Guest guest Posted April 12, 2005 Report Share Posted April 12, 2005 In a message dated 4/12/05 5:35:58 PM, wim_borsboom writes: > > > > Hi All, > > The basic concepts of Advaita are all > > analogical ones because that is the only > > way we can approach the mystery of being > > which encompasses the seeker. Strictly, > > silence and stillness is the most > > complete description of what is the case > > but if we are not there, then analogies > > may serve to focus our attention on > > divine mystery. > > > > > > Love is itself unmoving, > > Only the cause and end of movement, > > Timeless and undesiring > > Except in the aspect of time > > Caught in the form of limitation > > Between un-being and being. (Four > > Quartets/Burnt Norton. V) > > > > The central analogies in Advaita or those > > that are used in the core teaching are > > called adhyasa/superimposition and > > upadhi/limiting adjunct/form of > > limitation. The analogy works as a sort > > of intuitive logic, we tend to know what > > it means without analysing it. This > > immediacy can be deceptive and Indian > > thinkers who never developed Logic to the > > same extent as the Westerners, did not > > really look at the nature of analogy very > > closely. > > > > When we say a person is like a lion we do > > not mean that he is liable to take a bite > > out of you or eat raw meat. When we say > > that milk is healthy and walking is > > healthy we know that only persons are > > healthy. When we say God is good we are > > applying the concept analogically and > > proportionally. What is at work in the > > various uses of analogy is a narrowly > > focussed quality that serves to link two > > apparently disparate elements. This > > notion of narrow focus is important and > > the Indians tend to lose sight of this and > > turn an analogy into a homology or a > > parallel. 'Waking state is like a dream' > > can become 'waking state is a dream'. > > So well observed, and so, by the same token, are most statements in > Eastern writings 'a n a l o g i c' that mention notions like > 'nothingness', 'nothing ever happened', 'nirguna', 'maya' and the > like. And yes, even the notion of 'nirvikalpa samadhi' falls within > the rubric of this type of analogy. > > An example: > What many 'Western thinking' people erroneously understand 'maya' to > mean when genuine and bona-fide sages (often Eastern ones) mention the > word, is that it suggests that 'everything IS illusion', that nothing > is real or substantial, including the one who deems everything to be > illusion. > > However, a genuine sage only draws a comparison between: > . the way that an aware, awake human IS in REALITY or REALIZED and > . the ways HOW non aware persons DEAL WITH reality and live in > ILLUSION (a reality-devoid and world-estranged life that is > 'a s t h o u g h' it is a dream. > > This pathological illusive pseudo-life that these sages aim to help > their followers to undo usually comes about under the force of 'mala > fide' trickery by those with an agenda to play 'more or less' > enslaving games of trickery and manipulation on their fellow human > beings. This is done in such a way as to have things, circumstances > and actions APPEAR different than they really are. The trickery is > even done to such an extent that the acts of a trickster go so > unnoticed as to make the malevolent trickster go scot-free while > making the tricked subject believe to be a victim of their own > weakness and gullibility, their own weakened sense of self, their own > liability to be tricked or their own choices they made themselves - > not mentioning that those choices were never made in freedom as the > 'choices' were forced to be made under stress, duress, threats and > artificial installation of fear. > > The usual person - almost anybody - lives under some such form of the > above describe trickery that makes him or her lose their sense of self > to a greater or lesser degree. > > Anyone then who does not live an authentic, genuine free life, lives > to a lesser or greater extent under the powers of illusion in a world > of illusion that makes the world only APPEAR different from what that > world IS as realized by one knowing or having re-cognized SOHAM, TAT > TUAM ASI or OM TAT SAT. > > The sage (usually Eastern thinking) 'c o m p a r e s' the way of life > of a 'usual' person - one who lives in a pseudo-world of illusion - to > the playful trickery that an illusionist uses to make something appear > to have disappeared or to appear as something else. > (Note the two different meanings of the word 'appearance': either it > means 'coming forward' or it means 'seeming' to be.) > > Of course an individual who lives in a pseudo-world under the dubious > power of illusion is STILL real and so is the world is in which that > individual lives under illusion. The 'observed' appearances however > are not real, illuded as they are by means of the enactment of > illusions by an actor who is 'apparent' or... can even disappear in > the act, but who is nevertheless also... real... albeit in the > background. > An illuded and thus erroneous observation (an illusion) is dependent > on real illuding trickery: the real enactment of illusion, real but > illusive trickery, that is performed