+- Subliminal Talk (https://subliminal-talk.com)
+-- Forum: Other Topics (https://subliminal-talk.com/Forum-Other-Topics)
+--- Forum: The Chatter Box (https://subliminal-talk.com/Forum-The-Chatter-Box)
+--- Thread: The What-Is-Not (/Thread-The-What-Is-Not)
RE: The What-Is-Not - WildFlower - 05-22-2011
Quote:In this case, there is a specific answer I am looking for. If you understand, great. If not, keep trying until you either do understand, or no longer wish to understand.
If enlightenment is anything it's objective. It's hard to argue objective truth's in a post-modern world where the paradigm is to honor an infinite, multitude of beliefs/perceptions/feelings; which to do so you have to take complete objectivity out of every object and replace it with subjective, mind-dependent judgement's of the subject/individual. This is a paradigm I'm sympathetic towards in political and social matters. But like I said, if enlightenment is anything it's objective. It isn't a judgement; it's completely prior to judgement - it's uncolored perception. Perception prior to judgement. We all perceive therefore we are all enlightened; it's just a degree of how aware we are that we're enlightened beings that is the difference:
"The word enlightenment conjures up the idea of some superhuman accomplishment, and the ego likes to keep it that way, but it is simply your natural state of felt oneness with Being."
The reason I quoted the Koan "the finger that points to the moon, is not the moon" was to highlight how dependent judgement's are on linguistics. It seems obvious that the finger isn't the moon; that the word isn't the thing it represent's but it can be a subtle trap that we all fall into. We look at the candle and we project our linguistic judgement of what we think it is onto it. Language could be man's greatest achievement, but it can also get him very lost at times.
1. The world is an illusion
2. Brahman alone is real
3. Brahman is the world
or the trinity:
1. The father
2. The Son
3. The Holy Spirit
in other words:
1. God is the first cause
2. God is his physical creation; pantheism
3. God is consciousness; you and me as conscious beings. (see also the Hindu, atman brahman relationship)
When we look at the flame we are simply looking at a reflection of ourself; ourself that we created.
RE: The What-Is-Not - Patti - 05-23-2011
(05-20-2011, 09:15 PM)Shannon Wrote:(05-04-2011, 05:28 AM)Patti Wrote: I have to say, I don’t get this. I don’t mean this in an argumentative way, I just don’t understand. I’ve always been one to tell people that they feel what they feel and their feelings are never wrong, it’s what they feel. And this seems very similar to me. You want people to see what they see but then you tell them it’s wrong. How can what they see be wrong? They see what they see. What makes your sighting right for anyone other than you?
If I have a target, and I drop a bomb thirty miles away from it, did I miss the target? I want people to see what I see, not what they see. They already see what they see. If they already saw what I see, they wouldn't have to try to figure out what I see.
My experience has been that feelings can be wrong, and blind acceptance of them is not really always a good method for staying healthy. If I blindly accepted my feelings all the time, as you seem to suggest, I would never have left the ex who was physically, emotionally and mentally abusive to me, because my feelings still to this day tell me that I love her. Had my rational mind never gotten the upper hand, I would either be dead or in prison right now for killing her in response to her borderline personality. In this case, my feelings were wrong.
You cannot simply toss aside all challenges and say that there is no wrong answer. While it is true that some things cannot have a wrong answer, there is no learning without a restriction to what is being targeted. Imagine saying that on a mathematics test, "There is no wrong answer, if you feel that the answer is correct, then it is." I don't know about you, but someone who achieves a degree in engineering with a test like that, I don't want working on any part of the airplane I'll be riding in.
In this case, there is a specific answer I am looking for. If you understand, great. If not, keep trying until you either do understand, or no longer wish to understand.
I certainly don’t disagree with you that looking back on your relationship with her that you feel it wasn’t healthy. It’s what you feel, therefore you’re not wrong. But that’s more about hindsight. What you did or didn’t do because of those feelings is a different story. What we feel can change and as we grow usually does but those feelings are always right for us at the time.
I have no doubt that you drew her into your life at that time for lessons you needed to learn about yourself. Things that really needed to be driven into your soul for you to get. When all that happened with her, you were in a very low place with your illness and what was going on with your mom. I’m more than sure you were extremely vulnerable which might have made you more open to learn what you needed. I have a feeling you can be stubborn sometimes, probably even with yourself.
