|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 4, 2014 3:33:43 GMT -5
On my facebook today...I thought of the forum. ''There is always an even happier thought than the happy thought you're thinking now. There is always an even better feeling-- your capacity to achieve a better feeling is unlimited.'' (Abe-Hicks) This is correct theoretically...practically I suspect there are biological limits, though these limits can evolve. The reason that this is correct is because experience is only dualistic in the sense that the opposite of something is the absence of that something, and within that absence there are infinite potentials. Such is the nature of contrast. The opposite of joy is not-joy, which includes everything but joy. Nevertheless, I see the value in pointing away from happy thoughts and better feelings, I like pointers away from states as much as I like pointers to them. All depends. That joy is a movement, and you're talking about sustaining an unending movement toward greater and greater joy, and even if this were possible, soon you would know nothing but that movement and know nothing of the absence of that movement. Normalizing to the movement toward greater joy destroys the movement as there isn't anything else to compare it to. You're wanting to cheat duality as though it is a process happening outside of you. You're trying to pull one over on your own imagination. The movement is from one state of joy, to an increased state of joy, to even more joy, to even more joy...and the different levels/states of joy are still fully experienced. Test it out for yourself....personally, I do reach a point where I seem to hit a max (and as I suggested, practically speaking, there might well be biological limits), but theoretically there is no valid reason why there aren't higher potentials to be experienced. The universe is infinite in its potential, and experiencing is infinite in its potential. Its not constructed of one pair of opposites over here, another pair of opposites over there, another pair of opposites some where over there. Its more of a prism. It seems to you that experiencing is oppositional in its nature because you understand the presence of something to be dualistically opposed by the specific presence of something else, when in actuality, the presence of something is dualistically opposed by its absence, which is therefore all that it is not. Hence why, experiencing is infinite in its potential and which is why, theoretically, the capacity to achieve a better feeling is unlimited. We are bound to experience contrast, we are not bound to experience equal measures of joy and misery. Again, I recognize that here we are talking about states, not pointing away from them (to 'emptiness' or something similar). Realizing the infinite nature/capacity of mind/experiencing does tie in to 'emptiness' though. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 4, 2014 3:36:00 GMT -5
That joy is a movement, and you're talking about sustaining an unending movement toward greater and greater joy, and even if this were possible, soon you would know nothing but that movement and know nothing of the absence of that movement. Normalizing to the movement toward greater joy destroys the movement as there isn't anything else to compare it to. You're wanting to cheat duality as though it is a process happening outside of you. You're trying to pull one over on your own imagination. I think that Hicks quote is a little ridiculous, but I can't help but wonder if his meaning of more joy is less linear and more about facets and angles, seeing things from different perspectives or something. I see the Hicks quote as making a point about 'potential'. You are on the right lines when you talk about facets and angles I feel, because there are infinite facets and angles. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 4, 2014 10:26:17 GMT -5
That joy is a movement, and you're talking about sustaining an unending movement toward greater and greater joy, and even if this were possible, soon you would know nothing but that movement and know nothing of the absence of that movement. Normalizing to the movement toward greater joy destroys the movement as there isn't anything else to compare it to. You're wanting to cheat duality as though it is a process happening outside of you. You're trying to pull one over on your own imagination. The movement is from one state of joy, to an increased state of joy, to even more joy, to even more joy...and the different levels/states of joy are still fully experienced. Test it out for yourself....personally, I do reach a point where I seem to hit a max (and as I suggested, practically speaking, there might well be biological limits), but theoretically there is no valid reason why there aren't higher potentials to be experienced. I don't understand how you're testing it out. If you're sitting in meditation manufacturing a bliss state, there's no time for normalization to take effect. You don't seem to be in some increasing bliss state now. Experience is based on subjective movement. Joy is a movement, which is why we're not talking about staying in some static state of joy, but rather moving to even greater and greater states of joy continuously. If this movement ever stops, there's a massive crash. Even if you somehow don't crash, you can't even go back to plain ole bliss cause it's not there anymore because relative to your ecstatic experience, bliss isn't bliss anymore but rather unhappiness. Fortunately, after a while, that pseudo bliss state that now feels like unhappiness will be your your new nominal state and you can begin to climb the ladder to wonderfuliciousness again, and the beat goes on. In your escape plan you burn your bridges behind you and even that is likely enough to bring the fear of falling. Essentially, this is the escape plan the billionaire follows, and he eventually finds himself in a prison of his own making with the means to go anywhere but nowhere left to go. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 4, 2014 10:45:08 GMT -5
