Reef's Changing Ontology

He's of course referencing relative beliefs, such as LOA, which unfortunately for some, DO get mistaken for Absolute Truth, just as you have done.

I highly suspect Rose's quote there is a reference specifically to the seeker's existential questions....you know...questions such as "why/how does experiential content unfold as it does"?

You see, if you left even a teensy bit of room for the possibility of doubt, of NOT having that erroneous "how/why" question all sewn up, then what you have is much more of a 'theory' than the fixed, pat belief system that you so clearly hold to when it comes to LOA/deliberate creation.



Yes, but for those Absolute pointers to actually get followed to their intended "destination," the unwavering belief in spiritual nonsense such as LOA, has to get seen through....dissolve.

One who recognizes that theories that aim to answer existential questions will have to always remain theory only, as there is no "existential" additive answer or way to ultimately, Absolute "prove" such a theory to be Truth, is in an auspicious position....one on the other hand, such as yourself who is convinced beyond the shadow of doubt that she's got the holy grail of Truth in her hand, that fully explains the 'how/whys' of 'creation,' not so much.



The confusion is yours. You're the one that erroneously assumed Rose was talking about Absolute realizations vs. relative, sacred ideas.



Haven't you made "LOA" your master?



When seeking is in play, questioning relative knowledge is important.... the inkling that perhaps there are no answers to existential questions to be found within relative experience, is an auspicious start.

You'd do well to cultivate a bit of a doubt where your sacred LOA is concerned. You cannot be both, SR, and still maintain that LOA provides an Absolutely True answer to the erroneous, existential question of "how/why stuff happens as it does."

I applaud you for standing up to the bully on a forum where most will not, and instead just continue to bend over and take the heavy handed, hypocritical BS.

You make an excellent point there. Throughout the years, while keeping mum on her own personal circumstance, Reefs has consistently gone after those who freely share their own, using that info. offered up in honest, sincerity, candidly, to then try to discredit and take them down a peg.

It's very easy to claim perfect health, perfect finances, perfect relationships, zero issues on any front at all, when you remain tight-lipped, refusing to share personal details freely.

It's sad how most on ST just go along with the tyranny and blatant hypocrisy being demonstrated over there. A Truth-seeker who is milquetoast Melvin, is lacking in the fortitude necessary, imo. And right now, the world over, we are seeing the results of too many who lack the courage to stand up to speak out against tyrants and power hungry leaders. It may just be a spiritual discussion forum, but courage is cultivated with the small stuff first....consistently refuse to stand up to the so called small stuff, and it's very unlikely you're gonna do it when the issue becomes more pertinent.

I know you and I clash a bit on the political stuff, but again, I still very much appreciate the fact that you have the gumption to discuss the issues, and even push-back on my pov.

And that said, JLY, while we don't see eye to eye and I feel you sometimes come to this forum with a degree of anger that is a bit over the top, I also appreciate the fact that you are able and willing to speak out/speak up, to enter the discussion at all. It takes balls. Most it seems will avoid contentious discussion at all costs. And when it comes to the pursuance of Truth, challenging views is what it's all about...a necessary facet along the pathless path towards seeing through separation/the SVP and all the the erroneous ideas that tag along with that.

Where you go wrong is equating "living, imminent Oneness" day to day, with "a relative feeling of being one with Source." It's so much more than that...and less!

You are erroneously equating "being awake/SR" with your LOA idea of "feeling aligned with Source via positive "nice" feelings"...and they are not the same.

SR does not equal "a feeling of being connected to Source." SR is a non-conceptual shift in seeing whereby the vantage point is no longer mired within the experience. That means, whatever is arising in experience, there is no identification with it....no suffering for it.

You're mixing contexts, which is not surprising because it's clear you only have reference for conceptual "Oneneness," which always mistakes the pointer "One/not separate" for "being connected TO"..."unification with" Source.

Oneness does not require a "connection or unification" with some-thing else.






An intense moment of physical pain does not necessarily equal a feeling of being disconnected from Source...or of "being a separate entity."

The problem is you don't have direct, non-conceptual reference for what the terms "God/Source/Absolute" are pointing to....you are relying on your LOA-based conceptual meaning of those terms.

"not separate from" is not the same as "connected to." That's where you go wrong.

You can never be separated or dis-connected from that which is Absolutely, fundamentally, ultimately, NOT separate from you!

Oneness does not mean I exist as a something/someone that is then "connected to" Source. There is simply Source, expressing as all that appears. One existent, thingless thing.

Feelings/a sense of being a separate someone, does not make that separation actually so, regardless of how strong that sense is.

You can hold a thought/idea, identify with "an erroneous sense" of being a separate entity, but even that, does not invoke/create actual separation.

The problem is, you are trying to meld an in the dream context with an Absolute/Truth context. LOA and Nonduality do NOT mix! And all the trying in the world to make them mesh...to make them equal....to try to prove that A-H's Source is right on par with Niz's references to Source/God....are ultimately gonna fail.



Nonduality rips that relative, personally judgmental measuring stick of "feeling good/feeling bad," right outta the seeker's hands.

Feelings are not the issue. The overlay of mind that drags judgments down into erroneous fundamental condemnation, is. Suffering is not itself a feeling....it's an overlay of fundamental condemnation of THIS. It's a sense of "intolerability"...of fundamental "wrongness/THIS should not be as it is," sentiment applied upon what would otherwise be, a naturally arising/ebbing feeling/emotion/ideation.