Guest guest Posted February 27, 2006 Report Share Posted February 27, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: >Okay, fair enough. Is there the belief in what's commonly called >intuition, where there seems to be knowledge of events occurring or >about to occur that couldn't come from mind? What's referred to as >'mother's intuition' is really quite common. Phil, thanks a lot for your reply. It appears to me, that there is no need for " intuition " and " AHA " . But this does not mean that I am a rationalist. I am a musician, composer and dancer and I am used to both. But I cannot see them anymore as separate from the rest. Everything is equally appearance in consciousness as it comes and goes. Maybe it is fruitless to argue if something is called (a) direct perception or (b) conceptualization. My point is, that the split between (a) and (b) has not to be accepted. I do not experience such a split! I sometimes experience the " idea " of such a split, but when this idea is over, I experience something else etc... etc... It often may appear as if thoughts come from " somewhere else " . But the division between " somewhere else " and " inside " is itself an idea of the mind. This division is necessary to objectify things, so one is able to play around with them, to develop plans and strategies. For those purposes a position has to be created which is " outside " . But it creates unnecessary suffering if this play is taken for real and one forgets that the curtain must fall when the play is over. When it is over, then there is even no " inside " ... there is simply what is. Hope that makes some sense... Greetings Stefan >Beyond that, as I say, the AHA! moment is also quite common. If you >were to examine what occurs in these moments (slightly after the >fact) you'll notice that the realization probably didn't come about >during a period of intense mental activity but more often during a >period of rest following such activity. > Many scientists and inventors have spoken of this phenomena where a problem > is worked on using intense thought, logic and analysis, to no avail. Once the > mind relaxes, the 'answer' sometimes seems to come out of nowhere. What > follows immediately is a very active mental process in which this 'knowing' must > be conceptualized or lost, since the mind is generally interested in using > this knowing in a problem solving context, and mind hasn't learned to remain > still. This final conceptualized answer is then claimed by mind as it's own, and > in a sense it is, since without the conceptualizing, it wouldn't have any > utility. But the realization (or idea) did not come from mind/memory. It came > from what I see as consciousness beyond mind, where all things can be found. > This is part of the Gnostic tradition. > > If you care to experiment some more , lemme suggest a plan. Contemplate a > question you have about how God works. You already know that the answer is not > present in mind/memory, except perhaps as a concept with which you are > already familiar. You know that mental processing is just a reorganization of your > memory contents and so you're not going to find any shocking realizations > there, but contemplating what you do know about is important because, > conceptually speaking, it allows you to 'align' with a field of consciousness in which > both the question and the answer are present. > > The 'real' answer to your question will be that the question has no meaning, > but this isn't enlightenment we're trying to do, it's just direct perception > of a new level of understanding that does not presently exist in > mind/memory. After contemplating for a bit, stop the thoughts, and just 'look'. This is > a passive state of mind where you are not thinking but rather watching > passively for a thought to arise without any volition on your part. Nonsense > thoughts may arise, but you'll know when the thought you're looking for begins to > emerge from this field of consciousness. You'll likely be mesmerized by it as > mind tries to follow it and grasp it. The grasping is the process of > conceptualizing and is probably going to be inevitable. > > I've been trying to teach my lady friend to do this in recent months, and it > has occurred enough for her that she clearly understands what it's about, > although she can't produce the effect at will as of yet. > > Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 27, 2006 Report Share Posted February 27, 2006 > > It appears to me, that there is no need for " intuition " and " AHA " . But > this does not mean that I am a rationalist. I am a musician, > composer and dancer and I am used to both. But I cannot see them > anymore as separate from the rest. Everything is equally appearance in > consciousness as it comes and goes. > > Maybe it is fruitless to argue if something is called (a) direct > perception or (b) conceptualization. My point is, that the split > between (a) and (b) has not to be accepted. I do not experience such a > split! I sometimes experience the " idea " of such a split, W: YES!! simple as it is but when > this idea is over, I experience something else etc... etc... > > It often may appear as if thoughts come from " somewhere else " . But the > division between " somewhere else " and " inside " is itself an idea of > the mind. This division is necessary to objectify things, so one is > able to play around with them, to develop plans and strategies. For > those purposes a position has to be created which is " outside " . But it > creates unnecessary suffering if this play is taken for real and one > forgets