Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2013 15:23:51 GMT -5
Greetings.. how is your snowflake story any different from the wave analogy? ocean .. evaporation, clouds, snow, melt, rivers .. ocean. rinse and repeat. The ocean/wave analogy is used to signify no separation.. the 'snowflake story' acknowledges BOTH separation AND wholeness, a condition rejected by non-dualists, even though both conditions are directly experiencable.. Be well.. The wave/ocean analogy points to both meanings of separation. And that is how it is used. There is no denying the existence of the wave. The analogy is useful for peeps that only identify as being a separate person. The snowflake analogy is usually used to celebrate the unique characteristics of each person and highlight the impossibility of repetition. It's used for different purposes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2013 16:11:16 GMT -5
Greetings.. If there were no separate 'stuff' the visual field would be blank.. there is no 'cognitive' separation between the wall and the door, it is what it is, you get past the wall by 'realizing' the difference between wall and door.. Be well.. This is the return of the quibbles about the meaning of 'separate.' Because 'no separation' is such a cornerstone pointer by nondualists and others (!) tzujanli focuses on the narrow meaning of the term and doesn't fully engage with how the term is being used by those who he is debating. I'm sure there is some debate tactic name for this, but I'm ignorant of it. When steven or whoever acknowledges variations of color and light -- a scientist might point to probability fields -- there is a tacit recognition of that narrow meaning of separation. Distinguishing and discernment of differences, etc. all are in reference to that narrow definition of separation. But that's not really the way separation is being used in this case. It's just more ocean/wave stuff. Sure a wave can be distinguished from the ocean. But can the wave be separated from the ocean? It can be called separate in the narrow sense, but fundamentally, in essence, it isn't. It probably has to so with what your current default viewing position is, meaning, are you generally looking at the ocean, or are you generally looking at the waves. I use to look at the waves, but now my relaxed "normal" viewing point is on the ocean, and looking at the waves requires a kind of effort, or focussing in so to speak, which is discernment :-)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2013 16:15:57 GMT -5
Greetings.. The ocean/wave analogy is used to signify no separation.. the 'snowflake story' acknowledges BOTH separation AND wholeness, a condition rejected by non-dualists, even though both conditions are directly experiencable.. Be well.. The wave/ocean analogy points to both meanings of separation. And that is how it is used. There is no denying the existence of the wave. The analogy is useful for peeps that only identify as being a separate person. The snowflake analogy is usually used to celebrate the unique characteristics of each person and highlight the impossibility of repetition. It's used for different purposes. You do realize right, that the wave is never ever separate from the ocean right? I don't get why you keep pointing out, rather aggressively at times, that there are waves on the ocean lol Isn't that kind of obvious....what exactly are you trying to get across?
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Oct 9, 2013 16:43:37 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. The ocean/wave analogy is used to signify no separation.. the 'snowflake story' acknowledges BOTH separation AND wholeness, a condition rejected by non-dualists, even though both conditions are directly experiencable.. Be well.. The wave/ocean analogy points to both meanings of separation. And that is how it is used. There is no denying the existence of the wave. The analogy is useful for peeps that only identify as being a separate person. The snowflake analogy is usually used to celebrate the unique characteristics of each person and highlight the impossibility of repetition. It's used for different purposes. The wave/ocean analogy is used by non-dualists to represent how 'waves' are still attached to the 'ocean', and no separation exists.. the snowflake analogy exists 'separate' from the ocean/wave, unique and individualized but made of the same essence.. the 'purposes' of analogies are revealed by the tellers intentions interacting with the observer's beliefs.. Be well..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2013 16:48:36 GMT -5
You've stopped at describing it as pretty fun. The windshield is a convenient protection. Now that's the kind of poke I love about this place! Thought you'd appreciate the delicacy
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 9, 2013 18:19:19 GMT -5
Anything that sounds like a conclusion has been handled by the thinker and in that, it is what it is. For example, here are two different suggestions: 1) There is a subject that is not subject to identification and that is what you are -- you can't know the knower because if you turn around to look you just see more objects. You can't get behind yourself. What you are is not subject to objectification. 2) Turn your attention 180 degrees, and look directly inward and be aware of being aware. To the intellect, these sound like opposites -- or at least, as if they contradict one another, but they're pointing to exactly the same ineffable absence. Whenever I've done the headless exercises, the main thing that I've noticed is that my field of attention or focus snaps wide open. It goes from a narrow focus -- the object where the finger is pointing -- to "everything" -- when the finger is pointing back, 180. That in itself is pretty fun. While driving is fun because all of a sudden the whole world is getting sucked into the windshield. But how does this support the idea that what you are is unchanging? no comprendo. oh, it doesn't ... I was just trying to illustrate how thinking about the pointers leads nowhere ... if the pointer don't work, throw it away!