by a real individual who can even > make him or herself 'appear to have disappeared'. > > Even real, so to say 'apparent' illusive acts can be made to be > non-observable by appearing not to have appeared or to appear as > something else. > > So indeed, the ACTS of illusionists with their props and audience > being manipulated are illuding, illusive and illusions but... always > within the infra-structure of reality. The 'observations' and > conclusions by the onlooker are illuded, illusive or an illusion but > that what is manipulated or handled (the props and the audience) is not. > > Everything that can be manipulated, handled, measured (maya) is > 'real', a 'thing' (Latin 'res') that has substance on a scale from the > subtlest to the grossest. (Everything possesses a field... at least a > 'scalar' or 'gauge' field.) What the usual person may see though, > observe, conclude, assume or conceive about the original real thing or > real action or enactment may actually not be real, what is 'seen' is > most of the time an illusion under the power of illusion and not the > real thing, action or enactment - although, the usual person may > vehemently deal with the seeming appearance as though it were... > > So it is even when in an enactment of 'trickery or illusion' :-) such > as Nirvikalpa Samadhi (oh yes!) in which everything appears to have > disappeared or be non-apparent... that everything seems only an > appearance of something (?) that 'never ever appeared'. Coming out of > a state of Nirvikalpa Samadhi one indeed accounts of illusion but it > is not about the 'illusion of everything' it is about realization of > the enactment of illusion, about how one can deal with what is and how > 'unneeded' that dealing is or how manipulative dealing with 'what is' > can be... > > What is not seen or dealt with AS IS - ergo what appears illusively as > a seeming appearance or a seeming disappearance - is not 'divinely > guaranteed'. > > Everything AS IS is 'divinely guaranteed', it is this beautiful world > which by definition is the unbegun and unending reality of divine > Leela playing causality, change and interdependent origination: the > multidimensional mutuality and reciprocity of the reality of love in > love. > > Everything > THAT IS AS IS, > OM TAT SAT, > TAT TUAM ASI, > SOHAM > unconditionally guaranteed... > > with love, > > Wim > [snip to the end] > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 13, 2005 Report Share Posted April 13, 2005 Michael wrote: > [large snip of Michael's very interesting material] > ... There may be a ***better description*** of knowledge than is > given in such Thomist tags as " The mind is in some way able to > become everything " , " The mind abstracts from the sensible object > its intelligible essence " , " The thing is in the mind by > intentional being " , and so on.. Not sure if a " better description " is needed, as I myself have no fundamental difficulty with the Thomist view as described above. In fact, in one of my posts a week or so ago to Tanya I attempted to give an expanded and more contemporary description of the view expressed above. What follows is an edited and expanded version of that post. ---- Every thing, every entity has a field. I view a 'field' as an essential measurable part of ANY entity or thing. Wave field characteristics are not a symbolic or abstract indirect representation of what they emanate from but FORM an intrinsic 'part' of and are a presentation of any entity/thing. Notice the distinctive use of the words 're-presentation' and 'presentation'. Example: A sculpture that one may have of one's mother is not one's mother, it is a replica of one's mother put together in an entirely different medium than that what one's mother in all her complexity :-) 'consists of'. Such a sculpture is a re-presentation. A sculpture or for that matter a painting of one's mother is not 'presently' one's mother. On the other hand I hold the view though that a mental picture that one has formed of one's mother is a LIVE interconnecting concrete link with one's mother; she extends from afar (if that happens to be the case) through one's mental picture into oneself. (vice versa of course the mental picture she has of you is also a a live link to you). This presentative relationship results from the complex dynamic of mutual reciprocal causation that is at work in Nagarjuna's view of reality as 'interdependent origination'. Fields emanate wave-like from every entity or thing. The characteristics of these fields - the data (Latin, literally the 'givens') are picked up by anything that is set up to register and to be 'in-formed' by these characteristics (or a selection of them) in whatever form they are emanated and registered. There is a mutual reciprocity between the 'registrant' or 'in-formant' and the 'registree' or 'in-formee', a complex multi-dimensional simultaneity between the seer and the seen and vice versa. This dynamic was picked up by Nagarjuna as part of his very astute observations of and deliberations on causality and change that was eventually expressed as 'interdependent origination'. This registration occurs: (1) by means of sensitivity to the basic forces of nature: gravity, strong, weak, electro-magnetic. (2) expanding