Guest guest Posted January 5, 2005 Report Share Posted January 5, 2005 In a message dated 1/5/05 3:16:40 PM, dan330033 writes: > After all, if you totally divorced yourself from > consensus meanings, you'd be insane. > > > And for good reason -- divorcing yourself from > consensus meanings is as futile as > fully aligning yourself with consensus meanings. > > Either direction involves an unsupportable bias. > > -- Dan > P: Yeah, talk to him, he needs you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 5, 2005 Report Share Posted January 5, 2005 In a message dated 1/5/05 3:50:32 PM, cptc writes: > Hi Dan, > > This morning I was thinking about using concepts to search for the > ultimate unifying concept.... > > and the whole ...concept........seemed so laughable. > > > Nis uses a phrase... " Washing blood with blood......... > > > > It all seems so sticky............. > > It's back to that idea of " mind " looking for itself within > itself.......using only itself...... > > > > If I weren't here......I just wouldn't believe it...LOL > > > > toombaru > > > > > > P: So do you admit some X is pretending to be, or has been misinterpreted as Toom? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 6, 2005 Report Share Posted January 6, 2005 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: > > > > In a message dated 1/4/05 7:39:55 PM, cptc@w... writes: > > > > > > > >Mila said " > > > > > > > " Nirvana means extinction whereby ther is no longer a self........ " > > > > > > > > > >There is......in that statement that there was a self but once nirvana > > > (what ever that is)...is >attained....there is no longer a self. > > > > > P: So your mis-understanding resides in that you take the self as > > being an entity, the self > > is a mis-interpretation of mental activity. What disapears is the > > wrong interpretation, > > leaving behind disconnected mental activity. It's like when you > > are under the impression > > that there is a lake up ahead in the middle of the road, but on > > getting closer, you see it was > > a mirage. The shimering in the air due to heat is still there, but the > > illusion of water is gone. > > Old pigeon addresed this, in his conversation with Joe at NDP, > > quite nicely. I hope you read > > that. > > > > > > > > > > >Since we all know by now that there never was or ever could be such a thing > > > as a self...there is >absolutely no conceivable way that it could cease to > > > be. > > > > > P: I know what you are trying to say, but you are not saying right. What > > you're trying to say > > is, what doesn't exist, doesn't need to be destroyed. In reality, anything > > that can be thought > > of, or imagined has to have, at least, conceptual existence. > > > > > Every " thing " exists only as a concept. > Nothing exists in isolation. > > .......nothing exists....... > > ......a mountain......a river......the state of Texas....... > > > the self that is so fond of being...... > > > nothing. > > > t. Sure, and because exists and not exists are also concepts, it is no more true that nothing exists than that something exists. Because " concept " is a concept, anything said in concepts is circular, self-referential, self-reflexive. Concepts not only don't show anything that exists or doesn't exist, concepts also can't show anything true or false about concepts. Or that true and false can apply anywhere. " A fine pickle you've got us into this time, Ollie. " Stan Laurel Yet, human life goes on, with us doing the best we can to find ways to use words, ideas, experience as ways to relate, to make sense. After all, if you totally divorced yourself from consensus meanings, you'd be insane. And for good reason -- divorcing yourself from consensus meanings is as futile as fully aligning yourself with consensus meanings. Either direction involves an unsupportable bias. -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 6, 2005 Report Share Posted January 6, 2005 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 1/4/05 7:39:55 PM, cptc@w... writes: > > > > > > > > > > >Mila said " > > > > > > > > > " Nirvana means extinction whereby ther is no longer a > self........ " > > > > > > > > > > > > >There is......in that statement that there was a self but > once nirvana > > > > (what ever that is)...is >attained....there is no longer a > self. > > > > > > > P: So your mis-understanding resides in that you take > the self as > > > being an entity, the self > > > is a mis-interpretation of mental activity. What > disapears is the > > > wrong interpretation, > > > leaving behind disconnected mental activity. It's like > when you > > > are under the impression > > > that there is a lake up ahead in the middle of the road, > but on > > > getting closer, you see it was > > > a mirage. The shimering in the air due to heat is still > there, but the > > > illusion of water is gone. > > > Old pigeon addresed this, in his conversation with Joe > at NDP, > > > quite nicely. I hope you read > > > that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Since we all know by now that there never was or