|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 9, 2023 12:29:23 GMT -5
Separate person is a sort of illusion, but just what sort of illusion it is is not something that can easily be reduced to saying "there is no self," even in the "smaller s" version of that idea. Rather, the idea is that the smaller-s self is not what it seems to be... and is in fact ultimately nothing other than Self. And further, if the individual self was not provisionally acknowledged in one of the discourses, then you couldn't have the idea of ignorance or realization either, which of course are core to advaita. Of course, ultimately, ignorance and realization ARE also illusions of a sort, but even that statement is itself made within a relative discourse. No statements can in fact be ultimately true. Truth is beyond words, including the words in this very sentence. That's an abstract mass of words, but I understood you, so...job done. Personally, I think it might have been a more straightforward read if left at the word 'advaita', but I can also see why you wanted to expand. But that's what matsuda was interested in. "advaita dudes".  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 9, 2023 13:21:33 GMT -5
... The yin~yang Tai Chi symbol is One Whole, but it shows two flows. No, there is nothing outside All That Is (the Whole Tai Chi symbol), ... I think that there are an infinite number of all-that-is in an infinite consciousness-gestalt structure. You are the all-that-is of your cells. You are also an element in other all-that-is gestalts. There isn't only "One whole". Each probable-reality is an all-that-is. But all these matter little to what you came here for.  The pointing of not-two is not meant to deny, negate or even subsume multiplicity. Rather, it is a perspective on mind-made limitation. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 9, 2023 16:06:34 GMT -5
That's an abstract mass of words, but I understood you, so...job done. Personally, I think it might have been a more straightforward read if left at the word 'advaita', but I can also see why you wanted to expand. But that's what matsuda was interested in. "advaita dudes". What do you mean? I thought Sifting's answer was good. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 9, 2023 16:12:26 GMT -5
But that's what matsuda was interested in. "advaita dudes". What do you mean? I thought Sifting's answer was good. Just noting why sifty used the word "advaita" in response to your expression of opinion that it was unnecessary.  |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Dec 10, 2023 12:54:03 GMT -5
I think that there are an infinite number of all-that-is in an infinite consciousness-gestalt structure. You are the all-that-is of your cells. You are also an element in other all-that-is gestalts. There isn't only "One whole".
Each probable-reality is an all-that-is. But all these matter little to what you came here for. I have said something similar for many a year where this non duality talk of there is only one, is so one dimensional and lacks any understanding of what the one and the many reflect. So we have the premise presented at times where there cannot be individuals because there is only one to begin with. What you are doesn't reflect one - it refers to there only being that. It doesn't limit what that is to one entity or non entity or whatever word suits. Even saying for examples sake there is only source or only God, or awareness, doesn't necessarily equate to one God, one awareness, one source. It brings up a conceptual dichotomy that I pondered as I compared and contrasted ND Oneness with Buddhist Void/Emptiness. It seems you're saying here that the "one and the many" is a way of talking about a story that is unfolding, and that to realize THAT which is pointed to (an absence/Nothing), such as story cannot be enjoyed as Well Being. Something along these lines: But I like the sense of, "What you are doesn't reflect one - it refers to there only being that", as it points to an absence/Nothing (i.e., as opposed to 'one god, one awareness, one source'... conceptions) prior to/in which the "one and the many" appear. As a function of mind, changing conceptual distinctions like "one and many" emerge and are remembered/forgotten; whereas, what is distinctly mind is created in/as reflection for that function. Ever enjoy watching the miracle of ripples in a pond? Anyway, Thou Art THAT, whether the ripples in the mind reflect that or not. |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Dec 10, 2023 13:16:40 GMT -5
... The yin~yang Tai Chi symbol is One Whole, but it shows two flows. No, there is nothing outside All That Is (the Whole Tai Chi symbol), ... I think that there are an infinite number of all-that-is in an infinite consciousness-gestalt structure. You are the all-that-is of your cells. You are also an element in other all-that-is gestalts. There isn't only "One whole". Each probable-reality is an all-that-is. But all these matter little to what you came here for. Nice color coded visual. I like how the Nothingness at the core of the appearing bubbles is the same color as the surrounding Nothingness. Interestingly, supposedly color can't be seen without light. So, poetically, maybe that is what was intuited way back when, before any such knowledge on light was scientifically theorized, when it was written, "Let there be light...". I AM all that is within you, all that is around you, a timeless No Thing. A fortuitous acquaintance when a storied hero with a thousand faces realizes. |
|
