|
|
Post by inavalan on Aug 17, 2023 20:49:29 GMT -5
If only "some folks", or only in some state (e.g. of consciousness) ... then "oneness" is a belief; it isn't a truth. Surely, you may define the qualifiers 'truth' and 'belief' differently. To me, the difference and the clarity are important because you can't go beyond a 'truth'. Putting aside (all) your beliefs, expectations, emotions allows you to explore further, deeper. You can't put aside 'truth'. This reminds of the discussion about '1+1=2' being a truth. It isn't. In a synergistic system it is more, in a neutralizing system it is less. So, it is an assumption valid in certain existence-systems, but not in all. To me, the 'truth' we're discussing here is only unbounded, unqualified ( Not modified by conditions or reservations; absolute.). Regarding 'oneness' ... I believe there is a oneness in terms of connectivity between everything (not only humans), without any loss of individual identity or of free-will. But this implies so many beliefs ... There is no oneness in terms of belonging to a source. There is no purpose in aligning with a source. In my view, a 'truth' can be discovered, but I'd also say that this particular human earth experience is highly unusual in that this 'truth' does have to be discovered. It's somewhat of an anomaly for creatures of our intelligence to have to discover this truth. I'd say '1+1=2' is a fact, not a truth. A fact is strictly contextual, whereas a truth transcends context i.e it is true in context and also goes beyond context. To clarify a bit further, connectivity is a product of oneness, but 'oneness' itself indicates that everything is an expression of the same 'thing'....we could call this Consciousness, but there are other applicable words. And I'd say there's also a truth about 'Love' that can be discovered. Thanks for this exchange. From it, each one of us could intuitively get something (not the same thing).  |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Aug 17, 2023 21:04:49 GMT -5
In my view, a 'truth' can be discovered, but I'd also say that this particular human earth experience is highly unusual in that this 'truth' does have to be discovered. It's somewhat of an anomaly for creatures of our intelligence to have to discover this truth. I'd say '1+1=2' is a fact, not a truth. A fact is strictly contextual, whereas a truth transcends context i.e it is true in context and also goes beyond context. To clarify a bit further, connectivity is a product of oneness, but 'oneness' itself indicates that everything is an expression of the same 'thing'....we could call this Consciousness, but there are other applicable words. And I'd say there's also a truth about 'Love' that can be discovered. Thanks for this exchange. From it, each one of us could intuitively get something (not the same thing). Appreciate it. I like the exchange, I like being asked to think about my replies to you, and the experiencing of refining my understanding, I like the way my mind has to function in order to engage with you, I like the sense of connection, and I like getting to know how things are for you, and for people in general. Maybe there is a deeper level than all that, but for now, I think I went deep enough Thanks. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 18, 2023 0:05:04 GMT -5
There is no such thing as a belief that does not establish a limitation. Nonduality is used to point sideways to limitation. That includes the stories ZD is fond of. Analyzing them in terms of belief is completely missing the point. not the point. The point is: if you don't see a limitation, it doesn't mean there isn't one. So, by default all your truths are beliefs. You don't start by assuming that everything is true until proven it was just a belief, but vice versa: everything is belief until proven unchallengeable. There are very few apparently unchallengeable truths, and only when completely unqualified: one's own existence, change. I have come to believe, through a process of suspending any belief that I was conscious of and remaining hyper-vigilant and going looking for those that I was not, that what you write here is, similar to what Descartes wrote on the matter, is the best perspective a serious seeker of truth can hope to adopt. The end of that seeking is not the replacement of one or any set of beliefs with any other, but involves a realization. I understand that this may sound like a belief, but it is not. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 18, 2023 0:09:41 GMT -5
I'd also add 'oneness' to the list, on the basis that if your existence is a truth, it means that there's no 'place' else for your existence to go i.e there's no existence outside or beyond of existence. It seems that 'oneness' requires an explanation, a deduction, an interpretation. "I exist", "change" are directly known. They are even difficult to explain or justify. Maybe this is the origin of the preoccupation with "I AM", and its various (mis)interpretations. A symbol can be, and is differently interpreted, according to your current needs and abilities. When you try to explain "I exist", you introduce distortions caused by your limitations due to your level of evolvement, beliefs, intellect.That's why I wrote " apparently unchallengeable truths, and only when completely unqualified". If you ask "who/what am I" you already induced distortions. One of the sources of that "preoccupation" is Nisargadatta, aka "Niz". This is very similar to what he said about "I AM". He went further than just explanation, and invited his listeners to explore the lived, moment-by-moment experience of it: "refuse all thoughts but I AM". The distinction between "I exist" and "I am", does have a potential difference, but, depending on how it's approached, it can also result in splitting hares. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Aug 29, 2023 23:24:02 GMT -5
Hares? Yikes.
|
|
