|
Post by silence on Oct 5, 2014 21:54:46 GMT -5
SDP: The turtles metaphor is used not as a pointer to complexity but to the whole of reality and the mistake of imagining separate and/or complex aspects of reality. Physicists began asking, "What composes matter?" This question led them to the idea that matter is composed of atoms. They then asked, "Well, what composes atoms?" This question led them to the idea of protons, neutrons, and electrons. They then asked, "Well, what composes those three things?" This led them to the idea of muons, mesons, quarks, and a whole host of other imaginary components. Today, they are still asking the, "Well what composes_______?" but it's turtles all the way down. The turtles metaphor is pointing away from this kind of thinking so that the Wholeness underlying all ideas can be intuited or perceived directly.The complexity you are referring to is like a cartoon of a human body compared to the real thing. When oneness is seen, the idea of complexity becomes laughable in comparison. The human mind cannot comprehend the vastness of the One; it can only comprehend the idea of oneness. All of the statements about non-duality you made in this post have nothing to do with what is being pointed to. To understand, the mind must be left behind, at least temporarily. How does one get from here to there? Simply stop imagining, and incessant thinking will then cease to obscure the obvious. The truth cannot be imagined, and whatever is imagined takes the mind in the wrong direction. Psalms 46:10 says, "Be still and know (the Absolute)." It doesn't say, "Think and know."Hey, maybe that's what it really says, and it was just mistranslated. Hehe. Seems like I keep encountering the 'same substance' idea and the 'interconnected parts' idea to describe oneness. I actually used to think oneness was pretty self explanatory as a concept. It used to confuse me when peeps would ask to have it defined. Now I get what the problem is anyhoo. The blob is very persuasive.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 6, 2014 1:10:23 GMT -5
Hey, maybe that's what it really says, and it was just mistranslated. Hehe. Seems like I keep encountering the 'same substance' idea and the 'interconnected parts' idea to describe oneness. I actually used to think oneness was pretty self explanatory as a concept. It used to confuse me when peeps would ask to have it defined. Now I get what the problem is anyhoo. The blob is very persuasive. That's another one. The Almighty Oneness Blob.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 6, 2014 6:54:27 GMT -5
SDP: The turtles metaphor is used not as a pointer to complexity but to the whole of reality and the mistake of imagining separate and/or complex aspects of reality. Physicists began asking, "What composes matter?" This question led them to the idea that matter is composed of atoms. They then asked, "Well, what composes atoms?" This question led them to the idea of protons, neutrons, and electrons. They then asked, "Well, what composes those three things?" This led them to the idea of muons, mesons, quarks, and a whole host of other imaginary components. Today, they are still asking the, "Well what composes_______?" but it's turtles all the way down. The turtles metaphor is pointing away from this kind of thinking so that the Wholeness underlying all ideas can be intuited or perceived directly.The complexity you are referring to is like a cartoon of a human body compared to the real thing. When oneness is seen, the idea of complexity becomes laughable in comparison. The human mind cannot comprehend the vastness of the One; it can only comprehend the idea of oneness. All of the statements about non-duality you made in this post have nothing to do with what is being pointed to. To understand, the mind must be left behind, at least temporarily. How does one get from here to there? Simply stop imagining, and incessant thinking will then cease to obscure the obvious. The truth cannot be imagined, and whatever is imagined takes the mind in the wrong direction. Psalms 46:10 says, "Be still and know (the Absolute)." It doesn't say, "Think and know."Hey, maybe that's what it really says, and it was just mistranslated. Hehe. Seems like I keep encountering the 'same substance' idea and the 'interconnected parts' idea to describe oneness. I actually used to think oneness was pretty self explanatory as a concept. It used to confuse me when peeps would ask to have it defined. Now I get what the problem is anyhoo. (** muttley snicker **)
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Oct 6, 2014 9:27:46 GMT -5
