|
Post by justlikeyou on Sept 20, 2014 21:28:02 GMT -5
An interesting subject found on the The Noetic Discussion forum:"The basic principle of Advaita philosophy is that the we are one with the Divine -- nondifferent from the Divine or God. For example, President Barack Obama is an American, and his citizens are also American. So there is no difference between the citizens and the president as far as being American is concerned. In that sense they are one. But at the same time, a citizen is not the president. That they are American does not mean a citizen is on an equal level with the president. Similarly, we are all qualitatively one with the Divine. The word qualitatively means that whatever we have as spirit souls, the Divine also has. There is no difference in quality. For example, suppose we take a drop of water from the vast Atlantic Ocean and you chemically analyze the ingredients. The composition of the drop of water is the same as the composition of the vast Atlantic Ocean. So qualitatively the drop of water is equal to the vast mass of water in the Atlantic Ocean." "Similarly, we are a spirit soul, a spark of the supreme spirit soul, God. You have all the spiritual qualities that God has. But God is great, you are minute. He is infinite, you are infinitesimal. So you and God are qualitatively one but quantitatively different. Those who are simply accepting the feature of being qualitatively one with God — they are called advaita-vadis. They forget that quantitatively they cannot be equal to the Divine. If the living entity is quantitatively equal to God, then why is he conditioned by this world? Because the living entity's constitutional position is infinitesimal, he is prone to be caught up by the influence of illusion. How could he be caught by illusion if he is also the Supreme Divine Being? Then illusion would be greater than the Divine. These things are to be considered. So it is inconceivable the simultaneous oneness and difference between the Divine and the living entity. We are qualitatively one with God, but quantitatively we are different. Avaita-vada (oneness) and dvaita-vada (difference) are both true. We are nondifferent from the Divine in quality, but different in quantity."
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 20, 2014 22:18:17 GMT -5
An interesting subject found on the The Noetic Discussion forum:"The basic principle of Advaita philosophy is that the we are one with the Divine -- nondifferent from the Divine or God. For example, President Barack Obama is an American, and his citizens are also American. So there is no difference between the citizens and the president as far as being American is concerned. In that sense they are one. But at the same time, a citizen is not the president. That they are American does not mean a citizen is on an equal level with the president. Similarly, we are all qualitatively one with the Divine. The word qualitatively means that whatever we have as spirit souls, the Divine also has. There is no difference in quality. For example, suppose we take a drop of water from the vast Atlantic Ocean and you chemically analyze the ingredients. The composition of the drop of water is the same as the composition of the vast Atlantic Ocean. So qualitatively the drop of water is equal to the vast mass of water in the Atlantic Ocean." "Similarly, we are a spirit soul, a spark of the supreme spirit soul, God. You have all the spiritual qualities that God has. But God is great, you are minute. He is infinite, you are infinitesimal. So you and God are qualitatively one but quantitatively different. Those who are simply accepting the feature of being qualitatively one with God — they are called advaita-vadis. They forget that quantitatively they cannot be equal to the Divine. If the living entity is quantitatively equal to God, then why is he conditioned by this world? Because the living entity's constitutional position is infinitesimal, he is prone to be caught up by the influence of illusion. How could he be caught by illusion if he is also the Supreme Divine Being? Then illusion would be greater than the Divine. These things are to be considered. So it is inconceivable the simultaneous oneness and difference between the Divine and the living entity. We are qualitatively one with God, but quantitatively we are different. Avaita-vada (oneness) and dvaita-vada (difference) are both true. We are nondifferent from the Divine in quality, but different in quantity." The author uses the device of referring to the reader ("you") as a person separate from God. Not to disparage theism, but it is not what the word nondual points to. Nor does the pointing imply that the individual is God. Nondual points to an absence, and one manifestation of that absence is an absence of limitation. What you are isn't limited in the sense that the author describes.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 20, 2014 23:43:03 GMT -5
