Guest guest Posted March 9, 2003 Report Share Posted March 9, 2003 Dear Toby I am a Dutchmen living in Austria and Holland, lurking in on the list to learn and hopefully to contribute to the learning and enjoyment of others if there is an opportunity. A recent digest got my full attention when I read something from you: You presented recently the following quote: " One thing is certain: the real is not imaginary, it is not a product of the mind. " supposedly by Nisargadatta, as you wrote: " To quote Nisargadatta " . I have two issues that I sure do hope you are willing to discuss: The first one is easy: What is the source of YOUR quote? The second one is more complex: What " real " do you think Nisargadatta was referring to? This is specially relevant because of the preceding example of: BEGIN OF QUOTE: " Dismissing the world as illusion is fruitless... " ... If we have many bills to pay, a family and not enough money to meet these commitments, we are about to be kicked out of our home and left on the street with our children, with no where to live... what is this pressure that we feel? Is this pressure real or illusory? Where does it exist? Where does it stem from? Is there actually pressure being placed on us, or is it an illusory product of the mind, of the ego, brought about by our resistance to what is real or what is actual? END OF QUOTE Do you think the real in the quote is referring to the felt pressure or the real life circumstances? I am asking this in the context of what is in my mind. Solve the problems on the levels that they exist. Which means that we indeed need to delve through the levels of inferences (probably but not necessarily the reason for the 'real feelings') right down to the real problem... which is not a perceptual problem in the example that you gave... but a physical object level or even process level problem. Rob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 10, 2003 Report Share Posted March 10, 2003 Hi Rob, Nice to have your input. Your first question: What is the source of the quote? Page 5 of " I Am That " ISBN 085655-406-5. Your second question: What " real " do you think Nisagadatta was referring to? How many " real " s are there? I would think Nisargadatta wouldn't have seen too many options on that one. > Do you think the real in the quote is referring to the felt pressure > or the real life circumstances? The " pressure " is an illusion and it is created by a perceived problem. The pressure has no basis in reality and neither does the " problem " . They are just products of a certain way of thinking, a certain strain of thought. When thinking ceases, so does the pressure and the problems. Do they not? The feeling is not an illusion, it is simply a feeling and nothing more or less than that. The feeling comes about as a result of the self created constructs of illusion. The real life circumstances are no more damning than winning the lottery. It is just thinking that makes it so. > I am asking this in the context of what is in my mind. Solve the > problems on the levels that they exist. Which means that we indeed > need to delve through the levels of inferences (probably but not > necessarily the reason for the 'real feelings') right down to the > real problem... which is not a perceptual problem in the example > that you gave... but a physical object level or even process level > problem. Reality does not need to be fixed or solved Rob. A problem is only that which you label it as being and this is just your projection of reality. Everything just is as it is and nothing more or less than that. To quote Nisargadatta once more " ...in my world nothing ever goes wrong. " Is this because he is blessed with luck or special circumstances? Not at all. It is because he does not live in the world of illusion, the world of problems. He lives only in what is real. When we step outside of his world, things begin to go wrong and problems become apparent. These are relative problems, brought about by relative truth, where the ego gets involved. Solving perceived problems and playing the pain/pleasure game is one thing. But let us not label these perceived problems as " real " . Toby Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 10, 2003 Report Share Posted March 10, 2003 Hi Toby thanks for the swift response. I am trying to stand with both feet on the ground... sometime dancing (meaning always one foot on the ground and moving elegantly en with an energetic and sensuous appearance. <toby.wilson@t...> wrote: > Page 5 of " I Am That " ISBN 085655-406-5. Thansk for that. No comes the hard part for me... > Your second question: What " real " do you think Nisagadatta was > referring to? You answered:How many " real " s are there? I would think Nisargadatta wouldn't have seen too many options on that one. RobG: what do you mean... why not give a clear answer... no metaphores please... if Nisargadatta wouldn't have seen too many options... then what is the answer? I like your explanation of pressure and feelings... yet the realness of feelings you suggest, I am not so sur about, being a neurobiologists I know that the same feeling nt always represents the same meaning and the same biology, so in Korzybski's context feeling is not real, but also a story we tell ourselves... Your interpretations of not being real of real life circumstances goes beyond me or I just plainly disagree. I am honest if I say both are possible. Being on the street out of your house, for whatever reason, in a cold winter night with your children right beside may not be " a problem " (which is a label) but it is a situation that you have to deal with on the level it presents itself to you. If not your can end up lying dead in the desert because you did not use your awareness on the physical level... Please continue... kind regards Rob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 10, 2003 Report Share Posted March 10, 2003 Hello, I'm a bit doubtful that anything can be 'said' that explains what is " real " satisfactorily to an enquiring mind, other than what has already been said. Something impels this hand to type though, whatever, this 'person' feels about that. Having, experienced the same sort of puzzlement 'myself', and having searched extensively for Answers, I encountered the following definition of what is " real " : it is " that which never