Guest guest Posted December 23, 2001 Report Share Posted December 23, 2001 In a message dated 12/23/2001 6:40:42 AM Pacific Standard Time, eea writes: << how can we possibly have a full understanding of human nature? >> I bet that if every little child born who as they begin to speak and starts asking questions..that instead of the adult answering those questions based on what they were taught.....but rather says........."you tell me".....I bet...the above question would no longer need to exist... Norma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 23, 2001 Report Share Posted December 23, 2001 Can one be a realized being without fully understanding human nature? Is human nature more clearly understood as an aspect of "something" beyond yet inclusive of it, such as the "nature of existence"? Can human nature or the human aspect of existence be clearly understood without understanding how the physiological, psychological, social, economic, political, geographic, historical, and metaphysical factors affect each other? (Must have missed something here.) Given the conditioning and the pressures of survival that fix our attention to specific areas of daily living: how can we possibly have a full understanding of human nature? PLEASE...serious answers are sorely needed. <s> neEDy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 23, 2001 Report Share Posted December 23, 2001 Dear neEDy, The fullest understanding of human nature with all its facets has the Realized one, because he/she has understood what the mind really is - as human nature depends fully on the mind. In true realization everything else is understood. But if we try to understand human nature "separate" - not in the light of the Self - it can be only limited understanding. As long as the nature of the mind is not understood human nature cannot be clearly understood. Don't try too much to understand human nature. It is an endless attempt and you will never succeed fully this way. It is much better to turn to Self Enquiry or another method to see who you really are. What will happen then with human nature? One example: Sri Ramana's understanding of human nature was complete. Besides being a perfect Guru he was also a perfect psychologist - in the best sense - . Devotees saw and see in him also their mother, father and friend... - because he saw through everyone and reacted accordingly (with love, with understanding, with guidance, ... with whatever was needed at the moment). Someone, perhaps it was Major Cadwick, said: he was like a mirror which reflected everyone and everything. I don't know if this is an answer to your question - but perhaps it is a hint. Gabriele - "gabriele_ebert" <g.ebert <g.ebert Sunday, December 23, 2001 10:34 PM Fwd: Human Nature and Realization > , "stillpointed" <eea@a...> wrote: > Can one be a realized being without fully understanding human > nature? > > Is human nature more clearly understood as an aspect of "something" > beyond yet inclusive of it, such as the "nature of existence"? > > Can human nature or the human aspect of existence be clearly > understood without understanding how the physiological, > psychological, social, economic, political, geographic, historical, > and metaphysical factors affect each other? (Must have missed > something here.) > > Given the conditioning and the pressures of survival that fix our > attention to specific areas of daily living: how can we possibly have > a full understanding of human nature? > > PLEASE...serious answers are sorely needed. <s> > > neEDy > --- End forwarded message --- > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 23, 2001 Report Share Posted December 23, 2001 stillpointed wrote: Can one be a realized being without fully understanding human nature? Depends on meaning of realized being, fully understanding, and human nature. Is human nature more clearly understood as an aspect of "something" beyond yet inclusive of it, such as the "nature of existence"? This question answers itself. Can human nature or the human aspect of existence be clearly understood without understanding how the physiological, psychological, social, economic, political, geographic, historical, and metaphysical factors affect each other? A question asked within a construct such as this presupposes an answer within the same construct. Given the conditioning and the pressures of survival that fix our attention to specific areas of daily living: how can we possibly have a full understanding of human nature? Presupposing "conditioning" and "pressures" to all, you deny the possibility of their absence. How can one limit the extent of the "concept" or "reality" of possibility? What is the limit of the differences between the attributes of each humans nature? What is the limit of the similarities between the attributes of each humans nature? Knowing those things that are held in common by all of creation we come to appreciate the beauty and symmetry of their purpose. Knowing the infinite variety of differences in all that is manifested we treasure them as unique. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 25, 2001 Report Share Posted December 25, 2001 , "stillpointed" <eea@a...> wrote: Dear NeEDy: Can one be a realized being without fully understanding human nature? >If you mean would a realized being be able to help anyone put before them with a problem then I believe,yes. If you mean could they explain human nature to someone, with ideas that would solve for them the mysteries, then no.< Is human nature more clearly understood as an aspect of "something" beyond yet inclusive of it, such as the "nature of existence"? >The nature of existence, I believe, would be included when one accurately describes human nature instead of the reverse, understanding the nature of existence first. To put nature first would be indicating an objective world independent of the observer. The best idea on this I believe is to assume they arise together simultaneously, one then forms ideas concerning the other. Both must be assumed to be objects since they are in turn "known".