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 9, 2013 20:19:55 GMT -5
To me, the unchanginess sounds like a conclusion. And if the conclusion is held so strongly as to be called Truth, then it's a conclusion that is strongly believed in. There is nothing that can know whether something is unchanging. Of course the escape clause to this is Realization, or some other kind of spiritual or mystical or otherworldly experience where some sort of special insight or knowledge or understanding or whatever 'informs the mind' to re-assert the truthiness of it. You can tip toe around this and say that it's the removal of knowledge or whatever but the removal is still some sort of extra-special thingy. And we're back to Believers 101 conversation: Why do you think God exists? Because I know it. Why don't I "know" it? Because you haven't realized it. Oh. Funny. But you've got it upside down. The unchanging is the natural state. It's nothing special. It's a given. It takes no effort or time or anything to realize it. Quite the opposite, actually. It takes a lot of effort and time and such to NOT realize it. The natural state is impersonal. Impersonal is not special. It's all inclusive. It looks the same every time and and the same from every point of view. Personal, however, is special and exclusive. It looks different every time and different from every point of view.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 9, 2013 23:23:47 GMT -5
Truthin'! So, you choose to label what we often traditionally 'know' and understand as 'god' Truth -- even if this Truth seems to be some Great Big Container that contains a bunch of stuff that isn't so very much true. Hmm. Nothing of the sort.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 9, 2013 23:40:26 GMT -5
Obviously, conceptual, dualistic truth, as in a true/false idea, is subject to perspective and is potentially variable. In a spiritual context, what is meant by Truth is that unchanging presence within which all change occurs, and by virtue of which all change can be experienced. That idea is not what Truth refers to. Truth is that to which the concept points. It's not about true as opposed to false. As to why it must be unchanging, that's just the nature of that which knows change. That which knows change cannot be changing along with the change, or it could not be noticed, a bit like moving at a constant speed inside an elevator. To me, the unchanginess sounds like a conclusion. And if the conclusion is held so strongly as to be called Truth, then it's a conclusion that is strongly believed in. There is nothing that can know whether something is unchanging. Of course the escape clause to this is Realization, or some other kind of spiritual or mystical or otherworldly experience where some sort of special insight or knowledge or understanding or whatever 'informs the mind' to re-assert the truthiness of it. You can tip toe around this and say that it's the removal of knowledge or whatever but the removal is still some sort of extra-special thingy. And we're back to Believers 101 conversation: Why do you think God exists? Because I know it. Why don't I "know" it? Because you haven't realized it. Oh. Frustrating, isn't it? Yes, I would say the removal is an extra special thingy. Why on Earth do you think millions are seeking it and innumerable religions have been given birth in it's dissipated wake? Perhaps you can end it all here by calling it illogical or unfair.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 9, 2013 23:50:38 GMT -5
I think you misunderstand me...When I say that IT is there everywhere inside and out....I mean its everywhere that you are capable of perceiving....Who cares whether it is more or beyond that. Thats what I mean when I say to not concern yourself with whether or not it is greater or lessor than YOU, or whether you are OF it or if IT is OF you. Does it really matter....IT is there everywhere you perceive is not? Oh so when folks use unchanging and everywhere it just means right here right now? That's funny! So, when some enlightened bloke prattles on about Oneness and the universe, they're just talking about their little perception bubble? Okay, check! Back to qualia! Here/there, now/then, inside/outside. subject/object are just ideas. 'Right here, right now' doesn't mean 'not there, not then'.