changes " . And it was observed that almost everything in the phenomenal world is changing all the time. Isn't that your observation, too? So, if " everything " is changing all the time, what is it that knows that it IS changing? What is the basis of that observation? Deep consideration of that question, reveals the Answer to the questioner, does it not? And the Answer comes in a non verbal way, does it not? It comes, not from the realm of thought, or intellectual " comprehension, " but in the absence/relinquishment of thought and in the absence of words. In utter(!!!) silence! :-) An excellent point of reference for such considerations may be found at <http://www. NWFFACIM.org> John At 07:24 10/03/2003 +0000, you wrote: Hi Rob, Nice to have your input. Your first question: What is the source of the quote? Page 5 of " I Am That " ISBN 085655-406-5. Your second question: What " real " do you think Nisagadatta was referring to? How many " real " s are there? I would think Nisargadatta wouldn't have seen too many options on that one. > Do you think the real in the quote is referring to the felt pressure > or the real life circumstances? The " pressure " is an illusion and it is created by a perceived problem. The pressure has no basis in reality and neither does the " problem " . They are just products of a certain way of thinking, a certain strain of thought. When thinking ceases, so does the pressure and the problems. Do they not? The feeling is not an illusion, it is simply a feeling and nothing more or less than that. The feeling comes about as a result of the self created constructs of illusion. The real life circumstances are no more damning than winning the lottery. It is just thinking that makes it so. > I am asking this in the context of what is in my mind. Solve the > problems on the levels that they exist. Which means that we indeed > need to delve through the levels of inferences (probably but not > necessarily the reason for the 'real feelings') right down to the > real problem... which is not a perceptual problem in the example > that you gave... but a physical object level or even process level > problem. Reality does not need to be fixed or solved Rob. A problem is only that which you label it as being and this is just your projection of reality. Everything just is as it is and nothing more or less than that. To quote Nisargadatta once more " ...in my world nothing ever goes wrong. " Is this because he is blessed with luck or special circumstances? Not at all. It is because he does not live in the world of illusion, the world of problems. He lives only in what is real. When we step outside of his world, things begin to go wrong and problems become apparent. These are relative problems, brought about by relative truth, where the ego gets involved. Solving perceived problems and playing the pain/pleasure game is one thing. But let us not label these perceived problems as " real " . Toby ** To change the message delivery options, go to /mygroups and choose from the drop-down list of message delivery options for this group. See " How to manage your groups link " for more detailed instructions: http://help./help/us/groups/mygroups/mygroups-09.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 11, 2003 Report Share Posted March 11, 2003 From our own experience, our appreciation of what is 'real' is different in different states of consciousness. There is a dramatic difference in reality between waking and dreaming, and differences from one day to the next, each moment to the next, and so on. I am not referring to any philosophical construct of the world - but our innocent appreciation or raw relationship with the non-self. So, we can speak of the different realities of dreaming, sleep and waking; and in a less dramatic fashion, we can speak of the reality of sadness, joy, and other human emotive or intellectual states. Nisgardatta is speaking from a different major state of consciousness, as different from waking state as from our waking state is to our dream state. He is describing the characteristics of his knowledge, or appreciation of self/non-self. So Advaita, (Vendanta) is a major state of consciousness, not just a hightened or lit-up waking state, and certainly not just a philosophy - with completely different 'rules of engagement'. Having a firm grasp of the material, having an intellectual understanding of Avaita is of value, but acquiring the experience is what brings fulfillment. Some claim there is no path or anything that needs to be done, other feel there is a path with things to do or undo. Both are useful approaches. Larry Nisargadatta , " geurtsenrob " <groei@x> wrote: > Hi Toby > > thanks for the swift response. > > I am trying to stand with both feet on the ground... sometime dancing > (meaning always one foot on the ground and moving elegantly en with > an energetic and sensuous appearance. > > <toby.wilson@t...> wrote: > > Page 5 of " I Am That " ISBN 085655-406-5. > > Thansk for that. > > > No comes the hard part for me... > > Your second question: What " real " do you think Nisagadatta was > > referring to? > > You answered:How many " real " s are there? I would think Nisargadatta > wouldn't have seen too many options on that one. > > RobG: what do you mean... why not give a clear answer... no > metaphores please... if Nisargadatta wouldn't have seen too many > options... then what is the answer? > > > I like your explanation of pressure and feelings... yet the realness > of feelings you suggest, I am not so sur about, being a > neurobiologists I know that the same feeling nt always represents the > same meaning and the same biology, so in Korzybski's context feeling > is not real, but also a story we tell ourselves... > > > Your interpretations of not being real of real life circumstances > goes beyond me or I just plainly disagree. I am honest if I say both > are possible. Being on the street out of your house, for whatever > reason, in a cold winter night with your children right beside may > not be " a problem " (which is a label) but it is a situation that you > have to deal with on the level it presents itself to you. If not your > can end up lying dead in the desert because you did not use your > awareness on the physical level... > > Please continue... > kind regards > Rob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 