Thinking without words

soma77 · Sep 7, 2006

In the Higher Selfless Layers of the mind people willfully release anything that would intentionally hurt another individual because that prevents one's deeper nature from being manifest and breaks the connection with the eternal unity of everything. One can't enter this deeper union with a weapon in one's hand unless it belongs to the greater good. It has to be discarded and surrendered with all the fears one may have so God's pure consciousness of Life can be seen working in and through the motives of everything that is approached. If everything is indeed supplied by God, then one does not have to be afraid of anything including poverty or wealth, and then one can live in God drawing upon His perfect peace. In these higher layers of the mind one witnesses and the thinking is suspended so words are at a minimum.

It is a kind of Christian mysiticism which is explained better at this site. http://thinkunity.com

elman · Sep 8, 2006

mnbvcxz87 said:
Interesting thoughts. There definitely are distinctions between things, I'm not saying a tree is the same as a waterfall, rather the idea that everything which exists is part of the singular essense of existence.

The way words and concepts are used to define and explain existence in millions of small parts eg names, concepts, science, theology, space and so much more removes the idea of everything being one.

It's a bit like calling a bowl of soup a bowl of soup, not water,tomatos,herbs,pepper,salt etc.

Everything that we have defined does make up the universe, but the universe is one.

But everything is not the same. Loving action is not the same as cruel action. Life is not the same as death. In what way are you saying these things are part of the singular essence of exitence? How is death part of the singular essence of existence?

Casstranquility · Sep 8, 2006

elman said:
But everything is not the same. Loving action is not the same as cruel action. Life is not the same as death. In what way are you saying these things are part of the singular essence of exitence? How is death part of the singular essence of existence?

Don't think about it. Seriously, if you don't give thought, or words, or meaning to anything, and just see it as the reality it is, that's all it is, it IS. Therefore, everything, death included, becomes a part of the One, the IS.

MoonlessNight · Sep 8, 2006

Casstranquility said:
Don't think about it. Seriously, if you don't give thought, or words, or meaning to anything, and just see it as the reality it is, that's all it is, it IS. Therefore, everything, death included, becomes a part of the One, the IS.

But such statements, while true in a sense, don't lead to any real understanding.

I can say that all members of a group are part of the group so all are THE GROUP. But unless I understand the dynamics of the group, I do not understand THE GROUP.

Seeing reality as it is and "without definition" certainly can't be accomplished by defining "all that is" and then seeing the definition. But that seems to be what happens when most people talk about the oneness of everything.

It isn't understanding. It's semantical games.

MoonlessNight · Sep 8, 2006

I guess what I mean is that we shouldn't shy away from names but that we should shy away from false names. We should look to find the true names of things, in the broader understanding of name of course. I don't mean just the word.

Once you ascribe the right name to everything everything else follows.

mnbvcxz87 · Sep 8, 2006

elman of course, a contented animal and a suffering animal are not the same, as there are dinstinctions between things in all ways but the point isn't that everything is literally exactly the same. Rather that everything which exists, be it different species, or good or bad actions, or hot or cold, they all form what IS, like cass says. What is is one. One existence one god one life which all equal eachother.

Moonless it's not semantic games it's seeing everything that we've defined, literally every name and word and concept we have given definition to through language and seeing that all as what makes up the oneness of everything.

What I'm getting at is many people would see life, or existense in many different parts. All of our separate concepts and ideas, and subjects, ways of life, places.

Rather than seeing life in a thousand fractions, see it as one. One has many things going on within it, but it is one. Existense simply is.

Casstranquility · Sep 9, 2006

MoonlessNight said:
I can say that all members of a group are part of the group so all are THE GROUP. But unless I understand the dynamics of the group, I do not understand THE GROUP.

Have you ever heard this "When men have no knowledge of the truth, mountains are mountains and rivers are rivers. When men have a little knowledge of the truth, mountains are no longer mountains and rivers are no longer rivers. When men have full knowledge of the truth, mountains are mountains and rivers are rivers."
(I believe it is a saying from Zen Buddhism.)

