🌗 Deepest Metaphysics_ Mere self VS. Soul-Self 🌓

Hey! Walking around in my... Oh shut up Siri, nobody wants to hear from you. Walking around my extra thick... Siri's always listening. Siri is a demonic AI interface. That's not conspiratorial, it's empirically accurate. I accidentally hit the button twice. I'm going to edit that out of this video. Which I never do, right? I want to talk about really the most important aspects of genuine metaphysics. And I have to first point out something that's incredibly important. That's the reason why I have no interest in religion. And what anybody believes, of course, is none of my business. And I'm not interested in going after anybody else's belief system. Of course, none of us are our beliefs. And that, of course, is the reason for so much strife. Actually, most of the strife in the world is people think that they are their beliefs. And that is extremely unfortunate. Because nobody is their beliefs. We are not the psychophysical nor that thing we see in the mirror. But truth must be universal. It cannot be specific. And it certainly can't be temporal. In other words, the truth only came when the holy master descended and whatnot. Everybody before that time period was doomed to purgatory. That's both illogical and unwise and certainly inaccurate. But that's not me going after any belief. And certainly not so religion. I'm only interested in Sophia Perennis or genuine metaphysics. All original genuine metaphysics. Both Greek, Indian, and Egyptian. And Indian. Didn't say Indian. Indian, Greek, and Egyptian. And others, by the way. Taught the same thing regarding two selves. Plato talked about this. Read about it a lot. Nephito. Nephedras. Is that there are two within us. They're not literally within us. There's no signal in the radio. And of course, by the way, I use the radio analogy quite a bit. Especially recently. Because it's nearly perfect. It's not totally perfect. Because, of course, the signal is inanimate. In the case of the signal of that which we truly are. It is consciousness itself. Not pre-existent to the radio. Which, of course, empirical consciousness is the consubstantiality between matter and spirit. And that's the distinction between spirit and the temporal self. But there is two selves. Spoken about with an ancient Pali. Spoken about in the Upanishads. It is the very thing that every modern so-called Buddhist gets wrong. And everything in every book that you'll see in any typical miserable bookshelf. Some sort of silly paperback book written by some armchair, you know, theurgist, you know, will write. It's completely inaccurate. Buddhism taught there's no soul. And this video is not about Buddhism. I'm simply pointing out a specific sector that I'm the most familiar with. I'm familiar with a lot of them. But I'm not interested in religions. I'm interested in monistic metaphysics. And this is an important point that people need to make. And, of course, this has to do with the conjugate reality of that which we truly are. That which we truly are, of course, is not that psychophysical thing that we see in the mirror. The most repeated phrase in ancient Pali, for example, is the body is not the self. The self of the capital S, meaning the true self, which is antecedent to the psychophysical, as in the case of the signal. People know it, but they never think about it. And you should think about it, too. Because if you really want to understand genuine metaphysics, you could think about analogously a radio just for a second. And nobody does that. And nobody really listens to radios anymore anyway, do they? You know, they play their MP3 and their CDs, and that's perfectly fine. I get that. Nobody really listens to radio anymore. But we take it for granted that the signal is everywhere and nowhere. Of course, there is signal intensity and strength, such as measured by a signal-to-noise ratio or SW meter signal intensity. But it is nowhere. But the signal is tuned because it has a modulation. And it is tunable because of that frequency, that wavelength, that it is tunable. And this, by the way, is the very principle from the ancient phrase, Yoga Citta Vritti Nirodha. I don't know if you ever thought about that. And it's no different than Suvimutta Cittasana Bhadnam. Ancient Pali, the thoroughly liberated citta, which is a reference to the nus, or the spirit of sanctum, means nirvana. Suvimutta Cittasana, the thoroughly liberated citta, i.e. nus in the Greek, or spirit of sanctum, means nirvana. No different than the Sanskrit saying, Yoga Citta Vritti Nirodha. Yoga means yukta in the Pali, which is almost the same word in English, yoking to. It is both the process and the culmination of this objectification, yoking to the absolute, which is, of course, theurgy, which, of course, is synthesis, of course, is samadhi. Different terms, different words for the exact same thing, because you have all these different words, because nothing is known except through the modality of the knower, of course. So, in the case of Yoga Citta Vritti Nirodha, yoga is, i.e. the process and the end goal of liberation. Citta Vritti Nirodha. Citta is the exact same word in Sanskrit. Citta, citta. By the way, the seven most important words in ancient Sanskrit and Pali are the exact same words in ancient Egyptian. The citta, the atin. Everybody's heard the term atin from ancient Egyptian. What's the exact same word in ancient Pali? Exact same word. Did you know, by the way, one of the Rakhi Edicts of King Ashok, which is written in Brahmi Prakrit, it's ancient, yes? Look up who King Ashok is. And he said