Split from Awakening versus enlightenment

[3bob]

wow, an often rhetorical-ist saying I'm rhetorical, now that takes the cake. 

[Karl]

If you don't allow Buddha to define Buddhism, what definition would you accept?

Your example of cat is not applicable as it is not at all comparable to the concept of Buddhahood.

 

When did Buddah define Buddhism ? Did Jesus define Christianity ? Organised religion sucks. Choose your own mind, be your own priest.

[Karl]

Feel free to choose your own definition if you care to answer.

While I may have the right to be argumentative, I find it tends to take me in a direction I prefer to avoid.

 

I would define it as that which defines a man beyond the purely physical. Values, virtues, beliefs.

The tree is known by the fruit it produces. Therefore man is known by his actions and nothing beyond that can be inferred.

[steve]

When did Buddah define Buddhism ?

When he gave his teachings.

 

Did Jesus define Christianity ?

Yes, in the same way.

 

Organised religion sucks.

I think there is great value in well-preserved teachings and lineage.

And there is the potential for great harm when the teachings are misappropriated and politicized.

 

We can look at religions as what the founders gave us through the clarity and compassion in their message, such as defining Christianity through the teachings of Jesus and Daoism through the teachings of Laozi and Zhuangzi.

Or we can look at religions as what has has evolved through centuries of interpretation and politicization.

My own preference is to look back to the source material as best I can, and to qualified teachers, and take the former approach. 

 

Choose your own mind, be your own priest.

I agree and I am also open to learning from others.

[steve]

I would define it as that which defines a man beyond the purely physical. Values, virtues, beliefs. The tree is known by the fruit it produces. Therefore man is known by his actions and nothing beyond that can be inferred.

I would add to that - it not only defines us beyond the purely physical but beyond the physical and mental.

[3bob]

If one makes it an objective to highlight faults in arrangements of letters, one is going to be a very busy man.  For every phrase arranged, one is always free to ask, "what gives rise to that?" without end.  If one wishes to believe it's "God's plan" rather than God, one can still ask who gives arising to the plan of having God?  Is there a God factory somewhere and they order production quantities to send off to go become universes? What gives rise to the God factory and what gives rise to the materials the God stuffs are made with?  If being God includes being all 'things' at all 'times' and all 'places' what need does a God have for 'plans' when they are already are all that's ever been or will be?

 

The moment a human chooses to generate the delusion their mind was capable of grasping any aspect God, at this moment this human has just manufactured and implemented new blocks dividing them from experiencing all that is of God. 

 

If you wish to honor God/Oneness while spoiling yourself with bliss, it requires laying down the minds concepts of God you were replacing God with and instead embracing what God/Oneness made for you, this perception of the Divine Now. 

 

Only you can hold yourself back from it, only you can take yourself there.  The best gifts in life are free and always available, yet paradoxically the least treasured... 

 

Unlimited Love,

-Bud

 

Bud, What I'm getting at indirectly by saying, "what humans?" is that we are Spirits having human experiences, not the other way around - even if it seems so or if we try to insist upon such via limited experience... not unlike how our self-blinded buddy Karl is insisting upon and fanatically trying to sell his reality that we are only humans having only human based sensory experiences, and when time runs out for that aspect and format then the game is over.

Edited September 26, 2015 by 3bob

[Karl]

I would add to that - it not only defines us beyond the purely physical but beyond the physical and mental.

 

Then you would need to produce the evidence to support your statement. Until you can, then it isn't. When you can, it is.

[Karl]

When he gave his teachings.

 

 

Yes, in the same way.

 

 

I think there is great value in well-preserved teachings and lineage.

And there is the potential for great harm when the teachings are misappropriated and politicized.

 

We can look at religions as what the founders gave us through the clarity and compassion in their message, such as defining Christianity through the teachings of Jesus and Daoism through the teachings of Laozi and Zhuangzi.

Or we can look at religions as what has has evolved through centuries of interpretation and politicization.

My own preference is to look back to the source material as best I can, and to qualified teachers, and take the former approach. 

 

 

I agree and I am also open to learning from others.

 

Jesus did not create Christianity or the church, he expounded a philosophy and gathered disciples. Are you suggesting that the Spanish Inquisition, the divine right of Kings and the rape of little boys followed the teachings of Jesus ?

