Guest guest Posted March 5, 2005 Report Share Posted March 5, 2005 In a message dated 3/5/05 4:43:58 PM, richarkar writes: > Yet in reading his satsangs I'm a bit confused. Does the Absolute witness > consciosness or is the Absolute beyond/prior to witnessing and knowing? Is it > beyond dualities of witness and object witnessed? > > I seem to be picking up on both viewpoints in the books and hope people who > know will respond and clear up this confusion. > > Thanks, > Richaard > Hi Richaard, Suppose Nis himself had written this E-mail, and wrote: " Yes, the Absolute is beyond consciousness and is not aware of itself. " How would that change your mind, and affect your daily live? Now suppose he wrote instead: " You are the Absolute right now. You are the only witness, and that which is witnessed. " Would that change your mind, or life? Do you really have a clear idea what the Absolute could be, or feel like? Could any idea about the Absolute, be the Absolute? And if you don't know what the Absolute is, what value would it have to know if it's the witness or not? Would it not be more profitable to know what goes on in your own head? Best to you, Pete > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 5, 2005 Report Share Posted March 5, 2005 Nisargadatta , Richard <richarkar> wrote: > Hi Friends, > > I'm new to this group but am fortunate to be familiar with Nisargadatta Maharaj's teachings and his lineage. > > Yet in reading his satsangs I'm a bit confused. Does the Absolute witness consciosness or is the Absolute beyond/prior to witnessing and knowing? Is it beyond dualities of witness and object witnessed? > > I seem to be picking up on both viewpoints in the books and hope people who know will respond and clear up this confusion. > > Thanks, > Richaard Consciousness...(which is just another concept)).... invents a concept...like " Absolute " and " witness'....and then tries to understand them with more invented concepts. You may have noticed that by looking up these concepts in a dictionary...they refer back to themselves pretty quickly....... Are you getting an idea what's' really happening? Some here will probably try to answer your question.......but no one...anywhere has the foggiest idea what they are talking about...... I'm afraid you are on your own...in trying to figure this stuff out.... toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 5, 2005 Report Share Posted March 5, 2005 Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: > > In a message dated 3/5/05 4:43:58 PM, richarkar writes: > > > > Yet in reading his satsangs I'm a bit confused. Does the Absolute witness > > consciosness or is the Absolute beyond/prior to witnessing and knowing? Is it > > beyond dualities of witness and object witnessed? > > > > I seem to be picking up on both viewpoints in the books and hope people who > > know will respond and clear up this confusion. > > > > Thanks, > > Richaard > > > Hi Richaard, > Suppose Nis himself had written this E-mail, and wrote: " Yes, the Absolute is > beyond consciousness > and is not aware of itself. " How would that change your mind, and affect > your daily live? Now > suppose he wrote instead: " You are the Absolute right now. You are the > only witness, and that > which is witnessed. " Would that change your mind, or life? Do you really have > a clear idea > what the Absolute could be, or feel like? Could any idea about the Absolute, > be the Absolute? > And if you don't know what the Absolute is, what value would it have to know > if it's > the witness or not? Would it not be more profitable to know what goes on in > your own head? > A head that knows what's going on inside of itself. hummmmmmmmm hummmmmmmmmm t. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 6, 2005 Report Share Posted March 6, 2005 Hi Richard, Richard wrote: > Hi Friends, > > I'm new to this group but am fortunate to be familiar with Nisargadatta Maharaj's teachings and his lineage. > > Yet in reading his satsangs I'm a bit confused. Does the Absolute witness consciosness or is the Absolute > beyond/prior to witnessing and knowing? Is it beyond dualities of witness and object witnessed? Do you witness consciousness Richard? Are you beyond/prior to witnessing and knowing? Are you beyond dualities of witness and object witnessed? If you answer these questions by your experience, perhaps, you will be able to answer clearly the questions you posed above. > > I seem to be picking up on both viewpoints in the books and hope people who know will respond and clear up this confusion. > > Thanks, > Richaard Third hand knowledge about Nisargadatta's second hand knowledge is more troublesome than Nisargadatta second hand knowledge. Lewis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 6, 2005 Report Share Posted March 6, 2005 Richard wrote: Hi Friends, I'm new to this group but am fortunate to be familiar with Nisargadatta Maharaj's teachings and his lineage. Yet in reading his satsangs I'm a bit confused. Does the Absolute witness consciosness or is the Absolute beyond/prior to witnessing and knowing? Is it beyond dualities of witness and object witnessed? I seem to be picking up on both viewpoints in the books and hope people who know will respond and clear up this confusion. Thanks, Richaard ****************************** Hi Richard, To put it