Guest guest Posted July 23, 2002 Report Share Posted July 23, 2002 Hello. I'm new to this list, and quite new to the teachings of Nisagadatta. I have no background in conventional Indian yogic philosophy, and some of the things I read in "I am that" I find hard to reconcile (reconcile with what I wonder?). Here is my first query. Nisagadatta often says that the mind creates the world (he also uses the term the universe). Which worlds are they/is it that I am supposed to create? I can see (?) that the world of thoughts, ideas, concepts, feelings, emotions, my inner world, is subjective - created by memory. I can alsosee that mankind's technology, his tables, cars, houses, computers etc have been created by the human mind, but N seems to go further than that. Is he really claiming the mind creates the world of nature, the plants, the trees, the planet, the sun, the stars etc? On the face of it, this sounds ridiculous. Any enlightening comments? Regards Clive Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 23, 2002 Report Share Posted July 23, 2002 Nisargadatta, " Clive Elwell " <jevans@t...> wrote: > Hello. I'm new to this list, and quite new to the teachings of Nisagadatta. I have no background in conventional Indian yogic philosophy, and some of the things I read in " I am that " I find hard to reconcile (reconcile with what I wonder?). > > Here is my first query. > > Nisagadatta often says that the mind creates the world (he also uses the term the universe). Which worlds are they/is it that I am supposed to create? I can see (?) that the world of thoughts, ideas, concepts, feelings, emotions, my inner world, is subjective - created by memory. I can alsosee that mankind's technology, his tables, cars, houses, computers etc have been created by the human mind, but N seems to go further than that. Is he really claiming the mind creates the world of nature, the plants, the trees, the planet, the sun, the stars etc? On the face of it, this sounds ridiculous. > > Any enlightening comments? > > Regards > > Clive ------------------------ Hi Clive: The " mind/inherited memory of man " creates " the world of man " . Mother nature is contained in the " mind of man " . So, in that sense, " the mind of man " even creates " Mother nature " . Someone wrote me yesterday, regarding my last post -- and asked, What is, ~~~~~What Is~~~~~?????? I said, ~~~~~What Is~~~~~ can only be described (via the mind/inherited memory of man) in the negative. Such as: Nothing, not even the idea of Nothing. Such as: Nothing perceivable to the senses or conceivable to the mind-sense. Such as: No Knowing. El .. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 23, 2002 Report Share Posted July 23, 2002 Hi Clive -- It's not just Nisargadatta that says this. For example, David Loy, a scholar of nondual Buddhist teachings, says the same. The mind creates the concept " out there " and then places an observer " in here. " Now, " things " can be formulated which are seen " out there. " Of course, these things seem to have an independent existence. A tree stays in its yard, and the yard stays in front of the house. These things don't appear when I walk down the street, and disappear when I turn onto the next block. The individual mind then, is itself a placement, a construction. Thus, inquiry often moves to " who " am I, " who " is constructing this mind, which constructs a reality around it's supposed " self " ? One could also inquire, " where is this taking place? " Where is this reality seemingly divided into subjects " in here " and " things out there " being constructed? Back to the question of seeming independently existing things. This was the topic for the Buddha's inquiry, and led to the teaching of " [inter]dependent [co]origination. " Once this teaching is clarified, it is no longer a matter of " my mind makes the world out there appear " -- that teaching is actually provided for those still conceptualizing reality as a cause and effect proposition, in which something makes something else be there. Dependent origination means that nothing makes something happen, everything ends up depending on everything else. Nothing creates the world. If mind creates the world, then what creates mind -- and what creates that? The subject is there in the object, and the object exists in the subject. Namaste, Dan Nisargadatta, " Clive Elwell " <jevans@t...> wrote: > Hello. I'm new to this list, and quite new to the teachings of Nisagadatta. I have no background in conventional Indian yogic philosophy, and some of the things I read in " I am that " I find hard to reconcile (reconcile with what I wonder?). > > Here is my first query. > > Nisagadatta often says that the mind creates the world (he also uses the term the universe). Which worlds are they/is it that I am supposed to create? I can see (?) that the world of thoughts, ideas, concepts, feelings, emotions, my inner world, is subjective - created by memory. I can alsosee that mankind's technology, his tables, cars, houses, computers etc have been created by the human mind, but N seems to go further than that. Is he really claiming the mind creates the world of nature, the plants, the