Maharshi-You are already perfect

[Guest guest]

Hi Bob,

 

you know, this kind of argument about the perceiver perceiving the

perceived, or not, about the nature of reality or the conceptual

transcendence of existence etc., - these kinds of discussions I usually do

not enter into. Let me tell you why (I repeat part of the following from one

of my former posts here).

 

You may have heard of the Vienna Circle (Wiener Kreis), a philosophical

school of Logical Positivism around Goedel (of Goedel's Theorem fame),

Carnap, Waismann, and others. I admired them greatly when I was a student,

and still do. Their work centered around the idea of analyzing and

formalizing language so that it could become a vehicle precise enough to

transport philosophical meaning. Well, it turned out that even Formal

Languages are inherently, and of necessity, fraught with limitations and

inconsistencies, so much so that we seem to be reduced to Wittgenstein's

famous dictum enunciated in his Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, "Wovon man

nicht sprechen kann, davon muss man schweigen." (What we cannot speak about

we must pass over in silence.)

 

You may not realize it, but even a simple verb such as "to perceive" will

get us into trouble, because it denotes an extremely fuzzy concept. Most

people will agree that we can perceive through the senses of sight, hearing,

etc. If in a dream we "see" something, can this be called a "perception"? If

we remember something we saw, is this a perception? What if we remember

something we saw, but this remembrance turns out to be erroneous? Are

visions perceptions? Do we perceive numbers (not the characters that denote

them, but the numbers in the sense of Platonic ideas)? Quantum states?

Beauty (remember, what is beautiful to one may be ugly to another)?

Probabilities? Angels? Time? Equations? Happiness? Eternity? God?

 

See the problem? Though we can bandy about glib philosophically-sounding

phrases about "perception", if we are honest with ourselves we must admit

that we are not really sure what exactly we are talking about.

 

The same applies to lofty concepts of "reality", "enlightenment", etc.

 

So when I speak of "loss of reality", to remain on terra firma I confine

myself to very elementary things. For instance, if someone told me that Los

Angeles was the capital of France, I would say he has some problem with

reality. If he were to tell me that he is Teddy Roosevelt (remember the

movie, Arsenic and Old Lace?), or Napoleon Bonaparte, the same thing would

apply. And if he told me that he is on a par with Jesus and Sri Ramana, I

might have some little temporary doubts also. :-)

 

Kindest regards,

 

Michael

 

> -----Ursprungliche Nachricht-----

> Von: hrtbeat7 [hrtbeat7]

> Gesendet: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 22:29

> An:

> Betreff: Re: Maharshi-You are already perfect

>

>

> , MikeSuesserott@t... wrote:

>

> It has to do with perception of reality vs. loss of reality.

>

>

>

> ...Hi Mike!

>

>

> If reality is perceived, then the perceiver must by definition be

> separate enough from reality to perceive it as an object. However, if

> there is only reality -- What Is -- then what is perceiving what?

>

> Furthermore, if reality can be lost, where would it be lost, if there

> is only reality?

>

> Even the so-called un-real (ie: illusion) must be an expression of

> reality, since there is only What Is -- reality.

>

> Perhaps this is why it is said:

> "There is nothing to realize, and nobody to realize anything."

>

> Of course, upon hearing this, most turn such understandings into

> concepts, and even have experiences of such concepts. Nevertheless,

> is such activity anything other than reality having the experience of

> itself as concept?

>

> This is the invitation of the Mystery --

> to fall into our unknowing, our

> natural prior Ignorance,

> with no place to land,

> with nothing to grasp,

> and so be Free.

>

> LoveAlways,

>

> b

>

>

>

>

>

> /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

>

>

[Guest guest]

, MikeSuesserott@t... wrote:

 

Though we can bandy about glib philosophically-sounding

phrases about "perception", if we are honest with ourselves we must

admit that we are not really sure what exactly we are talking about.

 

 

....that's the fun of it!

 

LoveAlways,

 

b

[Guest guest]

on 6/12/02 12:34 PM, MikeSuesserott (AT) t-online (DOT) de at MikeSuesserott (AT) t-online (DOT) de wrote:

And if he told me that he is on a par with Jesus and Sri Ramana, I

might have some little temporary doubts also. :-)

Kindest regards,

Michael

===================

Another follower of Dead Guys Only? If we are all the Only, why should

we doubt one. Like Clarence in "It's a Wonderful Life,if they

believe in angels why can't they accept one when they see one?"

Is it the "not in my backyard" thing (the prophet in his hometown syndrom?)

I am so sorry to hear you have fallen for this Superstar Guru thing!

And only dead ones at that! Would it help if I sprinkle some glitter.

What is this "on a par" nonsense?

your truely,

the One and All

the infintesimally small as well as the infinitely big

the one who's words make angels dance

the one who'd follow half a chance,

me.