William Ramsey, Lawyering Christianity |497|

I don't think things exist before they were discovered. Things always exist, but the application of such things, and how they benefit us, remains unknown before the discover opens the door to such things.
As I see it, the potential for all discoverable things would have to exist before they could be discovered. As to non-discoverable things, they either don't exist, or if they do (since they can't be discovered), they might as well not. The operation or application of discovered things is incidental and not directly relevant to questions of existence or inexistence per se.
 
Raimo, what is your argument?

This is my point of view:
A third type of substantialism amounts to the theory that there is a plurality of ultimately irreducible individual souls rather than just a single divine one. There is a personal conscious subject, self or "I" who sees, thinks, feels, wants, etc. The physical body is not part of the real person in this spiritual sense and personal identity of the personal self cannot be affected by bodily death. Also, as the personal self is substantial, even radical inner change (of its existence) will never be able to disintegrate it (in the essential sense) into more than one personal experient.
https://www.titusrivas.nl/public/articles/read/630

In my opinion the survival evidence such as mental mediumship and reincarnation research clearly supports this position and refutes religious doctrines such as Advaita Vedanta which claim that everything is one and individuality is an illusion.

I think it's very worthwhile to point out that empirical evidence supports the proposition that discarnate communicators are a) still personalities and b) still deeply committed to certain values. This observation tends to negate the nihilistic conclusions mentioned above.
https://michaelprescott.typepad.com/michael_prescotts_blog/2009/05/the-simple-life.html

In his 42nd sitting, Cornillier asked Vettellini whether the individual consciousness becomes absorbed in a universal consciousness as spirits evolve or whether they retain their individuality. “Monsieur Corniller, Vettellini affirms that individual consciousness can but grow greater and greater as evolution progresses,” Reine relayed. “All that is gained and conquered by a being, defines and strengthens his individuality. It is his, – and for himself.
http://whitecrowbooks.com/michaeltymn/entry/a_new_number_one_book_on_the_afterlife/

On the subject of NDEs:
NDEs are subjective experiences. Furthermore, NDEs with the oneness experience are the minority. Moreover, those NDErs tell that their individuality is retained during the experience and every NDEr has returned from the experience with their normal everyday self intact. NDEs are only a part of psychical research and they are not even the best survival evidence. Reincarnation reseach and mental mediumship are far superior in this regard.
 
This is my point of view:

https://www.titusrivas.nl/public/articles/read/630

In my opinion the survival evidence such as mental mediumship and reincarnation research clearly supports this position and refutes religious doctrines such as Advaita Vedanta which claim that everything is one and individuality is an illusion.


https://michaelprescott.typepad.com/michael_prescotts_blog/2009/05/the-simple-life.html


http://whitecrowbooks.com/michaeltymn/entry/a_new_number_one_book_on_the_afterlife/

On the subject of NDEs:
A lot of what you are saying makes sense. I am not going to comment on the NDE road, however, but let us talk about all this "oneness" and "non duality" bullshit for a minute. Certainly, as living beings, we can see that is worse than hogwash! This kind of thinking is in direct contraction to what we experience everyday. Yes, I try to have compassion and be a cool person to people, but certainly, this doesn't mean that we are all one. I also try to do the same thing to insects. There are a lot of differences in the world. It is probably more appropriate to say that we are many, not one.
 
You call my arguments nonsense, because you can't answer to them. Obviously you didn't even read the links I provided in my previous post. Your claim of shifting the goal posts and using straw man fallacies is clearly false. You can post as many quotations from NDErs as you want, but it doesn't change these facts I mentioned in my last post:
I am not saying your beliefs are nonsense. I am saying you are misrepresenting mine. You still are not getting it. I am not saying the individual is lost at all. This is what you are hung up on. It is the illusory self image that is lost because it was never real anyway.

From your link

‘You’ are by human standards all knowing, the ‘you’ that is our present personality is just a construct, only a perception, you’re not trapped in it.

There is no contradiction in your own links. Non dual means not two, it does not mean as one or as two.

So it does not mean... From your link

If one person on the other side of infinity knows the answer, then so do you, but we are not ‘all one.’

As this is monism.

From your link.

As infinite beings we only exist in the breath of God,

this is non dual.

