Guest guest Posted February 19, 2006 Report Share Posted February 19, 2006 On Feb 18, 2006, at 10:42 AM, Nisargadatta wrote: > " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr > Re: dualism is not actually experienced > > Phil, > > 1) > The experience and the experiencer don't dissolve in one, because > there is no experiencer. > > 2) > There is no dualistic epxerience because you cannot feel cold and hot > or have day and night at the time. > > 3) > There is only the flow of appearances or the flow of contents of > consciousness and that flow is non-dualistic. > > 4) > Dualism exists only throught memory. You feel cold and you rememeber > warmth. > > Werner P: Wow! Can't be said clearer than that! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 20, 2006 Report Share Posted February 20, 2006 Nisargadatta , Pete S <pedsie4 wrote: > > > On Feb 18, 2006, at 10:42 AM, Nisargadatta wrote: > > > " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr > > Re: dualism is not actually experienced > > > > Phil, > > > > 1) > > The experience and the experiencer don't dissolve in one, because > > there is no experiencer. If there is no experiencer then where is the experience? Does it not make more sense to say " there is no experience? " > > > > 2) > > There is no dualistic epxerience because you cannot feel cold and hot > > or have day and night at the time. > > What is cold and hot if not some arbitrary comparison with a theoretical mean? If someone says a room's temperature is hot, then that is in comparison to what they consider normal – and could it not be seen as cool by another (let say if that person had just arrived from a warmer climate, or was suffering from a fever). But how can it be cool and hot at the same time? > > 3) > > There is only the flow of appearances or the flow of contents of > > consciousness and that flow is non-dualistic. > > Doesn't this flow imply a change of one appearance into another? Surely this cannot be non-dualistic? > > 4) > > Dualism exists only throught memory. You feel cold and you rememeber > > warmth. Where does memory come from? Was it created before dualism? Methusalum > > > > Werner > > P: Wow! Can't be said clearer than that! > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 21, 2006 Report Share Posted February 21, 2006 If there is no experiencer then where is the experience? Does it not make more sense to say " there is no experience? " ~~~~~~~~ Krishnamurti addresses this pretty well: The duality of thinker and thought [of the the experiencer and the experienced] As you watch anything—a tree, your wife, your children, your neighbor, the stars of a night, the light on the water, the bird in the sky, anything—there is always the observer—the censor, the thinker the experiencer, the seeker—and the thing he is observing; the observer and the observed; the thinker and the thought. So, there is always a division. It is this division that is time. That division is the very essence of conflict. And when there is conflict, there is contradiction. There is " the observer and the observed " —that is a contradiction; there is a separation. And hence where there is contradiction, there is conflict. And when there is conflict, there is always the urgency to get beyond it, to conquer it, to overcome it, to escape from it, to do something about it, and all that activity involves time.... As long as there is this division, time will go on, and time is sorrow. And a man who will understand the end of sorrow must understand this, must find, must go beyond this duality between the thinker and the thought, the experiencer and the experienced. That is, when there is a division between the observer and the observed, there is time, and therefore there is no ending of sorrow. Then, what is one to do? You understand the question? I see, within myself, the observer is always watching, judging, censoring, accepting, rejecting, disciplining, controlling, shaping. That observer, that thinker, is the result of thought, obviously. Thought is first; not the observer, not the thinker. If there was no thinking at all, there would be no observer, no thinker; then there would only be complete, total attention. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 21, 2006 Report Share Posted February 21, 2006 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > If there is no experiencer then where is the experience? Does it not > make more sense to say " there is no experience? " > ~~~~~~~~ > > Krishnamurti addresses this pretty well: > > The duality of thinker and thought [of the the experiencer and the > experienced] > > As you watch anything—a tree, your wife, your children, your neighbor, > the stars of a night, the light on the water, the bird in the sky, > anything—there is always the observer—the censor, the thinker the > experiencer, the seeker—and the thing he is observing; the observer > and the observed; the thinker and the thought. So, there is always a > division. It is this division that is time. That division is the very > essence of conflict. And when there is conflict, there is > contradiction. There is " the observer and the observed " —that is a > contradiction; there is a separation. And hence where there is > contradiction, there is conflict. And when there is conflict, there is > always the urgency to get beyond it, to conquer it, to overcome it, to > escape from it, to do something about it, and all that activity > involves time.... As long as there is this division, time will go on, > and time is sorrow. > > And a man who will understand the end of sorrow must understand this, > must find, must go beyond this duality between the thinker and the > thought, the experiencer and the experienced. That is, when there is a > division between the observer and the observed, there is time, and > therefore there is no ending of sorrow. Then, what is one to do? You > understand the question? I see, within myself, the observer is always > watching, judging, censoring, accepting, rejecting, disciplining, > controlling, shaping. That observer, that thinker, is the result of > thought, obviously. Thought is first; not the observer, not the > thinker. If there was no thinking at all, there would be no observer, > no thinker; then there would only be complete, total attention. > > > Bill > Yes, and if this definition of duality also breaks down, what other can be offered? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 22, 2006 Report Share Posted February 22, 2006 1) > > The experience and the experiencer don't dissolve in one, because > > there is no experiencer. If there is no experiencer then where is the experience? Does it not make more sense to say " there is no experience? " There is experience occurring. Pretending it doesn't won't actually cause it not to happen. Exactly who or what is having this experience is debatable. I believe consciousness is all there is, which means that ultimately, experience and experiencer are one. Phil In a message dated 2/21/2006 1:55:04 AM Pacific Standard Time, Nisargadatta writes: " methusalum " <roderickjons Re: Digest Number 2411 Nisargadatta , Pete S <pedsie4 wrote: > > > On Feb 18, 2006, at 10:42 AM, Nisargadatta wrote: > > > " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr > > Re: dualism is not actually experienced > > > > Phil, > > > > 1) > > The experience and the experiencer don't dissolve in one, because > > there is no experiencer. If there is no experiencer then where is the experience? Does it not make more sense to say " there is no experience? " > > > > 2) > > There is no dualistic epxerience because you cannot feel cold and hot > > or have day and night at the time. > > What is cold and hot if not some arbitrary comparison with a theoretical mean? If someone says a room's temperature is hot, then that is in comparison to what they consider normal – and could it not be seen as cool by another (let say if that person had just arrived from a warmer climate, or was suffering from a fever). But how can it be cool and hot at the same time? > > 3) > > There is only the flow of appearances or the flow of contents of > > consciousness and that flow is non-dualistic. > > Doesn't this flow imply a change of one appearance into another? Surely this cannot be non-dualistic? > > 4) > > Dualism exists only throught memory. You feel cold and you rememeber > > warmth. Where does memory come from? Was it created before dualism? Methusalum > > > > Werner > > P: Wow! Can't be said clearer than that! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 22, 2006 Report Share Posted February 22, 2006 In a message dated 2/21/2006 7:02:25 AM Pacific Standard Time, Nisargadatta writes: " billrishel " <illusyn Re: Digest Number 2411 If there is no experiencer then where is the experience? Does it not make more sense to say " there is no experience? " ~~~~~~~~ Krishnamurti addresses this pretty well: The duality of thinker and thought [of the the experiencer and the experienced] As you watch anything—a tree, your wife, your children, your neighbor, the stars of a night, the light on the water, the bird in the sky, anything—there is always the observer—the censor, the thinker the experiencer, the seeker—and the thing he is observing; the observer and the observed; the thinker and the thought. So, there is always a division. It is this division that is time. That division is the very essence of conflict. And when there is conflict, there is contradiction. There is " the observer and the observed " —that is a contradiction; there is a separation. And hence where there is contradiction, there is conflict. And when there is conflict, there is always the urgency to get beyond it, to conquer it, to overcome it, to escape from it, to do something about it, and all that activity involves time.... As long as there is this division, time will go on, and time is sorrow. And a man who will understand the end of sorrow must understand this, must find, must go beyond this duality between the thinker and the thought, the experiencer and the experienced. That is, when there is a division between the observer and the observed, there is time, and therefore there is no ending of sorrow. Then, what is one to do? You understand the question? I see, within myself, the observer is always