...life can be translucent

Menu

humans or dancers?

NemeanMagik

visitor
Joined
Mar 20, 2014
Messages
200
Reaction score
3
Are we 'persons' or are we just 'energies'. If we are 'persons' then the drama is valid. If we are not persons, then all these questions and stories of our lives... are all pure phantasy.....?
 
S

svenrus

Guest
Angels (energies) are angels and animals are animals, but we humans are angels in animals bodies.
Ain't that a shame ?
 

NemeanMagik

visitor
Joined
Mar 20, 2014
Messages
200
Reaction score
3
....Or maybe ultimately even 'angels' are................No-thing? I mean if only the Self (not the 'self') is real, then that would permeate even the angels, and so even the angels would just be 'energy' without any real volition of their own?
The Hindus believe the world is 'maya' which means neither time nor space nor events nor things have anything more than a relative reality. So my biography and yours..........are meaningless. We only 'appear' to be here. It is only the Universal Self living through us. We have no independent reality.

Just pondering these things. Been up all night wondering.

Must go bath the dog now.
 
S

svenrus

Guest
Ahhh, Do You mean that we are like the drops in the ocean ? In the ocean the drops can't be seen as individuals but still we feel like individuals - and that is the illusion (Maya) ie. we are no individuals at all.... (?)
 

canislulu

Supporter
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Feb 1, 2012
Messages
815
Reaction score
43
Is it an electron is both a wave and a particle at the same time?
 

Brendon

visitor
Joined
Dec 26, 2014
Messages
43
Reaction score
0
Thats a very smart question and i personally feel like we are dancer and we are dancing to entertain stars and constellation.
 
S

svenrus

Guest
... is it that hard to be a drop in the ocean of mercy and bliss even without an individuality ?

I once read that Leonardo da Vinci had written that the quintesence of the existence is solution.

- solution into the unity from where we once came ?

(Before crossing (hex 64): everything. After crossing (hex 63): nothing. Or: the other way round ???)
 

moss elk

visitor
Joined
Jul 22, 2013
Messages
3,280
Reaction score
1,049
Are we 'persons' or are we just 'energies'. If we are 'persons' then the drama is valid. If we are not persons, then all these questions and stories of our lives... are all pure phantasy.....?

I'm curious, What difference would an answer make?

If you ask yourself these two questions:

What kind of _____ you would like to be?

How can a _____ rise above or persevere through a given drama?

Are the answers so different?
 

NemeanMagik

visitor
Joined
Mar 20, 2014
Messages
200
Reaction score
3
If we are not 'persons' but simply 'energies' and therefore 'free will' by definition is meaningless, then because we are only 'apparent' 'persons', then all experience is just that: 'experience', and only 'real' in terms of our feeling ourselves to be 'persons', i.e. in relationship between us and any thing else, including feelings and thoughts.
If we are not 'persons' then of course the question ' what kind of ---' becomes meaningless.
And the question: 'How can a person rise above..etc', also becomes meaningless because 'intention' is merely an 'idea', as are 'goals', and both the process of overcoming and the achievement at the end of that is also illusory.
If we are not ' persons', but merely a bundle of energies doing its thing, then whatever we do or don't do, doesn't matter.
yes, I think there is a World of difference.
Ultimately the world and every 'thing' in it is 'maya', and to recognise or 'see' that is to be Unconditional Love.
 
S

sooo

Guest
If we are not 'persons' but simply 'energies' and therefore 'free will' by definition is meaningless, then because we are only 'apparent' 'persons', then all experience is just that: 'experience', and only 'real' in terms of our feeling ourselves to be 'persons', i.e. in relationship between us and any thing else, including feelings and thoughts.
If we are not 'persons' then of course the question ' what kind of ---' becomes meaningless.
And the question: 'How can a person rise above..etc', also becomes meaningless because 'intention' is merely an 'idea', as are 'goals', and both the process of overcoming and the achievement at the end of that is also illusory.
If we are not ' persons', but merely a bundle of energies doing its thing, then whatever we do or don't do, doesn't matter.
yes, I think there is a World of difference.
Ultimately the world and every 'thing' in it is 'maya', and to recognise or 'see' that is to be Unconditional Love.

