Guest guest Posted October 26, 2004 Report Share Posted October 26, 2004 Dear Antoine, :-) My comment in no way tried to implicate that you did not understand, but I'm sure you knew that. (That's why in my 'response' I did not mention that you sent the quote.) I actually wanted to show the correlation between thought/world and wave/particle. I also wanted to indicate that thought/world and wave/particle are descriptions of relative perceptions influenced by concepts. Reality is 'realer' than what we tend to describe as reality. I joyfully see you Antoine as someone who's got it!! That's why I said a few of my posts back that I value you highly. Wim , Antoine Carré <antoine.carre@s...> wrote: > Hello Wim, > > Who is valuing, like you say, "'thought' more than 'world' or 'world' less then 'thought'?" > > It only brings out the mutual and reciprocal (<=>) dependence of thought and world, according to my reading. But I must say that my reading is bias. > > If I reverse the words in the first sentence, as an example: > > Apart from _world_, there is no independent entity called _though_. > > For 'some' maybe it way mean something different then the initial sentence. To me it means the same. > > It's not the words we need to change... > > The _message_ is there behind every object of this world or behind any symbol of this mind. > > Antoine > > > - > Wim Borsboom > > > > > Apart from thought, there > > is no independent entity > > called "world". > > > > > > In deep sleep, there are no thoughts > > and there is no world. In waking and > > dreaming, there are thoughts, and there > > is a world. > > > > > > Just as the spider emits the thread (of the web) > > out of itself and then withdraws it, likewise, > > the mind projects the world out of itself and > > then withdraws it back into itself. > > > > Raman Maharshi, Essential Teaching, A Visual Journey > > All this is so often totally misunderstood. > Thought and world are mutually and reciprocal dependent CONCEPTS in > nondual wholeness... > We can compare these two concepts to the two ways in which we can talk > about light... wave-like or particle-like... it just depends on HOW > one is dealing with light. What IT actually is, is more than those > concepts or whatever concepts we use to 'talk about it'. > Better not to use Ramana's text to value 'thought' more than 'world' > or 'world' less then 'thought'. They are conceptual distinctions. When > one reads Ramana very carefully one sees that very clearly. Problem is > that so many translations and commentaries were done by those who did > not understand from the same clarity what Ramana said in clarity. They > used words and sentences that show more about their in-comprehension > than the clear light that Ramana emanated. > > Wim > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 26, 2004 Report Share Posted October 26, 2004 << Dear Antoine, I joyfully see you Antoine as someone who's got it!! That's why I said a few of my posts back that I value you highly. >> Dear Wim, And those words, coming from you, are like a benediction. Antoine 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.