I can tell just by this forum that your are a passionate person, one who truly wants to help others. You’re not in this business for the money, although that’s nice to have but not your true purpose here. Just by updating your programs, listening to people, finding out if your programs work or don’t, why or why not, and giving sound advice at how to deal with things people are going through while using them is something no other company does. And I tend to think that you’re helping ways trickle down into your love life and you might be or have been a fix-it type of boyfriend. You want the better for everyone.
The point I’m trying to make is that for you, in that time of your life, you needed the love you had for her to learn things about yourself that couldn’t have been told to you to understand what you truly do need or want or not need or not want in a relationship. In my opinion you need someone more on your intellectual and passionate playing field, someone you don’t need to fix.
In any case, I stand firm. You’re feelings of love for her were not wrong, it’s what you felt.
As for the candle thingie, I do understand now just by you saying you WANT people to see what you see. That one word made all the difference.
P.S. Why would anyone drop a bomb thirty miles away from the target???? Than analogy didn’t make any sense to me. And feelings don’t have anything to do mathematics so I didn’t get that either.
RE: The What-Is-Not - Patti - 05-23-2011
(05-22-2011, 02:39 AM)WildFlower Wrote:Quote:In this case, there is a specific answer I am looking for. If you understand, great. If not, keep trying until you either do understand, or no longer wish to understand.
If enlightenment is anything it's objective. It's hard to argue objective truth's in a post-modern world where the paradigm is to honor an infinite, multitude of beliefs/perceptions/feelings; which to do so you have to take complete objectivity out of every object and replace it with subjective, mind-dependent judgement's of the subject/individual. This is a paradigm I'm sympathetic towards in political and social matters. But like I said, if enlightenment is anything it's objective. It isn't a judgement; it's completely prior to judgement - it's uncolored perception. Perception prior to judgement. We all perceive therefore we are all enlightened; it's just a degree of how aware we are that we're enlightened beings that is the difference:
"The word enlightenment conjures up the idea of some superhuman accomplishment, and the ego likes to keep it that way, but it is simply your natural state of felt oneness with Being."
The reason I quoted the Koan "the finger that points to the moon, is not the moon" was to highlight how dependent judgement's are on linguistics. It seems obvious that the finger isn't the moon; that the word isn't the thing it represent's but it can be a subtle trap that we all fall into. We look at the candle and we project our linguistic judgement of what we think it is onto it. Language could be man's greatest achievement, but it can also get him very lost at times.
1. The world is an illusion
2. Brahman alone is real
3. Brahman is the world
or the trinity:
1. The father
2. The Son
3. The Holy Spirit
in other words:
1. God is the first cause
2. God is his physical creation; pantheism
3. God is consciousness; you and me as conscious beings. (see also the Hindu, atman brahman relationship)
When we look at the flame we are simply looking at a reflection of ourself; ourself that we created.
Wow! I always enjoy reading your post however my head hurts a little from this one, but it's early and I haven't had my coffee yet. lol Quite interesting indeed!
RE: The What-Is-Not - Patti - 05-23-2011
(05-21-2011, 02:27 PM)Spiral Wrote: I think about those things all the time! Like my red could be your green... or whatever! Insane.
I had this thought once when I was sitting at a red light and I could have swore I saw it flicker very quickly green but it was still red. Did you ever hear about a car accident where someone ran a red light or turned in front a car and wonder didn’t they see it?! Well my thought is maybe they didn’t or maybe that person that ran the red light actually saw it as green. I’m a firm believer that we have a predestined time to leave this world and it may be possible that the universe can play these subtle tricks on our minds to bring those events into fruition.
Or maybe it was just an accident!
Just a thought…
RE: The What-Is-Not - massagemaggie - 05-23-2011
Ok now I want to try. Not an experienced meditator here.
So what exactly do we do and what are we trying to find out? That part is fuzzy.
Do I just gaze into a flame, or meditate on a flame with a question in mind.... such as what is the flame? Do we ask what is the FLAME or do we ask what isn't the flame?
I would have "guessed" yes guessed that it's the experience of what we believe a flame etc. to be. But you're talking about what it's not.
(04-14-2011, 06:28 AM)Shannon Wrote: What do I see when I gaze into a candle flame? It is not the flame.
What do I feel when I pass my hand over the candle flame? It is not the flame.
What do I smell when I blow the candle out? It is not the candle.
