acceptance should follow awareness

[roger]

I think part of the purpose of becoming more aware, of acknowledging your faults and errors and weaknesses, is so we can forgive and accept them.

 

If a person is very aware, but isn't accepting and forgiving of what they're aware of, it can lead to all kinds of problems, including psychosis.

 

Two non-physical entities said, "The way you overcome your defenses is by FORGIVING YOURSELF for them," and, "You can change when you no longer see any NEED to change."

 

The purpose of becoming aware of your problems and weaknesses isn't just to see all the work you need to do, or even just to gain insight and self-knowledge (although that's one purpose of it imo).

 

Seeing ourselves clearly and recognizing conflicts and agendas gives us the opportunity to forgive ourselves and deepen our self-acceptance.

 

I think it's wise to look upon ourselves and observe the activity of our minds - but don't JUDGE what you see....know that it's OKAY and accept and forgive it!

[3bob]

okay so I made a mistake, not so okay when I repeat the same mistake, or with obvious variations of it 10-20 times in the sense of thinking dharma can be put aside as if karma wasn't backing it up... 

[Marblehead]

Yep, self-awareness and self-forgiving is important.  Otherwise it is almost impossible to move forward.

 

But, as 3bob pointed out, if we keep making the same mistakes over and over again we missed out on the self-awareness part.

 

We are given lessons in life.  If we are sleeping during class we are not going to learn anything.

[Spotless]

We always make the same mistakes over and over and over and over and over again. This is karma.

When the frequency of that has run its course we are moved on - resistance has played out.

 

Forgiveness is no longer being in resistance to something.

 

Acceptance is non-resistance.

Edited July 30, 2016 by Spotless

[3bob]

windows ten likes to delete text on its own... anyway there is the saying, "resist not evil" which has lots of inner meaning but should not be given without certain cautions or just idealistically.

Edited July 30, 2016 by 3bob

[3bob]

and I would hope Spotless would go into more detail, examples, or analogies' for the gem he submitted in post 4 

[Spotless]

We live in a frequency - the frequency created by our proclivities, attachments, fears.

Automated buffers that insulate us from seeing outside the frequency we are veiled in.

 

We are completely addicted to this frequency and carry it into death - wake up there in it - are reborn to it.

 

We are completely addicted to it until tones of it are no longer holding us - the addiction has worn away - like a child who is simply no longer remotely worried that they will die if they do not get some toy they had believed they could not live without.

 

Like a sport that was once your life and now it is something you no longer do, watch or have any interest in.

 

You can be living a swear word and then suddenly it becomes stale, overly loud and worn out - coarse. A sand paper that has lost its grit because you are no longer interested in scraping that way anymore.

[Spotless]

Practice affords you rebirth after rebirth bringing you into the present for a moment or a nearness to the Presence that you are.

 

Then you revert back to the frequency but you have tasted the Presence that is real - you mistake it for an ephemeral feeling - and go back to your ephemeral relative reality. A reality that is constantly skipping from past to future - like a pinball glancing off reactionary bumpers.

 

Plain practice - is designed to "do" nothing - it is simply a space for Presence to shine. That one day in grace that Presence is preferred to our blinding frequency.

[3bob]

Thanks for the additional comments Spotless...

 

One might ask what can really resist Presence as you put it, or the Great Tao as some might put it... also and in the manifest two different frequencies can not occupy the same time, space and frequency, something or one of them has to give and I know that the one in alignment with the Great Tao will not.

Edited August 1, 2016 by 3bob

[Marblehead]

... also and in the manifest two different frequencies can not occupy the same time, space and frequency, something or one of them has to give and I know that the one in alignment with the Great Tao will not.

 

That's called harmonizing the differences.  Yin/Yang, you know.

[3bob]

MH, I thinking along the lines that if two different frequencies are truly blended then a new frequency will result which is then different from the previous two, whereas in harmonics two different frequencies can be close or have certain commonalities yet remain separate... maybe Brian will chime in to?

[Brian]

Like tuning forks in a great symphonic performance, we are constantly awash in a sea of frequencies, all simultaneously occupying the same space-time without interference. We resonate with those frequencies which match our own.

 

Something as simple as changing temperature causes a tuning fork's resonant frequency to change. Our own frequencies are constantly changing, too. We have the ability to choose the direction of change, if we wish.