The movement is from one state of joy, to an increased state of joy, to even more joy, to even more joy...and the different levels/states of joy are still fully experienced. Test it out for yourself....personally, I do reach a point where I seem to hit a max (and as I suggested, practically speaking, there might well be biological limits), but theoretically there is no valid reason why there aren't higher potentials to be experienced. I don't understand how you're testing it out. If you're sitting in meditation manufacturing a bliss state, there's no time for normalization to take effect. You don't seem to be in some increasing bliss state now. Experience is based on subjective movement. Joy is a movement, which is why we're not talking about staying in some static state of joy, but rather moving to even greater and greater states of joy continuously. If this movement ever stops, there's a massive crash. Even if you somehow don't crash, you can't even go back to plain ole bliss cause it's not there anymore because relative to your ecstatic experience, bliss isn't bliss anymore but rather unhappiness. Fortunately, after a while, that pseudo bliss state that now feels like unhappiness will be your your new nominal state and you can begin to climb the ladder to wonderfuliciousness again, and the beat goes on. In your escape plan you burn your bridges behind you and even that is likely enough to bring the fear of falling. Essentially, this is the escape plan the billionaire follows, and he eventually finds himself in a prison of his own making with the means to go anywhere but nowhere left to go. I'm not in a bliss state right now, but the purpose of the experiment was not to maintain a permanent bliss state, the purpose was to test out whether you can experiencing differing levels of joy, happiness and bliss. I have no issue with the idea of normalization, but no matter what 'normal' is for each individual, the capacity and potential is always going to be there. The only limit I see is a biological limit, and biology changes. I assure you there does not have to be a crash after the joy diminishes....what I sometimes find after experiencing strong joy in meditation (or any other time) is that the diminishing of it leaves a gentle love or peace. The reason that Oneness is the case...the reason that the One appears as many, is because every appearance contains the seed of potential for all other appearances. This is why all is one. What is 'other' to the appearance is infinite in its nature and not separate from the appearance. If one appearance was dualistically opposed to just one other appearance, oneness could not be the case, there would be a whole lotta separation. Every experience is intrinsically connected to all other experiences. And of course we can (and do) expand our experiencing range, particularly when it comes to feeling/emotion. We can experience new levels of bliss, and we can experience new intensities of loss or suffering. We can experience aloneness to incredible depths, and yet we can experience exquisite happiness in such way that totally transcends what we have experienced before. Its all equally valid, there is no limit theoretically, and no matter what is normal for each of us, the capacity remains unlimited. Just because we experience joy, doesn't mean that we HAVE to then experience misery, because joy is only connected to misery in the same way that joy is connected to all other feeling states. Edit: What I actually see you talking about there is the problem of attachment to states, which I could agree with. I'm not selling attachment, I'm not even saying that I think pointers to states are always good. There is a time to be a kill joy, to point to emptiness etc. |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Sept 4, 2014 10:59:41 GMT -5
I think that Hicks quote is a little ridiculous, but I can't help but wonder if his meaning of more joy is less linear and more about facets and angles, seeing things from different perspectives or something. I see the Hicks quote as making a point about 'potential'. You are on the right lines when you talk about facets and angles I feel, because there are infinite facets and angles. Yeah I believe so - because most people mature to varying degrees - and I think strongly that when people mature and 'mellow' with age (no matter what age they are) learn through their life lessons how to genuinely and intelligently view such things as 'joy'. It's up to the individual - there's plenty of jerks who don't mature very well and they end up either marching in place or making life worse and not being able to enjoy life because it's linear - they're just constantly grasping for 'stuff' to make them happy. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 4, 2014 12:45:05 GMT -5
I don't understand how you're testing it out. If you're sitting in meditation manufacturing a bliss state, there's no time for normalization to take effect. You don't seem to be in some increasing bliss state now. Experience is based on subjective movement. Joy is a movement, which is why we're not talking about staying in some static state of joy, but rather moving to even greater and greater states of joy continuously. If this movement ever stops, there's a massive crash. Even if you somehow don't crash, you can't even go back to plain ole bliss cause it's not there anymore because relative to your ecstatic experience, bliss isn't bliss anymore but rather unhappiness. Fortunately, after a while, that pseudo bliss state that now feels like unhappiness will be your your new nominal state and you can begin to climb the ladder to wonderfuliciousness again, and the beat goes on. In your escape plan you burn your bridges behind you and even that is likely enough to bring the fear of falling. Essentially, this is the escape plan the