Guest guest Posted August 31, 2004 Report Share Posted August 31, 2004 Hi Stefan, >> This is another, 3rd different definition of the pain body that you want to have. etc, counting definitions... >>You may want fixed definitions. >It is not a matter of want, it is a matter of need, if communication >is going to occur. Sorry if I interrupt your discussion, I just want to make one small point and then let you alone again :-) Scott, you seem to have the idea that a conception (which the " pain body " is, as you both have agreed) needs a fixed definition and furthermore, that it cannot have more than one definition. >I don`t know where you have this idea from, but this is not common. Look, it is absolutely normal that one thing is given more than one definition.> I have no problem with one thing being given more than one definition, if the accuracy is maintained or understanding increased and the new definition serves a useful purpose in explaining the concept in greater detail or clarity. It is the *intention* and *need* for using these different concepts that I am drawing attention to. >In mathematics a given number has an infinite number of possible definitions, just to give you one basic example.> Yes, in mathematics and other disciplines concepts are given more than one definition, these definitions preserve the accuracy of the concept, maintain the accuracy in order to better express the concept under different circumstances, express the concept with greater clarity or detail, or show it in relation to other concepts. In all cases the *intention* and *result* is that this accuracy is preserved and that consistency is maintained. This is different to what is happening in the explanations and conceptions given of a 'pain body', and the reason lies in the intention in offering these different definitions. The intention is not to provide a greater clarity, greater accuracy, maintenance of clarity or to provide a more accurate description. The *intention*, and need, is to preserve the integrity of a belief, and this is both the cause of the different explanations being offered and their contradiction. See below. >In this case the person seems to give you several definitions because he tries to narrow the field in order to communicate this idea of the " pain body " to you. > You have a different perception of what is occuring than I do, this is my perception; There has not been awareness to maintain an accurate or more clear description because this has not been the *intent* or reason for creating the descriptions. These different conceptions are not being created for the purposes of accuracy or description or to provide a clearer explanation; they are being offered without an awareness of discrimination or concern for accuracy, as a means to support the integrity of a previously held or stated beleif. The need to maintain accuracy is not the intent and not a consideration when these concepts are being formulated reactively. There is no clear idea of what a pain body is because there is not the awareness of discrimination needed in order to avoid contradiction, and each new definition is being made up live at that moment in response. The *intention* is *not* that a consistent definition be given or that more definitions will provide a more accurate view, but that different conceptions be offered only because of a need. *It does not matter what a pain body is defined as, so long as a definition is given to support the belief* If the intention is not to provide a more clear definition but to offer any conception in support of a belief, then there is no point in offering any conception at all, and not any single definition over any other. *It is more important that support be given rather than that the support be accurate* This is why I asked; 'Is it more important that a pain body be 9 different contradictory things, or that it is proven to be real' It is the *intention* in creating the numerous conceptions that I see is the 'problem' if you want to call it that. >Thats a normal process in a dialog. This process anyway could go on until you agree (or " understand " ) or you both simply agree to disagree.> We agree on some things, on others we disagree, this is normal. I perceive a lot of what Anders says to be very subjective concepts which are guesses in order to explain beliefs held, or concepts held without investigation or reason. When I speak of introspection, it is plainly clear that some of the material said in reply is being invented as a reaction. In this way, these intentions do not match my own. The notion of creating different definitions without consideration to their accuracy because of a need to support a belief is what I am seeing; the reason this occurrs is because there has not been an awareness needed to avoid contradiction. The intent in formulating these conceptions is not greater accuracy, but belief support no matter what the cost to any accuracy or communication of meaning. To address your point, discussion, so long as it is not for disagreements sake alone, is fruitful, with this discussion in particular, it maybe allows us to see part of ourselves we may not have been presented with in normal circumstances and lets us see our motivations and thought reflected back to us in a truer form, we may be able to look at ourselves differently, maybe more accurately, and with more honesty. My statements and the statements above are my thoughts based on these reactions, but this is my perception only. You are also perceiving these circumstances differently as you stated above which is a valid perception also. Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 31, 2004 Report Share Posted August 31, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: >Yes, in mathematics and other disciplines concepts are given more >than one definition, these definitions preserve the accuracy of the >concept, maintain the accuracy in order to better express the concept >under different circumstances, express the concept with greater >clarity or detail, or show it in relation to other concepts. >In all cases the *intention* and *result* is that this accuracy is >preserved and that consistency is maintained. No, no... With all respect, I would call your reasoning wishful thinking! All those definitions dont serve accuracy, they are just a necessary evil. 100 is defined by: 1+99, 2+98 ... 1000 - 900... etc... The same is due for any other discipline, mathematics was just a basic example. Give me your definition for " acuracy " ... and it will be just another definition. You can look at any phenomenon from an infinite number of angles. Maybe you are mixing up " definition " with " evidence " ? >The *intention*, and need, is to preserve the integrity of a belief, >and this is both the cause of the different explanations being >offered and their contradiction. What is wrong with that? His intentions are not our business. To bring the discussion to a personal level creates only more unclarity. You are like Don Quichote fighting those famous windmill sails. Of cause this " pain body " is nothing more than a concept and a belief. This has been already agreed upon, as I have read. I would add: EVERY body is a concept. They will ALL have to be left behind. Good luck Stefan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 31, 2004 Report Share Posted August 31, 2004 Hi again, > >Yes, in mathematics and other disciplines concepts are given more > >than one definition, these definitions preserve the accuracy of the > >concept, maintain the accuracy in order to better express the > concept > >under different circumstances, express the concept with greater > >clarity or detail, or show it in relation to other concepts. > >In all cases the *intention* and *result* is that this accuracy is > >preserved and that consistency is maintained. > > No, no... With all respect, I would call your reasoning wishful > thinking! All those definitions dont serve accuracy, they are just a > necessary evil. 100 is defined by: 1+99, 2+98 ... 1000 - 900... etc... Are you saying or do you believe that in mathematics and other disciplines of thought that consistency is *not* maintained and that that is also the *intention* and *result*? > The same is due for any other discipline, mathematics was just a basic > example. Give me your definition for " acuracy " ... and it will be just another definition.> We would both understand with enough commonality of meaning in the word eaccuracyfthat I could say; 'Do you believe that accuracy in communication and philosophical communication especially, be maintained or that creating conceptions to fit beliefs and because of a need to preserve the integrity of a belief..etc etc? Do you understand what I have written? If you understand do you agree? Even if you disagree why not agree to disagree, instead of ( below ). >You can look at any phenomenon from an infinite > number of angles. Maybe you are mixing up " definition " with > " evidence " ? I am pointing out *why* different definitions are being given, and why they contradict. Does this bring more or less clarity or awareness? That is for you to decide. You seem to feel that what I wrote is a threat or too personal? > >The *intention*, and need, is to preserve the integrity of a belief, > >and this is both the cause of the different explanations being > >offered and their contradiction. > >What is wrong with that?> I have not mentioned the word or notion of being wrong. You have only introduced this just now. Let me ask you, Why do you think it is right or wrong?; By your question you assume I think it is wrong. Or you are saying that it is *not wrong* or that *you* think it is *not wrong* or that it is *right* or *acceptable*. This is just my perception as you have stated yours and it will mean different things to different people But, you are not defending your own perception that you stated to me, you are defending Anders as a person. Why defend someone elses actions instead of your own perception? What is wrong with preserving the integrity of a belief no matter what the cost and consideration to consistency, guessing even, etc? You do not have to judge Anders as a person in answering this question, nor defend him or his actions. I never said it was wrong, it will be and mean many different things to different people as it does to me. I have not commented on being right or wrong, but said that this was the eproblemf if you could call it that, with my perception with why things were contradicting and definitions changed to fit beliefs. I have also said that his intentions are different from my own which I personally see as another eproblemf. Your perception is your own. >His intentions are not our business.