that the curtain must fall when the play is over. When it is > over, then there is even no " inside " ... there is simply what is. > > Hope that makes some sense... > > Greetings > Stefan > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 27, 2006 Report Share Posted February 27, 2006 Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge wrote: > > Hi Len, > > the fact that you are able to describe perceived events proves, > that they have been recognized by the mind. Events that have been > perceived but have not been recognized can not be recalled and ergo > not verified. I am afraid " direct perception " independent of thought > is an unprovable hypothesis, moreover it is irrelevant. The relevance > lies in the recognition, which forms consciousness. > > From what I have found I would say: if we sincerely investigate with > the tools that are to our disposal we are left with a perception that > is identical with its recognition. > > In my understanding, this means that the question of " direct " becomes > irrelevant, and the stream of experiencing itself alone forms our > reality. (What could be more " direct " than that? )) > > Greetings > Stefan Hi Stefan, I´ve been trying to point out the obvious, undeniable fact of direct perception, which thought can comment on but which cannot be denied nor created by thought. It is what it is in spite of the labels. It´s a pity that you´re not aware of it, because there is a lot to observe and learn there. Actually you are aware of it, everybody is, but the hypnotising influence of thoughts is too strong to notice that. Len Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 27, 2006 Report Share Posted February 27, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 2/26/2006 8:47:38 PM Pacific Standard Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 > Re: Mirage > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 2/25/2006 1:10:49 PM Pacific Standard Time, > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > " Stefan " <s.petersilge@> > > Re: Mirage > > > > --- In Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > > wrote: > > > > >I�m referring to direct perception, like for instance: stomach > ache. > > >Not the label we give to it, but the actual, perceivable thing. > > > > > >Len > > > > Hi Len. > > > > I see, and I guess this is an important point. For me, I found > that I > > cannot trace back any perception to a point before it became a > > thought. It somehow dims into darkness. And when I try to catch > this > > very moment - which logically must be full of direct perception - > this > > " catching " is always a millisecond late, so to speak. Besides all > > this, as " what is " things flow as they come and go, quite > perfectly, > > lets say... undevided. The question about " concept / non- concept " > does > > not arise. But once the question is posed I figure for now that > > " direct perception " must be itself a concept... > > > > Greetings > > Stefan > > > > > > > > > > From my perspective, direct cognition, (a concept of course) > describes a > > Truth. Whether it's called direct cognition or direct perception, > the > > terminology is deceiving. It's possible to 'look' within > consciousness (not human > > consciousness) and notice something that is not present in > mind/memory. This is a > > realization that does not emerge from thought, and is therefore > not > > conceptual. > > > > This is the knowing that precedes though to which you refer. It's > not > > possible to " catch " this moment for the obvious reason that it's > mind that is > > trying to do the catching and to catch it means to conceptualize > it. Once it is > > conceptualized, it's no longer a knowing, but has been taken over > by mind and > > called it's own. > > > > Most folks have actually had the experience of a realization that > comes from > > consciousness and precedes thought. This is the 'AHA!' moment. If > you watch > > very carefully, you'll notice there's a momentary pause between > the AHA! and > > the conceptualization of that realization. This is the moment in > which God > > gets raped. > > > > Phil > > > Your back itching is also direct perception, and therfore Truth ;- ) > Shall we also call it the AHA moment? :-) > > Len > > > > > > Well, you and I seem to be defining direct perception differently. I don't > mean physical perception that involves sensory analysis. I also use Truth > (capital T) to refer to absolute as opposed to relative truth. The perception > that your back is itching is an interpretation of sensory input. > > Phil Well, yes, whatever is perceivable is true, whether it´s love or itchy back, whatever is imagined is conceptual. The capital T in Truth makes me more then suspisious. Thought loves labelling. Len Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 27, 2006 Report Share Posted February 27, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 2/26/2006 8:47:38 PM Pacific Standard Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 > Re: Mirage > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 2/25/2006 1:10:49 PM Pacific Standard Time, > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > > Re: Mirage > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 2/24/2006 9:06:10 AM Pacific Standard Time, > > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > > > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > > > Re: Mirage > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " > <lastrain@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > When one sees the mirage for what it ....there is no > mirage > > > > left....just light.....bouncing. > > > > > > > > > > 'You " can never see the 'I am. > > > > > > > > > > Anything that you can see....is not you. > > > > > > > > > This is just another thought. > > > > > > Len > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for your thoughts, Len. > > > > > > Phil (Just a thought) > > > > > > > > No no no, it´s not a game, it´s obvious that separating your > > imaginary self from what you see is a concept. > > > > Len > > > > > > > > Of course it is. The thing is, the idea that this is a concept is > also a > > concept. What makes one concept superior to another concept? > Perhaps your > > perception? > > > > Not my perception, just perception. There is nothing saying what I > am and what I am not except some thoughts. There is no way to know > myself as anything separate from the perceptions which are there. > There are just perceptions, sensations, thoughts. And some thoughts, > inspired through some religious teachings are suggesting that I > (whoever I am supposed to be) am not this perceptions. Outside of > these thoughts there is no such thing as a separate " me " . > > Len > > > > > Yes. Conceptualization (thought) is part of the process of perception, and > so associating what you " see " with your self is as much a concept as saying > what you see cannot be what you are. The only thing that makes your concept > seem " obvious " is that it's your concept. They are both " just another thought " . > > Phil I´m not associating myself with what I see, neither am I defining myself as not what I see. I just don´t define myself, because I see that such definition is just another superfluous thought, that´s all. Len Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 27, 2006 Report Share Posted February 27, 2006 Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 2/26/2006 8:47:38 PM Pacific Standard Time, > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > > Re: Mirage > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 2/25/2006 1:10:49 PM Pacific Standard Time, > > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > > > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > > > Re: Mirage > > > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 2/24/2006 9:06:10 AM Pacific Standard > Time, > > > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > > > > > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > > > > Re: Mirage > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " > > <lastrain@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When one sees the mirage for what it ....there is no > > mirage > > > > > left....just light.....bouncing. > > > > > > > > > > > > 'You " can never see the 'I am. > > > > > > > > > > > > Anything that you can see....is not you. > > > > > > > > > > > > This is just another thought. > > > > > > > > Len > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for your thoughts, Len. > > > > > > > > Phil (Just a thought) > > > > > > > > > > > > No no no, it´s not a game, it´s obvious that separating your > > > imaginary self from what you see is a concept. > > > > > > Len > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course it is. The thing is, the idea that this is a concept > is > > also a > > > concept. What makes one concept superior to another concept? > > Perhaps your > > > perception? > > > > > > > > Not my perception, just perception. There is nothing saying what > I > > am and what I am not except some thoughts. There is no way to > know > > myself as anything separate from the perceptions which are there. > > There are just perceptions, sensations, thoughts. And some > thoughts, > > inspired through some religious teachings are suggesting that I > > (whoever I am supposed to be) am not this perceptions. Outside of > > these thoughts there is no such thing as a separate " me " . > > > > Len > > > > > > > > > > Yes. Conceptualization (thought) is part of the process of > perception, and > > so associating what you " see " with your self is as much a concept > as saying > > what you see cannot be what you are. The only thing that makes > your concept > > seem " obvious " is that it's your concept. They are both " just > another thought " . > > > > Phil > > > > I´m not associating myself with what I see, neither am I defining > myself as not what I see. I just don´t define myself, because I see > that such definition is just another superfluous thought, that´s > all. > > Len > the others will take care of defining you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 27, 2006 Report Share Posted February 27, 2006 Nisargadatta , " bigwaaba " <bigwaaba wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 2/26/2006 8:47:38 PM Pacific Standard Time, > > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > > > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > > > Re: Mirage > > > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 2/25/2006 1:10:49 PM Pacific Standard > Time, > > > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > > > > > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > > > > Re: Mirage > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 2/24/2006 9:06:10 AM Pacific Standard > > Time, > > > > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > > > > > > > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > > > > > Re: Mirage > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " > > > <lastrain@> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When one sees the mirage for what it ....there is no > > > mirage > > > > > > left....just light.....bouncing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'You " can never see the 'I am. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anything that you can see....is not you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is just another thought. > > > > > > > > > > Len > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for your thoughts, Len. > > > > > > > > > > Phil (Just a thought) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No no no, it´s not a game, it´s obvious that separating your > > > > imaginary self from what you see is a concept. > > > > > > > > Len > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course it is. The thing is, the idea that this is a concept > > is > > > also a > > > > concept. What makes one concept superior to another concept? > > > Perhaps your > > > > perception? > > > > > > > > > > > > Not my perception, just perception. There is nothing saying what > > I > > > am and what I am not except some thoughts. There is no way to > > know > > > myself as anything separate from the perceptions which are there. > > > There are just perceptions, sensations, thoughts. And some > > thoughts, > > > inspired through some religious teachings are suggesting that I > > > (whoever I am supposed to be) am not this perceptions. Outside > of > > > these thoughts there is no such thing as a separate " me " . > > > > > > Len > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes. Conceptualization (thought) is part of the process of > > perception, and > > > so associating what you " see " with your self is as much a > concept > > as saying > > > what you see cannot be what you are. The only thing that makes > > your concept > > > seem " obvious " is that it's your concept. They are both " just > > another thought " . > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > > > I´m not associating myself with what I see, neither am I defining > > myself as not what I see. I just don´t define myself, because I see > > that such definition is just another superfluous thought, that´s > > all. > > > > Len > > > > the others will take care of defining you LOL! Len Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 27, 2006 Report Share Posted February 27, 2006 Nisargadatta , " bigwaaba " <bigwaaba wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 2/26/2006 8:47:38 PM Pacific Standard Time, > > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > > > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > > > Re: Mirage > > > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 2/25/2006 1:10:49 PM Pacific Standard > Time, > > > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > > > > > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > > > > Re: Mirage > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 2/24/2006 9:06:10 AM Pacific Standard > > Time, > > > > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > > > > > > > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > > > > > Re: Mirage > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " > > > <lastrain@> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When one sees the mirage for what it ....there is no > > > mirage > > > > > > left....just light.....bouncing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'You " can never see the 'I am. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anything that you can see....is not you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is just another thought. > > > > > > > > > > Len > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for your thoughts, Len. > > > > > > > > > > Phil (Just a thought) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No no no, it´s not a game, it´s obvious that separating your > > > > imaginary self from what you see is a concept. > > > > > > > > Len > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course it is. The thing is, the idea that this is a concept > > is > > > also a > > > > concept. What makes one concept superior to another concept? > > > Perhaps your > > > > perception? > > > > > > > > > > > > Not my perception, just perception. There is nothing saying what > > I > > > am and what I am not except some thoughts. There is no way to > > know > > > myself as anything separate from the perceptions which are there. > > > There are just perceptions, sensations, thoughts. And some > > thoughts, > > > inspired through some religious teachings are suggesting that I > > > (whoever I am supposed to be) am not this perceptions. Outside > of > > > these thoughts there is no such thing as a separate " me " . > > > > > > Len > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes. Conceptualization (thought) is part of the process of > > perception, and > > > so associating what you " see " with your self is as much a > concept > > as saying > > > what you see cannot be what you are. The only thing that makes > > your concept > > > seem " obvious " is that it's your concept. They are both " just > > another thought " . > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > > > I´m not associating myself with what I see, neither am I defining > > myself as not what I see. I just don´t define myself, because I see > > that such definition is just another superfluous thought, that´s > > all. > > > > Len > > > > the others will take care of defining you > LOL....good point Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 27, 2006 Report Share Posted February 27, 2006 Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 wrote: >I�ve been trying to point out the obvious, undeniable fact of direct >perception, which thought can