So, what you are saying is true, we must understand THE GROUP as its separate parts before we can come to understand it fully-in which case it will become ONE again.

phsyxx · Sep 10, 2006

Casstranquility said:
Have you ever heard this "When men have no knowledge of the truth, mountains are mountains and rivers are rivers. When men have a little knowledge of the truth, mountains are no longer mountains and rivers are no longer rivers. When men have full knowledge of the truth, mountains are mountains and rivers are rivers."
(I believe it is a saying from Zen Buddhism.)

So, what you are saying is true, we must understand THE GROUP as its separate parts before we can come to understand it fully-in which case it will become ONE again.

Alright, so we understand how the group behaves, rather than just applying the noun to the existence of, "the group", we understand what it is to be a group...obviously, with a little understanding it seems that the group isn't really a group, it's just a collection of individuals behaving in a set manner- but then we realise that they behave this way for the benefit of the group, and how the many bodies become one whole when they co-operate---- so the "group" is a group again.

But that is like saying, "the universe is the universe....wait, no it's not, there are a series of distinct differences between all these states, places, and beings...the universe is not the universe" then coming to realise later, "however, all of these constituent parts are part of a whole, they all exist together in one location- the universe. All comes from it, and all exists in it....the universe is the universe."

However....you seem to have taken this a step further.

What you have done, in terms of the Zen quote, is that: "ah yes...I see now, mountains are mountains and rivers are rivers....and rivers are mountains and mountains are rivers as they are one, all is one, as they are part of the universe."

No....ok...listen.
A circuit comprises (example) 5 parts.
A wire, a case, a motor, a bulb and a battery.
Now...all together, these objects make a circuit.
Individually, when taken apart they are NOT a circuit.

Think about it in terms of taking a man out of the universe.
Taking him out of it to some other form of existence does not make the universe any less the universe--- but it does not means that the man remains "part of " the universe.
No...he is not the universe, nor does the circuit become any less a circuit with the removal of the bulb. The motor still works- everything is still connected.

I don't see how you can equate life without words as,
"everything is one."

It's an essentially faulty statement.
What is it grounded on?
What does it seek to prove?
How is it true?
To what does it apply?

mnbvcxz87 · Sep 10, 2006

physxx I don't think anyone would argue a wire is a circuit, or a chair is the universe. The point we are making is that everything which exists came from one origin. It is one thing which has developed, grown, into the universe we see today. The point is that all of our linguistic definitons segment the universe into little bits losing sight of the concept that everything is a small part of one.

Casstranquility · Sep 10, 2006

phsyxx said:
However....you seem to have taken this a step further.

What you have done, in terms of the Zen quote, is that: "ah yes...I see now, mountains are mountains and rivers are rivers....and rivers are mountains and mountains are rivers as they are one, all is one, as they are part of the universe."

Nope, not saying that. Where has anyone said that all the parts are the same? We have not said a river is a mountain-no a river is a river. A river is all of the things that go into it-the fish, the hydrogen, the oxygen, the waves, the sunlight flickering on the waves, the leaves floating in the water, the Whole of a river is all of these, yet I could not take a leaf out of the river and say, "yes, here is the river." (I could take the leaf out of the river and say "Here is a part of the river." So, the river is not a river, it is many things, and yet it is, all together, one thing, a river.
We have said the Universe is a Whole, not that each individual piece of the universe is the universe.

Taking him out of it to some other form of existence does not make the universe any less the universe--- but it does not means that the man remains "part of " the universe.

Well, let's take it a step back. Let's say that we have a man from a certain country who defines himself as a member of that country. He is a part of that One-the country. But, then he leaves to visit another country. He stills defines himself as a member of his country. His country still accepts him as a part of the whole.
So, if removing a man from his country does not take the country out of the man-he is still a part of his country, he still has a relationship with his country-how can removing a person from the universe make them stop being a part of the universe? Of course the man is not the universe, but he will always be a part of it because the universe is a part of him. It's part of his memories, his life, his blood.

phsyxx · Sep 11, 2006

Casstranquility said:
Nope, not saying that. Where has anyone said that all the parts are the same? We have said the Universe is a Whole, not that each individual piece of the universe is the universe.