Here's the image I came up with a few years ago. If you think you are wholly separate person, have someone padlock you in a walk-in refrigerator, and throw away the key, and see how that works for ya.......... However, from the non-dual perspective, I don't get the absolute emphasis on oneness (turtles only) vs complexity. Have you ever seen a whirlpool in a river? The non-dual perspective is like saying, there is no whirlpool, there is just a swirl of water. We're all made up of a certain combination of elements. The non-dual perspective is like saying that since we are all made up of the same elements, there is no separate you, no separate me. I'd rather look at the purpose and meaning of the separation and complexity rather than the origination via oneness. I can write down the letters, A,B,C,D..............W,X,Y,Z, and point out that all the books ever written in English are composed by combinations of those 26 letters. (Digital language goes even further to express everything by 1 & 0, essentially off and on). SO WHAT? The meaning of those books is not contained in the letters. The meaning of life comes from actual complexity. The meaning of the books comes from symbolic complexity. sdp SDP: The turtles metaphor is used not as a pointer to complexity but to the whole of reality and the mistake of imagining separate and/or complex aspects of reality. Physicists began asking, "What composes matter?" This question led them to the idea that matter is composed of atoms. They then asked, "Well, what composes atoms?" This question led them to the idea of protons, neutrons, and electrons. They then asked, "Well, what composes those three things?" This led them to the idea of muons, mesons, quarks, and a whole host of other imaginary components. Today, they are still asking the, "Well what composes_______?" but it's turtles all the way down. The turtles metaphor is pointing away from this kind of thinking so that the Wholeness underlying all ideas can be intuited or perceived directly. The complexity you are referring to is like a cartoon of a human body compared to the real thing. When oneness is seen, the idea of complexity becomes laughable in comparison. The human mind cannot comprehend the vastness of the One; it can only comprehend the idea of oneness. All of the statements about non-duality you made in this post have nothing to do with what is being pointed to. To understand, the mind must be left behind, at least temporarily. How does one get from here to there? Simply stop imagining, and incessant thinking will then cease to obscure the obvious. The truth cannot be imagined, and whatever is imagined takes the mind in the wrong direction. Psalms 46:10 says, "Be still and know (the Absolute)." It doesn't say, "Think and know." First of all, I don't get how you think I was using turtles to point to complexity, I specifically say turtles = oneness ("on oneness (turtles only) vs complexity"), I should think the word versu s would have eliminated doubt as to use here. So I think I was using the turtles metaphor in your context and so the explanation was unnecessary. .......As I was using turtles as you use it, the following story speaks to your use being correct, or not. In A Brief History of Time, 1988, Stephen Hawking relates where the turtles story comes from. "A well-known scientist (some say it was Bertrand Russell) once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the center of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy. At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: 'What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise.' The scientists gave a superior smile before replying, 'What is the tortoise standing on'? You're very clever, young man, very clever,' said the old lady. 'But it's turtles all the way down!' " (pg 1) I just checked, Wikipedia says Hawking's turtles story comes from William James. .............. The point I keep coming back to is the reason for and purpose of complexity. It's OK that you call it laughable, just call me Don Quixote. I just bumped what I guess should have been my last effort here, the thread, OK, So let's discuss what illusion means, without reading it all again I seem to recall you saying there isn't any ultimate meaning to all this. But you know what they say, One man's illusion is another man's treasure. sdp
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Oct 6, 2014 12:06:44 GMT -5
SDP: The turtles metaphor is used not as a pointer to complexity but to the whole of reality and the mistake of imagining separate and/or complex aspects of reality. Physicists began asking, "What composes matter?" This question led them to the idea that matter is composed of atoms. They then asked, "Well, what composes atoms?" This question led them to the idea of protons, neutrons, and electrons. They then asked, "Well, what composes those three things?" This led them to the idea of muons, mesons, quarks, and a whole host of other imaginary components. Today, they are still asking the, "Well what composes_______?" but it's turtles all the way down. The turtles metaphor is pointing away from this kind of thinking so that the Wholeness underlying all ideas can be intuited or perceived directly. The complexity you are referring to is like a cartoon of a human body compared to the real thing. When oneness is seen, the idea of complexity becomes laughable in comparison. The human mind cannot comprehend the vastness of the One; it can only comprehend the idea of oneness. All of the statements about non-duality you made in this post have nothing to do with what is being pointed to. To understand, the mind must be left behind, at least temporarily. How does one get from here to there? Simply stop imagining, and incessant thinking will then cease to obscure the