in the context of traditional vedanta makes it relatively clear intellectually. The Witness (Saksin) is Pure Consciousness with the individual mind as limiting adjunct (upadhi). All selves, all anything whatever are limiting adjuncts of Pure Consciousness. This identity is what makes perception possible. As is said in Vedanta Paribhasa by Adhvarindra (pub.by Advaita Ashrama) " since the mind is insentient and hence incapable of revealing objects, it is a limiting adjunct of Consciousness, which reveals things. This witness in the individual self is different in each individual. For if it were one, what Caitra has known, Maitra also would recollect. " The translator Swami Madhvananda appends a note to this which will clarify your main query: " Although the Witness is the same as Brahman, yet since it manifests itself as possessing the limiting adjunct of the mind, it is considered to be different according to differeent minds. " Michael Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 6, 2005 Report Share Posted March 6, 2005 In a message dated 3/6/05 3:54:13 AM, kipalmazy writes: > Suppose Nis himself had written this E-mail, and wrote: " Yes, the > Absolute is beyond consciousness and is not aware of itself. > > > OH! Come on, Pete! You write such nice messages but you can't > resist; the " not aware of itself " has always to be there. So to say > a Peteanic tail transplanted into absolute. Why do you think > Nisargadatta said " I am That " and not " I am That, but not aware of > it " ?.....it simply doesn't matter, don't you see? > P: But he said it, Kip. And not once, but many a time. Here is one instance. " Timeless, spaceless existence doesn't know that it is. That is reality, That is the truth. " " Prior to Consciousness. " Page 15, last paragraph. Why did he say it? I told him you asked that, and he replied, " Oh that Kip! What an incorrigible mortician he is. Always trying to put a red glow on the cheeks of the dead. " > > ) > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 6, 2005 Report Share Posted March 6, 2005 Suppose Nis himself had written this E-mail, and wrote: " Yes, the Absolute is beyond consciousness and is not aware of itself. OH! Come on, Pete! You write such nice messages but you can't resist; the " not aware of itself " has always to be there. So to say a Peteanic tail transplanted into absolute. Why do you think Nisargadatta said " I am That " and not " I am That, but not aware of it " ?.....it simply doesn't matter, don't you see? ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 6, 2005 Report Share Posted March 6, 2005 Nisargadatta , " kipalmazy " <kipalmazy> wrote: > > Suppose Nis himself had written this E-mail, and wrote: " Yes, the > Absolute is beyond consciousness and is not aware of itself. > > > OH! Come on, Pete! You write such nice messages but you can't > resist; the " not aware of itself " has always to be there. So to say > a Peteanic tail transplanted into absolute. Why do you think > Nisargadatta said " I am That " and not " I am That, but not aware of > it " ?.....it simply doesn't matter, don't you see? > > ) Nisargadatta never said " I am that " ....the title for the book came from the transcriber. t. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 6, 2005 Report Share Posted March 6, 2005 Nisargadatta never said " I am that " ....the title for the book came from the transcriber. He didn't seem to disagree with the title for the book....or did he dissent? : clickdeclick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 6, 2005 Report Share Posted March 6, 2005 Nisargadatta , " kipalmazy " <kipalmazy> wrote: > > Nisargadatta never said " I am that " ....the title for the book came > from the transcriber. > > > He didn't seem to disagree with the title for the book....or did he > dissent? > > : clickdeclick This is the best you can come up with? You make an argument about something that you believe Nisargadattat said. When told that he never said it.....you say he didn't disagree with the statement. Does this give you a glimmer into how mind works? toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 6, 2005 Report Share Posted March 6, 2005 > P: But he said it, Kip. And not once, but many a time. Here is one > instance. " Timeless, spaceless existence doesn't know that it is. > That is reality, That is the truth. " " Prior to Consciousness. " Page > 15, last paragraph. > Why did he say it? I told him you asked that, > and he replied, " Oh that Kip! What an incorrigible mortician he is. > Always trying to put a red glow on the cheeks of the dead. " ROFL! I call this the misery of the plausible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 6, 2005 Report Share Posted March 6, 2005 > This is the best you can come up with? > > You make an argument about something that you believe Nisargadattat said. > > When told that he never said it.....you say he didn't disagree with the statement. > > Does this give you a glimmer into how mind works? > > toombaru Nah, Toombaru! What's bitten you? ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 6, 2005 Report Share Posted March 6, 2005 In a message dated 3/6/05 8:51:10 AM, kipalmazy writes: > ROFL! I call this the misery of the plausible. > P: I know. The pausible is the last temptation of old philosophers.Damn it! And I thought that after sex and power, there would be nothing else to give up! LOL! > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 6, 2005 Report Share Posted March 6, 2005 Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > Hi Richard, > > Richard wrote: > > > Hi Friends, > > > > I'm new to this group but am fortunate to be familiar with Nisargadatta Maharaj's teachings and his lineage. > > > > Yet in reading his satsangs I'm a bit confused. Does the Absolute witness consciosness or is the Absolute > > beyond/prior to witnessing and knowing? Is it beyond dualities of > witness and object witnessed? > > Do you witness consciousness Richard? > > Are you beyond/prior to witnessing and knowing? > > Are you beyond dualities of witness and object witnessed? > > If you answer these questions by your experience, perhaps, you will be > able to answer clearly the questions you posed above. > > > > > I seem to be picking up on both viewpoints in the books and hope people who know will respond and clear up this confusion. > > > > Thanks, > > Richaard > > > Third hand knowledge about Nisargadatta's second hand knowledge is more > troublesome than Nisargadatta second hand knowledge. > > > Lewis ********************* Lewis, Are you sure that Nis knowledge is a second hand knowledge? :0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 6, 2005 Report Share Posted March 6, 2005 Consciousness...(which is just another concept)).... invents a concept...like " Absolute " and > " witness'....and then tries to understand them with more invented concepts. Odysseus: Conscisousness is not a concept. As your heartbeat is not. But of course when we are mixed up in our search we don't see clear anymore. There is the place where we park our car and think we got it! :0) I'm not saying that to you Toom, but to all who " think " that Consciousness is a concept. > You may have noticed that by looking up these concepts in a dictionary...they refer back to > themselves pretty quickly....... Odysseus: The dictionary is a reference not the " Truth " . > Are you getting an idea what's' really happening? Some here will probably try to answer your question.......but no one...anywhere has the > foggiest idea what they are talking about...... Odysseus: :0) > I'm afraid you are on your own...in trying to figure this stuff out.... > Odysseus: I think the same too! But If Master Nis was your Master, He could have helped you for sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 6, 2005 Report Share Posted March 6, 2005 >I seem to be picking up on both viewpoints in the books and hope people who >know will respond and clear up this confusion. nobody else can clear your confusion. people who know can help somewhat though. chasing concepts like absolute, consciousness, samadhi etc won't get you anywhere. you already are the destination. you need confidence - which practice and guides can help you with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 6, 2005 Report Share Posted March 6, 2005 ilikezen2004 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> > wrote: > >>Hi Richard, >> >>Richard wrote: >> >> >>>Hi Friends, >>> >>>I'm new to this group but am fortunate to be familiar with > > Nisargadatta Maharaj's teachings and his lineage. > >>> >>>Yet in reading his satsangs I'm a bit confused. Does the > > Absolute witness consciosness or is the Absolute > >> > beyond/prior to witnessing and knowing? Is it beyond dualities > > of > >>witness and object witnessed? >> >>Do you witness consciousness Richard? >> >>Are you beyond/prior to witnessing and knowing? >> >>Are you beyond dualities of witness and object witnessed? >> >>If you answer these questions by your experience, perhaps, you > > will be > >>able to answer clearly the questions you posed above. >> >> >>> >>>I seem to be picking up on both viewpoints in the books and hope > > people who know will respond and clear up this confusion. > >>> >>>Thanks, >>>Richaard >> >> >>Third hand knowledge about Nisargadatta's second hand knowledge is > > more > >>troublesome than Nisargadatta second hand knowledge. >> >> >>Lewis > > > ********************* > > Lewis, > Are you sure that Nis knowledge is a second hand knowledge? :0 Hi Odysseus, When Nizargadatta expressed words or anyone for that matter those words represent what was at that moment. It is a first hand expression using conceptual language. If he quotes scripture he is representing second hand knowledge that he may have experienced. One can believe him or not or disregard it totally as not being of any importance. If I say upon seeing a cat " That cat is pink " that represents my first hand experience in words. When someone reads those words and thinks of them only not having the experience itself it is second hand knowledge they have of what I have experienced through what I said. One did not see the cat, only that " Lewis said 'That cat is pink.' " Perhaps they will believe it to be so or imagine it to be so. It is second hand knowledge in this case. When someone interprets my words and does not merely quote them as is ( " That cat is pink " ) then it is third hand knowledge; " Jimmy said that 'Lewis said [that the cat is some white tinted color he calls pink].' " or that " It says in the Book of Cats that pink colored cats exist but are extremely rare and not usually seen but one may see them