Guest guest Posted May 16, 2004 Report Share Posted May 16, 2004 , "E. J. Shearn" <ejs22_2000> wrote: > , "texasbg2000" > <Bigbobgraham@a...> wrote: > > > > > Hi Eugene: > > > > I agree that the idea of consciousness and the discussion about it > > are subjective. For me the "World" is simply ideas and nothing > > more. It is not real in the same way I am real. I am not an idea, > I > > do not have to think of myself to know that. > > > > If I do think of myself, that thought fits into a realationship > with > > other things. That is, to think of something, I must have a > structure > > to fit it into. That structure is the World. A thought about me in > > the World is not the real me. It is an idea. > > > S'up Eugene: > Hi Bobby, > I know what you are saying is logical and reasonable, but something > seems fishy here. If you do think of yourself, it's not yourself, > it's only an idea, is that what your are saying? Yes. > > So you can't ever really think of your self at all, ever, right? Well you can obviously think about yourself. I know I do. > And "the World" that this not the "real you" is in relationship > with...real or not? This is not clear. If you meant "And the world that this not the real you is in relationship with...is it real or not?", I could try to answer. No. That relationship is a mental or abstract structure, the opposite of concrete. > What supports this relationship? > What is it made of? The infinite world ground or potential. Prakriti is the Sanskrit word. I.19 and IV.2 of the Yoga Sutra of Patanjali. IV. 1-19 is particularly good. Many various thoughts and structures can be built on the available potetial raw material of the perceptions. Some are filled with contradictions and collapse. When a set of ideas is sufficiently elaborate and not too contradictory, people can share it and be understood, even convincing. > > > > > > > The anology of not needing a light to see a light > > > falls short because the "darkness" is only apparent as the > imagined > > > subject, which of course is an object...but subject and object > are > > > not two, or even one thing, actually. > > > > > > Something recently read in Wei Wu Wei; > > > from Ask The Awakened, chapter 52 > > > > > > "Kakuan, a master of the 12th century made a significant > > statement > > > when he said, 'Through delusion one makes everything (everything > > > becomes) untrue. Delusion is not caused by objectivity; it is the > > > result of (personal) subjectivity.' > > > This seems to mean that everything interpited by the mind > that > > is > > > subjected to an I-concept is delusional, but that if the false > > > identification is eliminated perceptions (then "pure" > perceptions) > > > are not delusive, for they are purely objective." > > > > I like that, thanks. > > > > Love > > Bobby G. > > > > > Be carefull with ole' Wei Wu...he'll negate the crap out of both > you's and your worlds! Neti neti to that. > > LOl > Thanks Bobby > Eugene Nice chatting Love Bobby G. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 17, 2004 Report Share Posted May 17, 2004 , "texasbg2000" <Bigbobgraham@a...> wrote: > > > S'up Eugene: > > > > Hi Bobby, > > I know what you are saying is logical and reasonable, but something > > seems fishy here. If you do think of yourself, it's not yourself, > > it's only an idea, is that what your are saying? > > Yes. > > > > > So you can't ever really think of your self at all, ever, right? > > > Well you can obviously think about yourself. I know I do. Hi Bobby But you said you can only think of an idea of self, not yourself? At this point my inquirey is who's thinking who's thinking who? LOL (Sorry Warwick) :-))) > > > > And "the World" that this not the "real you" is in relationship > > with...real or not? > > > This is not clear. If you meant "And the world that this not the > real you is in relationship with...is it real or not?", I could try > to answer. No. That relationship is a mental or abstract structure, > the opposite of concrete. So it's not real...OK...gee, for something not real these two, the not self idea and the mental, abstract, opposite of concrete world sure gets alot of press don't they...LOL > > What supports this relationship? > > What is it made of? > > The infinite world ground or potential. Prakriti is the Sanskrit > word. I.19 and IV.2 of the Yoga Sutra of Patanjali. IV. 1-19 is > particularly good. > > Many various thoughts and structures can be built on the available > potetial raw material of the perceptions. Some are filled with > contradictions and collapse. When a set of ideas is sufficiently > elaborate and not too contradictory, people can share it and be > understood, even convincing. yes...LOL...so you're saying the source of the relationship is the "raw material of perception"? > > Nice chatting > Love > Bobby G. Cheers thnaks for letting me play Eugene Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 17, 2004 Report Share Posted May 17, 2004 , "E. J. Shearn" <ejs22_2000> wrote: > , "texasbg2000" > <Bigbobgraham@a...> wrote: > > > > > > > S'up Eugene: > > > > > > > Hi Bobby, > > > I know what you are saying is logical and reasonable, but > something > > > seems fishy here. If you do think of yourself, it's not yourself, > > > it's only an idea, is that what your are saying? > > > > Yes. > > > > > > > > So you can't ever really think of your self at all, ever, right? > > > > > > Well you can obviously think about yourself. I know I do. > > > Hi Bobby > But you said you can only think of an idea of self, not yourself? > At this point my inquirey is who's thinking who's thinking who? > LOL > (Sorry Warwick) :-))) Hi Eugene: Warwick is probably laughing right now. Thinking what a mess I have gotten myself into. There are two I's. I and "II". Just to be clear, you can think of the I but not the "II". But to really thrash a dead horse, the first is the mind's image of the second. > And "the World" that this not the "real you" is in relationship > > > with...real or not? > > > > > > This is not clear. If you meant "And the world that this not the > > real you is in relationship with...is it real or not?", I could try > > to answer. No. That relationship is a mental or abstract > structure, > > the opposite of concrete. > > So it's not real...OK...gee, for something not real these two, the > not self idea and the mental, abstract, opposite of concrete world > sure gets alot of press don't they...LOL When someone believes there is a real world (objective world)that one either sees correctly or does not, he makes an error that affects every judgment. A world view that allows for another's world view will allow that there is no objective world which "should" be viewed in a certain way. The press is full of examples of the "objective world" point of view. > > > > > What supports this relationship? > > > What is it made of? > > > > The infinite world ground or potential. Prakriti is the Sanskrit > > word. I.19 and IV.2 of the Yoga Sutra of Patanjali. IV. 1-19 is > > particularly good. > > > > Many various thoughts and structures can be built on the available > > potetial raw material of the perceptions. Some are filled with > > contradictions and collapse. When a set of ideas is sufficiently > > elaborate and not too contradictory, people can share it and be > > understood, even convincing. > > yes...LOL...so you're saying the source of the relationship is > the "raw material of perception"? Yes, the Self. Why shouldn't the whole thing have an identity. It seems like I do. > > > > > > Nice chatting > > Love > > Bobby G. > > Cheers > thnaks for letting me play > Eugene Many yuks, 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.