Guest guest Posted April 6, 2000 Report Share Posted April 6, 2000 At 05:32 PM 4/6/00 +0100, you wrote: >On 5 Apr 00, at 16:28, Dan Berkow, PhD wrote: Actually, Tim wrote the part you snipped and Dan replied to that. > >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 Since I never gave the above statement, I'm free to say this: There is no mind. Therefore, there can be no contents of the mind. -- D. -- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 6, 2000 Report Share Posted April 6, 2000 On 6 Apr 00, at 14:17, Dan Berkow, PhD wrote: > There is no mind. Therefore, there > can be no contents of the mind. > -- D. -- What does it mean, to say: " There is no mind " . From which perspective do you say that? From a certain perspective I can say: " My keyboard is not the keyboard as I see it... " or " There is nothing like a keyboard really " , but to say that there is no keyboard, is not sufficient for me. What do you mean by " is " ? Adrian Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 6, 2000 Report Share Posted April 6, 2000 At 09:21 PM 4/6/00 +0100, you wrote: >On 6 Apr 00, at 14:17, Dan Berkow, PhD wrote: > >> There is no mind. Therefore, there >> can be no contents of the mind. > >> -- D. -- > >What does it mean, to say: " There is no mind " . From which >perspective do you say that? There is nothing observable that is a mind. The mind is an inferred entity. It is constructed by thought, as an image. What is thought? Thought is observable as impulses in the brain. What is the brain?... an entity that is constructed by thought and inference, using sensory information which requires the brain as a processing mechanism. So, the brain observes itself and makes an image of itself through its self-observation. Where does this take place? In the brain. Therefore, the brain is whatever it is that observes itself and forms a picture of itself through its belief that what it is observing is itself. In other words, carefully observed, the whole thing has no place to stand. It's all image built on image, resting on nothing solid whatsoever. It's assumption and inference developing the idea of concrete entities that turn out to be assumption and inference based on nothing. >From a certain perspective I can say: " My keyboard is not the >keyboard as I see it... " or " There is nothing like a keyboard really " , >but to say that there is no keyboard, is not sufficient for me. Then, who is this me, for whom this is not sufficient? Is this me other than an image built upon an image resting on nothing other than inference and assumption? Please don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying there is nothing in the sense of a lack. The nothing I'm looking at here is neither negative nor positive, neither a something nor a nonexistence, neither a category nor a sensation. It's pure unknownness, and the unknownness knows itself, gives itself form, and remains pure unknownness. >What do you mean by " is " ? I mean having a real existence as an entity. The fact that there are no things means that existence and nonexistence are arbitrary categories, used for conventional purposes, and convention turns out to be useful assumptions and inferences that have developed over millenia into habitual patterns of response and configuration. Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 8, 2000 Report Share Posted April 8, 2000 OK, Dan, thank you. Why do you write this down? Mind, I am not trying to catch you. I want more clearness and consistency between you and me. A second question: Are you thankful to be a witness? You say: > Please don't misunderstand me.... Who is that "me"? What does your understanding do for you in this illusionary world, this playing ground of Emptiness, God, the Almighty, Allah? Do you accept or deny the game? Adrian > >> There is no mind. Therefore, there > >> can be no contents of the mind. > > > >> -- D. -- > > > >What does it mean, to say:"There is no mind". From which > >perspective do you say that? > > There is nothing observable that is a mind. The mind is > an inferred entity. It is constructed by thought, as an > image. What is thought? Thought is observable as > impulses in the brain. What is the brain?... an entity > that is constructed by thought and inference, using > sensory information which requires the brain as a processing > mechanism. So, the brain observes itself and makes > an image of itself through its self-observation. Where does > this take place? In the brain. Therefore, the brain is > whatever it is that observes itself and forms a picture of > itself through its belief that what it is observing is > itself. In other words, carefully observed, the whole > thing has no place to stand. It's all image built