> What is wrong in stating Anders intentions if they are the correct ones? What is there to worry about or is there a threat if they are the wrong ones? I find the above statement strange, especially since you are defending a person not your own perception. >To bring the discussion to a personal level creates only more unclarity.> The perception that I have noted is not more personal than your own perception offered, or any more personal than the more intimate points we have already been discussing. There is a reason why what I wrote has caused a reaction. Why has this particular instance been singled out? Why are you making a point of commenting on it? Do you disagree with what I wrote because you think it is incorrect, morally wrong or too personal or for some other reason? >You > are like Don Quichote fighting those famous windmill sails.> >Of cause > this " pain body " is nothing more than a concept and a belief. This has > been already agreed upon, as I have read. Yes, this was not the point I was making. >I would add: EVERY body is a concept> What do you mean by econceptf? Every body is not a concept, you and me are not concepts, other beings are not concepts etc. >They will ALL have to be left behind.> Why left behind? Why not fully accepted? Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 31, 2004 Report Share Posted August 31, 2004 Dear Scott, first of all I would like to ask you to find a better way of quoting. In your postings it is very difficult or sometimes impossible to find out which phrases are mine, which ones are yours and which ones are from somebody else. Nothing against chaos - but... :-))) I wrote: >> No, no... With all respect, I would call your reasoning wishful >> thinking! All those definitions dont serve accuracy, they are just >> a necessary evil. 100 is defined by: 1+99, 2+98 ... 1000 - 900... >> etc... you replied: > Are you saying or do you believe that in mathematics and other > disciplines of thought that consistency is *not* maintained and > that that is also the *intention* and *result*? Please, I am only saying what I just said: I contradict your statement that definitions always have to serve accuracy and that something is wrong if more than one definition is given. I have showed why this is so. Why do you now want to discuss something else? I am not interested in this discussion. -snip- > What is wrong in stating Anders intentions if they are the correct > ones? What is there to worry about or is there a threat if they are > the wrong ones? Just think about this: intentions cannot be right or wrong. Only good or bad. And there is no threat or worry. How comes this idea to your mind? > I find the above statement strange, especially since you are > defending a person not your own perception. Please, Scott: I am not defending anybody here! Did it look like this to you? I just have pointed you to basic logic mistakes that I felt you have made, this is all. When you find my statements strange, better forget them. If you would knew me better you might find me strange altogether. See, I am not interested in broadening this discussion to further extent nor did I intend to be involved in a personal discussion with you. But I have to say sorry that I have started this thing in the first place. This was my fault. -snip- Finally I have written about bodies: >> They will ALL have to be left behind.> > > Why left behind? > Why not fully accepted? Yes, left behind. My friend, you seem to have forgotten that all bodies will have to die sooner or later. All the best Stefan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 3, 2004 Report Share Posted September 3, 2004 Hi Stefan, > first of all I would like to ask you to find a better way of quoting. > In your postings it is very difficult or sometimes impossible to find > out which phrases are mine, which ones are yours and which ones are > from somebody else. Nothing against chaos - but... :-)))> I have looked over the posts I have written to you, and how they appear. All your words are enclosed by , all my words are not, I really cannot see any problem. > I wrote: > >> No, no... With all respect, I would call your reasoning wishful > >> thinking! All those definitions dont serve accuracy, they are just > >> a necessary evil. 100 is defined by: 1+99, 2+98 ... 1000 - 900... > >> etc... > > you replied: > > Are you saying or do you believe that in mathematics and other > > disciplines of thought that consistency is *not* maintained and > > that that is also the *intention* and *result*? > > Please, I am only saying what I just said: I contradict your statement > that definitions always have to serve accuracy and that something is > wrong if more than one definition is given.