and in addition to (1) in humans and other animals by means of a variety of senses - including 'extra sensory perception' in which I mean 'extra' to be understood as 'additional'. (3) expanding and in addition (1) and (2) in plants by specific sensitivities to humidity, temperature and other characteristics that flora appears to be sensitive and responsive to. Noting here that sensitivity and responsiveness are wondrously and NOT JUST SYMBOLICALLY interconnected. You may already know - I started writing about that to this list about three quarters of a year ago - that I'm working on a different approach to describe the workings of the brain/mind. I have already described on this list how I see the human mind as a field emanating from the brain. I compared this to the idea of how the two components of the electro-magnetic field represent a 'greater something', the electrons presenting or GIVING 'its' particulate nature, the magnetic field presenting or GIVING 'its' wave nature; the particle AND wave thus being a presentation both-or-together of a 'greater something', all this similar to how particles and waves both-or-together present a 'greater something' that goes by the name of 'light'. I suggest that 'in origin' we see the physical brain as a complex conglomerate of lipids: fatty alcohols (cholesterol) and fatty acids that originally (way long ago in human evolution and very early in the development of the embryo) started out as a tiny pool of 'lipids in solution', a solution that was set up to be especially sensitive to wavelike 'disturbances'. These disturbances or interferences created multi-dimensional complex interference patterns within this expanding three dimensional lipid solution pool that eventually dynamically stabilized itself. Along the myriad of patterned interconnected stabilization lines a precipitate got 'laid down' that eventually developed into nervous tissue. Altogether this eventually resulted in the physical structure of the brain as we have it. (Imperial Oil just recently - I believe via Digital Media Group Ltd. and Mammoth Pictures - produced a TV commercial showing an animation of the formation of the human brain, depicting a possible first phase of the above described dynamic. DMG used 3D 'puddling' in a plasma though, rather than 3D puddling that occurs similarly in a `near boiling point' liquid. I might upload the commercial to the files section if they allow it.) We have to realize that any wave that is picked up IS an 'essential' AND 'existential' part of that what it originates from, albeit a WAVE presentation rather than a PARTICULATE one. The brain thus CONTAINS not 'just abstract' information but live emanations from sensed objects. The brain is thus filled with non-particulate wave emanations from whatever these emanations originate from. These emanations are gathered through the senses (including the 'extra' senses and... why not) and delivered to the 'brain pool'. In the brain these wave emanations form intricate and complex multi-dimensional interference patterns which as I suggested above lead to the formation of nervous tissue which is part of the brain's grey matter. In addition and naturally so - as the brain is stuff - the brain also has a field. This field is 'composed of' - 'consists of' those non-particulate field emanations from whatever 'somethings' they initially originated from. I hold the view that the brain's field, of which the combined complex formation originated from a myriad of interferential waves that emanated from 'something-elsewhere', that that IS THE HUMAN MIND in its fullest meaning and extent. The mind thus indeed consists of THAT by which it was in-formed. > " The thing is in the mind by intentional being " I AM THAT! One need to be careful not to apply any qualitatively distinctive notions to mind or stuff - grading the two - be it mind or body, substance or field, wave or particle. They are simultaneous concurrent expressions of a 'greater something'. All stuff has a field, all fields or waves are emanations from a source. Stuff and fields are simultaneous presentations of a 'greater something'. All `greater somethings' make up what I like to call " The Whole Shebang. " The mind enables us thus to physically communicate - 'resonate' to say the least - with stuff, although... it 'a p p e a r s' to be 'at arm's length'. Luckily though the mind can help us happily to respond to what we sensed bodily by causing us to 'e x t e n d' our arms and embrace that what we thought we could only mentally embrace... > So how does it happen if it is impossible? Well is it impossible? I hope I showed it is not! > That is the paradox. Or maybe not! > Evidently we need to go beyond the apparent facts to a > metaphysical view of how things must fundamentally be. Well, maybe not, maybe things are fundamentally as I described above. Could you consider Michael, that the " metaphysical view " might be a non particulate presentation that is very intimate with the " physical " or particulate presentation, both and together being presentations of ONE 'greater something'? > The strong reason for this gulf between subject and object > is the identification of 'I' with one side of the equation. )) Neat! Don't Rastafarians say " I and