Most traditions people are familiar with these days subscribe to ideas of "oneness" and "merging with God" and all that tomfoolery. What about traditions that don't? The only thing I can think of off the top of my head is Jainism where they believe everyone has an eternal soul that is completely separate from everything else.
There's also some vaguely defined esoteric paths that have some kind of soul immortality as their goal instead of re-uniting with God or whatever, but these traditions are often times vague about it.

It’s not doctrine or dogma. Truth is there is only one; there is no duality. In fact, misery stems from the belief in duality. Sure, there’s a million-billion souls unique in their experience and expression of soul-ness, but the foundation on which our individuality is built is the totality of oneness.
It doesn’t matter whether you deny it or not, when you realise it is only a matter of time

I think its just a concept that has been misunderstood through time. But especially made bad when people wanted to hijack the idea to include the feminine aspect of anything.

>>40559604 (OP)
per my reading of stuff, this is perhaps interesting
Master Nan, Huaijin seemed to indicate in one of his enlightenment series (he has a few titles with enlightenment in the title) that one gets a trip around the universe that spans many, many lifetimes, and you have to sidestep the very end...and the way you do that sidestepping is the enlightenment process.
I hypothesize that the universe is a giant torus, this means the big bang is a perpetual happening in the middle
so more or less, you take a trip around the block and hope you can reach enlightenment so as to sidestep going back into the big bang at the end of your trip.
if string theory is to be believed, bringing your energy high enough should detach your baryonic matter from the spacetime membrane of the universe

>>40559604 (OP)
There are six schools of Vedanta and only one is strict monism.
You never bothered to wonder if Advaita or "Not dualism" might have another school? One that just means "dualism"?
You never even tried to look up anything like that?

>>40559664
Duality must be true, or else Nonduality is false.

>>40559941
Nice to see a Nan conoisseur on here. Do you believe there's a final enlightenment, though? Does it have an end?

>>40560372
There is One Being -- Source Consciousness -- containing infinite ideas, experiences, and points of view.

>>40560914
Yes. the duality must be true, or else the one is false.

>>40560980
Multiplicity is an idea, not a reality independent of Mind.

>>40561004
>a reality independent of Mind
There is no such thing, and thus multiplicity is as much real as everything else, as everything is not a reality independent of mind.

>>40559604 (OP)
at the bottom there's always intent and potential; that's why the buddha is laughing and the boddhisattva is insane: the mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell, which means everything that moves is either food or for fucking, and sometimes its both and its also your sister

>>40561011
>There is no such thing
Yes, there is: Source Consciousness, aka God. Undivided being-awareness is substrate to all, and thus precedes the Mind and all its imaginings.

>>40561026
>Yes, there is
then you are already insisting on duality. If there is mind, and there is god, then multiplicity must be true.

>>40561026
>undivided being awareness
awareness of what? no matter how much you try to cope, 'undivided being awareness' is a category error. There is no awareness that is undivided.

>>40561036
that's what im saying, what if god is a tranny that forgot that the penis is the snake and the eel is the sperm and the burrito is now reaching a weird superheated phase where it's starting to exhibit ferroelectricity and the atmosphere is full of burned ghosts while physicians and physicists argue about what "dude imagine she's your sister but like, not really, and she's really hot *and* she's into you lmao jk eww incest is gross rigght haha unless i mean no come on no way right skibi i mean unless haha"

>>40561048
I really hate nondualism. I love God and we are all connected but all the same I'll hold on to individuality for all eternity thank you very much

>>40561055
Didn't mean to reply

>>40559664
how does one realise ?

>>40561055
We are individual points on the infinite number line.
Every point is exactly the same. All points are discrete.
Every point is part of, and one with, the infinite number line. No point IS the line: they are infinitesimal compared to the line's infinitude.
Duality must be true, or else nonduality is false.
And vice versa.

>>40561088
?
Do you even believe in God

>>40561036
Mind is not a separate being from the One. All being is One. Mind is the content-generating faculty of this One Being.

>>40561101
īśvaraḥ paramaḥ kṛṣṇaḥ
sac-cid-ānanda-vigrahaḥ
anādir ādir govindaḥ
sarva-kāraṇa-kāraṇam
>Kṛṣṇa who is known as Govinda is the Supreme Godhead. He has an eternal blissful spiritual body. He is the origin of all. He has no other origin and He is the prime cause of all causes.
>>40561105
>Mind is not a separate being from the One.
Then there is no separate reality, and thus multiplicity is not anything separate from reality. And thus multiplicity is reality. As is oneness.

