It's time to wake up!

originally posted by: Andy1144
You still dont get the paradox.

You have not proven it.

Your logic.

Logic isn't mine. That is like saying my math or my science.

Because truth can only be one. But just because there is one truth and everything else is an illusion doesn't mean the illusion doesn't have relative importance. Why do you keep on ignoring this?

Because you keep saying things like "Because truth can only be one."

Also, instead of just focusing on my claims, can you please make some of your own?

No. They are not needed to discuss you claims.

Please read these carefully as it addresses the idea of contradiction perfectly.

Those links don't argue the point any better than you have here.

a reply to: daskakik

You have not proven it.

What do you think my claim is? Can you say what point I am arguing?

Logic isn't mine. That is like saying my math or my science.

Nice game, but I obviously mean reasoning from your perspective which could be flawed.

originally posted by: Andy1144
What do you think my claim is? Can you say what point I am arguing?

First off you can't just slap the label of paradox on something. I real paradox has to be proven to actually be a paradox.

Your first claim was that "there is an illusion of self and that DE enables a person to see past the illusion".

Second, "The illusion isn't real but the experience of it is real".

Somewhere along the way, "it is important to see through the illusion of self in order to reduce suffering", was thrown into the mix.

Nice game, but I obviously mean reasoning from your perspective which could be flawed.

My "numbers" can be checked and flaws pointed out.

Pointing out that the potential exists is not the same as pointing out errors.

a reply to: daskakik

Can you give me an example of a valid paradox?

Your first claim was that "there is an illusion of self and that DE enables a person to see past the illusion".

Self inquiry plus DE, not just DE.

I don't see where you disagree with this.

The paradox is that everything is an illusion and doesn't matter. Yet we still cannot deny it altogether just because it's an illusion because the experience of it is real so in one level it does matter, just not absolutely. This is a simple paradox which makes sense.

Another valid paradox would be, I can't know anything for sure, but I can know I don't know. Is this a valid paradox to you? First it says you can't know anything, but you can know something.

Life is meaningless on the absolute but we can assign it meaning relatively. Just because life is meaningless doesn't mean the assigned meanings don't have any weight. On the absolute they don't, relatively they are useful to function. It's that simple. What is complicated about this?

originally posted by: Andy1144
Can you give me an example of a valid paradox?

A valid paradox or a real paradox?

There are valid parodoxes like the Liar paradox or the Pinocchio paradox which are valid but not real. You are talking about reality and not just a literary paradox.

Self inquiry plus DE, not just DE.

It was a copy/paste of your exact words.

I don't see where you disagree with this.

Like I said, you are missing the point. I don't have to agree or disagree with it. I am pointing out that when you say that the other claims are true then you can't sustain that this one is.

The paradox is that everything is an illusion and doesn't matter. Yet we still cannot deny it altogether just because it's an illusion because the experience of it is real. This is a simple paradox which makes sense.

You can't prove that the former is true so, it is invalid right off the bat.

a reply to: daskakik

Don't know if you've read my last post.

It was a copy/paste of your exact words.

Right, but the context was different there, you just brought the words up all of a sudden and I needed to clarify.

A valid paradox or a real paradox?

How do they differ?

You can't prove that the former is true so, it is invalid.

Define "truth". Because on some level I can't prove truth.

originally posted by: Andy1144
Don't know if you've read my last post.

Yes, it shows that you are still missing the point.

How do they differ?

It was right there. Pinocchio isn't real but the paradox is a valid example. You are trying to present a real world situation as a paradox.

Define "truth". Because on some level I can't prove truth.

Not "Truth" but that the claim is true.

You can't prove that "everything is an illusion and doesn't matter". Everything after that is based on something you can't prove.

Again, this has nothing to do with what I believe or what I can or can't grasp, referring to the post you asked about above.

a reply to: daskakik

You can't prove that "everything is an illusion and doesn't matter". Everything after that is based on something you can't prove.

The proof being that every assigned meaning arises from a concept. Concepts aren't real, they are just useful tools. The world has no built in meaning does it?
I don't know what you mean by the second part of your sentence. Is there anything you can prove?

I can't prove anything but my existence in this moment, all else I can't know for sure. I can prove for sure that I can't know anything else for sure. That in itself contradict but can be understood.

originally posted by: Andy1144
The proof being that every assigned meaning arises from a concept.

That is not proof.

