Guest guest Posted April 29, 2005 Report Share Posted April 29, 2005 Samadhi Ma wrote: > Self enquiry is not an intellectual process. It is direct experience > of the Self. Intellect is to be abandoned, along with mind/ego. anna wrote in another post: > The lie is in the beLIEf, and it grabs us everytime. > > Now the experience of noOne-- that is never a belief... or so it > would seem:) Dear Samadhi Ma and anna Direct uninterpreted experience!!! YES!! " ...direct experience of the Self " (Samadhi Ma) " Now the experience of noOne-- that is never a belief... " (anna) Indeed, direct immediate, un-mediated experience is and cannot be a belief, as belief is always based on an adulterated interpretation of experience, not able to accept 'what-is' 'as-is' and believing that 'what-is' should be that-what-it-is-not. All too often beliefs attempt to taint experience with interpretations to make experience 'feel' mentally or emotionally different from what it is, this mental or emotional 'feeling' envelops experience and makes experience appear indirect and mediated and so to speak 'voided of gusto'. Beliefs make statements like " certain experiences should not happen " , or " are abominable when they do happen. " That's somewhat like 'water should not freeze when it gets below a certain temperature or vaporize when above another temperature, and when it does freeze or vaporizes that it is 'a deviation from the accepted norm'. Though for some maybe a bit too daring an example or even inappropriate to bring up here, a good example is the experience of orgasmic bliss... brought about by masturbation (OK, OK, not exactly the same as 'direct experience of Self') But hang in there... ) No matter how moral interpretations and subsequent social and/or religious judgements attempt to make the 'practitioner' of masturbation feel guilty or uneasy to eventualy stop the practice, the practice most often persists in spite of " whatever " , as in principle the experience of orgasmic bliss is part of a whole spectrum of bliss that bliss can be experienced as: from the subtlests and most spiritual to the most basic and physical. The same with the experience of the numinous, the sacred, the wondrous and the mystical. It is the interpretations of them that make them unacceptable or even " impossible " to experience and if they do get experienced they are deemed deviated or wacko. Wim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 29, 2005 Report Share Posted April 29, 2005 Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: > Samadhi Ma wrote: > > Self enquiry is not an intellectual process. It is direct experience > > of the Self. Intellect is to be abandoned, along with mind/ego. > > anna wrote in another post: > > The lie is in the beLIEf, and it grabs us everytime. > > > > Now the experience of noOne-- that is never a belief... or so it > > would seem:) > > > Dear Samadhi Ma and anna > > Direct uninterpreted experience!!! YES!! > > " ...direct experience of the Self " (Samadhi Ma) > > " Now the experience of noOne-- that is never a belief... " (anna) > > Indeed, direct immediate, un-mediated experience is and cannot be a > belief, There is no such " thing " as " direct experience " . Any so called experience involves a dual relationship....An assumed psychological center in which the " experience " occurs and a separate distinct " event " that is stored in the memory of said center. The " experience " and the " event " are one thing. as belief is always based on an adulterated interpretation of > experience, not able to accept 'what-is' 'as-is' and believing that > 'what-is' should be that-what-it-is-not. The non-acceptance of " what is " is an integral facet of What Is. > All too often beliefs attempt to taint experience with interpretations (excluding this one?) > to make experience 'feel' mentally or emotionally different from what > it is, this mental or emotional 'feeling' envelops experience and > makes experience appear indirect and mediated and so to speak 'voided > of gusto'. > Beliefs make statements like " certain experiences should not happen " , > or " are abominable when they do happen. " That's somewhat like 'water > should not freeze when it gets below a certain temperature or vaporize > when above another temperature, and when it does freeze or vaporizes > that it is 'a deviation from the accepted norm'. > > Though for some maybe a bit too daring an example or even > inappropriate to bring up here, a good example is the experience of > orgasmic bliss... brought about by masturbation (OK, OK, not exactly > the same as 'direct experience of Self') But hang in there... ) No > matter how moral interpretations and subsequent social and/or > religious judgements attempt to make the 'practitioner' of > masturbation feel guilty or uneasy to eventualy stop the practice, the > practice most often persists in spite of " whatever " , as in principle > the experience of orgasmic bliss is part of a whole spectrum of bliss > that bliss can be experienced as: from the subtlests and most > spiritual to the most basic and physical. > > The same with the experience of the numinous, the sacred, the wondrous > and the mystical. It is the interpretations of them that make them > unacceptable or even " impossible " to experience and if they do get > experienced they are deemed deviated or