Guest guest Posted January 8, 2004 Report Share Posted January 8, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@x> wrote: > Arnór , > > << > 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. > >> > When I said " arrogant " , I was not referring to you. > I mis-spoke when I said the " original author " of the post. > I see you were the original author. But I was referring > to the person who wrote the " logical refutation of the > notion of grace " (toombaru). > Nevertheless, it was an arrogant thing for me to say that. > My appologies to toombaru. > > It was your post that left me feeling a need to write my retort > to toombaru's argument. I had felt his argument was specious from > the beginning but had not bothered to reply. But became > concerned when it seemed that some people might be taken > in by it. > > I just looked back at your original post and saw these lines: > > > My understanding is this: The creator, the essential counterpart of the= > > creation, does not lose his grace when radiating it by his mere be-ing;= > > the transfer from the creator to the created is beginning-less and > > therefore end-less. Since the transfer is impersonal it cannot, by its > > very nature, be 'selective'; the creator loves his creation...not > > because of the creations merit but because of the creations existence. > > > > If the grace of the guru follows the same principles it cannot, by its > > very nature, be selective of the people its given to. > > I think you make a very good point. > This particular list is *very* non-dual, and a notion of " creator " such > as you use will tend to come under attack here. You might find > yourself more at home on the SufiMystic list. > > Bill Bill, I fear that we have entered that arena into which conceptual thinking gravi= tates... The ideas that I bring up are not presented as the truth...I have no idea w= hat the truth is. They are not meant to belittle anyone's belief system. They are my attempt to ferret out that most peculiar quality of the human p= syche to mysteriously hide itself while always completely in the open. The main idea that I was bringing up in the discussion on grace is that min= d functions in two 'worlds': One in which a physical consensus can be reached...A three dimentional worl= d that can be verified by his sensate faculties. The criteria here is...If it is real...you can put it on a table....( I kno= w you can't put a cloud on a table...but the you get the idea) The part of mind that operates upon man's physical reality (assuming his se= nses are working reasonably well) receives appropriate feedback whereby he c= an get a reasonably accurate picture of his enviornment. His conceptual world, however, whose only reality originates from within th= e mind itself, creates the illusion of a reality whose only reference is its= elf... The other 'world' which exists only within a conceptual context...mind beli= eves is real but contains only ideas about reality. Religion, philosophy, politics, psychology, law, history etc. exist only in= the mind as a multi-layered accumulation of assumptions and descriptions. T= heir reality is ever changing and determined by individual interpretation wh= ich is biased and subjective. The confusion (It appears to me) occurs when mind attempts to co-mingle the= se two worlds. This, I believe, is the 'dream' that the sages refer to. It is the conceptual world that is the root of confusion...a confusion that= cannot be resolved from within because the very tools at its disposal...are= the same tools that cause the problem. The resolution, apparently rare, seems to occur when mind apperceives the r= oot cause of its perceived condition.....and once realized...becomes ultra-o= bvious and impossible to verbalize.....(even it there remained someone to te= ll..:-) again: These are only ramblings of a tormented mind....lost....and lonely....... They are not meant to hurt...... Thank you for your feedback....... I remain...comfortable in your company. Toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 8, 2004 Report Share Posted January 8, 2004 > Bill, > > I fear that we have entered that arena into which conceptual > thinking gravitates... > > > > The ideas that I bring up are not presented as the truth...I > have no idea what the truth is. > > They are not meant to belittle anyone's belief system. After I sent the message for which I have since appologized, I realized that you weren't being anything but sincere in what you said. I am baffled at myself for my intolerance. It has to do with the logical nature of your argument. Since logic is an area of deep study for me, I seem to get " prickly " about what seems to me to be " abuses " of " proper argument " . When it gets into the realm of logic I have seen how " absolutist " I become. My " logic mind " gives no quarter. It is not human or compassionate, it is a machine. It goes with the territory. Being very sensitive to subtle vagaries of thought *requires* a " predatory " mind. The tricky part comes when logic and discussing with people overlap. So this has been a lesson for me. But what else is new! > They are my attempt to ferret out that most peculiar quality > of the human psyche to mysteriously hide itself while always > completely in the open. And I agreed with your comments in this respect. Which was your main thesis I know. > The main idea that I was bringing up in the discussion on > grace is that mind functions in two 'worlds': > > One in which a physical consensus can be reached...A three > dimentional world that can be verified by his sensate > faculties. > > The criteria here is...If it is real...you can put it on a > table....