Guest guest Posted June 28, 2004 Report Share Posted June 28, 2004 Illusion A. What is the sign of a concept? B. That it appears. A. What is the sign of Appearance? B. It has no sign. It is. A. Is a concept the same as a distinction? B. Yes, exactly. A. You speak of " Appearance " and of a concept as " appearing " .... B. " Appearance " is quite distinct from " an appearance " . *An* appearance is a distinction. It is an isolation within Appearance. Everything that appears, appears within Appearance. But while I use the preposition " within " there, really, Appearance is not a container. It is not properly understood as the *collection* of all appearances. Consider the familiar drawing that can be seen either as a vase, or as two opposing faces. It is impossible to see the vase and the two faces at once. A similar relation holds between Appearance and particular appearances. When no particular appearances are " taken " by the mind, what remains is Appearance. Appearance is stainless. It is indivisible. A cognition can seem to divide it. But it can never be divided. Any apparent division within It is only " an appearance " . Illusion is the appearance of a division in what is indivisible. That is *why* it is illusion. Because it is *false*. Realizing the false distinction as only appearance dissolves the grip of the distinction upon the mind. When no distinction remains to grip the mind, what remains is Appearance. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 29, 2004 Report Share Posted June 29, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@a...> wrote: > Illusion > > A. What is the sign of a concept? > B. That it appears. > > A. What is the sign of Appearance? > B. It has no sign. It is. > > A. Is a concept the same as a distinction? > B. Yes, exactly. > > A. You speak of " Appearance " and of a concept > as " appearing " .... > B. " Appearance " is quite distinct from " an appearance " . > *An* appearance is a distinction. It is an isolation > within Appearance. Everything that appears, appears > within Appearance. But while I use the preposition > " within " there, really, Appearance is not a container. > It is not properly understood as the *collection* of all > appearances. > > Consider the familiar drawing that can be seen either > as a vase, or as two opposing faces. It is impossible > to see the vase and the two faces at once. A similar > relation holds between Appearance and particular > appearances. When no particular appearances are " taken " > by the mind, what remains is Appearance. > > Appearance is stainless. It is indivisible. A cognition > can seem to divide it. But it can never be divided. > Any apparent division within It is only " an appearance " . > > Illusion is the appearance of a division in what is > indivisible. That is *why* it is illusion. Because it > is *false*. > > Realizing the false distinction as only appearance > dissolves the grip of the distinction upon the mind. > When no distinction remains to grip the mind, what > remains is Appearance. > > > > > Bill Nice! > > 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.