> You have not contradicted *my* statement that 'definitions always have to serve accuracy and that something is wrong if more than one definition is used'. I never wrote this statement. You are contradicting my statement with a statement that you yourself have written. What I said is below, note the words in capital type. 'Yes, in mathematics and other disciplines concepts are given MORE THAN ONE definition, these definitions PRESERVE the accuracy of the concept, MAINTAIN the accuracy in order to BETTER EXPRESS the concept UNDER DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES, express the concept with GREATER CLARITY or DETAIL, OR show it in RELATION to other concepts.' You said; 'All those definitions dont serve accuracy, they are just a necessary evil. 100 is defined by: 1+99, 2+98 ... 1000 - 900' Prior to this I had said; 'I have no problem with one thing being given more than one definition, if the accuracy is maintained or understanding increased and the new definition serves a useful purpose in explaining the concept in greater detail or clarity It is the *intention* and *need* for using these different concepts that I am drawing attention to.' You then wrote a statement, attributed it's writing and meaning to me, and then called this a contradiction. >I have showed why this is > so.> No, you have written a statement yourself, attributed it and it's meaning to me, and then said that it contradicts. >Why do you now want to discuss something else?> I asked you if you are agree with what I said as *my original* point; 'Do you believe that consistency of accuracy is *not* maintained and that that is also the *intention and result*?' You commented on this by writing your own statement and then claimed that it ( your statement ) contradicted. You are now chosing to ignore a question about whether you agree with what *I actually wrote and meant*. >I am not interested > in this discussion.> Ok. >In all cases the *intention* and *result* is that this accuracy is > >preserved and that consistency is maintained. > > What is wrong in stating Anders intentions if they are the correct > > ones? What is there to worry about or is there a threat if they are > > the wrong ones? > > Just think about this: intentions cannot be right or wrong.> Intentions are right or wrong, and you can and do judge this for yourself; Intention *affects* a person. Different intentions affect people differently even if the outcome is the same. This is a part of how, what we call 'karma' manifests. For example; A rabbit: Someone is hungry and wants to eat, so they kill a rabbit because their intention is to eat because they are hungry. Another person kills a rabbit because they have blood lust and want to kill simply for the sport of killing. The result is a rabbit is killed ( in both cases ). But these intentions manifest and affect each person differently. They *affect* each person within. Every time a person even swears or says the word 'f#$%k' they are affecting themselves, damaging themselves. This damage is real and it occurrs and builds up in a person as thought patterns, when someone swears at you with ill intent they are damaging themselves, if you do not respond or if you accept this wholly and fully without reaction of more hate, then they are the *only* person hurting themselves, in which case if you have wholly and fully accepted their thought without reactive hate but with loving acceptance then you must also feel forgiveness and sympathy for that person *genuinely*. If someone swears without cruel intent, with awareness of what they are doing, then they do not inflict damage on themselves. This will also manifest as different circumstances in affecting others. I can absolutely assure you that your intentions even with the same outcome will *affect you* for better or for worse, for your benefit or your detriment. You will then know in each case what is right or wrong, good or bad. For example think about your intent in writing this letter to me, and also the intent in making an apology to me ( below ). Remember also, I have not judged anyones intentions right or wrong. I have said that what is occuring with contradictory statements and different definitions is *because* of the intentions not being about seeking to explain things more accurately or to maintain accuracy or provide a clearer explanation or greater clarity, but to preserve the integrity of a belief held. I have also said that these intentions did not match my own. >Only good or bad> Yes, good and bad also, if you want to use those words as descriptions of the affects of your intentions to your well being, life, person and on others etc. >And there is no threat or worry. How comes this idea to your > mind? From you saying; 'What is wrong with that? His intentions are not our business' To bring the discussion to a personal level creates only more unclarity..> You do not defend your perception of what is occuring, you are defending a persons actions. I also disagree that it creates more unclarity by saying what I said. > > I find the above statement strange, especially since you are > > defending a person not your own perception. > > Please, Scott: I am not defending anybody here! Did it look like this > to you?