Edited August 1, 2016 by Brian

[3bob]

Hi Brian,  Thanks for adding to the conversation.  When you say "a sea frequencies all simultaneously occupying the same space-time without interference" (implying one to another)  I don't follow you?  It seems that sound waves, radio waves, or whatever.. being in the exact same space/time as a more or less a substantial phenomenon would not  be possible,  with one space/time coordinate being limited to holding or having one certain frequency occurring there regardless of higher and lower frequencies above and below it which would be close but seemingly in different areas of space/time?

[doc benway]

I think part of the purpose of becoming more aware, of acknowledging your faults and errors and weaknesses, is so we can forgive and accept them.

 

If a person is very aware, but isn't accepting and forgiving of what they're aware of, it can lead to all kinds of problems, including psychosis.

 

Two non-physical entities said, "The way you overcome your defenses is by FORGIVING YOURSELF for them," and, "You can change when you no longer see any NEED to change."

 

The purpose of becoming aware of your problems and weaknesses isn't just to see all the work you need to do, or even just to gain insight and self-knowledge (although that's one purpose of it imo).

 

Seeing ourselves clearly and recognizing conflicts and agendas gives us the opportunity to forgive ourselves and deepen our self-acceptance.

 

I think it's wise to look upon ourselves and observe the activity of our minds - but don't JUDGE what you see....know that it's OKAY and accept and forgive it!

 

I would like to focus just a bit more on the awareness part.

The kind of awareness that cannot accept or forgive is a very limited awareness.

As others have alluded to, it is not so much that we are actually doing anything when we accept or when we forgive.

It is more that our awareness has become deep and pervasive enough to see the wrong views and behavior and acceptance and forgiveness arise spontaneously.

Forced acceptance or forgiveness, IMO, is more likely to lead to the problems, the "psychosis" than genuine awareness.

[Brian]

Hi Brian,  Thanks for adding to the conversation.  When you say "a sea frequencies all simultaneously occupying the same space-time without interference" (implying one to another)  I don't follow you?  It seems that sound waves, radio waves, or whatever.. being in the exact same space/time as a more or less a substantial phenomenon would not  be possible,  with one space/time coordinate being limited to holding or having one certain frequency occurring there regardless of higher and lower frequencies above and below it which would be close but seemingly in different areas of space/time?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superposition_principle#Wave_superposition

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_superposition

 

Ever see a rainbow?

[Marblehead]

Ever see a rainbow?

All rainbows are 360 full circles.  It's just that most times we see only about half of it.  And as they are full circles there is no pot of gold at the end of it because there is no end and no beginning either.

[3bob]

well Brian superposition talked about two waves meeting and forming a different magnitude wave, or a standing wave, thus there is an interruption or change with an original wave (as so ever named) which was in certain time/space coordinates...?

[Brian]

well Brian superposition talked about two waves meeting and forming a different magnitude wave, or a standing wave, thus there is an interruption or change with an original wave (as so ever named) which was in certain time/space coordinates...?

Think "action rather than "object."

 

Consider a musical chord -- perhaps three notes overlaying one another. The result is the sum of the parts and is unique from them but still retains them. The medium moves consistently both with each individually and with the superposition.

 

Consider ripples in a pond -- the wave fronts are coming at different angles, different magnitudes, different frequencies. The water molecule moves in a complex pattern corresponding to the vector sum of the individual waves (including the periods of constructive and destructive interference) but the ripples retain their identity.

 

Consider quantum entanglement -- actually, let me just point to something...

http://phys.org/news/2014-03-quantum-entanglement-multiple-dimensions.html

[Brian]

If you look into Bernoulli's Hydrodynamica, you will see superposition appear for the first time in scientific history (as far as I am aware of). It appears as a way of layering different guesses; I like to think of it as the mathematical carpet-bombing of an area with guesses.

Definitely an early parallel but I think I'd take it back a few decades, to at least Newton's Opticks, which was about far more than "just" optics. He didn't call it superposition but his treatment of colors contained the fundamental principles.

 

The first significant scientific work I'm aware of to have been written in English (the Prinicpia, for instance, was written in Latin), it is still readable, although seeming a bit archaic. It also introduced an analogy between color and music as well as the root of quantum theory -- in fact, Newton waited until Hooke's death to publish it because his friend found the idea of a "corpuscular" nature of light very disturbing. Actually, Newton's work met lots of resistance because it flew in the face of Aristotelian and Cartesian approaches and understandings to which the Western intelligentsia were so firmly attached -- resistance which the scientific community didn't generally abandon until the late 1800s and the non-scientific population still struggles with despite astonishingly solid evidentiary validation.

