Guest guest Posted February 2, 2001 Report Share Posted February 2, 2001 TheWayStation, "Omkara Datta" <coresite@h...> wrote: Dear Michael, TheWayStation, "Michael Read" <maread@i...> wrote: > September, 1999, my car was vandalized. It is a nice little red > Chrysler LeBaron convertible with a white top. I awoke one morning > to find that the top had been slashed. No big deal. It is just a > car. > > At the auto store I found some vinyl tape to try and fix the cut. > When I told the checker why I wanted the tape, she grabbed her > stomach and doubled over in pain. Several friends of mine exhibited > the same symptoms when told about the vandalism. They appeared to > be in extreme pain and it wasn't even thier car! Are you serious? People were reacting this way, over a CAR? I could understand if, for example, your stomach was slashed open and you were trying to repair it with vinyl tape. Even though the body is no more 'mine' or 'yours' than a car, it DOES hit a little 'closer to home' <grin>. > The damaged top didn't bother me at all. The tape didn't work so I > went to a fabric store and purchased some vinylized canvas and some > rubber cement. That, and a few minutes work, was enough to fix the > top. What, you mean you didn't scream, shout, call the police, drop to the ground and go into convulsions, lose sleep for weeks, suffer agonies of loss for days and days and days?!? What on earth could be wrong with you??? :-) > Whatever we think we possess is transitory. What if such thinking isn't present? > Whether it is our car, our house, our body, our neurosis, our very > life. It is an illusion. The "thinking we possess it" is illusion. The entity who thinks it possesses it is illusion. The attachment is illusion. Whether the items themselves (bodies, trees, cars, ad infinitum) are 'illusions' or not, you may wish to take up with a philosopher. That is no longer of interest here. > Wait a minute!!!! I just said everything was an illusion and > everything is god!!! What the f**k?!?!? Exactly. What the f**k? :-). What difference does it make, if the attachment is not there, if the entity who thinks it possesses is not there? When the need for the 'illusion vs. Reality' concepts is over, it is over. "Illusion" and "Reality" are conceptual modes, useful if there is attachment. If there is not attachment, these words mean nothing. Advice to all readers: It may be unwise to switch attachments from 'the material' to 'the spiritual'. It may not be wise to merely change concepts from "the world is real" to "the world is illusion." This is simply replacing one set of concepts with another. Love, Omkara --- End forwarded message --- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 2, 2001 Report Share Posted February 2, 2001 - Omkara Datta > Wait a minute!!!! I just said everything was an illusion and > everything is god!!! What the f**k?!?!?Exactly. What the f**k? :-). What difference does it make, if the attachment is not there, if the entity who thinks it possesses is not there? When the need for the 'illusion vs. Reality' concepts is over, it is over. "Illusion" and "Reality" are conceptual modes, useful if there is attachment. If there is not attachment, these words mean nothing.Advice to all readers: It may be unwise to switch attachments from 'the material' to 'the spiritual'. It may not be wise to merely change concepts from "the world is real" to "the world is illusion." This is simply replacing one set of concepts with another. Dear Omkara, This is a profoundly important piece of advice. Bravo! Glo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 2, 2001 Report Share Posted February 2, 2001 Indeed, like all dualities, the duality of real versus illusion could conceivably collapse (I don't mean to provide a "field-report", just pointing out how obvious it all becomes when one finds the two poles of the duality.) Love (or is it Fear?), Mark Gloria Lee wrote: - Omkara Datta > Wait a minute!!!! I just said everything was an illusion and > everything is god!!! What the f**k?!?!? Exactly. What the f**k? :-). What difference does it make, if the attachment is not there, if the entity who thinks it possesses is not there? When the need for the 'illusion vs. Reality' concepts is over, it is over. "Illusion" and "Reality" are conceptual modes, useful if there is attachment. If there is not attachment, these words mean nothing. Advice to all readers: It may be unwise to switch attachments from 'the material' to 'the spiritual'. It may not be wise to merely change concepts from "the world is real" to "the world is illusion." This is simply replacing one set of concepts with another. Dear Omkara,This is a profoundly important piece of advice. Bravo! Glo // All paths go somewhere. No path goes