Transcription
Great, wonderful! Hey, what's up? Nobody freaked out. Nowhere. Wear that robe. I don't know why everybody freaked out when I wear that hump robe that I made. Yes, I actually did make that. I'm actually pretty good on a sewing machine, believe it or not.
Everybody said I look like a Jedi. He said, "I love simplex analogies and metaphors." I'm about to give one. It only takes a flashlight and the filter. This is not a Christian concept, by the way. If you actually go online and look up the word "consubstantiality," you'll come across a bunch of Judeo-Christian religious nonsense. I'm not interested in religion. I never discuss religion because religion is secularized metaphysics, and I'm not interested in any religions at all, nor discussing them.
But this is actually not a religious concept. It's actually a byproduct of all religions, which borrow from ancient Greeks, Egyptians, and of course, the Indians. All religions adopt really neat stuff when it comes to metaphysical principles and concepts, and hardcore philosophical principles of explaining things. Religion itself is devoid of that, and I'm not ragging on religions. However, I could easily do that.
But I want to talk about confidentiality and also their countless phrases, both in ancient Pali and Sanskrit and ancient Greek. I translate ancient Greek and ancient Pali. I've got a lot of Pali translations. I even posted an article a few days ago with statements that go such as this: "This goes no further than that." In other words, when we're actually talking about metaphysical principles, we say it goes no further than this, meaning this is a boundary point before which it doesn't exist.
I'm about to explain that in a very simplex way, far better than anybody else. Yeah, I know that sounds egotistical, but still, I explain it far better than anybody else. As far as consubstantiality, you actually see references that date back to the ancient Greek "homouousia," meaning one in the same. Actually, depending on the context of usage, it doesn't necessarily mean that. It means that it is wrapped up in or is a part and parcel to.
But specifically, I want to actually explain the metaphysical principle of consubstantiality in that it goes no further than something else. In other words, it can only be present when this is present. Kind of like this is a very loose thing: warm weather is necessary for palm trees or coconut trees to be present. You generally don't find these in Upper Canada, right? Unless they're indoors.
In other words, when this is present, there is a place or route for that to become manifest, and it goes no further than that. Right? So outside of a warm climate, you don't have mango trees and exotic birds and stuff like that. You know, as a very crude example.
But there's also the philosophical statement over and over again, both the ancient Greeks and the ancient Indians state, "When this is present, that is present. When this is not present, then this is also not present." A very simple principle of understanding consubstantiality. Everybody understands white light, right? Of course, this is just a little LED flashlight.
And we're actually talking about—and also, we're actually defining the two selves, by the way. It's very important to make a distinction between self and Self, for a little "s" and big "S," if you will. One, of course, is the self or the persona non grata, the psychophysical life or manifestation that someone says.
In Old English, they actually have this when they say, "Oh, nari was a soul wandering the street." I look at all them souls. We could actually refer to people with souls, i.e., a living being. And of course, I always find this funny when people say, "Does an animal have a soul?" Because that, to me, is extremely humorous since the word "anima" literally means "has a soul."
The animation—and we actually can't falsely confuse one self for the other self. This is, of course, the serious brain fart, excuse my language, that Buddhists and Buddhist today, or Buddhists in name only, have because they never read doctrine and they have no idea what they're talking about. Imagine if nearly 100 percent of Christians never read the Bible. Analogously, never read the Bible.
But if you gave them a free one, like, "You know, you're a Christian. You should probably read that." No, that's a Buddhist heart when it comes to doctrine. I hate to say it, but they're incredibly unintelligent. They are anti-intellectual, if you will, because you think that you'd want to know about these things and further your understanding.
Since, as the ancient Pali commands, "pama loving will deliberation via wisdom," wisdom is very important. Not to be confused with empirical knowledge. Empirical knowledge is one thing; wisdom is another. We're actually talking about the consubstantiality of these two and confusing oneself for the other self, like the person that you see in the mirror or the "meat popsicle," as it's humorously called in movies.