on image, > resting on nothing solid whatsoever. It's assumption and > inference developing the idea of concrete entities that turn out > to be assumption and inference based on nothing. > > >From a certain perspective I can say: "My keyboard is not the > >keyboard as I see it... " or "There is nothing like a keyboard really", > > but to say that there is no keyboard, is not sufficient for me. > > Then, who is this me, for whom this is not sufficient? > Is this me other than an image built upon an image > resting on nothing other than inference and assumption? > > Please don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying there is nothing > in the sense of a lack. The nothing I'm looking at here is > neither negative nor positive, neither a something nor a nonexistence, > neither a category nor a sensation. It's pure unknownness, and the > unknownness knows itself, gives itself form, and > remains pure unknownness. > > >What do you mean by "is"? > > I mean having a real existence as an entity. > The fact that there are no things means that > existence and nonexistence are arbitrary > categories, used for conventional purposes, > and convention turns out to be useful assumptions > and inferences that have developed over millenia > into habitual patterns of response and configuration. > > Dan > > > ------ > Get a NextCard Visa, in 30 seconds! 1. Fill in the brief application 2. > Receive approval decision within 30 seconds 3. Get rates as low as 2.9% > Intro or 9.9% Fixed APR Apply NOW! > http://click./1/975/6/_/691401/_/955057083/ > ------ > > ..........INFORMATION ABOUT THIS LIST.......... > > Email addresses: > Post message: Realization > Un: Realization- > Our web address: http://www.realization.org > > By sending a message to this list, you are giving > permission to have it reproduced as a letter on > http://www.realization.org > ................................................ > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 8, 2000 Report Share Posted April 8, 2000 At 10:41 AM 4/8/00 +0100, you wrote: > >OK, Dan, thank you. Why do you write this down? Mind, I am not trying to >catch you. I want more clearness and consistency between you and me. I write it to speak the truth as I see/am/experience. >A second question: Are you thankful to be a witness? To witness is to divide the one observing from that which is observed. With no division there can be " opening " and an energy and love that goes with that... >You say: > Please don't misunderstand me.... >Who is that " me " ? Find out for yourself, directly. >What does your understanding do for you in this illusionary world, this >playing ground of Emptiness, God, the Almighty, Allah? Opens. >Do you accept or deny the game? It is urgent to end the game. It is urgent to remember. It is urgent to be as one is. As one is -- there in no pressure to the urgency, and the work is play. Shalom, Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 9, 2000 Report Share Posted April 9, 2000 At 05:24 PM 4/9/00 +0100, you wrote: >On 8 Apr 00, at 15:37, Dan Berkow, PhD wrote: > >> Openness and who one is are not-two. >> The learning is being itself. >> Learning and being are not-two. >> Nothing outside of you has ever >> instructed you. >> The appearance of others saying things >> changes this reality not one whit. > >Dan, > >You may be right. On a certain level, the only unconditioned level, >you are right. > >But I have a difficulty with denying the separatenes of my fingers, >when I play the game of typing you this message. I fully agree, that >the game is an illusion, but it is playing this illusion that enables us >be One in consciousness. > >Adrian Well, of course. How could you type if all of your fingers were fused? I'm not looking for oneness, particularly not some kind of fusion. The One that is, is Unspeakable. The illusion is only One in disguise. The disguise is gone the moment One is revealed. One sees One and only One. The One that is seen is... this tree, that car, this keyboard. Typing is One typing, typing One, each finger One. There is no consciousness for anything to be One in, nor is consciousness lacking. Consciousness itself is merely an aspect of being, abstracted by thought. That which is never abstracted is the Infinity that is, this moment, not separated into categories, freely being -- Love, Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 11, 2000 Report Share Posted April 11, 2000 My Dear, You are God's face now, Looking at me And asking for love. My Dear, Give me His hand. Yes, Your Hand, It's cold today. My Dear, Look at me, I want God to see me through Your eyes. My Dear, How I love that face of God that is You.... 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.