that the precepts of Buddhism, of course, the word Buddhism didn't exist until a few hundred years ago, on the Rakhi Edict, it says the Buddha Sassana, which means the doctrine of the Buddha. The Buddha Sassana is being observed, the teachings thereof of the Buddha, being observed by King Ptolemy II of ancient Egypt. So, of course, India didn't exist back then either. Anyway, the area of control of basically ancient India, even though India didn't exist back then, of King Ashok is written, commanded by King Ashok to be written there. Those teachings are being observed all the way over here in ancient Egypt. Fact, by the way. There's another book on that called The Greeks in India. Of course, we have the ancient Egyptians in India. They actually exchanged ideas. So yoga is citta vritti naroda. So yoga is citta, the noose, sort of the spirit, the sanctum, vritti naroda. Vritti is perturbations. Like the flames flickering on this monitor, that would be vritti, perturbations. The same thing in the case of a frequency. Because a frequency, a signal, has a wavelength and a frequency, makes it tunable by this antenna, right? Right now I'm tuned into NOAA weather radio, right? So that modulation, that frequency of the signal, with a set wavelength and frequency, makes it tunable. This is UHF VHF tunable radio. Same thing we're talking about here. Perturbations. So yoga is citta vritti naroda. So extraction, liberation, is citta vritti naroda. So naroda means subjugation of the ending thereof. So the liberation of the citta, or the spirit, means the subjugation of perturbation. And let's use that radio analogy just for a second more. Take any radio, the most that I've owned, the best and the most expensive is a former ham radio operator, Kilo Delta 4. Pop a whiskey. I'm gonna leave that last letter off. No radio out there on earth can tune a signal with no modulation, frequency or wavelength. It wouldn't be a signal by definition. All field modalities are ether perturbation modalities, period. Undeniable. The universal truth that spawns from one side of this universe to the other. All fields are ether perturbation modalities, including the coaxial circuit of light. And light, by the way, is no different than radio, no different than gamma. They're different intensities. Yes, light, radio. It's not my opinion. It's a fact. Look up any electromagnetic spectrum chart. So what would be a signal without modulation? It wouldn't be a signal at all, and it would not be tunable by any radio. The only thing that makes it tunable is the fact that it has within itself a frequency, or a vritti. So the radio analogy is nearly perfect. It's not totally perfect, but it's nearly perfect. So yoga is the subjugation of perturbations of the citta. The perturbations are due to what? In all monistic metaphysics, the source of that is the privative attribute of avidya or agnosis, which is not a thing. It's an absence of a thing. In the case of light, the absolute of the agathon would be the light itself. What the good is, is also too what the good does. The privative attribute of that, which of course is the extrinsic attribute, is illumination. Illumination would be synonymous with avidya or agnosis. The false identity, the false identification phenomenology as Hegel talked about it, of seeing self in what is not self. Why does a person, I'm not singling out a lady here for example, we say a lady watching a sad movie, why is she crying and getting upset? People go to the movies to get excited, horror movies, whatnot. We go there to be emotionally disturbed because it's like a roller coaster ride, right? So why does somebody get emotional and sad watching a sad movie? You're not in the movie, you're not connected to the movie, you're not touching the movie. It's this identification. That's where people go to movies, obviously, to lose themselves. They project themselves into this movie. If it's a good movie anyway, they can project themselves. And all good movies suck us in, right? We've heard that stuff. Man, the movie was so good, it just sucked me in. I felt it. Well, that's the case. But why is that the case? What is it that is not a field? This identification that we open our eyes and we get sucked into things and we identify with that and of course, we see that that is all we are. Kind of like the puppet who can't see the strings. The strings are invisible and it certainly can't see the hand, like the little marionette. It looks in the mirror and it thinks that's what it is. It sees the decay of the body, the psychophysical. You know, it gets more miserable. It's got misery stacked on top of misery. All liberation ontologies and monistic metaphysics that are true, that follow Occam's razor, that are wise and have passed the liberation, teach about the two selves, the psychophysical self and the transcendent self. I'm going to read a passage from Plato. Also, too, in the Pali, there is the great self, like in Mahatman. Mahatman is the same word in Sanskrit as in the Pali, which is mahatta. The great self, i.e. the fair self, which is versus the foul self. The existential self. The persona non grata. Bob, Sue, Larry, that psychophysical form that weighs X number of pounds. Blonde hair, fat, bold, ugly. Let's not be me, for example. The great self and the petty self. Apatuma. The petty self, of course, would be the temporal self. Because anything that has a beginning in time and has an end in time, has an end in time, and there's obviously no refuge in the psychophysical. There cannot be. And it's always has a beginning in time. It is consubstantial. It is