|
Post by laughter on Sept 5, 2014 13:35:33 GMT -5
Both many and one is false, bad, evil, wrong and any other spiritually incorrect term that fits here. Mean frog that doesn't like peeps!
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 5, 2014 13:51:40 GMT -5
As I said in my post above in edit: I don't speak of "The" One, that just doesn't resonate, nor does the idea of 'summation.' To me, Oneness or One, is not a thing that could be a 'sum' of anything else..it's experiencial...best way to describe, One is the 'fabric' of isness...the well-spring of all else that can be perceived....Oneness pervades... (IS) everything, without boundary. Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/3749/hey-sharon-hope-hear-again?page=15#ixzz3CSsAi4hLA common theme for you is that experience is self validating (face value, no need to question truth or falsity, reveling in plastic flowers, your version of full circle, and the like). So while pretty much everybody else is trying to see through the illusion, you're busy trying to validate it.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 5, 2014 13:58:18 GMT -5
Both many and one is false, bad, evil, wrong and any other spiritually incorrect term that fits here. Mean frog that doesn't like peeps! Peeps cut off frog legs and eat em, so frog cuts off peeps head. It only seems fair.
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 5, 2014 14:29:34 GMT -5
This gets us closer to the difference between the 'both separate and one' philosophy that comes up regularly here, and what is being pointed to as oneness. Oneness is not experiential, and the belief that it is may lead one to accept the experience of separation as equally valid, hencely the 'both one and many' belief since the experience of both is being created. The lines you draw between "realization" and experiential are in my estimation, far too stark. IN referencing 'an experiential understanding' of oneness, I'm not referencing a particular, singular experience. That said, there are indeed, in my experience, (hehe) singular experiences that go hand in hand with what you are terming "realization." All realizations have an experiential component in that they color 'the way' life is seen and experienced, thereon after. The experience of life, following realization, shifts. And if not, I'd suggest that what one believes they have 'realized' is actually just a conceptual understanding. of course it's recognized. That said, absence of boundary can be realized, and thus, experience itself takes on a different quality/essence. I do get it, that so long as experience is happening, there is some contraction/boundary making that possible. Experience itself, could be said to equal limit or contraction. Again..not 'an' experience of Oneness,...but rather, Oneness is experiential. The difference is actually quite vast. That said, I'd surmise to say there are plenty of folks who have had 'glimpses' of Oneness, (a glimmer that came and went) and I wouldn't quibble if they chose to call that 'an experience of' Oneness. It's the fact that you insist on calling that 'separation' and also using the word 'falsity' of that I question. You are very precise and rigid in your language. Do you not think it's possible to use other words and still be describing the same? I would agree that Oneness is something seen that changes the way life is experienced, and yes, the seeing through of boundaries is encompassed in that seeing, but I don't see that that necessarily leads to the conclusion that "separation is false." Why not: "Boundaries are seen through," or something that describes what happens, rather than an affirmative truth, and leave it at that? The statement; "Separation is false" is much too meaty....it's an affirmation of 'what is' and if something has fallen away, affirmation is headed in the wrong direction..a very pointy carrot indeed. You'd 'think' that..hey? Nope, no contradiction. Again though, 'both' would have to be experiential for someone to grasp how there could be none. Being okay with 'both' is an acknowledgement that life/experience happens through various perspectives and contexts.....with none being upheld over the other. The only reason we uphold any one vantage point over another is when there is still a residual fear of suffering in place. When that goes, validity is seen in all vantage points. There's no longer any need to adhere to any one in particular...to say, this is more of less 'true' than another. hehe..is that so? Bad how? There's all sorts of folks who would say 'both' who are living perfectly fulfilling lives. That's all that should really matter.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 5, 2014 14:58:35 GMT -5
This gets us closer to the difference between the 'both separate and one' philosophy that comes up regularly here, and what is being pointed to as oneness. Oneness is not experiential, and the belief that it is may lead one to accept the experience of separation as equally valid, hencely the 'both one and many' belief since the experience of both is being created. The lines you draw between "realization" and experiential are in my estimation, far too stark. IN referencing 'an experiential understanding' of oneness, I'm not referencing a particular, singular experience. That said, there are indeed, in my experience, (hehe) singular experiences that go hand in hand with what you are terming "realization." All realizations have an experiential component in that they color 'the way' life is seen and experienced, thereon after. The experience of life, following realization, shifts. And if not, I'd suggest that what one believes they have 'realized' is actually just a conceptual understanding. of course it's recognized. That said, absence of boundary can be realized, and thus, experience itself takes on a different quality/essence. I do get it, that so long as experience is happening, there is some contraction/boundary making that possible. Experience itself, could be said to equal limit or contraction. Again..not 'an' experience of Oneness,...but rather, Oneness is experiential. The difference is actually quite vast. That said, I'd surmise to say there are plenty of folks who have had 'glimpses' of Oneness, (a glimmer that came and went) and I wouldn't quibble if they chose to call that 'an experience of' Oneness. It's the fact that you insist on calling that 'separation' and also using the word 'falsity' of that I question. You are very precise and rigid in your language. Do you not think it's possible to use other words and still be describing the