side," much like some solipsist would pick the exact opposite. I am arguing that the division is illusory, and I'm attempting to explain it my way. Whichever side anyone chooses through mere mental reasoning, they miss the mark; the only solution is direct insight, nothing else. Once you try to force this into mental terminology, you end up with nonsense like: "Only Brahman is real. The universe is unreal. Brahman is the universe"—along with countless other apparent contradictions found in any serious spiritual text. Intellectual clarity and the clarity of impersonal insight are worlds apart.
It’s all one big interconnected thing. But honestly, none of this proves the universe isn't actually real, and it certainly doesn't count as some kind of logical argument against its existence. If you look at certain Eastern philosophies, everything out there—the whole damn universe and everything in it—is just Purusha being influenced by his Prakrti. It's basically Consciousness taking on specific traits. Just because Purusha picked up some attributes along the way doesn't mean he stopped being real; if anything, it’s the exact opposite. The universe itself is Brahman/God—basically a "piece" of the absolute that became relative. I put "piece" in quotes because space and time only really show up once you get into Saguna territory, meaning they carry their own specific properties and attributes. It’s like that Buddhino idea where nirvana and samsara are essentially the same thing.
I've been thinking about this a lot lately. It's kind of wild how much we get caught up in the small stuff when there's so much bigger stuff going on. I was just sitting there, sipping some coffee, thinking about how life just flows, you know? Like, sometimes you feel like you're in control, and other times it feels like things are just happening to you. It’s that whole cause-effect Quote thing people talk about. Honestly, it's pretty heavy if you dwell on it too long, but I try to just roll with it. Just gotta stay chill and see where the wind blows.
Paul Rogers94 said:Isn't the individual—the conscious entity—also a part of the universe?
This level of discourse actually makes sense now... I liked how you explained things to David Vaughn75, pointing him toward that transcendental "category," or Brahman.
Things are finally becoming clear and simple enough;
so they can be easily summarized:
You’re taking the stance that the phenomenal universe exists independently of the subject (the viewpoint).
I, however, believe that appearance and the subject are interdependent—they are one single entity, and one cannot exist without the other.
You overlooked—or perhaps just ignored—the crucial points I previously noted:
That the subject itself is merely a part of the phenomenal universe; they are one whole.
Which means the distinction between the subject and the phenomenal universe is an illusion.
So, how can the phenomenal universe be independent of the subject, or vice versa?
Where is the line? Where does the subject end and appearance begin—if the subject is part of the appearance itself?
Intellectual gymnastics won't solve any of this. We're trapped using the categories of the mind—and language is nothing more than a function of the mind anyway. You've "picked a side," much like some solipsist would pick the exact opposite. I am arguing that the division is illusory, and I'm attempting to explain it my way. Whichever side anyone chooses through mere mental reasoning, they miss the mark; the only solution is direct insight, nothing else. Once you try to force this into mental terminology, you end up with nonsense like: "Only Brahman is real. The universe is unreal. Brahman is the universe"—along with countless other apparent contradictions found in any serious spiritual text. Intellectual clarity and the clarity of impersonal insight are worlds apart.
How would that even follow from that? Honestly, it feels like it’s just coming from all those rigid, dogmatic takes—you know, the stuff where people claim the world isn't actually real. It’s kind of like those old-school ideas about how Christ is coming back to raise the dead, or the whole concept of partying in heaven or rotting in hell for eternity. What exactly points to that besides someone's personal dogma? I mean, if you really think about it, even a brick seems "illusory" when you zoom in on the subatomic level and see how much empty space there is. But look, if someone hits you in the head with a brick, I promise you aren't thinking about subatomic particles or how "unreal" that brick is. It's pretty damn real in that moment.
Paul Rogers94 said:Isn't the individual—the conscious entity—also a part of the universe?
This level of discourse actually makes sense now... I liked how you explained things to David Vaughn75, pointing him toward that transcendental "category," or Brahman.
Things are finally becoming clear and simple enough;
so they can be easily summarized:
You’re taking the stance that the phenomenal universe exists independently of the subject (the viewpoint).
I, however, believe that appearance and the subject are interdependent—they are one single entity, and one cannot exist without the other.
You overlooked—or perhaps just ignored—the crucial points I previously noted:
That the subject itself is merely a part of the phenomenal universe; they are one whole.
Which means the distinction between the subject and the phenomenal universe is an illusion.
So, how can the phenomenal universe be independent of the subject, or vice versa?
Where is the line? Where does the subject end and appearance begin—if the subject is part of the appearance itself?
