https://aeon.co/essays/monist-philosophy-and-quantum-physics-agree-that-all-is-onethey spat on Spinoza for telling them the truth. what is it about universalism that makes people mald so much? do they really believe they are their own thing? their own god? lolthey tortured Copernicus for telling them that the world doesn't revolve around themthey just can't deal with the fact that they're not special can they? that they're part of the whole and nothing else. darwinian zombies programmed with complete assurance that they are a someone, when they are no one.>that's my truthno. you faggot. it is part of the truth. not "your truth". you egotistic fag.how can we liberate their minds /x/?
>>39258774By releasing your ego that you want to impose on people whom, as per your religion, has to release the ego.In short: you first.
You first faggot
>>39258822But I already did thatwhy are you so afraid? you're not a weasel are you?
>>39258828No, I'm a dualist, and I'm realized in meditation, which has supported, heck, even started my belief in dualism.So surrender your ego, you still have lots of it.
>>39258828why do people who look down on others always conflate disgust with fear?your unable to communicate other peoples ideas that your regurgitating with the fidelity to move those who do not already accept them to your point of view, thats what your encountering here,
>>39258834>No, I'm a dualistyes, I already know that you're retarded and can't do metaphysics right.>So surrender your ego, you still have lots of it.I'm not sure you surrendered yours...
>>39258839No I do metaphysics right, as they happened irl Like I said, I'm cheeved in meditation.You're talking down a guy who has the highest spiritual growth attainment.That's some fuckhuge ego
>>39258774>no. you faggot. it is part of the truth. not "your truth". you egotistic fag.op is 100% of the time, a faggot, op you probably shouldn't project like this. but since you choose to, how can anyONE discover a truth that is not theirs?
>>39258846whats a spirit?
>>39258846Oh and for the record, I'm not gonna touch my ego, lets have Op do it and show us how it's done
>>39258847Because their minds aren't holly palaces that aren't accessable. I don't know why you people don't seem to get that.just because I can access your mind from where I am, doesn't mean that you are your own reality.it just means we lack the tools to access each other.take the example of a past or future self, you don't have access to that, doesn't mean that you are not that.
>>39258862Neither are you, so you first
>>39258862just because I can't access your mind from where I am**fixed
>>39258774Premise 1: It takes two to tango.Premise 2: Tango has occurred.Conclusion: There at least two things.Checkmate, Monists.
>>39258869???? do you have an iq of 80 sir?
>>39258862>just because I can access your mind from where I am, doesn't mean that you are your own reality.no ones talking about reality here but you, we call this a strawman, your peresnting a counter argument to somthing no one mentioned. seems kinda pretentious and wafflie to me however youve made a concrete claim now....>just because I can access your mind from where I am,demonstration pending.>take the example of a past or future self, you don't have access to that, your evidence?>Because their minds aren't holly palaces that aren't accessablewhy dont you hold off on talking about the minds of others until you demonstrate your mind access abilities? seems pretentious and vapid otherwise
>>39258870well then you dont know if their minds are holly or notps. future self can directly influence past self its a function of rewriting memories of a particularly high fidelity. preception is not analogues its directly transmutive.
>>39258877I can access your mind if I managed to surgically attach it to yours.do you believe you came from nothing? your metaphysics are all fucked up. and your logic is weak, I am not strawmanning, I am unfolding the logic. maybe you're misinterpreting the steps as entire arguments.
>>39258887I'm sorry, you changing your memories does not effect your past self, you believe you are a discrete entity. which is ridiculous.if so, then who am I? I can't exist in your reality if you are your own reality, don't you get that?either:I'm just a figment of your imagination (part you) and you are the only subject.or:we are all the same subject but disconnected because the fabric of reality is not uniform.either way, the world is one. nothing else makes sense.
>>39258869
>>39258888your critiques are poor, you only say what isnt.>I can access your mind if I managed to surgically attach it to yours.this assumes mental hardwares all operates on the same internal language, it dose not, the 'wet'ware 'writes' the 'operating language' your attachment would offer you no insite into my thoughts, and innitial selected method of forced surger is more telling of your nature then anything you choose to say in this post>your metaphysics are all fucked upno, there not, there just not your metaphysics, individuals do be like that.>and your logic is weak, I am not strawmanningno its not and yes you are, if you believe otherwise shows with quotes where anyone in this thread but you is referesening individualistic realities?>just because I can[t] access your mind from where I am, doesn't mean that you are your own reality.no ones saying your inibality to to read minds means other minds are unique realities save you, here where you choose to argue against it, this is your strawman argument, that other minds should generate unique realities, did you forget?>maybe you're misinterpreting the stepsmaybe that happens when your logical steps are based on your niece philosophy no one else shares?ps, faggot, the reason you cant read my mind, is not because my mind is a distinct reality from yours, its because you have no direct connection and you dont have any concept of my cognitive associative language. you even said half of this yourself.
