Guest guest Posted October 17, 2002 Report Share Posted October 17, 2002 If we are perfectly honest with ourselves, we would realize that what we call truth is nothing but interpretation of raw data. Interpretation of raw data is very useful for mundane purposes, but useless or even harmful in spirituality. Interpretation is always based on our conditioning, our past, so we are always contaminating sensory data with our ideas. This happens instantaneously, often subconsciously, frequently even before we are aware of an input. In this way we are always superimposing the past on the now. In this way, a surge of intense blinding awareness of reality is interpreted by a Christian as an influx of the Holy spirit, or the birth of Christ in the soul; while a Buddhist will view it as the realization of Bhudda-Nature, the Void etc; another may call it the core of self. All names and explanations will come from our conditioning, so in my opinion it's better to leave it unnamed and unexplained. In this way, it will have the opportunity to grow free from the constrains of our interpretations and expectations. Pete Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More http://faith. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 17, 2002 Report Share Posted October 17, 2002 What has never been explained, remains unexplained. The arising of phenomena has never been explained, for explanations are just another version of arising phenomena. Phenomena can't grasp the arisings of phenomena. -- Dan Nisargadatta, pete seesaw <seesaw1us> wrote: > If we are perfectly honest with ourselves, we would > realize that what we call truth is nothing but > interpretation of raw data. Interpretation of raw data > is very useful for mundane purposes, but useless or > even harmful in spirituality. > > Interpretation is always based on our conditioning, > our past, so we are always contaminating sensory data > with our ideas. This happens instantaneously, often > subconsciously, frequently even before we are aware of > an input. In this way we are always superimposing the > past on the now. > > In this way, a surge of intense blinding awareness of > reality is interpreted by a Christian as an influx > of the Holy spirit, or the birth of Christ in the > soul; > while a Buddhist will view it as the realization of > Bhudda-Nature, the Void etc; another may call it the > core of self. > > All names and explanations will come from our > conditioning, so in my opinion it's better to leave it > unnamed and unexplained. In this way, it will have > the opportunity to grow free from the constrains of > our interpretations and expectations. > > Pete > > > > Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More > http://faith. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 17, 2002 Report Share Posted October 17, 2002 THe brain, Dan, THE BRAIN. You always forget the brain. It's not a banana understanding another banana. Its one brain center being aware of the activity of another brain centers. Cappice? I wouldn't swear by the spelling of understand in Italian. Says one of my brain centers to another. Pete --- dan330033 <dan330033 wrote: > What has never been explained, remains unexplained. > > The arising of phenomena has never been explained, > for explanations are just another version > of arising phenomena. > > Phenomena can't grasp the arisings of phenomena. > > -- Dan > > > Nisargadatta, pete seesaw > <seesaw1us> wrote: > > If we are perfectly honest with ourselves, we > would > > realize that what we call truth is nothing but > > interpretation of raw data. Interpretation of raw > data > > is very useful for mundane purposes, but useless > or > > even harmful in spirituality. > > > > Interpretation is always based on our > conditioning, > > our past, so we are always contaminating sensory > data > > with our ideas. This happens instantaneously, > often > > subconsciously, frequently even before we are > aware of > > an input. In this way we are always superimposing > the > > past on the now. > > > > In this way, a surge of intense blinding awareness > of > > reality is interpreted by a Christian as an influx > > of the Holy spirit, or the birth of Christ in the > > soul; > > while a Buddhist will view it as the realization > of > > Bhudda-Nature, the Void etc; another may call it > the > > core of self. > > > > All names and explanations will come from our > > conditioning, so in my opinion it's better to > leave it > > unnamed and unexplained. In this way, it will have > > the opportunity to grow free from the constrains > of > > our interpretations and expectations. > > > > Pete > > > > > > > > Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More > > http://faith. > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 17, 2002 Report Share Posted October 17, 2002 No, Pete. The brain is a phenomenon. It is a perceived image. It isn't understanding other phenomena. There isn't an understanding in one brain center of another brain center. Brain activities are phenomena. Removing the brain makes it impossible for the body to live. But that doesn't mean that understanding of various things is occurring in the brain. Events don't form in the brain, the brain is an event that forms. The understanding of the formation of events, of phenomena, cannot occur by one phenomenon of another phenomenon. Capice indeed, Dan Nisargadatta, pete seesaw <seesaw1us> wrote: > THe brain, Dan, THE BRAIN. You always forget the > brain. > It's not a banana understanding another banana. Its > one brain center being aware of the activity of > another brain centers. Cappice? I wouldn't swear by > the spelling of understand in Italian. Says one of my > brain centers to another. > > Pete > > --- dan330033 <dan330033> wrote: > > What has never been explained, remains unexplained. > > > > The arising of phenomena has never been explained, > > for explanations are just another version > > of arising phenomena. > > > > Phenomena can't grasp the arisings of phenomena. > > > > -- Dan > > > > > > Nisargadatta, pete seesaw > > <seesaw1us> wrote: > > > If we are perfectly honest with ourselves, we > > would > > > realize that what we call truth is nothing but > > > interpretation of raw data. Interpretation of raw > > data > > > is very useful for mundane purposes, but useless > > or > > > even harmful in spirituality. > > > > > > Interpretation is always based on our > > conditioning, > > > our past, so we are always contaminating sensory > > data > > > with our ideas. This happens instantaneously, > > often > > > subconsciously, frequently even before we are > > aware of > > > an input. In this way we are always superimposing > > the > > > past on the now. > > > > > > In this way, a surge of intense blinding awareness > > of > > > reality is interpreted by a Christian as an influx > > > of the Holy spirit, or the birth of Christ in the > > > soul; > > > while a Buddhist will view it as the realization > > of > > > Bhudda-Nature, the Void etc; another may call it > > the > > > core of self. > > > > > > All names and explanations will come from our > > > conditioning, so in my opinion it's better to > > leave it > > > unnamed and unexplained. In this way, it will have > > > the opportunity to grow free from the constrains > > of > > > our interpretations and expectations. > > > > > > Pete > > > > > > > > > > > > Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More > > > http://faith. > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 17, 2002 Report Share Posted October 17, 2002 > Phenomena can't grasp the arisings of phenomena. Thus spoke phenomena ....