obvious. The truth cannot be imagined, and whatever is imagined takes the mind in the wrong direction. Psalms 46:10 says, "Be still and know (the Absolute)." It doesn't say, "Think and know." First of all, I don't get how you think I was using turtles to point to complexity, I specifically say turtles = oneness ("on oneness (turtles only) vs complexity"), I should think the word versu s would have eliminated doubt as to use here. So I think I was using the turtles metaphor in your context and so the explanation was unnecessary. .......As I was using turtles as you use it, the following story speaks to your use being correct, or not. In A Brief History of Time, 1988, Stephen Hawking relates where the turtles story comes from. "A well-known scientist (some say it was Bertrand Russell) once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the center of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy. At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: 'What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise.' The scientists gave a superior smile before replying, 'What is the tortoise standing on'? You're very clever, young man, very clever,' said the old lady. 'But it's turtles all the way down!' " (pg 1) I just checked, Wikipedia says Hawking's turtles story comes from William James. .............. The point I keep coming back to is the reason for and purpose of complexity. It's OK that you call it laughable, just call me Don Quixote. I just bumped what I guess should have been my last effort here, the thread, OK, So let's discuss what illusion means, without reading it all again I seem to recall you saying there isn't any ultimate meaning to all this. But you know what they say, One man's illusion is another man's treasure. sdp SDP: I apologize if I misunderstood your reference to the turtles metaphor. I don't think I've ever said that there is no ultimate meaning to all of this; I've only said that any intellectually-ascribed meaning is a projection of the mind and therefore a movement in the wrong direction. There is a big difference between intellectual understanding and direct understanding, between intellectual knowing and direct knowing, and between intellectual meaning and direct meaning. Philosophers and scientists look at the world and try to understand what's going on using the dualistic structure of thought, but sages look at the world directly (without relying on thought) and therefore understand everything in a different way. Again, you cannot get from cartoons to reality using the mind; the mind only deals with cartoons and cartoons keep one focused on the false. You can only discover what is always here and now by seeing and interacting with the world directly. You can only discover the absolute by looking at the absolute in sufficient silence to burn through the illusions projected by mind. You can only discover the truth by leaving the false behind. Who are you? Where did you come from, and where are you going? What's going on? You cannot discover the absolute answers to these kinds of questions with the mind. The mind will keep you spinning in orbit and blind to the unmovable center of all. If you want to understand, you will have to leave philosophy, science, speculation, conjecture, and ideation behind.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 6, 2014 13:47:55 GMT -5
SDP: The turtles metaphor is used not as a pointer to complexity but to the whole of reality and the mistake of imagining separate and/or complex aspects of reality. Physicists began asking, "What composes matter?" This question led them to the idea that matter is composed of atoms. They then asked, "Well, what composes atoms?" This question led them to the idea of protons, neutrons, and electrons. They then asked, "Well, what composes those three things?" This led them to the idea of muons, mesons, quarks, and a whole host of other imaginary components. Today, they are still asking the, "Well what composes_______?" but it's turtles all the way down. The turtles metaphor is pointing away from this kind of thinking so that the Wholeness underlying all ideas can be intuited or perceived directly. The complexity you are referring to is like a cartoon of a human body compared to the real thing. When oneness is seen, the idea of complexity becomes laughable in comparison. The human mind cannot comprehend the vastness of the One; it can only comprehend the idea of oneness. All of the statements about non-duality you made in this post have nothing to do with what is being pointed to. To understand, the mind must be left behind, at least temporarily. How does one get from here to there? Simply stop imagining, and incessant thinking will then cease to obscure the obvious. The truth cannot be imagined, and whatever is imagined takes the mind in the wrong direction. Psalms 46:10 says, "Be still and know (the Absolute)." It doesn't say, "Think and know." First of all, I don't get how you think I was using turtles to point to complexity, I specifically say turtles = oneness ("on oneness (turtles only) vs complexity"), I should think the word versu s would have eliminated doubt as to use here. So I think I was using the turtles metaphor in your context and so the explanation was unnecessary. .......As I was using turtles as you use it, the following story speaks to your use being correct, or not. In A Brief History of Time, 1988, Stephen Hawking relates where the turtles story comes from. "A well-known scientist (some say it was Bertrand Russell) once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the center of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy. At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: 'What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise.' The scientists gave a superior smile before replying, 'What is the tortoise standing on'? You're very clever, young man, very clever,' said the old lady. 