< Can human nature or the human aspect of existence be clearly understood without understanding how the physiological, psychological, social, economic, political, geographic, historical, and metaphysical factors affect each other? (Must have missed something here.) >Human nature is a broad subject. Patanjali lists five mental abilities and five types of fluctuations of consciousness that humans enjoy or not. Respectively they are logic, imagination, intuition, dreaming, memory, and the fluctuations are sleep, memory, conceptualization, misconception, valid cognition. (Feuerstein trans.) I think these functions are more indicative of human nature than the activities performed by them.< Given the conditioning and the pressures of survival that fix our attention to specific areas of daily living: how can we possibly have a full understanding of human nature? >There is nothing else to do.< PLEASE...serious answers are sorely needed. <s> neEDy Good luck and Godspeed Bobby G. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 25, 2001 Report Share Posted December 25, 2001 Some good pointers here, Gabriele. Thanx. Saying hello with the inner smile. <s> Ed , "Gabriele Ebert" <g.ebert@g...> wrote: > Dear neEDy, > The fullest understanding of human nature with all its facets has the > Realized one, because he/she has understood what the mind really is - as > human nature depends fully on the mind. > In true realization everything else is understood. But if we try to > understand human nature "separate" - not in the light of the Self - it can > be only limited understanding. As long as the nature of the mind is not > understood human nature cannot be clearly understood. > Don't try too much to understand human nature. It is an endless attempt and > you will never succeed fully this way. It is much better to turn to Self > Enquiry or another method to see who you really are. What will happen then > with human nature? > > One example: Sri Ramana's understanding of human nature was complete. > Besides being a perfect Guru he was also a perfect psychologist - in the > best sense - . Devotees saw and see in him also their mother, father and > friend... - because he saw through everyone and reacted accordingly (with > love, with understanding, with guidance, ... with whatever was needed at the > moment). Someone, perhaps it was Major Cadwick, said: he was like a mirror > which reflected everyone and everything. > > I don't know if this is an answer to your question - but perhaps it is a > hint. > > Gabriele > > > > - > "gabriele_ebert" <g.ebert@g...> > <g.ebert@g...> > Sunday, December 23, 2001 10:34 PM > Fwd: Human Nature and Realization > > > > , "stillpointed" <eea@a...> wrote: > > Can one be a realized being without fully understanding human > > nature? > > > > Is human nature more clearly understood as an aspect of "something" > > beyond yet inclusive of it, such as the "nature of existence"? > > > > Can human nature or the human aspect of existence be clearly > > understood without understanding how the physiological, > > psychological, social, economic, political, geographic, historical, > > and metaphysical factors affect each other? (Must have missed > > something here.) > > > > Given the conditioning and the pressures of survival that fix our > > attention to specific areas of daily living: how can we possibly have > > a full understanding of human nature? > > > > PLEASE...serious answers are sorely needed. <s> > > > > neEDy > > --- End forwarded message --- > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 25, 2001 Report Share Posted December 25, 2001 , "texasbg2000" <bgbbyg@a...> wrote: > , "stillpointed" <eea@a...> wrote: >>Given the conditioning and the pressures of survival that fix our attention to specific areas of daily living: how can we possibly have a full understanding of human nature? << >There is nothing else to do.< Yes and lots to learn. >Good luck and Godspeed >Bobby G. That helps. So does beaming that inner smile. Ed <s> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 26, 2001 Report Share Posted December 26, 2001 Reply to Sandeep's questions on another list. > Hiya Ed, > > Is the real concern, whether Life will survive on this planet? > > Since the Big Bang, it has vanished couple of times, so what's the big deal, if it does again? > > What's the real issue for the body mind complex labeled "Ed"? > > > Ziggy Ziggy Zoom Zaah > > > Sandeep --- Hola Amigo, Apparently these three questions are basically one and the same: Is there a body/mind "me" who has concerns, who sees "big deals", and who is identified as "Ed". The way I see it...Ed is not only defined by his perception of a finite body/mind, but also by his intuition of a boundless beyond...just as a dot on a page is perceptually defined as itself and by the surrounding page symbolizing the infinite. It is the perceptual focus, and its conditioning, which determines whether a body/mind may or may not appear to exist. For example, the focus of a recently born child does not distinguish separate entities. We might call this "Zero Point Perception", or possibly pure awareness. Whenever we return like a child to Zero Point Perception, as in meditative awareness, all those concerns, questions, and issues disappear. However, as long as there is conditioned perception (and there is little else) there will be the perception of a body/mind with concerns, questions, and issues. It is the conditioning of perception which determines how an individual identifies and the more violent the conditioning, the greater will be the sense of anxiety, fear, and separateness. So my concern is not primarily whether life will survive on this planet but of the conditioning effects of violence on my perception and its disturbance to the public "atmosphere" which tends to make `me' feel concerned with survival. I make no pretense of my human frailty nor do I deny those moments beyond the self, when I abide in the unseen smile. apparently, "Ed" <s> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 26, 2001 Report Share Posted December 26, 2001 Hiya Ed, Just wanted to comment on a few points, , "stillpointed" <eea@a...