Perchance

Maybe most ideas are a reflection of the "duality" idea.

Since it fits so neatly into human perceptions, though, I continue to be suspicious of it. The "duality" idea itself could easily just be a product of old and limited human ideas about the world, and not really touch on reality at all.

Out of that list, I'm one of those people who accepts the existence of the physical, and lacks belief in the existence of the supernatural. However, if the mind can be considered a separate realm, then I do accept that. (Sometimes it distresses me to hear people who insit there is "something more" beyond the physical world speak of the spirit as if it were all that there is, and ignore or even denigrate the mind).

So big humans couldn't walk around it?

I agree that we probably won't learn everything about the universe. I disagree with the idea that that means we should just give up trying to learn and sit in silence, occasionally saying, "Whoa, dude." (If that's not what you're suggesting, my apologies, but I've encountered many "spiritual" people who seem to have given up on the idea of understanding through the mind).

If "blind" didn't have such a connotation of "handicapped," I could try that.

What I resent is the idea that any "spiritual perception" is automatically superior to the idea of a "physical perception," and that there are some people who just instinctively understand this, while other people never will. It seems that people who feel they have attained some level of "understanding" or "awakening" then feel compelled to sneer about the poor "mundanes" or "sleepers" who will never feel as they do.

Arrogance is not an attractive trait, and really, you would think it would vanish with spiritual enlightenment .

But if the self only finds liberation in annihilation, then it isn't around anymore to enjoy the liberation anyway.

Again, I'm not sure why the idea of rebirth or attachment is considered "bad."

Probably. I also think there are some people who simply can't meditate. I've tried it in the past, and the most I've ever achieved is a state (usually near sleep) where my mind darts from thought to thought and experiences brief, intense dreams. I've never achieved pure or perfect stillness, and I'm not sure what would have to happen to give that to me.

Yes, personal experience does have its limitations- and I think that even if a person has a similar experience, it probably won't be exactly the same.

I'm glad that it does work for you.

Do you see it as true for everyone, or only true for those who believe in it?

If no humans existed on the planet, the rock's existence wouldn't be relevant?

And there are some neutral actions that turn into- what?

We're capable of coming to conclusions about even pain, though (for example, I hate shots, but if a shot will help me survive a disease, then I will get it). Do you think the "flight" response from pain is still the most prevalent?

Likewise. I've tried to discuss it with a few people offline in the past, and either they didn't think it was important or they said, "Huh?"

-Perchance.

Perchance

Hi Hugo,

I probably mistook your reply; I thought you were insisting that there were only two ways to see the world, and that one way was wrong, which is too familiar to me from other religions to make me unwary of it here.

I think it's possible to have many different reasons for not understanding the "There's a mountain line" or the poem "This is just to say," and my main one rests on dislike of the discussions that ensue in English classes, where people strive to outdo each other with "deep" and "profound" comments about them.

I don't really see anything deep or profound about either of them, so it's hard for me to comment .

-Perchance.

Hugo Holbling

Perchance:

Not to fret! It wasn't my intention to "strive to outdo" you with "deep" and "profound" comments; i'm just answering your questions.

You must appreciate that those genuinely interested in these things have no desire to impress you or anyone else with their learning, or lack thereof. Moreover, the "point" - insofar as there is one - of these exercises lies in the process of grappling with them, not in arriving at some kind of answer or understanding. When the questioning burns away with the questioner, so does the need to proclaim Truth from the rooftops or to seek acclaim. If you approach this as a problem to crack it will forever elude your grasp.

On the other hand, perhaps i'm full of it and merely hope to impress you with my rhetoric? So mote it be.

In any case, i commend to you the second link i offered, which gives something of an inkling as to why you might want to swap one presupposition for another.

And now, i return you to our regular programming.

Perchance

Hi Hugo,

Apparently you took me the wrong way. I didn't mean to accuse you of being arrogant or out to convert me; I was just offering a reason why it's hard for me to understand that phrase and that poem. I've only been in contexts where not understanding something is taken to be a sign of its profundity. I tend to react differently, and ask questions about them. For some reason I don't understand, mine were the wrong questions.

I think the perception of all as one is interesting, but I don't think of it as inferior or superior to any other perception. It's different than my own, which is why I asked.

-Perchance.

Hugo Holbling

Perchance:

Okay.

Perhaps that's the point?

AdamWho

The concept "all is one much more" common in women than men. I have heard anecdotal evidence than this "ones" feeling is related to lower levels of testosterone. So there may be a biological answer. It is interesting to note that Buddha only had this experience after fasting for days (meditating under bodi tree), so maybe it isn't a good thing.

From a common sense point of view, it doesn't make sense to call everything one. Such as "the universe is conscience". When a word or concept is stretched to cover everything then it is striped of any meaning.
Maybe concept destroying is the goal, like an unsolvable koan.

Hugo Holbling

Sometimes the term "not-many" is used, in order to avoid the "common sense" error you are making. The issue is one of separation, or of boundaries presupposed.

Perhaps there is a link here to the futility of a Grand Narrative?

There is no "goal", and therein lies your misunderstanding.

AdamWho

Hugo,
I wasn't asking a question or looking for instruction. I was commenting on what I believe to be a legitimate problem with using concepts in ways they were not ment to be used.
I have gone around in circles more then once with people who insist that the statement "All is one" makes sense. But I think that it is a non concept.
I welcome non-pedantic commentary, discussion.

[ November 17, 2002: Message edited by: AdamWho ]</p>

Perchance

That the "all-is-one" perception is equal to other perceptions? Certainly.

But I couldn't accept it as more valid than others without more proof than I have (the same reason that I don't accept gods).

-Perchance.

Perchance

You may be right. I know that some of the forms I've encountered it in are, if not limited to females, very female-centered (the universe as a Great Mother, for example).

I think that "altered states of perception"- self-hypnosis, meditation, the NDE- are one of the strongest roots of most religions. I accept that they exist. I just don't see the need to posit supernatural explanations for them, especially when fasting, or other reasons, provide explanations in accord with the natural world.

This is one of the strongest arguments against the Christian God, as well, I think (once something becomes unlimited in, say, power, the word power loses all meaning because you've got nothing to compare it with).

I think it's certainly possible to destroy concepts, and in some cases I think it's desirable. (One I would like to see eliminated is the bifurcation fallacy). It's the idea that some concepts are inherently more valuable than others, without even the grace of an explanation attached, then I find astonishing and suspicious.

-Perchance.