nowhere. Paths, places, sights, perceptions, and indeed all experiences arise from and exist in and subside back into the Space of Awareness. Like waves rising are not different than the ocean, all things arising from Awareness are of the nature of Awareness. Awareness does not come and go but is always Present. It is Home. Home is where the Heart Is. Jnanis know the Heart to be the Finality of Eternal Being. A true devotee relishes in the Truth of Self-Knowledge, spontaneously arising from within into It Self. Welcome all to a. To from this list, go to the ONElist web site, at www., and select the User Center link from the menu bar on the left. This menu will also let you change your subscription between digest and normal mode. Attachment: (image/gif) C:\windows\TEMP\nsmail5O.gif [not stored] Attachment: (image/gif) C:\windows\TEMP\nsmailEB.gif [not stored] Attachment: (image/gif) C:\windows\TEMP\nsmailS8.gif [not stored] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 2, 2001 Report Share Posted February 2, 2001 Dear Michael, It must have been you who wrote: (1) > When the need for the 'illusion vs. Reality' concepts is over, it is over. (2) > "Illusion" and "Reality" are conceptual modes, Michael, hold it a second here.... You are quite careless here, language wise. I would not worry about that if this were about 'shit versus shat', but it is about reality, so we can hardly afford to be careless with our expressions. I separated out your two sentences above, they do not mean the same, although you seem to suggest it (?). The first one is correct, the second one is totally off. Illusion is conceptual through mental processes, reality is perceptual through the senses. Conceptions and perceptions are vey distinct. Reality is not a conceptual mode... illusion is. That is why we have problems. Reality is an absolute, supra individual, we can corroborate that reality with our common senses and learn more about it as we hone our sense perceptions collectively. Illusion is individual, cannot be corroborated, there are no sense data involved, illussive chimeras can only lead to confusion, cannot be honed. This is of course what the whole 'non duality' topic hinges on. I don't think we should like to get into heavy discussions on that, but what I am wondering about though is, that "non-duality people" juxtapose illusion and reality in a dualistic way. That is as silly as saying, "I swear to God that I am an atheist." Actually something in me tells me that there is much in what I write that you agree with, so I do not want to give you the impression that I'm trying to contradict you or argue, I feel though that it is important to get our terminology right. So I'll just write on... Opposites do not exist. The whole idea of opposites is conceptual per se... If anything, everything is about relationships. Relating means putting things side by side, laterally, not opposite each other. Relating used to mean re-calibrating our togetherness. Kind of like synchronizing our time pieces. Everything is gauged to other things, compared to, weighed and balanced (as in the picture of the two scales of justice) in relative or relating ways, measured, meted out, matter, maya in the original meaning of the word. Proportional relationships is the basis of math. Scientifically this can be expressed as gauge fields or scalar fields. Everything that is expressed as opposite has only temporary qualitative value, not quantitative, is just for argument sake, part of a working hypothesis, a tool that disolves after use, not a catalytic function but an analytic one. Male and female are not opposites... they are by definition relating entities, not opposing entities. In a magnet north and south poles are not opposite poles, in fact they attract each other, the only thing they can do is relate, join up. Language wise we confuse reality with a conceptual mish mash. When we speak of 'personal reality', as in "This is true for you, my reality is different," we speak not of reality but of illusiveness and elusiveness. Eventually it (?) will escape us. Of course, if we keep doing this, as is so much the fashion nowadays, being so spuriously and deceitfully vocalized in adolescent high school environments, we end up with a whole lifetime of having to undo these philosophical and conceptual fallacies. Where we mean complementarity we use adversarity. When in science we we mean action / reaction, in the our confused understanding, reaction has come to mean anti- or counter-action. That is the conceptuality that we teach our children so absolutely from day one of their terrestrial presence and experience. Reality is not the opposite of illusion. Illusion does not exist nor does it not exist, it is illusive. I call it 'if-ibility'. Illusion abuses sensed information