trees, the planet, the sun, the stars etc? On the face of it, this sounds ridiculous. > > Any enlightening comments? > > Regards > > Clive Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 23, 2002 Report Share Posted July 23, 2002 Dear Clive, Check out Michael's mail on nondual bumper sticks. That's the essence :-) The rest is bull! My attempts at muddling you up further as regards your questions : What is that in the absence of which the stars,skies and mountains fail to be cognized by the mind? What is it that lends " currency " to events that transpire in your " world " ? Do you realize your true nature : that you create a thousand universes and sustain them ? And finally, all questions are homogenously and completely ridiculous.This realization is wisdom! Namaste, ------ Anand. --- Clive Elwell <jevans wrote: > Hello. I'm new to this list, and quite new to the > teachings of Nisagadatta. I have no background in > conventional Indian yogic philosophy, and some of > the things I read in " I am that " I find hard to > reconcile (reconcile with what I wonder?). > > Here is my first query. > > Nisagadatta often says that the mind creates the > world (he also uses the term the universe). Which > worlds are they/is it that I am supposed to create? > I can see (?) that the world of thoughts, ideas, > concepts, feelings, emotions, my inner world, is > subjective - created by memory. I can alsosee that > mankind's technology, his tables, cars, houses, > computers etc have been created by the human mind, > but N seems to go further than that. Is he really > claiming the mind creates the world of nature, the > plants, the trees, the planet, the sun, the stars > etc? On the face of it, this sounds ridiculous. > > Any enlightening comments? > > Regards > > Clive > > ______________________ Want to sell your car? advertise on Autos Classifieds. It's Free!! visit http://in.autos. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 23, 2002 Report Share Posted July 23, 2002 Yes! ----- Anand. > Hi Clive: > > The " mind/inherited memory of man " creates " the > world of man " . > > Mother nature is contained in the " mind of man " . > So, in that sense, " the mind of man " even creates > " Mother > nature " . > > > Someone wrote me yesterday, > regarding my last post -- > and asked, > What is, ~~~~~What Is~~~~~?????? > > I said, > ~~~~~What Is~~~~~ > can only be described (via the mind/inherited memory > of man) > in the negative. > > Such as: Nothing, not even the idea of Nothing. > > Such as: Nothing perceivable to the senses or > conceivable to the > mind-sense. > > Such as: No Knowing. > > El > > > . > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 23, 2002 Report Share Posted July 23, 2002 El wrote:The "mind/inherited memory of man" creates "the world of man".Mother nature is contained in the "mind of man".So, in that sense, "the mind of man" even creates "Mother nature".When i look at that tree out of the window, is it "contained in my mind"? Surely the brain forms an image in consciousness of that tree? The actual tree is out there in the garden, not in the mind? If every human being on the planet disappeared tomorrow, that tree would still be out there, no? Even if there was no one to perceive it? So I don't understand " "the mind of man" even creates "Mother nature". Clive Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 23, 2002 Report Share Posted July 23, 2002 Dan wrote: The individual mind then, is itself a placement, a construction.Thus, inquiry often moves to "who" am I, "who" is constructing this mind, which constructs a reality around it's supposed "self"? To focus on just a part of what was written, is there a need to postulate a who, a constructor of the mind? Is it not possible that the mind simply a construction of the memory of mankind, in a kind of perverted natural process? Doesn't the mind create the illusion of an entity which creates it? Clive Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 23, 2002 Report Share Posted July 23, 2002 Nisargadatta, " Clive Elwell " <jevans@t...> wrote: > > > > El wrote: > > The " mind/inherited memory of man " creates " the world of man " . > > Mother nature is contained in the " mind of man " . > So, in that sense, " the mind of man " even creates " Mother > nature " . > > When i look at that tree out of the window, is it " contained in my mind " ? Surely the brain forms an image in consciousness of that tree? The actual tree is out there in the garden, not in the mind? > If every human being on the planet disappeared tomorrow, that tree would still be out there, no? Even if there was no one to perceive it? > So I don't understand " " the mind of man " even creates " Mother nature " . > Clive ---------------------- Clive - before you go to bed tonight, go outside and look up at the sky, ~~~~w/out using memory~~~~ i.e. remembered names, remembered shapes, remembered algebraic equations, remembered symbols, remembered colors, remembered teachings, remembered hearsay, etc. etc. Tomorrow, tell us it. El .. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 23, 2002 Report Share Posted July 23, 2002 Nisargadatta, " el_wells_2002 " <elizabethwells@m...