Guest guest Posted January 10, 2002 Report Share Posted January 10, 2002 Hello Jody and Greg, though the life of St. Francis is quite well documented (see Sabatini for the sources), it is always possible to cast doubt on any historical account. Why, according to top-notch hagiographers it has lately been conjectured that the two of you never really existed, but are merely mythological chimeras personifying the forces of Doubt and Skepticism, respectively. :-) Just kidding. In fact, a modicum of doubt can be quite healthy at times. But my point was *not* that St. Francis knew some kind of method by which to switch off pain. The point was that an enlightened being would not care about, perhaps not even notice, any difference between the divine dream that manifests as fire and the divine dream that manifests as the body. His consciousness would remain unaffected whatever the experience. Many other saints and sages could be named who gave proof of that - unless you choose to doubt these accounts, too. It is true that all that is written by any of us cannot escape being tinged with some subjectivity. As true for me as it is for you. Michael Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 10, 2002 Report Share Posted January 10, 2002 Hi Greg and all! In some fictional worlds there ARE physical places where you can step through to other dimensions. In Harry Potter there is a special place in the train station for wizards-in-training to catch their trains on a platform that is invisible to non-wizards. And in Philips Pullman's wonderful "The Subtle Knife" there are points where you can cut through the worlds. Of course I'm not implying that's what happened to Suzanne Segal! If only fiction were true! I saw a little article about a woman who died while searching for the treasure that was buried by the side of the road in the movie "Fargo". No one could convince her that it was just a story in a movie and there was no money to be found. David At 01:33 PM 1/10/2002 -0500, you wrote: Remember COLLISION WITH THE INFINITE, Suzanne Segal's book about losing her sense of self when stepping onto the streetcar in Paris? A friend of mine was enthralled by that book. She thought about talking to Suzanne (before S. passed away) for information on which line that streetcar was on. Then taking a trip to Paris and finding the same streetcar! Love, --Greg At 05:59 PM 1/10/02 +0000, jodyrrr wrote: >, MikeSuesserott@t... wrote: > >[snip] > >> So if we really do see everything as of one "substance" - no substance at >> all, but just a divine play of shadows and light, if we really have that >> realization, I do not think we can possibly miss noticing it. And I am >> pretty sure it will not require any proclamation, or any decision, or any >> acknowledgement through another human being. >> >> Warmly, >> >> Michael > >It would be a mistake imo to hold this example as the paradigm for >all cases of enlightenment/realization. First of all, this story >could well be the result of the hagiography of the life of St. >Francis rather than an accurate rendering of an event. Secondly, >if the story is true, it only indicates St. Francis' extraordinary >abilities. While abilities such as these *sometimes* indicate >enlightenment, there are many examples of people having these >kinds of abilities that aren't enlightened, and there are many >cases of enlightenment that aren't accompanied by any extraordinary >abilities at all. Finally, your idea that St. Francis saw everything >as one 'substance' is only a conceptual overlay you've applied to the >story. As such it might not be anywhere near what St. Francis' >actual state of mind was at the time of the event. > > > > >/join > > > > > >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. > > > >Your use of is subject to Sponsor /join 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. Attachment: (image/jpeg) 62846d7.jpg [not stored] Attachment: (image/jpeg) 62847f0.jpg [not stored] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 10, 2002 Report Share Posted January 10, 2002 , MikeSuesserott@t... wrote: [snip] > Just kidding. In fact, a modicum of doubt can be quite healthy at times. But > my point was *not* that St. Francis knew some kind of method by which to > switch off pain. The point was that an enlightened being would not care > about, perhaps not even notice, any difference between the divine dream that > manifests as fire and the divine dream that manifests as the body. His > consciousness would remain unaffected whatever the experience. Many other > saints and sages could be named who gave proof of that - unless you choose > to doubt these accounts, too. This account describes the experience of only *one* enlightened being. It does not automatically follow that *all* enlightened beings share this experience. Ramakrishna is regarded as having been an enlightened being, but the pain he experienced as the result of this throat cancer is well-documented. > It is true that all that is written by any of us cannot escape being tinged > with some subjectivity. As true for me as it is for you. > > Michael Quite so. However, when jnana dawns an individual has an entirely different platform for understanding than that of speculative reasoning and assumption making. Said another way, the only way to really know is to know yourself, and until you know yourself, all you ever have are ideas about knowing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 10, 2002 Report Share Posted