Guest guest Posted January 7, 2004 Report Share Posted January 7, 2004 That which is called grace...would have to apply to a conceptually isolated 'event' within the chain of causation. In reality, there could be no such event except in the mind of a supposed...isolated individual...whose limited faculties and survival-bias would preclude its ability to perceive objectively its own (pseudo) experience. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 7, 2004 Report Share Posted January 7, 2004 This would be true if grace was a conscious choice on behalf of the creator to give or not to give. But since grace is radiance and beyond choice on behalf of the creator it is not event-based. On Jan 7, 2004, at 2:44 PM, toombaru2003 wrote: > That which is called grace...would have to apply to a conceptually > isolated 'event' within the chain of causation. > > In reality, there could be no such event except in the mind of a > supposed...isolated individual...whose limited faculties and > survival-bias would preclude its ability to perceive objectively its > own (pseudo) experience. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 7, 2004 Report Share Posted January 7, 2004 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2003 " <toombaru2003> wrote: > That which is called grace...would have to apply to a conceptually isolated 'event' within the chain of causation. > > In reality, there could be no such event except in the mind of a supposed...isolated individual...whose limited faculties and survival- bias would preclude its ability to perceive objectively its own (pseudo) experience. Hi Tooms, Let me put it this way: you repeatedly have said the things you write come to you out of the blue, and sometimes you don't know even know what they mean. Well, some people will call that grace. It's a gift, be grateful. Others might be profiting, but you are learning from those messages more than anyone else. Others will say it's the Interior Guru. Let each one call a spade their favority nickname. What does it matter? It happens. Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 7, 2004 Report Share Posted January 7, 2004 Nisargadatta , " seesaw1us " <seesaw1us> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2003 " > <toombaru2003> wrote: > > That which is called grace...would have to apply to a conceptually > isolated 'event' within the chain of causation. > > > > In reality, there could be no such event except in the mind of a > supposed...isolated individual...whose limited faculties and survival- > bias would preclude its ability to perceive objectively its own > (pseudo) experience. > > Hi Tooms, > > Let me put it this way: you repeatedly have said the things you write > come to you out of the blue, and sometimes you don't know even know > what they mean. Well, some people will call that grace. It's a gift, > be grateful. Others might be profiting, but you are learning from > those > messages more than anyone else. Others will say it's the Interior > Guru. Let each one call a spade their favority nickname. What does > it matter? It happens. > > Pete Ah Pete...I see what you mean... but 'in the inexorable flow of causation' when a concept is taken for the reality that is attempts to describe...and then isolated and applied as a separate entity in itself.....confusion in the end result..... and....yes....I am grateful for these insights......and I am grateful for people like you who seem to furnish the initial spark from which the fire ignites. :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 7, 2004 Report Share Posted January 7, 2004 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2003 " <toombaru2003> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " seesaw1us " <seesaw1us> > wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2003 " > > <toombaru2003> wrote: > > > That which is called grace...would have to apply to a > conceptually > > isolated 'event' within the chain of causation. > > > > > > In reality, there could be no such event except in the mind of a > > supposed...isolated individual...whose limited faculties and > survival- > > bias would preclude its ability to perceive objectively its own > > (pseudo) experience. > > > > Hi Tooms, > > > > Let me put it this way: you repeatedly have said the things you > write > > come to you out of the blue, and sometimes you don't know even > know > > what they mean. Well, some people will call that grace. It's a > gift, > > be grateful. Others might be profiting, but you are learning from > > those > > messages more than anyone else. Others will say it's the Interior > > Guru. Let each one call a spade their favority nickname. What does > > it matter? It happens. > > > > Pete > > > Ah Pete...I see what you mean... > > but 'in the inexorable flow of causation' when a concept is taken > for the reality that is attempts to describe...and then isolated and > applied as a separate entity in itself.....confusion in the end > result..... > > > and....yes....I am grateful for these insights......and I am > grateful for people like you who seem to furnish the initial spark > from which the fire ignites. > > 'The inexorable flow of causation.' What a geat phrase! Yes, the roulette wheel is a prisoner of the inexorable...but if the ball happens to land on our number... then the inex... becomes very personal, it's felt as joy, gratitude, grace or simply luck. But, even those who only believe in luck, feel favored and grateful when luck strikes. Human nature, I guess. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 7, 2004 Report Share Posted January 7, 2004 Nisargadatta , Arnór Kristjánsson <addi@a...> wrote: > This would be true if grace was a conscious choice on behalf of the > creator to give or not to give. > > But since grace is radiance and beyond choice on behalf of the creator > it is not event-based. Now here's an example of making the concept of grace into a perceived reality and then filling it out with a description. (thus adding to the illusion that grace is a real thing.) > On Jan 7, 2004, at 2:44 PM, toombaru2003 wrote: > > > That which is called grace...would have to apply to a conceptually > > isolated 'event' within the chain of causation. > > > > In reality, there could be no such event except in the mind of a > > supposed...isolated individual...whose limited faculties and > > survival-bias would preclude its ability to perceive objectively its > > own (pseudo) experience. > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 7, 2004 Report Share Posted January 7, 2004 Going back through the thread, probably wishing for holes in the logic, I stumbled against this: > Grace is not a thing.....It is an idea.... > > It is not a noun.....It is an adjective. > Is it? An adjective is a word that adds more detail to a noun and in doing so can modify the meaning. 'Graceful' is, for example an adjective, but I don't have a dictionary that lists 'grace' as an adjective. Please correct me if I'm wrong. But I still get your point. What the initial post asked was why the definitions are so varied and it tried to relay the observation that the Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj appears (according to the observation at least) to use it in a different way than the others. Grace, as used in all but the last example are ideas, evident by the game of logic of removing and adding grace upon imagined circumstances. I would, with all the powers of my ego, argue that grace is a constant; a constant that is the counterpart of be-ing. I would also argue that the two are unseperable. If the guru (the outer guru) has grace, can it be argued that he didn't have it at some point? Can it be argued that he doesn't have it? How we measure it is then another matter. I agree that words cannot describe reality, but at least I enjoy bathing in the delusion that I'm one step closer to describing what it's not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 7, 2004 Report Share Posted January 7, 2004 > One of the fundimental errors that mind makes is > to assign actual reality = > to its own conceptual creations....and then > attempt to make those fabricatio= > ns fit nicely together..... Yes. > Can any one here define grace without using > another equally nedulous concep= > tual construct? Define " nebulous " please. And please hold to your own criteria. Is " nebulous " a nebulous concept? Do you have " strict criteria " for what constitutes a nebulous concept? > Is there really such a thing as grace? The question is itself a confusion. First, there is a lot of loaded meaning in the " is there... " . It can be taken to refer to " existence " , as in " does grace exist? " . But the notion of existence does not apply to the notion of grace. Consider for example the questions: " Do thoughts exist? " , or " Do dreams exist? " The notion of existence does not apply in those cases. [To say it does one would have to invent a " special " meaning for " existence " ... which only goes to prove the point.] The question, " Does grace exist? " is simly the commission of a grammatical error. > Has anyone actually seen... grace? This is *really* absurd. Has anyone seen a quark? What does " seeing " have to do with anything? > Oh..I know that we have all seen events that don't > fit our normal expectati= > ons....If those events are fortuitous and bring > about perceived benefit to t= > he recipient....we call them grace...... > > Grace is not a thing.....It is an idea.... Certainly. Grace is not a thing. Doh! It is a concept. What else is there? The author of the post I am resonding to here is a concept as well. > It is not a noun.....It is an adjective. Geez! Sorry... that is just plain wrong. Consider the notion of " peace " . I will discuss peace along the lines of the above: Has anyone here experienced peace? [Has anyone here *not* (ever) experienced peace?] If you have experienced peace then you will be of the opinion that it is possible to experience peace, and you will not be of the opinion that there is no such thing as peace. If someone says: " Peace does not exist " , you will simply smile at the silliness of the assertion. If someone says, but can you define peace without using another equally nebulous conceptual construct, you will see that as simply absurd. You have experienced peace. End of story. I