wacko. > > Wim > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 29, 2005 Report Share Posted April 29, 2005 Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: > Samadhi Ma wrote: > > Self enquiry is not an intellectual process. It is direct experience > > of the Self. Intellect is to be abandoned, along with mind/ego. > > anna wrote in another post: > > The lie is in the beLIEf, and it grabs us everytime. > > > > Now the experience of noOne-- that is never a belief... or so it > > would seem:) > > > Dear Samadhi Ma and anna > > Direct uninterpreted experience!!! YES!! > > " ...direct experience of the Self " (Samadhi Ma) > > " Now the experience of noOne-- that is never a belief... " (anna) > > Indeed, direct immediate, un-mediated experience is and cannot be a > belief, as belief is always based on an adulterated interpretation of > experience, not able to accept 'what-is' 'as-is' and believing that > 'what-is' should be that-what-it-is-not. > All too often beliefs attempt to taint experience with interpretations > to make experience 'feel' mentally or emotionally different from what > it is, this mental or emotional 'feeling' envelops experience and > makes experience appear indirect and mediated and so to speak 'voided > of gusto'. > Beliefs make statements like " certain experiences should not happen " , > or " are abominable when they do happen. " That's somewhat like 'water > should not freeze when it gets below a certain temperature or vaporize > when above another temperature, and when it does freeze or vaporizes > that it is 'a deviation from the accepted norm'. > > Though for some maybe a bit too daring an example or even > inappropriate to bring up here, a good example is the experience of > orgasmic bliss... brought about by masturbation (OK, OK, not exactly > the same as 'direct experience of Self') But hang in there... ) No > matter how moral interpretations and subsequent social and/or > religious judgements attempt to make the 'practitioner' of > masturbation feel guilty or uneasy to eventualy stop the practice, the > practice most often persists in spite of " whatever " , as in principle > the experience of orgasmic bliss is part of a whole spectrum of bliss > that bliss can be experienced as: from the subtlests and most > spiritual to the most basic and physical. > > The same with the experience of the numinous, the sacred, the wondrous > and the mystical. It is the interpretations of them that make them > unacceptable or even " impossible " to experience and if they do get > experienced they are deemed deviated or wacko. > > Wim > > Your shadow passes over a small patch of ground........dust moves.......and you believe that by studying the dust......you will know the nature of your self. toomabru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 29, 2005 Report Share Posted April 29, 2005 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: > > Samadhi Ma wrote: > > > Self enquiry is not an intellectual process. It is direct > > > experience of the Self. Intellect is to be abandoned, along > > > with mind/ego. > > > > > anna wrote in another post: > > > The lie is in the beLIEf, and it grabs us everytime. > > > > > > Now the experience of noOne-- that is never a belief... or so it > > > would seem:) > > > > > > Dear Samadhi Ma and anna > > > > Direct uninterpreted experience!!! YES!! > > > > " ...direct experience of the Self " (Samadhi Ma) > > > > " Now the experience of noOne-- that is never a belief... " (anna) > > > > Indeed, direct immediate, un-mediated experience is and cannot be > > a belief, > > > There is no such " thing " as " direct experience " . > > Any so called experience involves a dual relationship....An assumed > psychological center in which the " experience " occurs and a separate > distinct " event " that is stored in the memory of said center. No need to assume a center where an experience occurs. A transient capacity to abstract and express is all that needs to be assumed. The " event " is an abstraction and is stored in memory. Again, a capacity to abstract is all that needs to be assumed to produce " a description of experience, " which is an abstraction, a partiality. > > The " experience " and the " event " are one thing. " Experience " is a concept and a " description of an experience " is an abstraction and " one thing " is synthetic construct of those; the taken for granted use of the concept of " experience " that allows the abstraction and " description of an experience " performed by an assumed " capacity " or " capacities " including memory. Take it back even further, if it is required and expose the operation of the assumptive appartus.... There are no words for..... > > as belief is always based on an adulterated interpretation of > > experience, not able to accept 'what-is' 'as-is' and believing > > that 'what-is' should be that-what-it-is-not. > > > > > The non-acceptance of " what is " is an integral facet of What Is. This is also an abstraction. All of it is abstracted. It is unavoidable in human expression and communication. > > > > All too often beliefs attempt to taint experience with > > interpretations > > > (excluding this one?) Beliefs have no agency. One can speak that way and be understood. Beliefs always taint or color the production of abstractions like " experience " and " descriptions of