Guest guest Posted February 4, 2001 Report Share Posted February 4, 2001 Thanks, Nitin, for the article. I'll reply after I have the pleasure of reading it. Best wishes, Lou - <> <> Sunday, February 04, 2001 12:00 PM Digest Number 941 // 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. ------ There are 18 messages in this issue. Topics in this digest: 1. Re: A smile to you guys umbada 2. Choice Mace Mealer <mmealer 3. re: A Stick Story "Michael Read" <maread 4. Thanks and Welcome "Harsha" <harsha-hkl 5. 2 Petitions David Bozzi <david.bozzi 6. Re: A Stick Story "Omkara Datta" <coresite 7. Re: Fwd: Michael/Re: Hell in Life and Body Image "Wim Borsboom" <aurasphere 8. Fwd: Michael/Re: Hell in Life and Body Image "Omkara Datta" <coresite 9. Fwd: Michael/Re: Hell in Life and Body Image "Omkara Datta" <coresite 10. Fwd: Michael/Re: Hell in Life and Body Image "Omkara Datta" <coresite 11. Fwd: Michael/Re: Hell in Life and Body Image Tim Gerchmez <coresite 12. Sorry for the repeat posts... Grrrr... Tim Gerchmez <coresite 13. Re: Sorry for the repeat posts... Grrrr... "jb" <kvy9 14. test - ignore... "jb" <kvy9 15. Re: test - ignore... "Omkara Datta" <coresite 16. Re: Re: blushing to you guys Antoine Carré <carrea 17. Re: Fwd: Michael/Re: Hell in Life and Body Image "Wim Borsboom" <aurasphere 18. Earthquake in India - magnitude Tim Gerchmez <coresite ______________________ ______________________ Message: 1 Sat, 03 Feb 2001 09:17:44 -0400 umbada Re: A smile to you guys Fri, 02 Feb 2001 23:53:59 +0000 "jb" <kvy9 Re: A smile to you guys Great picture Antoine - and of the photographer too On 2/2/01 at 2:10 PM Antoine Carré wrote: http://antoinecarre.com/antoine.htm Simply, Antoine ------------------------------ You can build a Guru career on that photo, Antoine. Need an agent? --jerry ______________________ ______________________ Message: 2 Sat, 03 Feb 2001 08:51:35 -0800 Mace Mealer <mmealer Choice [image] In this now choice is reborn to shatter the chains of countless lives, no more the toil of delusion will veil the reality of liberation. How strange that it was always here. I gotta go get a haircut Later, Mace [This message contained attachments] ______________________ ______________________ Message: 3 Sat, 03 Feb 2001 15:46:54 -0000 "Michael Read" <maread re: A Stick Story Great story, dear Omkaradatta! I forwarded it over to TheWayStation. Loveya - Michael ______________________ ______________________ Message: 4 Sat, 3 Feb 2001 11:38:28 -0500 "Harsha" <harsha-hkl Thanks and Welcome Thanks everyone for being here and for your gracious presence. I have been reading the many beautiful messages but have not responded much over the last week. The devastation in Gujrat, India, and the horrific suffering that has followed has been in my thoughts. The outpouring of support from the internet communities has been heartwarming and demonstrates that a true Sangha knows no boundaries of religion, nation, and ethnicity. We have put the links to organizations who are actively involved in helping the earthquake victims on the website(www..com). If you wish to help at any point, you can go there and find out more about such non-profit agencies whose only goal is to make life a little better for those who are suffering. The HS website is relatively new and just went up about a week ago. In the future, we will continue to use the website to make people aware of the brave souls and organizations that go anywhere in the world to help their fellow human beings in times of trouble. In our world, compassion is the natural expression of Self-Realization. Last semester, a student gave me a book "The Enlightened Heart" edited by Stephen Mitchell. Looking through it this morning I came across several beautiful poems. I wanted to share one with you from Lao Tzu that speaks my heart. Some say my teaching is nonsense. Others call it lofty but impractical. But to those who have looked inside themselves, this nonsense makes perfect sense. And those who put it into practice this loftiness has roots that go deep. I have just three things to teach: Simplicity, patience, compassion. These three are your greatest treasures. Simple in actions and in thoughts, you return to the source of being. Patient with both friends and enemies You accord with the way things are, Compassionate towards yourself, you reconcile all beings in the world. Love to all Harsha (www..com). ______________________ ______________________ Message: 5 Sat, 03 Feb 2001 11:49:35 -0800 David Bozzi <david.bozzi 2 Petitions Hello, My name is David Bozzi. I was an original member of Harsha's List at it's inception. I probably became most known for my expertise on topics such as 'whey protein' and 'DHEA'. : ) I had asked Harsha to alert his List regarding some very important Health Freedom issues with 2 Petitions. Instead, he invited me to send the links myself. So I am. : ) The 2 Petitions that need to be signed are with regard to the powerful Pharmaceutical Forces that seek to make nutritional supplements unavailable in the therapeutic range, world-wide. Here are the links to the 2 Petitions that seek to achieve Health Freedom. http://garynull.com/asp/Petition.asp http://www.laleva.org/petizione/english/intro_eng.html This is not off-topic as achieving and maintaining physical health can be an important component in overall well-being. I have studied nutrition science for 7 years and have benefited greatly from my right to obtain supplements and herbs. Please tell as many of your friends as possible. Have them tell their friends. Tell any other relevant Lists that you are a member of. In Peace and in Good Health, David Shop online without a credit card http://www.rocketcash.com RocketCash, a NetZero subsidiary ______________________ ______________________ Message: 6 Sat, 03 Feb 2001 17:24:39 -0000 "Omkara Datta" <coresite Re: A Stick Story , "Michael Read" <maread@i...