Guest guest Posted April 30, 2005 Report Share Posted April 30, 2005 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 - 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...
Guest guest Posted April 30, 2005 Report Share Posted April 30, 2005 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...
Guest guest Posted April 30, 2005 Report Share Posted April 30, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Anna Ruiz " <nli10u@c...> wrote: > 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 Hi Anna, Ok. If that conceit is pleasing to you, it can be assumed for you. It can be assumed that " Lewis " is gift of the universe and a channeling process. Thus, I am a spontaneous gift of the universe, channeling the universe seeing itself. That is a nice complex conceit (universe, process, gift, a trinity!) and far more becoming than what " Lewis " is usually given. Thank you. Love, Lewis > - > 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...
Guest guest Posted April 30, 2005 Report Share Posted April 30, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " Anna Ruiz " <nli10u@c...> wrote: > > 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 > > Hi Anna, > > Ok. If that conceit is pleasing to you, it can be assumed for you. It > can be assumed that " Lewis " is gift of the universe and a channeling > process. Thus, I am a spontaneous gift of the universe, channeling the > universe seeing itself. That is a nice complex conceit (universe, > process, gift, a trinity!) and far more becoming than what " Lewis " is > usually given. > > Thank you. > > Love, > > Lewis It is.......in the nature of identified whirlpools...to clutch at straws. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 30, 2005 Report Share Posted April 30, 2005 - toombaru2004 Nisargadatta Saturday, April 30, 2005 10:07 AM Re: Direct Experience/Wim/Lewis Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " Anna Ruiz " <nli10u@c...> wrote: > > 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 > > Hi Anna, > > Ok. If that conceit is pleasing to you, it can be assumed for you. It > can be assumed that " Lewis " is gift of the universe and a channeling > process. Thus, I am a spontaneous gift of the universe, channeling the > universe seeing itself. That is a nice complex conceit (universe, > process, gift, a trinity!) and far more becoming than what " Lewis " is > usually given. > > Thank you. > > Love, > > Lewis It is.......in the nature of identified whirlpools...to clutch at straws. toombaru Toomey baby, How 'bout you sit down for a spell, have a 'spot of tea' with us, and see if there's 'something' that can swollow the tea. And you can drink it with a straw if you so choose...all right? Anna ** 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. 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.