from the past into mis or dis-information and extrapolates it to the future, (If... then...) To juxtapose the two words 'illusion and reality' as opposites is mental torture... that is why it is so problematic and insuffarable. These two words' engrammatic relationship needs to be undone... The torturous mental suffering will stop automatically. Illusion is the epitome of conceptuality, illusion does not use direct sense information. That is why it is called illusion. Reality is what the senses perceive and what can be measured, "Res" is "thing" in Latin. Reality is perceived and sensed matter, in all it grosser and subtler forms Reality has no opposite, as it is the only thing there is, enfolding and unfolding everything. Saying that reality has an opposite is as silly as saying that the opposite of God is Satan... I'll leave it here, Love, Wim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 2, 2001 Report Share Posted February 2, 2001 "Wim Borsboom" wrote: > Dear Michael, > > It must have been you who wrote: > > (1) > When the need for the 'illusion vs. Reality' concepts is over, it is > over. > (2) > "Illusion" and "Reality" are conceptual modes, > > Michael, hold it a second here.... > Love, Wim Snipped extensively > Dear Wim, I thought you had origionally emailed me off-list. I responded to you off list. No matter. No, don't think it was me who wrote items 1 and 2. To summarize my response to you off list: advaita means simply - not two! HAHAHAH and HOHOHO! Peace - no judgment - Michael Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2001 Report Share Posted February 3, 2001 Hi Tim, This will be kind of a mixed bag of a post, but hang in there :-) At some point I attributed the next sentences to Michael Read. Someone mistakenly quoted them as his, and I responded to him that way. Michael wrote me back that they were not his, so I looked some more and I found them in one of your posts. > When the need for the 'illusion vs. Reality' concepts is over, it is over. > "Illusion" and "Reality" are conceptual modes, > useful if there is attachment. If there is not attachment, these words mean nothing. There is something wrong with the first two sentences. Not that I want to be harping on a point, but I think it is important to get the language right, I believe you do quite a bit of broadcasting work, and I know how easy it is to just sometimes say things not totally right. We need to, at all cost prevent more confusion to be loaded on already confused ppl. who tune in on "teachings". I will quote what I wrote to Michael to you. (BTW, I will later deal with the attachment issue, I like your statement of course. Whatever is normally written on that needs to be put in a different light. We need to find out more about the dynamics of attaching and eventually attachment. We need to take it out of a mental or even moral context and see the behavioural origin of it, how it became stuck behaviour, stored muscularly and nervously... not mentally. We need to see it in a slightly different way than the way it is normally dealt with from a Buddhist viewpoint (which was not necessarily the Buddha's (Siddharta)). I have been doing quite a bit of work with that topic lately. Ah... now to write it all out. ) Any way here is to you, Dear Tim It must have been you who wrote: (1) > When the need for the 'illusion vs. Reality' concepts is over, it is over. (2) > "Illusion" and "Reality" are conceptual modes, Tim, hold it a second here.... You are quite careless here, language wise. I would not worry about that if this were about 'shit versus shat', but it is about reality, so we can hardly afford to be careless with our expressions. I separated out your two sentences above, they do not mean the same, although you seem to suggest it (?). The first one is correct, the second one is totally off. Illusion is conceptual through mental processes. Reality is perceptual through the senses. Conceptions and perceptions are very distinct. Reality is not a conceptual mode... illusion is. That is why we have problems. Reality is an absolute, supra individual, we can corroborate that reality with our common senses and learn more about it as we hone our sense perceptions collectively. Illusion is individual, cannot be corroborated, there are no sense data involved, illusive chimeras can only lead to confusion, cannot be honed. This is of course what the whole 'non duality' topic hinges on. I don't think we should like to get into heavy discussions on that, but what I am wondering about though is, that "non-duality people" juxtapose illusion and reality in a dualistic way. That is as silly as saying, "I swear to God that I am an atheist." Actually something in me tells me that there is much in what I write that you agree with, so