 

I haven't read the entire history of Buddah, but please show me where he specifically created an organised religion called Buddhism ?

 

That is not to say that the founding principles of their philosophies, or indeed the behaviour of their acolytes is entirely without merit, but it has certainly been entirely representative of exactly the kind of Poor moral standards that are distributed across the human race- however, the power wielded by many of these churches could create far more damage and misery than individuals could alone.

 

Teachings are fine if you are able to read them. I'm not talking here about the more simple kind of reading, but the in depth type of reading which discriminates and questions.

[Karl]

Bud, What I'm getting at indirectly by saying, "what humans?" is that we are Spirits having human experiences, not the other way around - even if it seems so or if we try to insist upon such via limited experience... not unlike how our self-blinded buddy Karl is insisting upon and fanatically trying to sell his reality that we are only humans having only human based sensory experiences, and when time runs out for that aspect and format then the game is over.

Where are these independent spirits devoid of bodies ? Produce them or provide the evidence for their existence. I don't need to 'sell' reality. Reality is right in front of you. It is the method you use to try and prove your concepts.

 

Now you see Bud has gone a step further in the world of mystic ignorance. Not only does he not want to prove the 'plans of God' you talk about because it creates questions. Just like any good cult member he tells you that God is beyond any possibity of your knowing God. Just practice and believe, never question anything other than those that question your faith. In days gone by the next step would be to but the disbelieving heretic to death. Power of man, not power of God. You create your own prison with faith. Let it go.

Edited September 26, 2015 by Karl

[Jetsun]

Then you would need to produce the evidence to support your statement. Until you can, then it isn't. When you can, it is.

The evidence is in experientally examining your direct experience right now.

 

What do thoughts arise within?

What is its substance, where does it exist? Can anything be said about it using the usual analytical mind?

Where do thoughts come from and go to?

 

If your "reality" only includes thought then you are excluding what thought arises within. Many of the Indian originating traditions revolve around this basic enquiry.

[Karl]

The evidence is in experientally examining your direct experience right now.

What do thoughts arise within?

What is its substance, where does it exist? Can anything be said about it using the usual analytical mind?

Where do thoughts come from and go to?

If your "reality" only includes thought then you are excluding what thought arises within. Many of the Indian originating traditions revolve around this basic enquiry.

 

Thoughts arise within the conscious awareness of them. No consciousness then no thoughts. No consciousness then no awareness.

Consciousness and awareness are bound up inseparably with the functioning, living material body.

 

If you are trying to examine thoughts then nothing will be found. It's a logical loop. Consciousness can never be conscious of itself. What you are doing is non relational self inquiry which leads to a belief in the primacy of consciousness as that from which all reality is created. In effect you believe that you are the creator of all that you perceive-for some that means they believe they are God.

[Jetsun]

Thoughts arise within the conscious awareness of them. No consciousness then no thoughts. No consciousness then no awareness.

Consciousness and awareness are bound up inseparably with the functioning, living material body.

 

If you are trying to examine thoughts then nothing will be found. It's a logical loop. Consciousness can never be conscious of itself. What you are doing is non relational self inquiry which leads to a belief in the primacy of consciousness as that from which all reality is created. In effect you believe that you are the creator of all that you perceive-for some that means they believe they are God.

You don't really answer any of the enquiries. What is it that thoughts arise within? What is its substance? What is its colour, nature, location, qualities? For something like a thought to arise it must arise within something in order for it to be differentiated. You can't answer the query because it is an area of experience which can't be grasped, defined, pinned down by the intellect or by thought, yet it is a ever present vital aspect of reality.

 

In the deepest stages of sleep there is nothing to be aware of, yet many people in the spiritual traditions say that it is possible to still be aware in deep sleep even though there is nothing to be conscious of. Awareness isnt the same as consciousness and awareness can be aware of itself. Which is the same thing that can be experienced in deep meditation, objectless awareness. The universe doesn't cease to exist when there are no objects to be aware of, awareness is primordial, it is prior to thought. Realising that has a dramatic consequences on your sense of self. But this is only something which can be experienced experimentally, it isn't something to be worked out and turned into a intellectual position.

Edited September 26, 2015 by Jetsun

[Karl]

You don't really answer any of the enquiries. What is it that thoughts arise within? What is its substance? What is its colour, nature, location, qualities? For something like a thought to arise it must arise within something in order for it to be differentiated. You can't answer the query because it is an area of experience which can't be grasped, defined, pinned down by the intellect or by thought, yet it is a ever present vital aspect of reality.

