|
Post by andrew on Jan 29, 2015 5:38:01 GMT -5
It is what it is regardless of how one perceives it. It seems to define oneness. Two of what you are?? ... and that is your perception of how 'it is' . It isn't even 'what it is', unless one perceives it as such . How have you concluded that 'it is what it is' without relating to it in that way through your own perception of it? When niz said I am that, he concluded I am that through his own perception of self . If anything, perhaps it would be rather I am not even that, and What is, isn't even what is . I would however agree if there is only what you are it seems to define oneness or at the very least point to it but I must also keep pointing to the realization of what you are that is neither one nor separate but rather 'there is just what you are' . A dot on a page can mean many things to many people, it might mean nothing at all to some . There is no-one that pays any comparison to what individuality is nor what oneness is within the realization these are all comparisons what we are has of it's self of the mind . Oneness or separation has been on the lips of many throughout the ages I am suggesting there can be two or a million 'of what we are' without being separate or as one . It might not make sense because we are normally either relating what we are as one or separate . I resonate with this, though you are right that what you are saying already presupposes and is suggestive of 'oneness'. I see what you are saying as somewhat similar to what I am saying when I say that 'oneness' is all inclusive...it means that it's all about perception.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jan 29, 2015 6:09:13 GMT -5
Given your preferences for mental models, yes it can be both.. but, if you were to let go of those models, you would realize it is neither.. your preference for the model of oneness simultaneously creates separateness, which nobody is talking about separateness, anyway, until someone else starts on about oneness.. nondualists choose the oneness model and then look for converts by any means, including confrontation.. most seekers are open to various understandings, like 'pieces of a puzzle', and are willing to set aside models for a clearer experience of their existence.. for some reason, nondualists insist that their 'piece of the puzzle' is superior to the other pieces, and they reject all but their own interpretation of what is happening, sometimes with 'off-putting' tactics.. You say oneness is all there is, but cannot actually account for the separation that exists except by saying it's not real.. but, there you are, 'saying' it's not real TO what you say 'is not real', always armed with the escape clause: 'you don't understand'.. Nothing, at all, changes when you stop believing in oneness.. stop believing in separation, though, grab onto 'live' 440 volt 3 phase power wire, you'll insist on separation immediately.. oneness and separation are models in your mind, ideologies, not pointers.. help the seeker learn to travel, then whichever journey they take they'll understand where they are.. You say it is neither oneness nor separation, but rather both oneness and separation. Your reasoning is flawed. Doood, just let go.. you are so stuck in the Brown Bear Trap (BBT) that letting go is not an option for you.. IF you are going to rely on mental models for your understanding of what's happening, the comparative mental models are created simultaneously, i.e.: the oneness/separation models, those models exist, but.. nothing changes when you let them go, other than you lose the conflicts and confrontations you thrive on..
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jan 29, 2015 6:21:56 GMT -5
Hi andrew, I can see why you asked that question. I'm kind of twisted so I will twist enigmas response and you can let me know what you think... Oneness includes the idea of oneness. The idea appears, actual oneness does not. It's a bit ironic, in that, that which appears(separation) is not actual, and that which doesn't appear(Oneness) is actual.I don't actually like the word separation, it sounds so permanent. I prefer the word separated, it leaves the door open for a retracement back to Oneness. Separation is the objectification of appearances, and so appearances are not inherently separate. They are simply appearances appearing to the senses or the mind. (as thought/feeling) For oneness to appear, it would have to be determined to be an object of perception, and of course that's not what oneness refers to, though some do indeed talk about 'the oneness' as they erroneously objectify it. In this way, oneness can appear to appear, just as separation appears to appear. In actuality, they are both abstractions of mind that appear only in the thoughts. You just can't take that last step to freedom and liberation, let that conceptual attachment to the idea of oneness go.. There IS what you 'think' oneness points to, and there is what you 'think' separation points to.. they come and go like all ideas.. the oneness/separation conceptual confrontations are distractions from the actuality of existence, let those imaginary attachments go..
