|
Post by relinquish on Aug 8, 2014 23:08:25 GMT -5
I think that's a rational thought, so I guess I can't help but agree with you there.......plus I don't get it either, but I'm not adverse to playing along sometimes. The other thing I don't understand is how anyone can claim a perspective on the universe that includes all events. No one has ever seen the whole enchilada, so how do they pronounce it's perfection? I've never once heard a trained physicist, someone who actually studies the universe, bloviate about its perfection. Take a look into David Bohm's concept of the 'implicit order'.
|
|
|
Post by relinquish on Aug 8, 2014 23:10:17 GMT -5
So what do we all think of this idea I just had? The universe is a 'garden' that eternally blooms with effortless perfection and completeness in Reality's 'outside', from the eternal seed that is Realities 'inside' (THIS 'experiencing' THIS). ALL 'things' are included in this garden. This, to me, is non-duality. I think it's just another idea among many. That, it is, certainly. Pretty cool though, huh?
|
|
|
Post by relinquish on Aug 8, 2014 23:38:49 GMT -5
I'm trying to point attention towards the fundamental solidarity that is effortlessly shared by ALL things and EVERYONE. This solidarity can be directly experienced when mind comes to rest.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2014 23:48:49 GMT -5
I'm trying to point attention towards the fundamental solidarity that is effortlessly shared by ALL things and EVERYONE. This solidarity can be directly experienced when mind comes to rest. Gaza strip?
|
|
|
Post by relinquish on Aug 8, 2014 23:59:27 GMT -5
I'm trying to point attention towards the fundamental solidarity that is effortlessly shared by ALL things and EVERYONE. This solidarity can be directly experienced when mind comes to rest. Gaza strip? I know. Unspeakably horrible, isn't it? Problematic mind is obviously still HEAVILY present there, apparently.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 9, 2014 0:01:43 GMT -5
It could be if someone is leaning on the idea as a way of coping with the world rather than trying to express something that is ultimately inexpressible. As you've reasoned, if there is perfection then there is imperfection, and in the case where someone is stating the perfection of totality absent a conditioned opinion, what they mean by perfection isn't subject to an opposite. It's the same pattern that happens when any one of a number of other words are used to point: peace, love, stillness, silence, joy, spaciousness, etc... Perfection is a pointer that gets lots of folk nauseous. It's not worth spinnin' on if you don't like it, just throw it away! I just don't see perfection in the chaotic unfolding of the universe. But of course I'm not very speerichool and hardly a mystic, though for many long years now I've read the mystical literature from a large variety of expounders. Must be a defect in my cognitive abilities. I just don't get it. You won't find it there. If you want to find it, look into any pair of eyes that are looking back. A mirror will do quite nicely, but you have to approach the looking with a completely open and pliant mind about: My definition of perfection may be narrower than others. ... how's this? : complete as is, requiring nothing. Now if the 2nd sentence of this post made you puke, that's just perfect.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 9, 2014 0:09:21 GMT -5
I think that's a rational thought, so I guess I can't help but agree with you there.......plus I don't get it either, but I'm not adverse to playing along sometimes. The other thing I don't understand is how anyone can claim a perspective on the universe that includes all events. No one has ever seen the whole enchilada, so how do they pronounce it's perfection? I've never once heard a trained physicist, someone who actually studies the universe, bloviate about its perfection. They express their understanding of the Universe, and as you say, that can't ever be perfect. Has there ever been a serious and definitive answer to a serious question that didn't result in more questions?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2014 0:24:44 GMT -5
I know. Unspeakably horrible, isn't it? Problematic mind is obviously still HEAVILY present there, apparently. problematic mind 'IS' when history is made LAW. What an ass mankind is making for itself. First the Jew shares his concept about what he thinks reality might be and then it gets hi-jacked by Mohammed's accountants. Then self governing is claimed by the Christians. "Off with their Heads!" Psychosis at the heart of fundamentalism.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 9, 2014 0:27:18 GMT -5
The other thing I don't understand is how anyone can claim a perspective on the universe that includes all events. No one has ever seen the whole enchilada, so how do they pronounce it's perfection? I've never once heard a trained physicist, someone who actually studies the universe, bloviate about its perfection. Take a look into David Bohm's concept of the 'implicit order'. The application of that by way of the QM interpretations has imperfection at it's core, as central to it is the abstraction of a "configuration of the entire Universe", and that can never be known.
|
|
|
Post by silver on Aug 9, 2014 0:30:04 GMT -5
That may be your interpretation, but.. what i advocate is that the experiencer can discover, for themselves, what is happening.. when someone insists that the experiencer agree with a particular perspective of what is happening, they are attempting to limit the experiencer's opportunity to experience the authenticity of their own existence.. You basically advocate a self-reliant, muted stupidity. You seem to be a rather self-reliant - independent type, as well, 'bum.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 9, 2014 0:36:30 GMT -5
That may be your interpretation, but.. what i advocate is that the experiencer can discover, for themselves, what is happening.. when someone insists that the experiencer agree with a particular perspective of what is happening, they are attempting to limit the experiencer's opportunity to experience the authenticity of their own existence.. You basically advocate a self-reliant, muted stupidity. The mind is the origin of some profound and intricate beauty, as well as being an indispensable survival tool and a fantastic way to entertain people and thereby occasionally get laid. It's also helpful in discerning when someone is bullsh!ting us for one purpose or another. So this admonition to set aside the mind and look to the space between thoughts rather than the content of them seems very counter-intuitive. Where else would we find the answers we're looking for, right? Where did we always find them in the past?
|
|
|
Post by relinquish on Aug 9, 2014 0:36:32 GMT -5
Take a look into David Bohm's concept of the 'implicit order'. The application of that by way of the QM interpretations has imperfection at it's core, as central to it is the abstraction of a "configuration of the entire Universe", and that can never be known. It may be useful to explore the way chaos and order play together, and the reason why they do at all.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 9, 2014 0:40:31 GMT -5
The application of that by way of the QM interpretations has imperfection at it's core, as central to it is the abstraction of a "configuration of the entire Universe", and that can never be known. It may be useful to explore the way chaos and order play together, and the reason why they do at all. Chaos and order can be interesting and useful abstractions, but, just like their interplay and the notion of some reason for that interplay, they're just a contrivance of the thinking mind. Now that reason, that starts to hook more than just thought. At that point, there tends to be emotion involved.
|
|
|
Post by relinquish on Aug 9, 2014 0:46:31 GMT -5
It may be useful to explore the way chaos and order play together, and the reason why they do at all. Chaos and order can be interesting and useful abstractions, but, just like their interplay and the notion of some reason for that interplay, they're just a contrivance of the thinking mind. Now that reason, that starts to hook more than just thought. At that point, there tends to be emotion involved. Very good point.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2014 1:31:58 GMT -5
You basically advocate a self-reliant, muted stupidity. You seem to be a rather self-reliant - independent type, as well, 'bum. I wasn't saying anything negative about self reliance, I was just expanding on my interpretation of the still-mind.
|
|