> wrote: > Nisargadatta, " Clive Elwell " <jevans@t...> wrote: > > > > > > > > El wrote: > > > > The " mind/inherited memory of man " creates " the world of > man " . > > > > Mother nature is contained in the " mind of man " . > > So, in that sense, " the mind of man " even creates " Mother > > nature " . > > > > When i look at that tree out of the window, is it " contained in > my mind " ? Surely the brain forms an image in consciousness of > that tree? The actual tree is out there in the garden, not in the > mind? > > If every human being on the planet disappeared tomorrow, > that tree would still be out there, no? Even if there was no one to > perceive it? > > So I don't understand " " the mind of man " even creates > " Mother nature " . > > Clive > > ---------------------- > > Clive - > > before you go to bed tonight, > go outside and look up at the sky, > ~~~~w/out using memory~~~~ > i.e. remembered names, > remembered shapes, > remembered algebraic equations, > remembered symbols, > remembered colors, > remembered teachings, > remembered hearsay, > etc. etc. > > Tomorrow, tell us it. > > El > > . ------------ Tell us about it. (missed a word). .. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 23, 2002 Report Share Posted July 23, 2002 > To focus on just a part of what was written, is there a need to postulate a who, a constructor of the mind? Is it not possible that the mind simply a construction of the memory of mankind, in a kind of perverted natural process? Well, that inquiry is only for so long as you believe there is something into which to inquire. But you believe there is a mind, and a memory of mankind -- so inquiry into how those things come about -- makes sense to me. However that inquiry occurs, it might not be into a " who, " but perhaps into a " process of becoming " ... Now, you've brought in a perverted natural process ... Wow, what could pervert it? Something unnatural? Where did it come from? > Doesn't the mind create the illusion of an entity which creates it? If mind creates the illusion of an entity which creates it, then how is it that there is a mind with such abilities? If you say it is produced by memories, then how is it that there can be memories that act to produce something? Don't give up on inquiry -- move into it until all drops of itself ... Unceasing inquiry is for " the few " -- most find places to become complacent -- whether that be in pursuing " things " or " having a spiritual experience " -- it all amounts to the same -- an attempt to postpone the end ... :-) -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 23, 2002 Report Share Posted July 23, 2002 --- dan330033 <dan330033 wrote: > Hi Clive -- > > > > One could also inquire, " where is this taking > place? " > > Where is this reality seemingly divided into > subjects " in here " > and " things out there " being constructed? > > Back to the question of seeming independently > existing > things. This was the topic for the Buddha's > inquiry, > and led to the teaching of " [inter]dependent > [co]origination. " > > Once this teaching is clarified, it is no longer a > matter > of " my mind makes the world out there appear " -- > that > teaching is actually provided for those still > conceptualizing reality as a cause and effect > proposition, > in which something makes something else be there. > > Dependent origination means that nothing makes > something > happen, everything ends up depending on everything > else. > > Nothing creates the world. > If mind creates the world, then what > creates mind -- and what creates that? > > The subject is there in the object, > and the object exists in the subject. > > Namaste, > Dan Hi Dan, In others words there is no outside or inside. Pure mind is an indivisible component of the universe. neither out there, nor in here. Neither creator, nor creature. The deluded mind is co-creator of the world we see full of disconnected entities. Does such world exist without delusion? Does the universe itself exist without anyone to be conscious of it? A meaningless question because who would notice it if it didn't exist. )) Best wishes, Pete Sign up for SBC Dial - First Month Free http://sbc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 24, 2002 Report Share Posted July 24, 2002 Hi Clive, welcome aboard on a boat that goes nowhere and yet everywhere. don't you love the nondual poetry? to me maharaj's words are like poetry. words that can hook you in and destroy you. the first time i read a chapter from " i am that " this particular quote stuck in my mind like poetry. " Myself and everybody else appear and disappear in your world. We are all at your mercy. " anyway, as to your questions, do you have a particular N quote as an example? hur Nisargadatta, " Clive Elwell " <jevans@t...