Guest guest Posted May 11, 2005 Report Share Posted May 11, 2005 In a message dated 5/11/05 3:12:20 AM, wim_borsboom writes: > Tony to Lewis: > > > > The only difference I have with that is that I don't believe > > > > that there is even an *appearance* on the Self. > > Wim: As I have mentioned before, Tony, like so many of us, you have a > confused understanding of the word " appearance " . Most of the time you > use it in the sense of 'seeming', and sometimes you use it in the > sense of 'coming forth' which is the older and original meaning. > > About `appearance': > . Could it be that when you read the writings of your `selected' sages > (which writings are actually translations and commentaries based on > and intermixed with fragments of older original oral transmissions) > that your confused understanding makes you misinterpret the > pronouncements that have to do with " appearance " ? > . Could it be that you MAKE them to mean what YOU expect them to mean? > . Could it be that - possibly unbeknownst to you - that your own > confusion on and with " appearance " makes you understand what your > confusion wants you to understand, with the result that your confusion > perseveres, maintains itself and even... gets stronger? > . Could it be that this confusion has taken on a life of its own - a > kind of cancerous thought-form? > . Could it be that your confusion with " appearance " in the meaning of > illusion and it is-not-really-happening, makes you select, read and > understand material in such a way that what you read fits the agenda > of your confusion, supports it as it were, maintains it and even > re-broadcasts it? > > Hmmm!!! > A weird kind of feedback loop that is! Rather than a bio-feedback > loop, it attempts to be a " it never happened " one! > One may wonder if such a feedback loop can exist and if so, how and > where? > > Apparently it does, and I suggest that it can only exist in an > over-conceptualized mind that is lost in a game of self-elimination, > which in its `non-self-reflection' gone wild confusion resembles a > continuously self mirroring mirror set-up mirroring nothing at all but > mirroring. > > Like I suggested in a previous post, Tony, it could very well be that > you are constantly searching for proof of your own " non-happening " . > That you were not supposed to have appeared (come forth) but appeared > nevertheless in this wonderful world and came to be called Tony, THAT > became the source and extent of your confusion. > > That you have been putting invalidating conditions and labels on > moksha and the mukti – thus making emancipation unlikable to you and > mis-appreciated, stems from that spell... > Why not undo that `remote control from the past'? > > " It never happened! " ??? > > Why not investigate that engram seriously as to its origin... > It means not what you understand it to mean. > It means not what you think it to mean. > It means not what you say it to mean. > > What you understand, think and say it to mean IS the illusion. > The notion of your and - by extension - your world not happening IS > the illusion. > . Tony's-happening-to-be-here-presently > and by extension > . Tony's-presence-in-this-our-shared-and-present-world > is what reality is. > > >T: No Veil to pull aside. > > W: Well said, as that " Veil " is not to be pulled aside because it is > really the screen or background - the mind's eye's retina so to speak > - on which your mental reflection* on your life** shows. More on that > later... > > *that it's not-happening > ** which apparently is happening > > > > >T: It is obviously impossible to explain this. > > W: Of course it is impossible as there is nothing to explain as the > " non-happening " itself is just not occurring. > > > > >T: I rely on Sages who say it disappears on > > > > Moksha or deep sleep or Samadhi etc, > > W: Whatever they mean by that " disappearing " is not what you conclude it > to mean with your: > > > > >T: So it can never have happened at all... > > W:That " it can never have happened at all " is only an unfortunate mental > association in your mind and a non-sequitur on top. > > > What did those original sages actually say when they talked about: > . reality and illusion, > . what happens and what does not, > . what is and what is not, > . reality and the mind's eye's replica of it, > . real thing... and symbolic things? > > In the first place one has to consider that those first sages, the > ones from which the original oral tradition's wisdom originated were > not idle talkers (like us but genial and ingenious inventors. They > were the giants on whose shoulders the Newtons and the Einsteins > admitted they stood. > Let's say that one of those sages of yore had just figured out how to > sculpt an acquaintance quite nicely from a piece of wood and let's say > that s/he shows that figure to the one he replicated with that wooden > figure. > Let's say that that depicted someone on seeing it, goes: > " VooooooDooooo!!! " > Let's say that the sage darn well knows it's not voodoo, that s/he is > not into fear mongering and manipulation - after all s/he made the > thing and knows that it is not identical with or to what it represents. > Lets' now figure out how s/he can make that clear to that acquaintance > who is scared like hell because of that wooden thing, afraid that the > sage will stick pins into " him " that will do " him " harm and will keep > " him " under the power of the sage. > > I will send this off now... but there is more to follow... > > 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.