same? I would agree that Oneness is something seen that changes the way life is experienced, and yes, the seeing through of boundaries is encompassed in that seeing, but I don't see that that necessarily leads to the conclusion that "separation is false." Why not: "Boundaries are seen through," or something that describes what happens, rather than an affirmative truth, and leave it at that? The statement; "Separation is false" is much too meaty....it's an affirmation of 'what is' and if something has fallen away, affirmation is headed in the wrong direction..a very pointy carrot indeed. You'd 'think' that..hey? Nope, no contradiction. Again though, 'both' would have to be experiential for someone to grasp how there could be none. Being okay with 'both' is an acknowledgement that life/experience happens through various perspectives and contexts.....with none being upheld over the other. The only reason we uphold any one vantage point over another is when there is still a residual fear of suffering in place. When that goes, validity is seen in all vantage points. There's no longer any need to adhere to any one in particular...to say, this is more of less 'true' than another. hehe..is that so? Bad how? There's all sorts of folks who would say 'both' who are living perfectly fulfilling lives. That's all that should really matter. DWADaliciousness
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 5, 2014 15:00:00 GMT -5
Ok, so if the relationship between "Oneness" and "manyness" isn't a summation, what, if any is that relationship? Okay. Summation wasn't the right word. I was using that in place of 'sum total.' Sure, I'd venture to say most humans 'feel' themselves to be part of, or intrinsically tied to, something greater...I suspect the intricacies and particulars of this differ vastly though, along with the way it would be described. As for 'intimately interconnected' I can simultaneously see that there is no 'disconnect' for which to then become connected and there is also individuations that connect. Again 'both' applies. There's no favoring of vantage point here & I've been pondering alot why that is. I think to really fall in love with life, is to eventually come to deeply embrace the rather amazing fact that somehow, 'this' is all happening..that nothing is appearing as something!!!....it's regarded to be more of a miracle than an aberration or mistake, as it's sometimes regarded to be by folks who talk about physical experience being "JUST" an illusion and such. As such, the vantage point from which 'manyness' is seen, is not considered to be on a 'lesser' level than the vantage point from which Oneness is seen...and on an experiential level, that means "Both" simply "are.'
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 5, 2014 15:02:50 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 5, 2014 15:14:23 GMT -5
A common theme for you is that experience is self validating (face value, no need to question truth or falsity, reveling in plastic flowers, your version of full circle, and the like). So while pretty much everybody else is trying to see through the illusion, you're busy trying to validate it.Actually, I'm not 'trying' to DO anything, and this is a really important point. It's why truth and falsity regarding existential ideas is no longer important. When we stop 'trying' to see through, or validate, (which is really all about no longer feeling like we need to escape from and avoid suffering), there's no longer any impetus towards any particular vantage point. It's 'safe' to just stand still, and take it all as it comes.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 5, 2014 16:18:53 GMT -5
Of course, but that's not the same as having an experience of oneness.
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 5, 2014 16:38:29 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 5, 2014 17:21:08 GMT -5
Ok, so if the relationship between "Oneness" and "manyness" isn't a summation, what, if any is that relationship? Okay. Summation wasn't the right word. I was using that in place of 'sum total.' Sure, I'd venture to say most humans 'feel' themselves to be part of, or intrinsically tied to, something greater...I suspect the intricacies and particulars of this differ vastly though, along with the way it would be described. As for 'intimately interconnected' I can simultaneously see that there is no 'disconnect' for which to then become connected and there is also individuations that connect. Again 'both' applies. There's no favoring of vantage point here & I've been pondering alot why that is. I think to really fall in love with life, is to eventually come to deeply embrace the rather amazing fact that somehow, 'this' is all happening..that nothing is appearing as something!!!....it's regarded to be more of a miracle than an aberration or mistake, as it's sometimes regarded to be by folks who talk about physical experience being "JUST" an illusion and such. As such, the vantage point from which 'manyness' is seen, is not considered to be on a 'lesser' level than the vantage point from which Oneness is seen...and on an experiential level, that means "Both" simply "are.' Right, so what E' wrote here isn't something that you'd really deny (as you did at first) then: I actually see you saying pretty much the same thing i said above, when you say most folks believe they are independent, volitional and self directed. That's an incomplete description. I suggest most folks, if you took the time to ask and converse, actually do have some sense of being more than 'just' an independent, self directed being. Those perceived attributes do not necessary arise in segregation. ie; it's very possible to experience those things AND also see Oneness. again, I think the state of belief in full personal, individuated autonomy is vastly overstated. It's not the same at all, but given that you believe that oneness means all the parts interdependent and connected in various ways, it may seem that way to you. ... it's just that your expression of the relationship between the individuation and "Oneness" is expressed differently. As to the rest of what you wrote, some of that is entangled with descriptions of personal experience and reads very nicely, especially if one is reading only for emotion, but the one thing I'd mention is that there's no reason to negatively attach to the pointer that what appears to us is essentially void and formless. I've never read anyone seriously suggesting that pointer that refers to the physical world of sensation, emotion and though as a "mistake".