An interesting subject found on the The Noetic Discussion forum:"The basic principle of Advaita philosophy is that the we are one with the Divine -- nondifferent from the Divine or God. For example, President Barack Obama is an American, and his citizens are also American. So there is no difference between the citizens and the president as far as being American is concerned. In that sense they are one. But at the same time, a citizen is not the president. That they are American does not mean a citizen is on an equal level with the president. Similarly, we are all qualitatively one with the Divine. The word qualitatively means that whatever we have as spirit souls, the Divine also has. There is no difference in quality. For example, suppose we take a drop of water from the vast Atlantic Ocean and you chemically analyze the ingredients. The composition of the drop of water is the same as the composition of the vast Atlantic Ocean. So qualitatively the drop of water is equal to the vast mass of water in the Atlantic Ocean." "Similarly, we are a spirit soul, a spark of the supreme spirit soul, God. You have all the spiritual qualities that God has. But God is great, you are minute. He is infinite, you are infinitesimal. So you and God are qualitatively one but quantitatively different. Those who are simply accepting the feature of being qualitatively one with God — they are called advaita-vadis. They forget that quantitatively they cannot be equal to the Divine. If the living entity is quantitatively equal to God, then why is he conditioned by this world? Because the living entity's constitutional position is infinitesimal, he is prone to be caught up by the influence of illusion. How could he be caught by illusion if he is also the Supreme Divine Being? Then illusion would be greater than the Divine. These things are to be considered. So it is inconceivable the simultaneous oneness and difference between the Divine and the living entity. We are qualitatively one with God, but quantitatively we are different. Avaita-vada (oneness) and dvaita-vada (difference) are both true. We are nondifferent from the Divine in quality, but different in quantity." There's a fundamental misunderstanding of what oneness refers to. It doesn't mean "qualitatively one". It means 'not two'. There is not God, and then man. "He is infinite, you are infinitesimal." How would that be possible? The infinite would also include the infinitesimal, and in fact it does.
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Sept 21, 2014 8:31:47 GMT -5
How would that be possible? The infinite would also include the infinitesimal, and in fact it does. The still, deep ocean is one manifestation but contains, surface disturbances like waves, drops and spray that are small, time-bound, unique expressions of the one ocean, even as they are constitutionally identical with the ocean, while the ocean, in its absolute depth and wholeness, can not be said to be a limited expression. So, it can be said that the drop is ocean while it can not be said that the ocean is the drop, even if compositionally identical. Same but different, no? And if not, why not?
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Sept 21, 2014 8:57:09 GMT -5
How would that be possible? The infinite would also include the infinitesimal, and in fact it does. The still, deep ocean is one manifestation but contains, surface disturbances like waves, drops and spray that are small, time-bound, unique expressions of the one ocean, even as they are constitutionally identical with the ocean, while the ocean, in its absolute depth and wholeness, can not be said to be a limited expression. So, it can be said that the drop is ocean while it can not be said that the ocean is the drop, even if compositionally identical. Same but different, no? And if not, why not? Yes.. both conditions,oneness/manyness, exist simultaneously, either and/or both manifesting by virtue of the experiencer's attention/intention..
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Sept 21, 2014 10:05:37 GMT -5
How would that be possible? The infinite would also include the infinitesimal, and in fact it does. The still, deep ocean is one manifestation but contains, surface disturbances like waves, drops and spray that are small, time-bound, unique expressions of the one ocean, even as they are constitutionally identical with the ocean, while the ocean, in its absolute depth and wholeness, can not be said to be a limited expression. So, it can be said that the drop is ocean while it can not be said that the ocean is the drop, even if compositionally identical. Same but different, no? And if not, why not? The drops are the ocean. The ocean is the drops. There is no separate thing that is an ocean and different separate things that are drops. Any apparent difference comes from mind/perception (very useful for functioning, btw), but is not actually true.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Sept 21, 2014 10:20:48 GMT -5
The still, deep ocean is one manifestation but contains, surface disturbances like waves, drops and spray that are small, time-bound, unique expressions of the one ocean, even as they are constitutionally identical with the ocean, while the ocean, in its absolute depth and wholeness, can not be said to be a limited expression. So, it can be said that the drop is ocean while it can not be said that the ocean is the drop, even if compositionally identical. Same but different, no? And if not, why not? The drops are the ocean. The ocean is the drops. There is no separate thing that is an ocean and different separate things that are drops. Any apparent difference comes from mind/perception (very useful for functioning, btw), but is not actually true. The ocean didn't fall on the lawn yesterday, raindrops did.. there were no whales or lobsters in those drops, that simplicity doesn't play well to the mind's desire for self-importance.. it is what it is, raindrops are not oceans and oceans are not raindrops, except in the mind's imagination..
|
|
|
Post by silver on Sept 21, 2014 10:33:05 GMT -5
An interesting thing is that, whether there's only one or two drops of water or many, there's tremendous power, either way - depending on the situation. A drop or two of water can cleanse your eye, a fine mist of water on the highway can cause your car to hydroplane, a small bunch can make a puddle, concealing the pothole, etc.