>>39258902nice dualisim ;P>>39258932>ps, faggot, the reason you cant read my mind, is not because my mind is a distinct reality from yours, its because you have no direct connection and you dont have any concept of my cognitive associative language. you even said half of this yourself.pps. my future self is retrocauslly countering your shit points before you make them ^^
>>39258932it doesn't need to operate on the same mental language, it just needs to have neurons or be connected. you're confused with abstractions.the fabric of reality it self is one.>no ones saying your inibality to to read minds means other minds are unique realities save you, here where you choose to argue against it, this is your strawman argument, that other minds should generate unique realities, did you forget?but anon, to be a discrete entity means that you are your own reality. this is what discrete, isolated, disconnected means. what the fuck else would it mean? if you mean that our brains (not minds or matter) is disconnected then you're just aiming at an abstract level for some reason and mistaking it as real. when in reality the abstraction doesn't exist.there are no chemical compounds and no atoms, there are is just reality. these things are just useful abstractions.
>>39258946That's not "dualism", not sure how you got that from what I said.
>>39258946Less talk, more action.Show us how the ego thing is done, faggot.
Op should surrender his ego and teach us by example.
>>39258967you presented 2 solutions as the only possible reasons a particular (false lol, still not touching the whole individual minds dose not innately mean individual realities bit huh?) tell use what dualism is not what is isnt egotistical vapid faggot. but you cant define shit weve been over this lol>>39259002we are right now by disagreeing, fuck your stupid
>>39259043it's actually one solution, both solipsism.I'm just trying to get anon to see the impossibility of two discrete things/reality interacting.
>>39259052how would a cable be used to connecte discrete realities? >>39258888im assuming thats what was surgically used to connect the realities that are individual minds here? or was the connection used to connect..... the same mind... that needs no connection?individual minds arnt discrete realities. individual minds discrete and intemperate shared realities.
>>39259052if you have a discrete input that creates a discrete output what is called? pro tip, its not individual
>>39258846>You're talking down a guy who has the highest spiritual growth attainment.Quality bait troll or pathetic faggot
>>39259106your the only one who responded to that bit, no need for ambiguity, which are you trolled, or wanking a faggot?
>>39259067>how would a cable be used to connect discrete realities? it wouldn't? that's my point, two realities can't interact.>im assuming thats what was surgically used to connect the realities that are individual minds here? or was the connection used to connect..... the same mind... that needs no connection?ok, so here, we have be a bit carefulthere are two guesses, either mind is the base of reality or matter is.if mind:then it means that the universe is in a dissociative schizophrenic state, and thus the feeling of isolation. reality is not uniform, it is one, one fabric, but it is not uniform.so, assume A is me and B is you and X is the base underlying reality, so it's all X in the end, A and B are just points in reality that are coherent.another way of explaining this, is through entropy, the fabric is entropic, it's weakening, but never disconnecting, just getting thinner, we, "life", are negentropy (reverse entropy), we are temporary states of self organizing points in reality, and that's why we feel whole and disconnected.if materialism:then this makes it easier, it means we are all the same matter and consciousness is just a side effect of matter organizing it self a certain way.through the big bang and entropy, all this can make sense.origianlly, "before" the big bang, reality was uniform and felt whole, but then for some reason that state was unstable, and so it expanded, but never disconnected. in sense, our mother is in us all (our will) so we intuitvely can only understand that we are one, on an intuitive level we feel like we are our own reality, and because the link between us is weak, we assume that others are other things.I'm still working on this, I'll write a book that goes through this thoroughly.
>>39259110I'm just complementing the quality bait or making fun of the pathetic faggot, why do you care sugarbun? Welcome to 4chan bitch
>>39259120>why do you care sugarbunis not engaging (you)s what we offer one another herein hunnycunt?
>>39259132We are just having fun on an anonymous imageboard, until everything inevitably becomes an ocean of bots talking about political shit to distract from absolute reality
>>39259138
>>39259145
>>39259088there are no inputs/outputs that are discrete. nothing is discrete.