This reminds me of a fascinating flick I viewed a couple of nights ago, called "Frequencies". Based on the (still) sci-fi idea that we each are naturally tuned to a frequency varying from very high to very low, and that compatibility was simply a matter of matching frequencies. It led to a dramatic potential relationship between a woman of very high frequency and a young man (or boy at the early part of the story), and how he manged to raise his frequency, something that at the time was considered impossible, and had the means to lower her frequencies, which though may seem undesirable would allow her Spock-like mind to lower to a feeling level, and particularly feeling love for this young man. His curiosity and experiences led to to the idea that we as machines are part of a mechanized universe in which free will, in reality, does not exist, that what we perceive as free will is just part of our mechanized function that we play in the greater universal scheme. That led to the idea that one can change the frequency through a code or words that have no meaning in the normal sense, but that unintentionally could be used to literally control all of mankind. It was also found that the antidote for all this was music, and especially that of Mozart, which was the last time period when someone stumbled upon this entire frequency notion, as though Mozart himself wrote his pieces to neutralize this potential mind control and thereby prevent controlling the human world. Brilliant story and casting, but a bit of a brain strain to follow the viable logic. Anyway, these two discussions or story seem to share much in common. The final line and question asked to one another, does it matter? And they strolled off happily arm in arm. I actually considered posting about this movie in Open Space to see if any others are familiar with it. It's a British made movie.

While I do not consider Taoism and I Ching to be synonymous, neither do I find a great difference between Taoism, Buddhism and Nietzsche, as they each seem to favor a naturalist approach to humanity, the idea of mental construct as a lessor idea of reality, and moving beyond to art as a means of living a truer, more natural life.

I still find the ideas of predetermined destiny and free will unresolved, and I am led to ask myself the same question: does it matter? Either way, it's a fascinating journey.

Even unconditional love can merely be a state, such as a mother likely feels for her newborn for sake of the survival of our species.
 

NemeanMagik

visitor
Joined
Mar 20, 2014
Messages
200
Reaction score
3
This reminds me of a fascinating flick I viewed a couple of nights ago, called "Frequencies". Based on the (still) sci-fi idea that we each are naturally tuned to a frequency varying from very high to very low, and that compatibility was simply a matter of matching frequencies. It led to a dramatic potential relationship between a woman of very high frequency and a young man (or boy at the early part of the story), and how he manged to raise his frequency, something that at the time was considered impossible, and had the means to lower her frequencies, which though may seem undesirable would allow her Spock-like mind to lower to a feeling level, and particularly feeling love for this young man. His curiosity and experiences led to to the idea that we as machines are part of a mechanized universe in which free will, in reality, does not exist, that what we perceive as free will is just part of our mechanized function that we play in the greater universal scheme. That led to the idea that one can change the frequency through a code or words that have no meaning in the normal sense, but that unintentionally could be used to literally control all of mankind. It was also found that the antidote for all this was music, and especially that of Mozart, which was the last time period when someone stumbled upon this entire frequency notion, as though Mozart himself wrote his pieces to neutralize this potential mind control and thereby prevent controlling the human world. Brilliant story and casting, but a bit of a brain strain to follow the viable logic. Anyway, these two discussions or story seem to share much in common. The final line and question asked to one another, does it matter? And they strolled off happily arm in arm. I actually considered posting about this movie in Open Space to see if any others are familiar with it. It's a British made movie.

While I do not consider Taoism and I Ching to be synonymous, neither do I find a great difference between Taoism, Buddhism and Nietzsche, as they each seem to favor a naturalist approach to humanity, the idea of mental construct as a lessor idea of reality, and moving beyond to art as a means of living a truer, more natural life.

I still find the ideas of predetermined destiny and free will unresolved, and I am led to ask myself the same question: does it matter? Either way, it's a fascinating journey.