and so Lewis can see one or may have seen a pink one. " And when someone reads the interpretation of the second hand knowledge it may become fourth hand, " Jimmy's interpretation of Lewis' words of That cat is pink means that Lewis' visual system may be different than normal and that he really means that underlying the cat and pink is an ultimate reality that is indescribable " and so on getting further and further from experience and creating another world about those words that are dependent on concepts and language that are partially or obliquely related to the original experience expressed as " That cat is pink. " It is better to experience (not think or imagine) so that words " That cat is pink " becomes intelligible in some way without thinking or imagining it so in one way or another. Who knows that experience undergone will reveal that the " That cat is neither pink nor not pink. " Second hand knowledge and all the rest are in this sense are troublesome even misdirecting when one tries to fit experience to conceptual objects; searching for " conceptual pink cats, " when they are all around in plain view. Lewis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 6, 2005 Report Share Posted March 6, 2005 Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > ilikezen2004 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> > > wrote: > > > >>Hi Richard, > >> > >>Richard wrote: > >> > >> > >>>Hi Friends, > >>> > >>>I'm new to this group but am fortunate to be familiar with > > > > Nisargadatta Maharaj's teachings and his lineage. > > > >>> > >>>Yet in reading his satsangs I'm a bit confused. Does the > > > > Absolute witness consciosness or is the Absolute > > > >> > beyond/prior to witnessing and knowing? Is it beyond dualities > > > > of > > > >>witness and object witnessed? > >> > >>Do you witness consciousness Richard? > >> > >>Are you beyond/prior to witnessing and knowing? > >> > >>Are you beyond dualities of witness and object witnessed? > >> > >>If you answer these questions by your experience, perhaps, you > > > > will be > > > >>able to answer clearly the questions you posed above. > >> > >> > >>> > >>>I seem to be picking up on both viewpoints in the books and hope > > > > people who know will respond and clear up this confusion. > > > >>> > >>>Thanks, > >>>Richaard > >> > >> > >>Third hand knowledge about Nisargadatta's second hand knowledge is > > > > more > > > >>troublesome than Nisargadatta second hand knowledge. > >> > >> > >>Lewis > > > > > > ********************* > > > > Lewis, > > Are you sure that Nis knowledge is a second hand knowledge? :0 > > Hi Odysseus, > > When Nizargadatta expressed words or anyone for that matter those words > represent what was at that moment. It is a first hand expression using > conceptual language. If he quotes scripture he is representing second > hand knowledge that he may have experienced. One can believe him or not > or disregard it totally as not being of any importance. > > If I say upon seeing a cat " That cat is pink " that represents my first > hand experience in words. When someone reads those words and thinks of > them only not having the experience itself it is second hand knowledge > they have of what I have experienced through what I said. One did not > see the cat, only that " Lewis said 'That cat is pink.' " Perhaps they > will believe it to be so or imagine it to be so. It is second hand > knowledge in this case. > > When someone interprets my words and does not merely quote them as is > ( " That cat is pink " ) then it is third hand knowledge; " Jimmy said that > 'Lewis said [that the cat is some white tinted color he calls pink].' " > or that " It says in the Book of Cats that pink colored cats exist but > are extremely rare and not usually seen but one may see them and so > Lewis can see one or may have seen a pink one. " And when someone reads > the interpretation of the second hand knowledge it may become fourth > hand, " Jimmy's interpretation of Lewis' words of That cat is pink means > that Lewis' visual system may be different than normal and that he > really means that underlying the cat and pink is an ultimate reality > that is indescribable " and so on getting further and further from > experience and creating another world about those words that are > dependent on concepts and language that are partially or obliquely > related to the original experience expressed as " That cat is pink. " > > It is better to experience (not think or imagine) so that words " That > cat is pink " becomes intelligible in some way without thinking or > imagining it so in one way or another. Who knows that experience > undergone will reveal that the " That cat is neither pink nor not pink. " > > Second hand knowledge and all the rest are in this sense are troublesome > even misdirecting when one tries to fit experience to conceptual > objects; searching for " conceptual pink cats, " when they are all around > in plain view. > > Lewis ************************* Odysseus: :0) I see. Now if you tell me that you saw a pink cat. And a day latter, I see the same cat. And you write a book about that pink cat and I read your second hand (experienced)knowledge. How is my experience called? a second hand (experienced) knowledge? If so, how can my true experience of seeing that pink cat be classified