Guest guest Posted June 16, 2001 Report Share Posted June 16, 2001 Alton I think this response was meant for you but posted on the NDS. I have not seen you posting to the NDS so here's a forward in case you missed it (correct me if I'm wrong). Love, Mira - Gene Poole <gene_poole <NondualitySalon> Saturday, June 16, 2001 7:21 PM [NDS] Alton: MindVille revisited NDS Hi Alton, you asked: >Question: > Are the past and future mere imagination? > >Ramana Maharshi: > Yes, even the present is mere imagination, > for the sense of time is purely mental. > Space is similarly mental. > Therefore birth and rebirth, which take place in > time and space, cannot be other than imagination. > > >--- >----------- > >I am the first one to admit that I am phisophically challenged, but >if anyone can give me a better understanding it would be welcomed. Happy to oblige, let me know if this hits the spot, or not. >Is Ramana only saying that all of mindville are concepts and >therefore just imaginary? We must mind our concepts and keep them ordered. Human understanding (usually/statistically) proceeds by way of concepts, and your questions are not an exception. So into the realm of concepts we go, to parse the 'wheat from the chaff'. " ... just imaginary?", as compared to what? If we say that there is an 'imaginary', we are also at the same time, saying that there is something which is other than imaginary. And in popular thought, the word 'imaginary' carries a certain impact, yet, the 'imaginary' is itself imaginary. In reality, there is no imaginary, there is only the display of analogical symbols, taken to be perception, reality, imaginary, dream, etc. Humans differentiate between agreed-upon categories of perception, and usually assign a value-judgement to each category. The "obviously" insane person perceives what are called by others, to be 'hallucinations' and 'delusions', and those words carry a certain value-judgement. The perceptions of the competent, or of super-competent persons, are deemed to be of greater value than those of the insane or the 'ordinary' person. If we can for a moment, feel our way into the model of "all perceptions being a display of analogical symbols", we can see that all perceptions are actually equal; in other words, we can see that what we are reacting to, as we perceive (as you now perceive this letter) anything, is a neutral reportage, delivered to us for processing. The 'tragedy' of the usual way, is that all perceptions are filtered through value-judgements, thus converting neutral 'information/sense-data' into emotion-evoking and thus action-evoking reaction. We humans are in constant communication with our surrounding environment, which is itself, as we perceive it, 'nothing but' a constant stream of language, presented as a display of analogical symbols. It is what we do with these symbols, which is the issue. Popular culture treats the display of analogical symbols as 'external reality', and has built a veritable cult around this assumption. But ask yourself, "what if" there is no actual external reality, no sky or bricks or time or space? Inevitably, the question arises; "There must be something which is real, what is it?" Self is what is real, it is the only real thing, and "there is only self". One can tinker with the definitions of self, to create the 'Self vs self' duality, or one can proceed experimentally using 'there is only self'. Your realization of yourself as self, is the trans-personal moment of re-knowing, this time consciously,of what you have always known, since earliest childhood, and before. The final impact of this realization, puts directly into your hands, the ultimate responsibility of what you do with the 'display of analogical symbols', appearing as external reality and 'other'. To have compassion for yourself in this moment, allows you to forgive yourself of the enormous blunder, which is to have marched to the tune of human assumptions, and to resume your blissful journey, which was somehow seemingly interrupted, but which is actually, still in progress. > Does that not include the concept of the >SELF? >Don't we have to differentiate here between a brick wall and a blue >sky to function? > >Thanks in advance, >Love >Alton Abiding, ==Gene Poole== Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 16, 2001 Report Share Posted June 16, 2001 Mira: Great reply. Thanks. This group takes up all my extra time, so if anyone posts some great stuff like this, it is appreciated. love, Alton , "Mirror" <mirror.reflections@h...> wrote: > Alton I think this response was meant for you but posted on the NDS. > I have not seen you posting to the NDS so here's a forward in case you > missed it (correct me if I'm wrong). > Love, > Mira > > > - > Gene Poole <gene_poole@q...> > <NondualitySalon> > Saturday, June 16, 2001 7:21 PM > [NDS] Alton: MindVille revisited > > > NDS > > Hi Alton, you asked: > > > >Question: > > Are the past and future mere imagination? > > > >Ramana Maharshi: > > Yes, even the present is mere imagination, > > for the sense of time is purely mental. > > Space is similarly mental. > > Therefore birth and rebirth, which take place in > > time and space, cannot be other than imagination. > > > > > >- -- > >----------- > > > >I am the first one to admit that I am phisophically challenged, but > >if anyone can give me a better understanding it would be welcomed. > > Happy to oblige, let me know if this hits the spot, or not. > > >Is Ramana only saying that all of mindville are concepts and > >therefore just imaginary? > > We must mind our concepts and keep them ordered. > > Human understanding (usually/statistically) proceeds by way of > concepts, and your questions are not an exception. So into the realm > of concepts we go, to parse the 'wheat from the chaff'. > > " ... just imaginary?", as compared to what? > > If we say that there is an 'imaginary', we are also at the same time, > saying that there is something which is other than imaginary. And in > popular thought, the word 'imaginary' carries a certain impact, yet, > the 'imaginary' is itself imaginary. In reality, there is no > imaginary, there is only the display of analogical symbols, taken to > be perception, reality, imaginary, dream, etc. > > Humans differentiate between agreed-upon categories of perception, > and usually assign a value-judgement to each category. The > "obviously" insane person perceives what are called by others, to be > 'hallucinations' and 'delusions', and those words carry a certain > value-judgement. The perceptions of the competent, or of > super-competent persons, are deemed to be of greater value than those > of the insane or the 'ordinary' person. > > If we can for a moment, feel our way into the model of "all > perceptions being a display of analogical symbols", we can see that > all perceptions are actually equal; in other words, we can see that > what we are reacting to, as we perceive (as you now perceive this > letter) anything, is a neutral reportage, delivered to us for > processing. > > The 'tragedy' of the usual way, is that all perceptions are filtered > through value-judgements, thus converting neutral > 'information/sense-data' into emotion-evoking and thus action- evoking > reaction. > > We humans are in constant communication with our surrounding > environment, which is itself, as we perceive it, 'nothing but' a > constant stream of language, presented as a display of analogical > symbols. It is what we do with these symbols, which is the issue. > > Popular culture treats the display of analogical symbols as 'external > reality', and has built a veritable cult around this assumption. But > ask yourself, "what if" there is no actual external reality, no sky > or bricks or time or space? Inevitably, the question arises; "There > must be something which is real, what is it?" > > Self is what is real, it is the only real thing, and "there is only > self". One can tinker with the definitions of self, to create the > 'Self vs self' duality, or one can proceed experimentally using > 'there is only self'. > > Your realization of yourself as self, is the trans-personal moment of > re-knowing, this time consciously,of what you have always known, > since earliest childhood, and before. > > The final impact of this realization, puts directly into your hands, > the ultimate responsibility of what you do with the 'display of > analogical symbols', appearing as external reality and 'other'. > > To have compassion for yourself in this moment, allows you to forgive > yourself of the enormous blunder, which is to have marched to the > tune of human assumptions, and to resume your blissful journey, which > was somehow seemingly interrupted, but which is actually, still in > progress. > > > Does that not include the concept of the > >SELF? > >Don't we have to differentiate here between a brick wall and a blue > >sky to function? > > > >Thanks in advance, > >Love > >Alton > > > Abiding, > > ==Gene Poole== Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 1, 2001 Report Share Posted November 1, 2001 Hi Mira and Alton and Gene, That is a very beautiful answer by Gene Poole on NDS. Thanks for sending it here, Mira. How come something so simple and evident is so hard to convey...? As long as hurt to and questionability about our original being (from birth on and maybe conception) still has impact and momentum on our right to just be, it is hard to see the simple evidence... May everyone find compassion... It is easiest to convey... especially in the flesh... but, but, but are a wonderful medium... I have seen compassion work well here; let's coin a word: e-passion... That is not too bad: electronic compassion... I have deep tender feeling about those myriads (?) of electrons... the workers of the universe... I still enjoy John Wheeler and Richard Feynman's joking insight about the electron being the only thing there is... not just only electrons as the basic building blocks, no only just ONE electron... Or as Ledermann calls his thing "the God Particle", or the way I say it, "the "(p)article" Gene, you did a good job, thank you... Love, Wim > Alton wrote: > >I am the first one to admit that I am phisophically challenged, but > >if anyone can give me a better understanding it would be welcomed. > > Happy to oblige, let me know if this hits the spot, or not. > > >Is Ramana only saying that all of mindville are concepts and > >therefore just imaginary? > > We must mind our concepts and keep them ordered. > > Human understanding (usually/statistically) proceeds by way of > concepts, and your questions are not an exception. So into the realm > of concepts we go, to parse the 'wheat from the chaff'. > > " ... just imaginary?", as compared to what? > > If we say that there is an 'imaginary', we are also at the same time, > saying that there is something which is other than imaginary. And in > popular thought, the word 'imaginary' carries a certain impact, yet, > the 'imaginary' is itself imaginary. In reality, there is no > imaginary, there is only the display of analogical symbols, taken to > be perception, reality, imaginary, dream, etc. > > Humans differentiate between agreed-upon categories of perception, > and usually assign a value-judgement to each category. The > "obviously" insane person perceives what are called by others, to be > 'hallucinations' and 'delusions', and those words carry a certain > value-judgement. The perceptions of the competent, or of > super-competent persons, are deemed to be of greater value than those > of the insane or the 'ordinary' person. > > If we can for a moment, feel our way into the model of "all > perceptions being a display of analogical symbols", we can see that > all perceptions are actually equal; in other words, we can see that > what we are reacting to, as we perceive (as you now perceive this > letter) anything, is a neutral reportage, delivered to us for > processing. > > The 'tragedy' of the usual way, is that all perceptions are filtered > through value-judgements, thus converting neutral > 'information/sense-data' into emotion-evoking and thus action-evoking > reaction. > > We humans are in constant communication with our surrounding > environment, which is itself, as we perceive it, 'nothing but' a > constant stream of language, presented as a display of analogical > symbols. It is what we do with these symbols, which is the issue. > > Popular culture treats the display of analogical symbols as 'external > reality', and has built a veritable cult around this assumption. But > ask yourself, "what if" there is no actual external reality, no sky > or bricks or time or space? Inevitably, the question arises; "There > must be something which is real, what is it?" > > Self is what is real, it is the only real thing, and "there is only > self". One can tinker with the definitions of self, to create the > 'Self vs self' duality, or one can proceed experimentally using > 'there is only self'. > > Your realization of yourself as self, is the trans-personal moment of > re-knowing, this time consciously,of what you have always known, > since earliest childhood, and before. > > The final impact of this realization, puts directly into your hands, > the ultimate responsibility of what you do with the 'display of > analogical symbols', appearing as external reality and 'other'. > > To have compassion for yourself in this moment, allows you to forgive > yourself of the enormous blunder, which is to have marched to the > tune of human assumptions, and to resume your blissful journey, which > was somehow seemingly interrupted, but which is actually, still in > progress. > > > Does that not include the concept of the > >SELF? > >Don't we have to differentiate here between a brick wall and a blue > >sky to function? > > > >Thanks in advance, > >Love > >Alton > > > Abiding, > > ==Gene Poole== 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.