I " instead of " we " , " us " or " you and me " ? [remainder snipped] Thanks Michael, Love, Wim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 13, 2005 Report Share Posted April 13, 2005 Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: > > > Michael wrote: > > > [large snip of Michael's very interesting material] > > ... There may be a ***better description*** of knowledge than is > > given in such Thomist tags as " The mind is in some way able to > > become everything " , " The mind abstracts from the sensible object > > its intelligible essence " , " The thing is in the mind by > > intentional being " , and so on.. > > Not sure if a " better description " is needed, as I myself have no > fundamental difficulty with the Thomist view as described above. In > fact, in one of my posts a week or so ago to Tanya I attempted to give > an expanded and more contemporary description of the view expressed > above. What follows is an edited and expanded version of that post. > > ---- > Every thing, every entity has a field. I view a 'field' as an > essential measurable part of ANY entity or thing. > Wave field characteristics are not a symbolic or abstract indirect > representation of what they emanate from but FORM an intrinsic 'part' > of and are a presentation of any entity/thing. > > Notice the distinctive use of the words 're-presentation' and > 'presentation'. How do you measure the field of an apple? Where does the field of an apple end and the field of your consciousness begin? > > Example: > A sculpture that one may have of one's mother is not one's mother, it > is a replica of one's mother put together in an entirely different > medium than that what one's mother in all her complexity :-) Any thoughts you have about your mother is not your mother either. Not even when you experience your mother in realtime is that image in your mind your mother. 'consists > of'. Such a sculpture is a re-presentation. So is any image in your mind. > A sculpture or for that matter a painting of one's mother is not > 'presently' one's mother. If I look at your mother and you look at your mother at the same time, do we really experience the same experience? Is there such a thing as a thing? Are there any concrete objects at all? Is there any 'mother' out there at all as a separare object? > On the other hand I hold the view though that a mental picture that > one has formed of one's mother is a LIVE interconnecting concrete link > with one's mother; Not nescessarily. The mental picture of your mom may be only a mental picture of your mom. > she extends from afar (if that happens to be the > case) through one's mental picture into oneself. (vice versa of course > the mental picture she has of you is also a a live link to you). Only in your mind, my young Padawan learner. You _think_ there is a link between your mental images, and your mom's mental images. Of course, there is a link between _everything_ in existence, but some links are taken to be more direct than they really are. > This presentative relationship results from the complex dynamic of > mutual reciprocal causation that is at work in Nagarjuna's view of > reality as 'interdependent origination'. Sure, there are interdependent origination; everything is that. But personal ideas about another person is a very subjective interdependence. > > Fields emanate wave-like from every entity or thing. > The characteristics of these fields - the data (Latin, literally the > 'givens') are picked up by anything that is set up to register and to > be 'in-formed' by these characteristics (or a selection of them) in > whatever form they are emanated and registered. > > There is a mutual reciprocity between the 'registrant' or 'in-formant' > and the 'registree' or 'in-formee', a complex multi-dimensional > simultaneity between the seer and the seen and vice versa. This > dynamic was picked up by Nagarjuna as part of his very astute > observations of and deliberations on causality and change that was > eventually expressed as 'interdependent origination'. Does causation act from past to future, or from future to the past? > > This registration occurs: > (1) by means of sensitivity to the basic forces of nature: gravity, > strong, weak, electro-magnetic. > (2) expanding and in addition to (1) in humans and other animals by > means of a variety of senses - including 'extra sensory perception' in > which I mean 'extra' to be understood as 'additional'. > (3) expanding and in addition (1) and (2) in plants by specific > sensitivities to humidity, temperature and other characteristics that > flora appears to be sensitive and responsive to. > > Noting here that sensitivity and responsiveness are wondrously and NOT > JUST SYMBOLICALLY interconnected. > > You may already know - I started writing about that to this list about > three quarters of a year ago - that I'm working on a different > approach to describe the workings of the brain/mind. I have already > described on this list how I see the human mind as a field emanating > from the brain. Maybe the brain is an appearance emanating from consciousness? Can separate objects really emanate anything by themselves? Isn't that kind of view altogether missing That in which every separate object exists? > I