Light a candle, then, and discover this for yourself. Consider my words. Gaze into that candle flame, and see for yourself what-is-not. Touch the flame and feel what-is-not. Blow it out, and smell what-is-not. Then, contemplate, until you understand... what-is-not.
Know that from this experience, two paths diverge. One leads to confusion and one leads to enlightenment. Many will be confused, and give up. Some few will discover the flame by understanding what-is-not.
What is the flame? The answer hides behind the obvious, which is what-is-not.
RE: The What-Is-Not - Spiral - 05-23-2011
Well, as far as I can tell Shannon says that all we need to gaze at the flame. Of course, we must clear our mind and "become one with ourselves and the flame" if you will. But I think once you can actually do that and feel the connection comes the realization. There's no asking questions or pondering the flame.. the answer kind of has to just come to you.
When I tried it my eyes hurt like hell.. and Shannon says I was doing it wrong.. now Maybe the rest of the room was too dark but maybe Shannon could chime in on what the lighting in the room should be like other than the candle to not only avoid my eyes from hurting but to allow myself the most peaceful experience ever.
RE: The What-Is-Not - Jay - 08-16-2011
Perhaps I’m just being obvious, but I’ve thought about the candle exercise a bit and I came to the thought that the candle itself is never the same flame. It isn’t a constant, even though when we call it a flame we imply that it is. What makes me wonder is that the flame has to create itself time and time again, or that the flame is a symbol where different patterns derive from?
RE: The What-Is-Not - DrDestiny - 08-17-2011
Ok I'll have a go . You're not seeing the flame but only the image that's being projected onto the screen of your mind . In this way you can't 'see' any thing but only the image that is created in the mind through the light rays that enter the eyes.
RE: The What-Is-Not - Shannon - 08-18-2011
So far you guys are coming up with some interesting ideas, and coming close to what I was trying to share. Sometimes very close.
Spiral, you are assuming that you "must become one with the flame". Not so. You should clear your mind and gaze at the flame. Ambient lighting is unimportant as long as you can focus completely on the flame during the meditation, although I find it helpful to have the surrounding area dark.
You're not trying to trance out using the flame, although that may be helpful for some to contemplate it more deeply.
DrDestiny is very close to understanding what I was aiming at with those observations.
RE: The What-Is-Not - Spiral - 08-19-2011
So we all perceive light differently so someone might not look like the same person to some people as they do to another. So that leaves the question.. what does a lobster really look like? or a penguin for that matter?
RE: The What-Is-Not - Shannon - 08-19-2011
You have become sidetracked. That's not the path I was aiming for. When you look at a flame, you do not see it. Think about that.
RE: The What-Is-Not - LionMonkey - 08-30-2011
I've just stumbled upon this thread and it reminded me of some of my martial arts sessions;
In my martial arts training, we have a starting phase where we sit in a meditative way and begin a little guided meditation by our shifu.
Somewhere along the 3 minutes meditation he says something like;
"[...]Understand that we are not our body, our body is just a part of who we are. Understand that thoughts are happening right now, there's no future nor past. When a thought appears, just let it pass. Don't grasp to it. Understand that it's our will who we are[...]"
So what I perceive this to be;
There's no right answer, it's our perception of the object that defines it.
What is real is our senses; sight, hear, smell, taste & touch. (Even though the human brain have immense capability of power & knowledge)
We define the flame by observing what it's like. What we call it is just words, a label created by our mind, which has a great function too but not by experiencing the moment / object fully.
What-is-not <-- what?
Analysis, thinking vs. Being, experiencing .... should be 20% - 80% in my opinion...
- LM
RE: The What-Is-Not - Shannon - 09-02-2011
The "rightness" of the answer, in this case, depends on how much it matches what I want you to discover through this process.
RE: The What-Is-Not - LionMonkey - 09-03-2011
(09-02-2011, 04:47 PM)Shannon Wrote: The "rightness" of the answer, in this case, depends on how much it matches what I want you to discover through this process.
Well it certainly doesn't make it easier the way you wrote it!!!!
Simple answer; We all perceive things differently and that leads to this;
You say the answer depends on how much it matches what YOU want us to discover through this process.. hmm..
Then I'll say what I think you want us to discover is, that the flame is just what it is. It's just the way it is. It's a flowing energy. By playing with the energy other forms appears, like touching the flame etc...
hmmm.. made me think of everything is art if you want and everything is flowing energy...
Btw. we use labels and words so that we are can to relate in that way.