Guest guest Posted April 5, 2000 Report Share Posted April 5, 2000 >T: >What is it that transcends the mind? How could the mind possibly know? D: Even funnier, there is no mind to know anything. Nothing is known, there is nothing to be known, and there is no knower to know anything. This 'nothing' to be known, is to be known *now* as nothing, without any knowledge of the knowing. -- D. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 5, 2000 Report Share Posted April 5, 2000 Hi Tim - snipped some stuff to make this more manageable -- >The mind appears and disappears in consciousness - No it doesn't. Unless you have a photograph of a mind appearing and disappearing, I don't know how you would show this is true. It's an inference only, with not much to validate it beside supposition. while it is apparently >present, it could be said to " exist, " in the same way that a dream has >temporary " reality " until it ends. A dream can be measured by REM brainwaves. How will you measure the appearance and disappearance of a 'mind'? >> D: Nothing is known, there is nothing to be known, >> and there is no knower to know anything. > >T: Or: known, knower and knowledge are one in *knowing* (which again appears >and disappears in consciousness). There is no ultimate consciousness. Consciousness is just a concept that is useful in some situations, not useful in others. >At my level of understanding, there is no perceiver or perceived; >*perception* itself is real enough, but only *present* perception. One >might argue that a perceiver is necessary for perception; I would say that >it is just not so. Before perception, there is neither perceiver nor >perceived. The *instant* perception takes place, in the *NOW*, perceiver >and perceived are " sucked into " the perceptual void and vanish, and only >pure perception or " sensing " (without memory-based identification) remains. > Probably a poor description of what I observe, but it's the best I can do :-) That's what I'm doing, too. What else is there? >> This 'nothing' to be known, is to be known *now* >> as nothing, without any knowledge of the knowing. > >Someone once told me " knowledge binds. " My response now would be " only if >there is attachment to knowledge. " Knowledge, memory, desire, thought... >these things bind only those who are attached - attachment binds. The >witness is never bound, only the " person. " And since the person is unreal, >there is no such thing as bondage. Bondage is a mind-made thing, due to >delusive or incorrect ideas. Correct the perspective and everything else >naturally falls into place. If that's true, there's no bondage since there's no mind. > >Love *IS*, > >Tim *IS* is not, I can't speak my own name. Love, Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 5, 2000 Report Share Posted April 5, 2000 At 09:01 PM 4/5/2000 -0400, you wrote: >>The mind appears and disappears in consciousness - > >No it doesn't. Unless you have a photograph of a mind appearing and > disappearing, I don't know how you would show this is true. > It's an inference only, with not much to validate it beside > supposition. OK, I'll accept that it's an inference, but one that seems valid enough. How to explain the apparent " world? " Movement is apparent in the world; awareness does not move. Something is moving, or seems to be moving. Something disappears in sleep and reappears upon awakening. It seems there are only two choices: Consider the universe as objectively real, or consider it a product of the mind. >A dream can be measured by REM brainwaves. Who measures? :-) If you bring empiricism into this, you're getting yourself into some very hot water :-). > How will you measure > the appearance and disappearance of a 'mind'? Something has to explain the world-appearance. Unless you are negating the world entirely (I.E. " there is no perception at all of any world; only blackness/blankness/glob-of-light is perceived), or giving the world objective reality, there has to be something to explain the presence of perception. No measurement is needed; the mind is the only possible explanation for the appearance and disappearance of the world, whether in dream or in the waking state. But this is nit-picking. I'm unclear whether you're denying existence to the mind, or denying the observation that it appears and disappears in the field of consciousness. >There is no ultimate consciousness. >Consciousness is just a concept that is useful >in some situations, not useful in others. Consciousness might be said to be the " body " of awareness. There is awareness inherent in consciousness, but no consciousness in awareness (i.e. awareness is prior to consciousness - consciousness is always OF something). Again, it appears to me that you are negating the world entirely. If so, you are deluded. The world is a dream, but a dream is not " nonexistent, " simply unreal. >If that's true, there's no bondage since there's no mind. What is it that denies existence to the mind????????????????????????? >*IS* is not, Of course. " IS NOT " *is* as well. There is only the void, full to the brim with Itself. >I can't speak my > own name. > >Love, >Dan You just did speak your own name. There's a contradiction here somewhere :-) Affectionately, Tim ----- The past is memory, the future imaginary. Be Here Now. Visit " The Core " Website at http://coresite.cjb.net - Music, Poetry, Writings on Nondual Spiritual Topics. Tim's other pages are at: http://core.vdirect.net. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 6, 2000 Report Share Posted April 6, 2000 At 06:31 PM 4/5/00 -0700, you wrote: >At 09:01 PM 4/5/2000 -0400, you wrote: > >>>The mind appears and disappears in consciousness - >> >>No it doesn't. Unless you have a photograph of a mind appearing and >> disappearing, I don't know how you would show this is true. >> It's an inference only, with not much to validate it beside >> supposition. > >OK, I'll accept that it's an inference, but one that seems valid enough. >How to explain the apparent " world? " There is no need to explain it. Unless established as a self that requires knowledge, what is the need for an explanation. If established as a self requiring knowledge, no explanation will suffice. Movement is apparent in the world; >awareness does not move. Something is moving, or seems to be moving. The moving and the not-moving are not-two. >Something disappears in sleep and reappears upon awakening. It seems there >are only two choices: Consider the universe as objectively real, or >consider it a product of the mind. Or consider it as not something to be considered :-) >>A dream can be measured by REM brainwaves. > >Who measures? :-) If you bring empiricism into this, you're getting >yourself into some very hot water :-). That's exactly my point regarding 'mind'. Why talk about things that can't be measured as if they were real entities? >> How will you measure >> the appearance and disappearance of a 'mind'? > >Something has to explain the world-appearance. Nothing can be explained. There is no explaining entity. There is no position apart from which to gather explanation. Unless you are negating the >world entirely (I.E. " there is no perception at all of any world; only >blackness/blankness/glob-of-light is perceived), That has nothing to do with it. It's about having no position apart from which to collect and analyze data. or giving the world >objective reality, there has to be something to explain the presence of >perception. No measurement is needed; the mind is the only possible >explanation for the appearance and disappearance of the world, whether in >dream or in the waking state. But this is nit-picking. I'm unclear >whether you're denying existence to the mind, or denying the observation >that it appears and disappears in the field of consciousness. What I'm saying is that because there is no mind, there is nothing to explain. As long as explanation is required, there is activity of " someone " . With explanation laid to rest, this " someone " disappears. >>There is no ultimate consciousness. >>Consciousness is just a concept that is useful >>in some situations, not useful in others. > >Consciousness might be said to be the " body " of awareness. There is >awareness inherent in consciousness, but no consciousness in awareness >(i.e. awareness is prior to consciousness - consciousness is always OF >something). > >Again, it appears to me that you are negating the world entirely. If so, >you are deluded. The world is a dream, but a dream is not " nonexistent, " >simply unreal. The perception of me as an existing entity who can be deluded or not deluded, that is delusion. >>If that's true, there's no bondage since there's no mind. > >What is it that denies existence to the mind????????????????????????? Why establish nonentities as existent, then question what denies reality to those nonentities???????????????? >>*IS* is not, > >Of course. " IS NOT " *is* as well. There is only the void, full to the >brim with Itself. > >>I can't speak my >> own name. >> >>Love, >>Dan > >You just did speak your own name. There's a contradiction here somewhere :-) The contradiction occurs the instant you believe that I've spoken my name. Love, Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 6, 2000 Report Share Posted April 6, 2000 On 5 Apr 00, at 16:28, Dan Berkow, PhD wrote: >What is it that transcends the mind? How could the mind possibly know? It is not the mind, that is transcended, but the content of the mind in a specific phase. Adrian 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.