I do not want to give you the impression that I'm trying to contradict you or argue, I feel though that it is important to get our terminology right. So I'll just write on... Opposites do not exist. The whole idea of opposites is conceptual per se... If anything, everything is about relationships. Relating means putting things side by side, laterally, not opposite each other. Relating used to mean re-calibrating our togetherness. Kind of like synchronizing our time pieces. Everything is gauged to other things, compared to, weighed and balanced (as in the picture of the two scales of justice) in relative or relating ways, measured, meted out, matter, maya in the original meaning of the word. Proportional relationships is the basis of math. Scientifically this can be expressed as gauge fields or scalar fields. Everything that is expressed as opposite has only temporary qualitative value, not quantitative, is just for argument sake, part of a working hypothesis, a tool that dissolves after use, not a catalytic function but an analytic one. Male and female are not opposites... they are by definition relating entities, not opposing entities. In a magnet north and south poles are not opposite poles, in fact they attract each other, the only thing they can do is relate, join up. Language wise we confuse reality with a conceptual mish mash. When we speak of 'personal reality', as in "This is true for you, my reality is different," we speak not of reality but of illusiveness and elusiveness. Eventually it (?) will escape us. Of course, if we keep doing this, as is so much the fashion nowadays, being so spuriously and deceitfully vocalized in adolescent high school environments, we end up with a whole lifetime of having to undo these philosophical and conceptual fallacies. Where we mean complementarity we use adversarity. When in science we mean action / reaction, in the our confused understanding, reaction has come to mean anti- or counter-action. That is the conceptuality that we teach our children so absolutely from day one of their terrestrial presence and experience. Reality is not the opposite of illusion. Illusion does not exist nor does it not exist, it is illusive. I call it 'if-ibility'. Illusion abuses sensed information from the past into mis or dis-information and extrapolates it to the future, (If... then...) To juxtapose the two words 'illusion and reality' as opposites is mental torture... that is why it is so problematic and insufferable. These two words' engrammatic relationship needs to be undone... The torturous mental suffering will stop automatically. Illusion is the epitome of conceptuality, illusion does not use direct sense information. That is why it is called illusion. Reality is what the senses perceive and what can be measured, "Res" is "thing" in Latin. Reality is perceived and sensed matter, in all it grosser and subtler forms Reality has no opposite, as it is the only thing there is, enfolding and unfolding everything. Saying that reality has an opposite is as silly as saying that the opposite of God is Satan... I'll leave it here, Love, Wim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2001 Report Share Posted February 3, 2001 Dear Wim, , "Wim Borsboom" <aurasphere@h...> wrote: > (1) > When the need for the 'illusion vs. Reality' concepts is over, it is > over. > (2) > "Illusion" and "Reality" are conceptual modes, > > Tim, hold it a second here.... > > You are quite careless here, language wise. I would not worry > about that if this were about 'shit versus shat', but it is about > reality, so we can hardly afford to be careless with our > expressions. Are you suggesting reality can be expressed in words? > I separated out your two sentences above, they do not mean the same, > although you seem to suggest it (?). > The first one is correct, the second one is totally off. On the contrary, they're BOTH totally off! :-) > Illusion is conceptual through mental processes. > Reality is perceptual through the senses. Perceptual reality is often referred to as illusion by those many consider to be 'in the know'. I'm saying, the need to define reality and illusion conceptually is not present, unless there is attachment to some particular point of view. Reality/illusion is a duality, and all dualities are conceptual. As far as I see it you're being ridiculously pedantic here. > Conceptions and perceptions are very distinct. > Reality is not a conceptual mode... illusion is. > That is why we have problems. Who has problems? The problem is the presence of the one who has problems, not the problems themselves! > Reality is an absolute, supra individual, we can corroborate that > reality with our common senses Oh, OK... you're referring to 'consensus reality.' That kind of reality is actually quite arbitrary, despite appearances. You seem to be the philosopher I mentioned. You go on, I'll just go about my life without such encumbrances. :-) > "non-duality people" juxtapose illusion and reality in a dualistic > way. That is as silly as saying, "I swear to God that I am an > atheist." This is all mental masturbation as far as I'm concerned. What the hell are 'non-duality people'? There is no duality or nonduality. Cheers, Tim (Omkara) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2001 Report Share Posted February 3, 2001 Dear Wim, , "Wim Borsboom" <aurasphere@h...