In the deepest stages of sleep there is nothing to be aware of, yet many people in the spiritual traditions say that it is possible to still be aware in deep sleep even though there is nothing to be conscious of. Awareness isnt the same as consciousness and awareness can be aware of itself. Which is the same thing that can be experienced in deep meditation, objectless awareness. The universe doesn't cease to exist when there are no objects to be aware of, awareness is primordial, it is prior to thought. Realising that has a dramatic consequences on your sense of self. But this is only something which can be experienced experimentally, it isn't something to be worked out and turned into a intellectual position.

 

Intellect is it. It has no location, or dimension. It is reality for the person thinking it, but it isn't an object apart from that person.

 

Awareness is the active part of consciousness, but it cannot be aware of itself, but it can be focuses on diffuse. It is the minds eye. They are two sides of the same coin. Awareness does not exist if there is no consciousness and as consciousness needs to be conscious of something, then awareness is that component that arises. There are subtle levels of both. Awareness is obviously prior to thought.

 

The universe exists independently of your conscious awareness of it.

 

You only have the one tool and that is intellect. You are using it to relate your experiences and integrate concepts. It's pointless to use the intellect to deny the intellect. What did you learn from self inquiry ? Didn't you discover there was no base to thoughts, no origin ?

[Jetsun]

Intellect is it. It has no location, or dimension. It is reality for the person thinking it, but it isn't an object apart from that person.

 

Awareness is the active part of consciousness, but it cannot be aware of itself, but it can be focuses on diffuse. It is the minds eye. They are two sides of the same coin. Awareness does not exist if there is no consciousness and as consciousness needs to be conscious of something, then awareness is that component that arises. There are subtle levels of both. Awareness is obviously prior to thought.

 

The universe exists independently of your conscious awareness of it.

 

You only have the one tool and that is intellect. You are using it to relate your experiences and integrate concepts. It's pointless to use the intellect to deny the intellect. What did you learn from self inquiry ? Didn't you discover there was no base to thoughts, no origin ?

 

All I can say is that position and conclusion you are taking is incredibly limited and imprisoning. I am not trying to deny the intellect at all, only trying to directly point to an aspect of your experience which the intellect can't pin down, can't dominate.

[Karl]

All I can say is that position and conclusion you are taking is incredibly limited and imprisoning. I am not trying to deny the intellect at all, only trying to directly point to an aspect of your experience which the intellect can't pin down, can't dominate.

 

Ignore it- that's the point of self inquiry. It shows you that you are already free. Neither Gods, Fate or luck control you. You have free will and intellect.

 

See, most people build a story about who they are, they build castles in the sky which revolves around mental attachment to false concepts. It builds a false ego which then becomes the person-an alter ego which is imbued with all sorts of ideologies. Now, meditation helps seperate out the thoughts, but sometimes they are so deeply entrenched it requires sterner stuff to get the separation necessary to see it. The problem is, the mind can often re attach to the method of trying to unlock the false ego. You think you moved on, but it was just transference to a new alter ego.

 

That is why I am now sceptical of the value of hard core practices. I'm not saying they can't be helpful, but they can hinder.

 

Once the alter ego is seen for what it is, then it serves no more purpose, but here's the thing. How can you know when you got there? So, now, back up a bit and realise that the only tool in the box to do this is the intellect. The wheel has to stop somewhere and something must be trusted. Deny intellect and you are ever denied.

[steve]

Jesus did not create Christianity or the church, he expounded a philosophy and gathered disciples. Are you suggesting that the Spanish Inquisition, the divine right of Kings and the rape of little boys followed the teachings of Jesus ?

Nope, I'm suggesting that the Spanish Inquisition, the divine right of Kings, and the rape of little boys have nothing to do with Christianity. They are manifestations of human ignorance and depravity. The opposite of all genuine spiritual teachings. 

 

 

I haven't read the entire history of Buddah, but please show me where he specifically created an organised religion called Buddhism ?

Many people identify religions with their political institutions, I choose to identify religions with their core teachings and [what I consider to be] credible commentaries and teachings. That's my prerogative, my choice. I acknowledge Osho's limitations and corruption but something he once said stuck with me - 'religion is an individual's internal search for the truth, everything else is politics.'