>>40561048
>awareness of what? no matter how much you try to cope, 'undivided being awareness' is a category error. There is no awareness that is undivided.
Being-awareness is the unconditioned "I Am" that precedes all consciousness of the particular. It is the immutable Spirit of God, formless and eternal.

>>40561055
It's not that individuality is impossible. Only that it is an invention of Mind, and thus not fundamentally real.

>>40561125
If you're just going to regurgitate Indian theology you're not really worth talking to

>>40561125
Multiplicity assumes separation. Thus it can only characterize the content of consciousness, not its source.

>>40561152
You are not saying anything. Your whole sentence is 'This is the This is the This, this and this'.
Yes, I get it, you mean the Absolute. Where you are comitting a category error is when you ascribe awareness to the Absolute. There is nothing for it to be aware of. The moment there is awareness, it is no longer absolute.

>>40561187
The Absolute is pure consciousness, pure presence, pure "Am"ness. It is the general awareness that makes particular awareness possible.

>>40561217
That's the thing though, you can't have general awareness. Awareness is always particular. Otherwise you're just taking awareness to mean some magical qualia/being that gets that gets twisted and turned and tied into a bunch of a knots of a particular awareness, but then what are we even talking about?

>>40561259
>Awareness is always particular.
No, it only seems that way to the human mind, since it is constantly being conditioned by experience. But there can be no painting without a canvas, no particular experience without the immutable backdrop that allows for experience in general. You can know this state directly in yourself through gnosis. It is a special kind of knowledge, since it has no sensible or intelligible form. It is the ineffable knowledge of the One Self.

>>40561217
Buddha-Nature is beyond consciousness and cannot be conceived

>>40559604 (OP)
Possibly Theravada Buddhism
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/bps-essay_27.html

"The teaching of the Buddha as found in the Pali canon does not endorse a philosophy of non-dualism of any variety, nor, I would add, can a non-dualistic perspective be found lying implicit within the Buddha's discourses. At the same time, however, I would not maintain that the Pali Suttas propose dualism, the positing of duality as a metaphysical hypothesis aimed at intellectual assent. I would characterize the Buddha's intent in the Canon as primarily pragmatic rather than speculative, though I would also qualify this by saying that this pragmatism does not operate in a philosophical void but finds its grounding in the nature of actuality as the Buddha penetrated it in his enlightenment. In contrast to the non-dualistic systems, the Buddha's approach does not aim at the discovery of a unifying principle behind or beneath our experience of the world. Instead it takes the concrete fact of living experience, with all its buzzing confusion of contrasts and tensions, as its starting point and framework, within which it attempts to diagnose the central problem at the core of human existence and to offer a way to its solution. Hence the polestar of the Buddhist path is not a final unity but the extinction of suffering, which brings the resolution of the existential dilemma at its most fundamental level."

>>40561339
What if I don't think suffering is an existential dilemma?

>>40561320
Nothing can exist beyond consciousness. Source consciousness is all there is.

>>40561363
Lucky you, I guess.

>>40561312
I do think it's possible for you to experience something beyond the differentiation of the mind, but I don't think your experience of 'gnosis' is beyond the differentiation of your senses.

>>40561386
What is learned through gnosis (or moksha) is not expressible in words, numbers, or images. It is direct nonconceptual knowledge of the One, independent of the mind and senses.

>>40561440
I mean your senses didn't stop firing signals through your brain. It may have felt a certain way to you, but your biology was still actively partioning the Absolute into your particular experience.

>>40559664
>Truth is there is only one
Technically "one" implies "other", or anything outside of or not included in the "one".
Non-duality is a trickier concept than that. It's really beyond comprehension.

>>40561452
"Brains" are just part of the maya. Space, time, and matter are fictions imposed by Mind. Matter can have no causal powers since it is only a figment of the world of appearances dreamt up by Mind.

>>40559604 (OP)
Those are just established belief systems made by fellow humans, why not create your own belief system that aligns with what you want to believe?

>>40561500
Are you saying if someone cut your head off nothing would change? I don't think that's something that you actually believe.

>>40561464
>Technically "one" implies "other"
No, the One is an undifferentiated whole -- completely formless, boundless, limitless.