finally decided to respond to this post because I saw a post where someone said: > Going back through the thread, probably wishing for holes > in the logic, Geez. Does swiss cheese have holes? Bill PS: If this message seems to insult the author of the original message, then I am sorry. Given the arrogant tone of the original message, coupled with its specious reasoning, I consider a severe repudiation appropriate. If you want to try to play the " logic game " then be willing to stand to the heat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 7, 2004 Report Share Posted January 7, 2004 > > I finally decided to respond to this post because > I saw a post where someone said: > > Going back through the thread, probably wishing for holes > > in the logic, > Geez. Does swiss cheese have holes? I was only trying to be honest because I 'thought' I was being 'losing out' to another persons reasoning. However 'spiritual a person' I wish myself to be I still rely on ego (yeah I know, a statement like this _really_ invites irony). > PS: If this message seems to insult the author > of the original message, then I am sorry. Given > the arrogant tone of the original message, > coupled with its specious reasoning, I consider > a severe repudiation appropriate. If you want to > try to play the " logic game " then be willing to stand > to the heat. With all the sincerity I can muster I would like to ask this group: are reflections like my original post in this thread in any way wrong or inappropriate in this group? I am new here [but then again, I am new anywhere] and new to spiritual teachings (having been an ego-warrior for all my life) and I would really like guidance. I am sorry if I have made undue claims in an overbearing manner in my posts. Arrogance and its root cause, fear based in seperation, has been with me for so long that most of the time I don't recognize it for what it is. A. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 7, 2004 Report Share Posted January 7, 2004 Nisargadatta , Arnór Kristjánsson <addi@a...> wrote: > With all the sincerity I can muster I would like to ask this group: are > reflections like my original post in this thread in any way wrong or > inappropriate in this group? inappropriate according to what belief system? inappropriate to whom? an advaitin knows (next to) nothing. all an advaitin talks about is consciousness. ask what consciousness or grace or any other concept is, an advaitin knows nothing but always tries to point to consciousness or " is-ness " in which the guru, student, the belief sytem and the grace disappear. in the mean time we have some conceptual good time here. hur Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 8, 2004 Report Share Posted January 8, 2004 Nisargadatta , Arnór Kristjánsson <addi@a...> wrote: > Going back through the thread, probably wishing for holes in the logic, > I stumbled against this: > > > Grace is not a thing.....It is an idea.... > > > > It is not a noun.....It is an adjective. > > > > Is it? An adjective is a word that adds more detail to a noun and in > doing so can modify the meaning. 'Graceful' is, for example an > adjective, but I don't have a dictionary that lists 'grace' as an > adjective. Please correct me if I'm wrong. > > But I still get your point. > > What the initial post asked was why the definitions are so varied and > it tried to relay the observation that the Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj > appears (according to the observation at least) to use it in a > different way than the others. Grace, as used in all but the last > example are ideas, evident by the game of logic of removing and adding > grace upon imagined circumstances. > > I would, with all the powers of my ego, argue that grace is a constant; > a constant that is the counterpart of be-ing. I would also argue that > the two are unseperable. If the guru (the outer guru) has grace, can it > be argued that he didn't have it at some point? Can it be argued that > he doesn't have it? > > How we measure it is then another matter. > > I agree that words cannot describe reality, but at least I enjoy > bathing in the delusion that I'm one step closer to describing what > it's not. Hello Arnor, I would like to say that you are most welcome here. The questions that you have brought up, help me to turn inward...and althou= gh difficult... the task is lightened by the company of fellow searchers. In response to your post: Logic applied from the perspective of conceptual separation can only move o= ne deeper into the conviction of autonomy. ******************************************** Let us play...for a moment ...in a world with no nouns...A world where ever= ything flows into everything...a world in which individual waves can be seen= as always and only ocean... a world where the word 'bracelet' is a description of shape for that which = is always and only gold...a world...where the word tree is an adjective for = a mysterious force that magically mixes dirt and water into a swaying magnif= icence...a world of unknowable sensuous sentience....given the name.....Arno= r. 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.