ever could > be such a thing > > > > as a self...there is >absolutely no conceivable way that it > could cease to > > > > be. > > > > > > > P: I know what you are trying to say, but you are not saying > right. What > > > you're trying to say > > > is, what doesn't exist, doesn't need to be destroyed. In > reality, anything > > > that can be thought > > > of, or imagined has to have, at least, conceptual existence. > > > > > > > > > Every " thing " exists only as a concept. > > Nothing exists in isolation. > > > > .......nothing exists....... > > > > ......a mountain......a river......the state of Texas....... > > > > > > the self that is so fond of being...... > > > > > > nothing. > > > > > > t. > > Sure, and because exists and not exists > are also concepts, > it is no more true that nothing exists > than that something exists. > > Because " concept " is a concept, anything > said in concepts is circular, self-referential, > self-reflexive. > > Concepts not only don't show anything that exists > or doesn't exist, concepts also can't show > anything true or false about concepts. > > Or that true and false can apply anywhere. > > " A fine pickle you've got us into this time, Ollie. " > Stan Laurel > > Yet, human life goes on, with us doing the best we > can to find ways to use words, ideas, experience > as ways to relate, to make sense. > > After all, if you totally divorced yourself from > consensus meanings, you'd be insane. > > And for good reason -- divorcing yourself from > consensus meanings is as futile as > fully aligning yourself with consensus meanings. > > Either direction involves an unsupportable bias. > > -- Dan Hi Dan, This morning I was thinking about using concepts to search for the ultimate unifying concept.... and the whole ...concept........seemed so laughable. Nis uses a phrase... " Washing blood with blood......... It all seems so sticky............. It's back to that idea of " mind " looking for itself within itself.......using only itself...... If I weren't here......I just wouldn't believe it...LOL toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 6, 2005 Report Share Posted January 6, 2005 Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: > > In a message dated 1/5/05 3:50:32 PM, cptc@w... writes: > > > > Hi Dan, > > > > This morning I was thinking about using concepts to search for the > > ultimate unifying concept.... > > > > and the whole ...concept........seemed so laughable. > > > > > > Nis uses a phrase... " Washing blood with blood......... > > > > > > > > It all seems so sticky............. > > > > It's back to that idea of " mind " looking for itself within > > itself.......using only itself...... > > > > > > > > If I weren't here......I just wouldn't believe it...LOL > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > P: So do you admit some X is pretending to be, > > or has been misinterpreted as Toom? > > > Ahhhhhh Pete You suffer from that all too common human condition of believing that you are privy to information that has been withheld from those of us less fortunate or less intelligent then your self........ I'm sorry to inform you....but no one knows anything about .......anything..... toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 6, 2005 Report Share Posted January 6, 2005 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: > > > > In a message dated 1/5/05 3:50:32 PM, cptc@w... writes: > > > > > > > Hi Dan, > > > > > > This morning I was thinking about using concepts to search for the > > > ultimate unifying concept.... > > > > > > and the whole ...concept........seemed so laughable. > > > > > > > > > Nis uses a phrase... " Washing blood with blood......... > > > > > > > > > > > > It all seems so sticky............. > > > > > > It's back to that idea of " mind " looking for itself within > > > itself.......using only itself...... > > > > > > > > > > > > If I weren't here......I just wouldn't believe it...LOL > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > P: So do you admit some X is pretending to be, > > > > or has been misinterpreted as Toom? > > > > > > > > > Ahhhhhh Pete > > You suffer from that all too common human condition of believing that you are privy to information that has been withheld from those of us less fortunate or less intelligent then your self........ > The human mentality needs to believe that it has a handle on what is......Its life would be untenable without that......and unfortunately there is nothing it can do to see through this illusion.....but don't worry....Life itself will take care of the problem..... > > I'm sorry to inform you....but no one knows anything about ........anything..... > > > toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 6, 2005 Report Share Posted January 6, 2005 After all, if you totally divorced yourself from consensus meanings, you'd be insane. And for good reason -- divorcing yourself from consensus meanings is as futile as fully aligning yourself with consensus meanings. Either direction involves an unsupportable bias. * * * * Hi Dan and all, In deed! I have been discussing