But you said "EVERYTHING IS ONE"

ARGH!
There is a distinction between Everything is PART of ONE and EVERYTHING IS ONE>
HUUUUUUUUGE difference!!!

Casstranquility said:
Well, let's take it a step back. Let's say that we have a man from a certain country who defines himself as a member of that country. He is a part of that One-the country. But, then he leaves to visit another country. He stills defines himself as a member of his country. His country still accepts him as a part of the whole.
So, if removing a man from his country does not take the country out of the man-he is still a part of his country, he still has a relationship with his country-how can removing a person from the universe make them stop being a part of the universe? Of course the man is not the universe, but he will always be a part of it because the universe is a part of him. It's part of his memories, his life, his blood.

That's a badly flawed analogy.
I'm sorry- no offence meant, but...oh never mind...what the heck.
EVERYTHING IS ONE.
Yes, amazing to think that without applying distinctions and definitions to everything, the universe eventually becomes one enormous, giant amorphous blob.
Isn't that great?
What have we achieved by doing that?
A heck of a lot of confusion, that's what!

quatona · Sep 11, 2006

phsyxx said:
EVERYTHING IS ONE.
Yes, amazing to think that without applying distinctions and definitions to everything, the universe eventually becomes one enormous, giant amorphous blob.
Isn't that great?
What have we achieved by doing that?
A heck of a lot of confusion, that's what!

For me, personally, this way of looking at things often provides a great clarity.
Although of course it can be an obstacle in everyday matters. That´s why it is presented as a philosophical (some may say "spiritual" - a word I personally shy away from) path.
Anyways, if you immediately grab for new distinguishing concepts and valuations (amorphal blob), the idea won´t work for you.

Casstranquility · Sep 12, 2006

phsyxx said:
But you said "EVERYTHING IS ONE"

ARGH!
There is a distinction between Everything is PART of ONE and EVERYTHING IS ONE>
HUUUUUUUUGE difference!!!

Everything is One. And everything is part of One. There is certainly a distinction, because one is talking about the Universe without the separations (though the separations still exist, they are not mentioned), and the other is talking about the Universe with separations.

Yes, amazing to think that without applying distinctions and definitions to everything, the universe eventually becomes one enormous, giant amorphous blob.

Ah, well, I wasn't seeing it as an amorphous blob. (Can you really picture an infinite blob? And how could you call it a blob without distorting our seeing without definitions?)

What have we achieved by doing that?
A heck of a lot of confusion, that's what!

Like quatona, I think it provides clarity. It helps with meditation.

elman · Sep 12, 2006

Casstranquility said:
Don't think about it. Seriously, if you don't give thought, or words, or meaning to anything, and just see it as the reality it is, that's all it is, it IS. Therefore, everything, death included, becomes a part of the One, the IS.

Not thinking does not work for me. Cruelty is simply not the same thing as being loving. That is reality. Death is not what is, but what is not. Life and death, existence and non existence are simply not the same things. It is not about the words used. It is about the reality the words describe.

elman · Sep 12, 2006

mnbvcxz87 said:
elman of course, a contented animal and a suffering animal are not the same, as there are dinstinctions between things in all ways but the point isn't that everything is literally exactly the same. Rather that everything which exists, be it different species, or good or bad actions, or hot or cold, they all form what IS, like cass says. What is is one. One existence one god one life which all equal eachother.

What I'm getting at is many people would see life, or existense in many different parts. All of our separate concepts and ideas, and subjects, ways of life, places.

Rather than seeing life in a thousand fractions, see it as one. One has many things going on within it, but it is one. Existense simply is.

The bottom line of this belief is not one, but nothing. No God, no individual life, no individual love received or given-nothing.

mnbvcxz87 · Sep 12, 2006

No I can't speak for cass or quatona but that's not how it should be interpreted.

I mean, I'm trying to see just how you've interpreted it, as something like 'if you say there is nothing specific, and that everything is just one, then there is no good, no bad, etc.'

I'm not denying that punching someone isdifferent to hugging someone, nor that they both are 'one' and therefore have no individual meaning, or difference.

Merely that instead of viewing the world as a trillion tiny fractions represented by our words, see it as one thing with a trillion tiny fractions within it.