in anyway in a " second " hand knowledge? if, with or without your book I saw that pink cat. isn't it a first hand experience then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 7, 2005 Report Share Posted March 7, 2005 >>>********************* >>>Lewis, >>>Are you sure that Nis knowledge is a second hand knowledge? :0 >> >>Hi Odysseus, >> >>When Nizargadatta expressed words or anyone for that matter those > > words > >>represent what was at that moment. It is a first hand expression > > using > >>conceptual language. If he quotes scripture he is representing > > second > >>hand knowledge that he may have experienced. One can believe him > > or not > >>or disregard it totally as not being of any importance. >> >>If I say upon seeing a cat " That cat is pink " that represents my > > first > >>hand experience in words. When someone reads those words and > > thinks of > >>them only not having the experience itself it is second hand > > knowledge > >>they have of what I have experienced through what I said. One did > > not > >>see the cat, only that " Lewis said 'That cat is pink.' " Perhaps > > they > >>will believe it to be so or imagine it to be so. It is second hand >>knowledge in this case. >> >>When someone interprets my words and does not merely quote them as > > is > >>( " That cat is pink " ) then it is third hand knowledge; " Jimmy said > > that > >>'Lewis said [that the cat is some white tinted color he calls > > pink].' " > >>or that " It says in the Book of Cats that pink colored cats exist > > but > >>are extremely rare and not usually seen but one may see them and > > so > >>Lewis can see one or may have seen a pink one. " And when someone > > reads > >>the interpretation of the second hand knowledge it may become > > fourth > >>hand, " Jimmy's interpretation of Lewis' words of That cat is pink > > means > >>that Lewis' visual system may be different than normal and that he >>really means that underlying the cat and pink is an ultimate > > reality > >>that is indescribable " and so on getting further and further from >>experience and creating another world about those words that are >>dependent on concepts and language that are partially or obliquely >>related to the original experience expressed as " That cat is pink. " >> >>It is better to experience (not think or imagine) so that > > words " That > >>cat is pink " becomes intelligible in some way without thinking or >>imagining it so in one way or another. Who knows that experience >>undergone will reveal that the " That cat is neither pink nor not > > pink. " > >>Second hand knowledge and all the rest are in this sense are > > troublesome > >> even misdirecting when one tries to fit experience to conceptual >>objects; searching for " conceptual pink cats, " when they are all > > around > >>in plain view. >> >>Lewis > > ************************* > > Odysseus: :0) I see. Now if you tell me that you saw a pink cat. And > a day latter, I see the same cat. And you write a book about that > pink cat and I read your second hand (experienced)knowledge. How is > my experience called? Your experience of the " same cat " is first hand. Your reading of my experience in the book is unecessary except to see how I express it, to see if there is something similar to your experience or to see if there is something there that can be used to express your first hand experience or to see other aspects not noticed such as the length or curl of the fur and so on. a second hand (experienced) knowledge? No. If so, > how can my true experience of seeing that pink cat be classified in > anyway in a " second " hand knowledge? As far as what was outlined as to what is first hand, second hand and so on your experience and your expression of your experience is not classified as second hand. if, with or without your book I > saw that pink cat. isn't it a first hand experience then? Yes. Odysseus, what is experienced is first hand and what you express about that experience is first hand. When others hear or read etc. your first hand experience without undergoing it, it is second hand knowledge to them. I drink a glass of Ricky's lemondade and say it tastes sweet with a bit of sourness. If you hear or read these words without tasting Ricky's lemondade ( not other lemonades), you have second hand knowledge about Ricky's lemondade. Taste Ricky's lemondade and you have first hand knowledge. Taste Ricky's lemondade and read my words and you have first hand knowledge that you compare with my first hand knowledge. Lewis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 7, 2005 Report Share Posted March 7, 2005 Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > >>>********************* > > >>>Lewis, > >>>Are you sure that Nis knowledge is a second hand knowledge? :0 > >> > >>Hi Odysseus, > >> > >>When Nizargadatta expressed words or anyone for that matter those > > > > words > > > >>represent what was at that moment. It is a first hand expression > > > > using > > > >>conceptual language. If he quotes scripture he is representing > > > > second > > > >>hand knowledge that he may have experienced. One can believe him > > > > or not > > > >>or disregard it totally as not being of any importance. > >> > >>If I say upon seeing a cat " That cat is pink " that represents my > > > > first > > > >>hand experience in words. When