January 10, 2002 > > It is true that all that is written by any of us cannot escape being tinged > > with some subjectivity. As true for me as it is for you. > > > > Michael > > J: > Quite so. However, when jnana dawns an individual has an entirely > different platform for understanding than that of speculative > reasoning and assumption making. Said another way, the only way > to really know is to know yourself, and until you know yourself, > all you ever have are ideas about knowing. There is no "before knowing" and "after knowing" Reality. The self that knows a before and after is not. Discussions about the nature of enlightened beings are like the stench in a latrine. When the stench wafts away, the air is the same air as it was all along. -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 10, 2002 Report Share Posted January 10, 2002 , "dan330033" <dan330033> wrote: > > > > It is true that all that is written by any of us cannot escape > being tinged > > > with some subjectivity. As true for me as it is for you. > > > > > > Michael > > > > J: > > Quite so. However, when jnana dawns an individual has an entirely > > different platform for understanding than that of speculative > > reasoning and assumption making. Said another way, the only way > > to really know is to know yourself, and until you know yourself, > > all you ever have are ideas about knowing. > > There is no "before knowing" and "after knowing" Reality. > > The self that knows a before and after is not. True. But there is an *apparent* individual who may come to know of their true nature. For this apparent being there is a before and after in their understanding of themselves. > Discussions about the nature of enlightened beings > are like the stench in a latrine. When the stench wafts > away, the air is the same air as it was all along. > > -- Dan Unfortunately, as long as the latrine is full (of seeking one's nature) the source of the stench remains. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 11, 2002 Report Share Posted January 11, 2002 That's a good one, Dan-ji! At 12:16 AM 1/11/02 -0000, dan330033 wrote: >Discussions about the nature of enlightened beings > are like the stench in a latrine. When the stench wafts > away, the air is the same air as it was all along. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 11, 2002 Report Share Posted January 11, 2002 , Gregory Goode <goode@D...> wrote: > That's a good one, Dan-ji! > > At 12:16 AM 1/11/02 -0000, dan330033 wrote: > >Discussions about the nature of enlightened beings > > are like the stench in a latrine. When the stench wafts > > away, the air is the same air as it was all along. Some may feel, discussions about the nature of enlightened beings are like the heavenly smell of a bakery. Yet, when that glorious odor wafts away, the air is the same air as it was all along. Namaste, Tim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 11, 2002 Report Share Posted January 11, 2002 .....rambling responses...if, as buddhists have known for centuries and modern physicists now agree, the perceiver and the perceived are one...how can the mind (body) perceive itself in a state of non-duality as being of one substance when the body itself is in a constant state of change....the ground of all experience is the duality between form and emptiness.....even memory itself is not static....our present state of enlightenment arises out of a past state of unelightenment....such speculation begs the question, "is enlightenment static or fluid"....since the word is usually referred to refer to a past experience artificially isolated as being of more significance than other artificially ignored experiences we can only but conclude that all experience is part of a continuum or fluid in nature.... what leads us to a more abstract question, "is the nature of (higher)consciousness a vector or a wave".....and once again, we arrive at the conclusion that it is all relational...i.e., contingent upon one's perspective.....all that we can know in this reality is grounded in the fluidity of the material universe....even our notion of permanence, of enlightenment or the experience of the godhead is constantly (d)evolving or shifting as we move through time and space....stephen hawkings speculates that if god exists, he exists outside and beyond that which human consciousness at present can experience or comprehend.....the search for a unified theory of everything eludes us even as we approach.....it is like trying to catch your own shadow.....those that claim to have experienced something unique in order to impress others are not to be trusted....enlightenment is happening all the time.....these words arethe flow of enlightenment manifesting itself in me and you as we share them.....great harm is done when the normal process of ego maturation is made to seem more than what it is, part of the natural process of living.....before my last 'enlightenment' i was doing the laundry and now that it is past i am still doing the laundry waiting for the next enlightening experience to arise in my consciousness.... and we still have yet to explore the notion of a enlightened 'collective (un)consciousness'....all the while that we sit here speculating, the universe is concurrently evolving and devolving.....some are dying to suffering and others are being born into it.....about as much as we can really say and still mean anything is to say as my mirabai says, "we carve our hearts out of suffering".....there is no end to philosophical discourse.....word crack and break under the pressure of too much refinement....i prefer poetry....it evokes the experience of the divine within us......namaste......