Guest guest Posted November 24, 2004 Report Share Posted November 24, 2004 Do objects exist? Sure! Are objects real? Sure! So what is an object, then? A mis-interpretation. What is the core of this mis-interpretation? Separeteness,independence, To view an object as existing in itself. Think of a wave, it is not independent from the sea. It's a movement, rather than a thing, and yet, we think of it as an object. A wave is a wave, that's easy to see. But is a rock a wave? Yes it's, all objects are waves, they are behaviours of the field vacuum. Because we see the waves and not the vacuum field, we see its movements as isoloted objects. It's a mis-interpretation. Why is it important to view objects this way? Because it will cut the ground from under the belief in separeteness. Should I believe there are no objects then? No. When you deconstruct the belief in objects, you should not hold on to the belief that there are no objects. No matter what you call it, a wave, ondulation, a wrinkle in the One, the stone in your shoe will hurt your foot. If the day comes when all your questions are answered, the unfathomable will still be there as an unknown . An the unknown can only be perceived directly. No questions, no answer fit there. Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 24, 2004 Report Share Posted November 24, 2004 The crux is not the mis-interpretation of objects. No matter how one interpretes the objects, he is misunderstanding the situation. It does not make any difference if he interpretes the objects as reality, as waves, or even as illusions. The crux is the believe that there is a separate subject to the objects. Once it becomes clear that such a subject cannot exist then there are no more interpretations needed and everything falls in place. S. Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> wrote: > > Do objects exist? > Sure! > Are objects real? > Sure! > So what is an object, then? > A mis-interpretation. > > What is the core of this mis-interpretation? > Separeteness,independence, To view an object > as existing in itself. Think of a wave, it > is not independent from the sea. It's a > movement, rather than a thing, and yet, we > think of it as an object. A wave is a wave, > that's easy to see. > > But is a rock a wave? > Yes it's, all objects are waves, they are > behaviours of the field vacuum. Because > we see the waves and not the vacuum field, we > see its movements as isoloted objects. It's > a mis-interpretation. > Why is it important to view objects this way? > Because it will cut the ground from under the > belief in separeteness. > Should I believe there are no objects then? > No. When you deconstruct the belief in objects, > you should not hold on to the belief that there > are no objects. No matter what you call it, > a wave, ondulation, a wrinkle in the One, the > stone in your shoe will hurt your foot. > If the day comes when all your questions are > answered, the unfathomable will still be there > as an unknown . An the unknown can only be > perceived directly. No questions, no answer > fit there. > > Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 25, 2004 Report Share Posted November 25, 2004 > how certain is one that objects do really exist? > if acknowledging that objects are real, how can one claim it as a misinterpretation...in what sense do objects become --- misrepresentation? > where does one attribute this so called misinterpretaion? > when an individual perceives, does the object perceived still unknown? -------------------------------- -------------------------------- Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> wrote: > > Do objects exist? > Sure! > Are objects real? > Sure! > So what is an object, then? > A mis-interpretation. > > What is the core of this mis-interpretation? > Separeteness,independence, To view an object > as existing in itself. Think of a wave, it > is not independent from the sea. It's a > movement, rather than a thing, and yet, we > think of it as an object. A wave is a wave, > that's easy to see. > > But is a rock a wave? > Yes it's, all objects are waves, they are > behaviours of the field vacuum. Because > we see the waves and not the vacuum field, we > see its movements as isoloted objects. It's > a mis-interpretation. > Why is it important to view objects this way? > Because it will cut the ground from under the > belief in separeteness. > Should I believe there are no objects then? > No. When you deconstruct the belief in objects, > you should not hold on to the belief that there > are no objects. No matter what you call it, > a wave, ondulation, a wrinkle in the One, the > stone in your shoe will hurt your foot. > If the day comes when all your questions are > answered, the unfathomable will still be there > as an unknown . An the unknown can only be > perceived directly. No questions, no answer > fit there. > > Pete 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.