Even unconditional love can merely be a state, such as a mother likely feels for her newborn for sake of the survival of our species.


Very interesting Sooo. I would like to see that film.

I think though that it is not accurate to say that 'unconditional love' is just another 'state'; I see it as the context in which every 'thing' exists and so it is the only constant. I see it as the changeless within which everything i.e. maya, changes. It is in that sense the 'absolute'. Even in the I ching, there are constants, there have to be for there to be any sense to 'constant change' just as without space, there can be no movement. The 'empty sky' of Buddhist is similarly this backdrop to all that is illusory.
so I see a difference between changing states, and Unconditional love. By unconditional love I mean that which contains Every 'thing' in apparent 'existence'. There cannot be anything beyond that, and it therefore cannot just be a 'state'.
 
S

sooo

Guest
Well, I didn't say unconditional love is just another state; I said it "can merely be a state". I don't claim to know one way or the other. There are many ideas which seem beautiful; unconditional love being perhaps the most ideal, but that doesn't mean it is not a state, a condition - a condition of perceiving love as being unconditional. I see it as an idea, a possibility, or a construct, along with the rest of samsara (sangsāra). As such it would not be ultimate reality, only a result or variation within a state of ignorance, a product of ego, attachment to the wheel of birth and death - which is itself a state, as is this very notion of it being a state.
 

NemeanMagik

visitor
Joined
Mar 20, 2014
Messages
200
Reaction score
3
Well, I didn't say unconditional love is just another state; I said it "can merely be a state". I don't claim to know one way or the other. There are many ideas which seem beautiful; unconditional love being perhaps the most ideal, but that doesn't mean it is not a state, a condition - a condition of perceiving love as being unconditional. I see it as an idea, a possibility, or a construct, along with the rest of samsara (sangsāra). As such it would not be ultimate reality, only a result or variation within a state of ignorance, a product of ego, attachment to the wheel of birth and death - which is itself a state, as is this very notion of it being a state.


Ah, well, that is where we must differ! It is not a perception but an ultimate truth because it is context as I say. it not simply an 'idea' and certainly not 'samsara', quite the opposite (in a sense!) because it does not change, and that is the point. Like if you were looking at the sky, and saw the clouds floating by and birds flying. the sky is the context, and although the weather/moods change, the sky is still context, still the background, like space.

It is about the 'space' to be. It 'allows' everything else to be, allows Samsara, maya, to BE. Nothing can exist without this space facilitating its existence. It could be described as 'presence', as allowing, as being.... Everything in the foreground is relative, interdependent, Unconditional love is not conditional upon or conditioned by, anthying at all. It JUST IS.
 
S

sooo

Guest
I revisited this idea throughout the day yesterday with an open mind, and at the end of the day I still am inclined to view this beautiful picture you paint of unconditional love as a temporal state.

To use the canvas of the painting idea, I get that. Then I visualize the reality of life sustained on earth: the image of a cheetah taking down the fleeing gazelle, the crack-head mother leaving her infant at home to fend for himself while she's out desperately looking for her pimp and fix, the pervert priest molesting a choir boy, the multitude who will go to bed hungry tonight, the government corruption of the world's food supply, intentionally poisoning the air, and our deceitfully manipulated monetary system - all painted over the eutopic context of infinite space of unconditional love, and in the background hearing the beautiful rendition of Louie Armstrong's It's a Wonderful World, and the term unconditional love seems satirical and even cruel. I think calling it a state is being generous, as it is a state that requires inducement. I think it's a state someone might feel for the first five minutes after a mainline heroin hit or possibly ecstasy, or maybe years of meditation, but still a mere state.

That could be all wrong and you may be 100% right, but if so, it escapes me.
 