As I said....

You are equating the superficial ego with the self while mistaking non dualism with monism. It is that simple. And still. It is a difficult concept to grasp I do get it.
 
A lot of what you are saying makes sense. I am not going to comment on the NDE road, however, but let us talk about all this "oneness" and "non duality" bullshit for a minute. Certainly, as living beings, we can see that is worse than hogwash! This kind of thinking is in direct contraction to what we experience everyday. Yes, I try to have compassion and be a cool person to people, but certainly, this doesn't mean that we are all one. I also try to do the same thing to insects. There are a lot of differences in the world. It is probably more appropriate to say that we are many, not one.
The bold is why the illusion of duality persists,

It is not we are all one.

That is monism.

Oh well, I tried.

I guess it needs to be experienced to be understood.
 
I am not saying your beliefs are nonsense. I am saying you are misrepresenting mine. You still are not getting it. I am not saying the individual is lost at all. This is what you are hung up on. It is the illusory self image that is lost because it was never real anyway.

From your link

‘You’ are by human standards all knowing, the ‘you’ that is our present personality is just a construct, only a perception, you’re not trapped in it.

There is no contradiction in your own links. Non dual means not two, it does not mean as one or as two.

So it does not mean... From your link

If one person on the other side of infinity knows the answer, then so do you, but we are not ‘all one.’

As this is monism.

From your link.

As infinite beings we only exist in the breath of God,

this is non dual.

As I said....

You are equating the superficial ego with the self while mistaking non dualism with monism. It is that simple. And still. It is a difficult concept to grasp I do get it.
Loneshaman, you make a lot of sense, but I think it is easier to understand humanity as a bunch of different assholes when living in real life, instead of thinking that we are all one thing. Once you grasp that we are several different assholes, and not just one thing, it is easier to understand why people constantly disagree with each other.
 
I appreciate your reply, brother. Any poet that calls their self a "professional poet" doesn't understand the value of performing in front of snakes and rocks. So, if that makes me an amateur, then I will continue to sell out only fields filled with those friends of mine. Remember, though, without rocks, there isn't roll, and without snakes, well, Evil doesn't know what to do, nor does health care.

That being said, let me address your points. My ethnicity/background is pretty much my experiences and observations in my life. If I belong to any kind of species, then I would say that I was adopted by snakes. Yes, I have all these human groups/ideologies that I could claim a little fame in, but they are not worth it, spiritually, compared to what snakes have done for me.

Secondly, I agree with you, I don't assume that current spiritual or religious fashions are superior to what came beforehand. However, if your ancestors thought the same way, as Celtics, would they still have become Christians? Christianity is a religion from the Middle East.

Thirdly, I don't judge any religious system by its ability to produce "holy people," or "saints." As a matter of fact, I think that there is great value in many people that are never considered to be laudable or holy at all by any institution, but they are genuine. I almost said "authentic," but for some reason, these days, every asshole thinks that they are "authentic" as long as they speak loudly and get enough social media views.

Lastly, the Christians existential and metaphysical paradigm doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever. Please, would you like to explain it to me? Also, I am interested in your experience that has opened your eyes to this.

As far as Zen Buddhism goes....I agree with you, I don't get it. I work with a lot of potential Zen Buddhists....they sit around and do nothing. I doubt that they are enlightened. Maybe they don't even know that they are Zen Buddhists.
All the snakes I've met have been polite but no more than that. For this, I appreciate their sense of decorum.

Upon reflection, my above post was a hastily cobbled together list of justifications that are (excepting the last) of peripheral importance. The truth of what lies behind my loyalty is as follows.

Christianity appeals to me on aesthetic, temperamental and existential grounds: It ploughs its field with a piece of star, something broken and fallen from heaven.
 
it is a tricky a concept because our brains and conditioning are wired for duality. It is because we define arbitrary boundaries and put labels on things that make it difficult to grasp at first.

A easy analogy is a magnet, it has polarity, north and south. But it is one. You can't just have a north or just a south. Both are required to define the one.

Just as a coin needs a front and a back by definition.

You would not understand what straight would mean if their was no curved, you could not see these words if the background was also black. For something to be anything there must be something it is not.