That, of course, is the persona non grata. That is the small self, the consubstantial self, which goes no further than the psychophysical. The most repeated phrase in ancient Pali, by the way, is "Isla kya naam masata," which in English translation means "This body is not myself."
I can't even begin to tell you how ignorant Buddhists are when it actually comes to this because they think that "anatta" or "anatta" means a declaration of their being no soul. But it is only an adjective, a qualifier said of other things. If I said, "This is not a coconut, and this is not a coconut, and this is not a coconut," would you therefore make the fallacy of composition that I said that coconuts don't exist? It's like, "No, this is via negativa."
This is disobjectification, which is also a Greek "theorēgē." This is the "apophaticism," which is part of my name, by the way, in YouTube—the "audiofastist," which means "theorēgē," which is synthesis. Yeah, synthesis through objective negation. By the words "objective negation," you are actually engaging in subjective synthesis. Not empirical machinations, but literally a noetic synthesis by objective negation.
Kind of like, how do you find a needle in a haystack? Well, you don't go looking for it. You just set a match to the hay, and everything burns away, and there is left, of course, the metal needle bending away.
Getting back to this, and this is a really, really hardcore fundamental thing that if you don't understand consubstantiality and think about it, you are never, ever, ever gonna understand any form of gnosis. And I don't care about Gnosticism, by the way. You're never gonna understand Gnosticism. You're never gonna understand hermeticism. You're never gonna understand Greek Platonism. You're never gonna understand Pythagoras. You're never gonna understand the "Bight of Atlantis." You're never gonna understand any form of intelligent, logical, hardcore metaphysics.
It's just never going to happen. We're talking about consubstantiality, and I'm gonna define it here very simply in a way that I think anybody could intelligently understand. And of course, we could also talk about the radio.
And of course, there's a broadcast station right now. Let's not go too far with the analogy. There's a radio broadcast on, say, 92 megahertz. That would be an FM broadcast. And of course, the audio that we're talking about would be the constants.
Never back in the day, of course, nobody listened to the radio, and it was, "Man, that radio's hopping! The radio is jamming!" Right? You know, "Man, the radio!" We'd actually talk about the life of the radio. Of course, the radio doesn't have life. What we're actually talking about is the consubstantiality of the broadcast from whatever broadcast station that is tuned into by your radio, radio in your car, whatever, your headphone radio.
The consubstantiality of that signal to and with the radio. I love when people ask me, "What happens to the soul after death?" And of course, death is not the opposite of life. It is the absence of life. Life, of course, is the consubstantiality of spirit and matter.
And then, of course, we have life, right? We have animation. And of course, if the radio becomes broken, you know, then of course you can't tune the signal. I think if someone gets cancer, nasty cancer, and progresses, you get a nasty disease, then of course your radio becomes broken.
And of course, this signal can't be tuned anymore. Then, of course, death occurs because death is not the opposite of life. It is the absence of life. We actually have to define life. But anyway, let's get back to consubstantiality.
And this is, of course, where you can easily within your brain perfectly understand the difference between the big "S" self, i.e., the spirit, the sanctum, the soul, the "opmod." I don't give a damn what word you call it. Words are just pathetic concepts to help with comprehension.
The difference between the big "S" and the small "s." Talk about the spirit at the same time. Let's just use the simple analogy of the white light right here, okay? So what would be the "vijnana"? I'm under, unfortunately, in English, there's not a distinction between consciousness, mind, and brain.
Unfortunately, in English, there has never been really English metaphysics that are written in English. They have no hardcore insight except for some, and these are Latin translations, like Peter of Apono, "Regina," and very few others. And these are just basically rewrites of Platonism and Neoplatonism.
There is never a principle of distinction or differentiation between consciousness and mind and the brain. Of course, the brain is just a corporeal lump, you know, like semi-hard jello. We all know what the brain is. But consciousness, by the way, the Pali term for consciousness literally means "the egg gnosis" or "ignorance." It's literally "vijñāna."
But mind, or in ancient Greek, "nous," okay? We're talking about something that's preexistent to the psychophysical. Okay? And when we talk about life, we're talking about the consubstantiality of spirit and matter, which is life, right?
