|
Post by zendancer on Aug 8, 2014 13:15:33 GMT -5
oh dear, I'm confused again -- aren't you two saying the same thing and then questioning it?! No, I'm saying that the perspective which holds that the universe is perfect may be no less a conditioned opinion than the opinion that the universe is perfect. What we're talking about here is not an intellectual perspective; it is either (1) a realization that our usual concepts about the cosmos are false, or (2) a direct perception. The word "perfection" closely captures the sense of what is revealed in either case. SomeNothing often uses an apt phrase in this regard. He will refer to something that has happened as being "perfectly so." This phrase can apply equally to things that are usually regarded as "negative" or "positive."
|
|
|
Post by steven on Aug 8, 2014 13:18:51 GMT -5
All 'Understandings' are imperfect, but there is a perfection to this too. What is the perfection? In some ways, the universe, or at least your experience of it, is made manifest by the imperfectness of understanding.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 8, 2014 14:04:16 GMT -5
Metaphorically speaking, the Garden of Eden is always present. Symbolically, Adam and Eve were banished from the garden after they ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge (began to imagine separation and became self-conscious). One might say that imagining separation is the original sin. True, but even the belief in separation is just another natural part of the garden. Not in the metaphor ZD referred to. True believers in separation get kicked out of the garden and made to suffer.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 8, 2014 14:12:18 GMT -5
oh dear, I'm confused again -- aren't you two saying the same thing and then questioning it?! No, I'm saying that the perspective which holds that the universe is perfect may be no less a conditioned opinion than the opinion that the universe is perfect. Hard to argue with that. I think your second perfect was imperfect?
|
|
|
Post by steven on Aug 8, 2014 14:28:22 GMT -5
True, but even the belief in separation is just another natural part of the garden. Not in the metaphor ZD referred to. True believers in separation get kicked out of the garden and made to suffer. I have a slightly different take away. They ate of the Tree of Knowledge, not of Separation, and suffering was one result. ;-) I don't think that Separation begins with belief, it begins with a perceived experience, that is an illusion of perspective, and eventually one accepts the illusion to be real, due in no small part to their direct experience. When we are children, the 'I Am', or the center of localized presence from which attention is focussed and directed, kinda coalesces as we mature from infancy into childhood. As we do so, the paradigm of observer and observed emerges, and a direct experience of separation, i.e. the perceived separation of observer and observed occurs. We observe a thing to Know a thing, and this process is the 'eating from the tree of knowledge'. This trying to Know a thing from the center of directed attention which is the sense of 'I am', is the original 'sin' so to speak. This creates an actual EXPERIENCE of separation, which, if maintained long enough, can cause one to BELIEVE that their individuated perspective is a kind of separation from what they observe and know. Prolonged attachment to knowing and observing from an individuated perspective, leads to a belief in the actuality of separateness. Because if thats the only experience you allow yourself, then the only evidence you have is your own experience. The belief in separateness is the perfectly rational response to one's most common direct experience, and reasoning it away will not do. One needs to shift their perspective to see through the illusion. Thats what most meditative practices are about. Most people live life holding firmly to a seat, or center of localized consciousness, from which attention is directed and focussed, and knowledge ensues, along with a perception of separation. Unfortunately, suffering is a common result. But suffering can only exists within the confines of a self created individuated perspective. In the vastness of center-less consciousness, suffering has no place to land and take root.
