Guest guest Posted July 29, 2002 Report Share Posted July 29, 2002 Dan wrote: Conditioning has no real substance.Conditioning, at least in part, consists of thought, does it not? I am wondering if thought can be said to have "substance"? After all, thought is a material process, is it not? Do you not regard matter as having substance? What does have "substance" to you? Clive Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 31, 2002 Report Share Posted July 31, 2002 Nisargadatta, " Clive Elwell " <jevans@t...> wrote: > Dan wrote: > > Conditioning has no real substance. > > Conditioning, at least in part, consists of thought, does it not? I am wondering if thought can be said to have " substance " ? After all, thought is a material process, is it not? Do you not regard matter as having substance? > > What does have " substance " to you? > > Clive Substance is an idea that has no meaning apart from the knower of that idea, who invented it to contrast with " insubstantiality. " Concepts supply the idea of measurability, but their own substantiality can't have measurable determinacy, because the measurements depend on the concept of " one who measures. " The only " real substance " is what remains when no one is assumed to be there, to determine what is substantial or insubstantial. This " true substance " has no dimensionality, no placement, no qualities -- certainly not those associated with " materiality, " and certainly can't be regarded as somehow other than " the insubstantial. " These are weighty issues we discuss. This is why they fly away in our fingers, lighter than dandelion seeds. -- Dan 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.