Guest guest Posted July 10, 2004 Report Share Posted July 10, 2004 Hi again, > The answer is that you must throw your ego into the > dustbin. Only when you become totally fearless can this bliss be > activated in you Sounds impossible to achieve? Only to the ego. > Didn't I tell you that it is the ego you must throw into the > dustbin? :-) This is very inaccurate and probably misleading to some. The ME including ego can never be 'gotten rid of' or thrown away. Nor is there a need to get rid of an ego, nor is it possible to get rid of ego. In human beings we call ''enlightened'' the ME including ego is still the same as in an ''ordinary'' human being. The notion of trying to get rid of an ego is not correct, any striving to DO, is the ME ( including an ego ) that is doing, trying or striving. The ego is not something that can be gotten rid of or thrown away; it is only the ME including ego that can DO / act. The assertion that an ego must be thrown away is also an act of an ME including ego. In spiritual literature there is much talk of the ME or ego being the enemy of realization or an obstruction to realization. There is also talk of the ego disappearing. It is the taking of these statements literally that leads to misinterpretation. The ME including ego does not vanish, the ME including ego does not have to be thrown away, nor can it be, the ME including ego disappears with the realization that 'it' is not what ''''''you'''''' are. Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 10, 2004 Report Share Posted July 10, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > > Hi again, > > > The answer is that you must throw your ego into the > > dustbin. Only when you become totally fearless can this bliss be > > activated in you Sounds impossible to achieve? Only to the ego. > > Didn't I tell you that it is the ego you must throw into the > > dustbin? :-) > > > This is very inaccurate and probably misleading to some. > > The ME including ego can never be 'gotten rid of' or thrown away. > > Nor is there a need to get rid of an ego, nor is it possible to get > rid of ego. > > In human beings we call ''enlightened'' the ME including ego is still > the same as in an ''ordinary'' human being. > > The notion of trying to get rid of an ego is not correct, any > striving to DO, is the ME ( including an ego ) that is doing, trying > or striving. > > The ego is not something that can be gotten rid of or thrown away; it > is only the ME including ego that can DO / act. > > The assertion that an ego must be thrown away is also an act of an ME > including ego. > > In spiritual literature there is much talk of the ME or ego being the > enemy of realization or an obstruction to realization. > > There is also talk of the ego disappearing. > > It is the taking of these statements literally that leads to > misinterpretation. > > The ME including ego does not vanish, the ME including ego does not > have to be thrown away, nor can it be, the ME including ego > disappears with the realization that 'it' is not what ''''''you'''''' > are. > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. When you ''''you'''' are, then the ego is in the dustbin! /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 10, 2004 Report Share Posted July 10, 2004 Hi again, > > > > Hi again, > > > > > The answer is that you must throw your ego into the > > > dustbin. Only when you become totally fearless can this bliss be > > > activated in you Sounds impossible to achieve? Only to the ego. > > > Didn't I tell you that it is the ego you must throw into the > > > dustbin? :-) > > > > > > This is very inaccurate and probably misleading to some. > > > > The ME including ego can never be 'gotten rid of' or thrown away. > > > > Nor is there a need to get rid of an ego, nor is it possible to get > > rid of ego. > > > > In human beings we call ''enlightened'' the ME including ego is > still > > the same as in an ''ordinary'' human being. > > > > The notion of trying to get rid of an ego is not correct, any > > striving to DO, is the ME ( including an ego ) that is doing, > trying > > or striving. > > > > The ego is not something that can be gotten rid of or thrown away; > it > > is only the ME including ego that can DO / act. > > > > The assertion that an ego must be thrown away is also an act of an > ME > > including ego. > > > > In spiritual literature there is much talk of the ME or ego being > the > > enemy of realization or an obstruction to realization. > > > > There is also talk of the ego disappearing. > > > > It is the taking of these statements literally that leads to > > misinterpretation. > > > > The ME including ego does not vanish, the ME including ego does not > > have to be thrown away, nor can it be, the ME including ego > > disappears with the realization that 'it' is not > what ''''''you'''''' > > are. > > > > Kind Regards, > > > > Scott. > > When you ''''you'''' are, then the ego is in the dustbin! No, you ( a ME ) are conceptualizing about what you *think* it would be *like* to be '''enlightened'''. *Again, the ego is never thrown away, nor can it be* A ( thinking ) ME will / can never realize, and the ego does not vanish except as being a 'thing' that you are. Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 10, 2004 Report Share Posted July 10, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > > Hi again, > > > > > > > Hi again, > > > > > > > The answer is that you must throw your ego into the > > > > dustbin. Only when you become totally fearless can this bliss > be > > > > activated in you Sounds impossible to achieve? Only to the ego. > > > > Didn't I tell you that it is the ego you must throw into the > > > > dustbin? :-) > > > > > > > > > This is very inaccurate and probably misleading to some. > > > > > > The ME including ego can never be 'gotten rid of' or thrown away. > > > > > > Nor is there a need to get rid of an ego, nor is it possible to > get > > > rid of ego. > > > > > > In human beings we call ''enlightened'' the ME including ego is > > still > > > the same as in an ''ordinary'' human being. > > > > > > The notion of trying to get rid of an ego is not correct, any > > > striving to DO, is the ME ( including an ego ) that is doing, > > trying > > > or striving. > > > > > > The ego is not something that can be gotten rid of or thrown > away; > > it > > > is only the ME including ego that can DO / act. > > > > > > The assertion that an ego must be thrown away is also an act of > an > > ME > > > including ego. > > > > > > In spiritual literature there is much talk of the ME or ego being > > the > > > enemy of realization or an obstruction to realization. > > > > > > There is also talk of the ego disappearing. > > > > > > It is the taking of these statements literally that leads to > > > misinterpretation. > > > > > > The ME including ego does not vanish, the ME including ego does > not > > > have to be thrown away, nor can it be, the ME including ego > > > disappears with the realization that 'it' is not > > what ''''''you'''''' > > > are. > > > > > > Kind Regards, > > > > > > Scott. > > > > When you ''''you'''' are, then the ego is in the dustbin! > > > > No, you ( a ME ) are conceptualizing about what you *think* it would > be *like* to be '''enlightened'''. > > *Again, the ego is never thrown away, nor can it be* > > A ( thinking ) ME will / can never realize, and the ego does not > vanish except as being a 'thing' that you are. > > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. Maybe it's possible to throw the ego away. I don't mean that the ego throws the ego away other than as an illusion, similar to the illusion of the ego being a doer in other situations. /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 10, 2004 Report Share Posted July 10, 2004 Hi again, > No, you ( a ME ) are conceptualizing about what you *think* it would > be *like* to be '''enlightened'''. > > *Again, the ego is never thrown away, nor can it be* > > A ( thinking ) ME will / can never realize, and the ego does not > vanish except as being a 'thing' that you are. > > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. <Maybe it's possible to throw the ego away> 'Throwing away' an ego is a crude *concept* of what you ( a ME ) believe should or would happen under ''enlightenment''. It is the ME ( including ego ) that says so and *thinks* to think so. Any trying to do, or trying to 'throw away' ( which is not possible ) is thought by a ME. <I don't mean that the ego throws the ego away other than as an illusion> The ME cannot 'throw' away ME and the ME is never an illusion '''to ME''' The whole notion of getting rid of an ego is thoughts occurring with a ME. <similar to the illusion of the ego being a doer in other situations.> The ME is the doer. Kind Regards, Scott. ** If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: /mygroups?edit=1 Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 10, 2004 Report Share Posted July 10, 2004 Nisargadatta , Scott Andersen <sga_email> wrote: > > Hi again, > > > No, you ( a ME ) are conceptualizing about what you *think* it > would > > be *like* to be '''enlightened'''. > > > > *Again, the ego is never thrown away, nor can it be* > > > > A ( thinking ) ME will / can never realize, and the ego does not > > vanish except as being a 'thing' that you are. > > > > > > Kind Regards, > > > > Scott. > > <Maybe it's possible to throw the ego away> > > 'Throwing away' an ego is a crude *concept* of what you ( a ME ) believe should or would happen under ''enlightenment''. > > It is the ME ( including ego ) that says so and *thinks* to think so. > > Any trying to do, or trying to 'throw away' ( which is not possible ) is thought by a ME. If we by ego mean the sense of being an individual doer, then it becomes difficult for the ego to throw away itself, yes. > > <I don't mean that the ego > throws the ego away other than as an illusion> > > The ME cannot 'throw' away ME and the ME is never an illusion '''to ME''' > > The whole notion of getting rid of an ego is thoughts occurring with a ME. > > <similar to the > illusion of the ego being a doer in other situations.