Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org

fog

Rate this topic


Guest guest

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

Hi Lewis,

 

That remark about 2nd. and 3rd.hand

knowledge was posted while it still

required work at the aphorism shop. I

thought so at the time. These things

unless they are immediately intelligible

are doomed and until anchored in a

concrete image they hang flaccid as a

leaking balloon.

 

What Richard wanted answered was as simple

as 'how do I get to Central Park from

here?'. Within a metaphysical system

whose elements are well known and agreed

upon a Master makes a point which is not

clear to someone who is unfamiliar with

the terrain. It's very Lewis to say that

whatever answer he is given will be

faulty. There's an element of the fog

machine about your perorations.

 

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

ombhurbhuva wrote:

> Hi Lewis,

>

> That remark about 2nd. and 3rd.hand

> knowledge was posted while it still

> required work at the aphorism shop. I

> thought so at the time. These things

> unless they are immediately intelligible

> are doomed and until anchored in a

> concrete image they hang flaccid as a

> leaking balloon.

 

 

What do you mean " until anchored in a concrete image " Michael? Please

elaborate so it is clear what you mean.

 

 

> What Richard wanted answered was as simple

> as 'how do I get to Central Park from

> here?'.

 

 

 

Was that what Richard wanted? I do not know. Richard can tell us.

 

 

 

> Within a metaphysical system

> whose elements are well known and agreed

> upon a Master makes a point which is not

> clear to someone who is unfamiliar with

> the terrain.

 

 

That is the case with many. That may be the case with Richard. I do not

know. He can tell us if that was what his questions were about.

 

 

> It's very Lewis to say that

> whatever answer he is given will be

> faulty.

 

 

 

It was not said that answers given to Richard are or were faulty. It was

said in the first post that such knowledge is troublesome and in the

second it was asked which of the answers is most suitable to represent

Nisargadatta's meaning.

 

These words have different meanings.

 

" Faulty " means to be marked by fault, imperfection, blemish or defect.

It was not said that the answers were faulty or untrue or true or any

such thing.

 

" Troublesome " means difficult or difficult to deal with.

 

" Suitable " means similar or matching or proper.

 

How did you derive faulty from the words troublesome and suitable?

 

Perhaps it is the word " phantoms " that touch. Well that does happen does

it not? And the scriptural and personage warnings are about that in part

is that not so?

 

And that phenomena of phantom creation and seeking has little to do with

words themselves of any type. The words lie there do nothing of their

own accord. They are " lifeless " as it is. The gain life and meaning and

shape and form and experience when taken up.

 

 

> There's an element of the fog

> machine about your perorations.

>

> Michael

 

 

There is no fog or fog machine. There are no conclusions about answers,

Michael, yours or others. Just simple statements about the nature of

knowledge production and how it can used and experienced. The veracity

of the knowledge presented or the lack of it in the answers provided was

not considered or debated. The latter is a matter that each appearance

undergoes and deals with. It can be said that the answers were similar

and different in the way that they are simply from examining the

different scriptures and similar and different concepts used.

 

A great service would be to pull all the answers to Richard's questions

together and put them in one post to see them as they are and then to

comment as to their relation to Richard's question and Nisargadatta's

words, and how they answer or deal with his questions. This may prove to

be an illuminating experience for all concerned.

 

 

Lewis

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

Hi Group,

 

Your answers were wide-ranging and I took what I could use at this time and left

the rest. I don't presume to tell others how to respond and am appreciative of

all your selfless replies.Your answers plus further reading of Nisargadatta's

later books, were indeed helpful.

 

As is probably known, N's guru changed the teaching of the lineage from only

meditating and worship, to also include understanding along with the other

practices. So I ask questions, while knowing that " ...outside the mind there is

only being. " Nisargadatta Maharaj

 

I have been to Central Park, literally and figuratively, and did think I asked a

question as simple as how to get there from here. But now realize that If my

" from here " is unknown, how can I be directed?

 

Actually, more than directions, I wanted to know the view from Central Park and

indeed if there were any view or awareness of anything when in the Absolute

spoken of by N.

 

Thanks,

Richard

 

 

 

 

 

Lewis Burgess <lbb10 wrote:

 

 

 

ombhurbhuva wrote:

> Hi Lewis,

>

> That remark about 2nd. and 3rd.hand

> knowledge was posted while it still

> required work at the aphorism shop. I

> thought so at the time. These things

> unless they are immediately intelligible

> are doomed and until anchored in a

> concrete image they hang flaccid as a

> leaking balloon.

 

 

What do you mean " until anchored in a concrete image " Michael? Please

elaborate so it is clear what you mean.

 

 

> What Richard wanted answered was as simple

> as 'how do I get to Central Park from

> here?'.

 

 

 

Was that what Richard wanted? I do not know. Richard can tell us.

 

 

 

> Within a metaphysical system

> whose elements are well known and agreed

> upon a Master makes a point which is not

> clear to someone who is unfamiliar with

> the terrain.

 

 

That is the case with many. That may be the case with Richard. I do not

know. He can tell us if that was what his questions were about.

 

 

> It's very Lewis to say that

> whatever answer he is given will be

> faulty.

 

 

 

It was not said that answers given to Richard are or were faulty. It was

said in the first post that such knowledge is troublesome and in the

second it was asked which of the answers is most suitable to represent

Nisargadatta's meaning.

 

These words have different meanings.

 

" Faulty " means to be marked by fault, imperfection, blemish or defect.

It was not said that the answers were faulty or untrue or true or any

such thing.

 

" Troublesome " means difficult or difficult to deal with.

 

" Suitable " means similar or matching or proper.

 

How did you derive faulty from the words troublesome and suitable?

 

Perhaps it is the word " phantoms " that touch. Well that does happen does

it not? And the scriptural and personage warnings are about that in part

is that not so?

 

And that phenomena of phantom creation and seeking has little to do with

words themselves of any type. The words lie there do nothing of their

own accord. They are " lifeless " as it is. The gain life and meaning and

shape and form and experience when taken up.

 

 

> There's an element of the fog

> machine about your perorations.

>

> Michael

 

 

There is no fog or fog machine. There are no conclusions about answers,

Michael, yours or others. Just simple statements about the nature of

knowledge production and how it can used and experienced. The veracity

of the knowledge presented or the lack of it in the answers provided was

not considered or debated. The latter is a matter that each appearance

undergoes and deals with. It can be said that the answers were similar

and different in the way that they are simply from examining the

different scriptures and similar and different concepts used.

 

A great service would be to pull all the answers to Richard's questions

together and put them in one post to see them as they are and then to

comment as to their relation to Richard's question and Nisargadatta's

words, and how they answer or deal with his questions. This may prove to

be an illuminating experience for all concerned.

 

 

Lewis

 

 

 

 

 

**

 

If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your subscription,

sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups:

 

/mygroups?edit=1

 

Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the Nisargadatta group

and click on Save Changes.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...