'But it's turtles all the way down!' " (pg 1) I just checked, Wikipedia says Hawking's turtles story comes from William James. .............. The point I keep coming back to is the reason for and purpose of complexity. It's OK that you call it laughable, just call me Don Quixote. I just bumped what I guess should have been my last effort here, the thread, OK, So let's discuss what illusion means, without reading it all again I seem to recall you saying there isn't any ultimate meaning to all this. But you know what they say, One man's illusion is another man's treasure. sdp Complexity is entirely mind-made, and if you want a complex, mind-made logical proof of that (and related to your own words, here), just let me know! However, from the non-dual perspective, I don't get the absolute emphasis on oneness (turtles only) vs complexity. Not two isn't "Oneness". The absence of separation and the absence of limitation don't refer to an integrated summation of the mind-made parts that seem to comprise what appears to us. You have taken nonduality to refer to a monism. If that's what you take nonduality to mean, then yes, it's just a gloss, and it's something that you should simply pay no mind, as it's obviously not worth your time or effort. Have you ever seen a whirlpool in a river? The non-dual perspective is like saying, there is no whirlpool, there is just a swirl of water. The whirlpool embodies a beautiful flowing elegance than can only ever at best be indirectly suggested by the word "whirlpool", the equations that would describe the phenomenon or even a picture of it. Some whirlpools are powerful enough that you'd want to keep your distance in the experience of them! The suggesting of leaving the mind behind to grasp the real meaning refers to this: you can't experience a whirlpool indirectly. To reiterate: there is a logical proof available to us that even demonstrates this. Not to say that it will hold any real meaning for you, but it is available if you want it.
|
|
|
Post by silver on Dec 20, 2014 17:16:03 GMT -5
After picking through the last few pages of this thread, some posts about this oneness 'deal' makes sense...not like my whole life I'd be incapable of grasping the concept without seeing it as a definite reality...like ZD's experience with the student who got the strange look on his face and asked 'what am I?' That was cool.
It's fun to explore our consciousness / mind / ideas.
But, as has been said many times in many ways previously, it doesn't make a difference in the end.
And yet, I think I've seen some say that it does make a difference, but in a way that I don't quite understand.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2015 13:00:06 GMT -5
[...] One moment of deep insight would show them that heaven is already present. It's just not the heaven that they usually imagine. If they could get the heaven that they imagine they want, they would soon recognize it as hell. Even 72 virgins or streets paved with gold would soon pale in comparison to THIS. Dear God, in case you read this forum, here's a message for you: ... please, PLEASE, teach me this horrible lesson of giving me what I want, so I can tire of it and then realize that this life is something wonderful and better than my imagined desires. Thx. How did you get on with your request?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2015 22:47:19 GMT -5
Dear God, in case you read this forum, here's a message for you: ... please, PLEASE, teach me this horrible lesson of giving me what I want, so I can tire of it and then realize that this life is something wonderful and better than my imagined desires. Thx. How did you get on with your request? God ignored me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2015 2:32:43 GMT -5
How did you get on with your request? God ignored me. How can you be sure?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2020 20:42:07 GMT -5
[...] One moment of deep insight would show them that heaven is already present. It's just not the heaven that they usually imagine. If they could get the heaven that they imagine they want, they would soon recognize it as hell. Even 72 virgins or streets paved with gold would soon pale in comparison to THIS. Dear God, in case you read this forum, here's a message for you: ... please, PLEASE, teach me this horrible lesson of giving me what I want, so I can tire of it and then realize that this life is something wonderful and better than my imagined desires. Thx. What do you want?