billionaire follows, and he eventually finds himself in a prison of his own making with the means to go anywhere but nowhere left to go. I'm not in a bliss state right now, but the purpose of the experiment was not to maintain a permanent bliss state, the purpose was to test out whether you can experiencing differing levels of joy, happiness and bliss. Of course I can and have, and do. Why do I need to do an experiment to know that? Again, you haven't normalized to the "strong joy" because you've only been meditating for 20 minutes or so. The experience is seen as satisfying just like any other good experience leaves you satisfied. Stay there for a week and then come back and you may not be so happy to lose that state. You say you have no problem with the idea of normalization, but you don't seem to understand it. Appearances can appear in all forms, and none of them say anything about oneness. I don't have a problem with that, but none of it has to do with my argument. No, joy is intimately connected to, and literally defined by, what are subjectively experienced as opposing states. Attachment to states is a 'given' in your escape plan. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 4, 2014 13:13:23 GMT -5
I'm not in a bliss state right now, but the purpose of the experiment was not to maintain a permanent bliss state, the purpose was to test out whether you can experiencing differing levels of joy, happiness and bliss. Of course I can and have, and do. Why do I need to do an experiment to know that? Again, you haven't normalized to the "strong joy" because you've only been meditating for 20 minutes or so. The experience is seen as satisfying just like any other good experience leaves you satisfied. Stay there for a week and then come back and you may not be so happy to lose that state. You say you have no problem with the idea of normalization, but you don't seem to understand it. Appearances can appear in all forms, and none of them say anything about oneness. I don't have a problem with that, but none of it has to do with my argument. No, joy is intimately connected to, and literally defined by, what are subjectively experienced as opposing states. Attachment to states is a 'given' in your escape plan. I will start at the bottom...I haven't presented any kind of plan at all. All I am doing is showing that what Abe-Hicks stated is theoretically correct. You may think that they are selling attachment to states, and that may or may not be true, but its still not what I am discussing. I am supporting their model of experiencing. Okay, back to the top. I am clear what normalization is. To go with what you said though, if I normalize to what seems to me currently to be 'strong joy', then there will still be a 'strong joy' to experience from that new normalized state and 'super-duper joy' and 'ecstatic bliss'. There is no theoretical limit to what can be experienced. Appearances can appear in all forms, and the reason that oneness is the case is because no appearance is separate from any other appearance. If appearances appeared as dualistic oppositional pairs, separation would have to be the case. There would be one pair over here, another pair over there, another pair over there etc. Like I said, its not a see-saw or a stick, its a prism. So joy is intimately connected to every other feeling state. In stating that the opposite of joy is a specific presence, and that joy is intimately connected only to that specific presence, you are disconnecting joy from every other feeling state, and in the process, are stating separation to be the case. Given your model, I can see that it makes sense why you would see what Abe-Hicks said as wrong, and as if they are selling attachment to states. But if Oneness is the case, then your model is wrong. If you saw experiencing as an infinite prism or unified field, rather than as a bunch of separate see-saws, what Abe-Hicks said would be far less problematic to you. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 4, 2014 13:24:17 GMT -5
I see the Hicks quote as making a point about 'potential'. You are on the right lines when you talk about facets and angles I feel, because there are infinite facets and angles. Yeah I believe so - because most people mature to varying degrees - and I think strongly that when people mature and 'mellow' with age (no matter what age they are) learn through their life lessons how to genuinely and intelligently view such things as 'joy'. It's up to the individual - there's plenty of jerks who don't mature very well and they end up either marching in place or making life worse and not being able to enjoy life because it's linear - they're just constantly grasping for 'stuff' to make them happy. Yes. I would like to think that people get wiser as they get older, and I think that some do and some don't, some perhaps learn from life, whereas some may get even more stubborn about stuff that wasn't great even when they were younger. That reminds me, I watch Russell Brand on youtube most days at the moment, he has been engaged in an entertaining scuffle with Fox News lately, its well worth a watch. I had had no idea the extent to which Fox News engaged in overt propaganda. They were talking yesterday about coloring books for kids that explain terrorism lol (I'm not sure a laugh is the appropriate response there). Apparently, they appeal mainly to the 70+ audience in America...which I guess I am glad to hear in the sense that it is just one age-group. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 4, 2014 14:07:14 GMT -5