|
|
|
Post by silver on Aug 8, 2014 15:50:21 GMT -5
Not in the metaphor ZD referred to. True believers in separation get kicked out of the garden and made to suffer. I have a slightly different take away. They ate of the Tree of Knowledge, not of Separation, and suffering was one result. ;-) I don't think that Separation begins with belief, it begins with a perceived experience, that is an illusion of perspective, and eventually one accepts the illusion to be real, due in no small part to their direct experience. When we are children, the 'I Am', or the center of localized presence from which attention is focussed and directed, kinda coalesces as we mature from infancy into childhood. As we do so, the paradigm of observer and observed emerges, and a direct experience of separation, i.e. the perceived separation of observer and observed occurs. We observe a thing to Know a thing, and this process is the 'eating from the tree of knowledge'. This trying to Know a thing from the center of directed attention which is the sense of 'I am', is the original 'sin' so to speak. This creates an actual EXPERIENCE of separation, which, if maintained long enough, can cause one to BELIEVE that their individuated perspective is a kind of separation from what they observe and know. Prolonged attachment to knowing and observing from an individuated perspective, leads to a belief in the actuality of separateness. Because if thats the only experience you allow yourself, then the only evidence you have is your own experience. The belief in separateness is the perfectly rational response to one's most common direct experience, and reasoning it away will not do. One needs to shift their perspective to see through the illusion. Thats what most meditative practices are about. Most people live life holding firmly to a seat, or center of localized consciousness, from which attention is directed and focussed, and knowledge ensues, along with a perception of separation. Unfortunately, suffering is a common result. But suffering can only exists within the confines of a self created individuated perspective. In the vastness of center-less consciousness, suffering has no place to land and take root. Wow, steve, that was beautiful.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Aug 8, 2014 16:54:30 GMT -5
isn't "perfection" just a concept? ... another imaginary condition for the mind to prattle on about? Of course, but here we're trying to use words to point to something beyond concepts. When the discriminating mind/intellect drops away, what the word/concept "perfection" points to sometimes becomes obvious. As long as the mind is engaged in trying to 'point beyond' its own capacity, it will 'think' what that individual thinker believes is 'obvious', should be obvious to everyone.. the word 'perfection' points to what the user understands the word to mean, and that specific meaning is only obvious to that specific experiencer.. the capacity for mind to imagine its preferred meaning onto the stories of others is illustrated eloquently here: I understand that the idea of 'beyond mind', is itself a creation of mind.. a dependence on a phrase/meaning signifying the user's belief in their special experience/understanding.. what you understand as 'beyond mind' i understand as 'clarity of mind'.. all experience plays-out onto, into, and through mind's interface, hence your ability to relate ideas like 'beyond mind'.. mind is the 'Rosetta Stone' of physical existence, understanding it rather than rejecting it is the key.. i sense that when some people experience through the clarity of a still mind's awareness, they 'think' the experience is 'beyond mind'..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2014 17:01:43 GMT -5
No, I'm saying that the perspective which holds that the universe is perfect may be no less a conditioned opinion than the opinion that the universe is perfect. Hard to argue with that. I think your second perfect was imperfect? Just read the mistake. Yes I meant imperfect.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 8, 2014 17:14:54 GMT -5
So what do we all think of this idea I just had? The universe is a 'garden' that eternally blooms with effortless perfection and completeness in Reality's 'outside', from the eternal seed that is Realities 'inside' (THIS 'experiencing' THIS). ALL 'things' are included in this garden. This, to me, is non-duality. Metaphorically speaking, the Garden of Eden is always present. Symbolically, Adam and Eve were banished from the garden after they ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge (began to imagine separation and became self-conscious). One might say that imagining separation is the original sin. Which sounds alot like falling into the ignorance of one's true nature.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 8, 2014 17:28:05 GMT -5
oh dear, I'm confused again -- aren't you two saying the same thing and then questioning it?! No, I'm saying that the perspective which holds that the universe is perfect may be no less a conditioned opinion than the opinion that the universe is perfect. It could be if someone is leaning on the idea as a way of coping with the world rather than trying to express something that is ultimately inexpressible. As you've reasoned, if there is perfection then there is imperfection, and in the case where someone is stating the perfection of totality absent a conditioned opinion, what they mean by perfection isn't subject to an opposite. It's the same pattern that happens when any one of a number of other words are used to point: peace, love, stillness, silence, joy, spaciousness, etc... Perfection is a pointer that gets lots of folk nauseous. It's not worth spinnin' on if you don't like it, just throw it away!