This may help, and help to explain how individuality is not inconsistent. Nor inconsistent with survival, in fact it is exactly what is commonly described. It is this realization that is the mystical experience.

Thank you for that. I really appreciate it. I think what I'm getting at is that dual-aspect monism is not truly non-dualism for it doesn't hold to a fundamental or ultimate distinction between aspects. True non-dualism, at least to my mind, cannot exclude any possibilities and so should allow for an ultimate distinction to remain. Does that make sense? I like this idea because it does not hold union with the ultimate being a given, a fact of life, it necessitates the ultimate taking a step towards the limited, ie. us. It's a more relational way of looking at things. Thanks again.
 
Thank you for that. I really appreciate it. I think what I'm getting at is that dual-aspect monism is not truly non-dualism for it doesn't hold to a fundamental or ultimate distinction between aspects. True non-dualism, at least to my mind, cannot exclude any possibilities and so should allow for an ultimate distinction to remain. Does that make sense? I like this idea because it does not hold union with the ultimate being a given, a fact of life, it necessitates the ultimate taking a step towards the limited, ie. us. It's a more relational way of looking at things. Thanks again.
Phew, thanks dpdownsouth. Yes I believe you got it. You'll be able to find Christian concepts on this as well. Many of sayings of Jesus have non dual implications as in "the father and I (we) are one."
 
This may help with the conception as it relates to individuals and the self. I know there is some balking at religiosity but once you let go, you can learn from any of them without commitment or prejudice. And wouldn't the world be a better place!

Isa Upanishad

The wise man beholds all beings in the Self and the Self in all beings; for that reason he does not hate anyone.

He who perceives all beings in the Self alone, and the Self in all beings, does not entertain any hatred on account of that perception.

He who sees all beings in the Self and the Self in all beings, he never turns away from It (the Self).
 
This may help with the conception as it relates to individuals and the self. I know there is some balking at religiosity but once you let go, you can learn from any of them without commitment or prejudice. And wouldn't the world be a better place!

Isa Upanishad

The wise man beholds all beings in the Self and the Self in all beings; for that reason he does not hate anyone.

He who perceives all beings in the Self alone, and the Self in all beings, does not entertain any hatred on account of that perception.

He who sees all beings in the Self and the Self in all beings, he never turns away from It (the Self).
Not being rude you LS but does it fit the picture to say that i dont give a shit about some parts of the Self (communal) whether they are in a cell with 'free to use whenever they want noose' or reincarnated on one of planet hells, etc.
Warms my heart in a way but am not sure it is because i am seeing them as part of the greater self or anything
 
Last edited:
Not being rude you LS but does it fit the picture to say that i dont give a shit about some parts of the Self (communal) whether they are in a cell with 'free to use whenever they want noose' or reincarnated on one of planet hells, etc.
Warms my heart in a way but am not sure it is because i am seeing them as part of the greater self or anything
Ha! yeah that can be challenging. Well yes it does fit the picture because there is nothing outside of the picture. There is no right or wrong about it, you do what you simply do. As it is what the universe is doing through you.

I suppose one way to look at is with some sense of detachment. They still have the beautiful light of infinite consciousness but the masks they wear can be less than appealing. They are lost. Yet it is kind of natural, as are predators, viruses and feces. Instead of hate which is actually bad for you, simply try not liking them, that is healthier. :)

Just remember if they did not exist how would you recognize the ones who are wonderful and good?

Just to add, I'm working on a way to explain this concept better so it is actually self evident, given only the conditional principle of the primacy of consciousness. I realize the attempts are convoluted and cryptic. I have done a crappy job of it. Since the experience is beyond words it is a challenge for me to bring it back into the language of things. For a long time I never even knew what this experience was in any sort of ontological sense. So it is a challenge to bridge that gap.

It really can change your life when you start to incorporate this way of perceiving into your life. It takes practice and I'm still working on it. There is a lot of rewiring to be done.
 