Of course I can and have, and do. Why do I need to do an experiment to know that? Again, you haven't normalized to the "strong joy" because you've only been meditating for 20 minutes or so. The experience is seen as satisfying just like any other good experience leaves you satisfied. Stay there for a week and then come back and you may not be so happy to lose that state. You say you have no problem with the idea of normalization, but you don't seem to understand it. Appearances can appear in all forms, and none of them say anything about oneness. I don't have a problem with that, but none of it has to do with my argument. No, joy is intimately connected to, and literally defined by, what are subjectively experienced as opposing states. Attachment to states is a 'given' in your escape plan. I will start at the bottom...I haven't presented any kind of plan at all. All I am doing is showing that what Abe-Hicks stated is theoretically correct. You may think that they are selling attachment to states, and that may or may not be true, but its still not what I am discussing. I am supporting their model of experiencing. Okay, back to the top. I am clear what normalization is. To go with what you said though, if I normalize to what seems to me currently to be 'strong joy', then there will still be a 'strong joy' to experience from that new normalized state and 'super-duper joy' and 'ecstatic bliss'. There is no theoretical limit to what can be experienced. Appearances can appear in all forms, and the reason that oneness is the case is because no appearance is separate from any other appearance. If appearances appeared as dualistic oppositional pairs, separation would have to be the case. There would be one pair over here, another pair over there, another pair over there etc. Like I said, its not a see-saw or a stick, its a prism. So joy is intimately connected to every other feeling state. In stating that the opposite of joy is a specific presence, and that joy is intimately connected only to that specific presence, you are disconnecting joy from every other feeling state, and in the process, are stating separation to be the case. Given your model, I can see that it makes sense why you would see what Abe-Hicks said as wrong, and as if they are selling attachment to states. But if Oneness is the case, then your model is wrong. If you saw experiencing as an infinite prism or unified field, rather than as a bunch of separate see-saws, what Abe-Hicks said would be far less problematic to you. I don't have a problem with what A/H said. I have a problem with what you say. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 4, 2014 14:27:18 GMT -5
I will start at the bottom...I haven't presented any kind of plan at all. All I am doing is showing that what Abe-Hicks stated is theoretically correct. You may think that they are selling attachment to states, and that may or may not be true, but its still not what I am discussing. I am supporting their model of experiencing. Okay, back to the top. I am clear what normalization is. To go with what you said though, if I normalize to what seems to me currently to be 'strong joy', then there will still be a 'strong joy' to experience from that new normalized state and 'super-duper joy' and 'ecstatic bliss'. There is no theoretical limit to what can be experienced. Appearances can appear in all forms, and the reason that oneness is the case is because no appearance is separate from any other appearance. If appearances appeared as dualistic oppositional pairs, separation would have to be the case. There would be one pair over here, another pair over there, another pair over there etc. Like I said, its not a see-saw or a stick, its a prism. So joy is intimately connected to every other feeling state. In stating that the opposite of joy is a specific presence, and that joy is intimately connected only to that specific presence, you are disconnecting joy from every other feeling state, and in the process, are stating separation to be the case. Given your model, I can see that it makes sense why you would see what Abe-Hicks said as wrong, and as if they are selling attachment to states. But if Oneness is the case, then your model is wrong. If you saw experiencing as an infinite prism or unified field, rather than as a bunch of separate see-saws, what Abe-Hicks said would be far less problematic to you. I don't have a problem with what A/H said. I have a problem with what you say. lol no kidding, still, if you have no problem with the original Abe-Hicks quote I put up, that's cool. |
|
|
|
Post by silence on Sept 4, 2014 19:36:29 GMT -5
And so it begins again. The prophecies have spoken of the million year repeat discussion.
|
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Sept 4, 2014 20:38:43 GMT -5
And so it begins again. The prophecies have spoken of the million year repeat discussion. That's what happens when you ride aboard the righteous train! |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 15, 2014 13:52:38 GMT -5
"To rise in consciousness from one dimension to another, you need help. The help may not always be in the shape of a human person, it may be a subtle presence, or a spark of intuition, but help must come. The inner Self is watching and waiting for the son to return to his father. At the right time he arranges everything affectionately and effectively. Where a messenger is needed, or a guide, he sends the Guru to do the needful" Niz strikes me as the kinda' guy who knew that sometimes that help would manifest as a good swift kick in the ass. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 24, 2014 17:18:21 GMT -5
(Paragraphs 36-39, from Chapter 13 of "I AM THAT", "The Supreme, the Mind and the Body")
Q: The jnani -- is he the witness or the Supreme? Niz: He is the Supreme, of course, but he can also be viewed as the universal witness. The questioner didn't ask the complimentary version of the question, but if he had asked "am I the witness or the Supreme?", what would Niz have been likely to say in reply? Warning: this is a trick question! .. because, we don't have to speculate ...  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 24, 2014 20:46:03 GMT -5
"Identity remains, but identity is not a person, it is inherent in the reality itself." A critical, and somewhat unexpected, distinction.  |
|