> wrote: > Hello. I'm new to this list, and quite new to the teachings of Nisagadatta. I have no background in conventional Indian yogic philosophy, and some of the things I read in " I am that " I find hard to reconcile (reconcile with what I wonder?). > > Here is my first query. > > Nisagadatta often says that the mind creates the world (he also uses the term the universe). Which worlds are they/is it that I am supposed to create? I can see (?) that the world of thoughts, ideas, concepts, feelings, emotions, my inner world, is subjective - created by memory. I can alsosee that mankind's technology, his tables, cars, houses, computers etc have been created by the human mind, but N seems to go further than that. Is he really claiming the mind creates the world of nature, the plants, the trees, the planet, the sun, the stars etc? On the face of it, this sounds ridiculous. > > Any enlightening comments? > > Regards > > Clive Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 24, 2002 Report Share Posted July 24, 2002 Anand asked: " Do you realize your true nature : that you createa thousand universes and sustain them ?" If one may ask, does Anand realise his true nature? Clive Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 24, 2002 Report Share Posted July 24, 2002 EL wrote: > > before you go to bed tonight,> go outside and look up at the sky,> ~~~~w/out using memory~~~~ > i.e. remembered names, > remembered shapes,> remembered algebraic equations, > remembered symbols,> remembered colors, > remembered teachings,> remembered hearsay,> etc. etc.> > Tomorrow, tell us it.> Yes it is a good challenge. To look without the response of memory. A challenge that has not yet been met. I was going to write "a challenge I have not yet met", buy have could "I" possibly meet it, when "I", the ego self, am those accumulated memories. We'll keep at it. Clive Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 24, 2002 Report Share Posted July 24, 2002 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Wednesday, July 24, 2002 9:56 AM Re: Which world does the mind create > To focus on just a part of what was written, is there a need to postulate a who, a constructor of the mind? Is it not possible that the mind simply a construction of the memory of mankind, in a kind of perverted natural process?Well, that inquiry is only for so long as you believe there is something into which to inquire.But you believe there is a mind, and a memory of mankind -- so inquiry into how those things come about -- makes sense to me. However that inquiry occurs, it might not be into a "who," but perhaps into a "process of becoming" ... Clive: I believe nothing. I enquire into these things, relising there are many underlying assumptions behind the questions the mind comes up with. And yes, i take your point that enquiry itself is ultimately limited. Perhaps we have to enquire to come upon these limitations, which appear to be real. Now, you've brought in a perverted natural process ...Wow, what could pervert it? Something unnatural? Where did it come from? Clive: By "perverted" one is refering to the existance of the ego, the entity created by thought, the attempt at continuity in a "thinker". There seems reason to regard this process at "unnatural", when one sees how it isolates. As to where it came from, that is a very interesting question. I have from time to time had various ideas on the matter, but really, I don't know.> Doesn't the mind create the illusion of an entity which creates it?If mind creates the illusion of an entity which creates it,then how is it that there is a mind with such abilities?If you say it is produced by memories, then how is it that there can be memories that act to produce something? Clive: let me make one thing clear - there is no authority implied in what one might communicate. It does not imply some ultimate "knowing". Hopefully there is a possibility of enquiring together, a process which although it may not lead to "truth", may help us to discard what is false.Don't give up on inquiry -- move into it until all drops of itself ...Unceasing inquiry is for "the few" -- most find places to become complacent -- whether that be in pursuing "things" or "having a spiritual experience" -- it all amounts to the same -- an attempt to postpone the end ... :-)-- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 24, 2002 Report Share Posted July 24, 2002 Hurg wrote: Hi Clive, welcome aboard on a boat that goes nowhere and yet everywhere. don't you love the nondual poetry? to me maharaj's words are like poetry. words that can hook you in and destroy you. the first time i read a chapter from "i am that" this particular quote stuck in my mind like poetry. "Myself andeverybody else appear and disappear in your world. We are all at yourmercy." anyway, as to your questions, do you have a particular N quote as an example?hur Clive: Yes, I have been moved by the pure poetry of his words. Also his analagies - they stem from a simple natural world, and are very effective. How About "without you, neither the universe nor its cause could have come into being" (page 502, I am That) And "the world is but a reflection of my imagination......the world is in me, the world is myself" (page 28) Clive Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 24, 2002 Report Share Posted July 24, 2002 Hi Pete -- > Hi Dan, > > In others words there is no outside or inside. Yes. There is no real outside or inside, as these are conceptual, relative, and depend on having made some kind of definition based on no