NemeanMagik

visitor
Joined
Mar 20, 2014
Messages
200
Reaction score
3
Yes, I have struggled, and still do with the harsh realities you speak about, and then still to maintain the understanding that Unconditional Love, or 'allowing things to be what they are' is the background, context, setting of samsara etc etc. However, unless there is a God who is 'personal' and has intelligent 'intention' rather than things just 'happening spontaneously', doing what they are, or just 'being themselves', then I do not see how ultimately there is any moral dimension................the only sense in which there is any sense of rightness is the sense in which there is 'ONLY' 'rightness, i.e. ultimately everything exists in harmony. And surely that is the ultimate realisation of the I ching? The seasons unerringly come and go, the earth spins, everything moves towards homeostasis via this means or that means. In the end, there is only light, and everything is absorbed by that light, even the worst evil, what WE would perceive as the most terrible atrocities, the absolutely worst suffering ------------------the message of the symbol of the cross is exactly that. Hitler 'arose', was 'an arising'; he was an energy whose time had come via the same process - like water finding its own balance? David Cameron and George Osborne are other such phenomena. Love them them or hate them. But actually whatever individually we do, or attitude we take to such, they are still given their time and space on earth..........................Hence they are 'allowed to be'.......like any saint. So, my understanding comes from just looking at this. How can we claim any moral judgement of 'right' or 'wrong' when actually there is no one there who has written the rules.....? WE can make them up according to our preferences, but that is a social necessity not an absolute.
 

innertruth

visitor
Joined
Jan 23, 2015
Messages
482
Reaction score
19
hello...
yes we are energies but we are also energies with some type of merit - which is in our case - a social world that plays and its rules and characteristics....so i was having same recurrent thoughts about the ultimate MEANING...and the truth and the question of morality that seems just illusory in the deepest sense (as you mentioned)....
However, still, since we humans are the part of such system - MORALITY was a measure invented by us...
to escape from chaos or violence...a massive survival technique sort of??
But individual morality is so little compared to the massive collective that we can ponder on its
effects...
There is always a side to religion as to control some destructive element within a society.
So even if you really want to escape the social reality of our human world - still we cannot...even for the
best of spiritual practices ... that's what came to me another day...
But we can accept that we live in a society...
and as for unconditional love - how can it be done by someone who is so
conditional. i mean us, human beings are so conditional...it's like expecting an atomary station =like
power from a tiny light bulb...we only can do to our limits...
 

innertruth

visitor
Joined
Jan 23, 2015
Messages
482
Reaction score
19
so we, humans can be just a passer-ons (conductors) of energies...But those energies are manifested in
the human realm...so we have all that comes with it...anger, violence, frustration, love, compassion, good and bad, bad and good - and BASIC rules of human conduct that come with it- laid out by our ancestors (Bible, Quran and other)...
Taoism and Hinduistic teachings are very deep, deeper than morality altogether. It's a next level of understanding, which nevertheless
we still try to grasp in our current bodies, being humans in this world...
 

NemeanMagik

visitor
Joined
Mar 20, 2014
Messages
200
Reaction score
3
so we, humans can be just a passer-ons (conductors) of energies...But those energies are manifested in
the human realm...so we have all that comes with it...anger, violence, frustration, love, compassion, good and bad, bad and good - and BASIC rules of human conduct that come with it- laid out by our ancestors (Bible, Quran and other)...
Taoism and Hinduistic teachings are very deep, deeper than morality altogether. It's a next level of understanding, which nevertheless
we still try to grasp in our current bodies, being humans in this world...