temporal, and it is certainly not consciousness itself. Here's another fact, and this is a bone of contention for people who actually haven't been studying these ancient texts for decades like I have, and I'm not gloating about that, but this is a fact. People think there's such a thing as a pure consciousness. This is ridiculous as talking about polishing a turd. Consciousness is no different than the broadcast. Because people are confused. Let me use the radio analogy here. They think that there is purification of consciousness, and consciousness regarding metaphysics, monistic metaphysics, both Greek, Indian, and Egyptian, is no different than the broadcast. The broadcast from this radio is not the signal. The broadcast from this radio is the interpolation of the signal, which, of course, is attenuated. Excuse me, it is gained through the gain of this antenna. It is actually processed by all the circuitry inside this radio, and then, of course, is broadcast out to the speaker. All the radio does is interpolate that. The broadcast itself out of the radio goes no further than the radio. The broadcast goes no further than the radio. Consciousness, or in the Pali, i.e. vijnana, goes no further than the psychophysical body. There's no ever mention in any translation of the purification of empirical, i.e. existential consciousness. Interestingly enough, and is metaphysically a thousand percent accurate, that the word for consciousness in ancient Pali also, too, means ignorance or agnosis, because consciousness, or vijnana, is prefectural vi, in romanized Pali, plus jnana, or gnosis. So it really means agnosis. So empirical consciousness is manifest, of course, by agnosis. Without agnosis, i.e. modulation, i.e. vritti, there is no consciousness. So it is sublimely perfect in every aspect imaginable, specifically, metaphysically, that the ancient Pali word for consciousness literally means agnosis, or ignorance. In this case, of course, we're talking about conventional ignorance. People are confused, too. They think of ignorance as conventional, temporal. That person's stupid. He's ignorant. Well, that's actually uneducated and unintelligent. But we'll say ignorant. But in the case of metaphysics, in reference to avidya, or the transcendent agnosis, which, of course, is the uncaused cause, which there is no cause in monistic metaphysics. There's no prima causa, or original sin, in monistic metaphysics. We're talking about the transcendent, extrinsic attributes of the one, or the agathon. The Greeks called this the euristos dias. They called it dolma, and anaki. Anaki is incorrectly translated as necessity. But what it literally means is it cannot exist any other way. Anyway, Plato's Republic, 439d and 604b. Plato's Republic, who says, there are two within us. And, of course, the expression of self-control is in reference to one or both. But we're not going to discuss that. Talking about one implies the other. If we have ignorance, then operationally, they're both one and the same thing. So what, therefore, is transcendence? There's no purification of the empirical. There is the disobjectification from that false self. We are not that thing we see in the mirror, which has a beginning in time and an end in time. People always say, you know what happens when we die? My answer to that is, what on earth makes you think you are that which undergoes death? And death is not the opposite of life. Death is the end of life. Life is the consubstantiality of matter and spirit. In the case of this radio, even though, of course, it's not alive, the broadcast out of the speaker would be synonymous with life. Life is the harmonic intercession and consubstantiality of matter and spirit. This radio would be the matter and spirit. In the analogy, don't take the analogy too far, it would, of course, be the signal. The signal which is nowhere and everywhere at the same time. There's no Cartesian coordinate for that. But because it is under modulation, i.e. vritti in the Sanskrit. Because, by the way, and I know you don't know this, nirvana, we could actually say nisbandha, which means freedom from bondage. But nirvana comes from the prefectural nir, which means opposite of or ending of. And nir is a prefectural nirodha. Nirodha is ending, stopping, kaput. Nir, ending vritti. Nir vritti, no more perturbations. So nirvana literally means no more perturbations, which is the passage in Sanskrit. Yoga is chitta vritti nirodha. So vritti nirodha, the subjugation of perturbation, is the exact same thing as saying nirvana. So vritti nirodha is no different than saying nirvana or nisbandha. In that manner, we use the Sanskrit nirvana or the Pali nirvana, same term. This is also found in the Bible in Mark 7.34. And then it got septium in refusal or refutation against the existential self of flesh and blood. Not talking about the spiritual flesh, we're not talking about Jesus, we're talking about the flesh and blood of the existential being who lives in ignorance and is worried about this body. Here's a passage from Majjhima Nikaya 1.185. What do you suppose, followers, if people were carrying off into the Jeta Grove forest bunches of sticks, grasses, branches, and leaves and did with them as they wished and burned them up, would that occur to you? Are these people carrying us off or doing as they please with us? Are they burning us? No, indeed not, Lord. How so? Because, dear Lord, that is not our soul or what our soul will subsist upon. Without the transcendent principle, the signal, analogously, of course, liberation is impossible, wisdom is impossible. And it's