> > > The ME is the doer. Wayne Liquorman use to say that of course the body/mind mechanism is the doer, because it is doing something, but he asks the question: is the body/mind mechanism (the ME) the authour of the actions done? I like Ramesh Balsekar's description better, for example when he quotes Buddha: " Events happen, deeds are done, but there is no individual doer thereof. " You could be right, that the ME is a doer making real choices. But I cannot see that the ME, the body/mind mechanism (meaning the whole human being) is a separate object. In fact, I cannot see that the human being is a thing at all. The human being is more like a wave in an ocean of energy, and when we try to capture this wave in a bucket, as we are doing when using concepts like ME, body/mind e t c, then the wave is no longer a wave. /AL > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. > ** > > If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: > > /mygroups?edit=1 > > Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes. > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 10, 2004 Report Share Posted July 10, 2004 Hi again, > > 'Throwing away' an ego is a crude *concept* of what you ( a ME ) > believe should or would happen under ''enlightenment''. > > > > It is the ME ( including ego ) that says so and *thinks* to think > so. > > > > Any trying to do, or trying to 'throw away' ( which is not > possible ) is thought by a ME. > If we by ego mean the sense of being an individual doer, then it > becomes difficult for the ego to throw away itself, yes. 'Throwing away an ego' is an *idea* about what the concept of 'enlightenment' is or would be like, saying then that it would be 'difficult' to do is simply taking the idea further. Again, the ego cannot be thrown away or gotten rid of, nor does it vanish even in the case of realized persons. > Wayne Liquorman use to say that of course the body/mind mechanism is > the doer, because it is doing something, but he asks the question: is > the body/mind mechanism (the ME) the authour of the actions done? To a reflected self something is done through someone. To the unity nothing is done through no-one. There is no contradiction in these 2. The problem becomes when they are split into 2 and one is held to be correct *to the exclusion of the other* Modern advaita teachers like Wayne Liquorman say things like 'there is nothing to do, you are THAT' or ' there is no one doing anything'. Remember, Wayne Liquorman is a ME with all the inherentness ( read : fault ) that goes with being a 'human being'. Same applies to Nisargadatta Maharaj, Ramana Maharshi or any 'sage' you care to name. 'Truthfully', there is no such thing as a sage. > like Ramesh Balsekar's description better, for example when he quotes > Buddha: " Events happen, deeds are done, but there is no individual > doer thereof. " We do not know in what context this quote was written. Do you know where it has been taken from? I would love to read the whole thing together. The Buddha could have been trying to explain a 'perspective' whereas the whole cannot be explained with law of excluded middle logic. > You could be right, that the ME is a doer making real choices. But I > cannot see that the ME, the body/mind mechanism (meaning the whole > human being) is a separate object> Think about the following; *What makes a ME a ME is what makes a ME seperate* >In fact, I cannot see that the > human being is a thing at all> To say as a ME that you cannot see is to say you can. >The human being is more like a wave in > an ocean of energy> The human being is not like an energy wave. The human being is a creature with a mind body. >and when we try to capture this wave in a bucket, > as we are doing when using concepts like ME, body/mind e t c, then > the wave is no longer a wave. We are not trying to capture a wave in a bucket, or even represent of define a human, the terms we use simply describe what we are talking about for the purposes of discussion. Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 11, 2004 Report Share Posted July 11, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > > Hi again, > > > > 'Throwing away' an ego is a crude *concept* of what you ( a ME ) > > believe should or would happen under ''enlightenment''. > > > > > > It is the ME ( including ego ) that says so and *thinks* to think > > so. > > > > > > Any trying to do, or trying to 'throw away' ( which is not > > possible ) is thought by a ME. > > > If we by ego mean the sense of being an individual doer, then it > > becomes difficult for the ego to throw away itself, yes. > > > 'Throwing away an ego' is an *idea* about what the concept > of 'enlightenment' is or would be like, saying then that it would > be 'difficult' to do is simply taking the idea further. > > Again, the ego cannot be thrown away or gotten rid of, nor does it > vanish even in the case of realized persons. When I say difficult I really mean impossible here. The ego throwing itself away, that would be like lifting oneself by pulling one's own bootstraps. > > > > > Wayne Liquorman use to say that of course the body/mind mechanism > is > > the doer, because it is doing something, but he asks the question: > is > > the body/mind mechanism (the ME) the authour of the actions done? > > > To a reflected self something is done through someone. > To the unity nothing is done