 

In fact, much of the "physical reality" discussions on this forum trace back to the late 1600s and early 1700s because we generally do a pretty lousy job of introducing children to math and science -- to borrow from old Billy -- 'tis true, 'tis true 'tis pity, and pity 'tis, 'tis true.

[Brian]

Hmm....

 

I had to catch myself. I have a tendency to internalize details that I receive and try to work them out from the inside-out. This situation, though, reminds me of Ieth's post with the idea that "since logic cannot prove itself" then "logic is illogical". Not as a matter of parallel/trans-posable relations but because there is a decided discontinuity between each point that is put forward.

 

(so please forgive me if I'm off-base---I might just be scatterbrained because I spent the past three days loading a moving van...)

 

Newton didn't write Opticks with a mind to the wave theory of light. In fact, it was Thomas Young who devised the double slit experiment for light to demonstrate that it could exhibit wave-like effects---namely: superposition. Opticks had, as its subject, light when undergoing refraction or "inflexion" and reflexion. The general concensus, from what I have found and am re-finding-out is that Young's superposition effect was something that was as ill-received in his time as Opticks was received in in Newton's time. Namely because the Newtonian approach to light had become the new orthodoxy and superposition as-such wasn't a predicted or accommodated-for property (i.e. how would two particles superpose?).

 

From a number of Newton's papers ( http://cudl.lib.cam.ac.uk/view/MS-ADD-03970/1 ) we can see that he did indeed devote time to understanding and clarifying understanding about music, optics, hydrostatics, and a great number of topics. But they weren't combined into a unified understanding.

 

I think Boyle's The Sceptical Chymist is older than Opticks but it's difficult to say where we're going to draw the line for "scientific literature" as Newton is one of the first to write in a way that accords to the modern conception of science.... Oddly enough, Boyle's approach to atomism can be seen as a precursor to Newton's corpuscularism.

 

I really hate narratizing history, though. When I look at the details, I see a collection of different things each following a different path from a different origin and to a different end. All you need to do is eyeball the books published or the swath of articles published or even a historical list of various academic medalists to see that different ideas ebbed and flowed and there wasn't much or any simple narrative in the development of ideas over the course of history.

 

We could eyeball DaVinci's notebooks and decide that he was a better precursor to superposition because, unlike Newton, he didn't have a corpuscular notion of light when he discussed color. Or maybe the scholastic link that I posted in your thread on light---it's even older but (despite Aristotelian influences) still more apt for being a predecessor to superposition because the scholastic mode of theorizing usually was attributive and dialectic instead of axiomatic and deductive and, conceivably, it could build out to the idea of superposition....

 

I dunno. I am somewhat ashamed at responding here. It's not really out of a desire to clarify an idea or advance dialog. More or less, it is because I perceive either a form of condescension or a type of self-reinforced sense of stability in belief despite what is conceivably inadequate information. My own preference is simply to work with the pre-theoretical bare-bones of the math and its unformalized semantics. If we do that, superposition is more akin to imaginary numbers---something which has unclear ontological (or mereological) status but, nonetheless, utility as a descriptive and predictive instrument. This to me is a more respectable way of approaching theories rather than constructing another layer of stories which is composed of an idealized understanding of the semantics of the theory when it is applied.

 

But, again, maybe I am scatterbrained and off-base. If I am, I'd enjoy reading clarification along the lines of these terms because it's how I think; it's a linguistic distillation of how my awareness moves. If acceptance should follow awareness, then a recast along these lines would help in cajoling my acceptance.

I think you are right -- I don't think Newton conceptualized superposition and I didn't intend to suggest he was the father of superposition. Looking back at my post, though, I see that I was less than clear. Sorry.

 

BTW, if you haven't visited Opticks in a while, I recommend it! The Queries at the end are particularly interesting, I think.

[Daeluin]

I am aware that attempting to understand the math of awareness and acceptance would take me further into tension than the simple act of accepting it, which releases the tension.

 

This is the point, right?

[Brian]

I am aware that attempting to understand the math of awareness and acceptance would take me further into tension than the simple act of accepting it, which releases the tension.

 

This is the point, right?

I'd say that, like with any field, practicing until the tool becomes integrated, becomes a comfortable extension which no longer requires conscious awareness, allows one to "relax into" using it as appropriate without effort. This is a more productive approach than saying "OK, whatever" and thinking one is accepting something not comprehended. Dissolving the tension by passing through it rather than turning away from it and thereby finding what lies on the other side.

[Daeluin]

No wonder emptiness covers so much ground.

It can accept and pass through everything, without effort!

[Marblehead]

Yeah, emptiness is 100% potential.  It can become anything that is possible at any given point in time.