Quenching the Firebrand

[dwai]

 

A key takeaway is towards the end -- "One doesn't become Brahman...One always is that..." 

Edited June 12, 2018 by dwai

[Stosh]

I enjoyed that. But still thinkthe form of the clay pot exists.  Drill a hole in the pot and water will not be held in it. The form has legitimacy though the clay is material.

 

If the glass is moved though space who is to say that the space within has not moved with it? Since it does not become full. 

Edited June 13, 2018 by Stosh

[dwai]

12 hours ago, Stosh said:

I enjoyed that. But still thinkthe form of the clay pot exists.  Drill a hole in the pot and water will not be held in it. The form has legitimacy though the clay is material.

It is an example. You should watch the Q&A video after, which makes this talk more meaningful

Quote

 

If the glass is moved though space who is to say that the space within has not moved with it? Since it does not become full. 

By definition, space is that which is always there and never moves  

Edited June 13, 2018 by dwai

[Stosh]

9 hours ago, dwai said:

It is an example. You should watch the Q&A video after, which makes this talk more meaningful

By definition, space is that which is always there and never moves  

Fine, but simply having a definition doesnt mean the definition has validity. Where would the space be if you inflate a balloon? Certainly not where the balloon is thats a full spot. Unless one wants to say that space was destroyed, it moved. 

The guy is making a logical progression, move the glass the water moves with it, but he doesnt say that it is the definition of water for it to be in a glass. 

If space is real, it spans distances , and we do not know how to traverse distance regardless of space between. So space impedes travel , interacts with matter ...therefore the glass wall interacts with The space which preserves The form of the glass and we have no reason to think that the space does not move with the glass... its just not heavy.

He is making presumptive leaps just like he invites us to scoff at the idea that the form of the pot requires the clay. It does not. A pot may be made out of glass yet still have the effect of the form which need not be clay. The form directs where the water goes and it must be complete. Ajything which satisfies the form Will do therefore the manifestation of a pot is indeed independent of the material, just as the material must have some form to exist , but can exist without being a pot.

[Stosh]

Ok, I watched the qa but that wasnt my point ,entropy being part of a pot. 

The point was that form has validity, seen as ramifictions. 

Its unimportant though ,so too ,is whether material items move in a larger field of space, so too ,is the existence of some kind of common experience of the world being projected or not. 

As i see it the message really just boils down to whether happiness is the result of embracing others under an umbrella common identity regardless of the status of individual identity. And that the mere intellectual understanding needs to make its stamp on ones life before it can be said to be assimilated. Which is a fine message.

[dwai]

13 hours ago, Stosh said:

Ok, I watched the qa but that wasnt my point ,entropy being part of a pot. 

The point was that form has validity, seen as ramifictions. 

Its unimportant though ,so too ,is whether material items move in a larger field of space, so too ,is the existence of some kind of common experience of the world being projected or not. 

As i see it the message really just boils down to whether happiness is the result of embracing others under an umbrella common identity regardless of the status of individual identity. And that the mere intellectual understanding needs to make its stamp on ones life before it can be said to be assimilated. Which is a fine message.

The Advaitic realization is that the "others" are not separate from the Self.  It doesn't leave one in denial of the world, but unbound in the world. To take the clay-pot example a bit further, it could be construed at, on one hand, the reality that there is no pot apart from the clay is understood; while on the other hand, there is not going to be a denial that there is a modification of clay that is called pot, which is useful for various practical purposes.

 

 

[Stosh]

28 minutes ago, dwai said:

The Advaitic realization is that the "others" are not separate from the Self.  It doesn't leave one in denial of the world, but unbound in the world. To take the clay-pot example a bit further, it could be construed at, on one hand, the reality that there is no pot apart from the clay is understood; while on the other hand, there is not going to be a denial that there is a modification of clay that is called pot, which is useful for various practical purposes.

 

 

I don't disagree on what is being said, but the form of the pot is a thing which exists, Plato got into this. Whatever you smash the clay into , it still has A form. if you glue it back together , the form is reestablished, as a pot, and it still works like one. That clay is NOT independent of form , whether it be a blob ,shards, or a pot. 

I think he was trying to establish some kind of prioritization , about an individuals form not being on the level of eternal , brahman or atman , but in fact he should recognize that what I am saying , that the form is eternal regardless of the material manifestation , is actually a more provable and logical support for the existence of this 'universal-self-principle'. 

He earlier brought up a mango seed not becoming an apple , from which should be understood that the form called a mango tree is perpetuated by the mass of any clump of matter which fulfills the form.  

Plato had a hard time explaining this , and I remember the rhetorical argument ' I see plato's table , and I see plato's cup , but I dont see his cupness and tableness.'  

And this is precisely true one should not be expecting form without matter to be seeable as matter is , nor should one be expecting matter to be formless. 

The form and matter of two sides of the same snake. 

I moved my furniture to the east side of the room , and now the space is on the west. Unless space is destructable , unconserved in the universe , the space is now moved. Try sliding a two by four and see if you can do it in such a way so that the space taken up in front , does not equal the space vacated in back . How does it get there?  And you can 'see' likewise in spacial distortions at relativistic speeds that space is indeed conserved.( it just has different values, it 'springs back' to its full size) 

Edited June 14, 2018 by Stosh

[dwai]

21 minutes ago, Stosh said:

I don't disagree on what is being said, but the form of the pot is a thing which exists, Plato got into this. Whatever you smash the clay into , it still has A form. if you glue it back together , the form is reestablished, as a pot, and it still works like one. That clay is NOT independent of form , whether it be a blob ,shards, or a pot. 