13, 2003 Report Share Posted March 13, 2003 Hi Rob, > Toby: How many " real " s are there? I would think Nisargadatta > wouldn't have seen too many options on that one. > > RobG: what do you mean... why not give a clear answer... no > metaphores please... if Nisargadatta wouldn't have seen too many > options... then what is the answer? I don't know how to answer that question. I compare it to me asking you, " Which big, blue sky are you referring to Rob? " I'm sure your response would be, " How many big, blue skys are there Toby. I don't see too many options on that one. " It seemed to me to be an erroneous question. > I like your explanation of pressure and feelings... yet the realness > of feelings you suggest, I am not so sur about, being a > neurobiologists I know that the same feeling nt always represents the > same meaning and the same biology, so in Korzybski's context feeling > is not real, but also a story we tell ourselves... Feelings are not illusory, they are just feelings. You have brought into the equation " meaning " and " stories we tell ourselves " . A meaning or a story is not a feeling. It is a self created illusions that is built around the feeling and not the feeling itself. The feeling is just a feeling and that is all. If you feel an emotion, you feel it, do you not? Why suggest it is anything else? As you have stated, it is accompanied by a change in biology. How could we say that this change in biology is an illusion? It is real. It just is what it is, a change in biology - and we feel it. It's nothing more or less than that. When we feel sick, is this an illusion? When we slam our finger in the door, is the pain illusory? It just is what it is. > Your interpretations of not being real of real life circumstances > goes beyond me or I just plainly disagree. I am honest if I say both > are possible. Being on the street out of your house, for whatever > reason, in a cold winter night with your children right beside may > not be " a problem " (which is a label) but it is a situation that you > have to deal with on the level it presents itself to you. If not your > can end up lying dead in the desert because you did not use your > awareness on the physical level... As Nisargadatta put it when referring to a question's mind: " What is wrong with its seeking the pleasent and shrinking the unpleasent? Between the banks of pain and pleasure the river of life flows. " I have not advocated to not do anything on the physical level about our homeless, cold winter night situation. Doing something or not is not the issue. The point is the internal, what is happening there? What is going on inside? Our actions do not have to come about as a consiquence of perceived problems. We do not have to act out our lives out of a resistance to the way things are. To an individual living out of a true honesty of conciousness, homeless or not, it would make no difference at all to their underlying experience of reality. And their external actions would stem directly from their innermost, from an internal way of being that is honest. They would not be in a state of desparation. They would not be attached to the outcome of their actions. Their internal freedom would not be dependent on their freedom from the given circumstances. Your thoughts? Toby Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 15, 2003 Report Share Posted March 15, 2003 > I am a Dutchmen living in Austria and Holland, lurking > in on the list to learn and hopefully to contribute to > the learning and enjoyment of others if there is an > opportunity. > > > > A recent digest got my full attention when I read > something from you: > > > > You presented recently the following quote: > > " One thing is certain: the real is not > > imaginary, it is not a product of the mind. " > > supposedly by Nisargadatta, as you wrote: > > " To quote Nisargadatta " . > > > > I have two issues that I sure do hope you are willing > to discuss: > > What " real " do you think Nisargadatta was referring to? > This is specially relevant because of the preceding > example of: BEGIN OF QUOTE: " Dismissing the world as > illusion is fruitless... " ... If we have many bills to > pay, a family and not enough money to meet these > commitments, we are about to be kicked out of our home > and left on the street with our children, with no where > to live... what is this pressure that we feel? Is this > pressure real or illusory? > > Where does it exist? Where does it stem from? Is > there actually pressure being placed on us, or is it an > illusory product of the mind, of the ego, brought about > by our resistance to what is real or what is actual? > > END OF QUOTE > > > > Do you think the real in the quote is referring to the > felt pressure or the real life circumstances? > > I am asking this in the context of what is in my mind. > Solve the problems on the levels that they exist. Which > means that we indeed need to delve through the levels > of inferences (probably but not necessarily the reason > for the 'real feelings') right down to the real > problem... which is not a perceptual problem in the > example that you gave... but a physical object level or > even process level problem. > > > > Rob i think the EXISTENCIAL angst is real and from Kierkegaards time can be multiplied by 3 and it is different in each country. in the old days it was that a 'householder' lived out his/her life and turned to the quest of spirituality. Today do to some degree to the information super highway we can incorporate into our living great thoughts like Advaita, or even Nisargadatta -but tell about this to Rawandan woman with 5 children and no husband to help to support them in the year of drought.. -------Karta Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 15, 2005 Report Share Posted April 15, 2005 What is always the same? A friend wrote “Stay with that which lovingly allows for everything to appear in peace that cannot be disturbed. Allow it to show you the depth of its void and the fullness of its emptiness.” What is a 'me'? Later, My friend wrote, " Who Who Who? Do not relent, but do not try or force. Honestly and gently ask. You can't force grace, she is more stubborn then you are, so allow her to do the job as she will. " Love, charlie www.awakeningtotheeternal.net 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.