>>40561517
Does nothing change when a video game character is 'beheaded' in a game? The subsequent changes in the game are determined by the programming, not by the visual representation on the screen, which has no causal power.

>>40561558
Which is more analogous to programming? Your biology or your representation of that biology, including your Monad and your Gnosis.

>>40561165
One reply of many is hardly regurgitation.
>>40561185
>Multiplicity assumes separation.
Incorrect. There is no separation. There is distinction.
>the content of consciousness, not its source.
So as I said - there is distinction. content and source. Duality.
It must be true, or else nonduality is false.

>>40561583
Biology studies how organisms operate within the simulation authored by Mind. No content of the simulation -- nothing in the 'outer world' of appearances -- can have causal power over any other content. Mind is the sole cause and source of all differentiated content of consciousness, including all 'physical' objects and processes.

>>40561639
Mind is a simulation ordered within the representation of your biology. You have gone beyond mind yourself. To pure sense. But you thought this was some eternal God, when it was really just you beyond the simulation of mind.

>>40561592
There are distinctions between ideas, but not between "beings". All Being is One. All distinctions are inventions of Mind and thus dependent on Being.

>>40561649
Whatever you want to call the being-awareness that is prior to Mind, it constitutes the hypostasis of all reality and is therefore divine.

It's interesting how even in a thread explicitly meant to avoid discuss around the usual non-dualist slop people still can't help themselves. It's almost like they've been conditioned to not even be able to think outside of that framework. Now why would an entity intent on consuming brainwash you into thinking "union" with it is the only possiblity.

>>40563028
Nothing that can be numbered or ordered is independent of Mind.
Only Spirit is independent of Mind.
And Spirit is eternally One Being.

Gnosticism is a dualistic

Non dual fags are fundamentally cucks. They WANT to lose their individuality. They want you to fuck their wife and take all their stuff because it's all chill and one duuuuude.

>>40563158
>They WANT to lose their individuality.
Not if they also follow Jesus. Jesus is the savior of individual souls. He not only preserves the souls of those who follow his way, he redeems and uplifts them to heavenly glory. Nonetheless, it's important to realize that you are actually the One Spirit who is temporarily occupying a particular earthly perspective -- aka a Soul. It's natural to identify with your Soul and want to 'keep it', in which case follow the way of Jesus. Regardless, Spirit never dies. Being never ends.

>>40563225
kys christcuck

>>40561363
It's the only conceivable existential dilemma.

>>40561083
Sit in silence; realize you are not any story to yourself but the totality of your experience; experience itself, the present awareness of that experience.

Intellect/mind is a tool; an ordering principle. It's a feature of experience, not what experience fundamentally is. We are conditioned to forget this, and infinitely live in egoic stories to cope with death. Ego is survival, it's just doing it's job, but ultimately you are it's sovereign ruler.

>>40561088
Duality is eating the fruit of the garden and seeing good and evil in a non discrete perfection. The fall is from pure awareness into mind, and living in flawed perception and thinking it's reality.

>>40563287
This isn't non-dualism. Buddhism is all about extinguishing the narrative self, but this doesn't mean becoming one with Samsara.

>>40563296
Semantics.

>>40563302
Anything but. Extinguishing craving couldn't be further from recognizing that you're one with everything. Why would I want to become one with a cosmos filled with fear and suffering?

>>40563287
>duuuude bro we are like all one dude bros just let me slip it in your ass just relax and chill out

Good thread.

>>40563302
They all talk about the same thing anyway.
Instead of eating other peoples' pills they should make their own.

>>40563318
Fear and suffering are constructions of the mind.
Apprehension and pain are expressions of external or internal stimuli.

>>40563318
This fear and suffering you see is a matter of perception borne of the narrative-ego. Things just are, energy moves and transforms. Things die to continue the cycle.

>>40563329
>Fear and suffering are constructions of the mind.
Just because fear and pain occur in the mind (where else would they occur?), it doesn't follow that fear and pain are reducible to the mind. If fear and pain are non-self, then it doesn't follow that the goal of spiritual practice is to become one with what is not the self. Quite the opposite.

>>40563343
There is literally nothing wrong with the ego. You boogie man'd a vital part of yourself you idiot. Your ego should go as big as it can go or else you are losing.

>>40563343
No, the reality of pain persists even if the causes of suffering are extinguished. Do you really believe that a monk who self-immolates does not experience the pain of burning alive? He has only trained his mind to withstand it, that is, he has trained his mind to endure what infringes on the mind from outside. From which it follows not everything is mind, and that he certainly is not becoming one with the flames, or melting into some universal Mind.