someone reads those words and > > > > thinks of > > > >>them only not having the experience itself it is second hand > > > > knowledge > > > >>they have of what I have experienced through what I said. One did > > > > not > > > >>see the cat, only that " Lewis said 'That cat is pink.' " Perhaps > > > > they > > > >>will believe it to be so or imagine it to be so. It is second hand > >>knowledge in this case. > >> > >>When someone interprets my words and does not merely quote them as > > > > is > > > >>( " That cat is pink " ) then it is third hand knowledge; " Jimmy said > > > > that > > > >>'Lewis said [that the cat is some white tinted color he calls > > > > pink].' " > > > >>or that " It says in the Book of Cats that pink colored cats exist > > > > but > > > >>are extremely rare and not usually seen but one may see them and > > > > so > > > >>Lewis can see one or may have seen a pink one. " And when someone > > > > reads > > > >>the interpretation of the second hand knowledge it may become > > > > fourth > > > >>hand, " Jimmy's interpretation of Lewis' words of That cat is pink > > > > means > > > >>that Lewis' visual system may be different than normal and that he > >>really means that underlying the cat and pink is an ultimate > > > > reality > > > >>that is indescribable " and so on getting further and further from > >>experience and creating another world about those words that are > >>dependent on concepts and language that are partially or obliquely > >>related to the original experience expressed as " That cat is pink. " > >> > >>It is better to experience (not think or imagine) so that > > > > words " That > > > >>cat is pink " becomes intelligible in some way without thinking or > >>imagining it so in one way or another. Who knows that experience > >>undergone will reveal that the " That cat is neither pink nor not > > > > pink. " > > > >>Second hand knowledge and all the rest are in this sense are > > > > troublesome > > > >> even misdirecting when one tries to fit experience to conceptual > >>objects; searching for " conceptual pink cats, " when they are all > > > > around > > > >>in plain view. > >> > >>Lewis > > > > ************************* > > > > Odysseus: :0) I see. Now if you tell me that you saw a pink cat. And > > a day latter, I see the same cat. And you write a book about that > > pink cat and I read your second hand (experienced)knowledge. How is > > my experience called? > > > Your experience of the " same cat " is first hand. > > Your reading of my experience in the book is unecessary except to see > how I express it, to see if there is something similar to your > experience or to see if there is something there that can be used to > express your first hand experience or to see other aspects not noticed > such as the length or curl of the fur and so on. > > > a second hand (experienced) knowledge? > > > No. > > > If so, > > how can my true experience of seeing that pink cat be classified in > > anyway in a " second " hand knowledge? > > > As far as what was outlined as to what is first hand, second hand and so > on your experience and your expression of your experience is not > classified as second hand. > > > > if, with or without your book I > > saw that pink cat. isn't it a first hand experience then? > > Yes. > > > Odysseus, what is experienced is first hand and what you express about > that experience is first hand. When others hear or read etc. your first > hand experience without undergoing it, it is second hand knowledge to > them. I drink a glass of Ricky's lemondade and say it tastes sweet with > a bit of sourness. If you hear or read these words without tasting > Ricky's lemondade ( not other lemonades), you have second hand knowledge > about Ricky's lemondade. Taste Ricky's lemondade and you have first hand > knowledge. Taste Ricky's lemondade and read my words and you have first > hand knowledge that you compare with my first hand knowledge. > > > Lewis *********************** Odysseus: Hum, that is what I thought. So if Nis Master talks about pure awarness because he lives it and write a book. Then master Nis read the book. Then after few years achieve the pure awarness written in his master's book. Then himself writes a book about pure awarness, then you read it, and acknowledge that experience because yourself has experienced the same. Isn't that the main purpose of the Divine transmission of the truth from a master to another. A kind of Divine lineage? Where is the second hand knowledge? Only to the reader that has not realise first hand experience! If some masters can keep the truth about a particular teaching or spiritual path, how can we take position and say that all the Masters tell bullshit! Etc. Some do. Some don't. I never said that Mozard was bullshit, Nor beethoven! How can I call myself classic music lover and bullshit almost all the greatest classical Masters? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 7, 2005 Report Share Posted March 7, 2005 >>> >>>************************* >>> >>>Odysseus: :0) I see. Now if you tell me that you saw a pink cat. >> > And > >>>a day latter, I see the same cat. And you write a book about >> > that > >>>pink cat and I read your second hand (experienced)knowledge. How >> > is > >>>my experience called? >> >> >>Your experience of the " same cat " is first hand. >> >>Your reading of my experience in the book is unecessary except to > > see > >>how I express it, to see if there is something similar to your >>experience or to see if there is something there that can be used > > to > >>express your first hand experience or to see other aspects not > > noticed > >>such as the length or curl of the fur and so on. >> >> >>a second hand (experienced) knowledge? >> >> >>No. >> >> >> If so, >> >>>how can my true experience of seeing that pink cat be classified >> > in > >>>anyway in a " second " hand knowledge? >> >> >>As far as what was outlined as to what is first hand, second hand > > and so > >>on your experience and your expression of your experience is not >>classified as second hand. >> >> >> >> if, with or without your book I >> >>>saw that pink cat. isn't it a first hand experience then? >> >>Yes. >> >> >>Odysseus, what is experienced is first hand and what you express > > about > >>that experience is first hand. When others hear or read etc. your > > first > >>hand experience without undergoing it, it is second hand knowledge > > to > >>them. I drink a glass of Ricky's lemondade and say it tastes sweet > > with > >>a bit of sourness. If you hear or read these words without tasting >>Ricky's lemondade ( not other lemonades), you have second hand > > knowledge > >>about Ricky's lemondade. Taste Ricky's lemondade and you have > > first hand > >>knowledge. Taste Ricky's lemondade and read my words and you have > > first > >>hand knowledge that you compare with my first hand knowledge. >> >> >>Lewis > > *********************** > > Odysseus: Hum, that is what I thought. So if Nis' Master talks about > pure awarness because he lives it and write a book. Then master Nis > read the book. Then after few years achieve the pure awarness > written in his master's book. Then himself writes a book about pure > awarness, then you read it, and acknowledge that experience because > yourself has experienced the same. Isn't that the main purpose of > the Divine transmission of the truth from a master to another? That can be said. >A kind of Divine lineage? That can be said. > Where is the second hand knowledge? When Nizargadatta first read, if he did read at all, and before his achieving pure awareness as his Master did, he was working with second hand knowledge until it became first hand. >Only to > the reader that has not realise first hand experience! Yes. If some > masters can keep the truth about a particular teaching or spiritual > path, how can we take position and say that all the Masters tell > bullshit! Etc. That is an opinion; a personal belief or judgment. Some do. Some don't. That is an opinion; a personal belief or judgment. I never said that Mozard was > bullshit, Nor beethoven! How can I call myself classic music lover > and bullshit almost all the greatest classical Masters? Odysseus, As you know we can say anything. Each person does as they are. This is not a mystery. Lewis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 7, 2005 Report Share Posted March 7, 2005 Odysseus: >>I never said that Mozard was >>bullshit, Nor beethoven! How can I call myself classic music lover >>and bullshit almost all the greatest classical Masters? > Lewis: >Odysseus, As you know we can say anything. Each person does as they >are. This is not a mystery. Hi, may I throw in my 2 cents. When I remember correctly how the dialog started, it was an advice not to trust second hand knowledge too much. And even Nisargadattas words are second hand knowledge, Lewis has said. Yes, and even: what else can knowledge be than second hand? Once I " know " something it has already been experienced. And then the recognizing of the known is again an experience. And what I think I know today might reveal itself as a mirage tomorrow. It is all always in a flow. When I read a book, a posting, hear someone speak... how can this receiving be anything else than my experience. Where did those words come from? What is the source? Searching for the cause of any word is like searching for the cause of language itself. One gives to the next, and so on... a trans-fering (tra-dition). So the music of Mozart became possible, the words of Nisargadatta were possible. In the words, in the music... all is woven into it that ever has been said and sung. And it is flowing on, never ending. Sitting together with the master is surely still another caliber of experience, and Nisargadattas words have always happened in such a situation. But when those words, those sounds reach me - they become my experience, fresh like the morning dew or cold like an icy morning wind. When I feel that those words, this music... carry something of that which cannot be sung, cannot be said... this is again my experience and my wonder. A finger is pointing to the moon. Should I look at the finger? The moon is my experience and even the moon is merely a reflection. Love Stefan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 7, 2005 Report Share Posted March 7, 2005 Stefan wrote: Odysseus: I never said that Mozard was bullshit, Nor beethoven! How can I call myself classic music lover and bullshit almost all the greatest classical Masters? Lewis: Odysseus, As you know we can say anything. Each person does as they are. This is not a mystery. Stefan: Hi, may I throw in my 2 cents. When