^^~~~~~~ further up and further in, white wolfe > [snip] > > > So if we really do see everything as of one "substance" - no substance at > > all, but just a divine play of shadows and light, if we really have that > > realization, I do not think we can possibly miss noticing it. And I am > > pretty sure it will not require any proclamation, or any decision, or any > > acknowledgement through another human being. > > > > Warmly, > > > > Michael > > It would be a mistake imo to hold this example as the paradigm for > all cases of enlightenment/realization. First of all, this story > could well be the result of the hagiography of the life of St. > Francis rather than an accurate rendering of an event. Secondly, > if the story is true, it only indicates St. Francis' extraordinary > abilities. While abilities such as these *sometimes* indicate > enlightenment, there are many examples of people having these > kinds of abilities that aren't enlightened, and there are many > cases of enlightenment that aren't accompanied by any extraordinary > abilities at all. Finally, your idea that St. Francis saw everything > as one 'substance' is only a conceptual overlay you've applied to the > story. As such it might not be anywhere near what St. Francis' > actual state of mind was at the time of the event. > > > > > /join > > > > > > 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. > > > > Your use of is subject to > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 11, 2002 Report Share Posted January 11, 2002 I agree, as a statistical matter. Probably more smell cinammon and butter than outhouse fumes! At 07:02 AM 1/11/02 -0000, fewtch wrote: >Some may feel, discussions about the nature of enlightened beings are >like the heavenly smell of a bakery. Yet, when that glorious odor >wafts away, the air is the same air as it was all along. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 11, 2002 Report Share Posted January 11, 2002 On 1/11/02 at 7:02 AM fewtch wrote: º, Gregory Goode <goode@D...> wrote: º> That's a good one, Dan-ji! º> º> At 12:16 AM 1/11/02 -0000, dan330033 wrote: º> >Discussions about the nature of enlightened beings º> > are like the stench in a latrine. When the stench wafts º> > away, the air is the same air as it was all along. º ºSome may feel, discussions about the nature of enlightened beings are ºlike the heavenly smell of a bakery. Yet, when that glorious odor ºwafts away, the air is the same air as it was all along. º ºNamaste, º ºTim No discussion can increase silence. What can't be known can't be discussed, only speculated at and what is that but mental noise? The obvious needs no explanation nor a description nor can become 'more' obvious by whatever means. Jan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 11, 2002 Report Share Posted January 11, 2002 , "jb" <kvy9@l...> wrote: > On 1/11/02 at 7:02 AM fewtch wrote: > > º, Gregory Goode <goode@D...> wrote: > º> That's a good one, Dan-ji! > º> > º> At 12:16 AM 1/11/02 -0000, dan330033 wrote: > º> >Discussions about the nature of enlightened beings > º> > are like the stench in a latrine. When the stench wafts > º> > away, the air is the same air as it was all along. > º > ºSome may feel, discussions about the nature of enlightened beings > are > ºlike the heavenly smell of a bakery. Yet, when that glorious odor > ºwafts away, the air is the same air as it was all along. > º > ºNamaste, > º > ºTim > > No discussion can increase silence. > What can't be known can't be discussed, only speculated at > and what is that but mental noise? Sure -- thus, when that mental noise 'wafts away', only silence remains. It relates quite well to "all of the above." > The obvious needs no explanation nor a description > nor can become 'more' obvious by whatever means. Does that need to be pointed out? :-) Tim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 11, 2002 Report Share Posted January 11, 2002 ^^~~~~~ > º> > º> At 12:16 AM 1/11/02 -0000, dan330033 wrote: > º> >Discussions about the nature of enlightened beings > º> > are like the stench in a latrine. When the stench wafts > º> > away, the air is the same air as it was all along. > º > ºSome may feel, discussions about the nature of enlightened beings > are > ºlike the heavenly smell of a bakery. Yet, when that glorious odor > ºwafts away, the air is the same air as it was all along. > º > ºNamaste, > º > ºTim > > No discussion can increase silence. > What can't be known can't be discussed, only speculated at > and what is that but mental noise? Sure -- thus, when that mental noise 'wafts away', only silence remains. It relates quite well to "all of the above." > The obvious needs no explanation nor a description > nor can become 'more' obvious by whatever means. Does that need to be pointed out? :-) Tim /join 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. Your use of is subject to Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 11, 2002 Report Share Posted January 11, 2002 > > d:There is no "before knowing" and "after knowing" Reality. > > > > The self that knows a before and after is not. > > j:True. But there is an *apparent* individual who may come to > know of their true nature. For this apparent being there is > a before and after in their understanding of themselves. d:The