> wrote: > (1) > When the need for the 'illusion vs. Reality' concepts is over, it is > over. > (2) > "Illusion" and "Reality" are conceptual modes, > > Tim, hold it a second here.... > > You are quite careless here, language wise. I would not worry > about that if this were about 'shit versus shat', but it is about > reality, so we can hardly afford to be careless with our > expressions. Are you suggesting reality can be expressed in words? > I separated out your two sentences above, they do not mean the same, > although you seem to suggest it (?). > The first one is correct, the second one is totally off. On the contrary, they're BOTH totally off! :-) > Illusion is conceptual through mental processes. > Reality is perceptual through the senses. Perceptual reality is often referred to as illusion by those many consider to be 'in the know'. I'm saying, the need to define reality and illusion conceptually is not present, unless there is attachment to some particular point of view. Reality/illusion is a duality, and all dualities are conceptual. As far as I see it you're being ridiculously pedantic here. > Conceptions and perceptions are very distinct. > Reality is not a conceptual mode... illusion is. > That is why we have problems. Who has problems? The problem is the presence of the one who has problems, not the problems themselves! > Reality is an absolute, supra individual, we can corroborate that > reality with our common senses Oh, OK... you're referring to 'consensus reality.' That kind of reality is actually quite arbitrary, despite appearances. You seem to be the philosopher I mentioned. You go on, I'll just go about my life without such encumbrances. :-) > "non-duality people" juxtapose illusion and reality in a dualistic > way. That is as silly as saying, "I swear to God that I am an > atheist." This is all mental masturbation as far as I'm concerned. What the hell are 'non-duality people'? There is no duality or nonduality. Cheers, Tim (Omkara) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2001 Report Share Posted February 3, 2001 Dear Wim, , "Wim Borsboom" <aurasphere@h...> wrote: > (1) > When the need for the 'illusion vs. Reality' concepts is over, it is > over. > (2) > "Illusion" and "Reality" are conceptual modes, > > Tim, hold it a second here.... > > You are quite careless here, language wise. I would not worry > about that if this were about 'shit versus shat', but it is about > reality, so we can hardly afford to be careless with our > expressions. Are you suggesting reality can be expressed in words? > I separated out your two sentences above, they do not mean the same, > although you seem to suggest it (?). > The first one is correct, the second one is totally off. On the contrary, they're BOTH totally off! :-) > Illusion is conceptual through mental processes. > Reality is perceptual through the senses. Perceptual reality is often referred to as illusion by those many consider to be 'in the know'. I'm saying, the need to define reality and illusion conceptually is not present, unless there is attachment to some particular point of view. Reality/illusion is a duality, and all dualities are conceptual. As far as I see it you're being ridiculously pedantic here. > Conceptions and perceptions are very distinct. > Reality is not a conceptual mode... illusion is. > That is why we have problems. Who has problems? The problem is the presence of the one who has problems, not the problems themselves! > Reality is an absolute, supra individual, we can corroborate that > reality with our common senses Oh, OK... you're referring to 'consensus reality.' That kind of reality is actually quite arbitrary, despite appearances. You seem to be the philosopher I mentioned. You go on, I'll just go about my life without such encumbrances. :-) > "non-duality people" juxtapose illusion and reality in a dualistic > way. That is as silly as saying, "I swear to God that I am an > atheist." This is all mental masturbation as far as I'm concerned. What the hell are 'non-duality people'? There is no duality or nonduality. Cheers, Tim (Omkara) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2001 Report Share Posted February 3, 2001 Dear Wim, , "Wim Borsboom" <aurasphere@h...