I remember correctly how the dialog started, it was an advice not to trust second hand knowledge too much. And even Nisargadattas words are second hand knowledge, Lewis has said. Yes, and even: what else can knowledge be than second hand? Once I " know " something it has already been experienced. And then the recognizing of the known is again an experience. And what I think I know today might reveal itself as a mirage tomorrow. It is all always in a flow. When I read a book, a posting, hear someone speak... how can this receiving be anything else than my experience. Where did those words come from? What is the source? Searching for the cause of any word is like searching for the cause of language itself. One gives to the next, and so on... a trans-fering (tra-dition). So the music of Mozart became possible, the words of Nisargadatta were possible. In the words, in the music... all is woven into it that ever has been said and sung. And it is flowing on, never ending. Sitting together with the master is surely still another caliber of experience, and Nisargadattas words have always happened in such a situation. But when those words, those sounds reach me - they become my experience, fresh like the morning dew or cold like an icy morning wind. When I feel that those words, this music... carry something of that which cannot be sung, cannot be said... this is again my experience and my wonder. A finger is pointing to the moon. Should I look at the finger? The moon is my experience and even the moon is merely a reflection. Love Stefan Lewis: Hi Stefan, You are bringing another level of experience, one that is not separated and one that is flow without interruption. Nisargadatta and other personages and in the Tripura Rahasya and other texts warn of going on second hand knowledge rather than first hand. Experience it and know it. This sort of statement automatically sets up the dichotomies of first and second, words and experience, inner and outer and so on. To speak on it we take for granted the dichotomy and work with it in all the different ways that was done in response to Richard's question, a lesson in itself, wherein the original questions were answered or not in various ways and when answered there were references to other materials with slightly different meanings and which could be taken in different ways. Which of the answers is the one most suitable to represent Nisargadatta's meaning? It can be apparent that all expressed knowledge, in terms of immediate experience as inexpressible unknowing knowing, is undoubtedly second hand once known with consciousness and intellect and expressed in any way. You say it well Stefan. We experience non-distinct wholeness as it is and know that wholeness in an " unknowing knowing " way (we do not fathom in distinctions as we undergo it and know it in a way that is beyond a fragmenting consciousness and intellect). When knowing and expressing experience as such, it divides, breaks up into pieces, into words, expressions, concepts, elaborations which never capture the experience in its entirety or in any way fully and leaves only vague pointings, which are received and reconstituted as an experience in that mysterious way with some of it done in consciousness with intellect producing an understanding or reconstruction (images, thoughts, elaborations) and with some of it being done by going " darkly " beyond intellect and consciousness and worked upon in that way that we have shared before. We do not know clearly know what is happening in the latter case when we receive words as experience directly. This, rather than intellectual understanding filtered through whatever is there, is rarely considered here. As direct experience and as a receiver of the expression there are changing currents and eddies of knowing this and that and the always deeper running stream of experience not directly available to ordinary consciousness. If we shed the idea of second hand knowledge of which all is as you have pointed out and take words as experience then we move to another dimension of experience that is beyond intellect. Words have effect beyond what is known and when they enter there in that hiddeness in the appearance work is done on them in that unseeing seeing way, whether we understood the words or meanings or not, and there are effects that emerge in being and doing sooner or later in all the ways that they do. When you say, " ....when those words, those sounds reach me - they become my experience, fresh like the morning dew or cold like an icy morning wind. When I feel that those words, this music... carry something of that which cannot be sung, cannot be said... this is again my experience and my wonder. " therein lies the experience and evidence of that deeper stream that goes on without effort or distinct knowledge of intellect or reasoning and makes all embraceable without reserve. We are not merely intellect or consciousness. There is that which is beyond these and that is what we are in each moment of present experience, if it is allowed to be. Second hand knowledge, third hand knowledge can serve well for those who allow it to be dealt with darkly beyond superficial intellection, which oftimes leads to the creation of phantoms and the seeking of same. Love, Lewis 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.