Guest guest Posted January 14, 2002 Report Share Posted January 14, 2002 On 1/14/02 at 1:23 PM fewtch wrote: º, "jb" <kvy9@l...> wrote: º º> If there is but "reality", assumptions are "real" too º ºSure -- and when nothing is real, neither are assumptions. That makes both 'real' and 'nothing' assumptions too. Hence 'nothing' can't be 'real' as it is an assumption. See the closing remark. º º> And if there is both "real" and "unreal", where is the borderline? º ºAssumptions, opinions, beliefs? A borderline can always be "drawn," ºbut of course no borderlines are accurate. The borderline between water and air isn't a borderline as the air invariably contains water and here, even is a source of drinking water. Borderline is 'utilitarian'. º º> Would it be relative or absolute? º º"Relative" and "absolute" are conceptual -- there are no relatives or ºabsolutes. Borderlines are always relative, like the isobars on a weather map. They convey information. The absolute is a concept as there isn't even something like "empty space" or "vacuum". Prosit, Jan º ºCheers, º ºTim º 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: > > On 1/14/02 at 1:23 PM fewtch wrote: > > º, "jb" <kvy9@l...> wrote: > º > º> If there is but "reality", assumptions are "real" too > º > ºSure -- and when nothing is real, neither are assumptions. > > That makes both 'real' and 'nothing' assumptions too. > Hence 'nothing' can't be 'real' as it is an assumption. > See the closing remark. Of course. 'Real' or 'unreal' are moot as issues, and so is relative/absolute. Who cares? That doesn't mean, if making a recipe it's impossible to judge whether one cup is 'fuller' than another. The question "is the glass half full or half empty?" could be put as a sort of koan -- it shows that relativity is a judgement put by the mind. > The borderline between water and air isn't a borderline as > the air invariably contains water and here, even is a source > of drinking water. Borderline is 'utilitarian'. Yes. > Borderlines are always relative, like the isobars on a weather map. > They convey information. The absolute is a concept as there isn't > even something like "empty space" or "vacuum". If there's a reason to draw borderlines it will happen. 'Absolute' is a useless concept, relativity can be a useful concept :-). 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 , "fewtch" <coresite@h...> wrote: > > 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? When the recognition of pure being becomes real in the life of an individual, that constitutes what I'm calling jnana. > Everyone says "I know." If Jnana constitutes knowledge, (how) does > it differ from knowing how to tie one's shoes? Because we know *about* tying shoes, but jnana knows itself and we come to recognize its existence. > > 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? The knower of Itself. > > 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 ;-). It could be no other way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 14, 2002 Report Share Posted January 14, 2002 , "jodyrrr" <jodyrrr@h...> wrote: > , "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? Only when it's acknowledged as such. > That is, is there anything wrong with being a known > and the knower at the same time. It's not a matter of something being wrong. It's a matter of "knowing" in which there isn't a split between knower and known. Isn't this how jnana > begins, with an understanding of one's true nature > while still being a known? The understanding of one's true nature one has while remaining a known will involve the sense that "I know something." That sense isn't a knowing, it's the known. What begins, ends. So, what "is" when the jnana that began at point a has ended at point b? It's the same "is" that is before jnana began at point a. You could say that knowing "this" is jnana, but saying that, hasn't added anything to, or subtracted anything from "is." Joshu (Chou-chou) when asked what is Buddha Nature said "tree in garden." (He happened to be looking at a tree in the graden). Another time, he responded by kicking a stump that was in front of him. That doesn't mean a tree is Buddha Nature, or kicking a stump is Buddha nature. He could have said those things, if that was what he wanted to say. > > [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. "The knower" isn't an experiential understanding, which can only be one aspect of "the entire field of experience," which includes all apparent beings, births, lives, and deaths. "The knower," is what expresses simultaneously as the entire field. So you, Jody, can claim an experience. And Chou-chou kicks a stump. > This is what jnana is to me. Yes, thank you. For my part, I'm engaging in a dialogue with you. And my part in the dialogue is to indicate that Jody having an idea of jnana is simply an aspect of "the field of the known." It seems, from what you've written, that we agree that this is so. > > > 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. Yes. So, if there is nothing separable, then no discussion is truly significant, nor insignificant. It is not more significant not to discuss anything :-) > > > 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. O.K. Here "this" is: No separation: the one saying what you're saying, and the one saying what I'm saying, and the one who is homeless looking in a garbage can for a scrap or a wine bottle, and the one shining as the sun, and the nonmoving one in which all this appears. > > >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. The way I understand it, the apparent knowing of a separable entity is as much appearance as the apparent separation. For one to say "I know" requires there to be someone else who doesn't know. So, my part in the dialogue is to point to moving through and beyond "I know" ... And we've each played our parts in the dialogue. Only "the knower" is "knowing" and this dialogue hasn't accomplished anything! > > [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. There is only the knower. There is only reality. Unreality is perceiving a separation in which there could be someone dealing with unreality. > > > 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. Yes. It is play. Namaste, Dan 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: [snip] > > That is, is there anything wrong with being a known > > and the knower at the same time. > > It's not a matter of something being wrong. > It's a matter of "knowing" in which there isn't > a split between knower and known. I see. > Isn't this how jnana > > begins, with an understanding of one's true nature > > while still being a known? > > The understanding of one's true nature one has while > remaining a known will involve the sense > that "I know something." That sense isn't a knowing, > it's the known. That sense exists as a reflection of the knower in the mind of the known. > What begins, ends. > So, what "is" when the jnana that began at > point a has ended at point b? > It's the same "is" that is before jnana began at point a. The jnana will not end, and it never began, but there is a beginning to the recognition of it in a life. > You could say that knowing "this" is jnana, > but saying that, hasn't added anything to, > or subtracted anything from "is." Of course. > Joshu (Chou-chou) when asked what is Buddha Nature > said "tree in garden." (He happened to be looking > at a tree in the graden). Another time, he responded > by kicking a stump that was in front of him. > That doesn't mean a tree is Buddha Nature, or kicking > a stump is Buddha nature. He could have said those > things, if that was what he wanted to say. Ok. This doesn't change the phenomenon known to the the list as the discussion. We discuss our coming to spiritual understanding. This might not fly with the roshi, but Ramana and Ramakrishna didn't seem to mind. [snip] > "The knower" isn't an experiential understanding, which can > only be one aspect of "the entire field of experience," > which includes all apparent beings, births, lives, and deaths. The presence of the knower constitutes the experiential understanding. That is, experiential understanding is created in the mind by the knower's being the knower in the context of a life. > "The knower," is what expresses simultaneously as the entire field. And there's a little window to it in each and every member of the field. > So you, Jody, can claim an experience. And Chou-chou kicks a > stump. I guess that makes him cooler than me. > > This is what jnana is to me. > > Yes, thank you. > For my part, I'm engaging in a dialogue with you. > And my part in the dialogue is to indicate that > Jody having an idea of jnana is simply an > aspect of "the field of the known." He knows that. > It seems, from what you've written, that we agree > that this is so. Yep. [snip] > Yes. So, if there is nothing separable, then > no discussion is truly significant, nor insignificant. > It is not more significant not to discuss anything :-) Yep. [snip] > O.K. Here "this" is: > No separation: the one saying what you're saying, > and the one saying what I'm saying, and the > one who is homeless looking in a garbage can > for a scrap or a wine bottle, and the one shining > as the sun, and the nonmoving one in which all > this appears. That's how it is to the knower. [snip] > The way I understand it, the apparent knowing of a separable > entity is as much appearance as the apparent separation. But still a convenient utility in life. > For one to say "I know" requires there to be someone else > who doesn't know. So, my part in the dialogue is to > point to moving through and beyond "I know" ... You're doing a great job. > And we've each played our parts in the dialogue. > > Only "the knower" is "knowing" and this dialogue > hasn't accomplished anything! I guess. I will confess to deriving benefit from it. > > [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. > > There is only the knower. > There is only reality. True. > Unreality is perceiving a separation in which > there could be someone dealing with unreality. I like the term apparent reality. Unreality is what we see on tv. A useful distinction to some. > > > 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. > > Yes. It is play. > > Namaste, > Dan It is play, and it is fun, which is what play likes to be. --jody. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2002 Report Share Posted January 15, 2002 , "jodyrrr" <jodyrrr@h...> wrote: > I like the term apparent reality. Unreality is > what we see on tv. A useful distinction to some. That might be the topic of an interesting inquiry by itself. Is what we see on TV any more or less 'real' than what we see on the streets or at home, or when 'daydreaming', or what we see in sleeping dreams? What's the common factor in these experiences? Namaste, Tim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2002 Report Share Posted January 15, 2002 , "fewtch" <coresite@h...> wrote: > Is what we see on TV any more or less 'real' than what we see on the > streets or at home, or when 'daydreaming', or what we see in > sleeping dreams? What's the common factor in these experiences? Sex? http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Coffeehouse/3908/foreward.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2002 Report Share Posted January 15, 2002 > > Is what we see on TV any more or less 'real' than what we see on > the > > streets or at home, or when 'daydreaming', or what we see in > > sleeping dreams? What's the common factor in these experiences? > > Sex? > ROFLMAO.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2002 Report Share Posted January 15, 2002 , "david bozzi" <david.bozzi@n...> wrote: > , "fewtch" <coresite@h...> wrote: > > > Is what we see on TV any more or less 'real' than what we see on > the > > streets or at home, or when 'daydreaming', or what we see in > > sleeping dreams? What's the common factor in these experiences? > > Sex? Well, maybe some are downloading pornography while sleeping <laugh>. Cheers, Tim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2002 Report Share Posted January 15, 2002 On 1/15/02 at 3:04 PM fewtch wrote: º, "jodyrrr" <jodyrrr@h...> wrote: º> I like the term apparent reality. Unreality is º> what we see on tv. A useful distinction to some. º ºThat might be the topic of an interesting inquiry by itself. Yes. º ºIs what we see on TV any more or less 'real' than what we see on the ºstreets or at home, or when 'daydreaming', or what we see in sleeping ºdreams? What's the common factor in these experiences? Whatever you see on TV doesn't have a smell. Apart from that, depending on location, TV can look like the proverbial netherworld as it is always dark (light intensity here >100,000 lux). The sterile shadow zone so to say. With daydreaming and dreaming, no data available! But any pic is just a pic - observation only. Peace, Jan º ºNamaste, º ºTim º 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 15, 2002 Report Share Posted January 15, 2002 , "jb" <kvy9@l...> wrote: > ºIs what we see on TV any more or less 'real' than what we see on > the ºstreets or at home, or when 'daydreaming', or what we see in > sleeping ºdreams? What's the common factor in these experiences? > > Whatever you see on TV doesn't have a smell. True also, in seeing through a window. > Apart from that, depending on location, TV can look > like the proverbial netherworld as it is always dark > (light intensity here >100,000 lux). The sterile shadow > zone so to say. With daydreaming and dreaming, no > data available! Recently, noticed here that dreams are never 'remembered' anymore -- whether still happening or not is unknown. No such thing as 'daydreams' here... whatever gets attention, gets full and total attention (thus the utter unnecessity of certain 'attention getters' like using first name repeatedly in conversation). > But any pic is just a pic - observation only. > > Peace, > Jan Peace, Tim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2002 Report Share Posted January 15, 2002 > > The understanding of one's true nature one has while > > remaining a known will involve the sense > > that "I know something." That sense isn't a knowing, > > it's the known. > > That sense exists as a reflection of the knower in the > mind of the known. With no mind in the known in which a reflection happens, the knower is, is alone, is all, is empty (of quality or position) ... > > The jnana will not end, and it never began, but there is a > beginning to the recognition of it in a life. When *exactly* did that beginning of recognition begin? A person may say, "it hit me suddenly, early in the morning." But when, *exactly*? I'm asking this, not to be mysterious, but because it turns out it can't be found, when *exactly.* So, the sense that it hit me suddenly one morning is a loose kind of conceptualization, for social speech and interaction. When looked into "with precision," that sense is undermined. The beginningless and endless is truly who one is beyond any question of having incarnated at a specific point in time, in a specific place and culture. snip > Ok. This doesn't change the phenomenon known to the > the list as the discussion. We discuss our coming > to spiritual understanding. This might not fly with the > roshi, but Ramana and Ramakrishna didn't seem to mind. This is second-hand knowledge about other people. What is directly at hand is the beginningless. It has nothing special to do with roshi, Ramana, or Ramakrishna, more than anyone or anything else -- although it is from whence they arise to speak or not speak. What divides you from "this" -- what makes it any more evident "somewhere else" in or as "someone else"? snip > The presence of the knower constitutes the experiential understanding. > That is, experiential understanding is created in the mind by the > knower's being the knower in the context of a life. What happens to that experiential understanding when the knower's being the knower is pure unknown? That is, there is no knower behind the knower, to be the knower of the knower, to know that the knower is the knower? I would put it like this: the sense of any knower evaporates. that evaporation is the knower. the term "emptiness" is suggestive of no quality, nothing associated. Experiential understanding