>>40563380
Read my original post, I did no such thing. Ego is a complex that manifests out of unconscious survival instinct. It has an important purpose. But if you live in the whims of its stories it removes you from your Self.

>>40563419
>pseud babble
Doesn't mean anything.

>>40563408
No, but is he that pain, or is he experiencing a cocktail of sensations that are translated to pain because of bodily survival instinct?

It's a matter of where identity centers itself.

>>40563431
He is experiencing the inexorable reality of pain, a sensation that he can't control or will away or pretend he's not feeling. He can only master his reaction to it. Why would he ever have any interest in becoming one with the ground of this sensation?

>>40563379
Fear is the act of RATIONALLY judging a situation and projecting yourself in a bad outcome situation. It is proper to humans and you can control the rational, the Creation does not fear. But it can project itself in the future in front of stimuli and react accordingly.
Suffering is the act of dwelling upon past pains and letting it take over the rational. Pain is just a stimuli that depends on bodily functions. Congenital analgesia is a condition that causes pain receptors to be "broken" and those who suffer from it feel no pain. Yet they suffer because suffering is a story we tell ourselves.

>>40563318
>Extinguishing craving couldn't be further from recognizing that you're one with everything.
The way to henosis involves recognizing that this cosmos of "everything" is illusory. It's maya. There is fundamentally only one thing: the I Am within.

>>40563465
Fear has its physiological correlates. I can rationally know not to fear something, but my heart can still race and my body will still clench up. Again, you're missing the point: I am subject to causal system which I have no interest in "becoming one" with. I do not want to affirm my unity, my oneness, with the principle responsible for fear, pain, and yes, gratuitous suffering.

>>40563473
>There is fundamentally only one thing: the I Am within.
Wrong and gay.

>>40563380
>Your ego should go as big as it can go or else you are losing.
If you sincerely believe that, you have a lot to learn.

>>40563473
>There is fundamentally only one thing: the I Am within.
As long as you don't assume that the goal of this I Am is to melt back into the "cosmic oneness" of illusion, then you're golden.

>>40563491
You cannot "unite" with a principle, or object of Mind, but only with other indwellings of Spirit.

>>40563460
Where does the ground of sensation arise from? Think of Maya as a precipitation of something like void-consciousness. It's not being the ground of sensation, it's being the ground of that which precipitates the ground of sensation.

>>40563501
The I Am doesn't melt. It is the immutable source of all being.

>>40563499
I do believe that because I don't subscribe to cuck philosophies that end with you spiritually killing yourself. Reality is a battle of wills and ego is what makes your will stronger.
Saying you won because you killed yourself and didn't fight is a massive cope.

>>40563534
That may be so, but the subject of this thread is the assumption that the goal of spiritual practice is to unite with this system which is responsible for pain, fear, and suffering in the first place. I can recognize that I impose narratives and constructs on an impersonal process, but it does not follow then that my goal should be to unite with this process. A monk can recognize his complicity in his own suffering, but that doesn't mean he should then cultivate the perception of becoming one with the sources of illusion. Putting it another way: he can cultivate a feeling of affinity with suffering beings, but he shouldn't be cultivating the perception that separateness is pathological and that he must extinguish his individuality. Instead, he should be working extract himself from this system as best he can. Do you see what I'm saying?

>>40563491
You postulate that you can re-rationalize your reality, which is possible, but being part of the One you understand that everything is exactly where it's supposed to be. So then fear and suffering has no purpose or origin outside of Man-made conventions, it becomes easy to recognise and regain control because the rational becomes secondary to felt experience.
Does that mean that when a vehicule is being driven towards you, you won't move aside or clench to brace for impact? In that scenario, shall we fear speed? Vehicules? Drivers?
I'll let you ponder on that. I'll get some diner.

>>40563583
Just because it does not do me any good to resist things as they are, does that mean I should become one with a universe ruled by hunger, fear, and pain? Or does it mean I should manipulate this "suchness" to abandon it? I can see in what ways resisting the nature of phenomena has contributed to my suffering, but I can also recognize it doesn't do me any good to call it the "One" or "cosmic unity." It does me more good to call it samsara. I'll let you ponder on t

>>40563548
Your perspective makes sense in the external world of illusion. The pseudo-realism of Zoe Sophia, as it were.

