question ?

[Ian Goddard]

At 07:10 PM 6/14/96 -0500, Sankar Jayanarayanan wrote:

  > If the "seen" is non-existent, how then can there be a "seer"
  > for the word "seer" to have meaning?


IAN: It is not that the seen is "non-existent," but rather, it is that the
* belief * that what is seen is other than I am that is false thus void.

It is not the "world" that is false, it is the belief that "I am apart
from all that I am not," that is false. Beyond the belief that I am
separated from all that is assumed to be not-I, lies the reality
in which I am is at once the seer (I) and the seen (not-I).

self-realization   -->   I = (I + not-I) = I am All

                         A = (A + not-A) = A is All

What is true for I am (that I am is all) is also, as it must be, true for
the identity of all things. That this identity, or unity, of duality is
the truth, is verified only through the unification experience and/or
through understanding the logical mechanics of relational identity.

The Spell of Maya is the fallacy of separation. The antidote is:  A = ~A

      If a thing is all that it implies,
      as A implies not-A,
      A is not-A.
      A is all.


      If a thing is all those features necessary for its existence,
      as not-A is a feature necessary for the existence of A,
      A is not-A.
      A is all.

Thus there is no thing, where "thing" implies separation.




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