substantial ground. We could call this primary definition the " I " , " self " , or " identity of anything. " > Pure > mind is an indivisible component of the universe. > neither out there, nor in here. Okay. But then, calling it " pure mind " gives the impression that something about it can be known. With no location for a knower, there is no known. > Neither creator, nor > creature. The deluded mind is co-creator of the world > we see full of disconnected entities. Does such world > exist without delusion? It is a concept, as long as there seems to be a knower, and something about which to know. > Does the universe itself exist > without anyone to be conscious of it? A meaningless > question because who would notice it if it didn't > exist. )) Existence and nonexistence are categories that depend on entities established inside or outside. There is no question about whether or not something exists or doesn't exist, whether that be an aardvaark or a universe, when there is neither inside nor outside. Cheery namastes, Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 24, 2002 Report Share Posted July 24, 2002 > Clive: I believe nothing. I enquire into these things, relising there are many underlying assumptions behind the questions the mind comes up with. > And yes, i take your point that enquiry itself is ultimately limited. Perhaps we have to enquire to come upon these limitations, which appear to be real. D: Yes. That is inquiry. Once the assumptions of the inquiry are clarified as imagined, then it must dissolve. Inquiry must include everything taken to be real, and particularly the one who is able to know what is real. > Clive: By " perverted " one is refering to the existance of the ego, the entity created by thought, the attempt at continuity in a " thinker " . There seems reason to regard this process at " unnatural " , when one sees how it isolates. I'm not at all sure what would make that unnatural. I also don't see how such a judgment could apply for one who has no beliefs. Similarly, how can you say an ego exists, if you believe nothing? Where is this ego? How big is it, how do you measure it? Where did it come from and where does it go? If you believe nothing, then how can such a continuing thought-entity have any ground to seemingly exist for you? > As to where it came from, that is a very interesting question. I have from time to time had various ideas on the matter, but really, I don't know. Are you sure then, that it did come? Are you sure there really is an ego on the scene, anywhere? > Clive: let me make one thing clear - there is no authority implied in what one might communicate. It does not imply some ultimate " knowing " . Hopefully there is a possibility of enquiring together, a process which although it may not lead to " truth " , may help us to discard what is false. Are you authoritatively saying, in an ultimate way, that there is and will be no authority or ultimacy implied in anything communicated? If I know what changes and what doesn't change are not two, then what concern for me about statements for or against ultimacy -- any statement is an aspect of " coming and going " ... Peace, Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 24, 2002 Report Share Posted July 24, 2002 Dear Clive, What do you think? ruby-studded namastes, ----- Anand Would not the acceptance/denial of " my " realizatin of " my " true nature be in phenomenality ? Hence is the question not ridiculous( though very very natural)? --- Clive Elwell <jevans wrote: > Anand asked: > " Do you realize your true nature : that you > create > a thousand universes and sustain them ? " > > If one may ask, does Anand realise his true nature? > > Clive > ______________________ Want to sell your car? advertise on Autos Classifieds. It's Free!! visit http://in.autos. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 24, 2002 Report Share Posted July 24, 2002 Dan,Clive, Very interesting exchange! > > > To focus on just a part of what was written, is > there a need to > postulate a who, a constructor of the mind? Is it > not possible that > the mind simply a construction of the memory of > mankind, in a kind of > perverted natural process? > > Well, that inquiry is only for so long as you > believe there is something into which to > inquire. > > But you believe there is a mind, and a memory of > mankind -- > so inquiry into how those things come about -- > makes sense > to me. However that inquiry occurs, it might > not be > into a " who, " but perhaps into a " process of > becoming " ... > Clive: I believe nothing. I enquire into these > things, relising there are many underlying > assumptions behind the questions the mind comes up > with. > And yes, i take your point that enquiry itself is > ultimately limited. Perhaps we have to enquire to > come upon these limitations, which appear to be > real. > The assumption underlying your argument is that there is control , there is validity in causality(something you can do to get outta this adder's pit ) I question these. > > Now, you've brought in a perverted natural process > ... > > Wow, what could pervert it? Something unnatural? > Where did it come from? > > Clive: By " perverted " one is refering to the > existance of the ego, the entity created by thought, > the attempt at continuity in a " thinker " . There > seems reason to regard this process at " unnatural " , > when one sees how it isolates. > As to where it came from, that is a very > interesting question. I have from time to time had > various ideas on the matter, but really, I don't > know. > Is there a way out of this self-destructive pattern(ego thinking up a concept labelled " ego " and wanting it's collapse) The wanting to do something about the " perverted " process too occurs to the ego. Can you not accept that perversion as a part of the Truth ?To whom do any contradictions occur? Is it not again to the ego? > > > Doesn't the mind create the illusion of an > entity which creates it? > > If mind creates the illusion of an entity which > creates it, > then how is it that there is a mind with such > abilities? Why cannot there be a mind with such abilities : to be deluded into being attributed to individuals? > > If you say it is produced by memories, then how is > it that > there can be memories that act to produce > something? > > Clive: let me make one thing clear - there is no > authority implied in what one might communicate. It > does not imply some ultimate " knowing " . Hopefully > there is a possibility of enquiring together, a > process which although it may not lead to " truth " , > may help us to discard what is false. > > Don't give up on inquiry -- move into it until > all drops of itself ... > > Unceasing inquiry is for " the few " -- most find > places > to become complacent -- whether that be in > pursuing > " things " or " having a spiritual experience " -- > it > all amounts to the same -- an attempt to > postpone > the end ... :-) So what is the solution ? Acceptance of one's misery as part of " What is " ? If your reply is in the affirmitive , I beam with joy! ---- Anand. ______________________ Want to sell your car? advertise on Autos Classifieds. It's Free!! visit http://in.autos. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 24, 2002 Report Share Posted July 24, 2002 > > > Yes, lets keep at it! > > Who/what sees that? > > I do! > > And what/what am I? > And who does that thought occur to? Ad infinitum ..... :-) Anand. ______________________ Want to sell your car? advertise on Autos Classifieds. It's Free!! visit http://in.autos. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 24, 2002 Report Share Posted July 24, 2002 Nisargadatta, Anand Eswaran <anandesw> wrote: > > > > > > > Yes, lets keep at it! > > > > Who/what sees that? > > > > I do! > > > > And what/what am I? > > > > > And who does that thought occur to? Ad infinitum > .... > :-) > Anand. > ----------------- Yes,until it clicks, there is no answer in phenomenality to that question! El Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 24, 2002 Report Share Posted July 24, 2002 Hi Anand -- > Dan,Clive, > > Very interesting exchange! Great! We live to keep you interested, Anand! > The assumption underlying your argument is that > there is control , there is validity in > causality(something you can do to get outta this > adder's pit ) > > I question these. Yes, all is to be questioned. With any question, arises the questioner, the knower. So, the final question is whether there is a basis to establish a knower. When it is clear that this assumption can't be found to be valid or invalid, what happens to questioning? What happens to the knower and the known? Any answer will imply a knower, a responder -- so from here on there's just " fun and games " ... > Why cannot there be a mind with such abilities : to > be deluded into being attributed to individuals? Because such a mind would have to be known as a mind which could be attributed to an individual. Who is being aware of this mind? It is the same question as above. When you can't validate a knower of the mind, what happens to the known which depends on the knower? > So what is the solution ? Acceptance of one's misery > as part of " What is " ? If your reply is in the > affirmitive , I beam with joy! Ah, so my misery is your joy? What a great arrangement! If clear that sorrow is known only in relation to joy, and vice versa, one's misery can't really be a problem to be solved, anymore than one would try to solve the problem of the earth going around the sun. -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 24, 2002 Report Share Posted July 24, 2002 hi all,a description of reality presumes that one can take a step out of it.. i really did my best.. but i failed :-)jeroen Health - Feel better, live better Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 24, 2002 Report Share Posted July 24, 2002 --- nyx <sphurna wrote: > > hi all, > a description of reality presumes that one can take > a step out of it.. No the true perception of reality is in accepting that there is no way out. i really did my best.. but i > failed :-) That realization is your greatest victory! Namaste, Anand. > ______________________ Want to sell your car? advertise on Autos Classifieds. It's Free!! visit http://in.autos. 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.