through no-one. > > There is no contradiction in these 2. > > The problem becomes when they are split into 2 and one is held to be > correct *to the exclusion of the other* > > Modern advaita teachers like Wayne Liquorman say things like 'there > is nothing to do, you are THAT' or ' there is no one doing anything'. > > Remember, Wayne Liquorman is a ME with all the inherentness ( read : > fault ) that goes with being a 'human being'. > > Same applies to Nisargadatta Maharaj, Ramana Maharshi or any 'sage' > you care to name. > > 'Truthfully', there is no such thing as a sage. I don't know if there is a 'state' we can call being a sage. You say there is none, others say that there is. > > > > like Ramesh Balsekar's description better, for example when he > quotes > > Buddha: " Events happen, deeds are done, but there is no individual > > doer thereof. " > > > We do not know in what context this quote was written. > > Do you know where it has been taken from? > > I would love to read the whole thing together. > > The Buddha could have been trying to explain a 'perspective' whereas > the whole cannot be explained with law of excluded middle logic. What do you mean by excluded middle logic. Logic is never complete. Every form of logical analysis is always incomplete. The logic may be complete within a limited framework, and no logical framework will ever be complete. > > > > You could be right, that the ME is a doer making real choices. But > I > > cannot see that the ME, the body/mind mechanism (meaning the whole > > human being) is a separate object> > > > Think about the following; > > *What makes a ME a ME is what makes a ME seperate* Isn't that the same thing as the ego? > > > >In fact, I cannot see that the > > human being is a thing at all> > > > To say as a ME that you cannot see is to say you can. I can see the separation as in the form of a thought, a concept, but I cannot see the real separation. I can see an apple as a separate object, but separate according to my senses, and separate as a world 'apple', but I cannot see that the apple is really a separate object. In fact, I can find no separate objects anywhere, not even words are separate 'objects'. A word is a concept, a label, and within the framework of concepts, the word is a separate object, but the framework itself is not a thing, nor are concepts withing this framework separate objects. I see everything as waves on an ocean of 'energy', without no real separation from each other or from the ocean. > > > >The human being is more like a wave in > > an ocean of energy> > > > The human being is not like an energy wave. > The human being is a creature with a mind body. When we talk about the human being as an object then this description, this concept: 'human being' is a seemingly separate label on something seemingly separate in time and space, but when we look deeper into the nature of reality we find that all is no-thing- ness happening. > > > >and when we try to capture this wave in a bucket, > > as we are doing when using concepts like ME, body/mind e t c, then > > the wave is no longer a wave. > > > We are not trying to capture a wave in a bucket, or even represent of > define a human, the terms we use simply describe what we are talking > about for the purposes of discussion. Yes, but we use words to point to that fundamental existence that makes the words appear as separate 'things'. On the level of thought, there *are* separate objects like thoughts and words, and even the feelings related to thoughts can somewhat be said to be separate 'things', but when we go deeper into what is thought and feeling the scenere becomes fuzzy and separate things more become like an interrelated web of relations. If you are interested in science, here is a link: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-relational/ Here is some text from that page: " A physical system (or, more precisely, its contingent state) is reduced to the net of relations it entertains with the surrounding systems, and the physical structure of the world is identified as this net of relationships. " Here is another link: http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/9801/9801057.pdf In this paper David Mermin says: " Correlations have physical reality; that which they correlate does not. " What Mermin calls correlations is another word for relations. /AL > > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 11, 2004 Report Share Posted July 11, 2004 Hi again, > > 'Throwing away an ego' is an *idea* about what the concept > > of 'enlightenment' is or would be like, saying then that it would > > be 'difficult' to do is simply taking the idea further. > > > > Again, the ego cannot be thrown away or gotten rid of, nor does it > > vanish even in the case of realized persons. > When I say difficult I really mean impossible here. The ego throwing > itself away, that would be like lifting oneself by pulling one's own > bootstraps. Yes. As long as a ME is conceptualizing about *any*thing, trying or striving to do anything, or thinking then it is bound as that ME. Every concept a ME has about itself or the world binds that ME to a ME. > What do you mean by