completely ridiculous to talk about anything transcendent, talk about liberation. It's impossible to talk about any of that. There is always two selves in all ancient metaphysics. Always! Not my opinions, fact. We see this represented in ancient Egyptian symbology. By the way, ancient Egyptian was not the lingua franca of ancient Egyptians. It was a priestly language of metaphysical symbolism. This is the reason why ancient Egyptian translations are ridiculous. The asinine, trying to read a translation of the Egyptian Book of the Dead is ridiculous. Well, I get what it's saying. It's just, it's ludicrous. There's no way this ancient divine language written by the people who built the pyramids can be so stupid, so clumsy. It's because the academicians that translate that stuff are not metaphysicians. They have no connection to Sophia Perennis. They're not wise. They do literal translations of metaphysical, metaphysical, theatrgic language, which was a priestly class language. It wasn't the lingua franca of the ancient Egyptians. We have the same thing in the solar Aten. And, of course, the manifestation thereof. You can see the ancient Egyptian symbols. So here's another example of Egyptian and ancient Indian symbolism being 100% identical. Where the snake is coming out of the sun. I know you've seen it over and over and over again. Well, it's called the footless one. The snake has always been the symbolism, at least in ancient Egypt and India, of the Aten, called the footless one. Just as the soul leaves no footprints, called the footless one, which rises up and spreads its hood in the case of the cobra. So we actually have the individuated soul manifesting out of the solar Aten, or in the case of the Pali, would be Brahman, which, by the way, is not a god. It's in reference to the absolute, or the Agathon in the Greek. But without understanding the two selves, the doctrine of two selves in ancient metaphysics, it's impossible to understand any of the rest of it. You actually have to have within yourself this primer of understanding. Otherwise, you can't read any of this stuff and make any heads or tails. So here they're talking about one self, and over here they're talking about a horrible self. I don't get it. You know, over here it's the divine, and over here we're talking about the transcendent self over here, i.e. the signal, analogously. And over here we're talking about the broadcast. People for hundreds of years, even thousands actually, a little over 1,500 that I know of, easily 1,500 years, confused by general lay folks. I read these ancient scriptures that don't make any sense. It's ridiculous. What do you mean? And this is true. It's not my opinion. Well, they're talking about how great the self is over here, and it's great. It's the divine. It's what rises and escapes. And over here they're talking about the self. It's awful. It's evil. Blah, blah, blah, blah. You're confused. And the best analogy that I come up with for our modern people was the distinction between the signal, which has within itself modulation, vritti, i.e. agnosis, and the broadcast. When all these ancient metaphysicians and their doctrines are trashing the self, they're talking about the broadcast self. Yeah? Or the conscious self in the case of Pali. They're not talking about the signal. People don't make that distinction. You really have to know a lot about radios and be a ham radio operator, formerly anyway, and know a lot about metaphysics, been translating these ancient dead languages. It's kind of like a perfect thing here where you have to know all of these things to come up with a near-perfect analogy that makes people understand it better. And I've been using the radio analogy successfully because, oh, people, I get it now. I mean, now I know why they're trashing the self over here, and they're saying the self over here is transcendent, and, you know, it's the highest, and the basis of Amatya Dattiya, the realm of immortality. Before, it seemed contradictory. Well, it's not contradictory at all. It's hyper-logical, period. But don't take that analogy too far. But it is nearly perfect. Not totally. There's never such thing as a perfect analogy, especially a worldly analogy, you know, but it's nearly perfect, so. You know, I hope I just cleared some stuff up about Sophia Perennis because that's, which is not a belief. It is a universal thing about truth, the wisdom, and the absolute because the truth can never be specific. There's no such thing as specific truth in metaphysics. It's impossible. It's like talking about dehydrated water, and there's no such thing as temporal truth. Well, truth didn't exist until, you know, the Grand Badabing came along, and he laid down the law. Before that, everybody was doomed to hell. That's antithetical to facts, logic, and wisdom. It's not Sophia Perennis. It's not genuine metaphysics. That's a belief system. I believe Grand Master Badabing told me that blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Like, well, that's nice. That's nice. That's the best thing you could say. Isn't that nice? As they say in the South, this is an insult in the South. It doesn't sound like an insult, but it is an insult here in the South. This is what they say in the South. When you say something crazy, kind of a little nutty, well, bless your heart. Well, bless your heart. If you ever hear that while you're in the South, it's like, ooh, that was a... I didn't know it, but until I heard from that fat bald tattooed guy, I didn't know that was an insult. Bless your heart. Well, bless your heart. Thanks for watching.