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 29, 2015 6:22:27 GMT -5
... and that is your perception of how 'it is' . It isn't even 'what it is', unless one perceives it as such . How have you concluded that 'it is what it is' without relating to it in that way through your own perception of it? When niz said I am that, he concluded I am that through his own perception of self . If anything, perhaps it would be rather I am not even that, and What is, isn't even what is . I would however agree if there is only what you are it seems to define oneness or at the very least point to it but I must also keep pointing to the realization of what you are that is neither one nor separate but rather 'there is just what you are' . A dot on a page can mean many things to many people, it might mean nothing at all to some . There is no-one that pays any comparison to what individuality is nor what oneness is within the realization these are all comparisons what we are has of it's self of the mind . Oneness or separation has been on the lips of many throughout the ages I am suggesting there can be two or a million 'of what we are' without being separate or as one . It might not make sense because we are normally either relating what we are as one or separate . I resonate with this, though you are right that what you are saying already presupposes and is suggestive of 'oneness'. I see what you are saying as somewhat similar to what I am saying when I say that 'oneness' is all inclusive...it means that it's all about perception. Tis likened to a blank canvas till one makes an impression, then one can make of that impression as they see fit . What one does make of such an impression will depend on how one relates what they are too it . A vantage point had when taken a backward step or to rise above or a step taken to the side of their present point will give a slightly different impression of that same thing . All piccasso's are perhaps suggested to be masterpieces and yet to some their 5 year old could of done a better job . The eye of the beholder, beholds and then makes sense of what that is, even if it doesn't make sense, that will be how one perceives it, as nonsense . But what does that all mean in regards to how one see's anything . Separation and oneness are how one see's self in relation to separation and oneness . From what point does one perceive / relate to them both . A step to the left, from above or below there current position . There is however only a point of self perception had in mind . As long as there is awareness of self in mind that can perceive then perhaps all points of view are just that . (Mindful) . If what we are is of the mind and there is only 'what we are' then surely anything and everything 'is' how 'what we are' perceives 'what we are' . The realization of what we are is that there is only what we are so piccasso's painting are both masterpieces and crappy paintings at the same time . They are also neither masterpieces nor crap at the same time . I think there is plenty enough room at the inn to entertain every perspective .
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 29, 2015 7:31:41 GMT -5
I resonate with this, though you are right that what you are saying already presupposes and is suggestive of 'oneness'. I see what you are saying as somewhat similar to what I am saying when I say that 'oneness' is all inclusive...it means that it's all about perception. Tis likened to a blank canvas till one makes an impression, then one can make of that impression as they see fit . What one does make of such an impression will depend on how one relates what they are too it . A vantage point had when taken a backward step or to rise above or a step taken to the side of their present point will give a slightly different impression of that same thing . All piccasso's are perhaps suggested to be masterpieces and yet to some their 5 year old could of done a better job . The eye of the beholder, beholds and then makes sense of what that is, even if it doesn't make sense, that will be how one perceives it, as nonsense . But what does that all mean in regards to how one see's anything . Separation and oneness are how one see's self in relation to separation and oneness . From what point does one perceive / relate to them both . A step to the left, from above or below there current position . There is however only a point of self perception had in mind . As long as there is awareness of self in mind that can perceive then perhaps all points of view are just that . (Mindful) . If what we are is of the mind and there is only 'what we are' then surely anything and everything 'is' how 'what we are' perceives 'what we are' . The realization of what we are is that there is only what we are so piccasso's painting are both masterpieces and crappy paintings at the same time . They are also neither masterpieces nor crap at the same time . I think there is plenty enough room at the inn to entertain every perspective . Yeah, I think I understand and resonate. To go back to the very beginning there, I would say that your blank canvass is another way of talking about 'oneness'.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 29, 2015 8:54:14 GMT -5
Tis likened to a blank canvas till one makes an impression, then one can make of that impression as they see fit . What one does make of such an impression will depend on how one relates what they are too it . A vantage point had when taken a backward step or to rise above or a step taken to the side of their present point will give a slightly different impression of that same thing . All piccasso's are perhaps suggested to be masterpieces and yet to some their 5 year old could of done a better job . The eye of the beholder, beholds and then makes sense of what that is, even if it doesn't make sense, that will be how one perceives it, as nonsense . But what does that all mean in regards to how one see's anything . Separation and oneness are how one see's self in relation to separation and oneness . From what point does one perceive / relate to them both . A step to the left, from above or below there current position . There is however only a point of self perception had in mind . As long as there is awareness of self in mind that can perceive then perhaps all points of view are just that . (Mindful) . If what we are is of the mind and there is only 'what we are' then surely anything and everything 'is' how 'what we are' perceives 'what we are' . The realization of what we are is that there is only what we are so piccasso's painting are both masterpieces and crappy paintings at the same time . They are also neither masterpieces nor crap at the same time . I think there is plenty enough room at the inn to entertain every perspective . Yeah, I think I understand and resonate. To go back to the very beginning there, I would say that your blank canvass is another way of talking about 'oneness'.It could be perceived that way ..
