Guest guest Posted June 21, 2001 Report Share Posted June 21, 2001 Hi Tim, Actually they (the Sages, Gurus, Enlightened Ones) all talk that way. The idea is to make us realize that all is suffering and confusion goes with it. It is supposed to force us " out of the box " and to force us to " think for ourselves " as well. It can be very irritating to say the least. If they are so clear, why can't they speak and write clearly? Some answers come to mind immediately: 1) They are speaking across cultures. 2) Often they are dependent also on translators. 3) The meanings of many of the words used shift over time. 4) Many of the words and concepts refer to non-material states of consciousness. (Examples: mental reality - awareness of ideas as objects for instance, psychic states - sensing beyond the material realm into energy spectrums beyond ordinary awareness, spiritual states - including direct awareness of the absolute) 5) The difficulty of expressing an " absolute concept " to people holding " relative consciousness " only while trying to get beyond it. So what is " clarity " ? To paraphrase, " clarity is in the eye of the beholder " ! It is a problem, and we do the best we can with it. John L. 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...
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.