experience " and " constructions " like this. And these are not harmful when known and seen for what they are. > > > > > to make experience 'feel' mentally or emotionally different from what > > it is, this mental or emotional 'feeling' envelops experience and > > makes experience appear indirect and mediated and so to speak 'voided > > of gusto'. > > Beliefs make statements like " certain experiences should not happen " , > > or " are abominable when they do happen. " That's somewhat like 'water > > should not freeze when it gets below a certain temperature or vaporize > > when above another temperature, and when it does freeze or vaporizes > > that it is 'a deviation from the accepted norm'. > > > > Though for some maybe a bit too daring an example or even > > inappropriate to bring up here, a good example is the experience of > > orgasmic bliss... brought about by masturbation (OK, OK, not exactly > > the same as 'direct experience of Self') But hang in there... ) No > > matter how moral interpretations and subsequent social and/or > > religious judgements attempt to make the 'practitioner' of > > masturbation feel guilty or uneasy to eventualy stop the practice, the > > practice most often persists in spite of " whatever " , as in principle > > the experience of orgasmic bliss is part of a whole spectrum of bliss > > that bliss can be experienced as: from the subtlests and most > > spiritual to the most basic and physical. > > > > The same with the experience of the numinous, the sacred, the wondrous > > and the mystical. It is the interpretations of them that make them > > unacceptable or even " impossible " to experience and if they do get > > experienced they are deemed deviated or wacko. > > > > Wim > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 30, 2005 Report Share Posted April 30, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: > > > > > Samadhi Ma wrote: > > > > Self enquiry is not an intellectual process. It is direct > > > > experience of the Self. Intellect is to be abandoned, along > > > > with mind/ego. > > > > > > > anna wrote in another post: > > > > The lie is in the beLIEf, and it grabs us everytime. > > > > > > > > Now the experience of noOne-- that is never a belief... or so it > > > > would seem:) > > > > > > > > > Dear Samadhi Ma and anna > > > > > > Direct uninterpreted experience!!! YES!! > > > > > > " ...direct experience of the Self " (Samadhi Ma) > > > > > > " Now the experience of noOne-- that is never a belief... " (anna) > > > > > > Indeed, direct immediate, un-mediated experience is and cannot be > > > a belief, > > > > > > There is no such " thing " as " direct experience " . > > > > Any so called experience involves a dual relationship....An assumed > > psychological center in which the " experience " occurs and a separate > > distinct " event " that is stored in the memory of said center. > > > No need to assume a center where an experience occurs. A transient > capacity to abstract and express is all that needs to be assumed. The > " event " is an abstraction and is stored in memory. Again, a capacity > to abstract is all that needs to be assumed to produce " a description > of experience, " which is an abstraction, a partiality. > > > > > The " experience " and the " event " are one thing. > > > " Experience " is a concept and a " description of an experience " is an > abstraction and " one thing " is synthetic construct of those; the taken > for granted use of the concept of " experience " that allows the > abstraction and " description of an experience " performed by an assumed > " capacity " or " capacities " including memory. Take it back even > further, if it is required and expose the operation of the assumptive > appartus.... All of this is a verbose appempt to validate the existential reality of the separate self. > > There are no words for..... > > > > > as belief is always based on an adulterated interpretation of > > > experience, not able to accept 'what-is' 'as-is' and believing > > > that 'what-is' should be that-what-it-is-not. > > > > > > > > > > The non-acceptance of " what is " is an integral facet of What Is. > > > This is also an abstraction. All of it is abstracted. It is > unavoidable in human expression and communication. > Where is the solid ground in this " human expression and communication " ? You speak as if there were a center to the phantom. > > > > > > > All too often beliefs attempt to taint experience with > > > interpretations > > > > > > (excluding this one?) > > > Beliefs have no agency. One can speak that way and be understood. What is thye nature of this " speaker " ? What is the nature of the " one " " understanting " ? > Beliefs always taint or color the production of abstractions like > " experience " and " descriptions of experience " and " constructions " like > this. And these are not harmful when known and seen for what they are. > > Beliefs about beliefs receding into the horizon..... By whom are these beliefs seen? What is the nature of the experiencer? The supposed " entity " is nothing other then a temporary clot of beliefs. > > > > > > > > to make experience 'feel' mentally or emotionally different from what > > > it is, this mental or emotional 'feeling' envelops experience and > > > makes experience appear indirect and mediated and so to speak 'voided > > > of gusto'. > > > Beliefs make statements like " certain experiences should not happen " , Your whole " thesis " employs the assumed reality a psychological center around which these oontradictory " beliefs " revolve. Once that is assumed.....anything...including the speculated ability of said center to change its " self " ..........is delusional. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 30, 2005 Report Share Posted April 30, 2005 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > > Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: > > > > > > > > Samadhi Ma wrote: > > > > > Self enquiry is not an intellectual process. It is direct > > > > > experience of the Self. Intellect is to be abandoned, along > > > > > with mind/ego. > > > > > > > > > anna wrote in another post: > > > > > The lie is in the beLIEf, and it grabs us everytime. > > > > > > > > > > Now the experience of noOne-- that is never a belief... or so it > > > > > would seem:) > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Samadhi Ma and anna > > > > > > > > Direct uninterpreted experience!!! YES!! > > > > > > > > " ...direct experience of the Self " (Samadhi Ma) > > > > > > > > " Now the experience of noOne-- that is never a belief... " (anna) > > > > > > > > Indeed, direct immediate, un-mediated experience is and cannot be > > > > a belief, > > > > > > > > > There is no such " thing " as " direct experience " . > > > > > > Any so called experience involves a dual relationship....An assumed > > > psychological center in which the " experience " occurs and a separate > > > distinct " event " that is stored in the memory of said center. > > > > > > No need to assume a center where an experience occurs. A transient > > capacity to abstract and express is all that needs to be assumed. The > > " event " is an abstraction and is stored in memory. Again, a capacity > > to abstract is all that needs to be assumed to produce " a description > > of experience, " which is an abstraction, a partiality. > > > > > > > > The " experience " and the " event " are one thing. > > > > > > " Experience " is a concept and a " description of an experience " is an > > abstraction and " one thing " is synthetic construct of those; the taken > > for granted use of the concept of " experience " that allows the > > abstraction and " description of an experience " performed by an assumed > > " capacity " or " capacities " including memory. Take it back even > > further, if it is required and expose the operation of the assumptive > > appartus.... > > > > All of this is a verbose appempt to validate the existential reality of the separate self. Or simply a conceit as there are no words, yours included. > > There are no words for..... > > > > > > > > as belief is always based on an adulterated interpretation of > > > > experience, not able to accept 'what-is' 'as-is' and believing > > > > that 'what-is' should be that-what-it-is-not. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The non-acceptance of " what is " is an integral facet of What Is. > > > > > > This is also an abstraction. All of it is abstracted. It is > > unavoidable in human expression and communication. > Where is the solid ground in this > " human expression and communication " ? > > You speak as if there were a center to the phantom. That is your interpretion Toom. Nothing more, and as such a part of the club of human expression and communication, phantoms or no phantoms. Read carefully. Avoid presupposition of your supreme position. Words are only that. Their origins inexplicable. What is in your wallet? > > > > > > > > > All too often beliefs attempt to taint experience with > > > > interpretations > > > > > > > > > (excluding this one?) > > > > > > Beliefs have no agency. One can speak that way and be understood. > > > What is thye nature of this " speaker " ? There are no words. > > What is the nature of the " one " " understanting " ? > There are no words. > > > Beliefs always taint or color the production of abstractions like > > " experience " and " descriptions of experience " and " constructions " like > > this. And these are not harmful when known and seen for what they are. > > > Beliefs about beliefs receding into the horizon..... > > By whom are these beliefs seen? There are no words. > What is the nature of the experiencer? There are no words. > > > The supposed " entity " is nothing other then a temporary clot of beliefs. That is your belief. You see entities were there are none and then talk about them to no one. Who or what is supposing Toom? Are you talking to entities that do not exist, are you talking to THAT, which does not exist, to your self which does not exist? Delusional is the word you use below. Eat your delusion, digest it well, excrete it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to make experience 'feel' mentally or emotionally different from what > > > > it is, this mental or emotional 'feeling' envelops experience and > > > > makes experience appear indirect and mediated and so to speak 'voided > > > > of gusto'. > > > > Beliefs make statements like " certain experiences should not happen " , > > > Your whole " thesis " employs the assumed reality a psychological center around which these oontradictory " beliefs " revolve. > > Once that is assumed.....anything...including the speculated ability of said center to change