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 29, 2015 9:03:40 GMT -5
Yeah, I think I understand and resonate. To go back to the very beginning there, I would say that your blank canvass is another way of talking about 'oneness'.It could be perceived that way .. haha yes and that too is a perception....?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2015 9:31:10 GMT -5
You say it is neither oneness nor separation, but rather both oneness and separation. Your reasoning is flawed. Doood, just let go.. you are so stuck in the Brown Bear Trap (BBT) that letting go is not an option for you.. IF you are going to rely on mental models for your understanding of what's happening, the comparative mental models are created simultaneously, i.e.: the oneness/separation models, those models exist, but.. nothing changes when you let them go, other than you lose the conflicts and confrontations you thrive on.. The advice to 'just let go' is in direct contradiction with the belief/statement 'letting go is not an option for you.' A natural question arises: why give advice about choosing one option if that option is not available? '...let them go, ... you lose the conflicts and confrontations you thrive on.' '...let them go, ... you lose the conflicts and confrontations you thrive on.' '...let them go, ... you lose the conflicts and confrontations you thrive on.' '...let them go, ... you lose the conflicts and confrontations you thrive on.' '...let them go, ... you lose the conflicts and confrontations you thrive on.' '...let them go, ... you lose the conflicts and confrontations you thrive on.' Why would someone thriving, want to cease the thriving?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2015 9:37:26 GMT -5
--Observe any thoughts you have about the meditation itself. For example: “I’m having a good meditation.” “I’m doing the technique wrong.” “I wish my concentration was deeper.” “I hope lunch comes soon.” and so on. --Notice any emotions you have about the meditation itself. For example: frustration about how the meditation is going, joy at experiencing a deep meditation, panic about how long the sit may last, and so on. --Observe any sensations you have about where awareness seems to be located. Do you feel it’s centered in your head? Behind your eyes? Notice whatever body sensations you associate with the observer. Watch these very carefully. --In general, notice any sense that you are making an effort to meditate at all. Wherever this effort appears to be coming from, notice that. Let the meditation be an effortless experience, not an effortful doing. See more at: www.scienceandnonduality.com/escaping-the-observer-trapA metaphor that I used to describe what it's like when this stuff dies down is a phased lock loop. A point of stillness is reached that is self-reinforcing and the sense of awareness seems to expand naturally decentralize. Oscillation overloading supercooled thermocouple. Resistance is futile.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 29, 2015 9:57:59 GMT -5
It could be perceived that way .. haha yes and that too is a perception....? haha .. what else could it be ..?
|
|
|
Post by steven on Jan 29, 2015 9:58:52 GMT -5
... and that is your perception of how 'it is' . It isn't even 'what it is', unless one perceives it as such . How have you concluded that 'it is what it is' without relating to it in that way through your own perception of it? When niz said I am that, he concluded I am that through his own perception of self . If anything, perhaps it would be rather I am not even that, and What is, isn't even what is . I would however agree if there is only what you are it seems to define oneness or at the very least point to it but I must also keep pointing to the realization of what you are that is neither one nor separate but rather 'there is just what you are' . A dot on a page can mean many things to many people, it might mean nothing at all to some . There is no-one that pays any comparison to what individuality is nor what oneness is within the realization these are all comparisons what we are has of it's self of the mind . Oneness or separation has been on the lips of many throughout the ages I am suggesting there can be two or a million 'of what we are' without being separate or as one . It might not make sense because we are normally either relating what we are as one or separate . I resonate with this, though you are right that what you are saying already presupposes and is suggestive of 'oneness'. I see what you are saying as somewhat similar to what I am saying when I say that 'oneness' is all inclusive...it means that it's all about perception. Perspective.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 29, 2015 10:56:07 GMT -5
It is what it is regardless of how one perceives it. It seems to define oneness. Two of what you are?? ... and that is your perception of how 'it is' . It isn't even 'what it is', unless one perceives it as such . How have you concluded that 'it is what it is' without relating to it in that way through your own perception of it?When niz said I am that, he concluded I am that through his own perception of self . If anything, perhaps it would be rather I am not even that, and What is, isn't even what is . I would however agree if there is only what you are it seems to define oneness or at the very least point to it but I must also keep pointing to the realization of what you are that is neither one nor separate but rather 'there is just what you are' . A dot on a page can mean many things to many people, it might mean nothing at all to some . There is no-one that pays any comparison to what individuality is nor what oneness is within the realization these are all comparisons what we are has of it's self of the mind . Oneness or separation has been on the lips of many throughout the ages I am suggesting there can be two or a million 'of what we are' without being separate or as one . It might not make sense because we are normally either relating what we are as one or separate . How can 'what it is' not be what it is?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 29, 2015 11:05:54 GMT -5
Again, separation as an idea is included, as all ideas are included, but ideas are not the actualities the ideas refer to. (The idea of separation is not separation) Okay, then I would say that what the idea of separation refers to is included in oneness, even if what it refers to is an appearance or an illusion. That's what I be sayin.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 29, 2015 11:06:16 GMT -5
A metaphor that I used to describe what it's like when this stuff dies down is a phased lock loop. A point of stillness is reached that is self-reinforcing and the sense of awareness seems to expand naturally decentralize. Oscillation overloading supercooled thermocouple. Resistance is futile. ride an ice cube to alpha centari and when ya' get there put out one 'o the suns by throwin' it down into the fire.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 29, 2015 11:10:23 GMT -5
Separation is the objectification of appearances, and so appearances are not inherently separate. They are simply appearances appearing to the senses or the mind. (as thought/feeling) For oneness to appear, it would have to be determined to be an object of perception, and of course that's not what oneness refers to, though some do indeed talk about 'the oneness' as they erroneously objectify it. In this way, oneness can appear to appear, just as separation appears to appear. In actuality, they are both abstractions of mind that appear only in the thoughts. I would agree that appearances are not 'inherently' separate, but they are 'non-inherently' separate. It's why I said that I consider oneness to transcend separation (though I don't consider that to be a 'truth' as such) Even though both 'separation' and 'oneness' are abstractions of the mind, 'experiencing' requires there to be an experience of more than one thing/object/appearance. Separation is an appearance.
|
|