As you told about the nature.
for your kind information nature is a subpart of soul.
when you observe yourself,your soul,which means you are far awdy from your nature,or in another words your nature is observed by you(yourself)
Indeed!
And there rests the nature of enlightenment.
To be in two states at once.
Far away viewing, and as close as possible being viewed.
Yes!
witness sense is a attribute of being enligtenment.
outer world is a play or a drama.
by using witness sense you observe it.
but condition remais same ,are you enlighted??
I am my self.
I am not enlightened.
I am not unenlightened.
I am what I am when I am and aware of what I am when I am.
How do you know that you are youself?
simply, via a thought.
how do you know that you are enlightened?
how do you know that you are unenlightened? again,simply via a thought.
ever you tried to know that,who are you?
our mind can draw only those images whose idea or thought is in it.we are nothing but a thought.
We are not only the thought.
We are the experience of all thoughts.
And all thoughts are first senses.
I know what I am when I am quite simply because I am that which I am.
I do not ask a tree how it knows it’s nature.
I do not ask a dog how it knows it’s nature.
I do not need to ask myself how I know my nature.
I simply need to exist as I am, allow it to be as it is, and observe it as the experience that I am.
Experiences are also belong to thoughts.
group of experiences may be consider as a nature.
am i right?
could you give me a simple answer .
is the nature mobile aur stationary?
Nature is mobile.
Experience is more than thought alone; it is the instance itself aside from thought, it is the sensory of the instance, it is the thought of the instance, and it is the reaction to the instance.
Nature is always in motion because energy itself is always in motion.
You cannot stop energy from moving.
You can only alter where energy comes and where it goes.
For instance; Yin; Yang…they are not stationary; they are mobile.
One’s nature is a compilation of all energies; the energy of the instance, the energy of the sensory of the instance, the energy of the thought of the instance, and the energy of the reaction to the instance.
So nature is mobile.
Agreed.
But according to ancient vedic philosophy ,the outer world i,e nature is stationary.
Or it may be considered that only yourself is movable.You are the real enenrgy not the nature.ILLUSION or MAYA are playing with you.Nature is a subpart of MAYA.
That philosophy is wrong.
Nothing is stationary, as all is interconnected.
At the very least, even the philosophy itself defeats itself:
If all is interconnected, and we are not stationary, then we are interconnected to the outside world.
If we are interconnected to the outside world, then not being stationary is interconnected to the outside world.
And if not being stationary is interconnected to the outside world, then the outside world contains the property of being not stationary.
And if the outside world contains the property of not being stationary, then the outside world is not stationary.
Finally, if it is not stationary, then the outside world is in motion.
Aside from this, and more simply put: the nature of Earth is not the same today as it was when this Vedic philosophy began.
It is immediately apparent that no nature is stationary from simply this alone.
This is good, or we would interconnect with dead energy pointless to connect with; aimless, and expressionless.
But we do not, and thankfully existence is full of motion and life.
VEDIC philosophy is only philosophy which defines cocept of ATMAN as clear as no one can.
Interconnection may takes place between a stationary and a mobile object,there is no boundation which states that,both object must be mobile.
with respect to someone’s self nature is stationary and vice versa.
What is it that convinces you that the outside world; the world beyond yourself; is stationary?
Because whenever i obseve my self in witness sense ,i find the same.
I do not share the same.
All is in motion when I observe; only that it is all sensible in it’s motion.
As i know ,motion is of respective nature.
If you observe yourself then only yourself exist,no other sense or thought prevails there.
I agree with you as you told that,you found both the same i,e mobile.
Let me explain how it happens.
From your point of view nature is mobile,because it is changing with respect to time,but on another hand if,you are observed by element of the nature i,e via another self ,then you are mobile and and observer is stationary.
Hence both are mobile ,but one must be consider stationary for observation.
I see what you are saying, and now that I understand your meaning, I can agree.
This is true about station.
I simply do not look at anything with stationary mind as instead I look at all in motion swinging each other.
Nature moves nature.
Wheel of Dharma.
Yet, instead of only representing 8 paths, let it represent 8 natures all linked to one nature, all in motion; all connected; each their own nature; each their own spoke.
Let again each spoke have it’s own Wheel of Dharma with 8 spoke again inside of it, with the same said of it as the first wheel.
And again on that wheel on each spoke another wheel, and another, and further.
So that we find that there are seemingly infinite wheels of Dharma on every spoke of every wheel of any wheel of Dharma and that all are in motion and all interdependent on each to continue their motion; and each to their nature and each spoke of each wheel to it’s nature.
So too is how I see life.
Could you give me name of DHARMA ,you told about.
If you are talking about ancient ARYA DHARMA or VEDIC DHARMA.
Then for your kind information ,at that time each fold of dharma was associated with a perticular nature.
If such kind of arrangement was there?then also supreme dharma or moderator was also there.
I am agree with you with the notion that nature moves nature.
But if there are only two frame exist in the out side world ,then it may put a question mark on the existance of Supreme authority i,e GOD.
I am referring to both of the Dharma’s; Arya, and Vedic.
Supreme Dharma, nature, has always been there as long as there has been Dharma.
Supreme Dharma, path, has always been there as long as there has been Dharma.
That is to say, the essence of life has always been where life is.
That is to say, the essence of all paths has always been where paths are.
By two frames that exist, do you mean; stationary and mobile?
I had already been told you that,Vedic dharma had devided in several branches .
Let me explain,according to Shankar ,only one’s self is mobile ,the outer world is a drama or LILA of God.
God was cosidered as the supreme authority.I know that ,he was in touched with Geeta which states that ,soul is fadeless,shapeless etc.
Geeta also states that,soul changes its skin time to time.soul travel wrt to the nature.
Now i am referring Adivat sidhant(theory),according to which,“there is only one self exists i,e yourself.
Outer world is a drama.Your self is a complete god.You are unique.You are your nature by yourself.”
Hence i am agree with your concept that both are mobile.
But one of them must be considered stationary,because of motion theory.
I am sorry, I had lapsed in understanding; I do understand what you had meant in frames.
It is what I call sense of my existence, and sense of existence beyond my existence.
Then your previous question was if there are only two frames, outer world and the self, then it may put a question mark on the existance of Supreme authority.
I’m not invested either way, but I’m curious as to why you consider this?