But spiritual wisdom -- Pistis Sophia -- is higher wisdom, as it is not defiled by the scarcity, lack, inadequacy, entropy, strife, limitation, etc. characteristic of the mortal world of appearances.

>>40563541
>Where does the ground of sensation arise from?
Not from some universal field-consciousness. I have no interest in uniting with this field, if it is so prone to ignorance and delusion.

>>40563613
You will never be conscious of anything other than reality so effectively that's all there is. Winning in a realm that can't be observed is cope.

>>40563625
is reality something you sense or explain?

>>40563625
I mean, this is silly. Monks have trained their minds to transcend the laws of pain and scarcity through fasting and meditation. I remember watching a documentary on Orthodox monks where they interviewed a former Russian special forces turned monk who said that conquering the self is much harder than conquering others. I don't see why you'd think mastering these forces is a sign of weakness or cowardice. Your thinking is juvenile.

>>40563575
>to unite with this system
Again, you can't unite with a system, or with anything that has parts or structure or process to it. Those are all products of Mind. There is no point in "merging" different objects of Mind together unless doing so provides meaning to the Self. Nonduality is not about the objects of Mind but about the integral nature of Being.

>>40563651
The point is that dualism doesn't believe that individual minds originate in some universal Mind, so the "integral nature of Being" has nothing to do with mind or consciousness. The integral nature of Being is dual, jiva and ajiva in the Jain framework, and there is no reconciling the two.

>>40563632
It's something you observe.
>>40563637
Copenhagen.

>>40563682
As I said, you're just a kid. You have a long way to go

>>40563682
you observe using your senses or your mouth?
when you use your mouth do you use your own words or the words others chose for you?

>>40563625
You sound like a doubting Thomas. Perfect candidate for gnosis, since your staunch positivist mindset would presumably block any other path to salvation.

>>40563693
>acts superior as an argument
Your copes are getting more desperate now.
>>40563694
>pseud babble

>>40563661
>that individual minds originate in some universal Mind
They don't just originate there. They are microcosmic subsystems of the macrocosmic Mind.

>The integral nature of Being is dual, jiva and ajiva in the Jain framework, and there is no reconciling the two.
Being is prior to all notions of number, order and relation, because it is prior to all notions.

>>40563614
Okay, that's your decision fren. I'm not trying to get you to do anything, I'm pointing out a "structure". But this is just going in circles, as this whole thing comes down to semantics and we're speaking of something that is ineffable. Whether you realize it or not, you already are. The ground of your existence precipitates "you" no matter what sophistry we play with. You came from something and there is an original something all things come from. Even from human mind metrics this is simple logic. At the end of the day direct experience is king. You can't read or acquire knowledge into being. These things arise exactly out of so many banging their head into a wall using the brute tool of language to describe being.

>>40563682
You can only observe what the Mind invents and renders sensible.

>>40563705
you wish

>>40563726
>They don't just originate there. They are microcosmic subsystems of the macrocosmic Mind.
As I've said, dualists don't believe the world is the effect of some deluded cosmic Mind, or Mind in the mode of objectivity. It is the non-mind, full-stop. They have no interest in extinguishing themselves in this medium. When a Buddhist practitioner is told to withdraw his mind from sensuality, or when a Gnostic is told to seek within himself, it is a process which doesn't implicate the world by definition. The mind (immanence) and the world (transcendence) are two opposed principles. And if Being is prior to conceptualization, if it is primary and I am secondary, then it is something that engulfs me and over which I have no control, and therefore something that can no longer be understood as "Mind" in any meaningful sense. It is a black box, inaccessible.

>>40563733
Of course I've emerged from something. I have no interest in merging with it again.

>>40561662
>There are distinctions between ideas, but not between "beings"
And this absolute separation between being and ideas - when does this go away?
>>40563295
The duality existed before the garden. The very notion that there is any place to fall to.
Duality MUST be true, or else nonduality is false.

>>40561662
If all distinctions are inventions of the Mind, then I am not distinguished from the sustenance I depend on life, which means my needing to eat and drink is an invention of the Mind. Non-dualism is patently absurd.

>>40563775
>It is the non-mind, full-stop.
The only thing outside Mind is Spirit: undifferentiated being-awareness.

>The mind (immanence) and the world (transcendence) are two opposed principles.
I strongly reject your parenthetical characterizations. The world is not transcendent but an illusion generated by Mind. And only Spirit can be immanent.