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 5, 2014 17:29:12 GMT -5
The lines you draw between "realization" and experiential are in my estimation, far too stark. IN referencing 'an experiential understanding' of oneness, I'm not referencing a particular, singular experience. That said, there are indeed, in my experience, (hehe) singular experiences that go hand in hand with what you are terming "realization." All realizations have an experiential component in that they color 'the way' life is seen and experienced, thereon after. The experience of life, following realization, shifts. And if not, I'd suggest that what one believes they have 'realized' is actually just a conceptual understanding. of course it's recognized. That said, absence of boundary can be realized, and thus, experience itself takes on a different quality/essence. I do get it, that so long as experience is happening, there is some contraction/boundary making that possible. Experience itself, could be said to equal limit or contraction. Again..not 'an' experience of Oneness,...but rather, Oneness is experiential. The difference is actually quite vast. That said, I'd surmise to say there are plenty of folks who have had 'glimpses' of Oneness, (a glimmer that came and went) and I wouldn't quibble if they chose to call that 'an experience of' Oneness. It's the fact that you insist on calling that 'separation' and also using the word 'falsity' of that I question. You are very precise and rigid in your language. Do you not think it's possible to use other words and still be describing the same? I would agree that Oneness is something seen that changes the way life is experienced, and yes, the seeing through of boundaries is encompassed in that seeing, but I don't see that that necessarily leads to the conclusion that "separation is false." Why not: "Boundaries are seen through," or something that describes what happens, rather than an affirmative truth, and leave it at that? The statement; "Separation is false" is much too meaty....it's an affirmation of 'what is' and if something has fallen away, affirmation is headed in the wrong direction..a very pointy carrot indeed. You'd 'think' that..hey? Nope, no contradiction. Again though, 'both' would have to be experiential for someone to grasp how there could be none. Being okay with 'both' is an acknowledgement that life/experience happens through various perspectives and contexts.....with none being upheld over the other. The only reason we uphold any one vantage point over another is when there is still a residual fear of suffering in place. When that goes, validity is seen in all vantage points. There's no longer any need to adhere to any one in particular...to say, this is more of less 'true' than another. hehe..is that so? Bad how? There's all sorts of folks who would say 'both' who are living perfectly fulfilling lives. That's all that should really matter. DWADaliciousness There's a bit of the killjoy set-up going on here because while I can't disagree with your statement that "Oneness is not experiential", the mind hook on this is that it is the experiences of ideas, emotions and other stimuli that eventually point a peep toward "Oneness". So anyone who values devotion or service, or sees the nobility of suffering, and still is in the process of informing mind, has the potential to set you up in opposition, as figgles does here, to the wonder and the beauty that's available in every moment in the realization of the absence of separation. For many in the audience, it won't matter that what's really on offer in the subtext is a preservation of that separation.
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 5, 2014 17:46:38 GMT -5
preservation of that separation. "celebration of individuation" would be more apt.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 5, 2014 18:25:01 GMT -5
preservation of that separation. "celebration of individuation" would be more apt. Perspective is entirely dependent on what it's on, and there's no attaching to an absence, only the imagination of attaching to the idea of it. Attachment to the trappings of individuation on the other hand, is as common as copper.
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 5, 2014 19:19:37 GMT -5
"celebration of individuation" would be more apt. Perspective is entirely dependent on what it's on, and there's no attaching to an absence, only the imagination of attaching to the idea of it. Attachment to the trappings of individuation on the other hand, is as common as copper. Celebrating individuality is a far cry from being attached to the trappings of individuation. Attachment to the trappings results in neediness. What I"m suggesting with the term "celebrating individuality' happens when emotional needs fall away.
|
|