zoofence.com

I recently sent a response to the TAT Forum in reference to criticism of the January 2009 article by Steven Norquist, "What is Enlightenment?" http://tatfoundation.org/forum.htm
Here are the two posts to my blog which address this:

In reading commentary of many reports of so-called enlightenment, I have noticed that there is always a certain amount of criticism of the author. Particularly in regards to what might be termed negative humanity or life-based responses by the author. It seems perfectly sensible that the physical/emotional or mental responses to truth realizations should be unique to each manifestation. After all they are being filtered through the personality which most often remains intact to some degree following such an event. It would seem a standardized response would be the more uncommon, given the wildly varying level of functionality in any given entity. After all we are not talking sci-fi here, but simply a recognition of what we are in relation to everything else; the truth as it were.

To go a little further into this discussion of perception of truth, let us say that there is no wrong way of expressing it. Of course, there is no accurate way of doing so either. And besides, who is it that might take exception to an author making a attempt to clarify the subject? And who is the author? It reminds one of daytime soaps, imaginary people pretending to be imaginary people.

Let's jump to the core of this issue. Any criticism by a personality of consciousness' attempting to communicate is nothing more than a denial of reality, of what is and can only be. There can be no mistakes here, including from the criticizing personality. That also is reality, perfect manifestation of what is. And so it goes.

Comments welcomed. Brant http://urku.wordpress.com/

... if reality cannot be reached with reasoning and logic, it seems that words ultimately can only be used in the sense of a poem or a song ...
... and every person has / is it's own melody ...

Isn't the reaction of criticism a necessity in a forum - those who see more often don't speak and don't write,
it's only the others who feel the urge to do this ?

Everything written about enlightenment or reality must ultimately be self-contradictory, isn't it?
Because it's the nature of words to define, limit, separate.
Using words to describe oneness is like trying to glue two pieces together with a knife ...
But sometimes this self-contradicting use of words creates an interesting melody ...
which in turn creates some resonance ...

... anyway, nice to find your melody again in this place ...

Everything written about enlightenment or reality must ultimately be self-contradictory, isn't it?

Presumably, yes. The very act of writing or speaking about enlightenment contradicts enlightenment, because it adds adjectives and adverbs to what is in essence simply a verb: I AM. Thus an element of mutability is applied to what is immutable.

This principle extends beyond writing and speaking, though. Scientists tell us that we cannot observe an atom, regardless of how powerful an electron microscope we create, because the act of observing the atom changes it. They also tell us that we cannot blink an eye without in some way affecting the functioning of the most remote galaxy in the universe (the "butterfly wing principle").

All that beng so, we also must agree witjh the French saying, La plus ça change, la plus c'est la même chose (the more it changes, the more it is the same thing). If we change something by observing it, the change is itself inherent in the nature of the thing itelf. What it "was" no longer exists; perhaps, never did exist. It is what it is, and is not what it is not.

Happy headache...

Jai Ram
Art

Thanks my friends. Indeed. Criticism, defense, both perfectly beautiful in the flow of manifestation/consciousness. Brant.

because the act of observing the atom changes it

My question to science is, to what does the pronoun "it" refer?

Is it the atom that is changed, or is it the observer? Or, is it the relationship, which includes the observer, the atom, the space and time in which they exist, and everything else?

It is our sense of separation that leads science to conclude that our observing an atom changes the atom.

In truth, as Krishnamurti put it, and as quantum physics is increasingly stating it, and as ACIM suggests, the observer is the observed.

The relationship is all that exists.

Isn't that what the butterfly effect is about. A butterfly cannot beat its wings "independently" of the rest of the universe because there is no such thing as "the rest of the universe"!

In reading commentary of many reports of so-called enlightenment, I have noticed that there is always a certain amount of criticism of the author.

While it is quite true, as others have suggested here, that sometimes criticism is normal, natural, and necessary, it is regrettably also true that too often we seek to make ourselves seem taller by cutting off the heads of others.

Hi S.
Yes, without doubt, there is no rest of the universe. I don't know what science would say, but in reality I don't see the observer or the observed, only universe/consciousness in full bloom. For item - 2 In common terms yes, it does appear as if some build themselves up at the expense of others. In actuality if heads are cut off it can only be my head which I don't see either.
Lovin' IT! Brant.

I don't know what science would say, but in reality I don't see the observer or the observed

Hi Brant,

though you've said it all in short, you've provoked this nice question "what would science say?"

Science has a very special assumption regarding what observation is:
If the experiment can be rebuilt from a description anywhere and by anybody
and the result of the experiment can subsequently be reproduced, then this is called a scientific observation.

In fact when we "observe" an atom, there is a whole lot of interaction with a complicated machinery,
before something can be perceived by the human senses.

With another understanding of "observation", one could easily say that not the atom, but the machine is being "observed" ...

And isn't the seeing eye in the end even part of the machine?

So what finally is "observation" ?
Just an abstract concept which separates the world in "observer" and "observed".

Science can come to see that point, but will then declare that this separation is part of the method and not to be questioned -
otherwise science would stop being a concept where "a subject" or "the human race" masters "the world" whatsoever -
and isn't that what science is all about?

There is this nice movie "Solaris" by Tarkovskij which exactly hits the spot here -
the scientists exploring another planet have to recognize that they are not observers of this strange world
and an experiment is rather performed on them ...
it's just that "Solaris" is not somewhere far away in the galaxy, but happening here and now.

Hi G.
Yes indeed, perfect... perfect. I'll check out Solaris.
Cheers, J.