 

 

That is not to say that the founding principles of their philosophies, or indeed the behaviour of their acolytes is entirely without merit, but it has certainly been entirely representative of exactly the kind of Poor moral standards that are distributed across the human race- however, the power wielded by many of these churches could create far more damage and misery than individuals could alone. Teachings are fine if you are able to read them. I'm not talking here about the more simple kind of reading, but the in depth type of reading which discriminates and questions.

Here's a beautiful little story told by Anthony Demello that helped to guide me towards seeking truth in religion rather than settling for something less, no matter what "religious leaders" might prefer. It addresses quite nicely your legitimate disillusionment with "religion" and demonstrates his own.

 

"There was a man who invented the art of making fire. He took his tools and went to a tribe in the north, where it was very cold, bitterly cold. He taught the people there to make fire. The people were very interested. He showed them the uses to which they could put fire: they could cook, could keep themselves warm, etc. They were so grateful that they had learned the art of making fire. But before they could express their gratitude to the man, he disappeared. He wasn’t concerned with getting their recognition or gratitude; he was concerned about their well-being.

 

He went to another tribe, where he again began to show them the value of his invention. People were interested there too, a bit too interested for the peace of mind of their priests, who began to notice that this man was drawing crowds and they were losing their popularity. So they decided to do away with him. They poisoned him, crucified him, put it any way you like. But they were afraid now that the people might turn against them, so they were very wise, even wily. Do you know what they did? They had a portrait of the man made and mounted it on the main altar of the temple. The instruments for making fire were placed in front of the portrait, and the people were taught to revere the portrait and to pay reverence to the instruments of fire, which they dutifully did for centuries. The veneration and the worship went on, but there was no fire.

 

Where’s the fire? Where’s the love? Where’s the freedom? This is what spirituality is all about. Tragically, we tend to lose sight of this, don’t we? This is what Jesus Christ is all about. But we overemphasized the “Lord, Lord,” didn’t we? Where’s the fire? And if worship isn’t leading to the fire, if adoration isn’t leading to love, if the liturgy isn’t leading to a clearer perception of reality, if God isn’t leading to life, of what use is religion except to create more division, more fanaticism, more antagonism? It is not from lack of religion in the ordinary sense of the word that the world is suffering, it is from lack of love, lack of awareness. And love is generated through awareness and through no other way, no other way. Understand the obstructions you are putting in the way of love, freedom, and happiness and they will drop. Turn on the light of awareness and the darkness will disappear."

[Karl]

Nope, I'm suggesting that the Spanish Inquisition, the divine right of Kings, and the rape of little boys have nothing to do with Christianity. They are manifestations of human ignorance and depravity. The opposite of all genuine spiritual teachings.   Many people identify religions with their political institutions, I choose to identify religions with their core teachings and [what I consider to be] credible commentaries and teachings. That's my prerogative, my choice. I acknowledge Osho's limitations and corruption but something he once said stuck with me - 'religion is an individual's internal search for the truth, everything else is politics.'  Here's a beautiful little story told by Anthony Demello that helped to guide me towards seeking truth in religion rather than settling for something less, no matter what "religious leaders" might prefer. It addresses quite nicely your legitimate disillusionment with "religion" and demonstrates his own. "There was a man who invented the art of making fire. He took his tools and went to a tribe in the north, where it was very cold, bitterly cold. He taught the people there to make fire. The people were very interested. He showed them the uses to which they could put fire: they could cook, could keep themselves warm, etc. They were so grateful that they had learned the art of making fire. But before they could express their gratitude to the man, he disappeared. He wasn’t concerned with getting their recognition or gratitude; he was concerned about their well-being.  He went to another tribe, where he again began to show them the value of his invention. People were interested there too, a bit too interested for the peace of mind of their priests, who began to notice that this man was drawing crowds and they were losing their popularity. So they decided to do away with him. They poisoned him, crucified him, put it any way you like. But they were afraid now that the people might turn against them, so they were very wise, even wily. Do you know what they did? They had a portrait of the man made and mounted it on the main altar of the temple. The instruments for making fire were placed in front of the portrait, and the people were taught to revere the portrait and to pay reverence to the instruments of fire, which they dutifully did for centuries. The veneration and the worship went on, but there was no fire.Where’s the fire? Where’s the love? Where’s the freedom? This is what spirituality is all about. Tragically, we tend to lose sight of this, don’t we? This is what Jesus Christ is all about. But we overemphasized the “Lord, Lord,” didn’t we? Where’s the fire? And if worship isn’t leading to the fire, if adoration isn’t leading to love, if the liturgy isn’t leading to a clearer perception of reality, if God isn’t leading to life, of what use is religion except to create more division, more fanaticism, more antagonism? It is not from lack of religion in the ordinary sense of the word that the world is suffering, it is from lack of love, lack of awareness. And love is generated through awareness and through no other way, no other way. Understand the obstructions you are putting in the way of love, freedom, and happiness and they will drop. Turn on the light of awareness and the darkness will disappear."