excluded middle logic. Excluded middle logic means saying that one thing is true to the exclusion of another, for example, that all there is is one wholeness to the exclusion that there is many. > > *What makes a ME a ME is what makes a ME seperate* > > Isn't that the same thing as the ego? No, the ME *includes* what people call the ego. > > >In fact, I cannot see that the > > > human being is a thing at all> > > > > > > To say as a ME that you cannot see is to say you can. > > I can see the separation as in the form of a thought, a concept, but > I cannot see the real separation. I can see an apple as a separate > object, but separate according to my senses, and separate as a > world 'apple', but I cannot see that the apple is really a separate > object> The apple is a seperate object and being a seperate object is what makes it 'happen as a apple'. All objects are not seperate in the case of being seperate objects firstly, they are seperate in the case of being seperate ideas manifested physically ( seperately ). In fact, I can find no separate objects anywhere, not even > words are separate 'objects'. A word is a concept, a label, and > within the framework of concepts, the word is a separate object, but > the framework itself is not a thing, nor are concepts withing this > framework separate objects. I see everything as waves on an ocean > of 'energy', without no real separation from each other or from the > ocean. Do you really see everything as a wave upon an ocean or is this an attempt to explain in concepts what you *think* the world is like. > When we talk about the human being as an object then this > description, this concept: 'human being' is a seemingly separate > label on something seemingly separate in time and space> A ME is seperate. but when we > look deeper into the nature of reality we find that all is no-thing- > ness happening. What are you using to look into reality, what is the reality you are looking at and what is the 'relationship' between these two? > Yes, but we use words to point to that fundamental existence that > makes the words appear as separate 'things'. On the level of thought, > there *are* separate objects like thoughts and words, and even the > feelings related to thoughts can somewhat be said to be > separate 'things', but when we go deeper into what is thought and > feeling the scenere becomes fuzzy and separate things more become > like an interrelated web of relations. Yes, as the Buddhists say there is no independent rising, it all arises as a whole, everything is inter-related oneness ( one 'mind' ) There is no seperation in the sense of a thing-in-itself, and there cannot be seperation in an omnipresence, but there is seperation in that ideas manifest as seperate objects, beings and things. Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 12, 2004 Report Share Posted July 12, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > > Hi again, > > > > 'Throwing away an ego' is an *idea* about what the concept > > > of 'enlightenment' is or would be like, saying then that it would > > > be 'difficult' to do is simply taking the idea further. > > > > > > Again, the ego cannot be thrown away or gotten rid of, nor does > it > > > vanish even in the case of realized persons. > > > > When I say difficult I really mean impossible here. The ego > throwing > > itself away, that would be like lifting oneself by pulling one's > own > > bootstraps. > > > Yes. > > As long as a ME is conceptualizing about *any*thing, trying or > striving to do anything, or thinking then it is bound as that ME. > > Every concept a ME has about itself or the world binds that ME to a > ME. > > > > > What do you mean by excluded middle logic. > > > Excluded middle logic means saying that one thing is true to the > exclusion of another, for example, that all there is is one wholeness > to the exclusion that there is many. > > > > > > *What makes a ME a ME is what makes a ME seperate* > > > > Isn't that the same thing as the ego? > > > No, the ME *includes* what people call the ego. > > > > > > >In fact, I cannot see that the > > > > human being is a thing at all> > > > > > > > > > To say as a ME that you cannot see is to say you can. > > > > I can see the separation as in the form of a thought, a concept, > but > > I cannot see the real separation. I can see an apple as a separate > > object, but separate according to my senses, and separate as a > > world 'apple', but I cannot see that the apple is really a separate > > object> > > The apple is a seperate object and being a seperate object is what > makes it 'happen as a apple'. > > All objects are not seperate in the case of being seperate objects > firstly, they are seperate in the case of being seperate ideas > manifested physically ( seperately ). I am talking about the nonlocal quantum level of existence, where there is not possible to separate this from that. Of course, on the level of experience the apple appear to be a separate object, and the human body a separate object. > > > In fact, I can find no separate objects anywhere, not even > > words are separate 'objects'. A word is a concept, a label, and > > within the framework