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Oct 10, 2013 4:48:21 GMT -5
The "unchanging observer" idea is impossible. In order to perceive X the observer must change, otherwise the observer remains stuck in the state prior to when X was perceived, therefore an "unchanging" observer is not an observer at all, and an unchanging "observer" is not unchanging at all.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2013 7:18:59 GMT -5
The wave/ocean analogy points to both meanings of separation. And that is how it is used. There is no denying the existence of the wave. The analogy is useful for peeps that only identify as being a separate person. The snowflake analogy is usually used to celebrate the unique characteristics of each person and highlight the impossibility of repetition. It's used for different purposes. You do realize right, that the wave is never ever separate from the ocean right? I don't get why you keep pointing out, rather aggressively at times, that there are waves on the ocean lol Isn't that kind of obvious....what exactly are you trying to get across? Are you addressing me or Tzu? My point in this little microdiscussion has been that there is quibbling about the meaning and definition of the use of the term 'separation.' Tzu points out that the wave is separate from the ocean. Each little snowflake is separate from the other. I'm pointing out that that is one meaning of the term. The other meaning of the term, when used by nondually peeps as in 'there is no separation,' is that the wave can not be separated from the ocean, exactly as you are saying. I'm just emphasizing that the quibbles are not really about separation or no separation because different meanings are being discussed. The quibbles appear to be about bad blood, pecking order stuff, and other testosterone related themes. It gets old. But that's just my opinion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2013 7:20:35 GMT -5
The "unchanging observer" idea is impossible. In order to perceive X the observer must change, otherwise the observer remains stuck in the state prior to when X was perceived, therefore an "unchanging" observer is not an observer at all, and an unchanging "observer" is not unchanging at all. good point.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2013 7:34:03 GMT -5
To me, the unchanginess sounds like a conclusion. And if the conclusion is held so strongly as to be called Truth, then it's a conclusion that is strongly believed in. There is nothing that can know whether something is unchanging. Of course the escape clause to this is Realization, or some other kind of spiritual or mystical or otherworldly experience where some sort of special insight or knowledge or understanding or whatever 'informs the mind' to re-assert the truthiness of it. You can tip toe around this and say that it's the removal of knowledge or whatever but the removal is still some sort of extra-special thingy. And we're back to Believers 101 conversation: Why do you think God exists? Because I know it. Why don't I "know" it? Because you haven't realized it. Oh. Frustrating, isn't it? Yes, I would say the removal is an extra special thingy. Why on Earth do you think millions are seeking it and innumerable religions have been given birth in it's dissipated wake? Perhaps you can end it all here by calling it illogical or unfair. Well I wouldn't call it illogical or unfair, those are irrelevant. But it's a good reminder that just walking away is an option (so it seems).
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 10, 2013 7:36:15 GMT -5
To me, the unchanginess sounds like a conclusion. And if the conclusion is held so strongly as to be called Truth, then it's a conclusion that is strongly believed in. There is nothing that can know whether something is unchanging. Of course the escape clause to this is Realization, or some other kind of spiritual or mystical or otherworldly experience where some sort of special insight or knowledge or understanding or whatever 'informs the mind' to re-assert the truthiness of it. You can tip toe around this and say that it's the removal of knowledge or whatever but the removal is still some sort of extra-special thingy. And we're back to Believers 101 conversation: Why do you think God exists? Because I know it. Why don't I "know" it? Because you haven't realized it. Oh. Funny. But you've got it upside down. The unchanging is the natural state. It's nothing special. It's a given. It takes no effort or time or anything to realize it. Quite the opposite, actually. It takes a lot of effort and time and such to NOT realize it. The natural state is impersonal. Impersonal is not special. It's all inclusive. It looks the same every time and and the same from every point of view. Personal, however, is special and exclusive. It looks different every time and different from every point of view. ... and I like the way you've referenced one of the most glaring facets of that absence I was referring to ...
|
|