watching, judging, censoring, accepting, rejecting, disciplining, controlling, shaping. That observer, that thinker, is the result of thought, obviously. Thought is first; not the observer, not the thinker. If there was no thinking at all, there would be no observer, no thinker; then there would only be complete, total attention. Bill P: I know there are some Krishnamurti fans here so forgive me for this.... K: So, there is always a division. It is this division that is time. That division is the very essence of conflict. And when there is conflict, there is contradiction. There is " the observer and the observed " —that is a contradiction; there is a separation. P: The simple division of observer and observed does nothing to explain time. Where is time in subjective observation? The concept of time arises within the process of identification rather than simple observation. In this process, memory is searched for past experiences that will assist in identifying what is observed. The simple fact that an event that is not presently occurring can be recalled gives rise to the concept of time. Even the perception of an event involves mind/memory and is the basis of linear time. If there is no identification (Thought), there is only timeless observation in the present moment. To say that division is the essence of conflict is to skip over just enough steps to make the connection between the two unintelligible. Division (separation from wholeness) is the source of the perception of lack; wholeness is no longer perceived as whole. The perception of lack gives rise to desire and this allows for the potential that desire may not be fulfilled. This potential frustration of desire results in conflict. The perception of an observer and an observed is not a contradiction to the observer who perceives himself to be other than the observed. On the contrary, this is expected and presents no contradiction at all. Confusion would result if the observed suddenly became the observer. This is where a contradiction would seemingly arise. K: As long as there is this division, time will go on, and time is sorrow. P: Time has nothing to do with sorrow. Sorrow (suffering) comes from attachment and frustration of desire. What of the princess with an army of handmaidens bent on the fulfillment of her every desire? How is her time in the King's castle related to sorrow? Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 22, 2006 Report Share Posted February 22, 2006 , which means that ultimately, > experience and experiencer are one. are one what?!? they are zero. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 22, 2006 Report Share Posted February 22, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > 1) > > > The experience and the experiencer don't dissolve in one, because > > > there is no experiencer. > > If there is no experiencer then where is the experience? Does it not > make more sense to say " there is no experience? " > > > > There is experience occurring. Pretending it doesn't won't actually cause it > not to happen. Exactly who or what is having this experience is debatable. I > believe consciousness is all there is, which means that ultimately, > experience and experiencer are one. > > Phil > Phil, I agree experience and experiencer appear to be one, as you cannot have one with out the other. Who or what is having the experience is perfectly UNdebatable. It is not possible for the experiencer to be experienced, or spoken about. > > > > In a message dated 2/21/2006 1:55:04 AM Pacific Standard Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > " methusalum " <roderickjons > Re: Digest Number 2411 > > Nisargadatta , Pete S <pedsie4@> wrote: > > > > > > On Feb 18, 2006, at 10:42 AM, Nisargadatta wrote: > > > > > " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > > > Re: dualism is not actually experienced > > > > > > Phil, > > > > > > 1) > > > The experience and the experiencer don't dissolve in one, because > > > there is no experiencer. > > If there is no experiencer then where is the experience? Does it not > make more sense to say " there is no experience? " > > > > > > > 2) > > > There is no dualistic epxerience because you cannot feel cold and > hot > > > or have day and night at the time. > > > > > What is cold and hot if not some arbitrary comparison with a > theoretical mean? If someone says a room's temperature is hot, then > that is in comparison to what they consider normal †" and could it not > be seen as cool by another (let say if that person had just arrived > from a warmer climate, or was suffering from a fever). But how can it > be cool and hot at the same time? > > > > 3) > > > There is only the flow of appearances or the flow of contents of > > > consciousness and that flow is non-dualistic. > > > > > Doesn't this flow imply a change of one appearance into another? > Surely this cannot be non-dualistic? > > > > 4) > > > Dualism exists only throught memory. You feel cold and you > rememeber > > > warmth. > > Where does memory come from? Was it created before dualism? > > Methusalum > > > > > > Werner > > > > P: Wow! Can't be said clearer than that! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 22, 2006 Report Share Posted February 22, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 2/21/2006 7:02:25 AM Pacific Standard Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > " billrishel " <illusyn > Re: Digest Number 2411 > > If there is no experiencer then where is the experience? Does it not > make more sense to say " there is no experience? " > ~~~~~~~~ > > Krishnamurti addresses this pretty well: > > The duality of thinker and thought [of the the experiencer and the > experienced] > > As you watch anything†" a tree, your wife, your children, your neighbor, > the stars of a night, the light on the water, the bird in the sky, > anything†" there is always the observer†" the censor, the thinker the > experiencer, the seeker†" and the thing he is observing; the observer > and the observed; the thinker and the thought. So, there is always a > division. It is this division that is time. That division is the very > essence of conflict. And when there is conflict, there is > contradiction. There is " the observer and the observed " †" that is a > contradiction; there is a separation. And hence where there is > contradiction, there is conflict. And when there is conflict, there is > always the urgency to get beyond it, to conquer it, to overcome it, to > escape from it, to do something about it, and all that activity > involves time.... As long as there is this division, time will go on, > and time is sorrow. > > And a man who will understand the end of sorrow must understand this, > must find, must go beyond this duality between the thinker and the > thought, the experiencer and the experienced. That is, when there is a > division between the observer and the observed, there is time, and > therefore there is no ending of sorrow. Then, what is one to do? You > understand the question? I see, within myself, the observer is always > watching, judging, censoring, accepting, rejecting, disciplining, > controlling, shaping. That observer, that thinker, is the result of > thought, obviously. Thought is first; not the observer, not the > thinker. If there was no thinking at all, there would be no observer, > no thinker; then there would only be complete, total attention. > > > Bill > > > > > P: I know there are some Krishnamurti fans here so forgive me for this.... > > > > K: So, there is always a > division. It is this division that is time. That division is the very > essence of conflict. And when there is conflict, there is > contradiction. There is " the observer and the observed " †" that is a > contradiction; there is a separation. > > > > P: The simple division of observer and observed does nothing to explain > time. Where is time in subjective observation? The concept of time arises within I think we should be a little more generous to Krishnamurti, as we are reading a translation. Could he not have meant that in the present the observer and observed are indivisible. You cannot have one without the other. But when the observed becomes separated, it becomes past. > the process of identification rather than simple observation. In this process, > memory is searched for past experiences that will assist in identifying what > is observed. The simple fact that an event that is not presently occurring > can be recalled gives rise to the concept of time. If events are occurring before giving rise to the concept of time, then time cannot be purely mental? Even the perception of an > event involves mind/memory and is the basis of linear time. If there is no > identification (Thought), there is only timeless observation in the present > moment. > > > To say that division is the essence of conflict is to skip over just enough > steps to make the connection between the two unintelligible. Division > (separation from wholeness) is the source of the perception of lack; wholeness is no > longer perceived as whole. The perception of lack gives rise to desire and > this allows for the potential that desire may not be fulfilled. This potential > frustration of desire results in conflict. > > > The perception of an observer and an observed is not a contradiction to the > observer who perceives himself to be other than the observed. On the contrary, > this is expected and presents no contradiction at all. Confusion would > result if the observed suddenly became the observer. This is where a contradiction > would seemingly arise. > > > > > K: As long as there is this division, time will go on, > and time is sorrow. > > > P: Time has nothing to do with sorrow. Sorrow (suffering) comes from > attachment and frustration of desire. What of the princess with an army of > handmaidens bent on the fulfillment of her every desire? How is her time in the King's > castle related to sorrow? > > Phil > I would think that the princess would be a most sorrowful one. This is only a personal observation, but the rich with plenty of time seem to become very depressed. It is almost as if people need a distraction from their predicament. > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 22, 2006 Report Share Posted February 22, 2006 In a message dated 2/22/2006 2:01:51 AM Pacific Standard Time, Nisargadatta writes: " bigwaaba " <bigwaaba Re: Digest Number 2411 , which means that ultimately, > experience and experiencer are one. are one what?!? they are zero. Zero?......The number zero?.......As in, a constant in a mathematical formula? When folks are talking about the concept of oneness in a spiritual context, they don't mean a mathematical quantity of objects, but of course you know this, so please tell me why we're having this discussion. Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 22, 2006 Report Share Posted February 22, 2006 " methusalum " <methusalum Re: Digest Number 2411 In a message dated 2/22/2006 6:54:20 AM Pacific Standard Time, Nisargadatta writes: > There is experience occurring. Pretending it doesn't won't actually cause it > not to happen. Exactly who or what is having this experience is debatable. I > believe consciousness is all there is, which means that ultimately, > experience and experiencer are one. > > Phil > Phil, I agree experience and experiencer appear to be one, as you cannot have one with out the other. Who or what is having the experience is perfectly UNdebatable. It is not possible for the experiencer to be experienced, or spoken about. The concept of oneness doesn't refer to the logical necessity of an experiencer needing the experience in order to be an experiencer. The fact that a victim needs a victimizer in order to be a victim does not imply they are both the same person. They're just labels given to an event that they share in common. The reason experience and experiencer are one is that multiplicity of any kind is illusory. Consciousness is the experience, the experiencer and that which is aware of both. Anything that can be imagined can be spoken about. As a general comment, I don't intend to respond to those who offer the concept that concepts are useless or offer their thoughts about the meaningless nature of thought. I don't see how such discussions can be helpful to me. So, If I don't respond to some posts, It's not my intention to be rude, just selfish. Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 23, 2006 Report Share Posted February 23, 2006 In a message dated 2/22/2006 6:54:20 AM Pacific Standard Time, Nisargadatta writes: " methusalum " <methusalum Re: Digest Number 2411 K: So, there is always a > division. It is this division that is time. That division is the very > essence of conflict. And when there is conflict, there is > contradiction. There is " the observer and the observed " †" that is a > contradiction; there is a separation. > > > > P: The simple division of observer and observed does nothing to explain > time. Where is time in subjective observation? The concept of time arises within Meth:I think we should be a little more generous to Krishnamurti, as we are reading a translation. Phil: He doesn't care, he's dead. Meth: Could he not have meant that in the present the observer and observed are indivisible. You cannot have one without the other. But when the observed becomes separated, it becomes past. Phil: I don't believe he meant that cause it ain't true. The perception of otherness is inherent in the nature of experience itself. > the process of identification rather than simple observation. In this process, > memory is searched for past experiences that will assist in identifying what > is observed. The simple fact that an event that is not presently occurring > can be recalled gives rise to the concept of time. Meth: If events are occurring before giving rise to the concept of time, then time cannot be purely mental? Phil: Events are not occurring before the concept of time. The concept of time is what makes it appear as though there is a past. > P: Time has nothing to do with sorrow. Sorrow (suffering) comes from > attachment and frustration of desire. What of the princess with an army of > handmaidens bent on the fulfillment of her every desire? How is her time in the King's > castle related to sorrow? > > Phil > Meth: I would think that the princess would be a most sorrowful one. This is only a personal observation, but the rich with plenty of time seem to become very depressed. It is almost as if people need a distraction from their predicament. Phil: Fine, but don't miss the point that I was suggesting a hypothetical scenario in which all desires could be fulfilled as a way of showing that it's the frustration of desire that creates suffering rather than time. Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 23, 2006 Report Share Posted February 23, 2006 --- ADHHUB wrote: > > > > " methusalum " <methusalum > Re: Digest Number 2411 > > In a message dated 2/22/2006 6:54:20 AM Pacific > Standard Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > > There is experience occurring. Pretending it > doesn't won't > actually cause it > > not to happen. Exactly who or what is having this > experience is > debatable. I > > believe consciousness is all there is, which > means that > ultimately, > > experience and experiencer are one. > > > > Phil > > > > Phil, > > I agree experience and experiencer appear to be one, > as you cannot > have one with out the other. > > Who or what is having the experience is perfectly > UNdebatable. It