I think he was trying to establish some kind of prioritization , about an individuals form not being on the level of eternal , brahman or atman , but in fact he should recognize that what I am saying , that the form is eternal regardless of the material manifestation , is actually a more provable and logical support for the existence of this 'universal-self-principle'. 

He earlier brought up a mango seed not becoming an apple , from which should be understood that the form called a mango tree is perpetuated by the mass of any clump of matter which fulfills the form.  

Plato had a hard time explaining this , and I remember the rhetorical argument ' I see plato's table , and I see plato's cup , but I dont see his cupness and tableness.'  

And this is precisely true one should not be expecting form without matter to be seeable as matter is , nor should one be expecting matter to be formless. 

The form and matter of two sides of the same snake. 

I moved my furniture to the east side of the room , and now the space is on the west. Unless space is destructable , unconserved in the universe , the space is now moved. Try sliding a two by four and see if you can do it in such a way so that the space taken up in front , does not equal the space vacated in back . How does it get there?  And you can 'see' likewise in spacial distortions at relativistic speeds that space is indeed conserved.( it just has different values, it 'springs back' to its full size) 

Vedanta/Hindu dharma and Buddha dharma identify two levels of reality. Actually Vedanta identifies/categorizes three levels of reality.

But for sake of brevity, let us consider only two.

 

Vyavharika or samvriti satya -- the reality of conventional/practical value. The pot and its form is relevant here. 

Paramarthika satya - The reality of transcendental value (also called Absolute Truth). That the pot is ultimately only clay, is relevant here.

 

But it is important to not drag an example too far. It is not about Clay and pots, it is about Awareness (Self) and the world.

[Stosh]

1 hour ago, dwai said:

Vedanta/Hindu dharma and Buddha dharma identify two levels of reality. Actually Vedanta identifies/categorizes three levels of reality.

But for sake of brevity, let us consider only two.

 

Vyavharika or samvriti satya -- the reality of conventional/practical value. The pot and its form is relevant here. 

Paramarthika satya - The reality of transcendental value (also called Absolute Truth). That the pot is ultimately only clay, is relevant here.

 

But it is important to not drag an example too far. It is not about Clay and pots, it is about Awareness (Self) and the world.

Yes , I assumed as much , he is saying self as a larger principle potential of the universe is pristine, eternal and we all can be considered as such , though we also manifest as a corporeal  individual subject to wear and tear , illusion and suffering. 

The more entrenched in experiencing enlightenment we become,  the less subject to suffering. Got it.

But no,  the pot is not just clay , it is the form of the pot manifest in clay. There is no unformed 'clay.'

We have words for forms and some forms we have no word for , but that doesn't matter,

the word or name , is just an association which we make with the particular forms we recognize.

This is why we can peruse the universe and grok its form ,, our means of understanding is symbolic , the symbols represent forms , forms are eternal , and so the eternal forms we associate with words we can call principles which apply universally. 

Therefore a paper airplane will essentially, work on Mars, and mustard will still be yellow on the moon. 

[Stosh]

You are confusing 'form' with recognizable shape, or shapes that have names attached to them , thats not what is meant.

 

Step one draw a free form blob on a sheet of paper ,

See that it has no defined name one can call it , now beneath that ,

draw another one which has no form whatsoever.. 

 

It cant be done , there must be form for the matter , in this case ink, to manifest it.

and there must be matter to specify which form you have. 

 

The manifest and the mystery , specified and unspecified , Yang and yin. 

 

Whatever forms do occur , are potential possibilities in this universe

and those which cannot exist here -are not here.

  Easy as pie

 

 

 

Edited June 14, 2018 by Stosh

[dwai]

1 hour ago, Stosh said:

You are confusing 'form' with recognizable shape, or shapes that have names attached to them , thats not what is meant.

For me form means "Nama-Rupa" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Namarupa-vyakarana)

1 hour ago, Stosh said:

 

Step one draw a free form blob on a sheet of paper ,

See that it has no defined name one can call it , now beneath that ,

draw another one which has no form whatsoever.. 

 

It cant be done , there must be form for the matter , in this case ink, to manifest it.

and there must be matter to specify which form you have. 

 

The manifest and the mystery , specified and unspecified , Yang and yin. 

 

Whatever forms do occur , are potential possibilities in this universe

and those which cannot exist here -are not here.

  Easy as pie

 

 

 

All forms exist in latent state in the Brahman. And appear out of Brahman and disappear into Brahman. But they are not separate from Brahman. Just like things (forms) in our dreams are not separate or distinct from us (The Dreaming Consciousness), similarly the world in it's multifarious forms is not separate or distinct from Brahman/Atman/Self.

 

[Stosh]

 

While that article does begin by restricting forms to conditioned or recognizable shapes , the issue broadens out in the next line ..

manifestation into the fictitious plurality of the phenomenal world owing to maya, the unreal adjunct.

 

Manifestations are not restricted to those things for which we have names , and clearly cannot be since we can indeed discern a plurality in the world whether or not we know them 'abstractly'. 

 

I can accept an interp that into and out of Brahman ,go manifest forms ,and they exist in what could be described as a latent state in Brahman... fine .. but then they are then still eternal as latent Brahman forms , still pure , and still as valid as the clay.

With the caveat that the clay is still reliant on form,  to be manifest either. 

And that there is no such thing as magic which is real , nor illusion outside the mind , and therefore no maya.

Edited June 14, 2018 by Stosh