a similar issue with Lewis for a week ago with reference to Lacan´s notion of the Real, Imaginary and the Symbolic. The Real, Imaginary and Symbolic weave the " subject´s reality " at all times. These categories are always intertwined and are never processed by the subject in their pure or isolated form. Only a " psychotic outbreak " can undo the knoting of the triad according to most Lacanians. This " psychotic outbreak " experienced under controlled circumstances doesn´t have to lead to insanity. LSD, Peyote, mushrooms even alcohol or cannabis can also produce a temporary " symptomatic " psychosis. What remains is an experience in the best case. An experience that the subject will try to put in words. Spiritual literature is full of descriptions of such and similar experiences. It is, in effect, an unsupportable bias or hypocrisy to depict such a state as something more than a mere experience because, the subject depicting it as a " desirable or preferable status " is using a dialectic to demonstrate it. Using a dialectic, the subject is again acting in the realm of " subjective reality " which is the realm of the Real, Symbolic and Imaginary. Neither Advaita nor Buddhism depict insanity a desirable state nor, as you wrote, a state fully aligning oneself with consensus meanings. I like Toombaru´s dialectic as well I like yours, Dan. He is using a dialectic which in many cases reminds me of Sandeep´s dialectic. He is ergo pointing to something, like everyone else, from a circumscribed position and that is " Toombaru´s reality " . He, moreover, is using out of " his " position a razor sharp logical argumentation. But, as often in spiritual circles, I can´t deny the impression that there is a lot of " fair la coquette " , which in Eric´s case results in " fair la croquette " . Kip Almazy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 6, 2005 Report Share Posted January 6, 2005 In a message dated 1/5/05 11:41:52 PM, cptc writes: > You suffer from that all too common human condition of believing that you > are privy to information that has been withheld from those of us less > fortunate or less intelligent then your self........ > > > I'm sorry to inform you....but no one knows anything about > .......anything..... > > > toombaru > P: LOL. So according to your statement, then, you don't know the above either. But we have gone up this road before. Duck's feather will suck up water easier, than your mind will grasp logic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 6, 2005 Report Share Posted January 6, 2005 Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: >>I'm sorry to inform you....but no one knows anything about >> .......anything..... >P: LOL. So according to your statement, then, you don't know >the above either. >But we have gone up this road before. Duck's feather will >suck up water easier, than your mind will grasp logic. Hi Pete, maybe you have heard of the famous statement of Socrates: " All I know is I know nothing " . The interesting thing is that he reached to this statement by the strict use of formal logic. So, you should be careful using the term " logic " too light-heartedly, it could easily turn against you. Logic is quite a tricky thing, especially when it comes to absolutes. Nisargadatta was a master in using logic to show us the limitations of the thinking mind. Those who too easily use the word " logic " or even call others " unlogical " often confuse logic with " common sense " . But thats another animal! As we can see, the ancient Greeks, who " invented " logic, were already very well aware of the limitations of logic, another philosopher was Democrit who said: " We know nothing in reality; for truth lies in an abyss. " Or Metrodorus of Chios: " None of us knows anything, not even whether we know or do not know, nor do we know whether not knowing and knowing exist, nor in general whether there is anything or not. " Or (veeery nice:-)) Gaius Plinius Secundus (a Roman): " This only is certain, that there is nothing certain; and nothing more miserable and yet more arrogant than man. " Food for thought...? Greetings S. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 6, 2005 Report Share Posted January 6, 2005 > Hi Dan, > > This morning I was thinking about using concepts to search for the > ultimate unifying concept.... > > and the whole ...concept........seemed so laughable. > > > Nis uses a phrase... " Washing blood with blood......... Hi Toom, I think he stole that line from Frank Langella in " Dracula. " Or maybe it was from " Vampirella. " Anway, some folks like that nice, dark red lived-in look, apparently. > It all seems so sticky............. > > It's back to that idea of " mind " looking for itself within > itself.......using only itself...... Yes, if one can simply be clear now on that activity. It's so pervasive, involved as it is in culture, perceptual organization, memory usage, making sense of feelings, and of course, talk, thought, and communicating. But then, none of that amounts to a hill of beans, if one is clear on how it works. > > If I weren't