> wrote: > (1) > When the need for the 'illusion vs. Reality' concepts is over, it is > over. > (2) > "Illusion" and "Reality" are conceptual modes, > > Tim, hold it a second here.... > > You are quite careless here, language wise. I would not worry > about that if this were about 'shit versus shat', but it is about > reality, so we can hardly afford to be careless with our > expressions. Are you suggesting reality can be expressed in words? > I separated out your two sentences above, they do not mean the same, > although you seem to suggest it (?). > The first one is correct, the second one is totally off. On the contrary, they're BOTH totally off! :-) > Illusion is conceptual through mental processes. > Reality is perceptual through the senses. Perceptual reality is often referred to as illusion by those many consider to be 'in the know'. I'm saying, the need to define reality and illusion conceptually is not present, unless there is attachment to some particular point of view. Reality/illusion is a duality, and all dualities are conceptual. As far as I see it you're being ridiculously pedantic here. > Conceptions and perceptions are very distinct. > Reality is not a conceptual mode... illusion is. > That is why we have problems. Who has problems? The problem is the presence of the one who has problems, not the "problems" themselves! > Reality is an absolute, supra individual, we can corroborate that > reality with our common senses Oh, OK... you're referring to 'consensus reality.' That kind of reality is actually quite arbitrary, despite appearances. You seem to be the philosopher I mentioned. You go on, I'll just go about my life without such encumbrances. :-) > "non-duality people" juxtapose illusion and reality in a dualistic > way. That is as silly as saying, "I swear to God that I am an > atheist." This is all mental masturbation as far as I'm concerned. What the hell are 'non-duality people'? There is no duality or nonduality. Cheers, Tim (Omkara) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2001 Report Share Posted February 3, 2001 On 2/3/01 at 11:12 AM Wim Borsboom wrote: [...] ºThis is of course what the whole 'non duality' topic hinges on. I don't ºthink we should like to get into heavy discussions on that, but what I am ºwondering about though is, that "non-duality people" juxtapose illusion and ºreality in a dualistic way. That is as silly as saying, "I swear to God ºthat I am an atheist." I don't have the slightest idea what is meant with "non-duality people" but you certainly are hitting the nail on the head when observing that texts can give a messy impression when "reality" is supposed to be pointed at by concepts, not directly related to perception. What is termed "meaningful" to one can be "meaningless" for another and that can be the case regarding the same object. "Meaninglessness" cannot be perceived. [...] ºOpposites do not exist. ºThe whole idea of opposites is conceptual per se... ºIf anything, everything is about relationships. ºRelating means putting things side by side, laterally, not opposite each ºother. ºRelating used to mean re-calibrating our togetherness. Kind of like ºsynchronizing our time pieces. Both heat and cold can be perceived and what is more, mixing hot and cold water can result in lukewarm water... Calling cold and warm "opposites" is a conclusion based on perception: the only difference regarding the water is the rate of molecular vibration. º ºEverything is gauged to other things, compared to, weighed and balanced (as ºin the picture of the two scales of justice) in relative or relating ways, ºmeasured, meted out, matter, maya in the original meaning of the word. ºProportional relationships is the basis of math. Scientifically this can be ºexpressed as gauge fields or scalar fields. That has to be the case for human perception, reasoning and intuition too: relative, permitting a look through the proverbial peephole. º ºEverything that is expressed as opposite has only temporary qualitative ºvalue, not quantitative, is just for argument sake, part of a working ºhypothesis, a tool that dissolves after use, not a catalytic function but ºan ºanalytic one. Whatever is expressed is the expression via human perception and reasoning: always a hypothesis as there isn't an option to go "outside" the human realm. º ºMale and female are not opposites... they are by definition relating ºentities, not opposing entities. It is always possible to talk about properties instead of calling specific properties opposites - and that doesn't require a relation. º ºIn a magnet north and south poles are not opposite poles, in fact they ºattract each other, the only thing they can do is relate, join up. The direction of