of concepts, the word is a separate object, > but > > the framework itself is not a thing, nor are concepts withing this > > framework separate objects. I see everything as waves on an ocean > > of 'energy', without no real separation from each other or from the > > ocean. > > > Do you really see everything as a wave upon an ocean or is this an > attempt to explain in concepts what you *think* the world is like. By using logic I can see that everything is connected theoretically. But I have not the total feeling that everything is connected. > > > > > When we talk about the human being as an object then this > > description, this concept: 'human being' is a seemingly separate > > label on something seemingly separate in time and space> > > > A ME is seperate. Yes, in the way we feel separate yes. But maybe some people feel they are connected to everything as oneness. > > > but when we > > look deeper into the nature of reality we find that all is no- thing- > > ness happening. > > > What are you using to look into reality, what is the reality you are > looking at and what is the 'relationship' between these two? By looking at what a 'thing' is, I find that there is no such thing as a thing. I feel that this is what in Buddhism is called emptiness of things. There are relationships, but there are no relationships between sepatate things, it is the relationships in themselves that make things appear. > > > > Yes, but we use words to point to that fundamental existence that > > makes the words appear as separate 'things'. On the level of > thought, > > there *are* separate objects like thoughts and words, and even the > > feelings related to thoughts can somewhat be said to be > > separate 'things', but when we go deeper into what is thought and > > feeling the scenere becomes fuzzy and separate things more become > > like an interrelated web of relations. > > > Yes, as the Buddhists say there is no independent rising, it all > arises as a whole, everything is inter-related oneness ( one 'mind' ) > > There is no seperation in the sense of a thing-in-itself, and there > cannot be seperation in an omnipresence, but there is seperation in > that ideas manifest as seperate objects, beings and things. Yes, the illusion of separate things is there. /AL > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 12, 2004 Report Share Posted July 12, 2004 Hi again, > > All objects are not seperate in the case of being seperate objects > > firstly, they are seperate in the case of being seperate ideas > > manifested physically ( seperately ). > > I am talking about the nonlocal quantum level of existence, where > there is not possible to separate this from that. Of course, on the > level of experience the apple appear to be a separate object, and the > human body a separate object. If you are talking about another different level ( of mind ) such as that of 'rarified mind' then an apple is *no longer* an apple and it is meaningless then to talk about 'an apple' as being a seperate object. Seperation exists in the *physical world* and when we are talking about an apple as a seperate object an apple *is* a seperate object in that being *an apple* is *what* makes it seperate in the physical world. > > Do you really see everything as a wave upon an ocean or is this an > > attempt to explain in concepts what you *think* the world is like. > > By using logic I can see that everything is connected theoretically. > But I have not the total feeling that everything is connected. Yes, everything is connected and related and true seperation is impossible, nothing exists outside of mind. > > A ME is seperate. > > Yes, in the way we feel separate yes. But maybe some people feel they > are connected to everything as oneness. Those feelings are also a part of what makes a ME what it is. There is no WHO that can *know*. > > What are you using to look into reality, what is the reality you > are > > looking at and what is the 'relationship' between these two? > > By looking at what a 'thing' is, I find that there is no such thing > as a thing. I feel that this is what in Buddhism is called emptiness > of things> There are things, just not things in-themselves, nothing arises as an indpendent thing, this does not mean that things do not exist. > Yes, the illusion of separate things is there. You can call it illusion ( the way we typically think of objects as having a seperate existence in and of themselves as an inherent reality ) but seperate objects in the physical world still exist as seperate things. Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 13, 2004 Report Share Posted July 13, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > > Hi again, > > > > All objects are not seperate in the case of being seperate > objects > > > firstly, they are seperate in the case of being seperate ideas > > > manifested physically ( seperately ). > > > > I am talking about the nonlocal quantum level of existence, where > > there is not possible to separate this from that. Of course, on the > > level of experience the apple appear to be a separate object, and > the > > human body a separate object. > > > If you are talking about another different level ( of mind ) such as > that of 'rarified mind' then an apple is *no longer* an apple and it > is meaningless then to talk about 'an apple' as being a seperate > object. Maybe no meaningless. It is not meaningless to call a wave a wave. > > Seperation exists in the *physical world* and when we are talking > about an apple as a seperate object an apple *is* a seperate object > in that being *an apple* is *what* makes it seperate in the physical > world. Yes, but one has to scrutinize the finality of objects as is. Then another view of things may be realized. > > > > > Do you really see everything as a wave upon an ocean or is this > an > > > attempt to explain in concepts what you *think* the world is like. > > > > By using logic I can see that everything is connected > theoretically. > > But I have not the total feeling that everything is connected. > > > Yes, everything is connected and related and true seperation is > impossible, nothing exists outside of mind. > > > > > A ME is seperate. > > > > Yes, in the way we feel separate yes. But maybe some people feel > they > > are connected to everything as oneness. > > > Those feelings are also a part of what makes a ME what it is. > > There is no WHO that can *know*. > > > > > What are you using to look into reality, what is the reality you > > are > > > looking at and what is the 'relationship' between these two? > > > > By looking at what a 'thing' is, I find that there is no such thing > > as a thing. I feel that this is what in Buddhism is called > emptiness > > of things> > > There are things, just not things in-themselves, nothing arises as an > indpendent thing, this does not mean that things do not exist. > > > Yes, the illusion of separate things is there. > > You can call it illusion ( the way we typically think of objects as > having a seperate existence in and of themselves as an inherent > reality ) but seperate objects in the physical world still exist as > seperate things. Only in your mind my padawan learner. :-) /AL > > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 13, 2004 Report Share Posted July 13, 2004 Hi again, > > If you are talking about another different level ( of mind ) such > as > > that of 'rarified mind' then an apple is *no longer* an apple and > it > > is meaningless then to talk about 'an apple' as being a seperate > > object. > > Maybe no meaningless. It is not meaningless to call a wave a wave. If there is no wave then it is meaningless to talk of one. When there is an apple we call it an apple and it is a seperate object if it is no longer *what makes an apple an apple* then you can no longer call it an apple because it is not an apple; or is not the *thing* that makes an apple an apple. At the level of physical existence an apple is an apple at a higher level the apple is *not* -an apple-. Mountains are mountains and trees are trees. > > Seperation exists in the *physical world* and when we are talking > > about an apple as a seperate object an apple *is* a seperate object > > in that being *an apple* is *what* makes it seperate in the > physical > > world. > > Yes, but one has to scrutinize the finality of objects as is. Then > another view of things may be realized. I don't know what you mean by 'the finality of objects' but; If you mean their final manifestation; The 'finality of objects' is their *physical* manifestation as a *seperate* thing, objects are not objects 'first' they are dependent upon a mental existence as a precursor. Physical objects are the 'effects' of things at a mental level not the 'other way around'. If you mean '''going in the other direction''' ; In the 'finality of objects' who is there to scrutinize and what view is there to realize by what who? > > You can call it illusion ( the way we typically think of objects as > > having a seperate existence in and of themselves as an inherent > > reality ) but seperate objects in the physical world still exist as > > seperate things. > > Only in your mind my padawan learner. :-) The world ( including objects ) does not appear in anyones mind. Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 13, 2004 Report Share Posted July 13, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > Hi again, > > > > If you are talking about another different level ( of mind ) such > > as > > > that of 'rarified mind' then an apple is *no longer* an apple and > > it > > > is meaningless then to talk about 'an apple' as being a seperate > > > object. > > > > Maybe no meaningless. It is not meaningless to call a wave a wave. > > > If there is no wave then it is meaningless to talk of one. > > When there is an apple we call it an apple and it is a seperate > object if it is no longer *what makes an apple an apple* then you can > no longer call it an apple because it is not an apple; or is not the > *thing* that makes an apple an apple. > > At the level of physical existence an apple is an apple at a higher > level the apple is *not* -an apple-. > > Mountains are mountains and trees are trees. Yes, there is separation as we experience things. Nukunu says that if we have not experienced oneness, we cannot experience real separation. He talks