> wrote: > Great story, dear Omkaradatta! <Bow> It was a fun story to write, Michael-ji... > I forwarded it over to TheWayStation. > > Loveya - Michael Love U2 (the musical group, not you!) HAHAHA HOHOHO kidding... :-) Omkara ______________________ ______________________ Message: 7 Sat, 3 Feb 2001 11:12:48 -0800 "Wim Borsboom" <aurasphere Re: Fwd: Michael/Re: Hell in Life and Body Image 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 ______________________ ______________________ Message: 8 Sat, 03 Feb 2001 20:04:53 -0000 "Omkara Datta" <coresite Fwd: Michael/Re: Hell in Life and Body Image 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) ______________________ ______________________ Message: 9 Sat, 03 Feb 2001 20:06:10 -0000 "Omkara Datta" <coresite Fwd: Michael/Re: Hell in Life and Body Image 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) ______________________ ______________________ Message: 10 Sat, 03 Feb 2001 20:09:11 -0000 "Omkara Datta" <coresite Fwd: Michael/Re: Hell in Life and Body Image 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) ______________________ ______________________ Message: 11 Sat, 03 Feb 2001 12:10:59 -0800 Tim Gerchmez <coresite Fwd: Michael/Re: Hell in Life and Body Image 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) ______________________ ______________________ Message: 12 Sat, 03 Feb 2001 12:17:56 -0800 Tim Gerchmez <coresite Sorry for the repeat posts... Grrrr... Dear List, Sorry for the repeats, I kept hitting SEND and there was no response for fully five minutes! Finally I sent the response from my regular Email address. This is on the topic "Fwd: Michael/Re: Hell in Life and Body Image" This new system is really nuts. At least with Egroups (although it had the delays too), there seemed to be some mechanism to check for repeat posts. Apologies, Tim ______________________ ______________________ Message: 13 Sat, 03 Feb 2001 22:04:38 +0000 "jb" <kvy9 Re: Sorry for the repeat posts... Grrrr... No apologies required Tim - perhaps you rendered the list a favor Because, the NDS is quite speedy again - and Harshasatsangh is slower than ever... The difference, NDS is "bannerless" (paid service) whereas is "with banners" (free service). It would tie in with my suspicion, being more commercially inclined than E-groups... This being but one observation, it could be worthwhile to inform and observe, if regarding speed, the above is rule or exception... Jan ______________________ ______________________ Message: 14 Sat, 03 Feb 2001 21:42:06 +0000 "jb" <kvy9 test - ignore... ______________________ ______________________ Message: 15 Sat, 03 Feb 2001 23:37:41 -0000 "Omkara Datta" <coresite Re: test - ignore... , "jb" <kvy9@l...> wrote: > I couldn't have said it better myself :-). Now, everyone sit in silence for awhile. Turn off your computer, shut off the TV set, put away all books... can you sit for 30 minutes without doing anything or going to sleep? Cheers, Omkara ______________________ ______________________ Message: 16 Sat, 3 Feb 2001 20:59:41 -0500 Antoine Carré <carrea Re: Re: blushing to you guys You can build a Guru career on that photo, Antoine. Need an agent? --jerry I would make of you my God if you where my agent Jerry.... Looking for a picture of myself blushing, Thank you all for your kind words. Antoine ______________________ ______________________ Message: 17 Sat, 3 Feb 2001 18:23:09 -0800 "Wim Borsboom" <aurasphere Re: Fwd: Michael/Re: Hell in Life and Body Image 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 ______________________ ______________________ Message: 18 Sun, 04 Feb 2001 07:54:32 -0800 Tim Gerchmez <coresite Earthquake in India - magnitude Dear List, The attached picture should give an idea of where the earthquake in India was, and the magnitude of the area affected. It's staggering to see how large an area was affected by this quake. Remember also that India is a nation of over one billion and the numbers are just staggering. Latest news is, efforts are turning to recovery, and away from rescue since chances of further survivors are greatly diminished now. In the news article I read, there will apparently be a website eventually for children who lost both parents in the quake (over 100 at this point) to help with worldwide adoption efforts. Namaste, Tim (Omkara) http://coresite.cjb.net [This message contained attachments] ______________________ ______________________ 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.