🤔 Metaphysics of Consciousness & the Nexus of Liberation 🤔

And if you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it. I could tell you this without any hesitation and with 100% irrefutability. There are people that have spent a lifetime pouring through thousands of the best books, really the very best books that have ever been written. Of course, we certainly don't know what's been lost to history. There are certain things in the Vatican archives, by the way, which will never see the light of day to us normal human beings, which were copied from the Library of Alexandria. Even back then, they knew not to have all your eggs in one basket. All the books of the Library of Alexandria were copied, surely most of them, and there are a few people that know this, are hidden in the archives of the Vatican. But getting back on point, you could read a thousand books looking for the keys to the answers of consciousness, and you spend a decade reading through them and rereading them again, trying to get a simple condensate out of them. There are a few really wise snippets here and there. The most pithy things, and I love pithy because life is short. If you want to get to the crux of the matter, why should you spend countless years if you just want to get to the very heart of the pith of things? But most pithy things are the Upanishads, like the The Indians of Plotinus, like the Didaskidikos of Albinus, and really a very few others. Unfortunately in English, we don't really have a distinction between mind, brain, and consciousness. We all know what a brain is, it's that squishy lump between our ears, and of course mind, and depends on whether it's Old English or American English, not really differentiated out from consciousness. However the ancient metaphysics of both the Greeks and the Indians and others were extremely succinct on mind versus consciousness. Now when we use the word for mind in the Greek, which would be nous, or in the Pali the word is citta. This refers to the transcendent principle. This would be akin to, in the case of the radio, the signal. Now you think that you hear a signal if you tune into a frequency, and you listen to 94.5 megahertz on an FM station, but what you're actually listening to is a broadcast, which is an interpolation of that signal, not the broadcast itself. Now of course the broadcast contains the modulation, in the case of FM it's frequency modulation, in the case of AM it's amplitude modulation, but that's taking the analogy too far. So there is modulation within the frequency, and of course the reason why it is tunable, yes, and why it can be manifest, which is like entrapment. Imagine a frequency, which of course wouldn't be a frequency at all, which has no modulation. What would we call a frequency that has no frequency? Well we would call that the unmanifest. This is where we get the Pali word tathagata. We're talking about the substrate, the phenomena. A signal that has no frequency, a signal that has no frequency is not actually a signal by denotation, but it is the premise of a signal. All fields are ether perturbation modalities, just like ice water and steam are all one and the same thing. So if it has a frequency it is therefore tunable, and in this case we're talking about metaphysics and transcendence ontology. We're talking about what is trapped, or what is trappable. So what is the nature, and that's something to contemplate, what's the nature of a signal, which wouldn't really be a signal by denotation, which has no modulation. Since it has modulation it is tunable. Now the manifestation of that tuned signal, the broadcast, which is not the signal, yes, is the interpolation, is the consubstantiality of the radio and the signal. Nearly a perfect analogy. It's not a analogy. I have this neat little glass here. There's a guy about 30 miles from here. He collects this. I brought a Geiger counter there. He sells antiques, but what he mainly collects is glassware, and he collects this stuff. He collects radioactive, it's called vaseline glass, it's uranite, all of the stuff that I tested in his place there, which was radioactive. These particular, and I got all four of them, these particular glasses were really smoking hot radioactive. Let me take a black light and try to make a simple analogy here. There we go, a UV light. You can actually see when you introduce the UV light what's occurring. And by the way, people say, why did they ever make this glass? They knew it was radioactive, and this particular one is smoking radioactive. The reason why is when you take it out into the sunlight, which contains an enormous amount of UV light, it really glows. It's the same thing we're doing here except for the sunlight outside. You can actually see, place it underneath here. The ultraviolet, which is high energy light, is interacting with the radioactive uranium that's within the glass to excitation and cause the release or emission of light. In the case of this, we're actually looking at the consubstantiality of the UV light and the radioactive uranium manifesting something different. So we actually have a consubstantiality. In other words, there would be no light without the combination of the UV and the excitation of the radioactive uranium, which is getting excited by the UV EMR electromagnetic radiation and causing the manifestation to our eyes, of course, of this eerie, it's kind of Chernobyl-esque, right? That's not really a word, a Chernobyl-esque, the consubstantiality of these two things. It goes no further than this. I kind of thought this would be a neat little scientific analogy of talking about the consubstantiality. Yeah, that's actually smoking hot radioactive, believe it or not. It really sends the Geiger counter screaming. Anyway, the metaphysics of consciousness, it goes no further than the psychophysical. You take a white light, you pass it through a red filter. Yeah, you see red light, correct? Kind of like a stained glass