|
|
Post by Portto on Mar 27, 2012 8:04:24 GMT -5
It just says that there are no straightforward and coherent definitions. If straightforward and coherent definitions cannot be made, it means there is no basis for any 'teaching', it is fake and is used to fool out people. The only basis is the 'real you.' |
|
|
|
Post by arisha on Mar 27, 2012 8:06:43 GMT -5
If it were like you are saying we would not be able to communicate and understand each other. It sometimes really happens. But now we are speaking not about ordinary and commonplace things. We are speaking about a spiritual teaching which needs to be clarified and be understandable for everybody. In this case terms and definitions are used which are not allowed to be ambiguous. I'm with portto on this one " All words and definitions are ambiguous and open for interpretation." Especially when talking about this stuff. The reason why "If it were like you are saying we would not be able to communicate and understand each other" is not always true is because we are using words and meanings which refer to commonly understood objects. Oneness is incomprehensible. It can not be understood. There are no words which can contain it. Then you simply cannot say anything about it. |
|
|
|
Post by question on Mar 27, 2012 8:08:53 GMT -5
If it were like you are saying we would not be able to communicate and understand each other. It sometimes really happens. But now we are speaking not about ordinary and commonplace things. We are speaking about a spiritual teaching which needs to be clarified and be understandable for everybody. In this case terms and definitions are used which are not allowed to be ambiguous. I'm with portto on this one " All words and definitions are ambiguous and open for interpretation." Especially when talking about this stuff. The reason why "If it were like you are saying we would not be able to communicate and understand each other" is not always true is because we are using words and meanings which refer to commonly understood objects. Oneness is incomprehensible. It can not be understood. There are no words which can contain it. It's not that his aphorism is wrong, it's just completely misplaced here. Whenever I open my mouth with the intention of helping someone then I try to be as clear as humanly possible. If he/she doesn't understand me then the last thing I would do is blurt out Porto's aphorism. On the contrary, I will try to get into the head of that person and try to modify my words so that they are clear to the person I'm talking with. Also, if you think that oneness refers to something incomprehensible then you're confused. Don't you remember the talk last week about pointers? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2012 8:10:33 GMT -5
I'm with portto on this one " All words and definitions are ambiguous and open for interpretation." Especially when talking about this stuff. The reason why "If it were like you are saying we would not be able to communicate and understand each other" is not always true is because we are using words and meanings which refer to commonly understood objects. Oneness is incomprehensible. It can not be understood. There are no words which can contain it. Then you simply cannot say anything about it. Oops. So?? That's why this place is filled with pointers. Even the most non-metaphorical languagically precise elegant prose is just a pointer. |
|
|
|
Post by question on Mar 27, 2012 8:11:38 GMT -5
Yeah, Enigma has even admitted this. In our empiricism discussion he stated that whatever he is claiming is without any foundation whatsoever. Thinking there is a contradiction here is part of the confusion. Please explain. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 27, 2012 8:14:29 GMT -5
Definitions....hmmm. Here are mine -
Oneness - the condition/quality/state of being one. Realization - A process by which the idea that 'all is one' is embodied/integrated, and becomes dominant in our reality/experience.
Hence why, although there is a connection between understanding and 'realization', they are not the same thing. It is possible to understand something and not 'realize' that understanding. The same applies to seeing. Its quite possible to see, and see again, and see again, and see again, and not 'realize' that seeing.
|
|
|
|
Post by arisha on Mar 27, 2012 8:15:11 GMT -5
If it were like you are saying we would not be able to communicate and understand each other. It sometimes really happens. But now we are speaking not about ordinary and commonplace things. We are speaking about a spiritual teaching which needs to be clarified and be understandable for everybody. In this case terms and definitions are used which are not allowed to be ambiguous. Can you give an example of something that never changes? That would be the un-ambiguous definition you're looking for. That's why terms and definitions are used , and not examples of something. When you are communicating you are using words. You cannot communicate with examples of some-things, that is with things. You can see the difference between objects, and the words which are used to speak about the objects, right? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2012 8:15:34 GMT -5
I'm with portto on this one " All words and definitions are ambiguous and open for interpretation." Especially when talking about this stuff. The reason why "If it were like you are saying we would not be able to communicate and understand each other" is not always true is because we are using words and meanings which refer to commonly understood objects. Oneness is incomprehensible. It can not be understood. There are no words which can contain it. It's not that his aphorism is wrong, it's just completely misplaced here. Whenever I open my mouth with the intention of helping someone then I try to be as clear as humanly possible. If he/she doesn't understand me then the last thing I would do is blurt out Porto's aphorism. On the contrary, I will try to get into the head of that person and try to modify my words so that they are clear to the person I'm talking with. I don't disagree with this approach. But the topic at hand is why Oneness can't have a precise definition, isn't it? No, sorry. If you wouldn't mind giving me a pointer? |
|
|
|
Post by arisha on Mar 27, 2012 8:20:18 GMT -5
If straightforward and coherent definitions cannot be made, it means there is no basis for any 'teaching', it is fake and is used to fool out people. The only basis is the 'real you.' What is the 'real you'? How to use it as a basis for a teaching? Are you sure you know WHAT your 'real you' is? |
|
|
|
Post by question on Mar 27, 2012 8:22:25 GMT -5
It's not that his aphorism is wrong, it's just completely misplaced here. Whenever I open my mouth with the intention of helping someone then I try to be as clear as humanly possible. If he/she doesn't understand me then the last thing I would do is blurt out Porto's aphorism. On the contrary, I will try to get into the head of that person and try to modify my words so that they are clear to the person I'm talking with. I don't disagree with this approach. But the topic at hand is why Oneness can't have a precise definition, isn't it? No, sorry. If you wouldn't mind giving me a pointer? |
|
|
|
Post by Peter on Mar 27, 2012 8:24:07 GMT -5
Thought is never accepted, only briefly entertained. Though, 'briefly' varies widely across the board. "Is a week a long time?", my son asked. "Well that depends", I said. "If you've been told that's all you've got left to live then no, it's not. But if you're trying to hold your breath, then yes, it's a long time." |
|
|
|
Post by Portto on Mar 27, 2012 8:24:55 GMT -5
Can you give an example of something that never changes? That would be the un-ambiguous definition you're looking for. That's why terms and definitions are used , and not examples of something. When you are communicating you are using words. You cannot communicate with examples of some-things, that is with things. You can see the difference between objects, and the words which are used to speak about the objects, right? Can you find something that never changes? |
|
|
|
Post by question on Mar 27, 2012 8:25:59 GMT -5
I mean, isn't this entire discussion crazy? In no walk of life would you not get laughed at if when pressured you will seriously argue that you won't explain yourself because definitions are by definition arbitrary.
|
|
|
|
Post by Portto on Mar 27, 2012 8:27:35 GMT -5
The only basis is the 'real you.' What is the 'real you'? How to use it as a basis for a teaching? Are you sure you know WHAT your 'real you' is? You can't use it. You can't know it. You can only be 'it.' |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 27, 2012 8:27:43 GMT -5
If straightforward and coherent definitions cannot be made, it means there is no basis for any 'teaching', it is fake and is used to fool out people. The only basis is the 'real you.' And a 'real you' has been reified. |
|