known can't know "the knower." The *apparent* individual is the known. An individual understanding is knowledge being claimed by something that is known, which is not a knower. For this reason, the self-understanding reached by an individual may be called "illusory" ... > j:Unfortunately, as long as the latrine is full (of seeking one's > nature) the source of the stench remains. d:Cute! And true. Also filled with assumptions about "those who have known" ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 11, 2002 Report Share Posted January 11, 2002 , "dan330033" <dan330033> wrote: > > > > d:There is no "before knowing" and "after knowing" Reality. > > > > > > The self that knows a before and after is not. > > > > j:True. But there is an *apparent* individual who may come to > > know of their true nature. For this apparent being there is > > a before and after in their understanding of themselves. > > d:The known can't know "the knower." > The *apparent* individual is the known. But the knower can know the apparent individual, no? > An individual understanding is knowledge being > claimed by something that is known, > which is not a knower. > > For this reason, the self-understanding > reached by an individual may be called "illusory" ... Ok. Yet for the individual there is a demarcation at the moment this illusory understanding arrives. That is, before this moment only identity as an individual is known, after this moment there is the realization that one is the knower. Put another way, in the context of the individual's existence there comes an understanding of being the knower. > > j:Unfortunately, as long as the latrine is full (of seeking one's > > nature) the source of the stench remains. > > d:Cute! And true. > Also filled with assumptions > about "those who have known" ... Regardless of whether we term it illusory or not, there is a transformation that occurs in the individual's understanding when the event commonly known as Self realization occurs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 11, 2002 Report Share Posted January 11, 2002 > Some may feel, discussions about the nature of enlightened beings are > like the heavenly smell of a bakery. Yet, when that glorious odor > wafts away, the air is the same air as it was all along. > > Namaste, > > Tim Yes. The air was never affected one way or another -- nothing was added or subtracted from air. Shall Om, Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 11, 2002 Report Share Posted January 11, 2002 , "jodyrrr" <jodyrrr@h...> wrote: > , "dan330033" <dan330033> wrote: > > > > > > d:There is no "before knowing" and "after knowing" Reality. > > > > > > > > The self that knows a before and after is not. > > > > > > j:True. But there is an *apparent* individual who may come to > > > know of their true nature. For this apparent being there is > > > a before and after in their understanding of themselves. > > > > d:The known can't know "the knower." > > The *apparent* individual is the known. > > But the knower can know the apparent individual, no? Where is the knower positioned, while knowing each and every apparent individual? How can the knower make a comment? "The knower" are two words typed by a known (typist), read as a known entity (as the words "the knower"), by someone known (the reader). > > > An individual understanding is knowledge being > > claimed by something that is known, > > which is not a knower. > > > > For this reason, the self-understanding > > reached by an individual may be called "illusory" ... > > Ok. Yet for the individual there is a demarcation at the > moment this illusory understanding arrives. That is, before > this moment only identity as an individual is known, after > this moment there is the realization that one is the knower. > Put another way, in the context of the individual's > existence there comes an understanding of being the knower. In light of our discussion, there is no particular significance whatsoever to a fleeting experience (whether minutes or years matters not) claimed by an individual, who says that before he didn't know, but now he knows. That experience is simply "the known" along with any other experience of any other apparent individual, anywhere in space-time. > > > > j:Unfortunately, as long as the latrine is full (of seeking one's > > > nature) the source of the stench remains. > > > > d:Cute! And true. > > Also filled with assumptions > > about "those who have known" ... > > Regardless of whether we term it illusory or not, there is a > transformation that occurs in the individual's understanding > when the event commonly known as Self realization occurs. Yes. As long as it appears so, to an apparent entity. And if it no longer appears so, is anything lost to or by "the knower"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 11, 2002 Report Share Posted January 11, 2002 , "dan330033" <dan330033> wrote: [snip] > Where is the knower positioned, while knowing each and > every apparent individual? > > How can the knower make a comment? > "The knower" are two words typed by a known (typist), read > as a known entity (as the words "the knower"), by someone > known (the reader). Point taken. The knower is outside of the known and cannot be included in the realm of the known, even while the known is utterly dependent on the knower for its own knownness. [snip] > > Ok. Yet for the individual there is a demarcation at the > > moment this illusory understanding arrives. That is, before > > this moment only identity as an individual is known, after > > this moment there is the realization that one is the knower. > > Put another way, in the context of the individual's > > existence there comes an understanding of being the knower. > > In light of our discussion, there is no particular significance > whatsoever to a fleeting experience (whether > minutes or years matters not) claimed by an individual, > who says that before he didn't know, but now he knows. In the light of other discussions, there may be. The point I tried to make is that there does exist a platform of understanding that could be called experiential, and that this is the only platform that allows for jnana to exist. Any other platform is based in speculation, rather than experience. As such it can only produce concepts of understanding rather than the understanding itself. Jumping up on my soapbox, it is these concepts of understanding that prevent the experiential understanding from arising, as the concepts serve to displace the subtle nature of the knower's awareness of Itself from being recognized. There is a recognition that occurs, and this is what the sages attempt to point us at. [snip] > And if it no longer appears so, is anything lost > to or by "the knower"? There can be nothing lost by the knower, as the knower has never possessed any gain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 11, 2002 Report Share Posted January 11, 2002 Dear Jody, You wrote: >>> The point I tried to make is that there does exist a platform of understanding that could be called experiential, and that this is the only platform that allows for jnana to exist. <<< Yes yes yes... Jody, excellent and that is what I am talking from. Your word "understanding" may be pointing a bit too much to the context of mentality... but that might just be a difficulty with verbalizing this... >>> Any other platform is based in speculation, rather than experience.<<< Indeed, the conceptual thing! Yes For those who wonder about the validity of other people's assertions or other people's accounts of concrete "understanding that could be called experiential", those experiential accounts are very often (and that may or may not be warranted) seen as pulled out of thin air, 'chimeras'. To the cautious or sceptic person it looks conceptual, as they themselves have no experiential way to corroborate the accounts. They may even prefer to see it as conceptual as they may underhandedly think that they are missing out on direct, immediate or unmediated "being / knowledge / bliss " (sat chit ananda) They may still be hampered in their unconditional existence and they may still want to uphold their inhibitions, looking for escape routes away from the immanence or the recovery of direct immersion in full reality of being. >>> As such it can only produce concepts of understanding rather than the understanding itself. Jumping up on my soapbox, it is these concepts of understanding that prevent the experiential understanding from arising, as the concepts serve to displace the subtle nature of the knower's awareness of Itself from being recognized. There is a recognition that occurs, and this is what the sages attempt to point us at.<<< Right. >>>There can be nothing lost by the knower, as the knower has never possessed any gain.<<< Exactly, no attainments, just knowing again, recovery into-and-from fullness. Lovingly, Wim --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.313 / Virus Database: 174 - Release 1/2/2002 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 12, 2002 Report Share Posted January 12, 2002 Dear Jody -- You make assertions about the knower. But you, Jody, are the known. So, your assertions (or mine, Dan) about the knower are nothing more or less than an aspect of the known. The known is not fragmented. It only seems fragmented when divided into a knower who is known (as Jody or Dan) and the known which is known by Jody or Dan. Resolution of this dilemma (of a known knower and a known which is known by the known knower) is when the "true knower" is self-revealed, and the entire "field of the known" is understood as "seemless" and "undivided." You responded: > Point taken. The knower is outside of the known and cannot > be included in the realm of the known, even while the known > is utterly dependent on the knower for its own knownness. Yes. > > D: In light of our discussion, there is no particular significance > > whatsoever to a fleeting experience (whether > > minutes or years matters not) claimed by an individual, > > who says that before he didn't know, but now he knows. > > J: In the light of other discussions, there may be. The point > I tried to make is that there does exist a platform of understanding > that could be called experiential, and that this is the only > platform that allows for jnana to exist. Any other platform > is based in speculation, rather than experience. What you are calling jnana, and proposing as something that exists for an entity who experiences, is dependent upon the real existence of the experiencing entity. The platform you are asserting as existing due to experience is merely an aspect of the known. It can only seem to have some kind of significance of its own, if it is considered as a separable aspect of relevance to an experiencing entity, who is also considered as separable. That there is a "platform," to use your word, that doesn't depend on either experience or speculation, is what we have been referring