its " self " ..........is delusional. A fact of life if one believes conceits. Perhaps, delusions occupy Toom since there is incessant denial what does not exist and always fighting with conceits at the bottom of lists as if it will make a difference to those conceits. Chasing tails to cut them off and like salamanders they grow back. A salamander tail cutting conceit. > > > > > toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 30, 2005 Report Share Posted April 30, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Samadhi Ma wrote: > > > > > > Self enquiry is not an intellectual process. It is direct > > > > > > experience of the Self. Intellect is to be abandoned, along > > > > > > with mind/ego. > > > > > > > > > > > anna wrote in another post: > > > > > > The lie is in the beLIEf, and it grabs us everytime. > > > > > > > > > > > > Now the experience of noOne-- that is never a belief... or so it > > > > > > would seem:) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Samadhi Ma and anna > > > > > > > > > > Direct uninterpreted experience!!! YES!! > > > > > > > > > > " ...direct experience of the Self " (Samadhi Ma) > > > > > > > > > > " Now the experience of noOne-- that is never a belief... " (anna) > > > > > > > > > > Indeed, direct immediate, un-mediated experience is and cannot be > > > > > a belief, > > > > > > > > > > > > There is no such " thing " as " direct experience " . > > > > > > > > Any so called experience involves a dual relationship....An assumed > > > > psychological center in which the " experience " occurs and a separate > > > > distinct " event " that is stored in the memory of said center. > > > > > > > > > No need to assume a center where an experience occurs. A transient > > > capacity to abstract and express is all that needs to be assumed. The > > > " event " is an abstraction and is stored in memory. Again, a capacity > > > to abstract is all that needs to be assumed to produce " a description > > > of experience, " which is an abstraction, a partiality. > > > > > > > > > > > The " experience " and the " event " are one thing. > > > > > > > > > " Experience " is a concept and a " description of an experience " is an > > > abstraction and " one thing " is synthetic construct of those; the taken > > > for granted use of the concept of " experience " that allows the > > > abstraction and " description of an experience " performed by an assumed > > > " capacity " or " capacities " including memory. Take it back even > > > further, if it is required and expose the operation of the assumptive > > > appartus.... > > > > > > > > > All of this is a verbose appempt to validate the existential reality > of the separate self. > > Or simply a conceit as there are no words, yours included. > > > > There are no words for..... > > > > > > > > > > > as belief is always based on an adulterated interpretation of > > > > > experience, not able to accept 'what-is' 'as-is' and believing > > > > > that 'what-is' should be that-what-it-is-not. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The non-acceptance of " what is " is an integral facet of What Is. > > > > > > > > > This is also an abstraction. All of it is abstracted. It is > > > unavoidable in human expression and communication. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Where is the solid ground in this > > " human expression and communication " ? > > > > You speak as if there were a center to the phantom. > > That is your interpretion Toom. Nothing more, and as such a part of > the club of human expression and communication, phantoms or no > phantoms. Read carefully. Avoid presupposition of your supreme > position. Words are only that. Their origins inexplicable. What is in > your wallet? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All too often beliefs attempt to taint experience with > > > > > interpretations > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (excluding this one?) > > > > > > > > > Beliefs have no agency. One can speak that way and be understood. > > > > > > What is thye nature of this " speaker " ? > > There are no words. > > > > > What is the nature of the " one " " understanting " ? > > > > There are no words. > > > > > > Beliefs always taint or color the production of abstractions like > > > " experience " and " descriptions of experience " and " constructions " like > > > this. And these are not harmful when known and seen for what they are. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Beliefs about beliefs receding into the horizon..... > > > > By whom are these beliefs seen? > > There are no words. > > > What is the nature of the experiencer? > > There are no words. > > > > > > The supposed " entity " is nothing other then a temporary clot of beliefs. > > That is your belief. You see entities were there are none and then > talk about them to no one. Who or what is supposing Toom? Are you > talking to entities that do not exist, are you talking to THAT, which > does not exist, to your self which does not exist? Delusional is the > word you use below. Eat your delusion, digest it well, excrete it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to make experience 'feel' mentally or emotionally different > from what > > > > > it is, this mental or emotional 'feeling' envelops experience and > > > > > makes experience appear indirect and