Dispassion

[Ian Goddard]

 At 04:18 PM 6/8/96 GMT, egodust wrote:
 >
 > Any statement regarding Parabrahmam (Absolute Being) is necessarily
 > false; because the Limitless cannot be circumscribed by any thought,
 > word or deed.  Yet, the 'tailoring of statements about the absolute'
 > is necessary as a means to pull the Mind out of its relativity trap.
 > Once that's accomplished, such concepts become obsolete.


IAN: I know what your saying: the description does not contain the described.
A description of an aroma cannot convey that aroma, it always falls short.
But are the description and the described a duality? No. Here's why:

When we "circumscribe," or draw a circle, and call the area inside it
"area A," we've defined area A. Yet in so doing we also define the
complementary external area ~A that surround the internal area.
A <=> ~A. We cannot define internal A more than we
simultaneously define the external ~A.

In this fashion, this letter > A < defines and is defined *equally* by
both internal and external. Each area being implicit and necessary
features of A, are thus parts of A, and thus A contains the whole.

Therefore all circumscriptions, such as words or visual symbols,
imply / contain the whole of space and time inwhich they appear,
and thus every description contains the described, just as your
hard drive (which "A" might represent) is contained in the
external area of the letter above. Nothing is apart or
other than the whole.


An interesting observation:

If the statement > All statements about the truth are false < is true,
then it, being a statement about the truth (defining it as beyond words),
is false. If it is false, then all statements about the truth are true.
As it is itself one of those statements, it is true, yet if it is
true it is false, if false then true, if....  A <=> ~A

The truth, the whole, contains all words, and each word contains the whole.


 >> IAN: Reason is logical thinking. I define logic as simply "that which is
 >> true." Accordingly, logical thinking is thought that leads to or defines
 >> the truth. Logic -- i.e., the truth -- is the instantaneous reality that
 >> is the I am-here-now reality free-base. Logical thinking is not a curse
 >> to be feared but a celebration of the truth. Thought binds no one.
 >>
 >
 > As I stated in an earlier post:
 > Samadhi is allergic to thought.  Thought fractures it like lightning!


IAN: Samadhi is eternal. The eternal cannot be interrupted. Samadhi
is the whole, the whole cannot be broken. It can only be broken
into (+) and (-), both of which contain one another and thus
the whole, which therefore remains always unbroken.

Yet in the experience of duality, it appears to be broken, A free from ~A.
The "field of mind" is part of the texture of the Self. The sum of all
its features never exceed the Self -- which is null and void, i.e., 0
-- because every (+) is paired with a (-); thus all manifestations
and the myriad of thought forms are never other than the Self.
There is always symmetry in the net total.


 > Whether it's logical or not, thought, per se, is useful as a *means* to
 > the end: which is best described as Sat-Chit-Ananda (pure Being; pure
 > Consciousness; pure Bliss).  Nowhere in the EXPERIENCE ITSELF is thought
 > upheld as any *active* dynamic *creating* the experience.  Thought (for
 > example, in the form of a philosophy such as advaita or zen or the tao
 > or gnostic christianity or kabala, etc.) performs the *vital* function
 > of hopefully liberating the bound ego from its delusion. Again, when its
 > mission is accomplished, what the value to preserve it?


IAN: Thoughts are not-thoughts: just as a wave is composed of peaks (A)
and valleys (~A) and is both, so too thoughts are composed of peaks
and valleys. The peak is the thought, the valley is the not-thought
that surrounds and defines every thought. A sound is defined by
the silence, or not-sound, that surrounds it in time, thus
a sound = (sound + not-sound), thought = not-thought.
If there was 100% sound without beginning or end,
there would be no sounds. If there was 100%
of white light bliss, there would be no
white light bliss. The dark defines
the light, the mind defines the
Self -- mind is necessary,
 and yet null.

As thoughts are derived from the relation of thought / not-thought,
if we discard thought, we must also discard not-thought.
If we discard the false, we discard the true.
If we discard ~A we discard A, for
A is A only relative to ~A.


 > The most accurate thing we can say about the nature of sohamidam (God,
 > the Ego, and the World-appearance) is to say nothing at all.  Silence
 > "outer and inner" is the supreme answer to the riddle of Life.


IAN: Silence says it all. Silence is sound.



Law of Identity: A is A, relative to not-A. A = {A, ~A}

Law of Nonidentity: If there is 100% A, there is 0% A. A = ~A

absolute reality: http://www.erols.com/igoddard/reality.html