And the point of this idea isn't to be proven right in a semantic wordgame or anything, but to give people an idea that we are connected to everything by the fact we exist. Not that for example me and you are different to a cat because they have fur, whiskers, and everything else which is different, but that me you and the cat are part of existence.

We are one together, although we all have differences.

phsyxx · Sep 13, 2006

mnbvcxz87 said:
No I can't speak for cass or quatona but that's not how it should be interpreted.

I mean, I'm trying to see just how you've interpreted it, as something like 'if you say there is nothing specific, and that everything is just one, then there is no good, no bad, etc.'

I'm not denying that punching someone isdifferent to hugging someone, nor that they both are 'one' and therefore have no individual meaning, or difference.

Merely that instead of viewing the world as a trillion tiny fractions represented by our words, see it as one thing with a trillion tiny fractions within it.

And the point of this idea isn't to be proven right in a semantic wordgame or anything, but to give people an idea that we are connected to everything by the fact we exist. Not that for example me and you are different to a cat because they have fur, whiskers, and everything else which is different, but that me you and the cat are part of existence.

We are one together, although we all have differences.

Ok. ok.

and at what point did quatona say anything about helping with meditation?!

erm...yeah.
So I agree with you that everything is part of existence.
Everything is the same in the sense that everything participates in existence.

So what happens when something ceases to exist?
Is everything still one?
Is everything part of one?
What if when you cease to exist here- you exist somewhere else?

If you cease to exist- surely you cannot be part of existence. Therefore everything is not one.

Mind you, the phrase "Everything is one." Means something entirely different to "Everything is part of the whole"

I do not want anyone to think that I am picking you up on a technicality here- nor do I want you to think I am playing semantic word games.
If you say, "everything is one". That is a falacious and incorrect statement.
Everything is NOT ONE> I am not you..
But, Everything is part of ONE. Ok...yeah, I live in the universe, so do you, we both participate in this weird game called "existence".
I'll accept that.

quatona · Sep 13, 2006

phsyxx said:
Everything is NOT ONE> I am not you..

Yes, you are.

mnbvcxz87 · Sep 13, 2006

'So what happens when something ceases to exist?'

If only I knew eh...

But I know that animals and people cease to exist during my lifetime, and existence trudges on. I know in my mind the concept of how death and birth fit into this idea of oneness but I'm not sure how to put it into words.

The best I can do is that for everything which participates in existence, death and birth as we know them, aren't as literal as we have defined them. Death isn't going from existing in the universe to being nothing. You just cease to be alive as you were.

I don't know wether you are reborn as a carrot, a giraffe or a human, or wether you just exist as a sort of essence within life if you aren't alive as an animal with a conscious. But I do believe that there is no increase or decrease in the sheer amount of existence, it's one essence divided by however many conscious beings are alive.

Sojourner<>< · Sep 14, 2006

mnbvcxz87 said:
'So what happens when something ceases to exist?'

If only I knew eh...

But I know that animals and people cease to exist during my lifetime, and existence trudges on. I know in my mind the concept of how death and birth fit into this idea of oneness but I'm not sure how to put it into words.

The best I can do is that for everything which participates in existence, death and birth as we know them, aren't as literal as we have defined them. Death isn't going from existing in the universe to being nothing. You just cease to be alive as you were.

I don't know wether you are reborn as a carrot, a giraffe or a human, or wether you just exist as a sort of essence within life if you aren't alive as an animal with a conscious. But I do believe that there is no increase or decrease in the sheer amount of existence, it's one essence divided by however many conscious beings are alive.

As a Christian I believe that God, having power over all things, has the ability to communicate with us. The scriptures would be the product of that communication and they say that he has the ability to resurrect whoever he wishes.

Thinking without words

soma77

Guest

elman

Potato, pineapple, pickle.

Fides et Ratio

Fides et Ratio

Well-Known Member

Potato, pineapple, pickle.

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

Potato, pineapple, pickle.

Senior Member

"God"? What do you mean??

Potato, pineapple, pickle.

elman

elman

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

"God"? What do you mean??

Well-Known Member

Incoherent Freedom Fighter

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency