Guest guest Posted April 9, 2002 Report Share Posted April 9, 2002 Dear Bobby, like yourself, I feel that we have been moving in circles here, but of course I am convinced that it's all your fault! :-) Just kidding. It is not easy to discuss things that are really beyond language, by using language. Especially when fuzzy terms such as "knowing", "cognizing", "observing", "perceiving", etc. are in play. Let me make an attempt at simplification. Suppose you are watching a movie. Would you say the movie is real? Probably not, because it is just a projection of light and shadows on a screen. And yet, you cannot truthfully say it is unreal, either, because the screen as well as the light and shadows that make up the movie are as real as it gets in our example. Sure, we can say that all movies are unreal, a statement which will be trivially true, like that multiplication with zero. But if we look more deeply, we see that there is something really going on in actuality in that movie theater. The point is not that what is happening there is not real. The point is that it IS real, but that it is not what it seems to the audience. Sri Ramana says exactly the same thing. Visitor: "Sri Aurobindo says the world is real and you say it is unreal. How can the world be unreal?" Bhagavan: "The Vedantins do not say the world is unreal. That is a misunderstanding. If they did, what would be the meaning of the Vedantic text: 'All this is Brahman'? They only mean that the world is unreal as world, but is real as Self." Kindest regards, Michael > -----Ursprungliche Nachricht----- > Von: texasbg2000 [bigbobgraham] > Gesendet: Tuesday, April 09, 2002 07:47 > An: > Betreff: Re: Zero and Nonexistence in Philosophical > Argument > > > hi Michael: > > We are really just where we started. Let me just respond to your > thoughts because this discussion is something I would like to see go > to the next level. > > , MikeSuesserott@t... wrote: > > Dear Bobby, > > > > thank you for explaining your thoughts so clearly. I believe I have > > understood your meaning now, but in case I haven't, please let me > know. > > > > If I understand you correctly, you seem to say that God or the Self > cannot > > be an observer, because if He were an observer, then by knowing > about His > > observing He would cease to be subject and become object. > > What I meant to convey is that the Self is always the subject. It > cannot be object. That is why it cannot be cognized. It doesn't go > unknown because it is 'knowing' itself. The Self is consciousness > (Aitareya Upanisad) whose nature is that of the subject because there > is nothing that would cognize the Self and thus make it an object. I > would refer you to "Drik, Drisya, Viveka" translated by Ramana, but > a few moments reflection might assure you this is so because it can > be realized directly. > > And you concluded > > from this that any observer would consequently have to be unreal. I > think > > there is a misunderstanding here. > > > The conclusion is that an observer that can be seen is not the > Self. Ramana said that the reason this person or thinker seems so > real is because it is the first thought (aham vritti), and because of > this close proximity to the Self it especially feels real. > I have to believe that is what he is referring to in that quote > below about how we must stop considering what is unreal as real. > > > > > > According to the scriptures, "observing" can, basically, happen in > two > > different ways. One is the ordinary observation process effectuated > through > > the senses, or through certain shaktis or energies, or through > thought > > processes. This might be referred to as observation "from without" - > gaining > > knowledge about phenomena by means of other phenomena. > > > > But there is also another kind of "observing", independent of sense > > perceptions or thought processes. God does not have eyes or a > brain; but if > > He did not observe and remember what is going on in the worlds He > created, > > He would be a very ignorant God! > "He that planted the ear, shall He not > > hear? He that formed the eye, shall He not see? ...He that teacheth > man > > knowledge, shall not He know?" (94th Psalm) > > > > In the scriptures, the way God and God-realized Masters "observe" is > > described as the direct realization of the Knower, the Knowing, and > the > > Known being One - a state which is said to be beyond ordinary human > > understanding. No instruments of knowledge are required for such > observation > > "from within". One of the Upanishads illustrates this direct > observation in > > the following allegoric way: "The blind man finds the pearl, the > armless > > threads it, and the neckless wears it." > > When you live in the present that is exactly the way you perceive, > just as you have described in these quotes. The real Self is always > in the present but when the attention of the mind follows the actions > of an idea the beingness of the Self is obscured. The Real Self is > Real and not somewhere else. > > The feeling of being an observer completely independent of the > observed ~must~ be erroneous perception, because that would be making > the universe into two things and logic tells us it is not. Why else > would we call it Non-dualism? You are not out of the universe while > observing this thing. You are included. The feeling must be a false > assumption. > > The only accurate peception must be that you are the observed as much > as you are the observing and the observer. The real Self is > everything so I have to stop separating myself by pretending to be an > only an observer. We can rationally arrive at this conclusion. Then > if we accept this premise each time the thought of I comes up, we see > it as an illusion and go about our business. Sooner or later it melts > away. This is a Self realized person. You just drop the belief in > the "I". > > Looked at in this way many non-dualist writings are easily understood. > > I would refer you to the last chapter of Ken Wilber's "No Boundary" > on unity consciousness. He describes this very well. This second way > of perceiving that you described happens all the time but is > difficult to see because of the assumption of an "I" that leaps > up. > > > > > Sri Ramana was once asked about some other worlds as described in > the > > scriptures; "do they really exist?" He replied, "Certainly. You can > rest > > assured that they all exist... If one realizes the Self, one can > see all > > these worlds within one's Self." This is the "observation from > within" > > referred to above - the omniscient knowledge a God-realized Master > > possesses, or IS, because he is one with the Great Dreamer Himself. > > > > All worlds are available to one who realizes the Self and nothing is > denied. > > > Kindest regards, > > > > Michael > > > > I regret the pedantic way I have presented these ideas but I could > not think of another way to say them. > I love you, I hope you love me too. > Bobby G.> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 9, 2002 Report Share Posted April 9, 2002 Dear Michael: It is good to let Bhagavan have the last word. Love Bobby G. , MikeSuesserott@t... wrote: > Dear Bobby, > > like yourself, I feel that we have been moving in circles here, but of > course I am convinced that it's all your fault! > :-) > > Just kidding. It is not easy to discuss things that are really beyond > language, by using language. Especially when fuzzy terms such as "knowing", > "cognizing", "observing", "perceiving", etc. are in play. Let me make an > attempt at simplification. > > Suppose you are watching a movie. Would you say the movie is real? Probably > not, because it is just a projection of light and shadows on a screen. And > yet, you cannot truthfully say it is unreal, either, because the screen as > well as the light and shadows that make up the movie are as real as it gets > in our example. > > Sure, we can say that all movies are unreal, a statement which will be > trivially true, like that multiplication with zero. But if we look more > deeply, we see that there is something really going on in actuality in that > movie theater. The point is not that what is happening there is not real. > The point is that it IS real, but that it is not what it seems to the > audience. > > Sri Ramana says exactly the same thing. > > Visitor: "Sri Aurobindo says the world is real and you say it is unreal. How > can the world be unreal?" > > Bhagavan: "The Vedantins do not say the world is unreal. That is a > misunderstanding. If they did, what would be the meaning of the Vedantic > text: 'All this is Brahman'? They only mean that the world is unreal as > world, but is real as Self." > > Kindest regards, > > Michael > > > > -----Ursprungliche Nachricht----- > > Von: texasbg2000 [bigbobgraham@a...] > > Gesendet: Tuesday, April 09, 2002 07:47 > > An: > > Betreff: Re: Zero and Nonexistence in Philosophical > > Argument > > > > > > hi Michael: > > > > We are really just where we started. Let me just respond to your > > thoughts because this discussion is something I would like to see go > > to the next level. > > > > , MikeSuesserott@t... wrote: > > > Dear Bobby, > > > > > > thank you for explaining your thoughts so clearly. I believe I have > > > understood your meaning now, but in case I haven't, please let me > > know. > > > > > > If I understand you correctly, you seem to say that God or the Self > > cannot > > > be an observer, because if He were an observer, then by knowing > > about His > > > observing He would cease to be subject and become object. > > > > What I meant to convey is that the Self is always the subject. It > > cannot be