(having no absoltely idea of what phenomena meant!) What is outside phenomenon is but an idea , a phenomenon to you. It culminates in the original proposition : lack of honesty once again. You're like a dog chasing it's tail. When are you ever gonna realize that you are THE tail. Namaste's interspersed with sheesh's, ------ Anand. ______________________ Missed your favourite TV serial last night? Try the new, TV. visit http://in.tv. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 17, 2002 Report Share Posted October 17, 2002 Cool Dan! Very nice. -Bill dan330033 [dan330033] What has never been explained, remains unexplained. The arising of phenomena has never been explained, for explanations are just another version of arising phenomena. Phenomena can't grasp the arisings of phenomena. -- Dan Nisargadatta, pete seesaw <seesaw1us> wrote: > If we are perfectly honest with ourselves, we would > realize that what we call truth is nothing but > interpretation of raw data. Interpretation of raw data > is very useful for mundane purposes, but useless or > even harmful in spirituality. > > Interpretation is always based on our conditioning, > our past, so we are always contaminating sensory data > with our ideas. This happens instantaneously, often > subconsciously, frequently even before we are aware of > an input. In this way we are always superimposing the > past on the now. > > In this way, a surge of intense blinding awareness of > reality is interpreted by a Christian as an influx > of the Holy spirit, or the birth of Christ in the > soul; > while a Buddhist will view it as the realization of > Bhudda-Nature, the Void etc; another may call it the > core of self. > > All names and explanations will come from our > conditioning, so in my opinion it's better to leave it > unnamed and unexplained. In this way, it will have > the opportunity to grow free from the constrains of > our interpretations and expectations. > > Pete > > > > Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More > http://faith. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 18, 2002 Report Share Posted October 18, 2002 Nisargadatta, Anand Eswaran <anandesw> wrote: > > > Phenomena can't grasp the arisings of phenomena. > > Thus spoke phenomena ....(having no absoltely idea of > what phenomena meant!) With this comment, Anand, you've reached a new low of idiocy. That's meant as a complement. > What is outside phenomenon is but an idea , a > phenomenon to you. There is no such thing as something outside of phenomena. Inside and outside are defined by phenomena. > It culminates in the original proposition : lack of > honesty once again. You wouldn't know honesty if it hit you in the head. You think by calling everything bullshit you are being honest, but you're only repeating yourself. > You're like a dog chasing it's tail. When are you > ever gonna realize that you are THE tail. By thinking there is something to be realized, you've set yourself on an interminable journey. This journey will go on and on, as long as you take everything as bullshit and try to maintain a pose as someone who realizes something. > Namaste's interspersed with sheesh's, Yup, watch those sheesh's, they multiply like rabbits. Yoghurt covered namastes, Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 18, 2002 Report Share Posted October 18, 2002 Pete -- You haven't understood phenomena yet, Pete. So, you are searching for a " who " who would understand phenomena. No, asking " who " is just a question arising as another phenomenon. When you know, you won't ask such things. You also won't have to take the brain as a center of knowing whatsover. You've switched from saying you had no center to saying you're relying on brain centers for knowing. If you had a mind, maybe you could make it up :-) You, who have spoken repeatedly about being anti-concept, are hung up on the conceptual stance of an understanding occurring in the brain. You construct the brain through your understanding of it. The " you " who gives form, isn't a form, and isn't a concept. You misinterpret what I say, which has nothing to do with a disembodied knower. Perhaps the words " all-pervasive " and " nonlocalizable " might provide a clue. Your misinterpreation shows where you are trying to understand me from. I am not there, in those concepts, Pete. Of course a brain can be scanned, and electrical activity can be shown, also true for a computer. Understanding is far more than you're conceiving it to be, Pete. Let alone this nonunderstandable from which understanding arises. Namaste, Dan Nisargadatta, pete seesaw <seesaw1us> wrote: > I bet to disagree, my friend. In my long gone wild > days > I used to abuse alcohol, tobacco, but never firearms, > mind you. Well, if i was plaster i could not even add > right, much less understand anything more complicated > that my way home. No, the brain is the center of > understanding and I do understand why you have > difficulty understanding this. Of course, the > brain > is a phenomenon, everything made of matter/energy is a > phenomenon. You said the brain is perceived. Perceived > by what? > Are you an idealist, a Platonism? Oh, I get it, Dan > is an eternal disembodied entity floating in the blue > heaven. Good luck! > > You have heard of brain scanning machines, electrodes > and other techniques. You have heard of brain injuries > that impede thinking. These is all been proved and > documented. > > Love to correspond with an 18th century man, > > Pete > > > > > > > Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More > http://faith. 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.