Last edited:
I agree that it is not about hate, more the heart warming or cooling feeling that comes with knowing something good has come about, like prior at loose, locked up predators, or knowing that some are already on a planet hell or locked in a cell with no media and a noose. They can top themselves if they want, suicide would probably make it worse karmicaly but i dont give a shit, their choice. Life on Earth is still a fucked up situation whatever way you look at it and i dont think that is because it is part of a Created plan. It is how it is and universal law is an unfair longting but it cant be any other way to some extent or another.
Anyway i think what am trying to say is that it is about Love. Is it my understanding that existence can only be one including the predators, that is good and makes me feel good, or for example, that evil fucks are on a planet hell as we speak and that it's true imo :) Small consolation as they are not all on a hell planet or locked in a cell with no media and a noose, or that predator like shit is even part of the life experience, but that's life. More importantly people that are worth caring about are safer
 
Last edited:
Ok this is really only a fraction. But I think it may help or at least be some food for thought.

Also just a minor point this philosophy stems from the Tantric traditions that also first described reincarnation. So of course there is not annihilation. This simple point should make it clear that individuality is retained in the experience of the self as the all, or becoming one with god.

I also have to make clear that the experiences came first. It is not inspired from Hinduism or Buddhism. It is just, to my astonishment, well described in Sanskrit. So that has been helpful as a framework to describe the indescribable. As I said I had no idea that such things were well documented. My first experience was at 16, that is about 35 years ago. so I knew nothing of such things. Or much of anything.

So...lets have crack at this without the small fuzzy and vague statements.

We tend to think that we carry consciousness around in our heads. However consciousness is formless, our brains are defined, our senses are localized so it is understandable that it feels that way. But we are not humans with consciousness, we ARE consciousness and we are conscious of being human. This is a crucial distinction.

Seeing that we are consciousness, we are infinite and timeless, the concept of annihilation simply cannot apply. This point raises a primary problem in the way we think. We define things with arbitrary boundaries and labels. This is what words do, so we have grown up to think this way, it is of course required, that can't be helped. But it has also conditioned the way we think about what we perceive as things and most importantly how we define ourselves.

As consciousness we are nothing less than existence itself, the primary fundamental reality, the only reality as all things are in or of consciousness. This means there is no death because as the primary substrate of existence we are timeless and infinite because time and space are in or of consciousness. We have no beginning and no end and no boundaries.

This highlights the error we make that creates the illusion of separateness, we do it constantly. And we also do it to ourselves. It is no wonder so many people feel lost or separated, or that something is missing from their lives.

We think I am this or I am that, here are my arms, here are my legs so this skin is my boundary. But as consciousness being aware of being a human rather than a human that is conscious we impose the same limits of localized temporal existence to ourselves as we do any physical object.

This is the illusion. We are existence, we are consciousness, we are timeless and formless. This is our true self. This is why the mystical experience is best described as timeless oneness or unity. It is because we pull back the veil and get a glimpse of the true self. We can feel at one with everything because we have none of the boundaries that we naturally impose on everything because of the way we think and especially the way we think about and define ourselves. When that part of the mind is minimized or dissolved we pull back the veil and see things and ourselves as they truly are. Which can often be unpleasant. The ego has a strong survival instinct and will fight to hold on. Also the truth about yourself, the way you respond and interact and all of your shortcomings become instantly apparent. I am often arrogant and egotistical, lazy I don't show enough love where I should etc... The list would be longer than this post. :)

I hope the penny has dropped here a bit. You should see that you are not what you think you are. We are not separate from God or from each other we are not separate from absolutely anything because we are consciousness, timeless, formless, infinite, All of existence is in or of consciousness so we are not separate from anything.

Yes we are individuals although not truly separate, we are also all of existence because what exists is in consciousness It is the totality of consciousness, that being God, (of which we are a image/reflection of) that dreams existence into being and we are co-creators of.

This is what I have spent the last 35 years trying to work out. It is still evolving in understanding but having come across the ontology of nondualism and the related tantric traditions (in a very superficial way) it has really begun to bridge the gap from experience to understanding.

I hope it is reasonably understandable. It does not seemingly clash with any religion I think or survival or reincarnation or even science. The only assumption ( I think) is the primacy of consciousness. Please let me know if there is anything that does not really follow. I would like to refine or redefine any bugs so to speak. It has become a bit of a pet project to put this shit into words. So I would consider it helpful.
 