Intellectual gymnastics won't solve any of this. We're trapped using the categories of the mind—and language is nothing more than a function of the mind anyway. You've "picked a side," much like some solipsist would pick the exact opposite. I am arguing that the division is illusory, and I'm attempting to explain it my way. Whichever side anyone chooses through mere mental reasoning, they miss the mark; the only solution is direct insight, nothing else. Once you try to force this into mental terminology, you end up with nonsense like: "Only Brahman is real. The universe is unreal. Brahman is the universe"—along with countless other apparent contradictions found in any serious spiritual text. Intellectual clarity and the clarity of impersonal insight are worlds apart.
It’s actually pretty simple. The universe doesn't depend on any single person, but every single person depends on the universe. An individual isn't out here creating reality with their mind; Brahman is the one who creates reality (the whole universe and everything in it). We just experience it through our minds. We operate within the boundaries of this established reality and we're stuck with it whether we like it or not, since we're part of it and bound by its laws.
Paul Rogers94 said:Isn't the individual—the conscious entity—also a part of the universe?
This level of discourse actually makes sense now... I liked how you explained things to David Vaughn75, pointing him toward that transcendental "category," or Brahman.
Things are finally becoming clear and simple enough;
so they can be easily summarized:
You’re taking the stance that the phenomenal universe exists independently of the subject (the viewpoint).
I, however, believe that appearance and the subject are interdependent—they are one single entity, and one cannot exist without the other.
You overlooked—or perhaps just ignored—the crucial points I previously noted:
That the subject itself is merely a part of the phenomenal universe; they are one whole.
Which means the distinction between the subject and the phenomenal universe is an illusion.
So, how can the phenomenal universe be independent of the subject, or vice versa?
Where is the line? Where does the subject end and appearance begin—if the subject is part of the appearance itself?
Intellectual gymnastics won't solve any of this. We're trapped using the categories of the mind—and language is nothing more than a function of the mind anyway. You've "picked a side," much like some solipsist would pick the exact opposite. I am arguing that the division is illusory, and I'm attempting to explain it my way. Whichever side anyone chooses through mere mental reasoning, they miss the mark; the only solution is direct insight, nothing else. Once you try to force this into mental terminology, you end up with nonsense like: "Only Brahman is real. The universe is unreal. Brahman is the universe"—along with countless other apparent contradictions found in any serious spiritual text. Intellectual clarity and the clarity of impersonal insight are worlds apart.
You can actually solve a lot of stuff using your intellect if you use it the right way, especially when it comes to things regarding this universe. Anything that has properties can be measured, analyzed, and understood...
Paul Rogers94 said:Isn't the individual—the conscious entity—also a part of the universe?
This level of discourse actually makes sense now... I liked how you explained things to David Vaughn75, pointing him toward that transcendental "category," or Brahman.
Things are finally becoming clear and simple enough;
so they can be easily summarized:
You’re taking the stance that the phenomenal universe exists independently of the subject (the viewpoint).
I, however, believe that appearance and the subject are interdependent—they are one single entity, and one cannot exist without the other.
You overlooked—or perhaps just ignored—the crucial points I previously noted:
That the subject itself is merely a part of the phenomenal universe; they are one whole.
Which means the distinction between the subject and the phenomenal universe is an illusion.
So, how can the phenomenal universe be independent of the subject, or vice versa?
Where is the line? Where does the subject end and appearance begin—if the subject is part of the appearance itself?
Intellectual gymnastics won't solve any of this. We're trapped using the categories of the mind—and language is nothing more than a function of the mind anyway. You've "picked a side," much like some solipsist would pick the exact opposite. I am arguing that the division is illusory, and I'm attempting to explain it my way. Whichever side anyone chooses through mere mental reasoning, they miss the mark; the only solution is direct insight, nothing else. Once you try to force this into mental terminology, you end up with nonsense like: "Only Brahman is real. The universe is unreal. Brahman is the universe"—along with countless other apparent contradictions found in any serious spiritual text. Intellectual clarity and the clarity of impersonal insight are worlds apart.
Some of the greatest teachers have said that Nirguna neither exists nor doesn't exist, isn't real nor isn't unreal, isn't both real and unreal, nor is it real and not real. But that's exactly the point you seem to be missing—those same teachers also clearly stated that the universe is real, which is what's being said here too. By any definition, we can say the universe is definitely real.
Don't stress over the contradictions in different teachings. Just focus on getting a clear grasp of being. Dogma is everywhere, just like bad philosophy—nothing weird about that. Honestly, plenty of people throughout history have cooked up all sorts of dogmas based on their own personal experiences and interpretations...