mediated and so to speak > 'voided > > > > > of gusto'. > > > > > Beliefs make statements like " certain experiences should not > happen " , > > > > > > Your whole " thesis " employs the assumed reality a psychological > center around which these oontradictory " beliefs " revolve. > > > > > Once that is assumed.....anything...including the speculated ability > of said center to change its " self " ..........is delusional. > > A fact of life if one believes conceits. Perhaps, delusions occupy > Toom since there is incessant denial what does not exist and always > fighting with conceits at the bottom of lists as if it will make a > difference to those conceits. Chasing tails to cut them off and like > salamanders they grow back. A salamander tail cutting conceit. > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru Lewis, I am always.....and.....only talking to my self....... The only reality " Lewis " has for " me " .....is a mnemonic-flowingness within these synapses. You...on the other hand.....believe that you are relating to an other. What you are doing is comparable to talking to the people in your dream last night.....while mistaking them as " real " . Nothing......No one......has a separate exixtential reality............ " You " will " see " this...... or not. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 30, 2005 Report Share Posted April 30, 2005 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > > Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > > > > Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Samadhi Ma wrote: > > > > > > > Self enquiry is not an intellectual process. It is direct > > > > > > > experience of the Self. Intellect is to be abandoned, along > > > > > > > with mind/ego. > > > > > > > > > > > > > anna wrote in another post: > > > > > > > The lie is in the beLIEf, and it grabs us everytime. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now the experience of noOne-- that is never a belief... or so it > > > > > > > would seem:) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Samadhi Ma and anna > > > > > > > > > > > > Direct uninterpreted experience!!! YES!! > > > > > > > > > > > > " ...direct experience of the Self " (Samadhi Ma) > > > > > > > > > > > > " Now the experience of noOne-- that is never a belief... " (anna) > > > > > > > > > > > > Indeed, direct immediate, un-mediated experience is and cannot be > > > > > > a belief, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is no such " thing " as " direct experience " . > > > > > > > > > > Any so called experience involves a dual relationship....An assumed > > > > > psychological center in which the " experience " occurs and a separate > > > > > distinct " event " that is stored in the memory of said center. > > > > > > > > > > > > No need to assume a center where an experience occurs. A transient > > > > capacity to abstract and express is all that needs to be assumed. The > > > > " event " is an abstraction and is stored in memory. Again, a capacity > > > > to abstract is all that needs to be assumed to produce " a description > > > > of experience, " which is an abstraction, a partiality. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The " experience " and the " event " are one thing. > > > > > > > > > > > > " Experience " is a concept and a " description of an experience " is an > > > > abstraction and " one thing " is synthetic construct of those; the taken > > > > for granted use of the concept of " experience " that allows the > > > > abstraction and " description of an experience " performed by an assumed > > > > " capacity " or " capacities " including memory. Take it back even > > > > further, if it is required and expose the operation of the assumptive > > > > appartus.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All of this is a verbose appempt to validate the existential reality > > of the separate self. > > > > Or simply a conceit as there are no words, yours included. > > > > > > There are no words for..... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as belief is always based on an adulterated interpretation of > > > > > > experience, not able to accept 'what-is' 'as-is' and believing > > > > > > that 'what-is' should be that-what-it-is-not. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The non-acceptance of " what is " is an integral facet of What Is. > > > > > > > > > > > > This is also an abstraction. All of it is abstracted. It is > > > > unavoidable in human expression and communication. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Where is the solid ground in this > > > " human expression and communication " ? > > > > > > You speak as if there were a center to the phantom. > > > > That is your interpretion Toom. Nothing more, and as such a part of > > the club of human expression and communication, phantoms or no > > phantoms. Read carefully. Avoid presupposition of your supreme > > position. Words are only that. Their origins inexplicable. What is in > > your wallet? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All too often beliefs attempt to taint experience with > > > > > > interpretations > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (excluding this one?) > > > > > > > > > > > > Beliefs have no agency. One can speak that way and be understood. > > > > > > > > > What is thye nature of this " speaker " ? > > > > There are no words. > > > > > > > > What is the nature of the " one " " understanting " ? > > > > > > > There are no words. > > > > > > > > > Beliefs always taint or color the production of abstractions like > > > > " experience " and " descriptions of experience " and " constructions " like > > > > this. And these are not harmful when known and seen for what they are. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Beliefs about beliefs receding into the horizon..... > > > > > > By whom are these beliefs seen? > > > > There are no words. > > > > > What is the nature of the experiencer? > > > > There are no words. > > > > > > > > > The supposed " entity " is nothing other then a temporary clot of beliefs. > > > > That is your belief. You see entities were there are none and then > > talk about them to no one. Who or what is supposing Toom? Are you > > talking to entities that do not exist, are you talking to THAT, which > > does not exist, to your self which does not exist? Delusional is the > > word you use below. Eat your delusion, digest it well, excrete it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to make experience 'feel' mentally or emotionally different > > from what > > > > > > it is, this mental or emotional 'feeling' envelops experience and > > > > > > makes experience appear indirect and mediated and so to speak > > 'voided > > > > > > of gusto'. > > > > > > Beliefs make statements like " certain experiences should not > > happen " , > > > > > > > > > Your whole " thesis " employs the assumed reality a psychological > > center around which these oontradictory " beliefs " revolve. > > > > > > > > Once that is assumed.....anything...including the speculated ability > > of said center to change its " self " ..........is delusional. > > > > A fact of life if one believes conceits. Perhaps, delusions occupy > > Toom since there is incessant denial what does not exist and always > > fighting with conceits at the bottom of lists as if it will make a > > difference to those conceits. Chasing tails to cut them off and like > > salamanders they grow back. A salamander tail cutting conceit. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > Lewis, > > > > I am always.....and.....only talking to my self....... A belief.....stated..... that reveals......what.....is has been plain to see. > > The only reality " Lewis " has for " me " .....is a mnemonic-flowingness within these synapses. A belief, assumption. It is assuming - " mnemonic-flowingness within these synapses. " " these synapses. " Common belief. Is that simple-minded belief or assumption different than any other? Why not try something exciting like Anna assumptions or Alberto's or Fuzzie's or Gary's ever changing E? " They " seem to have far more fun and create more excitement than dreaming " mnemonic-flowingness within these synapses. " Oh yes, it is done as it is. Perhaps it cannot be helped. A species of conceit that needs to sit at the bottom of a page in a niche sharpening the same knife on the same stone, waiting for a tail to appear. Chop, chop. Is it a calling? Yes you are talking to your self because you believe it. That is fine. Others believe that to. It is always interesting to watch the bottom of the page, seeing the chopping of tails off salamanders and convincing your self of your belief over and over again. Seems like a fixation. Is it fixation? > > You...on the other hand.....believe that you are relating to an other. Oh ho! Here we have it. Another speech error. The correct wording is. " I " (Toombaru)...on the other hand.....believe that " I am " (Toombaru) relating to an other. Now for " me, " and disregarding your labeling of " your self " that you talk to and in dull fashion while addressing " me, " " I " do not relate to others as you imagine. " I " do not fit in your wordy world or any conceits wordy world at all. " I " play in it assuming whatever in response to the words and the risings that emerge. Like this one. You cannot find " me " or know " me. " I am no self or Self and thus have no self or Self to talk to as you do. And what of the appearances like Toombaru, the words at the bottom of the page? They are words at the bottom of the page that are played and worked with and then more appear and if there is a rising more play and work. The words tell of their beleifs or not and there is no thing to say about their origins. They appear and there is this. > > What you are doing is comparable to talking to the people in your dream last night.....while mistaking them as " real " . That is so tired, Toom, that endless dream analogy. Find something new, please. > Nothing......No one......has a separate exixtential reality............ A common and exceedingly boring assumption and belief. Time for a tetralemmalization? > > " You " will " see " this...... or not. > > > toombaru See what? A belief? I see that. It is just another one of the many possible. Just a hat to be worn or not, to cling or not, to disregard or not, both or neither. And don't forget Toom to properly address the emerging words to whom they you say they are you mentioned above so that it is said in this way: " I " (Toombaru) will " see " this......or not. Keep talking to " your self " Toom. Address it properly. Panties are showing. 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.