The second sentence means what it says. Your whole idea about levels, good and bad and anything else don't mean anything if you can't prove the premise that they are based on.

Just to be clear, there are two flaws. This one, about not being able to prove that "everything is an illusion and doesn't matter".

Then there is another where, this may have caused confusion, we accept the claim that "everything is an illusion and doesn't matter" and discuss based on that assumption.

This is where, claiming that "it is important to see through the illusion of self in order to reduce suffering" contradicts "everything is an illusion and doesn't matter". That stands on it's own, as illogical but, was tossed around along with the first.

That in itself contradict but can be understood.

Understanding something and proving something are not the same.

a reply to: daskakik

Then there is another where, this may have caused confusion, we accept the claim that "everything is an illusion and doesn't matter" and discuss based on that assumption.

This is where, claiming that "it is important to see through the illusion of self in order to reduce suffering" contradicts "everything is an illusion and doesn't matter". That stands on it's own, as illogical but, was tossed around along with the first.

So you agree about the everything is an illusion part right? So then if everything is meaningless then why see through the self? Because relatively, you'll have a better experience. It's all an illusion and all meaningless but the experience of the illusion is real. I won't mention that abs. and rel. points anymore because I've done so too much.

But answer my question. Please make a claim that you can prove with evidence. Any claim.

Let me just make another claim. There is no free will. We are completely controlled by causes of which there is no control of. Anything going against this has non basis in reality. Is this enough proof for you?

originally posted by: Andy1144
So you agree about the everything is an illusion part right?

No, I said that it was entertained in order to discuss it.

I have tried to leave my opinion out of it since this new round started off with the establishing of what hard evidence is.

But answer my question. Please make a claim that you can prove with evidence. Any claim.

Didn't we already do that when you asked if "every feeling and experience is processed in the brain" was hard evidence.

a reply to: daskakik

It doesn't matter.
If you read a lot of the material about enlightenment, set aside the urgency to get somewhere and apply a little logic then you will notice that it really doesn't matter.

You said this awhile back. What is your proof that it doesn't matter?

I don't understand your expectations of this argument. My point was that the self us undoubtedly an illusion and that it causes much mental suffering. Seeing through this illusion was a life changer for me and for those who see it but I can only speak of myself. Most suffering, if not all is rooted in ego. We all have ego's, so getting rid of the ego will benefit anyone who sees beyond it.

originally posted by: Andy1144
You said this awhile back. What is your proof that it doesn't matter?

I was discussing while taking the claim that "everything is an illusion and doesn't matter" at face value.

I don't understand your expectations of this argument. My point was that the self us undoubtedly an illusion and that it causes much mental suffering. Seeing through this illusion was a life changer for me and for those who see it but I can only speak of myself. Most suffering, if not all is rooted in ego. We all have ego's, so getting rid of the ego will benefit anyone who sees beyond it.

I have been sitting here waiting to see if you can prove that and pointing out how you have not so far.

a reply to: daskakik

I have been sitting here waiting to see if you can prove that and pointing out how you have not so far.

I have but you didn't under... you know the drill.
So let's pretend seeing through the illusion does remove mental suffering for everyone who sees it. Would it be something worthwhile to pursue then? Seeing through the illusion?

originally posted by: Andy1144
I have but you didn't under... you know the drill.

It will always be that way if you insist on calling your opinion proof.

What happened to the hard evidence?

You seemed to have tried.

So let's pretend seeing through the illusion does remove mental suffering for everyone who sees it.

"Let's pretend" is what taking something at face value means.

Would it be something worthwhile to pursue then? Seeing through the illusion?

If this is true then "everything is an illusion and doesn't matter" can't be true.

a reply to: daskakik

I said "Would it be something worthwhile to pursue then? Seeing through the illusion? (If it reduces suffering)"
You said

If this is true then "everything is an illusion and doesn't matter" can't be true.

Everything is an illusion and nothing matters. It doesn't matter on an absolute level whether someone suffers less or more.

But his doesn't take into account the relative.

originally posted by: Andy1144
I said "Would it be something worthwhile to pursue then? Seeing through the illusion? (If it reduces suffering)"
You said

If this is true then "everything is an illusion and doesn't matter" can't be true.

Everything is an illusion and nothing matters. It doesn't matter on an absolute level whether someone suffers less or more.

You can't have both of them be true just because you claim they are different perspectives.

ETA: Especially since you can't prove that one of those perspectives actually exists.

dp