is > not possible for the experiencer to be experienced, > or spoken about. > > > > > > The concept of oneness doesn't refer to the logical > necessity of an > experiencer needing the experience in order to be an > experiencer. The fact that a > victim needs a victimizer in order to be a victim > does not imply they are both > the same person. They're just labels given to an > event that they share in > common. Indeed they are not the same person, but that is not what is being stated. If you remove the victimizer there would be no victim, just an un-victimized person. Think " Back to the Future " -- Is Marty McFly's father a victim after the victimizing is stopped? :-) An experience is made up of a multitude of perceptions. The generation of any one of these perceptions (heat, color, etc) appears to involve some motion between the object (the hot thing) and the perceiver. Only when such a motion is present does the potential of the perceiver allow him to be one who perceives. I mean to say that the source becomes neither heat nor whiteness but hot and white. Neither the source nor perceiver has any absolute existence, only when they come together and generate sensations. > > The reason experience and experiencer are one is > that multiplicity of any > kind is illusory. Consciousness is the experience, > the experiencer and that > which is aware of both. > > Anything that can be imagined can be spoken about. > As a general comment, I > don't intend to respond to those who offer the > concept that concepts are > useless or offer their thoughts about the > meaningless nature of thought. I don't > see how such discussions can be helpful to me. So, > If I don't respond to some > posts, It's not my intention to be rude, just > selfish. > > Phil > Anyone who offers the concept that concepts are useless would be quite easily refuted. Please be more generous, if you are wise then surely it is a duty to teach others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 23, 2006 Report Share Posted February 23, 2006 --- ADHHUB wrote: > > In a message dated 2/22/2006 6:54:20 AM Pacific > Standard Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > " methusalum " <methusalum > Re: Digest Number 2411 > > > > K: So, there is always a > > division. It is this division that is time. That > division is the > very > > essence of conflict. And when there is conflict, > there is > > contradiction. There is " the observer and the > observed " †" that is > a > > contradiction; there is a separation. > > > > > > > > P: The simple division of observer and observed > does nothing to > explain > > time. Where is time in subjective observation? The > concept of time > arises within > > > > Meth:I think we should be a little more generous to > Krishnamurti, as we > are reading a translation. > > > Phil: He doesn't care, he's dead. > > > > > Meth: Could he not have meant that in the > present the observer and observed are indivisible. > You cannot have > one without the other. But when the observed > becomes separated, it > becomes past. > > > Phil: I don't believe he meant that cause it ain't > true. The perception of > otherness is inherent in the nature of experience > itself. > > Meth: An experience is made up of a multitude of perceptions. The generation of any one of these perceptions (heat, color, etc) appears to involve some motion between the object (the hot thing) and the perceiver. Only when such a motion is present does the potential of the perceiver allow him to be one who perceives. I mean to say that the source becomes neither heat nor whiteness but hot and white. Neither the source nor perceiver has any absolute existence, only when they come together and generate sensations. > > > > the process of identification rather than simple > observation. In > this process, > > memory is searched for past experiences that > will assist in > identifying what > > is observed. The simple fact that an event that > is not presently > occurring > > can be recalled gives rise to the concept of > time. > > Meth: If events are occurring before giving rise to > the concept of time, > then time cannot be purely mental? > > > > Phil: Events are not occurring before the concept of > time. The concept of > time is what makes it appear as though there is a > past. > Meth: Hi Phil; you said: " The simple fact that an event that is not presently occurring can be recalled gives rise to the concept of time. " If events are not presently occurring then when are they? I can think of just two possibilities the past or the future. The only one of those possibilities that can be recalled is the past. If you accept that logic, then your original post suggests that the recalling of an event in the past gives rise to the concept of time. Does that not imply that an event must have happened before its recall and the subsequent concept of time? > > > > P: Time has nothing to do with sorrow. Sorrow > (suffering) comes > from > > attachment and frustration of desire. What of the > princess with an > army of > > handmaidens bent on the fulfillment of her every > desire? How is > her time in the King's > > castle related to sorrow? > > > > Phil > > > > Meth: I would think that the princess would be a > most sorrowful one. This > is only a personal observation, but the rich with > plenty of time > seem to become very depressed. It is almost as if > people need a > distraction from their predicament. > > > Phil: Fine, but don't miss the point that I was > suggesting a hypothetical > scenario in which all desires could be fulfilled as > a way of showing that it's > the frustration of desire that creates suffering > rather than time. > > Phil > > The pain comes from the desire. Its fulfillment may seems to lessen the suffering temporary but it will come back stronger, and unless tempered with periods of abstinence will lead to addiction. Addition to food, sex, drugs, etc is fulfillment going unchecked. Your theoretical scenario would have to ensure that the subject did not harm themselves in the process. This would mean that there would be times when they couldn’t have what they wanted. Also, there are very real limits to what can be granted. The person who came closest to what you suggested is the first emperor of China. Not content with conquering the whole of the " civilized " world, he ordered that everyone should think the same as him (a system that we still see today in modern china), he also ordered an army to find the secret of immortality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 23, 2006 Report Share Posted February 23, 2006 > > > > Anyone who offers the concept that concepts are > useless would be quite easily refuted. Please be more > generous, if you are wise then surely it is a duty to > teach others. > concepts are useless. this is a fact, not a concept. please, refute me easily Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 23, 2006 Report Share Posted February 23, 2006 --- bigwaaba <bigwaaba wrote: > > > > > > > > Anyone who offers the concept that concepts are > > useless would be quite easily refuted. Please be > more > > generous, if you are wise then surely it is a duty > to > > teach others. > > > > > concepts are useless. > this is a fact, not a concept. > > please, refute me easily > > Are you offering that as a concept - per Phil's original post? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 24, 2006 Report Share Posted February 24, 2006 methusalum <methusalum Re: Digest Number 2411 In a message dated 2/23/2006 8:13:26 AM Pacific Standard Time, Nisargadatta writes: > Meth: Could he not have meant that in the > present the observer and observed are indivisible. > You cannot have > one without the other. But when the observed > becomes separated, it > becomes past. > > > Phil: I don't believe he meant that cause it ain't > true. The perception of > otherness is inherent in the nature of experience > itself. > > Meth: An experience is made up of a multitude of perceptions. The generation of any one of these perceptions (heat, color, etc) appears to involve some motion between the object (the hot thing) and the perceiver. Only when such a motion is present does the potential of the perceiver allow him to be one who perceives. I mean to say that the source becomes neither heat nor whiteness but hot and white. Neither the source nor perceiver has any absolute existence, only when they come together and generate sensations. P: Okay, not sure what that has to do with time, but we'll go with the flow here. What motion? What source? Perception occurs entirely within consciousness. Meth: Hi Phil; you said: " The simple fact that an event that is not presently occurring can be recalled gives rise to the concept of time. " If events are not presently occurring then when are they? I can think of just two possibilities the past or the future. The only one of those possibilities that can be recalled is the past. If you accept that logic, then your original post suggests that the recalling of an event in the past gives rise to the concept of time. Does that not imply that an event must have happened before its recall and the subsequent concept of time? P: All seeming events occur in the present moment. Nothing can be occurring in the past or future. What I'm saying is that the ability to freeze a moment of NOW is what allows for the perception of a past. The past is just a concept. Nothing could ever possibly occur in the past. It's a false manipulation of the present moment. > Phil: Fine, but don't miss the point that I was > suggesting a hypothetical > scenario in which all desires could be fulfilled as > a way of showing that it's > the frustration of desire that creates suffering > rather than time. > > > > M: The pain comes from the desire. Its fulfillment may seems to lessen the suffering temporary but it will come back stronger, and unless tempered with periods of abstinence will lead to addiction. Addition to food, sex, drugs, etc is fulfillment going unchecked. Your theoretical scenario would have to ensure that the subject did not harm themselves in the process. This would mean that there would be times when they couldn’t have what they wanted. Also, there are very real limits to what can be granted. The person who came closest to what you suggested is the first emperor of China. Not content with conquering the whole of the " civilized " world, he ordered that everyone should think the same as him (a system that we still see today in modern china), he also ordered an army to find the secret of immortality. P: The point is still being missed but no matter. Yes, desire cannot be ultimately fulfilled in the dualistic realm. This is why we seek the Absolute. Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 24, 2006 Report Share Posted February 24, 2006 In a message dated 2/23/2006 8:13:26 AM Pacific Standard Time, Nisargadatta writes: methusalum <methusalum Re: Digest Number 2411 > > There is experience occurring. Pretending it > doesn't won't > actually cause it > > not to happen. Exactly who or what is having this > experience is > debatable. I > > believe consciousness is all there is, which > means that > ultimately, > > experience and experiencer are one. > > > > Phil > > > > Phil, > > I agree experience and experiencer appear to be one, > as you cannot > have one with out the other. > > Who or what is having the experience is perfectly > UNdebatable. It is > not possible for the experiencer to be experienced, > or spoken about. > > > > > > The concept of oneness doesn't refer to the logical > necessity of an > experiencer needing the experience in order to be an > experiencer. The fact that a > victim needs a victimizer in order to be a victim > does not imply they are both > the same person. They're just labels given to an > event that they share in > common. Meth: Indeed they are not the same person, but that is not what is being stated. If you remove the victimizer there would be no victim, just an un-victimized person. Think " Back to the Future " -- Is Marty McFly's father a victim after the victimizing is stopped? :-) Phil: What is being addressed is your original comment: " I agree experience and experiencer appear to be one, > as you cannot > have one with out the other. " What I'm suggesting is that this has nothing to do with the concept of oneness. As a general comment, I > don't intend to respond to those who offer the > concept that concepts are > useless or offer their thoughts about the > meaningless nature of thought. I don't > see how such discussions can be helpful to me. So, > If I don't respond to some > posts, It's not my intention to be rude, just > selfish. Meth: Anyone who offers the concept that concepts are useless would be quite easily refuted. Please be more generous, if you are wise then surely it is a duty to teach others. I have no duty to teach others, and neither do you. To begin with, this not only assumes that I know something of value that the other does not, but it further assumes that this information is actually of use to this person, and further that this conceptualizing will bring about genuine understanding. On this last point, you might notice that it's very rare that anyone actually even seems to be learning anything from another, and it's even more rare that this learning is actually useful, regardless of what the individual ego thinks about it. This is because genuine realizations never come about through the communication of concepts. Rather, all realizations occur beyond the mind, sourced from within. They 'occur' as realizations when they are looked at and only then become conceptualized. On the rare occasions that somebody seems to 'get it', it's only that they notice it from within, perhaps because a concept has encouraged them to look there. (Not talking about mind here.) On another level, 'we' all create our experiences in their entirety. When it is time to realize something, this occurs, and we then create an experience of hearing or reading a related concept. Ego naturally assigns an erroneous cause and effect so that it can take credit for a realization which it had nothing to do with. What 'works' for me, since it seems to be occurring, is to engage others, which inevitably brings up questions. I then look within for the answers and then type them out as though it's something I've always known. Hehe. It's true that the questions never end, but most of the answers are believed by mind to be known conceptually and the questioning has slowed dramatically and one day soon they will stop of their own accord. I don't need to know the absolute truth, I only need to satisfy the insistence of mind, for the questioning to stop. We are our own teachers. Everyone this side of hell is a student of Self only, regardless of how he may perceive himself. (Not to mention the fact that self appointed teachers are annoying.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 24, 2006 Report Share Posted February 24, 2006 In a message dated 2/23/2006 8:13:26 AM Pacific Standard Time, Nisargadatta writes: " bigwaaba " <bigwaaba Re: Digest Number 2411 > > > > Anyone who offers the concept that concepts are > useless would be quite easily refuted. Please be more > generous, if you are wise then surely it is a duty to > teach others. > concepts are useless. this is a fact, not a concept. please, refute me easily Supposed 'facts' are concepts. Hey, yer right. That was easy. Phil 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.