window. In other words, that red light or that blue light or whatever the case might be is consubstantial with that which it is coincident to, and of course, the light itself, which would be analogous to the broadcast. So that blue light would be like blue consciousness or red light would be like red consciousness. There is no purification taught in any form of monistic metaphysics, be it Greek or Indian or otherwise regarding consciousness. This is the reason why it's faulty to think in terms of calming the consciousness, which is no different really than calming the waters. People are mentally disturbed and agitated. Well, I'm going to engage in, I hate the word meditation. People say, well, it's so helpful. It makes me feel better. It's like, well, yes, it does. It does do that, but that's not liberation ontology. That's actually not eliminating out the primordial principle, which caused modulation in the case of one's mind or to occur in the first place. We actually have modulation, which is not agitation, which is pre-extent to the psychophysical. The psychophysical let you be in the corporeal body. In other words, what you're doing is you're polishing the car, but you're not actually driving it anywhere to your destination. This sort of relativistic moralism is not a liberation ontology at all. It's like, well, I'm going to be calm. I'm going to meditate and no matter what comes my way. This is what the real teachings are about, and so much of the world is involved in this. Well, it does make people feel better. This is undeniable. It leads to a happier life. This is also too 100% undeniable. It is not a liberation ontology. It is not addressing the primordial diagnosis, which is pre-extent to the psychophysical. What people are doing is, like I said, they're polishing their car. Like, look how clean my car is. Talk about morality. The superficiality of things. Look, my car is real clean. I get normal checkups and change the oil, and look how clean. Yeah, but you're not using it to get to your destination. There is conduct, and there is what is conducive too. The aim is to eliminate primordial diagnosis, which is transcendent to the psychophysical. There is no teachings of empirical purity found within Platonism, Pythagoreanism, original Buddhism, that of Advaita Vedanta. If there were nobody on the face of this planet except for you or me, what purpose would morality serve, and what aim would it have in effectuating liberation? It's completely impossible. Morality is superficial. Immorality is the opposite of morality. What is opposite to both is amoral. All forms of transcendent liberation ontology are amoral metaphysics, which are about eliminating out primordial diagnosis. Regarding consciousness, there is no teachings of the purity of consciousness. It's like saying you can purify a turd, which you can't. It can't be done. It can't be done at all. Nothing pure can be compounded. Nothing that's compounded can be liberated. There is no purity in what is compounded. People say, well, sure, I feel so much better. That's no different than someone opposite of me who is fat. I don't drink or smoke or do substances, but someone like say is in perfect physical shape. They were just covered in muscles. They got 1% body fat. They're going to live to be 130 years old. That's wonderful. They feel great. But there's still ultimately, I mean, look how I'm trying to use an analogy. I'm not trying to pick on old Schwarzenegger here, but you know, the guy was, you know, he won Mr. America many times and, you know, I mean, now look at him. I mean, we're all going to get old and, you know, suffer collapse. I mean, there are beach pictures of Schwarzenegger where he is bigger than I am. There is no purical. I don't know. I didn't mean to pick on poor Schwarzenegger. I know he's rich. He's famous. It doesn't matter that, you know, he's gotten old and so it's going to happen to anybody. There's no purity there. And I was trying to make a simple analogy that you cannot purify what is fundamentally corrupt. The notion of purification of consciousness, you know, through different means and methodologies. Well, it does have worldly benefits. And of this, there is certainly no doubt. It's like it makes me feel so much better. Like I'm less angry. This is what I hear. I feel less angry and I just get along better in life. All those things are true, but that's nothing to do with eliminating out primordial agnosis, which is the impetus and drive and the engine for embodiment. Most important passage in Pali, of which there are about a dozen, for example, the thoroughly liberated, means nirvana. Nirvana, of course, just means nirviti, which means no more turning or perturbation or becoming, which is no different than saying the signal with no modulation, which really wouldn't be a signal by definition. Just think of a broadcast, which wouldn't be a broadcast that has no modulation. Something with no modulation is pure, unmanifest, non-Cartesian, i.e., in-counter space energy. It can't be tuned. If you could tune it, you could manifest it, right? If you actually took a radio back, say, 200 years or something, they would say, you know, there's a spirit inside. You know, it's living. And in a really crude sense, that's true. When you turn on a radio, you pop in some batteries. Everything's working right. The speakers, the resistors, capacitors, everything's working right. And you're able to tune something. You're able to radio's alive. Man, the radio's jumping. That's what they used to say. You turn in a nice rock and roll song on the jukebox. Man, it's alive. Well, in a really crude way, that's true. It is about making what is modulated, unmodulated, because the primordial agnosis is the modulation, which makes it tunable. And something that has modulation that is, therefore, tunable is the consubstantiality as manifest, which gives forth the broadcast. Because the consciousness, in all forms of monistic