Practice

[Jyotir]

Originally Posted by Moondance

If resonance IS the same as realisation then seeking will have collapsed.

Until that point, seeking-path-practice will prevail (in some form or another - including latter-day permutations.) The trio are facets of the same impulse.

Obviously that is the case, Moondance. It's just common sense. So without belaboring the issue, let's assume that in this context, 'resonance' is generally equivalent to 'realization' in meaning.

Otherwise it seems that the practice is that of an unrecognized and obdurately nihilistic denial, posed against on the other side of the dualistic coin, a professed theory which mysteriously vanishes when convenient to the propagation of word games in the alternation between those internally factious binaries.

And speaking of word games, also noting that the pervasive and incessant reliance on the term 'connection' again belies the dualist conception posing as non-dual, in that 'connection' implies a principle of mediation between parts requiring a prior separation.


~ J

[Shivani Devi]

Originally Posted by Jyotir

And speaking of word games, also noting that the pervasive and incessant reliance on the term 'connection' again belies the dualist conception posing as non-dual, in that 'connection' implies a principle of mediation between parts requiring a prior separation.

~ J

Which I just also got through saying in my previous post on this thread. "Connection" implying something to be 'connected' to another thing, which is duality. I also wonder if I'm on your ignore list sometimes. lol

[Iamit]

Originally Posted by Shivani Devi

For weeks, I've been trying to find a way to put this and I still can't so please bear with.

Even though people's experiences may be totally different; but from everything I know...everything I have learned...all I personally have felt...

There is this 'thing' which is either/or 'thing' and 'no-thing' but it is beyond thinking about...beyond knowing about...beyond even talking about, even though people try.

Some use age-old or even common references to it, like "Brahman" or "Oneness" or "Soul" or "God" or "Void" or "Consciousness" or "Unconditional love"...many terms used to try and describe that which is beyond any description whatsoever...where even 'Advaita' is a dualist term to describe it!

This 'no-thing thing' can only be felt and intuited through the 'heart-mind' which is more than just mental thoughts and more than even feelings...it is a direct, personal, uplifting, life changing experience and people use words like 'bliss', 'ecstacy', 'rapture', 'the peace that passeth all understanding' etc to describe it in the only way language allows...and not just 'connection to oneness' because once realised, any 'connection' vanishes and fades into oblivion with that whole connection, leaving only raw existence within Consciousness which remains.

I saw a nice video on Youtube today...couldn't stop my head from nodding:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibHRXoxWV1o

Enjoy.

Some NA experience mind as that which resonates with the concept All is One, other NA say the mind does not have the capacity to resonate and like you call it heart.

Either way the point is that one cannot know the quality of the experience of another no matter what words are used to describe it. Who is to say that a mind resonance is any less blissful for another, than your heart experience is for you.

[Iamit]

Originally Posted by Moondance

If resonance IS the same as realisation then seeking will have collapsed.

Until that point, seeking-path-practice will prevail (in some form or another - including latter-day permutations.) The trio are facets of the same impulse.

Yes so whats the problem some have with that? There is no basis for denying either other than the issue about whether practise is required. But if different characters are taken into account, even that should not be an issue. It can only mean that some are not prepared to take variations of character into account and insist that one size fits all. A dangerous idea for dissidents and eventually for all concerned if it gets into a position of power/control.

[Shivani Devi]

Originally Posted by Iamit

Some NA experience mind as that which resonates with the concept All is One, other NA say the mind does not have the capacity to resonate and like you call it heart.

Either way the point is that one cannot know the quality of the experience of another no matter what words are used to describe it. Who is to say that a mind resonance is any less blissful for another, than your heart experience is for you.

When all is said and done:
http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/sh...d.php?t=119030

[sentient]

Originally Posted by Iamit

Some NA experience mind as that which resonates with the concept All is One, other NA say the mind does not have the capacity to resonate and like you call it heart.

Either way the point is that one cannot know the quality of the experience of another no matter what words are used to describe it. Who is to say that a mind resonance is any less blissful for another, than your heart experience is for you.

Of course one can.
When you have the “One Spirit” experience with another person - that is exactly what you both experience simultaneously.
You directly know each other’s hearts and minds at that point.

[Shivani Devi]

Originally Posted by sentient

Of course one can.
When you have the “One Spirit” experience with another person - that is exactly what you both experience simultaneously.
You know i.e. directly experience each other’s hearts and minds at that point.

It's difficult to explain this sometimes.

Here am I, a full-on Shiva Bhakta talking about Advaita Vedanta.
Here am I, saying that name, form and any relation to it is only Duality, when I am pretty much a Dualist in my own right, however, I can fully admit that.

I'm head over heels for the Source of all creation, seeing myself as only a 'part' of it, but not 'all' of it, in full on Shiva/Shivani mode, so I understand the whole 'connection' to all there is, trust me!

It's one thing to have the "One Spirit" experience with another person - another to have the "One Spirit" experience with the "Great Spirit" and know what is directly experienced in each other's hearts and minds at that point.

We then simultaneously exist as one in full on non-duality and yet, we also exist separately within that non-duality as dual spirits, even though, in essence, our spirits are the same, or one...like I said, difficult to explain this and I usually say "it's complicated". lol

The drop becomes the ocean, but the ocean is still the ocean and the drop is still the drop.

[Jyotir]

Originally Posted by Iamit in apparent conflict with Iamit

etc.

Hello Iamit,

It seems that your (imo) self-contradictory positions are becoming increasingly untenable, or else an attachment to them in spite of that has become irresistible.

Variations in ‘characters’ are nothing other than assimilated experiences of individuated oneness, which in principle accounts for the factor of differentiation.
If we can ’account for it’, it means we can identify it/ know it in some measure.

If we cannot know the quality of experience of another - and yet still call it “different characters” - it means there is in fact no oneness operative in the individual, by which access is enabled to know that differentiation, meaning there is nothing to account for in terms of “characters“.... we are then experiencing reality separatively by a superficial objective cognition, e.g., duality. That is the case where we cannot know by Oneness/identity, the experiences of others as a differentiation of Self, but only the superficial appearance of difference alone in and through that ignorance of Self, which is a concentration of some consciousness, albeit restrictive.


So are you proposing that we should remain in dualistic perception to account for 'different characters', or that Oneness is homogeneous and individuals have no access to it consciously, e.g., Oneness necessarily means no differentiation? One, both, either, neither?

Further, whether we describe “accounting for” or ‘purification’ as a volitional process of concentration of attribute or focus, they both describe some deliberate activity that by attempt at consistent orientation - especially that of more comprehensive knowing - could be called ‘practice’. This is what yoga is and does. It's that simple.


~ J

[Shivani Devi]

I wanna play, Jyotir!!!

Originally Posted by Iamit vs Iamit

OMG!!!!!!!!

[iamthat]

Originally Posted by Iamit

Some NA experience mind as that which resonates with the concept All is One, other NA say the mind does not have the capacity to resonate and like you call it heart.

Either way the point is that one cannot know the quality of the experience of another no matter what words are used to describe it. Who is to say that a mind resonance is any less blissful for another, than your heart experience is for you.

To repeat Ramana Maharshi:

The ultimate Truth is so simple. It is nothing more than being in the pristine state. This is all that need be said.

This is a state of Being, and nothing to do with the mind or the heart.

Peace