> Yes. >I just have pointed you to basic logic mistakes> No, you have written a statement, claimed this was my meaning and what I wrote, and then claimed contradiction. that I felt > you have made, this is all. Are these my mistakes? >When you find my statements strange, > better forget them. If you would knew me better you might find me > strange altogether. > If something is strange there is a reason. Something that stands out. This also; I think it is strange that you are offering me an apology, below. >See, I am not interested in broadening this > discussion to further extent nor did I intend to be involved in a > personal discussion with you.> Ok. >But I have to say sorry that I have > started this thing in the first place. This was my fault. Why do you feel the *need* to apologize, you do not need to apologize to me for anything. Have I ever given you the impression that an apology was needed? Have you felt yourself that you should have to apologize to me? That I am offended or that you have done something wrong? Have you done anything wrong? The need for the apology is yours, it was written for you, and for your own reasons. Why was the apology written? You don't really mean to say sorry, because there is no reason to be sorry and nothing to be sorry for. Saying sorry is a disguised protest to create the feeling of guilt ( and pity for yourself ) either in myself or as a perception of guilt or pity in the eyes of others. Sorry, but I have no sympathy for you! Parents do this to children; 'Sorry for even asking you to' 'I know, it's my fault' Angry customers do this; 'Well, I am sorry to have bothered you' Friends say it to friends; 'Well, I'm sorry you feel that way' Another way to see this is to think to yourself...would I have written.. 'But I have to say sorry that I have started this thing in the first place. This was my fault'... *If* I were sending this email to *Scott only*, and he would be the only person to read it. If he was the only person who would see the message and the only person to whom the message would be sent, not appearing for others to see or read, would I still have written this apology? *Your apology is intended to reveal the perception of guilt, or derive pity* If there is a *need* to apologize, a poor person who has to apologize, there is person who must be shown pity and also a guilty party that is the cause. Apologizing like this is imposing guilt on another or to allow the perception of guilt in others eyes, or both. There is no reason for you to apologize to me; *If you really want to apologize genuinely, do so, tell me why you are sorry and what for* So that I can then forgive you for something you have not done. Don't use an apology as a means of guilt perception. > Finally I have written about bodies: > > >> They will ALL have to be left behind.> > > > > Why left behind? > > Why not fully accepted? > > Yes, left behind. My friend, you seem to have forgotten that all > bodies will have to die sooner or later. My response below in three different tones; Yes, we all die, My friend, have you forgotten that you and me have been dying our whole lives. Yes, we all die, My friend, you and me have been dying our whole lives. Yes, we all die, you and me have been dying our whole lives. Yes, we all die, you and me are dying now; we have 'already gone'. Some people say there are a few things that turn man to God, death, reflection on temporal existence, dispassion and so on. These need not be 'bad things to consider'. When I say accept everything I mean accept everything into your heart and don't push anything away, it is only a ME that pushes and only a ME that can. Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 3, 2004 Report Share Posted September 3, 2004 > Why do you feel the *need* to apologize, you do not need to > apologize to me for anything. My first language is not English, so maybe I have said something misunderstandable. I did not want to apologize for anything. When I said " I have to say sorry " I wanted to express that I regret that I started this whole thing. If I knew that you would try to make out of my simpe statement (that there is more than one definition possible for a given thing) such a complex discussion I would not have interfered. In case you forgot how it started: you have critisized Anders because you felt that he has given more than one definition for " pain body " . I was pointing at this, and that there is IMO nothing wrong about it. And between your lines I think I can read that you have understood this point. BTW: there is not the slightest personal feeling against you. If there is, then rather a sympathetic feeling that I have towards my fellow travellers in general. You seem to read many things into my words that I have never meant to say. One last thing about dying: I dont have the slightest idea about the meaning of your comments. What I have said was, that we all have to leave our bodies behind one day (I said this with a sidelong glance to the ominous " pain body " , which we also have to leave behind). There was no deep meaning behind this, just an attempt to be witty along with a portion of melancholy. All the best Stefan PS: I have the feeling that this dialog is not relevant for this group any more, dont you think? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 3, 2004 Report Share Posted September 3, 2004 Hi Stefan, > > Why do you feel the *need* to apologize, you do not need to > > apologize to me for anything. > > My first language is not English, so maybe I have said something > misunderstandable.> No, I could understand what you said. What I wrote is my perception. >I did not want to apologize for anything.> Yes, not for anything you have done. You wanted to apologize for a *reason* with an intention. >When I > said " I have to say sorry " I wanted to express that I regret that I > started this whole thing. No, I disagree, you didn't. Your heart may have changed now in retrospect but this was not the intention of why you wrote what you wrote when you wrote it. Again, no sympathy for you for that one, but no hate either. Just being honest >If I knew that you would try to make out of > my simpe statement (that there is more than one definition possible > for a given thing) such a complex discussion I would not have > interfered. I have replied to answers and assertions that you have made. I am only commenting on what *I am perceiving*. > In case you forgot how it started: you have critisized Anders because > you felt that he has given more than one definition for " pain body " . I have not criticized Anders. I have commented on his intentions and said that his intentions are responsible for the number of contradictory and different conceptions that he has given as reactions and that this has been done to support a belief. You said there is nothing wrong in doing this, which I acknowledged as a valid perception. I have also said that his intentions do not match my own. He has since indicated that this is what he has been doing. >I > was pointing at this, and that there is IMO nothing wrong about it.> Yes, and I commented that I respect your perception and indicated that I thought it was valid perception, but that it differed from my own. I also mentioned last email about intentions being right and wrong, good and bad and that these can only be known this way through that person and that their intentions will affect them. > And between your lines I think I can read that you have understood > this point. I have said that *intentions* can be right or wrong. > BTW: there is not the slightest personal feeling against you. If there > is, then rather a sympathetic feeling that I have towards my fellow > travellers in general. You seem to read many things into my words that > I have never meant to say.> You might be suprised at just how much words ( thoughts ) are really saying. > One last thing about dying: I dont have the slightest idea about the > meaning of your comments.> I meant that contemplating death can not just be a morbid or horrible thing to do, it is one thing that can turn and does turn many people to look for the divine. By accepting everything I mean as I said, accepting everything into your *heart*, all changes in spiritual consciousness depend on the *heart*. Loving acceptance can't push away, only a ME can and only a ME does. >What I have said was, that we all have to leave our bodies behind one day.> Yes, we do. >(I said this with a sidelong glance to > the ominous " pain body " , which we also have to leave behind). Yes, we do. We can leave it behind long before we are dead. >There > was no deep meaning behind this, just an attempt to be witty along > with a portion of melancholy. Ok. > All the best > Stefan > > PS: I have the feeling that this dialog is not relevant for this group > any more, dont you think? That would depend where it headed. The ball is in your court so to speak, don't play too hard! Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 3, 2004 Report Share Posted September 3, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: >> When I said " I have to say sorry " I wanted to express that I >> regret that I started this whole thing. > No, I disagree, you didn't. I did not know that you can read my mind. > The ball is in your court so to speak, don't play too hard! I regret (is this correct?) that I started this game with you. Can we stop playing now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 4, 2004 Report Share Posted September 4, 2004 Hi Stefan, > >> When I said " I have to say sorry " I wanted to express that I > >> regret that I started this whole thing. > > > No, I disagree, you didn't. > I did not know that you can read my mind.> It is my perception like I said. > > The ball is in your court so to speak, don't play too hard! > > I regret (is this correct?) that I started this game with you. Can we > stop playing now? There is no game, I said the above just in a light hearted way in the context of the more serious and intentional statements I mentioned about your apology and the reasons for it. 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.