to as "the knower." In truth, the "knower" isn't a platform, nor a topic of conversation, but the end for any need for a platform, and any thought that a thought (or experience) could reveal truth in some way that would be more valid than some other thought or experience. >As such it can > only produce concepts of understanding rather than the understanding > itself. There is no "understanding" other than "the knower" itself. The "understanding" can never be "produced." >Jumping up on my soapbox, it is these concepts of > understanding that prevent the experiential understanding from > arising, as the concepts serve to displace the subtle nature of > the knower's awareness of Itself from being recognized. The concept that concepts prevent experiential understanding from arising, depends on the formulation of a separable entity for whom experiential understanding can arise, or can be prevented from arising. Thus, your description of "experiential understanding" can't be considered as equivalent to "the knower," which neither arises nor departs. Experiential understanding is therefore of no signifance when a separable understanding entity is no longer believed to be a "platform" for knowing truth. > There is a recognition that occurs, and this is what the sages > attempt to point us at. The sages are aspects of "the known." > > D: And if it no longer appears so, is anything lost > > to or by "the knower"? > > There can be nothing lost by the knower, as the knower > has never possessed any gain. Yes. And as "the knower" is all, discussions about what happens for a particular knowing entity and his or her experiential understanding is irrelevant. If there is presumption (or seeming experiential awareness) that "the knower" has somehow become fragmented, then discussions about an individual entity capable of experiential understanding seem relevant. Namaste, Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 12, 2002 Report Share Posted January 12, 2002 Hi Jody, > The point >I tried to make is that there does exist a platform of understanding >that could be called experiential, and that this is the only >platform that allows for jnana to exist. Any other platform >is based in speculation, rather than experience. >snip< > >There is a recognition that occurs, and this is what the sages >attempt to point us at. In other words, quit pondering. Go look for yourself, and then you will know. Love, Dharma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 14, 2002 Report Share Posted January 14, 2002 , "dan330033" <dan330033> wrote: > Dear Jody -- > > You make assertions about the knower. > But you, Jody, are the known. > So, your assertions (or mine, Dan) about > the knower are nothing more or less > than an aspect of the known. > The known is not fragmented. > It only seems fragmented when divided > into a knower who is known (as Jody or Dan) > and the known which is known by Jody or Dan. > > Resolution of this dilemma (of a known knower > and a known which is known by the known knower) > is when the "true knower" is self-revealed, > and the entire "field of the known" is understood > as "seemless" and "undivided." But is it a really a dilemma? That is, is there anything wrong with being a known and the knower at the same time. Isn't this how jnana begins, with an understanding of one's true nature while still being a known? [snip] > What you are calling jnana, and proposing as something that > exists for an entity who experiences, is dependent upon > the real existence of the experiencing entity. Not the real existence, but the apparent existence. I can be an individual who has come to understand himself as the knower as well. I can understand that the known (as Jody) does not exist as being separate from the entire field of the known, but still have the direct and experiential understanding of myself as the knower. This is what jnana is to me. > The platform you are asserting as existing due to experience > is merely an aspect of the known. It can only seem to have > some kind of significance of its own, if it is considered > as a separable aspect of relevance to an experiencing > entity, who is also considered as separable. Anything we experience in life can only be significant as separable aspects of the known. There could be no discussion otherwise. > That there is a "platform," to use your word, that doesn't > depend on either experience or speculation, is what we > have been referring to as "the knower." Yep. > In truth, the "knower" isn't a platform, nor a topic of > conversation, but the end for any need for a platform, > and any thought that a thought (or experience) could reveal truth > in some way that would be more valid than some other thought > or experience. I agree that the knower itself isn't a platform. But an individual who knows themselves as the knower has this knowledge as a platform, despite such knowledge being relative to the existence of the apparent individual. > >As such it can > > only produce concepts of understanding rather than the understanding > > itself. > > There is no "understanding" other than "the knower" itself. > The "understanding" can never be "produced." That's what I was saying. > >Jumping up on my soapbox, it is these concepts of > > understanding that prevent the experiential understanding from > > arising, as the concepts serve to displace the subtle nature of > > the knower's awareness of Itself from being recognized. > > The concept that concepts prevent experiential