Last edited:
I agree that it is not about hate, more the heart warming or cooling feeling that comes with knowing something good has come about, like prior at loose, locked up predators, or knowing that some are already on a planet hell or locked in a cell with no media and a noose. They can top themselves if they want, suicide would probably make it worse karmicaly but i dont give a shit, their choice. Life on Earth is still a fucked up situation whatever way you look at it and i dont think that is because it is part of a Created plan. It is how it is and universal law is an unfair longting but it cant be any other way to some extent or another.
Anyway i think what am trying to say is that it is about Love. Is it my understanding that existence can only be one including the predators, that is good and makes me feel good, or for example, that evil fucks are on a planet hell as we speak and that it's true imo :) Small consolation as they are not all on a hell planet or locked in a cell with no media and a noose, or even that predator like shit is even part of the life experience, but that's life. More importantly people that are worth caring about are safer
Excellent post mate. I don't think there is a created plan either. I really feel your troubles there. There absolutely is some horrible shit that happens here. I can only imagine the extremes of the nightmares some have had to confront and endure. It could only be a relief when they finally wake up and are taken from this world.

It seems cold to say this in my normal state of consciousness but in the nondual state if feels as if everything is exactly how it is supposed to be. It doesn't mean we can't try to make it better because we are a force of nature for better or for worse and part of that reason.

The best we can do is recognize these things and as you say hope there can be something good that comes from it. Or even understand it as necessary if at all possible.

You hit the nail on the head. It is all about love.

That is key I think. Without loss and pain and death there can be no compassion and no reason to give a shit.
 
Last edited:
Ok this is really only a fraction. But I think it may help or at least be some food for thought.

Also just a minor point this philosophy stems from the Tantric traditions that also first described reincarnation. So of course there is not annihilation. This simple point should make it clear that individuality is retained in the experience of the self as the all, or becoming one with god.

I also have to make clear that the experiences came first. It is not inspired from Hinduism or Buddhism. It is just, to my astonishment, well described in Sanskrit. So that has been helpful as a framework to describe the indescribable. As I said I had no idea that such things were well documented. My first experience was at 16, that is about 35 years ago. so I knew nothing of such things. Or much of anything.

So...lets have crack at this without the small fuzzy and vague statements.

We tend to think that we carry consciousness around in our heads. However consciousness is formless, our brains are defined, our senses are localized so it is understandable that it feels that way. But we are not humans with consciousness, we ARE consciousness and we are conscious of being human. This is a crucial distinction.

Seeing that we are consciousness, we are infinite and timeless, the concept of annihilation simply cannot apply. This point raises a primary problem in the way we think. We define things with arbitrary boundaries and labels. This is what words do, so we have grown up to think this way, it is of course required, that can't be helped. But it has also conditioned the way we think about what we perceive as things and most importantly how we define ourselves.

As consciousness we are nothing less than existence itself, the primary fundamental reality, the only reality as all things are in or of consciousness. This means there is no death because as the primary substrate of existence we are timeless and infinite because time and space are in or of consciousness. We have no beginning and no end and no boundaries.

This highlights the error we make that creates the illusion of separateness, we do it constantly. And we also do it to ourselves. It is no wonder so many people feel lost or separated, or that something is missing from their lives.

We think I am this or I am that, here are my arms, here are my legs so this skin is my boundary. But as consciousness being aware of being a human rather than a human that is conscious we impose the same limits of localized temporal existence to ourselves as we do any physical object.

This is the illusion. We are existence, we are consciousness, we are timeless and formless. This is our true self. This is why the mystical experience is best described as timeless oneness or unity. It is because we pull back the veil and get a glimpse of the true self. We can feel at one with everything because we have none of the boundaries that we naturally impose on everything because of the way we think and especially the way we think about and define ourselves. When that part of the mind is minimized or dissolved we pull back the veil and see things and ourselves as they truly are. Which can often be unpleasant. The ego has a strong survival instinct and will fight to hold on. Also the truth about yourself, the way you respond and interact and all of your shortcomings become instantly apparent. I am often arrogant and egotistical, lazy I don't show enough love where I should etc... The list would be longer than this post. :)

I hope the penny has dropped here a bit. You should see that you are not what you think you are. We are not separate from God or from each other we are not separate from absolutely anything because we are consciousness, timeless, formless, infinite, All of existence is in or of consciousness so we are not separate from anything.