( I know you can't put a cloud on a table...but the > you get the idea) Really...I suggest... it is not " physical " consensus that you are aiming at here, but consensus within the context of a discussion. Consensus means that a " prevailing " (maybe majority) of a discussion community concur. > > > The part of mind that operates upon man's physical reality > (assuming his senses are working reasonably well) receives > appropriate feedback whereby he can > get a reasonably accurate picture of his enviornment. > His conceptual world, however, whose only reality originates > from within the mind itself, creates the illusion of a > reality whose only reference is itself... I suggest the term " objective reality " for that which is " consensual " , i.e. about which a community of speakers concur. It needn't be " physical " . However, a " clean " presentation of this topic is non-trivial. > > The other 'world' which exists only within a conceptual > context...mind believes is real but contains only ideas about > reality. That the earth travels around the sun is an idea about reality which has consensus on this planet at this time. At one time the consensus was that the sun traveled around the earth. In either case it is an " idea about reality " . We don't have anything more than mere " ideas about reality " . Science never " proves " anything. It only makes " hypotheses " . > Religion, philosophy, politics, psychology, law, history etc. > exist only in the mind as a multi-layered accumulation of > assumptions and descriptions. Their reality is ever changing > and determined by individual interpretation which is biased > and subjective. So the distinction you seem to be making is one that might be referred to as " objective reality " vs. " subjective reality " . The line between the two is not a distinct one...it is blurry. For example... is there such a thing as the " unconscious mind " ? The consensus on the planet at this time is probably " yes " . It is not really a significantly different " assessment " than that the " earth travels around the sun " ? You can't get away from the inherently social nature of so-called " objective reality " . In other words, we can never " prove " anything, but we might feel some comfort from the concurrence of our bretheren. But perhaps a comfort very illusory. > > The confusion (It appears to me) occurs when mind attempts to > co-mingle these two worlds. > > > This, I believe, is the 'dream' that the sages refer to. I don't follow you. What " dream " ? > It is the conceptual world that is the root of confusion...a > confusion thatcannot be resolved from within because the very > tools at its disposal...arethe same tools that cause the > problem. > The resolution, apparently rare, seems to occur when mind > apperceives the root cause of its perceived condition.....and > once realized...becomes ultra-obvious and impossible to > verbalize.....(even it there remained someone to tell..:-) We are all on our own, ultimately. We can't rely on " experts " to explain it to us. So we all may as well roll up our sleeves and inquire deeply. While I find issues with some of your steps along the way, from what I can gather... I resonate deeply with where you are going. > again: > > These are only ramblings of a tormented mind....lost....and > lonely....... The process of disillusioning ourselves can lead to a stark and lonely landscape. It takes a great deal of courage to go there. Often the term " dark night of the soul " is used to refer to this journey. And when Dawn comes, it is the heart that has awakened. > They are not meant to hurt...... I realize, and again, my appologies. > Thank you for your feedback....... > > I remain...comfortable in your company. I am grateful. > > Toombaru Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 8, 2004 Report Share Posted January 8, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@x> wrote: > > Bill, > > > > I fear that we have entered that arena into which conceptual > > thinking gravitates... > > > > > > > > The ideas that I bring up are not presented as the truth...I > > have no idea what the truth is. > > > > They are not meant to belittle anyone's belief system. > After I sent the message for which I have since appologized, > I realized that you weren't being anything but sincere > in what you said. I am baffled at myself for my intolerance. > It has to do with the logical nature of your argument. Since > logic is an area of deep study for me, I seem to get " prickly " > about what seems to me to be " abuses " of " proper argument " . When > it gets into the realm of logic I have seen how " absolutist " I > become. My " logic mind " gives no quarter. It is not human > or compassionate, it is a machine. It goes with the territory. > Being very sensitive to subtle vagaries of thought *requires* > a " predatory " mind. The tricky part comes when logic and > discussing with people overlap. > > So this has been a lesson for me. > But what else is new! > LOL.....As you have become familiar with my beliefs....you can tell that logic in not a priority of mine...in a small part due to the fact that logic, when applied to conceptual thought, beoomes an extention of that thought without ever questioning its own origin and structure of its foundation. ........and in a much larger part because of the innate inabliity to this mind to be logical...:-) > > They are my attempt to ferret out that most peculiar quality > > of the human psyche to mysteriously hide itself while always > > completely in the open. > And I agreed with your comments in this respect. > Which was your main thesis I know. > > > The main idea that I was bringing up in the discussion on > > grace is that mind functions in two 'worlds': > > > > One in which a physical consensus can be reached...A three > > dimentional world that can be verified by his sensate > > faculties. > > > > The criteria here is...If it is real...you can put it on a > > table....( I know you can't put a cloud on a table...but the > > you get the idea) The ideas that I present are not original...(as if this mind could come up with a truly original thought....:-) Ramesh refers to the 'working mind', which I believe is the mind that realtes to the physical consensus reality.....and the 'thinking mind' or the conceptualizer. Jan Cox also divides these worlds with a definite line. > Really...I suggest... it is not " physical " consensus that > you are aiming at here, but consensus within the context of > a discussion. Consensus means that a " prevailing " (maybe > majority) of a discussion community concur. I will try to pin this down a little..... In the working mind, (that deals with the physical reality) there can be disagreement such as the center of the universe debate that you mentioned....but ulitmately as more physical evidence becomes avaliable, the debate can lead to a consensus of opinion.... This is not true of the thinking mind (conceptual world)....in that it deals with concepts about the physical world....all of which are subjective and unprovable. > > > > > > The part of mind that operates upon man's physical reality > > (assuming his senses are working reasonably well) receives > > appropriate feedback whereby he can > > get a reasonably accurate picture of his enviornment. > > His conceptual world, however, whose only reality originates > > from within