about a state where everything appear more clear and differentiated and still as a oneness rising out of one's own heart. Maybe he had taken some magic mushrooms before saying this. ;- ) Seriously though, I think he has a point and I do think he is being honest and not on some sort of drugs or in another mentally hallucinory state. > > > > > Seperation exists in the *physical world* and when we are talking > > > about an apple as a seperate object an apple *is* a seperate > object > > > in that being *an apple* is *what* makes it seperate in the > > physical > > > world. > > > > Yes, but one has to scrutinize the finality of objects as is. Then > > another view of things may be realized. > > > I don't know what you mean by 'the finality of objects' but; > > If you mean their final manifestation; > > The 'finality of objects' is their *physical* manifestation as a > *seperate* thing, objects are not objects 'first' they are dependent > upon a mental existence as a precursor. Physical objects are > the 'effects' of things at a mental level not the 'other way around'. > > If you mean '''going in the other direction''' ; > > In the 'finality of objects' who is there to scrutinize and what view > is there to realize by what who? What I mean by a final object is that the human mind makes something an object as if it is a separate entity. And this is a good thing, because it makes Maya take the form of 'substance', but we should be aware I think of the emptiness of all objects as being things in themselves. I don't know what you mean by 'gping in the other direction' > > > > > You can call it illusion ( the way we typically think of objects > as > > > having a seperate existence in and of themselves as an inherent > > > reality ) but seperate objects in the physical world still exist > as > > > seperate things. > > > > Only in your mind my padawan learner. :-) > > > The world ( including objects ) does not appear in anyones mind. And you are sure about this? Think of yourself as pure consciousness observing itself in a certain 'point' and that consciousness is all there is. Then the world, including your body and your mind, is only a ripple or a wave in this consciousness. Thus, then you are consciousness, all-of-it, observing itself at a certain point. Consciousness has no size, substance or form. A wave pattern in consciousness makes Maya appear, which is the material universe. Everything that can be measured has no independent existence, is not a separate object. /AL > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 13, 2004 Report Share Posted July 13, 2004 Hi again > Yes, there is separation as we experience things. Nukunu says that if > we have not experienced oneness, we cannot experience real > separation. He talks about a state where everything appear more clear > and differentiated and still as a oneness rising out of one's own > heart. Maybe he had taken some magic mushrooms before saying this. ;- > ) Seriously though, I think he has a point and I do think he is being > honest and not on some sort of drugs or in another mentally > hallucinory state. Anything that anyone says is another concept to think about and another concept to bind a ME. Most of the time people we agree with enforce concepts that we ourselves believe and concepts we disagree with cause opposition to our own conceptions. > What I mean by a final object is that the human mind makes something > an object as if it is a separate entity. And this is a good thing, > because it makes Maya take the form of 'substance', but we should be > aware I think of the emptiness of all objects as being things in > themselves. I don't know what you mean by 'gping in the other > direction' Yes, if we want an accurate or more accurate picture of reality we should be aware that from the first there has never been a single thing and that everything is an appearance and disappearance. We should be aware that clinging to objects, attachments, people and things is mind clinging to mind and that that true ownership is not only an illusion but absolutely impossible. From the start not a single who has ever owned a single what. By going in the other direction I mean tracing manifestation from the physical upward through the other layers of mind that constitutent an object. > > The world ( including objects ) does not appear in anyones mind. > > And you are sure about this?> Is a ME certain that the world does not appear in it? *Whose* mind does the world appear in? >Think of yourself as pure consciousness > observing itself in a certain 'point' and that consciousness is all > there is. Then the world, including your body and your mind, is only > a ripple or a wave in this consciousness Thus, then you are > consciousness, all-of-it, observing itself at a certain point. > Consciousness has no size, substance or form. A wave pattern in > consciousness makes Maya appear, which is the material universe> How can *one* *think* of themselves as consciousness? What is 'consciousness'? > Everything that can be measured has no independent existence, is not > a separate object. Yes. Kind Regards, Scott. 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.