Okay, let's just don't take the analogy too far. Don't take the metaphors too far here, okay? White light, as far as the spirit and sanctum in reference to an empirical consciousness, right? You know, when life is manifest, and of course, it changes throughout the decades.
And then, of course, someone kicks the bucket. This is the consubstantiality of spirit and matter. Yeah, I think the white light's on, pointed directly at the camera. You know, the white light through this is an orange filter. I meant to grab a red filter.
You know, the white light through the orange filter, we have orange light. It is said by both the ancient Greeks and the ancient Indians, the statement that goes over and over again in various wordings would mean exactly the same thing: "When this is present, that is present."
Yes, but when this is not present, that is not present. In other words, the consciousness or empirical self, either persona non grata, Bob, Sue, Larry, Joe, Buffy, whatever name you want to give, doesn't go any further than the psychophysical.
Right? But the psychophysical referring to is about life or animation. This would be the "vijnana." This yellow light is orange, as an orange filter. This orange light would be the "vijnana," would be consciousness, but it doesn't go any further than this.
Actually, this is where the Buddhists are completely deranged. They are literally deranged because there is absolute refutation. Because in ancient Pali, it goes, "Open up the Veda matha sonata Sankara, not Lavinia, not Isla kyon amo, mami wata, nama Rupa, are not the tea."
I know you don't know ancient Pali. The certificate says that the consciousness, which in absolute translation means ignorance, is not the self. But of course, this is the self, but only the small self, right?
This is the consubstantial self. Yes, this orange light you're seeing, of course, you know immediately right now I'm just holding up a white light through an orange filter. This orange light that is coming to your eyes and passing into the camera is, of course, the consubstantial self.
It goes no further than the psychophysical. And of course, at the breakup or death of the psychophysical, then of course, yeah, what happens then? What happens? What do I mean, or what is an implication of, as far as the metaphysical principle of confidentiality, that this orange light goes no further than the psychophysical?
I think that's pretty simple, isn't it? This is, of course, the identification phenomenology of seeing self, the big "S," and what is not the self. And what is not the self, of course, is the small self: forms, feelings, perceptions, impulses, and empirical consciousness, i.e., the psychophysical.
I either persona non grata, I eat that thing which you see in the mirror in your bathroom. Yeah, that form. And of course, we are—oh, and of course, I don't use that analogy. I was going to make an analogy about the hand seeing itself as the sock puppet that is currently animating him.
It's kind of a crude analogy that's in reference to something else. But this is the kind of substantiality spoken of when this is present, that is present. This orange consciousness, this orange light, is a mixture of, of course, the spirit and the sanctum and the projection through.
This is a consubstantial. In other words, this is two things acting as one, right? This orange light is two things, is it not? Well, it's just orange light. You know, the white light is being filtered.
Don't take the analogy too far, for God's sake. This is what people that are too analytical do. They really take the analogy and take the metaphor too far. This orange light goes no further than the filter, correct?
And this orange light that you see is, of course, two things, is it not? Yes, it is. It is the light and that band-pass filter, which is this. That is the empirical self. That is the consubstantiality spoken of.
White light, to throw a blue filter, you're gonna get blue light, right? White light shined onto a blue wall, blue light is gonna come back to you, correct? That blue light goes no further than the mixture or the mythic sis.
The only easy in—of course, it's actually not in reference to that thing. We're talking about the metaphysical principle of consubstantiality, i.e., the combination. And it's not literally a combination; it's a harmony.
And this is, of course, the meaning. It would take forever to describe this of the ancient Pythagorean secret. Though you could actually tattoo it on my knuckles. Your real estate, what's that ancient Greek tattooed on your knuckles?
Less as well, it says—you'll get that. It will take a long time. It was actually crudely translated as harmony, but it doesn't actually mean harmony. It actually references, you know, to the perfect mixture.
It doesn't mean health. It means when there's harmony between spirit and matter, then of course things can, you know, manifest more smoothly. They can exist; they can continue to exist for only a certain period of time.