the mind itself, creates the illusion of a > > reality whose only reference is itself... > I suggest the term " objective reality " for that which is > " consensual " , i.e. about which a community of speakers > concur. It needn't be " physical " . However, a " clean " presentation > of this topic is non-trivial. There can be a consensus or ageement in both worlds.....The approximate diameter of the earth can be agreed upon...and verified..The holders of concepts..such as grace or peace...although they can agree upon a dictionary meaning, quite often find it difficult to agree on the exact meaning of something that exixts only as a subjective idea. When a debate occurs concerning the weight of a rock....a scale can be brought in and the rock can be weighed....... It is not so easy to resolve a dispute concerning grace...peace.....love.....ego......mind.... > > > > > The other 'world' which exists only within a conceptual > > context...mind believes is real but contains only ideas about > > reality. > That the earth travels around the sun is an idea about reality > which has consensus on this planet at this time. At one time > the consensus was that the sun traveled around the earth. > In either case it is an " idea about reality " . We don't have > anything more than mere " ideas about reality " . Science never > " proves " anything. It only makes " hypotheses " . > > > Religion, philosophy, politics, psychology, law, history etc. > > exist only in the mind as a multi-layered accumulation of > > assumptions and descriptions. Their reality is ever changing > > and determined by individual interpretation which is biased > > and subjective. > > So the distinction you seem to be making is one that might > be referred to as " objective reality " vs. " subjective reality " . > The line between the two is not a distinct one...it is blurry. > For example... is there such a thing as the " unconscious mind " ? In the model I am discussing....no...there no such 'thing' as the unconscious mind... 'Unconscious' and 'mind' are conceptual descriptions.....(neither can be sat on a table) > The consensus on the planet at this time is probably " yes " . > It is not really a significantly different " assessment " than > that the " earth travels around the sun " ? You can't get away > from the inherently social nature of so-called " objective > reality " . In other words, we can never " prove " anything, > but we might feel some comfort from the concurrence of our > bretheren. But perhaps a comfort very illusory. > > > > > The confusion (It appears to me) occurs when mind attempts to > > co-mingle these two worlds. > > > > > > This, I believe, is the 'dream' that the sages refer to. > I don't follow you. What " dream " ? When mind creates and lives in its own conceptual world.....the word dream seems to come close.... > > > It is the conceptual world that is the root of confusion...a > > confusion thatcannot be resolved from within because the very > > tools at its disposal...arethe same tools that cause the > > problem. > > > The resolution, apparently rare, seems to occur when mind > > apperceives the root cause of its perceived condition.....and > > once realized...becomes ultra-obvious and impossible to > > verbalize.....(even it there remained someone to tell..:-) > We are all on our own, ultimately. > We can't rely on " experts " to explain it to us. > So we all may as well roll up our sleeves and inquire deeply. Yes Thank you again. > > While I find issues with some of your steps along the way, > from what I can gather... I resonate deeply with where you > are going. > > > again: > > > > These are only ramblings of a tormented mind....lost....and > > lonely....... > The process of disillusioning ourselves can lead to a stark > and lonely landscape. It takes a great deal of courage to > go there. Often the term " dark night of the soul " is used > to refer to this journey. > > And when Dawn comes, > it is the heart that has awakened. > > > They are not meant to hurt...... > I realize, and again, my appologies. > > > Thank you for your feedback....... > > > > I remain...comfortable in your company. > I am grateful. > > > > Toombaru > > Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 8, 2004 Report Share Posted January 8, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@x> wrote: > Arnór , > > << > 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. > >> > When I said " arrogant " , I was not referring to you. > I mis-spoke when I said the " original author " of the post. > I see you were the original author. But I was referring > to the person who wrote the " logical refutation of the > notion of grace " (toombaru). > Nevertheless, it was an arrogant thing for me to say that. > My appologies to toombaru. > > It was your post that left me feeling a need to write my retort > to toombaru's argument. I had felt his argument was specious from > the beginning but had not bothered to reply. But became > concerned when it seemed that some people might be taken > in by it. > > I just looked back at your original post and saw these lines: > > > My understanding is this: The creator, the essential counterpart of the > > creation, does not lose his grace when radiating it by his mere be-ing; > > the transfer from the creator to the created is beginning-less and > > therefore end-less. Since the transfer is impersonal it cannot, by its > > very nature, be 'selective'; the creator loves his creation...not > > because of the creations merit but because of the creations existence. > > > > If the grace of the guru follows the same principles it cannot, by its > > very nature, be selective of the people its given to. > > I think you make a very good point. > This particular list is *very* non-dual, and a notion of " creator " such > as you use will tend to come under attack here. You might find > yourself more at home on the SufiMystic list. > > Bill Indeed, Bill. It can only be taken as a metaphor. At the point of nonduality, the metaphor collapses into itself. With nothing apart to have grace conferred upon it, there is no need to conceive of a grace-giver or radiator. If everything is this radiation, there is no one apart from it to discuss how it is radiating. But then, for the sake of Hur's conceptual good times, we conceive of metaphors about which to banter. To the good times! Of course, the bad times are equally in the conceptualizing, as is time itself! So, to the bad times as well! Love, 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.