 

Yep, all of that. Now you have made a credible choice in that you are searching for truth and not blindly following a star. Now, you see there, you began using reason, but you still depend on an instruction book somebody else wrote. Good though that book may indeed be, it is still someone else's ideology which you have subscribed to with some discrimination, but it is not the whole of them, it's an abridged edition. You don't want to be them of course and so you apply the individual that is Steve. When you are ready you can throw away that crutch and begin making your own book from scratch. It will be an unabridged Steve and entirely whole. You will then be able to go places and understand things in an independent way. You will have assumed full responsibility for your life and actions which will free you from plagerism and self doubt.

[3bob]

Steve's posts are good example of balanced reasoning. (among their other aspects)  Whereas for you Karl, you can not be reached with balanced reasoning when it comes to certain subjects - for instance through an agnostic like sense or way in relating to same - so even though you harp about the ultimate place that reason and intellect hold for you, it is often reflected here that you often don't practice the application of same without bias?   Hmm, I guess we could call your variation Voodoo reasoning - not unlike the idea of or forms of "Vodoo economics" which the world is largely running on.

Edited September 27, 2015 by 3bob

[steve]

I just noticed this

 

Then you would need to produce the evidence to support your statement. Until you can, then it isn't. When you can, it is.

Why do I need to provide evidence to support my description of my path?

You are welcome to look at spirituality as transcending only the physical.

I choose to focus on the mental as well.

 

Yep, all of that. Now you have made a credible choice in that you are searching for truth and not blindly following a star. Now, you see there, you began using reason, but you still depend on an instruction book somebody else wrote. Good though that book may indeed be, it is still someone else's ideology which you have subscribed to with some discrimination, but it is not the whole of them, it's an abridged edition. You don't want to be them of course and so you apply the individual that is Steve. When you are ready you can throw away that crutch and begin making your own book from scratch. It will be an unabridged Steve and entirely whole. You will then be able to go places and understand things in an independent way. You will have assumed full responsibility for your life and actions which will free you from plagerism and self doubt.

Thanks for sharing your presumptions and opinions regarding my path. 

 

It seems like you are trying to paint learning from others as a weakness, I see it as a strength.

 

I have a very different perspective regarding the value of "instruction books," particularly those developed by a lineage of accomplished masters over a period of centuries or millennia. For me, there is profound value there and I feel blessed to have connected with such wisdom. 

 

I do agree that we need to take responsibility for ourselves but that doesn't exclude making use of what we learn along the way. Plagiarism means to take someone else's ideas and pass them off as your own. Learning is to integrate what we encounter and synthesize it into something unique in a process of growth. Self-doubt is quite valuable when that self is the root of ignorance. 

 

From the perspective of the absolute, self and other is delusion so from that perspective it is equally true to say that all learning is independent and no learning is independent. In the tradition I'm working with there are three classes of teacher: 1) one's personal teacher, 2) all appearances and experience, all of which we can learn from if we are open, and 3) the nature of mind, the ultimate teacher. The practice of guru yoga is ultimately a union of all three of these with awareness. 

[Karl]

I just noticed this

 

 

Why do I need to provide evidence to support my description of my path?

You are welcome to look at spirituality as transcending only the physical.

I choose to focus on the mental as well.

 

 

Thanks for sharing your presumptions and opinions regarding my path. 

 

It seems like you are trying to paint learning from others as a weakness, I see it as a strength.

 

I have a very different perspective regarding the value of "instruction books," particularly those developed by a lineage of accomplished masters over a period of centuries or millennia. For me, there is profound value there and I feel blessed to have connected with such wisdom. 