> wrote: > The way I see it...Ed is not only defined by his perception of a > finite body/mind, but also by his intuition of a boundless > beyond...just as a dot on a page is perceptually defined as itself > and by the surrounding page symbolizing the infinite. That's one way to look at it... another is that intuition itself isn't really "of the mind." Like love isn't an emotion, intuition isn't a perceptual or conceptual construct. Reality is "boundless," but not "beyond" anything. All a body- mind "has to go on" are those intuitional flashes... in my experience, it's often wise to pay attention. Who has the intuitions -- anyone in particular? > It is the perceptual focus, and its conditioning, which determines > whether a body/mind may or may not appear to exist. For example, > the focus of a recently born child does not distinguish separate > entities. So it's assumed... but if there are no memories of babyhood, there's really no way to know :-). > We might call this "Zero Point Perception", or possibly > pure awareness. Whenever we return like a child to Zero Point > Perception, as in meditative awareness, all those concerns, > questions, and issues disappear. Concerns, questions and issues are based on beliefs, hopes and fears... relatively easy to see this if examined. Answers generate more questions, which generate more answers, and so on... a vicious cycle. > However, as long as there is conditioned perception (and there is > little else) there will be the perception of a body/mind with > concerns, questions, and issues. Who believes that? :-). "Conditioned perception," is it not required even to eat? Yet conditioning is an appearance only -- as a movie on the screen is a conditioning of the white light of the projector, yet it doesn't really change the light. > It is the conditioning of perception which determines how an > individual identifies and the more violent the conditioning, the > greater will be the sense of anxiety, fear, and separateness. i don't know what you mean by "the more violent the conditioning," so won't comment. > So my concern is not primarily whether life will survive on this > planet but of the conditioning effects of violence on my perception > and its disturbance to the public "atmosphere" which tends to > make `me' feel concerned with survival. Feeling concerned with survival and one's mortality can be a "good thing." Why wait for a diagnosis of terminal illness or a car accident (or some other inevitability) to face that? > I make no pretense of my human frailty nor do I deny those moments > beyond the self, when I abide in the unseen smile. > > apparently, "Ed" <s> Love, Tim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 26, 2001 Report Share Posted December 26, 2001 , "fewtch" <coresite@h...> wrote: >Feeling concerned with survival and one's mortality can be a "good >thing." You really believe that? :-) >Why wait for a diagnosis of terminal illness or a car >accident (or some other inevitability) to face that? Sure, why wait. Might as well invite it...being that it's inevitable. :-) "Ed"...abiding with you in the unseen <s> > > Hiya Ed, > > Just wanted to comment on a few points, > > , "stillpointed" <eea@a...> wrote: > > The way I see it...Ed is not only defined by his perception of a > > finite body/mind, but also by his intuition of a boundless > > beyond...just as a dot on a page is perceptually defined as itself > > and by the surrounding page symbolizing the infinite. > > That's one way to look at it... another is that intuition itself > isn't really "of the mind." Like love isn't an emotion, intuition > isn't a perceptual or conceptual construct. > > Reality is "boundless," but not "beyond" anything. All a body- > mind "has to go on" are those intuitional flashes... in my > experience, it's often wise to pay attention. Who has the > intuitions -- anyone in particular? > > > It is the perceptual focus, and its conditioning, which determines > > whether a body/mind may or may not appear to exist. For example, > > the focus of a recently born child does not distinguish separate > > entities. > > So it's assumed... but if there are no memories of babyhood, there's > really no way to know :-). > > > We might call this "Zero Point Perception", or possibly > > pure awareness. Whenever we return like a child to Zero Point > > Perception, as in meditative awareness, all those concerns, > > questions, and issues disappear. > > Concerns, questions and issues are based on beliefs, hopes and > fears... relatively easy to see this if examined. Answers generate > more questions, which generate more answers, and so on... a vicious > cycle. > > > However, as long as there is conditioned perception (and there is > > little else) there will be the perception of a body/mind with > > concerns, questions, and issues. > > Who believes that? :-). "Conditioned perception," is it not required > even to eat? Yet conditioning is an appearance only -- as a movie on > the screen is a conditioning of the white light of the projector, yet > it doesn't really change the light. > > > It is the conditioning of perception which determines how an > > individual identifies and the more violent the conditioning, the > > greater will be the sense of anxiety, fear, and separateness. > > i don't know what you mean by "the more violent the conditioning," so > won't comment. > > > So my concern is not primarily whether life will survive on this > > planet but of the conditioning effects of violence on my perception > > and its disturbance to the public "atmosphere" which tends to > > make `me' feel concerned with survival. > > Feeling concerned with survival and one's mortality can be a "good > thing." Why wait for a diagnosis of terminal illness or a car > accident (or some other inevitability) to face that? > > > I make no pretense of my human frailty nor do I deny those moments > > beyond the self, when I abide in the unseen smile. > > > > apparently, "Ed" <s> > > Love, > > Tim 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.