Truth & Perception

[Nikhil Dev]

After much brain stroming, I find one underlying cause from which most of the dis-agreements arise.

 

It is the ability to distinguish Truth from its perception of it. It is like distinguishing sun from its reflection.

 

A note from my scientific mind:

 

Take a wave for example. A clear note of single pitch. When I want to draw it in a surface, it can be represented as a train of sinusoidal waveforms running across time-domain. But the same wave reduces to just a point when is drawn in the frequency-domain.

 

Both represent the same wave and the experience of it remains the same, but expressed differently. The truth remains the same, but the expression differs.

 

So also my friends, all the books and teachings about reality and existence of God or void are nothing but convenient means of expressing the HIDDEN which is anyway beyond words.

 

We can take our perception of it based on teachings by various teachers to get a better grip/sense but beyond that everything is unxeplainable and has to be experienced.

 

,,,,,,,Nik,,,,,,,,,,

 

 

 

[dynamictao]

What is experienced could also represent the "reality."

I came to the following summary in my "The TTC: The Logic of Tao Philosophy" - draft: just to share.

 

"Tao represents the principle how the myriad things interact in nature. The principle is One or Nonduality of nature. However, we are costumed to view the myriad things in dualism. Instead of denying dualism as out rightly false, Lao-tzu chooses to demonstrate how to preserve reality in our dualistic view, as dualistic realities.

 

These dualistic realities reflect the principle of Tao in two ways. Each way represents a manifestation of the principle of Tao. In the two ways, we can see the same principle. For brevity, we call these dualistic realities as the manifestations of Tao. The true principle of Tao may be found in either manifestations...."

[Marblehead]

Take a wave for example. A clear note of single pitch. When I want to draw it in a surface, it can be represented as a train of sinusoidal waveforms running across time-domain. But the same wave reduces to just a point when is drawn in the frequency-domain.

 

Both represent the same wave and the experience of it remains the same, but expressed differently. The truth remains the same, but the expression differs.

Are you really sure about that? I'm not. There is a difference between a wave and a particle. They are not the same thing. Yes, a particle may be part of a wave. And yes, waves contain particles. Viewed from the perspective of Oneness they are the same, viewed from the manifest they are different aspects of what may be the same thing.

[三江源]

It is the ability to distinguish Truth from its perception of it. It is like distinguishing sun from its reflection.

 

 

Our jumpy, reactive, paranoid insecure projective nature can only see the reflection it creates. All our practices are us working to unravel the mind junk we look through. To get it behind us, going, going, gone.

[taijistudent]

Are you really sure about that? I'm not. There is a difference between a wave and a particle. They are not the same thing. Yes, a particle may be part of a wave. And yes, waves contain particles. Viewed from the perspective of Oneness they are the same, viewed from the manifest they are different aspects of what may be the same thing.

I think what the OP is expressing is that there are differences within the similarities and similarities within the differences. They are at once different and the same. Quantum physics confirms the duality of waves and particles. It depends upon the experiment being performed, i.e. the perspective.

 

For example:

 

Look at the ocean. There it is the ocean. It is the ocean.

 

Then change your perspective. Look at the waves. There are the waves. The waves are the waves.

 

Can one see the ocean and the waves at the same time? I don't think so. One must choose a perspective and say there is the ocean or there are the waves even though they are exactly the same. We switch back and forth all of the time. The two perspectives are both different and the same at once.

Edited March 10, 2013 by taijistudent

[dynamictao]

Are you really sure about that? I'm not. There is a difference between a wave and a particle. They are not the same thing. Yes, a particle may be part of a wave. And yes, waves contain particles. Viewed from the perspective of Oneness they are the same, viewed from the manifest they are different aspects of what may be the same thing.

Yes, They are equivalent ways to experience the "principle".

 

The principle on how particles move in wave is the same as the principle of wave carries the particles.

The "principle" is manifested in the two is the same.

Here is the limit and ambiguity of our language about the "particle" and the "wave."

[Marblehead]

Look at the ocean. There it is the ocean. It is the ocean.

 

Then change your perspective. Look at the waves. There are the waves. The waves are the waves.

You done good. I need counter though. In this case the wave is the ocean. The wave is nothing more than the motion of the ocean. Without the ocean there would be no wave.

 

However, particles do exist singularly without a series and pattern of a wave whereas the wave does not exist unless there are a series of particles in a pattern of some sort to create the wave.