 

I do agree that we need to take responsibility for ourselves but that doesn't exclude making use of what we learn along the way. Plagiarism means to take someone else's ideas and pass them off as your own. Learning is to integrate what we encounter and synthesize it into something unique in a process of growth. Self-doubt is quite valuable when that self is the root of ignorance. 

 

From the perspective of the absolute, self and other is delusion so from that perspective it is equally true to say that all learning is independent and no learning is independent. In the tradition I'm working with there are three classes of teacher: 1) one's personal teacher, 2) all appearances and experience, all of which we can learn from if we are open, and 3) the nature of mind, the ultimate teacher. The practice of guru yoga is ultimately a union of all three of these with awareness. 

 

I'm not at all painting learning from others as a weakness. That's your false egoic perception cooking off. Instead of trying to see the truth you are switching to defence and trying to win because you think that this is a competition. A contest. You are fighting a war with yourself, see it, know it.

 

A baby relies on its parents to feed and care for it. There is a point at which the baby is no longer a baby and will switch on its own caring skills. I also have many thousands of books that I have learned from and I don't know of any another way to absorb concentrated mental nutrition-but not all of it is good. Eventually we walk on our own and can hopefully discriminate good mind food, from bad. This can be frightening. Like a bird thrown out of the nest, someone genuinely searching will reach the only conclusion possible. That, ultimately, there is only ourselves and we are alone in the world. No one can show us the way, there is no red pill we can take other than the decision to simply wake up and see what we have been so afraid to know-that for us, there are no 'others' that, in a sense, everybody else is an illusion. The only good mind food is that which we grow and tend for ourselves, otherwise we live by another's mantra. That's a decision we have to make.

 

I could say 'it's all good' and therefore just keep going, if that satisfies you, but you have specifically asked me to comment. Do I ignore you ? tell you only what you wish to hear ? Agree wholeheartedly ? Lie ? If you want honesty that is what I'm giving, if you do not wish to know, then do not ask and that will save us both a lot of time.

[Karl]

Steve's posts are good example of balanced reasoning. (among there other aspects)  Whereas for you Karl, you can not be reached with balanced reasoning when it comes to certain subjects - for instance in an agnostic like sense in relating to same - even though you harp about the ultimate place that reason and intellect hold for you yet don't same apply in that way?   Hmm, I guess we could call your variation Voodoo reasoning - not unlike the idea of or forms of "Vodoo economics" which the world is largely running on.

 

You don't know 'balanced reasoning' because, like Neo in the Matrix, you have never actually used it. When and if you begin, it will feel like muscles that have never been used, or eyes that have never been opened.

 

If you can see voodoo economics then there is a comparison. Indeed there is a comparison to be made in every single thing, from a grain of sand to the universe. Any serious, methodical and reasoned approach will bear fruit, but you have to be aware of your own bias and vulnerability to propaganda. How thoughts run in deep strata, subtle flows, moods as fleeting as a moth on a summers night, or the kiss of a mayfly on the surface of a pond. Question everything, unlearn, go back to being a child. What, what, what, where, where, where, when, when, when ? Be aware that you have stopped asking and have assumed that you know and that the information you have is correct. Begin the process again.

[manitou]

It seems to me that if one consistently tears down other people's philosophies, all it does is bolster the ego of the person doing the judging and criticizing.  This is a very undesirable situation and leads to tunnel vision of the highest degree.  

 

Honest questioning of each other's outlooks (and they are outlooks until the flame is found, as Steve alluded to) is always a desirable thing - but the tone is the giveaway.  A consistently negative tone is a clue that the negative person is not looking for honest dialog, but instead is merely a means to an end....to make the negative person feel superior, separate from his human family.  This does so much harm - not to anybody else - but to the negative one.  The ego becomes a high wall that he or she is unable to see over.

 

Thread upon thread, I see the same negative tearing down process.  It is as though someone has thrown a blanket of hostility over the conversations.  This is not the act of the Sage, one of the Three Treasures is not Hostility.

[Karl]

http://youtu.be/E4Kx-jqDgRo

[manitou]

The trick is not to label something as good or bad.

[3bob]

ultimately (and obviously) we are connected in the world, from the most subtle Source that can't be pinned down to the most thick as a brick element

 

a molecule of water is not alone in an ocean of water, also the nature of water will continue on while a particular stone only lasts so long in a river.