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Sept 21, 2014 10:33:22 GMT -5
Has there ever been the experience of a still ocean?
Waves happen, and only fleetingly.
What remains?
----------------------------------------------
I have scuba dived in nasty storms. While there were currents to contend with at times near the reefs, you could look up and see the tumult of the waves. The interesting experiences of that observation were especially so in the deep stillness of the ocean, imagining what life was like up on the surface, in the boat.
The analogies...poetic.
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Sept 21, 2014 11:29:40 GMT -5
The drops are the ocean. The ocean is the drops. There is no separate thing that is an ocean and different separate things that are drops. Any apparent difference comes from mind/perception (very useful for functioning, btw), but is not actually true. The ocean didn't fall on the lawn yesterday, raindrops did.. there were no whales or lobsters in those drops, that simplicity doesn't play well to the mind's desire for self-importance.. it is what it is, raindrops are not oceans and oceans are not raindrops, except in the mind's imagination.. Let's just stay in one metaphor for a second...drops and ocean. Just for a second. If you remove the ocean, where are the drops? If you remove the drops, where is the ocean? It's just a simple little metaphor that nicely describes non-separation. Expanding the metaphor like you did makes for a much more complex conversation. In my experience, complexity moves further away from seeing something as simple as non-separation. Then we get to start talking about how fundamentally rain is no different than our bodies which are fundamentally no different than the cosmos. Lots of fodder for debate there. The ocean metaphor, in its simplicity, points to something that can ring true in our hearts. It's below-the-neck stuff.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2014 11:32:02 GMT -5
The ocean didn't fall on the lawn yesterday, raindrops did.. there were no whales or lobsters in those drops, that simplicity doesn't play well to the mind's desire for self-importance.. it is what it is, raindrops are not oceans and oceans are not raindrops, except in the mind's imagination.. Let's just stay in one metaphor for a second...drops and ocean. Just for a second. If you remove the ocean, where are the drops? If you remove the drops, where is the ocean? It's just a simple little metaphor that nicely describes non-separation. Expanding the metaphor like you did makes for a much more complex conversation. In my experience, complexity moves further away from seeing something as simple as non-separation. Then we get to start talking about how fundamentally rain is no different than our bodies which are fundamentally no different than the cosmos. Lots of fodder for debate there. The ocean metaphor, in its simplicity, points to something that can ring true in our hearts. It's below-the-neck stuff. Would something like- The whole ocean is within each drop, be any good?
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Sept 21, 2014 11:34:13 GMT -5
Let's just stay in one metaphor for a second...drops and ocean. Just for a second. If you remove the ocean, where are the drops? If you remove the drops, where is the ocean? It's just a simple little metaphor that nicely describes non-separation. Expanding the metaphor like you did makes for a much more complex conversation. In my experience, complexity moves further away from seeing something as simple as non-separation. Then we get to start talking about how fundamentally rain is no different than our bodies which are fundamentally no different than the cosmos. Lots of fodder for debate there. The ocean metaphor, in its simplicity, points to something that can ring true in our hearts. It's below-the-neck stuff. Would something like- The whole ocean is within each drop, be any good? What does that mean to you?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2014 11:36:10 GMT -5
Would something like- The whole ocean is within each drop, be any good? What does that mean to you? Everything.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 21, 2014 11:41:31 GMT -5
How would that be possible? The infinite would also include the infinitesimal, and in fact it does. The still, deep ocean is one manifestation but contains, surface disturbances like waves, drops and spray that are small, time-bound, unique expressions of the one ocean, even as they are constitutionally identical with the ocean, while the ocean, in its absolute depth and wholeness, can not be said to be a limited expression. So, it can be said that the drop is ocean while it can not be said that the ocean is the drop, even if compositionally identical. Same but different, no? And if not, why not? Well, part of infinity cannot be other than infinity itself. Not just constitutionally identical. The metaphor of the drop separate from the ocean is not a metaphor for the infinite because the drop is physically separate from the ocean, and the metaphor is a physical one. Though perhaps the wave is a good metaphor. The wave is not other than the ocean in motion. The physical distinction is arbitrary as there's no place where the ocean ends and the wave begins, so there's no real temptation to say the wave is not the ocean itself.
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Sept 21, 2014 11:43:03 GMT -5
What does that mean to you? Everything. Maybe some day you'll expand on that, eh? Meanwhile...
|
|