I am thinking that yes, as human beings in society we find we have to play by the rules to quite an extent in order to survive as a race, and as an individual, but it seems to me if you acknowledge that the ultimate truth is this context of Unconditional Love, then life is to be played out as a kind of tongue-in-cheek 'game' - knowing the truth is something else, but realising for practical purposes we must work with consciousness on a lower level. I don't think for the most part it is that we can practically (in terms of embracing everything) accept all as Unconditional Lovers.... practically there are limitations as you say...but in terms of our 'mode of being' this attitude of 'just looking, just seeing and allowing everything and everyone to be what it is, how it is' is the way to be truly liberated. A person may or may not choose to defend themselves against attack (most of us will choose to), but in doing that we are giving credence to the 'ego' or small 'self' and perhaps need simply to be aware that this is what in a way has to happen if we are to remain incarnated, stay alive at all. so I think maybe there needs to develop a skill to sort of straddle both worlds. It is a case of recognizing that this is really all a game, like the Hindu Kali? - Layla? and live our lives participating in the illusion by knowing that is indeed what it is.
If I am to truly see the chair in front of me, I must allow it to be what it is, without any interference from me, or projections. That means seeing it as I see it, as I experience it right now without any thought of its intended purpose or any other overlays. In the same way, to truly love a toddler, it is necessary to let it play - provide a safe place (this is what a mother would do anyway) for it to mess around, skip or whatever, but not too quickly or firmly define its/his/her personality. Hold to definitions lightly. This is what I mean by the main focus being on the unconditional love 'context', 'holding', 'allowing'. Then the reality of the being can emerge itself without anyone laying on it ones own projections.
In the end everything and everyone that exists simply is what it is.
Most of our thinking involves fantasy, projections, imaginings.
The universal Whatever has none of this.
It simply allows Hitlers and Stalins, rapes and robbers.
Outrageous I feel too.
But maybe that is IT, nevertheless.

Ouch.
But Amazing too.

and the symbol of Jesus on the cross and all his talk of love and all that, is expressive of the same point, the same message. 'What I am is me; for that I came" (Hopkins).
 
S

sooo

Guest
I don't know how morality, religion, I Ching or God crept into this conversation. I simply suggest that if unconditional love exists - and that's a big and generous if - it is a state. A state has nothing to do with morality, religion, or God; though the Yijing certainly does speak to states, various states of natural phenomenon and each with an anthropomorphic inclusion of human nature, character and even in some cases ethics. Only within those versions of Christian influenced authors, such as Wilhelm, is God even mentioned, and I'm interested where unconditional love is characterized in the Book of Changes. The IC is constructed of dualistic exchanges of elements, from which we derive applicable meaning and answers. As such, it too belongs within the samsara realm, perhaps among the finest articles within the realm. It speaks of 64 states, each constructed of one or two of eight elements. One can rightly call it a book of conditional states.

If unconditional love does exist, I can't imagine how that can be a wholesome thing. Perfect order is difficult enough to imagine, but a love that is without merit, can that even be called love? How should this unconditional love be applied to we humans? Whom or what should we love unconditionally? I used the only example I could think of: a mother unconditionally loving her child for sake of survival of their species. I can relate to this more in the instinctively directed animal kingdom than in the human species, because humans are prone to learn intolerable behavior that a lion cub can not conceive, unless they contract rabies, and such a child will be killed or abandoned.

I still think it's a beautiful thought, possibly a beautiful state or condition. I don't know how anyone can know this is an eternal condition, though. They can imagine it, believe in it, try to emulate the idea or ideal, but know it? That must be some kind of supernatural person.
 

moss elk

visitor
Joined
Jul 22, 2013
Messages
3,280
Reaction score
1,049
... then I do not see how ultimately there is any moral dimension....* How can we claim any moral judgement of 'right' or 'wrong' when actually there is no one there who has written the rules.....? WE can make them up according to our preferences, but that is a social necessity not an absolute.

I could set up a demonstration for you where you are tied up and hit with a series of progressively heavier hammers. Not too long into the process, you wouldn't have any doubt about the place of morality in relation to life. All those complicated thoughts about the nature of reality, the mish mash of elements of cosmogenies that you speak of as if they were facts would quickly be out the window.
Living beings that can suffer should be cared for. It is very simple.

I think this belongs in open space.
 
Last edited:

NemeanMagik

visitor
Joined
Mar 20, 2014
Messages
200
Reaction score
3
Hello Sooo!

