06-19-2010, 12:00 AM
What is the freedom to which you refer?
Freedom from distinguishing "self" from "others".
"I'm content with the notion of energy. You claim there is a changeable factor of existence and that there is more to see and experience beyond energy. For example?"
I'm inviting you to consider and thus you would experience yourself. We can't arrive at it by talking about it, but by talking about it and exploring it in a genuine way, one will arrive at it if that's what one desires to do. But your mind has to be open, right now you are skeptical and asking for proof, ok, via this discussion I will endeavor to provide that. But the key word here is experience.
Tiff wrote:You indicated previously you believed in a "Oneness", so if there is unity, why would duality be a starting point?
er, the whole is comprised of individual parts?
If they are individual, how can they be "One". A bunch of individual parts would be all individual (unrelated). So you are essentially trying to say they are related yet they aren't. How could that be? Where is the unifying factor of "individual parts"?
Tiff wrote:This syntax I use here is not what I prefer to use,
Ah....I presume you are Chinese, and unfortunately, I don't speak Chinese.
Actually, I meant the syntax of "oneness" and "unity" well-worn phrases. I am American, living in China.
Tiff wrote:...but I do think its important to reference this "Oneness" that is widely accepted, and somehow the duality that is also widely accepted simultaneously both as absolutes.
Not absolutes...theories.
But theories that are so accepted they function like conclusions (absolutes) and exploration outside them is virtually absent.
In my opinion, there is no way to obtain an absolute and satisfactory explanation for the question or essence of being. The best I can do, so far, is to accept those theories that I personally find most plausible, most logical, most satisfying to my way of thinking. I cannot prove any of them and don't expect to be able to.
Ah, essence of being, there lies what should be questioned. That can be questioned and answered. Which is what we are doing.
So if you already suspect you cannot prove essence, why accept any theories about it? But that does not mean you should rest upon the idea you cannot get answers to essence period. It only means you have thus far been approaching the questioning ineffectively.
The sameness comes only from the matter used in the creation of things. That is, it appears everything in existence is comprised of the same stuff (atoms), however, each arrangement of stuff is unique. The thing difficult to grasp is the notion of energy which seems only to be described by its effect, rather like defining wind in terms of its effect. Is energy the same as electricity? or magnetism? What is it that departs from the body at death? How is it we manage to communicate? What are your notions?
If essence were just sameness, nothing would change, sameness would be frozen, immobile, unable to diversify out of its intrinsic sameness. If essence was diversity, nothing would interact with anything else with nothing in common, again frozen, immobile. So where is essence?
If one object has nothing in common with another, what could they
possibly exchange between each other? And if there is a common factor
between both objects, one would have to say the common factor is the
base sameness, and if it is the base sameness, then how did the
diversity ever come about from the origination of sameness? What created
diversity from sameness? The sameness from the diversity?
Where is the essence? Where is the First Cause?
Freedom from distinguishing "self" from "others".
"I'm content with the notion of energy. You claim there is a changeable factor of existence and that there is more to see and experience beyond energy. For example?"
I'm inviting you to consider and thus you would experience yourself. We can't arrive at it by talking about it, but by talking about it and exploring it in a genuine way, one will arrive at it if that's what one desires to do. But your mind has to be open, right now you are skeptical and asking for proof, ok, via this discussion I will endeavor to provide that. But the key word here is experience.
Tiff wrote:You indicated previously you believed in a "Oneness", so if there is unity, why would duality be a starting point?
er, the whole is comprised of individual parts?
If they are individual, how can they be "One". A bunch of individual parts would be all individual (unrelated). So you are essentially trying to say they are related yet they aren't. How could that be? Where is the unifying factor of "individual parts"?
Tiff wrote:This syntax I use here is not what I prefer to use,
Ah....I presume you are Chinese, and unfortunately, I don't speak Chinese.
Actually, I meant the syntax of "oneness" and "unity" well-worn phrases. I am American, living in China.
Tiff wrote:...but I do think its important to reference this "Oneness" that is widely accepted, and somehow the duality that is also widely accepted simultaneously both as absolutes.
Not absolutes...theories.
But theories that are so accepted they function like conclusions (absolutes) and exploration outside them is virtually absent.
In my opinion, there is no way to obtain an absolute and satisfactory explanation for the question or essence of being. The best I can do, so far, is to accept those theories that I personally find most plausible, most logical, most satisfying to my way of thinking. I cannot prove any of them and don't expect to be able to.
Ah, essence of being, there lies what should be questioned. That can be questioned and answered. Which is what we are doing.
So if you already suspect you cannot prove essence, why accept any theories about it? But that does not mean you should rest upon the idea you cannot get answers to essence period. It only means you have thus far been approaching the questioning ineffectively.
The sameness comes only from the matter used in the creation of things. That is, it appears everything in existence is comprised of the same stuff (atoms), however, each arrangement of stuff is unique. The thing difficult to grasp is the notion of energy which seems only to be described by its effect, rather like defining wind in terms of its effect. Is energy the same as electricity? or magnetism? What is it that departs from the body at death? How is it we manage to communicate? What are your notions?
If essence were just sameness, nothing would change, sameness would be frozen, immobile, unable to diversify out of its intrinsic sameness. If essence was diversity, nothing would interact with anything else with nothing in common, again frozen, immobile. So where is essence?
If one object has nothing in common with another, what could they
possibly exchange between each other? And if there is a common factor
between both objects, one would have to say the common factor is the
base sameness, and if it is the base sameness, then how did the
diversity ever come about from the origination of sameness? What created
diversity from sameness? The sameness from the diversity?
Where is the essence? Where is the First Cause?