compared this to the idea of how the two components > of the electro-magnetic field represent a 'greater something', the > electrons presenting or GIVING 'its' particulate nature, the magnetic > field presenting or GIVING 'its' wave nature; the particle AND wave > thus being a presentation both-or-together of a 'greater something', > all this similar to how particles and waves both-or-together present a > 'greater something' that goes by the name of 'light'. These are theories about separate objects. But what is That in which every object exists? > > I suggest that 'in origin' we see the physical brain as a complex > conglomerate of lipids: fatty alcohols (cholesterol) and fatty acids > that originally (way long ago in human evolution and very early in the > development of the embryo) started out as a tiny pool of 'lipids in > solution', a solution that was set up to be especially sensitive to > wavelike 'disturbances'. These disturbances or interferences created > multi-dimensional complex interference patterns within this expanding > three dimensional lipid solution pool that eventually dynamically > stabilized itself. Along the myriad of patterned interconnected > stabilization lines a precipitate got 'laid down' that eventually > developed into nervous tissue. Altogether this eventually resulted in > the physical structure of the brain as we have it. Again: does causation act from past to future, or from future to the past? > > (Imperial Oil just recently - I believe via Digital Media Group Ltd. > and Mammoth Pictures - produced a TV commercial showing an animation > of the formation of the human brain, depicting a possible first phase > of the above described dynamic. DMG used 3D 'puddling' in a plasma > though, rather than 3D puddling that occurs similarly in a `near > boiling point' liquid. I might upload the commercial to the files > section if they allow it.) You think of objects as separate things. I suspect there are no separate objects at all. How can something be truly separate from existence? And if it is not truly separate from existence, then is that thing really a separate object? al. > > We have to realize that any wave that is picked up IS an 'essential' > AND 'existential' part of that what it originates from, albeit a WAVE > presentation rather than a PARTICULATE one. > > The brain thus CONTAINS not 'just abstract' information but live > emanations from sensed objects. > > The brain is thus filled with non-particulate wave emanations from > whatever these emanations originate from. These emanations are > gathered through the senses (including the 'extra' senses and... why > not) and delivered to the 'brain pool'. In the brain these wave > emanations form intricate and complex multi-dimensional interference > patterns which as I suggested above lead to the formation of nervous > tissue which is part of the brain's grey matter. > In addition and naturally so - as the brain is stuff - the brain also > has a field. This field is 'composed of' - 'consists of' those > non-particulate field emanations from whatever 'somethings' they > initially originated from. > > I hold the view that the brain's field, of which the combined complex > formation originated from a myriad of interferential waves that > emanated from 'something-elsewhere', that that IS THE HUMAN MIND in > its fullest meaning and extent. The mind thus indeed consists of THAT > by which it was in-formed. > > > " The thing is in the mind by intentional being " > > I AM THAT! > > One need to be careful not to apply any qualitatively distinctive > notions to mind or stuff - grading the two - be it mind or body, > substance or field, wave or particle. They are simultaneous concurrent > expressions of a 'greater something'. All stuff has a field, all > fields or waves are emanations from a source. Stuff and fields are > simultaneous presentations of a 'greater something'. > All `greater somethings' make up what I like to call " The Whole Shebang. " > > The mind enables us thus to physically communicate - 'resonate' to say > the least - with stuff, although... it 'a p p e a r s' to be 'at arm's > length'. Luckily though the mind can help us happily to respond to > what we sensed bodily by causing us to 'e x t e n d' our arms and > embrace that what we thought we could only mentally embrace... > > > So how does it happen if it is impossible? > > Well is it impossible? I hope I showed it is not! > > > That is the paradox. > > Or maybe not! > > > Evidently we need to go beyond the apparent facts to a > > metaphysical view of how things must fundamentally be. > > Well, maybe not, maybe things are fundamentally as I described above. > Could you consider Michael, that the " metaphysical view " might be a > non particulate presentation that is very intimate with the " physical " > or particulate presentation, both and together being presentations of > ONE 'greater something'? > > > The strong reason for this gulf between subject and object > > is the identification of 'I' with one side of the equation. > > )) > Neat! > > Don't Rastafarians say " I and I " instead of " we " , " us " or " you and me " ? > > [remainder snipped] > > Thanks Michael, > > Love, > Wim > > > 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.