metaphysics, goes no further than the psychophysical. The broadcast, in the case of the radio, goes no further than the radio, which is a combination of the signal and the radio. I actually used the word broadcast a few minutes ago when I actually meant to say signal. Humble apologies for that. The signal, of course, is pre-manifest to the radio. The radio interpolates it. And then, of course, it, through the speaker, gives out the broadcast. Broadcast would be analogous to, of course, empirical consciousness. You can literally read hundreds, if not thousands, of the best books ever written to get to the heart of the matter of the nature of empirical consciousness, which cannot, in no way, shape, or form, be purified. There's no teachings of purification of that which is wholly temporal. It has a beginning in time. It has an end in time. Amataya dataya, or the realm of immortality, could not be part of, or parcel, in any way, shape, or form, to existential, i.e. empirical, i.e. temporal consciousness. Because consciousness goes no further than the psychophysical, or nama-rupa, in the case of Pali. Sorry I keep using these Pali words. I know none of you speak Pali or know what I'm saying. Maybe one of you does. There is no purity, therefore, in the same. It's completely impossible to talk about purity of that which is consubstantial. Consubstantial means that it is composited. It has a beginning in time. It is composed and compounded of more than one thing, in the case of consciousness. Therefore, purity of which, in which, by which, through which, is impossible. It is a logical impossibility. It could never, ever occur. Completely impossible. Pure consciousness cannot be. It can be from above, because the higher affects the lower, but the lower does not affectuate proximity to, or manifestation of the purity of that which is above. This is the reason why polishing your car is not going down the road. You keep your car in good working order so you can use it to reach your destination. There is what is conducive to something, but that is not conduct, i.e. morality. Morality and conduct have nothing to do with the liberation ontologies, vis-a-vis Pythagoreanism, the Greeks, the Indians, Advaita Vedanta, Upanishads, original Buddhism, yada, yada, yada. It has nothing to do with it. Morality does not. This is a notion of English term meditation. It's like, I feel so much better. I just don't believe you. I've heard that somebody said. Well, of course you feel better. This is true. Someone feels better when they work out and they're not fat like me, for example. You know, they're, you know, they're pumping iron and, you know, they don't drink or smoke and everything is, is better. You know, this is true. You know, your mind is not stirred up with, you know, stress and nonsense and hatred. Of course you're better. You have a better life. All of this is true. And yet it still misses the point entirely that these people don't get. That has nothing to do with eliminating out the primordial element of agnosis, which is modulation vis-a-vis the signal. People are sitting here trying to tune and I love using radio analogy as a ham radio operator. You turn in a crappy signal. It's like really, really far off. You'll use your antenna tuner or a better antenna with better gain. And the signal comes in clearer and better. These are the same people that, you know, engage in the psychophysical purification. But of course the signal comes in better. It comes in more clear, you know, sounds nicer. It's more easily understood. All of this is true, but that's not the purpose. That's not the goal. That's not the means of transcendence, which is about eliminating out that primordial attribute, that primordial attribute, i.e., what do you call it, Ayurvedia or agnosis. In the case of light, the primordial attribute would be illumination itself, i.e., the extrinsic attribute of the principle of light analogously. So nothing compounded can be purified, the very notion of which is utterly illogical, insensible, and contradictory to all forms of Greek and Indian monism. It's not my position. It's a fact. There is no purity in the same. So when people use, this is the reason why I'll never use the word meditation. I don't care if you like it. I've been doing it for years. It makes me feel so much better. This is undeniable. I have never denied that. My point is, is that has nothing to do with eliminating out agnosis. The way agnosis is eliminated is through gnosis, direct insight into the nature of what one truly is, which of course is not a what. As they say, tat tvamasi or aham brahmasi, that which is transcendent to the psychophysical and pre-extant to the psychophysical, which is the signal. But the signal has a defect. It's not really a defect, but it's an attribute which must be inverted. It's like illumination. Illumination, therefore manifestation. What is a signal without modulation? Well, it's not a signal at all. It is something else entirely. It's something that will never manifest ever again, because the attribute of modulation has been removed. And it will never manifest and be consubstantial with psychophysicality again. And that is the very definition of metaphysical transcendence, whether you like it or not. Anyway, I wanted to simplify that. I hope I simplified it. Use such big words. These are not big words to me. People think I'm using big words when reality is their vocabulary is a little bit smaller than it should be. I don't know why people keep thinking I'm using big words. Actually, in these videos, I purposely am trying not to. Using simple analogies about radios and this smoking hot radioactive glass. Stuff is hot. Trust me. It makes a Geiger counter scream. I don't like to get it that close to my face, by the way. It's emitting beta and gamma radiation. Anyway, I hope I made that simpler. Could have been a little bit less dangerous not using the radioactive glass, but that's okay. Thank you.