But if you don't understand consubstantiality, you can never understand any form of Greek or Indian, Platonic, Pythagorean, Neoplatonic monism. It's absolutely impossible. We're actually talking about the spatial-temporal manifestation of a mixture of two things.
Once again, as I said, you know, death is not the opposite of life. It's the absence of life. This is life, a mixture of matter and spirit, right? And what continues through that, of course, is the animation, the small self.
You know, this is me in the mirror. My name is Bob. You know, I'm six foot tall. I got, you know, brown hair and green eyes. Well, you know, so what? That is not the self.
I said this is where the Buddhists really screw things up hardcore because there is an absolute denial of this because it is consubstantial, which means it is comprised of more than one thing. Anything that has a beginning in time has an end in time, and it is not a point of refuge or of transcendence.
It's impossible. If something has a Cartesian value, it is manifest in space and/or time. And time is not a thing at all. Time is only a measure of magnitudes, and space has no properties whatsoever at all, as Nikola Tesla famously and accurately said.
This is why I also called Einstein a fuzzy-haired crackpot. Sometimes I talk a little too fast. Actually, in my mind, I think I'm actually talking slow, but people tell me, "Oh, he's talking too fast." Sorry about that. My mind thinks about a hundred times faster than this—not literally, but kind of close.
A hundred times faster than I'm actually talking right now. Sometimes I'll actually get ten steps ahead of my brain as my lips are still flapping. But you actually have to understand this. You think about it because this is what is meant by consubstantiality.
It is incredibly important. You know, we're talking about something that has a birth in space and time. And anything that is comprised of more than one principle, you know, in this case, matter and spirit, then it's not a refuge. It can't last. It's false. It's unreal. It's a projection. It's a hologram.
If people love talking about holograms, man, I'm a hologram nut. I don't like talking about holograms too much. But anyway, the point being is that understanding consubstantiality is absolutely vital for understanding any form of metaphysical monism in Gnosticism, Metisism, Platonism, on and on and on and on.
You cannot grasp it without firmly setting that in your mind. Yeah, do you understand that this is a mixture? You know, this is one thing, and this is another. This orange light is empirical consciousness. This white light is the spirit.
These two things together in a psychophysical corpus is life, is animus, yeah, is animation. But that is not the refuge. That's not a point of transcendence. You can't polish a turd, as the saying goes, nor can you seek refuge into that which has both or either consubstantiality of existences.
It means comprised of one or two or more than one thing, you know, and has a footprint in its birth, where its manifestation in space and time. It can't be because whatever partakes of space and time is not a refuge. It cannot be purified.
This is what idiots do when they sit on little fancy za foods and zabutons and, you know, burn sandalwood incense. They say, "Oh, I'm meditating. I'm seeking emptiness." I hate that word more than any other word: meditation. Because it doesn't actually refer to anything.
It's the most bastardized term in the English language. I really need a horrible term. It doesn't refer to anything specifically. The point is disobjectification. In other words, it is removing.
And of course, this would be kind of a really crude analogy of wisdom: understanding what this is and extracting this from this such that when this dies, it goes away. This doesn't identify as that.
Yeah, if this identifies as that, the basis of transmigration would be instead of this, after this is going away. Let's just assume this light is orange, by the way. What you have instead of this, which is self-identified as itself, have extra—prior to and transcendence.
Yes, instead of this, what you'll have is this. In other words, this, after this, we passed away, going away, still identifies as that. That is the actual metaphysical definition of hell.
That is the actual metaphysical denotation of suffering or "bucco seeing" self and what is not the self. You know, when this goes away, if we still identify as this, you see this.
Let's just presume this red light as orange, okay? Because I don't have an orange light. That is the actual metaphysical—you want to get a definition of hell in the truest term, Allah wisdom of the Platonism, Pythagoreans—that is it.
By the way, thank you so much for watching. I hope you like these videos. I could do a thousand more like it, and I could talk on endlessly. Let me know if you like these. You do, you can click the link below, and have a lovely day. Looks effortless.