|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 16, 2014 14:30:24 GMT -5
For peeps lingering at the threshold, clinging to the "I AM" for dear lifeless life.  Here's a hint: listen to what the material realists and commonsensicalists have to say.  Please elaborate on that last hint. Where could I find what they are saying?! ... the material realists are worth listening to as examples of clinging to the "I AM". Inter connectivity, if not mistaken for nonduality, is an excellent indirect hint for us about nonduality, sort of like the silhouette of a persons shadow is a clue as to what they look like. The probability cloud doesn't tell us anything about what reality is, but to dismiss it as TMT is the way of the ostrich. What it does indicate is what reality isn't. In ATA, any idea of actuality is not actuality, and that includes any notion about the primacy of the senses (... "practical functional relationship"). |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 16, 2014 14:34:24 GMT -5
I like to think of this by the metaphor of Alice and the looking glass. In one direction, looking from the "I AM" outward, to where attachments are put on it ("I am a man, I am a father, I am a salaried employee" ...) it's what he's referred to as "the core delusion", but looking back toward the mirror from out in the delusion, it's the polishing cloth that one uses to discover the only certainty. When he starts talking in terms that are indeterminate is when he's referring to the other side of the looking glass. Trying to follow any of that with logic or to use any of those statements as the basis for coming to conclusions about what happens outside of Wonderland just leads to confusion at the very least, and often, strife. John Wheeler refers to the positive and negative aspects. The negative is what is done with neti neti, discarding the stuff that comes after I Am. The positive is just resting or whatever with 'the natural state,' the undeniable fact of being or however you want to say it. A metaphor for realization is an inflection point where "I am none of this" has the exact same (non-intellectual) meaning as "I am all of this". |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 16, 2014 14:42:06 GMT -5
It's one thing to understand that this keyboard is just probability clouds and forces and energy, etc but this is discarded in the practical functional relationship (I'm not sitting in awe looking at it).  ... for 20+ years, every now and then, out of the blue, I'd do just that: sit in awe of that fact, even if only for just an instant. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 16, 2014 20:30:30 GMT -5
There's plenty of intellectual reference points for "Oneness". The world is profoundly interconnected, and if you believe the astronomers, it all began at a single point as a single thing and no part of it can be destroyed, it can only change form. One can simply ask, "where do I end and the world begin?", and realize quite quickly that every boundary is ultimately arbitrary. Another one (of dozens) of lines of inquiry which all lead to the same conclusion is to recognize that no action ever really either arises or completes in isolation without both endless cause and effect. Where it gets tricky for the mind is the fact that this interconnected apparent whole is only a shadowy reflection of what nonduality points toward. Any "Whole" that we can conceive of is encapsulated by the conception and thereby necessarily involves at least two things. Point taken. Sometimes I find myself eagerly trying to wrap my head around a materialist version of Oneness. It is attractive but insurmountable really, as it involves mostly imagination. It's one thing to understand that this keyboard is just probability clouds and forces and energy, etc but this is discarded in the practical functional relationship (I'm not sitting in awe looking at it). The interconnectedness of nature is the inevitable consequence of oneness, but it is not oneness. As I've said mucho times, oneness is not a collection of parts working together. There are no parts. That's oneness. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 18, 2014 13:23:31 GMT -5
John Wheeler refers to the positive and negative aspects. The negative is what is done with neti neti, discarding the stuff that comes after I Am. The positive is just resting or whatever with 'the natural state,' the undeniable fact of being or however you want to say it. A metaphor for realization is an inflection point where "I am none of this" has the exact same (non-intellectual) meaning as "I am all of this". Whereas I get the 'no separation' bit, the 'all of this' conclusion is still mind-boggling. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 18, 2014 13:32:07 GMT -5
Point taken. Sometimes I find myself eagerly trying to wrap my head around a materialist version of Oneness. It is attractive but insurmountable really, as it involves mostly imagination. It's one thing to understand that this keyboard is just probability clouds and forces and energy, etc but this is discarded in the practical functional relationship (I'm not sitting in awe looking at it). The interconnectedness of nature is the inevitable consequence of oneness, but it is not oneness. As I've said mucho times, oneness is not a collection of parts working together. There are no parts. That's oneness. How can you have interconnectedness with no parts that are connecting? I'd think in your oneness model there would be no connectedness. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 18, 2014 13:47:33 GMT -5