here......I just wouldn't believe it...LOL Just see that you don't start! - Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 6, 2005 Report Share Posted January 6, 2005 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: > > > Hi Dan, > > > > This morning I was thinking about using concepts to search for the > > ultimate unifying concept.... > > > > and the whole ...concept........seemed so laughable. > > > > > > Nis uses a phrase... " Washing blood with blood......... > > Hi Toom, > > I think he stole that line from Frank Langella > in " Dracula. " Or maybe it was from " Vampirella. " > > Anway, some folks like that nice, dark red > lived-in look, apparently. > > > It all seems so sticky............. > > > > It's back to that idea of " mind " looking for itself within > > itself.......using only itself...... > > Yes, if one can simply be clear now on that activity. > > It's so pervasive, involved as it is in culture, perceptual > organization, memory usage, making sense of > feelings, and of course, talk, thought, and communicating. > > But then, none of that amounts to a hill of beans, > if one is clear on how it works. > > > > > If I weren't here......I just wouldn't believe it...LOL > > Just see that you don't start! > > - Dan Thanks Dan....:-) t. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 6, 2005 Report Share Posted January 6, 2005 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: > > > Hi Dan, > > > > This morning I was thinking about using concepts to search for the > > ultimate unifying concept.... > > > > and the whole ...concept........seemed so laughable. > > > > > > Nis uses a phrase... " Washing blood with blood......... > > Hi Toom, > > I think he stole that line from Frank Langella > in " Dracula. " Or maybe it was from " Vampirella. " > > Anway, some folks like that nice, dark red > lived-in look, apparently. > > > It all seems so sticky............. > > > > It's back to that idea of " mind " looking for itself within > > itself.......using only itself...... > > Yes, if one can simply be clear now on that activity. > > It's so pervasive, involved as it is in culture, perceptual > organization, memory usage, making sense of > feelings, and of course, talk, thought, and communicating. > > But then, none of that amounts to a hill of beans, > if one is clear on how it works. Do you think........that just " seeing " that is what is commonly considered enlightenment? t. > > > > > If I weren't here......I just wouldn't believe it...LOL > > Just see that you don't start! > > - Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 6, 2005 Report Share Posted January 6, 2005 Nisargadatta , " kipalmazy " <kipalmazy> wrote: > > After all, if you totally divorced yourself from > consensus meanings, you'd be insane. > > And for good reason -- divorcing yourself from > consensus meanings is as futile as > fully aligning yourself with consensus meanings. > > Either direction involves an unsupportable bias. > > > * * * * > > Hi Dan and all, > > > In deed! I have been discussing a similar issue with Lewis for a > week ago with reference to Lacan´s notion of the Real, Imaginary and > the Symbolic. The Real, Imaginary and Symbolic weave the " subject´s > reality " at all times. These categories are always intertwined and > are never processed by the subject in their pure or isolated form. > Only a " psychotic outbreak " can undo the knoting of the triad > according to most Lacanians. This " psychotic outbreak " experienced > under controlled circumstances doesn´t have to lead to insanity. > LSD, Peyote, mushrooms even alcohol or cannabis can also produce a > temporary " symptomatic " psychosis. What remains is an experience in > the best case. An experience that the subject will try to put in > words. Spiritual literature is full of descriptions of such and > similar experiences. > > > It is, in effect, an unsupportable bias or hypocrisy to depict such > a state as something more than a mere experience because, the > subject depicting it as a " desirable or preferable status " is using > a dialectic to demonstrate it. Using a dialectic, the subject is > again acting in the realm of " subjective reality " which is the realm > of the Real, Symbolic and Imaginary. Neither Advaita nor Buddhism > depict insanity a desirable state nor, as you wrote, a state fully > aligning oneself with consensus meanings. > > > I like Toombaru´s dialectic as well I like yours, Dan. He is using a > dialectic which in many cases reminds me of Sandeep´s dialectic. He > is ergo pointing to something, like everyone else, from a > circumscribed position and that is " Toombaru´s reality " . He, > moreover, is using out of " his " position a razor sharp logical > argumentation. But, as often in spiritual circles, I can´t deny the > impression that there is a lot of " fair la coquette " , which in > Eric´s case results in " fair la croquette " . > > > > > > Kip Almazy Hi Kip - I agree with your observations. Psychosis isn't clarity. That's because psychosis is a breakdown of a striving for order, and that striving remains in the