is transcended by virtue of no mind ever having been anywhere, at any time. That a mind seems to be, to have a location, to develop insight -- these seeming perceptions don't occur to someone -- the sense that a mind is beholding reality doesn't have a mind in which it could occur ... Verbally this may sound tricky. But it's not a verbal trick. So, the words can only be for fun, for play. They can't be serious, to impart some truth. Where would be the mind to which such truth could be imparted? Sometimes the word "nothing" is used, but that conveys a lack. The word "boundless" is used, but that conveys an extension of space. > > > "The knower," is what expresses simultaneously as the entire field. > > And there's a little window to it in each and every member of > the field. The field has no separation, so any little window is all windows, is the field ... > > > So you, Jody, can claim an experience. And Chou-chou kicks a > > stump. > > I guess that makes him cooler than me. No, it makes his foot hurt more than yours :-) > > > > This is what jnana is to me. > > > > Yes, thank you. > > For my part, I'm engaging in a dialogue with you. > > And my part in the dialogue is to indicate that > > Jody having an idea of jnana is simply an > > aspect of "the field of the known." > > He knows that. Yes. And his knowing that is equivalent to a stump being kicked, and this is true of my knowing as well. > [snip] > > > O.K. Here "this" is: > > No separation: the one saying what you're saying, > > and the one saying what I'm saying, and the > > one who is homeless looking in a garbage can > > for a scrap or a wine bottle, and the one shining > > as the sun, and the nonmoving one in which all > > this appears. > > That's how it is to the knower. Yes. I'm looking at me from every possible angle, and from every possible angle, the only thing I see (know, experience) is me. Everything known is me, and every knower is me, and there is no distance between the knower and the known ... so the word "me" has no application, but it's fun to say it :-) > > [snip] > > > The way I understand it, the apparent knowing of a separable > > entity is as much appearance as the apparent separation. > > But still a convenient utility in life. Only if that kind of apparent knowing is called for in a situation. And "in" such a situation, I may speak as if I know something, to someone, or as if I don't know something, and they can tell me something. At the same time, the entire situation sits like a little egg within an endless nothing, without being split, so not really within -- and some think this can be called "consciousness" ... it's way more and way less than that, though ... > > For one to say "I know" requires there to be someone else > > who doesn't know. So, my part in the dialogue is to > > point to moving through and beyond "I know" ... > > You're doing a great job. Hey, you, too! > > > And we've each played our parts in the dialogue. > > > > Only "the knower" is "knowing" and this dialogue > > hasn't accomplished anything! > > I guess. I will confess to deriving benefit from it. The "not having accomplished anything" is the benefit, also called "love" sometimes :0) > > There is only the knower. > > There is only reality. > > True. And, so as not to be stifled by itself, it brings forth you and me to dialogue ... We've obliged :-) snip > I like the term apparent reality. Unreality is > what we see on tv. A useful distinction to some. O.K. Makes sense. > It is play, and it is fun, which is what play likes to be. Yes, the play's the thing! Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 16, 2002 Report Share Posted January 16, 2002 "I see what you're doing, and I like it!" --Russell Hammond, lead guitar player of Stillwater. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 16, 2002 Report Share Posted January 16, 2002 , "fewtch" <coresite@h...> wrote: > , "jodyrrr" <jodyrrr@h...> wrote: > > I like the term apparent reality. Unreality is > > what we see on tv. A useful distinction to some. > > That might be the topic of an interesting inquiry by itself. > > Is what we see on TV any more or less 'real' than what we see on the > streets or at home, or when 'daydreaming', or what we see in sleeping > dreams? What's the common factor in these experiences? > > Namaste, > > Tim Dear Tim: This inquiry opens a lot of thoughts for me. The common factor in these experience has to be the ego, the experiencer. Me. I am there in dreams and waking reality. TV shows are real because I fall into the story and react as if they are real. Then I come out of it and assume that because now I see the show as a show it must have been as ureal before as it is "now". That is just like waking reality, when I am involved in something like an argument and take everything seriously and a moment later I regret that I thought my obviously bogus reasons for fighting were actually real. They were real then, they're not now. If I daydream my body does not know it is a dream. Thinking about food makes me hungry. Remembering the past creates emotions in the present and so on. The elements of a tv show create the experiences for me, especially the music, and that is why it is so popular. I cannot but think that that is real, at least in a relative sense, which brings me to another line of thought, reality is relative but only in a subjective sense "." Love Bobby G. 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.