Guest guest Posted April 30, 2005 Report Share Posted April 30, 2005 Hi Lewis, " Lewis " is not a 'conceit'. Lewis is the gift the universe gave, unasked and uncalled for, so that the Universe can see itself thru a process called " Lewis " . Love, Anna - Lewis Burgess Nisargadatta Saturday, April 30, 2005 8:45 AM Re: Direct Experience/Wim/Lewis Nisargadatta , " Anna Ruiz " <nli10u@c...> wrote: Hi Lewis: So what are you saying Lewis, How is experience directed in/at/as " Lewis " ? How is " Lewis " extrapolated from " Lewis " experience? Thank you. Anna Hi Anna, As was noted below it is done by assuming, conceptualizing and abstracting. " Lewis " is a conceit variously assumed and appearing in words and otherwise and constructed with memory through, in, as and with response to other conceits. " Lewis " also can be seen as an extrapolation temporarily created and sustained (not inferred) in the same manner. Lewis - Lewis Burgess Nisargadatta Saturday, April 30, 2005 12:37 AM Re: Direct Experience/Wim 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...
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.