The Mind is the source of all duality, hence Being itself cannot fundamentally be dual in nature.

>>40563854
The world is transcendent because it is outside of (transcendent to) the immanence of the mind. We're going around in circles. I've made my points clearly. You can take them or leave them.

>>40563821
>my needing to eat and drink is an invention of the Mind
Some do believe that kek. But no. How do you judge a concept such as a "need"? When does need in this context becomes gluttony or privation? How do these two last additional concepts fare in a social setting? What do when this social setting is one of scarcity or abundance? How to define those last two concepts? So many questions.

>>40563803
Not the point of what I'm saying. I'm pointing out it's an allegory. You are too stuck in mind structures to even see they are just structures. Programming; if-then statements.

Duality is discretion between pieces of a whole. It is created out of perception. Duality exists within non-duality, but it's a product of mind; a false story. Non-duality is an inherently moot concept to speak of, as the only way to speak of it is to participate in dualistic structures. The whole is the whole, just because you decide to fixate on a rock, doesn't mean the rock is suddenly independent. The rock is an emergent property of the whole, not independent. It is a subject; it's shape, size, etc are a product of the interactions within the whole. It doesn't exist as an independent entity, it can't.

This is why breath is a common focus of meditation. You can not stop breathing so long as you continue this life. If you were to think of breath in a timeless way, it inherently connects you to a larger structure you are subject to; dependent on. This could be said about food, or really even the noosphere of interactions(karma). In this way, this "you" you speak of is an emergent property in the same way the rock is.

>>40563803
>And this absolute separation between being and ideas - when does this go away?
Only at the ineffable level of the Monad.

>>40563874
>I'm pointing out it's an allegory.
So the Mind isnt real now? When does this separation between allegory and reality come about? When did you stop talking about reality?
>Duality is discretion between pieces of a whole.
Yes. And there is a distinction between whole and pieces. Because Dualitty MUST be true.
>Duality exists within non-duality
And so there is a within, and a weithout. Duality.
It must be true for your notion to be true.
>>40563883
>ineffable level
So more duality. there is effable, and ineffable. there are different levels.
You cant escape it. Every argument you make REQUIRES duality. Every model or understanding you have resorts to duality.
Duality MUST be true, or else nonduality is false.

>>40563821
>which means my needing to eat and drink is an invention of the Mind
Of course it is. Everything is. Don't confuse your individual mind with the macrocosmic Mind that contains all conditioned content of consciousness.

>>40563866
A psychological addiction to food is mental. The laws of thermodynamics which dictates my dependence on food is not.

>>40563874
Breath meditation connects you to the first-order reality of the body and breaks you out of the discursive trap of second-order thinking, but not for the purpose of merging or identifying with this whole. There's no such thing as "pure awareness" in a reality where beings feed on other beings, or to put it another way, there's no such thing as pure awareness that can be harmlessly equated with the whole. The whole is on one side, pure awareness is on the other. Equating the whole with awareness sanitizes the former and degrades the latter.

>>40563902
Yeah, but that's nonsense, hunger arises of its own accord and not at the behest of my will or the will of some cosmic brain. That hunger is the product of causes and conditions doesn't mean it has no reality. It just has no reality outside of the world-system of which it is a part, and indeed, the first principle. Pain may be the product of a relation, but its reality is self-evident.

>>40563910
>mental or not
I agree but one thing at a time. Or is it two?

>>40563901
>So more duality. there is effable, and ineffable. there are different levels.
Again, you are confusing ideas, which are products of Mind, and Being, which is its monadic substrate. The 'world' (that is, the content of consciousness) is obviously rife with intelligible and sensible distinctions. Nonduality is not about distinctive concepts or features of experience, but about the eternal indivisible wholeness of that allows for Being in general.

>>40563923
Hunger is an experience. And all experience is formed and conceived by the macrocosmic Mind so as to be perceived and integrated by the microcosmic mind. All the laws of physics and rules of nature were authored by the Mind in order to create conditions of limitation and constraint.

>>40563988
For the purpose of abandoning this world, at best. It's no consolation to consider yourself a part of some indivisible cosmic whole if this whole is malignant. That's my thesis. I'm tired. Goodnight.

>>40564004
The wholeness cannot be malignant because it is pure Saccidānanda, prior to any notion of contentionality.

You gotta look at it at a certain angle.