>>39259165functional>>39259149fuck dude i thought that dude managing to step on more then 1 at once was absolutely horribly, way to up the bar ><
>>39259149
>>39258774>how can we liberate their minds /x/?This shows you don't believe what you push, otherwise you would realize what you want to change us exactly the same as the result.
>>39259219Might as well ask the Buddha why he ever bothered preaching anything since we all have the Buddha nature in us or whatever.Monism isn't shocking, I genuinely don't get the reaction. for me this is intuitive. reality doesn't make sense otherwise. I understood this since I was a child that could barely philosophize.so yes, I really do believe this.
>>39259245The Buddha didn't preach anything.>I genuinely don't get the reactionYou don't get that someone called you out for hypocrisy?What distinction is there between any reaction? It's all one.Except you don't believe or live this.
>>39259579You seem triggered. show me on the doll where monism touched you.
>>39259579>What distinction is there between any reactionwho what when why and where........................................................... your philosophy is poor.>It's all oneif this where the case YOU would have no reason to point your hypocrisy out to yourself, your own ego hinders your espousing the beliefs you cannot not adhere too.
>>39259622So you have no answer, as you shouldnt because it is hypocritical to your original point.>if this where the case YOU would have no reason to point your hypocrisy out to yourselfI am not a monist thus I have no hypocrisy in pointing out that you - the advocate for monism - neither believes nor lives in that falsity.But it seems you just conceded and agreed that it is not all one.Glad you have come to proper understanding.
People should know that at its core, Hinduism is a monotheistic religion as far as its origin story goes. Most people pick an incarnation of God to focus on. But Brahma is all things. Good and Bad.
When you realize this fact, the differences of who to choose to worship is like a game of what’s your favorite song for today. But in the end all things are done for him.
Esoteric knowledge like this doesn’t come cheap, pay up chumps. I got you high.
>>392599381 - Brahma was not in the original rituals and hymns of Hinduism. The main beings called on were Agni and later Indra.2 - Brahma is not "all things", He is a creator god. BrahmaN is the undifferentiated original essence.
>>39258834Why would you surrender ego when it is part of the design? Not enlightened.
>>39258774The monad dont sustain itself without the dyad. It is a delusion to think otherwise. Existence is made of interactions. This is not seething, it just a statement of truth. Remove duality and you will have nothing. Monists are the first ones to jump in the gender bandwagon when they state that angels are androgynous.
>>39260224It does not sustain itself without the dyad, i agree. But one should only ack owledge it, and still should strive for unity. Life also cannot exist without death but you should not long for death, or am i wrong?
>>39260224>Monists are the first ones to jump in the gender bandwagon when they state that angels are androgynous.Not making a statement on Monism or Dualism here, but why wouldn't they be? A lot of life on this planet is hermaphroditic, asexually reproducing and the like. If they're "higher" beings, then surely they wouldn't be limited to either male, or female, (if they even had need of the concept at all) no?
>>39260224Just answer me this, how can two discrete things interact if nothing underlies them?if they are discrete, then it means that they don't need anything else to sustain themselves but themselves.how can they communicate without a medium which underlies them? if two communicate then it means that they are not the base, but something else is, they are not truly discrete.for dualism to work everything must be discrete.
Saying you are God is impolite.
>>39261131I'm not God, we are.
>>39258774how do you reconcile baby rape with being astromically high & terminally joyful? spoiler alert: you dont, say suffering and bad stuff is caused by the dark god and all the good stuff by the benevolent one. simple soultion.
>>39261872or, lesser god demiurge, the imperfect material with death and disease, time and all that vs the timeless and spaceless overgod.
>>39261872I'm not sure what you're saying. things just happen due to the chaotic nature of reality. just because most life is unable to recognize this monism does not make it false.