understanding > from arising, depends on the formulation of a separable > entity for whom experiential understanding can arise, or > can be prevented from arising. Thus, your description of > "experiential understanding" can't be considered as equivalent > to "the knower," which neither arises nor departs. > Experiential understanding is therefore of no signifance > when a separable understanding entity is no longer > believed to be a "platform" for knowing truth. I'm perfectly ok with separable entities in the context of this discussion list. If there were no apparent entities, this discussion wouldn't exist as such. That is, the discussion is dependent on separable entities for its being experienced. [snip] > And as "the knower" is all, discussions about > what happens for a particular knowing entity and his or her > experiential understanding is irrelevant. >From the exclusive regard of the knower, yes. > If there is presumption (or seeming experiential > awareness) that "the knower" has > somehow become fragmented, then discussions > about an individual entity capable of > experiential understanding seem relevant. Hence our discussion and the experience we all have of this list. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 14, 2002 Report Share Posted January 14, 2002 ....the fine line....the transparent edge...at what point does the snowflake become water...many claim for themselves the realization of I AM THAT...or I AM YOU....or even I AM THAT I AM....yet, despite these claims duality persists even for them between themselves and those they would teach....ultimately it is in the process of teaching that the teachers learns that we are students of each other....the story of magister ludi by herman hesse come to mind.....awakening is not a state or condition but a process of becoming.....where are these great ones that claimed for themselves I AM....there are not here.....it takes great spiritual hubris to claim for oneself that one is divine.....pride has nothing to do with compassion.....jesus never made such a claim for himself nor did siddartha....humanity elevated these great ones to divinity post mortem just as the student places the teacher on a pedestal only to later cast the false idol to the ground....what student has not ultimately accused the teacher of hypocrisy and then continued the path as the teacher on its own journey into the unknown that lies infinitely beyond wherever or whatever it is we arrive at each successive moment....until our breath stops our journey into the absolute continues.....humility is one of the names of higher love.....^^~~~~~~ further up and further in, white wolfe - "jodyrrr" <jodyrrr <> Monday, January 14, 2002 7:25 AM Re: pondering Enlightenment > , "dan330033" <dan330033> wrote: > > Dear Jody -- > > > > You make assertions about the knower. > > But you, Jody, are the known. > > So, your assertions (or mine, Dan) about > > the knower are nothing more or less > > than an aspect of the known. > > The known is not fragmented. > > It only seems fragmented when divided > > into a knower who is known (as Jody or Dan) > > and the known which is known by Jody or Dan. > > > > Resolution of this dilemma (of a known knower > > and a known which is known by the known knower) > > is when the "true knower" is self-revealed, > > and the entire "field of the known" is understood > > as "seemless" and "undivided." > > But is it a really a dilemma? > > That is, is there anything wrong with being a known > and the knower at the same time. Isn't this how jnana > begins, with an understanding of one's true nature > while still being a known? > > [snip] > > > What you are calling jnana, and proposing as something that > > exists for an entity who experiences, is dependent upon > > the real existence of the experiencing entity. > > Not the real existence, but the apparent existence. I can be an > individual who has come to understand himself as the knower as well. > I can understand that the known (as Jody) does not exist as being > separate from the entire field of the known, but still have the > direct and experiential understanding of myself as the knower. > > This is what jnana is to me. > > > The platform you are asserting as existing due to experience > > is merely an aspect of the known. It can only seem to have > > some kind of significance of its own, if it is considered > > as a separable aspect of relevance to an experiencing > > entity, who is also considered as separable. > > Anything we experience in life can only be significant as > separable aspects of the known. There could be no discussion > otherwise. > > > That there is a "platform," to use your word, that doesn't > > depend on either experience or speculation, is what we > > have been referring to as "the knower." > > Yep. > > > In truth, the "knower" isn't a platform, nor a topic of > > conversation, but the end for any need for a platform, > > and any thought that a thought (or experience) could reveal truth > > in some way that would be more valid than some other thought > > or experience. > > I agree that the knower itself isn't a platform. But an > individual who knows themselves as the knower has this > knowledge as a platform, despite such knowledge being > relative to the existence of the apparent individual. > > > >As such it can > > > only produce concepts of understanding rather than the understanding > > > itself. > > > > There is no "understanding" other than "the knower" itself. > > The "understanding" can never be "produced." > > That's what I was saying. > > > >Jumping up on my soapbox, it is these concepts of > > > understanding that prevent the experiential understanding from > > > arising, as the concepts serve to displace the subtle nature of > > > the knower's awareness of Itself from being recognized. > > > > The concept that concepts prevent experiential understanding > > from arising, depends on the formulation of a separable > > entity for whom experiential understanding can arise, or > > can be prevented from arising. Thus, your description of > > "experiential understanding" can't be considered as equivalent > > to "the knower," which neither arises nor departs. > > Experiential understanding is therefore of no signifance > > when a separable understanding entity is no longer > > believed to be a "platform" for knowing truth. > > I'm perfectly ok with separable entities in the context of this > discussion list. If there were no apparent entities, this > discussion wouldn't exist as such. That is, the discussion is > dependent on separable entities for its being experienced. > > [snip] > > > And as "the knower" is all, discussions about > > what happens for a particular knowing entity and his or her > > experiential understanding is irrelevant. > > >From the exclusive regard of the knower, yes. > > > If there is presumption (or seeming experiential > > awareness) that "the knower" has > > somehow become fragmented, then discussions > > about an individual entity capable of > > experiential understanding seem relevant. > > Hence our discussion and the experience we all have of this list. > > > > > /join > > > > > > 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. > > > > Your use of is subject to > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 14, 2002 Report Share Posted January 14, 2002 Hi Jody, , "jodyrrr" <jodyrrr@h...> wrote: > Not the real existence, but the apparent existence. I can be an > individual who has come to understand himself as the knower as well. Knower of what, though? As an individual, what constitutes "knowledge" regarding advaita? Everyone says "I know." If Jnana constitutes knowledge, (how) does it differ from knowing how to tie one's shoes? > I can understand that the known (as Jody) does not exist as being > separate from the entire field of the known, but still have the > direct and experiential understanding of myself as the knower. Still lost... knower of what? > I'm perfectly ok with separable entities in the context of this > discussion list. If there were no apparent entities, this > discussion wouldn't exist as such. That is, the discussion is > dependent on separable entities for its being experienced. A common assumption ;-). Cheers, Tim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 14, 2002 Report Share Posted January 14, 2002 On 1/14/02 at 12:03 PM fewtch wrote: ºHi Jody, º º, "jodyrrr" <jodyrrr@h...> wrote: º º> Not the real existence, but the apparent existence. I can be an º> individual who has come to understand himself as the knower as well. º ºKnower of what, though? As an individual, what ºconstitutes "knowledge" regarding advaita? "At best", the knowledge that all knowledge is relative? º ºEveryone says "I know." If Jnana constitutes knowledge, (how) does ºit differ from knowing how to tie one's shoes? That all knowledge is relative whereas the knowledge to tie one's shoes is utilitarian too (it comes in handy but walking barefoot is healthier). º º> I can understand that the known (as Jody) does not exist as being º> separate from the entire field of the known, but still have the º> direct and experiential understanding of myself as the knower. º ºStill lost... knower of what? A partial content of memory? Which has to be the "knower" too. º º> I'm perfectly ok with separable entities in the context of this º> discussion list. If there were no apparent entities, this º> discussion wouldn't exist as such. That is, the discussion is º> dependent on separable entities for its being experienced. º ºA common assumption ;-). If there is but "reality", assumptions are "real" too And if there is both "real" and "unreal", where is the borderline? Would it be relative or absolute? Prosit, Jan º ºCheers, º ºTim º º º/join º º º º º ºAll paths go somewhere. No path goes nowhere. Paths, places, sights, ºperceptions, and indeed all experiences arise from and exist in and ºsubside back into the Space of Awareness. Like waves rising are not ºdifferent than the ocean, all things arising from Awareness are of the ºnature of Awareness. Awareness does not come and go but is always Present. ºIt is Home. Home is where the Heart Is. Jnanis know the Heart to be the ºFinality of Eternal Being. A true devotee relishes in the Truth of ºSelf-Knowledge, spontaneously arising from within into It Self. Welcome ºall to a. º º º ºYour use of is subject to Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 14, 2002 Report Share Posted January 14, 2002 , "jb" <kvy9@l...> wrote: > If there is but "reality", assumptions are "real" too Sure -- and when nothing is real, neither are assumptions. > And if there is both "real" and "unreal", where is the borderline? Assumptions, opinions, beliefs? A borderline can always be "drawn," but of course no borderlines are accurate. > Would it be relative or absolute? "Relative" and "absolute" are conceptual -- there are no relatives or absolutes. Cheers, 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.