chaos, in the break. The psychotic couldn't fit in, gave up, and psychologically disintegrated, yet there is no order or clarity there and a wish for some kind of self (and of course, there's a biochemical component to all of this). But I've worked with psychotics, and it's not romantic. Although I have known one or two who went through a psychotic experience in a way that gave some glimmer of clarity. This is highly unusual, very rare, in my experience. Usually psychosis leads to very boring and repetitive results, like paranoia, delusions that *must* be maintained for semblance of order and self, and so on. I find the discourse of Lacan to be a mystification and an attempt to be someone with a " special knowledge " - which to me, is not what truth is. Although he makes some interesting points, as you alluded, and I must admit I haven't studied him in any depth at all. Even with those rare cases of a " psychotic glimmer " - it's a " glimmer " not a full knowing, and requires work if it's to be a " full opening " - which, of course, is even more rare. Clarity is " prior " to thought organization (I put prior in quotes, because time is itself an aspect of thought organization. And we need to use thought to communicate in words - words assume time). Clarity, being prior to experience and thought, is not a product of what happens to or in experience and thought. Which includes psychosis, also includes so-called " religious experience, " also includes psychoanalytic commentary (or other commentary). *Knowing* is not an experience, contains no imagery - religious or otherwise, isn't manufactured by feelings or a mode of relating. This is as it is, and that's all what am! :-) -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 6, 2005 Report Share Posted January 6, 2005 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: > > > > > Hi Dan, > > > > > > This morning I was thinking about using concepts to search for the > > > ultimate unifying concept.... > > > > > > and the whole ...concept........seemed so laughable. > > > > > > > > > Nis uses a phrase... " Washing blood with blood......... > > > > Hi Toom, > > > > I think he stole that line from Frank Langella > > in " Dracula. " Or maybe it was from " Vampirella. " > > > > Anway, some folks like that nice, dark red > > lived-in look, apparently. > > > > > It all seems so sticky............. > > > > > > It's back to that idea of " mind " looking for itself within > > > itself.......using only itself...... > > > > Yes, if one can simply be clear now on that activity. > > > > It's so pervasive, involved as it is in culture, perceptual > > organization, memory usage, making sense of > > feelings, and of course, talk, thought, and communicating. > > > > But then, none of that amounts to a hill of beans, > > if one is clear on how it works. > > > > Do you think........that just " seeing " that is what is commonly considered enlightenment? > > > t. Well, you can't report back to anyone about it. Whatever's being reported, isn't what it is. Calling it enlightenment just makes matters worse :-) -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 6, 2005 Report Share Posted January 6, 2005 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Dan, > > > > > > > > This morning I was thinking about using concepts to search for > the > > > > ultimate unifying concept.... > > > > > > > > and the whole ...concept........seemed so laughable. > > > > > > > > > > > > Nis uses a phrase... " Washing blood with blood......... > > > > > > Hi Toom, > > > > > > I think he stole that line from Frank Langella > > > in " Dracula. " Or maybe it was from " Vampirella. " > > > > > > Anway, some folks like that nice, dark red > > > lived-in look, apparently. > > > > > > > It all seems so sticky............. > > > > > > > > It's back to that idea of " mind " looking for itself within > > > > itself.......using only itself...... > > > > > > Yes, if one can simply be clear now on that activity. > > > > > > It's so pervasive, involved as it is in culture, perceptual > > > organization, memory usage, making sense of > > > feelings, and of course, talk, thought, and communicating. > > > > > > But then, none of that amounts to a hill of beans, > > > if one is clear on how it works. > > > > > > > > Do you think........that just " seeing " that is what is commonly > considered enlightenment? > > > > > > t. > > Well, you can't report back to anyone about it. > > Whatever's being reported, isn't what it is. > > Calling it enlightenment just makes matters worse :-) > > -- Dan ...........after getting a glimpse of the emptiness....the young woman ran back toward the village.....but she couldn't find it.............. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 6, 2005 Report Share Posted January 6, 2005 > > Ahhhhhh Pete > > You suffer from that all too common human condition of believing that you are privy to information that has been withheld from those of us less fortunate or less intelligent then your self........ > > > I'm sorry to inform you....but no one knows anything about .......anything..... > > > toombaru devi: toomy, this whole creation is a manifestion of beauty and intelligence and it is not separate from you so anything that can be know can be know by anyone willing to know it...including you.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 6, 2005 Report Share Posted January 6, 2005 Nisargadatta , " devianandi " <polansky@m...> wrote: > > > > > > Ahhhhhh Pete > > > > You suffer from that all too common human condition of believing > that you are privy to information that has been withheld from those > of us less fortunate or less intelligent then your self........ > > > > > > I'm sorry to inform you....but no one knows anything > about .......anything..... > > > > > > toombaru > > devi: toomy, this whole creation is a manifestion of beauty and > intelligence and it is not separate from you so anything that can be > know can be know by anyone willing to know it...including you.... That's merely another speculation.....within mind's natural inclination to glorify its self. It wants to believe that it is really much bigger then its self....... It's an odd little creature .....eh? t. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 7, 2005 Report Share Posted January 7, 2005 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " devianandi " <polansky@m...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Ahhhhhh Pete > > > > > > You suffer from that all too common human condition of believing > > that you are privy to information that has been withheld from those > > of us less fortunate or less intelligent then your self........ > > > > > > > > > I'm sorry to inform you....but no one knows anything > > about .......anything..... > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > devi: toomy, this whole creation is a manifestion of beauty and > > intelligence and it is not separate from you so anything that can be > > know can be know by anyone willing to know it...including you.... > > > > That's merely another speculation.....within mind's natural inclination to glorify its self. > > > It wants to believe that it is really much bigger then its self....... > > It's an odd little creature .....eh? > > > t. devi: there are people who will tell you its not speculation. it is within their understanding and experience....it makes sense to me.....you know knowledge is knowledge and the ego can either get puffed up with it or can just be humbled by it...to me the mind is just a tool to hold that knowledge, understand it, use it.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 7, 2005 Report Share Posted January 7, 2005 Nisargadatta , " devianandi " <polansky@m...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " devianandi " <polansky@m...> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ahhhhhh Pete > > > > > > > > You suffer from that all too common human condition of > believing > > > that you are privy to information that has been withheld from > those > > > of us less fortunate or less intelligent then your self........ > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm sorry to inform you....but no one knows anything > > > about .......anything..... > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > devi: toomy, this whole creation is a manifestion of beauty and > > > intelligence and it is not separate from you so anything that > can be > > > know can be know by anyone willing to know it...including you.... > > > > > > > > That's merely another speculation.....within mind's natural > inclination to glorify its self. > > > > > > It wants to believe that it is really much bigger then its > self....... > > > > It's an odd little creature .....eh? > > > > > > t. > > devi: there are people who will tell you its not speculation. it is > within their understanding and experience....it makes sense to > me.....you know knowledge is knowledge and the ego can either get > puffed up with it or can just be humbled by it...to me the mind is > just a tool to hold that knowledge, understand it, use it.. And this " me " that you refer to believes that it has an existence outside of the mind?.......beyond mentation? t. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 7, 2005 Report Share Posted January 7, 2005 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: .... > > Well, you can't report back to anyone about it. > > Whatever's being reported, isn't what it is. > > Calling it enlightenment just makes matters worse :-) > > -- Dan Just one with oneself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 7, 2005 Report Share Posted January 7, 2005 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " devianandi " <polansky@m...> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " devianandi " <polansky@m...> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ahhhhhh Pete > > > > > > > > > > You suffer from that all too common human condition of > > believing > > > > that you are privy to information that has been withheld from > > those > > > > of us less fortunate or less intelligent then your self........ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm sorry to inform you....but no one knows anything > > > > about .......anything..... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > devi: toomy, this whole creation is a manifestion of beauty and > > > > intelligence and it is not separate from you so anything that > > can be > > > > know can be know by anyone willing to know it...including you.... > > > > > > > > > > > > That's merely another speculation.....within mind's natural > > inclination to glorify its self. > > > > > > > > > It wants to believe that it is really much bigger then its > > self....... > > > > > > It's an odd little creature .....eh? > > > > > > > > > t. > > > > devi: there are people who will tell you its not speculation. it is > > within their understanding and experience....it makes sense to > > me.....you know knowledge is knowledge and the ego can either get > > puffed up with it or can just be humbled by it...to me the mind is > > just a tool to hold that knowledge, understand it, use it.. > > > > > > And this " me " that you refer to believes that it has an existence outside of the mind?.......beyond mentation? > > > > t. Thinking is just a tiny aspect of intelligence, according to Eckhart Tolle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 7, 2005 Report Share Posted January 7, 2005 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: .... > > Thinking is just a tiny aspect of intelligence, according to Eckhart > Tolle. I'm more interested in what you have to say about the subject. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 7, 2005 Report Share Posted January 7, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Eric Paroissien " <ericparoissien@g...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > ... > > > > > Thinking is just a tiny aspect of intelligence, according to > Eckhart > > Tolle. > > I'm more interested in what you have to say about the subject. My view is that thinking, as prompted by limited past conditioning, is always colored by fear. There is always, in that kind of thinking, a " myself " against the rest of the world. This is a constant struggle. One need not be a professor in psychology or philosophy to see this. I don't know if that higher form of intelligence Tolle talks about exists, but I am very curious about finding out if there is. It is frustrating not to have a personal realization about this and have to lean on spiritual masters. It's also scary to think that maybe there is no personal realization, but only an impersonal one. What will " I " be with an impersonal realization? Many spiritual teachers say: when you drop into reality, you drop into the impersonal. /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 7, 2005 Report Share Posted January 7, 2005 Hi Anders, What speaks against fear ? Why not having fear, you are what you are. If your view is that thinking is always colored by fear then just stop thinking (ha ha ha), or take it as it is and stop making such fuss about it. BTW, Fear is the movemnet away from, or in different words: Fear is the result of avoidance. Going into something or towards something without the slightest impuls to avoid it will never cause any fear. You wrote: > It's also scary to think that maybe > there is no personal realization, but only an impersonal one. What > will " I " be with an impersonal realization? Many spiritual teachers > say: when you drop into reality, you drop into the impersonal. > Solution: Just drop realization and forget it. Werner Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Eric Paroissien " > <ericparoissien@g...> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > ... > > > > > > > > Thinking is just a tiny aspect of intelligence, according to > > Eckhart > > > Tolle. > > > > I'm more interested in what you have to say about the subject. > > My view is that thinking, as prompted by limited past conditioning, is > always colored by fear. There is always, in that kind of thinking, a > " myself " against the rest of the world. This is a constant struggle. > One need not be a professor in psychology or philosophy to see this. I > don't know if that higher form of intelligence Tolle talks about > exists, but I am very curious about finding out if there is. > > It is frustrating not to have a personal realization about this and > have to lean on spiritual masters. It's also scary to think that maybe > there is no personal realization, but only an impersonal one. What > will " I " be with an impersonal realization? Many spiritual teachers > say: when you drop into reality, you drop into the impersonal. > > /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 7, 2005 Report Share Posted January 7, 2005 BTW, Fear is the movemnet away from, or in different words: Fear is the result of avoidance. Going into something or towards something without the slightest impuls to avoid it will never cause any fear. This is very, very good! A great insight, Werner. I have had a " long " vacation now and were thinking about next week, when the work starts again Kip Almazy 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.