object. That is why it cannot be cognized. It doesn't go > > unknown because it is 'knowing' itself. The Self is consciousness > > (Aitareya Upanisad) whose nature is that of the subject because there > > is nothing that would cognize the Self and thus make it an object. I > > would refer you to "Drik, Drisya, Viveka" translated by Ramana, but > > a few moments reflection might assure you this is so because it can > > be realized directly. > > > > And you concluded > > > from this that any observer would consequently have to be unreal. I > > think > > > there is a misunderstanding here. > > > > > > The conclusion is that an observer that can be seen is not the > > Self. Ramana said that the reason this person or thinker seems so > > real is because it is the first thought (aham vritti), and because of > > this close proximity to the Self it especially feels real. > > I have to believe that is what he is referring to in that quote > > below about how we must stop considering what is unreal as real. > > > > > > > > > > According to the scriptures, "observing" can, basically, happen in > > two > > > different ways. One is the ordinary observation process effectuated > > through > > > the senses, or through certain shaktis or energies, or through > > thought > > > processes. This might be referred to as observation "from without" - > > gaining > > > knowledge about phenomena by means of other phenomena. > > > > > > But there is also another kind of "observing", independent of sense > > > perceptions or thought processes. God does not have eyes or a > > brain; but if > > > He did not observe and remember what is going on in the worlds He > > created, > > > He would be a very ignorant God! > > "He that planted the ear, shall He not > > > hear? He that formed the eye, shall He not see? ...He that teacheth > > man > > > knowledge, shall not He know?" (94th Psalm) > > > > > > In the scriptures, the way God and God-realized Masters "observe" is > > > described as the direct realization of the Knower, the Knowing, and > > the > > > Known being One - a state which is said to be beyond ordinary human > > > understanding. No instruments of knowledge are required for such > > observation > > > "from within". One of the Upanishads illustrates this direct > > observation in > > > the following allegoric way: "The blind man finds the pearl, the > > armless > > > threads it, and the neckless wears it." > > > > When you live in the present that is exactly the way you perceive, > > just as you have described in these quotes. The real Self is always > > in the present but when the attention of the mind follows the actions > > of an idea the beingness of the Self is obscured. The Real Self is > > Real and not somewhere else. > > > > The feeling of being an observer completely independent of the > > observed ~must~ be erroneous perception, because that would be making > > the universe into two things and logic tells us it is not. Why else > > would we call it Non-dualism? You are not out of the universe while > > observing this thing. You are included. The feeling must be a false > > assumption. > > > > The only accurate peception must be that you are the observed as much > > as you are the observing and the observer. The real Self is > > everything so I have to stop separating myself by pretending to be an > > only an observer. We can rationally arrive at this conclusion. Then > > if we accept this premise each time the thought of I comes up, we see > > it as an illusion and go about our business. Sooner or later it melts > > away. This is a Self realized person. You just drop the belief in > > the "I". > > > > Looked at in this way many non-dualist writings are easily understood. > > > > I would refer you to the last chapter of Ken Wilber's "No Boundary" > > on unity consciousness. He describes this very well. This second way > > of perceiving that you described happens all the time but is > > difficult to see because of the assumption of an "I" that leaps > > up. > > > > > > > > Sri Ramana was once asked about some other worlds as described in > > the > > > scriptures; "do they really exist?" He replied, "Certainly. You can > > rest > > > assured that they all exist... If one realizes the Self, one can > > see all > > > these worlds within one's Self." This is the "observation from > > within" > > > referred to above - the omniscient knowledge a God-realized Master > > > possesses, or IS, because he is one with the Great Dreamer Himself. > > > > > > > All worlds are available to one who realizes the Self and nothing is > > denied. > > > > > Kindest regards, > > > > > > Michael > > > > > > > I regret the pedantic way I have presented these ideas but I could > > not think of another way to say them. > > I love you, I hope you love me too. > > 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.