A metaphor for realization is an inflection point where "I am none of this" has the exact same (non-intellectual) meaning as "I am all of this". Whereas I get the 'no separation' bit, the 'all of this' conclusion is still mind-boggling. "But You made everyone and You've been everywhere Lord, I think You'd overdose If You knew what's goin' down" Big Brother ~ David Bowie, 1974. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 18, 2014 17:08:59 GMT -5
A metaphor for realization is an inflection point where "I am none of this" has the exact same (non-intellectual) meaning as "I am all of this". Whereas I get the 'no separation' bit, the 'all of this' conclusion is still mind-boggling. How about "I am none of this"? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 18, 2014 17:16:37 GMT -5
The interconnectedness of nature is the inevitable consequence of oneness, but it is not oneness. As I've said mucho times, oneness is not a collection of parts working together. There are no parts. That's oneness. How can you have interconnectedness with no parts that are connecting? I'd think in your oneness model there would be no connectedness. The parts are an appearance. A trick of the mind sort of like an optical illusion. Inter-connectivity is a matter of perspective, as many if not most peeps either never think of it or don't see the world that way. It's only if you're curious about the world and take a good look that the image of the interdependence of and entanglement of the appearances starts to emerge. That image of interconnectivity is a way of organizing the appearances that reflects non-seperation (nonduality). As all of the words in these two paragraphs are just more appearance, it would be a lie to say that inter-connectivity is closer to the truth, but perhaps you'll get the drift of the idea that it's further away from the lie. |
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Aug 18, 2014 19:55:22 GMT -5
It is the insistence about what people 'think' about what is happening that drives conflicts.. less 'thinking', more clarity, if spiritually inclined people enjoy talking so much, why not talk about what is actually happening 'now'.. rather than projecting ideas into/onto the Great Mystery?.. apparently, for some people, even beliefs are better than admitting 'i don't know', so much so that they will pretend there is no 'i' that cannot 'know'..
The problem is that most of the people talking about 'spirituality' are conceptualizing it and theorizing it in their minds, however they try to rationalize it.. few actually 'get out of their heads' and experience what is actually happening, without bringing the baggage of their conceptual theories and beliefs to shape their interpretations to fit their beliefs..
|
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 18, 2014 22:43:28 GMT -5
A metaphor for realization is an inflection point where "I am none of this" has the exact same (non-intellectual) meaning as "I am all of this". Whereas I get the 'no separation' bit, the 'all of this' conclusion is still mind-boggling. Well, if whatever you are isn't separate from all of this because there is no separation, then whatever you are must be all of this, right? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 18, 2014 22:47:48 GMT -5
The interconnectedness of nature is the inevitable consequence of oneness, but it is not oneness. As I've said mucho times, oneness is not a collection of parts working together. There are no parts. That's oneness. How can you have interconnectedness with no parts that are connecting? I'd think in your oneness model there would be no connectedness. Okay, apparent interconnectedness.  |
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Aug 19, 2014 5:28:32 GMT -5
The interconnectedness of nature is the inevitable consequence of oneness, but it is not oneness. As I've said mucho times, oneness is not a collection of parts working together. There are no parts. That's oneness. How can you have interconnectedness with no parts that are connecting? I'd think in your oneness model there would be no connectedness. It reveals awareness of the actuality.. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 19, 2014 6:45:17 GMT -5
How can you have interconnectedness with no parts that are connecting? I'd think in your oneness model there would be no connectedness. Okay, apparent interconnectedness. If we can talk about it then it's making an appearance of some sort or another! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2014 7:05:55 GMT -5
How can you have interconnectedness with no parts that are connecting? I'd think in your oneness model there would be no connectedness. It reveals awareness of the actuality.. Thus spake It!  |
|
... for 20+ years, every now and then, out of the blue, I'd do just that: sit in awe of that fact, even if only for just an instant.
