Guest guest Posted June 21, 2001 Report Share Posted June 21, 2001 Hi Tim, I think Ramesh's style is to phrase something in a " non-realized " fashion, then succinctly explain it in a " realized " fashion. It's kinda like, " That stop sign over there is a painted piece of sheet metal on a post. " It never was a stop sign. -mort Nisargadatta, " Omkara " <coresite@h...> wrote: > > Hi John, > > Thanks very much for expounding on this. > > It could just be me, but i would have appreciated the following line: > > " Other than the primal Absolute subjectivity in which all exists, > nothing in fact does exist! " > > Restated like this: > > " Other than the primal Absolute subjectivity in which all seems to > exist, nothing in fact does exist! " > > That would make far more sense (seen here)... as all this talk is (of > necessity) conceptual only, why not make it as clear as possible? > But it's Ramesh's style, who am i to complain ;-). > > Namaste and Thanks, > > Tim > > Nisargadatta, " John Logan " <johnrloganis> wrote: > > Consciousness Only. All that appears is thought. > > Thought has no material basis. > > Therefore, > > there is nothing material that exists. > > > > Another way to look at it is that it is the familiar " shifting the > > ground of discussion from one state to another " and the responder > is > > supposed to follow the shift. Krishnamurti does this kind of thing > > all through his teaching and if one misses the shift in " ground " > then > > one gets quite confused. > > > > I was studying " Symbolic Logic " about the same time I discovered > > Krishnamurti and noticed that others who studied Krishnamurti would > > show much anger at his teaching. So I decided to apply the > principles > > of Symbolic Logic to his writing -- and discovered the " shifting " > (my > > term) of level. In the same paragraph I would find referents to the > > material realm and in the next paragraph he would be referring to a > > mental activity and shift it into the spiritual (absolute). > > > > The most common such " shifting " is between the relative and the > > absolute. Buddhism suffers from the Buddha having taught both > levels > > as appropriate with his hearers and Buddhism has suffered from > > confusion over it ever since. Notice the development of the > Mahayana > > as an attempt to recover from such " shifting " . > > > > In every religion or philosophy when one finds people picking apart > a > > text and debating over the correct understanding of the " words " > then > > usually there is just this kind of confusion arising over a > > distinction between the absolute and the relative in the context of > > the discussion. > > > > Without further study I cannot say what Ramesh was doing, but I > > suspect my opening syllogism expresses it. If one is awake to what > is > > being said then there is no confusion. If confusion arises it > > generally is an indication that one is having a problem dealing > with > > the relative and the absolute in the context. > > > > One of my math teacher's used to drive us nuts as he said, " The > rest > > of the solution is 'transparently obvious'. " Well, transparent to > him > > maybe, but not to us. Getting through that transparancy was > sometimes > > a matter of hours of work on it! Same thing sometimes with Jnani > > Yogis. > > > > Nisargadatta, " Omkara " <coresite@h...> wrote: > > > > > > Dear List, > > > > > > ANetofJewels, " Manuel V. Hernandez " <manuel1498> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Other than the primal Absolute subjectivity in which all > exists, > > > > nothing in fact does exist! > > > > > > Can anyone explain why in the first part of the sentence above, > > > Ramesh (in referring to phenomena) states " in which *all > exists*, " > > > and in the second part of the sentence states " nothing (in fact) > > does > > > exist? " > > > > > > I wonder... is this to place or keep the reader in a state of > > > confusion through " clashing of concepts, " or is it just poor > > > oratorial style? > > > > > > I've noticed this quite often before in these writings, and it > > always > > > seems to appear in the second part (nighttime?) of the daily > > reading. > > > > > > Namaste, > > > > > > Tim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 21, 2001 Report Share Posted June 21, 2001 Nisargadatta, ameyhng@a... wrote: > When you see yourself as nothing, then everything that you read, or > listening to, is very obviously clear. But with the individual > mind, that is trying to compare, segregation, understand the words, > definition, description and meaning...., that creates confusion and > problems. Uhhm, yes, but " when you see yourself as nothing, " you won't be wanting to read the words in the first place... apparently 'you missed the point'. > All there IS, Is Consciousness. Since " Consciousness " has quite a few different definitions (in the most commonly used, only a separate entity can " be conscious of " something), this utterance is 'unhelpful' at best. If anyone ever asks who to read (Nisargadatta or Balsekar), guess who i would recommend without a second thought? :-). Namaste, Tim 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.