electron spin will determine the orientation of a magnetic field - and when that direction is reversed, that is but a synonym of "opposite" direction. The seeming relation between those directions is that of reversal. º ºLanguage wise we confuse reality with a conceptual mish mash. º ºWhen we speak of 'personal reality', as in "This is true for you, my ºreality ºis different," we speak not of reality but of illusiveness and elusiveness. ºEventually it (?) will escape us. Of course, if we keep doing this, as is ºso ºmuch the fashion nowadays, being so spuriously and deceitfully vocalized in ºadolescent high school environments, we end up with a whole lifetime of ºhaving to undo these philosophical and conceptual fallacies. Probably there is more to it - what I call "modern" sensory deprivation, like sitting 20 hours a day behind a computer, only knowing "sight" from the screen and "sound" from the speakers. Not to forget what will be next: cyber suits so at last there can be safe sex behind the desk, with all wishes fulfilled at the push of a button - and that without any commitment. IMO, a scenario that will speed up the process of mixing concepts and perception, as feeling will be reduced to "my feelings only"... And some will call that nondual (LOL) I'll leave it here Wim - thanks for presenting an interesting issue... Love, Jan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2001 Report Share Posted February 3, 2001 Tim, hi Why not just trying to understand what I wrote? You don't even give yourself half a chance. :-) I wrote: > > You are quite careless here, language wise. I would not worry > > about that if this were about 'shit versus shat', but it is about > > reality, so we can hardly afford to be careless with our > > expressions. You wrote: > Are you suggesting reality can be expressed in words? No, not suggesting any of the sort, not suggesting anything actually. I said, "but it is about reality, so we can hardly afford to be careless with our expressions." Expressions are more than just verbalizations... Ah, the importance of language and reading though. If you don't even get what I wrote, how do you get what it is about... reality...? I'm not trying to be smart here, I am concerned about you. I have written to you before, remember the facial analysis, would you allow me to publish it in some kind of format? You wrote: > On the contrary, they're BOTH totally off! :-) Language again. You say "On the contrary..." Check out the meaning of what you just said. I said that one was correct the other totally off... What does "On the contrary" mean in that case? Contrary to the one or the other? Or do you speak a koan like language? :-) At this point the word 'semantics' can be brought up.... It usually is, and usually with a sneering expression of the facial muscles and a certain 'put down' twist in the melodious expression that accompanies the verbal expression. Well this may be semantics, but not 'just' semantics... This is email, the word is important, we better get our verbal expressions right so that we will read each other well... . You wrote: > Perceptual reality is often referred to as illusion > by those many consider to be 'in the know'. Neato, one thing I share with some people 'considered to be in the know' is that most of them at one point or another have also been called pedantic. Hehehehe. Anyway, I do not live with doubt, "I am in the know". I have been given that as right and privilege and I take that as right and privilege... Why do you think that I write? I write because I know something... Something I feel that others may want to know. Why do you do what you do? And yes, I know all the 'put down cliché's that have to do with knowledge, ignorance and stupidity... they all have to do with me... I am saying that reality has to do with sense *per*ception, nothing new to that. The _description_ of reality though has to do with mental *con*ception that can manipulate, de-form and interpret perceptions, this can quickly lead to illusion. Reality is not its description or interpretation, reality is not illusion...that is why it is reality, hehehe. As soon as we try to put reality, so to speak, into "the bag of mental conceptions" it disappears and the bag holds just illusion...pffffff By the way, one person "in the know", the one who originated the Heart Sutra (Prajna-Paramitra- Hridaya-sutra) says the same and even gets deeper into it. That sutra is misunderstood a lot and thusly may even have contributed to the statement that reality is illusion... the very thing that that sutra intends NOT to say. It specifically talks about sense perceptions and mental propensities... I have written enough about 'form / void' elsewhere.) Avalokiteshvara Bodhisattva was no dummy, no sir. (Reverence