Well. These subjects are in mind very much inter-related and I am seeking to find the relationships between the ideas and their commonalities. Unconditional love is not something that is 'intentioned' by some being, but is simply the term for 'what is'. It is totally beyond any sense of morality, and so no I would not call it a state at all - I am sure you realise that. 'Unconditional' means accepting absolutely everything and as such has to be the very nature of reality, ultimately, because I am here and you are here, and this chair is here, and in some form those energies have always existed, always will exist...IN that sense their existence is 'unconditionally accepted' --- just by being here, and being allowed to be here. That in my mind, is 'unconditional love'.
Although 'unconditional love' might not be discoverable in every I ching translation or commentary, it is nevertheless implicit that something must be changeless for change to mean anything? And from my point of view that equates to unconditionality. And yes, maybe the quality of that could be described as 'love'. If you are going to have an understanding of 'dualism', then it seems to me 'non'dualism has to be the ultimate development of that, as Oneness is surely the ultimate nature of everything...? I think yes, I ching does aspire to that. Of course it is dealing with Samsara in terms of divination because we are incarnate. But ultimately there are no questions and answers; there is just ' what is'. There is no right or wrong. There is no language, no discrimination. Just..........No-thing, and Everything....?
One cannot imagine unconditional love, or believe in it, or try to copy it because it is not describable. It is in the hymn's terminology: ineffable. That is the point of why people go on about unconditional love, why the mystics enthuse about it so much. It can only be ............. channelled. One can't possess it. And if 'persons' are 'energies', there is no one in the end to bestow it. It just is. The context. The background to samsara, to maya, to everything.
 

moss elk

visitor
Joined
Jul 22, 2013
Messages
3,280
Reaction score
1,049
[video]http://youtube.com/watch?v=bgXPl3XM_NA[/video]

How about of Dancing? :)
 
S

sooo

Guest
I appreciate the exchange of these ideas with you, NemeanMagik. It gives me a reason to contemplate these things and an opportunity to share my views on the subject. I still don't claim to have an answer, only an "it seems to me." Though to some others it's just mish mash, I enjoy discussing this stuff.

The one thing that has repeatedly come to mind, which works toward accepting your view, is the well known phrase: The Dao that can be named isn't the Dao. And perhaps my favorite from the DdJ, the value of a bowl is its emptiness. So if to you that un-namable empty bowl is unconditional love, I can accept that. I also like "this chair" ;).
 
B

blue_angel

Guest
"My two cents" I too have contemplated this. At times, what I believe to be truths has come to the surface during meditation. I agree with many things said in this thread, and other things it hurts my brain to contemplate so I choose not to. However, for now, my own conclusion is that we are not supposed to "know" all. Almost as if knowing, would take us away from what we are to be experiencing "now".
 

innertruth

visitor
Joined
Jan 23, 2015
Messages
482
Reaction score
19
I must allow it to be what it is, without any interference from me, or projections. That means seeing it as I see it, as I experience it right now without any thought of its intended purpose or any other overlays.

and the symbol of Jesus on the cross and all his talk of love and all that, is expressive of the same point, the same message. 'What I am is me; for that I came" (Hopkins).

Totally agree, it does help dealing with uncomfortable situations and some social stress.
Ward off negative thoughts or over optimistic thoughts. I like that feeling of "flowing" and accepting
reality. Because in the end reality in its highest sense is what it is. And absolutely agree on
the projections things that shape many of us based on our personal /hereditary/cultural experience
which cannot be unbiased. So YES TO THAT! MAJOR yes to this approach.
 

pocossin

visitor
Joined
Feb 7, 1970
Messages
4,521
Reaction score
181
Are we 'persons' or are we just 'energies'. If we are 'persons' then the drama is valid. If we are not persons, then all these questions and stories of our lives... are all pure phantasy.....?

Persons, energies -- these two categories overlap and aren't exclusive. We are unique energy patterns.
 

NemeanMagik

visitor
Joined
Mar 20, 2014
Messages
200
Reaction score
3
I think the issue is consciousness of self. 'Energies' are impersonal. This has been a big question for me. Without continuity of identity in this sense, karma is a total illusion as there is no 'person' to link the thread.

If only the Self (not 'self) exists, then there is nothing unique. As everything is Oneness. Therefore there is no diversity, no separate beings.
 

Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom

Phone/ Voicemail:
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).

Top