 

Other than that, I agree, our perspective will determine what we see.

[Marblehead]

Yes, They are equivalent ways to experience the "principle".

 

The principle on how particles move in wave is the same as the principle of wave carries the particles.

The "principle" is manifested in the two is the same.

Here is the limit and ambiguity of our language about the "particle" and the "wave."

Yeah, I have fun talking about this stuff. None of it changes my reality but I still like to challenge my understandings. I think that the String boys got their String confused with a Wave. (Just me thinking.)

 

And I like the way you said, "...the principle of wave carries the particles." Sounds like the Tao carries the individual.

[三江源]

I think that the String boys got their String confused with a Wave. (Just me thinking.)

I'm not very strong on thinking. I do something in my head and call it that, but as for true thinking.. hmmm.. I dont know how to do it.

[taijistudent]

You done good. I need counter though. In this case the wave is the ocean. The wave is nothing more than the motion of the ocean. Without the ocean there would be no wave.

 

However, particles do exist singularly without a series and pattern of a wave whereas the wave does not exist unless there are a series of particles in a pattern of some sort to create the wave.

 

Other than that, I agree, our perspective will determine what we see.

Yes, there are similarities within the differences and differences within the similarities.

 

In this case, it would be impossible to have the ocean without the waves unless one admits to the absolute stillness of the ocean. To bring absolute stillness is possible and then there is nothing (e.g. the state of being that one has between dreams).

 

The concept of particles and waves (at least within the quantum realm) only exists within a laboratory experiment (e.g. the point of view the experimenter wishes to take. What it actually Is, cannot be precisely described though Bohm's quantum perturbation interpretation for me is the best, where the "particle" is simply a perturbation within the quantum potential, the highest point in the potential being the most probable place for a "particle" to appear. Thus the two concepts are weaved together as waves (particles) within oceans (quantum potential). Bohm originally adopted de Broglie's notion of a particle "riding a wave", into a more cohesive model which more closely aligns itself as a cohesive unit with differences and similarities.

 

Edited March 10, 2013 by taijistudent

[Marblehead]

Hehehe. I think you might have exceeded my capacity for understanding in that last paragraph.

 

Mostly it is the moon and the planet's weather that causes the oceans' waves. I don't have any problem saying that the earth is a living organism.

 

The quantum world is still very strange for me. I don't actually study it but I do try watching the documentaries on TV. Perhaps one day there will be a presentation that will offer me a better understanding of what they are talking about.

 

Yes, the science of probability is a very useful tool. I use it in my personal life.

[Nikhil Dev]

First of all, being a humble beginner at Taobums, thanks for repllies..They were truly at another level.

 

Also agree with the below point.

The concept of particles and waves (at least within the quantum realm) only exists within a laboratory experiment (e.g. the point of view the experimenter wishes to take. What it actually Is, cannot be precisely described though Bohm's quantum perturbation interpretation for me is the best, where the "particle" is simply a perturbation within the quantum potential, the highest point in the potential being the most probable place for a "particle" to appear. Thus the two concepts are weaved together as waves (particles) within oceans (quantum potential). Bohm originally adopted de Broglie's notion of a particle "riding a wave", into a more cohesive model which more closely aligns itself as a cohesive unit with differences and similarities.

 

Matter it seems, is just a vibration of energy within the probable space. Even as per Heisenberg's theory, perceptions seem to change the observed result.

 

Well since the whole of existence is questioned here, maybe there are infinite timelines and universes indeed. :-)

 

'''''''''Nik''''''''''''''

[taijistudent]

First of all, being a humble beginner at Taobums, thanks for repllies..They were truly at another level.

 

Also agree with the below point.

 

Matter it seems, is just a vibration of energy within the probable space. Even as per Heisenberg's theory, perceptions seem to change the observed result.

 

Well since the whole of existence is questioned here, maybe there are infinite timelines and universes indeed. :-)

 

'''''''''Nik''''''''''''''

Yes, I would agree that all matter and life is vibrating (i.e. Qi).

[Marblehead]

Matter it seems, is just a vibration of energy ...

Yes, I need agree with this as well. Took me a while to accept it though. Hehehe.

[Stosh]

That there are waves or particles , is peceptual construct

one anchors the water in a firmament to describe percieve motion.

one posits the existance of time to describe duration