Yes we are individuals although not truly separate, we are also all of existence because what exists is in consciousness It is the totality of consciousness, that being God, (of which we are a image/reflection of) that dreams existence into being and we are co-creators of.

This is what I have spent the last 35 years trying to work out. It is still evolving in understanding but having come across the ontology of nondualism and the related tantric traditions (in a very superficial way) it has really begun to bridge the gap from experience to understanding.

I hope it is reasonably understandable. It does not seemingly clash with any religion I think or survival or reincarnation or even science. The only assumption ( I think) is the primacy of consciousness. Please let me know if there is anything that does not really follow. I would like to refine or redefine any bugs so to speak. It has become a bit of a pet project to put this shit into words. So I would consider it helpful.
LS, you have read Bernardo Kastrup, I think -- I seem to recall your posting on his forum, forgive me if I'm wrong about that. IMO, he explains all this stuff with a lot of clarity and with the help of a number of metaphors (ripples, dissociation and so on). Anyway, if you have read his stuff, why not just recommend it to 1-2 Steps and leave it to him to see what he thinks about it. I doubt it would change his way of thinking, but at least you'd have led the horse to water even if it won't drink. ;-)
 
LS, you have read Bernardo Kastrup, I think -- I seem to recall your posting on his forum, forgive me if I'm wrong about that. IMO, he explains all this stuff with a lot of clarity and with the help of a number of metaphors (ripples, dissociation and so on). Anyway, if you have read his stuff, why not just recommend it to 1-2 Steps and leave it to him to see what he thinks about it. I doubt it would change his way of thinking, but at least you'd have led the horse to water even if it won't drink. ;-)
Yes I am familiar, it was not on my mind when trying to write it. But it probably is a influence subconsciously, or it may just be the similarity of the metaphysics. It would be interesting to learn what he would say about it as well as how he would define nondual.

The differences if any would be very subtle it is true.

One of my intentions was to show the error of thinking we apply when it comes to thinking of our selves, being that we are humans with consciousness. This automatically defines us as objects that have consciousness. Yet it is the body that is perceived in consciousness. Since we perceive a world of dualities we quite naturally consider ourselves and the rest of existence as being two separate things. As in duality. We also consider ourselves to be separate from God or separate from the rest of existence as do we consider ourselves separate from others. It is kind of a trap that never really hit me with Bernardo's work even though he does give a lot of conceptual clarity.

In retrospect this does sound quite consistent. I think he has been influenced by advaita.

I have not heard him express these aspects quite specifically or in this manner, although it may be implied. I think I may have heard him say that it does not really change how you live your life? So there is something that is different albeit subtle (at least in my comprehension) that has and is having a effect on how I look at things and how I deal with everyday life. A sense of piece, a harmony and contentment and ultimately greater appreciation and happiness.
 
Yes I am familiar, it was not on my mind when trying to write it. But it probably is a influence subconsciously, or it may just be the similarity of the metaphysics. It would be interesting to learn what he would say about it as well as how he would define nondual.

The differences if any would be very subtle it is true.

One of my intentions was to show the error of thinking we apply when it comes to thinking of our selves, being that we are humans with consciousness. This automatically defines us as objects that have consciousness. Yet it is the body that is perceived in consciousness. Since we perceive a world of dualities we quite naturally consider ourselves and the rest of existence as being two separate things. As in duality. We also consider ourselves to be separate from God or separate from the rest of existence as do we consider ourselves separate from others. It is kind of a trap that never really hit me with Bernardo's work even though he does give a lot of conceptual clarity.

In retrospect this does sound quite consistent. I think he has been influenced by advaita.

I have not heard him express these aspects quite specifically or in this manner, although it may be implied. I think I may have heard him say that it does not really change how you live your life? So there is something that is different albeit subtle (at least in my comprehension) that has and is having a effect on how I look at things and how I deal with everyday life. A sense of piece, a harmony and contentment and ultimately greater appreciation and happiness.
He does perhaps express these aspects from time to time even if not explicitly. Lately, since he gave up his old day job and started the Essentia foundation, he's been doing a lot more interviews and if you listen to them, you'll learn more about him and his philosophy. If you have the time, check out this mammoth video:

 
Top