to the All-knowing One) We need a good translation of that sutra, I am working on it. (We need to sift the commentary from the original text though.) You wrote: > I'm saying, the need to define reality > and illusion conceptually is not present, > unless there is attachment > to some particular point of view. Right, and in addition to that I'm saying that as soon as reality gets dealt with conceptually it becomes unseen by the conceptualizing mind, illusion, which at that point is not reality anymore. As I said, reality is about _sense_ *per*ception, not _mental_ *con*ception. > Reality/illusion is a duality, and all dualities are conceptual. > As far as I see it you're being ridiculously pedantic here. I thought so... hehehe... I knew that was coming... No ridicule here, just some well meant laughter... Anyway, when you read your own words carefully, you are saying the same as what I say. You just stopped short of a certain conclusion which you could not see because "as far as you could see I was being ridiculously pedantic." Let's give it another try: You: "reality /illusion is a duality", I agree. You: "and all dualities are conceptual", I agree. However... logically.... this does not mean that reality is conceptual. The *juxtaposition* comes from duality, is a conceptual manoeuvre, is illusive. Bad philosophy, bad logic, bad schooling in the school of confused and erroneous opposites. (Opposites are conceptual, they have no place in reality, we need to teach our children about scalar fields or gauge fields, relationships. New Science. But that is another story.) Let me use another example: Someone says: "Mind/body is a duality" I agree. Someone says: "and all dualities are conceptual", I agree. That does not mean that the body per se is a concept. (Hehehe. It may have been conceived at conception, but then the physical reality starts.) It does not even mean that the mind per se is a concept. The mind may be that "conceptualizing propensity." The body perceives through the senses, the mind conceives through it's "mental propensities". Why am I so stubborn here, if I am stubborn at all? Attachment to my point of view? I know already what you say, but I'm trying to talk you out of it. I know already that confusion (which seems clear to you) comes from and leads to suffering... You got to get this if you do not get this you fail Logic 101. (Perceptual reality is not to be referred to as illusion) But we need to pass humour 101 as well. Try understanding me, that should not be too difficult. I understand myself, and I am considered dumb by some. You should not have any trouble understanding me. Oh come on, all this is fun 101 > > Conceptions and perceptions are very distinct. > > Reality is not a conceptual mode... illusion is. > > That is why we have problems. > > Who has problems? The problem is the presence of the one who has > problems, not the problems themselves! What are you saying here? Do some thinking on that one. Your statement comes from an authentic "perpetuum mobile" thinking machine... you hit illusion right on the head. You may want a patent on that one... You passed Illusion 101. We could have some real fun with that, Tim. I teach Project Management and a major part of that is problem solving. I made up a slide that says : "What is the problem? The problem is not seeing that the solution is already there." > > Reality is an absolute, supra individual, we can corroborate that > > reality with our common senses > Oh, OK... you're referring to 'consensus reality.' That kind of > reality is actually quite arbitrary, despite appearances. No I said "common senses" (plural, as in 'senses that we have in common", that we can callibrate with each other, corroboration, check out with each other). I did not say 'common sense' (singular) nor 'consensus'. > You seem to be the philosopher I mentioned. You go on, I'll just go > about my life without such encumbrances. :-) I do not seem to be, I am right here. (At least the last time I looked :-) hehehe > > "non-duality people" juxtapose illusion and reality in a dualistic > > way. That is as silly as saying, "I swear to God that I am an > > atheist." > This is all mental masturbation as far as I'm concerned. What the > hell are 'non-duality people'? I appreciate your statement about my mental propensity :-) But why such vehemence about masturbation, what is wrong with that...? Me, giggling. Btw, I have not masturbated in four years, maybe five... My sexual life is very healthy as well... still giggling... With 'non-duality people' I meant advaitists, people who frequent the Non-Duality Saloon (Not that there is anything wrong with that!) > There is no duality or nonduality. Yep, reality is it Love, Wim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.