|
|
|
Post by amit on Dec 8, 2020 3:24:20 GMT -5
After picking through the last few pages of this thread, some posts about this oneness 'deal' makes sense...not like my whole life I'd be incapable of grasping the concept without seeing it as a definite reality...like ZD's experience with the student who got the strange look on his face and asked 'what am I?' That was cool. It's fun to explore our consciousness / mind / ideas. But, as has been said many times in many ways previously, it doesn't make a difference in the end. And yet, I think I've seen some say that it does make a difference, but in a way that I don't quite understand. Much has been written about the extent and capacity of the brain and mind. What is clear to most is that the full extent is not known. So to assume what brain/mind may be capable of, is a massive assumption. While that is undiscovered, what do we experience about the purpose and function of brain/mind? In the context of the spiritual search what conducts the search (including what path is selected in the spiritual supermarket). Niz says that it is mind that discovers, and do we not know this to be he case from our experience of what explores and discovers solutions to problems in life? So it would not be surprising if it's mind that has the capacity to discover, and resonate with, the solution to the problem of the spiritual search, and that it's mind that has the capacity to resonate with the solution that works for the character it constructed. As part of the solution, mind will allow the character to be seen as a construction, as long as it is retained as a defence/tool against rejection that mind constructed it to be. So to set the mind against itself would be very detrimental. Better to respect its capacity/abilities and let it get on with the process of solving the search, which could be selecting practise, or what Niz calls trusting that one is already what is sought, depending how mind sees which will suit best, the character it has constructed. Mind will not allow a practise that sets it the task of eliminating itself. If it cannot subvert that by repression/trickery, it may fragment the character (ego), resulting in mental health problems which are sometimes referred to as a split personality or a divided self. It is said by some that the mind is familiar with this process of breakdown, and will attempt to reconstruct the ego as a healing, during which much support will be required.
|
|
|
Post by amit on Dec 8, 2020 9:20:25 GMT -5
After picking through the last few pages of this thread, some posts about this oneness 'deal' makes sense...not like my whole life I'd be incapable of grasping the concept without seeing it as a definite reality...like ZD's experience with the student who got the strange look on his face and asked 'what am I?' That was cool. It's fun to explore our consciousness / mind / ideas. But, as has been said many times in many ways previously, it doesn't make a difference in the end. And yet, I think I've seen some say that it does make a difference, but in a way that I don't quite understand. Much has been written about the extent and capacity of the brain and mind. What is clear to most is that the full extent is not known. So to assume what brain/mind may be capable of, is a massive assumption. While that is undiscovered, what do we experience about the purpose and function of brain/mind? In the context of the spiritual search what conducts the search (including what path is selected in the spiritual supermarket). Niz says that it is mind that discovers, and do we not know this to be he case from our experience of what explores and discovers solutions to problems in life? So it would not be surprising if it's mind that has the capacity to discover, and resonate with, the solution to the problem of the spiritual search, and that it's mind that has the capacity to resonate with the solution that works for the character it constructed. As part of the solution, mind will allow the character to be seen as a construction, as long as it is retained as a defence/tool against rejection that mind constructed it to be. So to set the mind against itself would be very detrimental. Better to respect its capacity/abilities and let it get on with the process of solving the search, which could be selecting practise, or what Niz calls trusting that one is already what is sought, depending how mind sees which will suit best, the character it has constructed. Mind will not allow a practise that sets it the task of eliminating itself. If it cannot subvert that by repression/trickery, it may fragment the character (ego), resulting in mental health problems which are sometimes referred to as a split personality or a divided self. It is said by some that the mind is familiar with this process of breakdown, and will attempt to reconstruct the character (ego) as a healing, during which much support will be required.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 8, 2020 15:15:08 GMT -5
Dear God, in case you read this forum, here's a message for you: ... please, PLEASE, teach me this horrible lesson of giving me what I want, so I can tire of it and then realize that this life is something wonderful and better than my imagined desires. Thx. What do you want? Oh dear, you dug up an old one. I may answer later, but I need to get some work done now. By the way, I appreciated your kind words and the poem shared in the other thread.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 8, 2020 17:44:34 GMT -5
Oh dear, you dug up an old one. I may answer later, but I need to get some work done now. By the way, I appreciated your kind words and the poem shared in the other thread. Yeah, I admit I was doing a bit of a dumpster dive There's no real need to answer openly in here. I asked it more as an opportunity. To ask Cosmic Intelligence to give you what you want is to assume that it knows. What if it doesn't? If you want anything outside of what is happening now, then you have to know what that is. If you want the eyes to see that this moment is perfect in it's entirety, then yes, stepping back and letting God reveal that is possible. It's also worth remembering that any door that you want opening has its handle on the inside. Some might say that they've been locked from the inside, though that would indicate the forging of a key. I believe that you've already unlocked them. ~*~ You're most welcome.
|
|