>>39258774monad and "the one" spirituality is super newbie.embrace individuality as your spiritual path or die
>>39260224>>39260389>Monists are the first ones to jump in the gender bandwagon when they state that angels are androgynous.Not the first.Islamic theology presents a distinctive understanding of angels that diverges from other philosophical and religious traditions by explicitly rejecting the notion that angels have gender. This perspective is articulated within the Qur'an, particularly in Surah Al-Najm (53:27-30), where it is stated:"And they made the angels, who are servants of The Most Merciful, female. Did they witness their creation? Their testimony will be recorded, and they will be questioned." (Qur'an 53:27-28)In this verse, the Qur'an criticizes those who ascribe female characteristics to angels, suggesting that viewing them as female is both baseless and a misunderstanding of their true nature, further insinuating it orginiated from paganism. The rejection of female angels is intrinsic to the Islamic doctrine that angels are beings created from light, devoid of sexual form and the attributes associated with human gender. This understanding places angels outside the binary categories of male and female altogether, which is a significant theological assertion within Islam while monistic philosophy lacks centralized texts or universally accepted doctrines. Historical philosophers and traditions addressing the nature of spiritual entities did not define these entities in non-gendered terms. Thus, Islam's unambiguous assertion offers a clear theological position that predates and contrasts with the more abstract and often ambiguous musings found in monistic philosophy. While monism may focus on the unity of existence, it does not provide the specific, scripturally grounded declarations that characterize Islamic teachings about angels. Consequently, the Islamic assertion serves to clarify and define the spiritual realm in ways that reject gender classifications altogether, reinforcing the unique theological framework within which Islam operates.
>>39261105>for dualism to work everything must be discrete.Not in the slightest.Cloth is not stick, ever.Stick is not cloth, ever.Flag is not stick, ever.Flag is not cloth, ever.Flag is one, never two.Stick and cloth are two, never one.Flag is stick and cloth.The "medium" is their interaction.
>>39267125I don't mean to be a dick, but you're just asserting these things.how is stick and cloth not just the same thing?how is flag one but then cloth and stick are also one? this makes no sense.either they're both discrete (stick and cloth) and there is no flag that contains them or all there is, is flag.if stick and cloth are discrete, they cannot interact. discrete means they contain themselves and need no outside medium.and if they contact, it means they both became one.
>>39267179and if they contact, it means they both were always just one.**
Riddle me this, Monists: If everything is one substance, then how does the substance convey information? To convey information, you need to be able to generate at minimum two distinct signals corresponding to a 0 and a 1, but how would such a distinction arise in the first place if there weren't a distinction already embedded in the fundamental nature of reality?
>>39267125Ramanuja is a qualified monist and not a dualist, he holds that the world of sentient souls and insentient matter are existentially continous with the Supreme Brahman as His lower modes or as his body. The lower modes (the world and our souls) and the higher essence are regarded by him to be different parts of one entity (Brahman) that is 'one without a second".Ramanuja's theology of Vishishtadvaita is a subset of Bhedabheda (difference and non-difference) that involves affirming both unity and difference but with an emphasis on unity. Differences for Ramanuja are real but they occur within an all-encompassing and all-subsuming unity, this is why all words ultimately denote Brahman in they view of Ramanuja, because in their ordinary meaning they all refer either to the highest essence or refer to something about one of the contingent modes are nothing but Brahman's body, there being nothing in existence that is not Brahman.
>>39258774Aham Brahmansi
>>39267496The distinction isn't in reality, but made from your mind.think of a fabric, a literal fabric. the fabric isn't uniform in its shape and that's where the "distinctions" come from. but in the end it's just one fabric.
>>39267496Distinction arises because of the illusory state of the world. One cant remain ignorant their whole life. Enlightenment is knowing that there exists no difference.It is what distinguishes wise men from niggers
>>39267532How does distinction arise in my mind but not reality? It sounds like you've added even more distinctions. First there is the distinction between mind and reality, and then there are the distinctions in the mind whose origin is left unexplained.>think of a fabricIn order to convey the shape of a fabric, you may need a great deal of information. Any notion of space aside from a point requires being able to distinguish some locations from others, I think.>>39267538>distinction is an illusionHow does the illusion arise?
>>39258774>how can we liberate their minds /x/?Even if there was a 'one creator' I would reject them, and want to leave their sphere of creation as an amoeba undergoes mitosis.>but the one god represents the totality of all!Okay then let's fashion elsewhere so that I can leave and be distinguished from them.
>>39267749Illusion arises because of ignorance my boy"Rajju-jñānād iva rajju-sarpa-bhrāntiḥ nivartate,Tathā pratyagātma-jñānāt avidyā-kṛto’pi saṁsāraḥ nivartate."(Just as the illusion of a snake disappears when the rope is known, so too does the illusion of the world dissolve when the Self is realized.)
>>39267749Also at a glance I would say that the most obvious way to make the shape of a fabric noticeable would be to embed it in a space which is distinct from it, so the applicability of the metaphor isn't perfectly straightforward. It may be salvageable in that some traits of shapes can be discerned without reference to an embedding space, but I'm still not sure that would be satisfactory for the reasons I already mentioned.
whoa so deep we are one and I'm stupid then you are too OP lmao