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 8, 2014 17:29:37 GMT -5
isn't "perfection" just a concept? ... another imaginary condition for the mind to prattle on about? Of course, but here we're trying to use words to point to something beyond concepts. When the discriminating mind/intellect drops away, what the word/concept "perfection" points to sometimes becomes obvious. Purrrfectly stated.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2014 18:12:11 GMT -5
No, I'm saying that the perspective which holds that the universe is perfect may be no less a conditioned opinion than the opinion that the universe is perfect. It could be if someone is leaning on the idea as a way of coping with the world rather than trying to express something that is ultimately inexpressible. As you've reasoned, if there is perfection then there is imperfection, and in the case where someone is stating the perfection of totality absent a conditioned opinion, what they mean by perfection isn't subject to an opposite. It's the same pattern that happens when any one of a number of other words are used to point: peace, love, stillness, silence, joy, spaciousness, etc... Perfection is a pointer that gets lots of folk nauseous. It's not worth spinnin' on if you don't like it, just throw it away! My definition of perfection may be narrower than others. I just don't see perfection in the chaotic unfolding of the universe. But of course I'm not very speerichool and hardly a mystic, though for many long years now I've read the mystical literature from a large variety of expounders. Must be a defect in my cognitive abilities. I just don't get it.
|
|
|
Post by silver on Aug 8, 2014 18:28:32 GMT -5
No, I'm saying that the perspective which holds that the universe is perfect may be no less a conditioned opinion than the opinion that the universe is perfect. It could be if someone is leaning on the idea as a way of coping with the world rather than trying to express something that is ultimately inexpressible. As you've reasoned, if there is perfection then there is imperfection, and in the case where someone is stating the perfection of totality absent a conditioned opinion, what they mean by perfection isn't subject to an opposite. It's the same pattern that happens when any one of a number of other words are used to point: peace, love, stillness, silence, joy, spaciousness, etc... Perfection is a pointer that gets lots of folk nauseous. It's not worth spinnin' on if you don't like it, just throw it away! Well, if one is wont to spinnin' on, I think steve did a fine job of it.
|
|
|
Post by silver on Aug 8, 2014 18:33:05 GMT -5
It could be if someone is leaning on the idea as a way of coping with the world rather than trying to express something that is ultimately inexpressible. As you've reasoned, if there is perfection then there is imperfection, and in the case where someone is stating the perfection of totality absent a conditioned opinion, what they mean by perfection isn't subject to an opposite. It's the same pattern that happens when any one of a number of other words are used to point: peace, love, stillness, silence, joy, spaciousness, etc... Perfection is a pointer that gets lots of folk nauseous. It's not worth spinnin' on if you don't like it, just throw it away! My definition of perfection may be narrower than others. I just don't see perfection in the chaotic unfolding of the universe. But of course I'm not very speerichool and hardly a mystic, though for many long years now I've read the mystical literature from a large variety of expounders. Must be a defect in my cognitive abilities. I just don't get it.I think that's a rational thought, so I guess I can't help but agree with you there.......plus I don't get it either, but I'm not adverse to playing along sometimes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2014 18:43:56 GMT -5
My definition of perfection may be narrower than others. I just don't see perfection in the chaotic unfolding of the universe. But of course I'm not very speerichool and hardly a mystic, though for many long years now I've read the mystical literature from a large variety of expounders. Must be a defect in my cognitive abilities. I just don't get it.I think that's a rational thought, so I guess I can't help but agree with you there.......plus I don't get it either, but I'm not adverse to playing along sometimes. The other thing I don't understand is how anyone can claim a perspective on the universe that includes all events. No one has ever seen the whole enchilada, so how do they pronounce it's perfection? I've never once heard a trained physicist, someone who actually studies the universe, bloviate about its perfection.
|
|