comment on but which cannot be denied >nor created by thought... Hi Len, commenting thoughts are themselves as direct or un-direct as any other perceptions. We tend to divide reality into different parts and then support the resulting construct through our beliefs. Maybe you are backed up by common sense, but it is up to you if you try to get an understanding about my own attempt to peel the onion of beliefs, or only see the superficially opposing aspects of our arguments. Your use of the label " direct perception " implies its counterpart and this creates the truly hypnotizing split. In my view, nothing could be more direct, more rich and complete than the unconditioned acceptance of the stream of experiencing. Undivided. Simple as it actually happens every moment, including all. Allow me a friendly hint to Nisargadatta, who said in " I am that " : " Learn to look without imagination, to listen without distortion: that is all. Stop attributing names and shapes to the essentially nameless and formless, realise that every mode of perception is subjective, that what is seen or heard, touched or smelt, felt or thought, expected or imagined, is in the mind and not in reality, and you will experience peace and freedom from fear. " With my very best wishes Stefan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 27, 2006 Report Share Posted February 27, 2006 S: Maybe it is fruitless to argue if something is called (a) direct perception or (b) conceptualization. My point is, that the split between (a) and (b) has not to be accepted. ~~~~~~~~ Absolutely. It's all the same stuff... " appearance " ... That there is " appearance " we have to accept, it seems. But what else? Nothing, it seems. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 27, 2006 Report Share Posted February 27, 2006 > S: > Maybe it is fruitless to argue if something is called (a) direct > perception or (b) conceptualization. My point is, that the split > between (a) and (b) has not to be accepted. > ~~~~~~~~ > Absolutely. > > It's all the same stuff... " appearance " ... > > That there is " appearance " we have to accept, it seems. > But what else? Nothing, it seems. > > Bill How does one not accept " WHAT IS " ? Seems to me that's the beginning of the loss of love and a bit craziness--running around in circles. To accept and move forward is to act--that is beyond both perception and conceptualization. It is being in the moment, which is all there ever is. My 2cents. Love, Ana > > > ** > > 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...
Guest guest Posted February 28, 2006 Report Share Posted February 28, 2006 In a message dated 2/27/2006 3:09:58 AM Pacific Standard Time, Nisargadatta writes: " Stefan " <s.petersilge Re: Mirage --- In Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: >Okay, fair enough. Is there the belief in what's commonly called >intuition, where there seems to be knowledge of events occurring or >about to occur that couldn't come from mind? What's referred to as >'mother's intuition' is really quite common. Phil, thanks a lot for your reply. It appears to me, that there is no need for " intuition " and " AHA " . But this does not mean that I am a rationalist. I am a musician, composer and dancer and I am used to both. But I cannot see them anymore as separate from the rest. Everything is equally appearance in consciousness as it comes and goes. Maybe it is fruitless to argue if something is called (a) direct perception or (b) conceptualization. My point is, that the split between (a) and (b) has not to be accepted. I do not experience such a split! I sometimes experience the " idea " of such a split, but when this idea is over, I experience something else etc... etc... It often may appear as if thoughts come from " somewhere else " . But the division between " somewhere else " and " inside " is itself an idea of the mind. This division is necessary to objectify things, so one is able to play around with them, to develop plans and strategies. For those purposes a position has to be created which is " outside " . But it creates unnecessary suffering if this play is taken for real and one forgets that the curtain must fall when the play is over. When it is over, then there is even no " inside " ... there is simply what is. Hope that makes some sense... Greetings Stefan Okay. The only reason I rambled about it is because you were talking about looking for what occurs prior to thought. Maybe I have you confused with someone else. Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 28, 2006 Report Share Posted February 28, 2006 In a message dated 2/27/2006 8:37:55 AM Pacific Standard Time, Nisargadatta writes: " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 Re: Mirage Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 2/26/2006 8:47:38 PM Pacific Standard Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 > Re: Mirage > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 2/25/2006 1:10:49 PM Pacific Standard Time, > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > > Re: Mirage > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 2/24/2006 9:06:10 AM Pacific Standard Time, > > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > > > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > > > Re: Mirage > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " > <lastrain@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > When one sees the mirage for what it ....there is no > mirage > > > > left....just light.....bouncing. > > > > > > > > > > 'You " can never see the 'I am. > > > > > > > > > > Anything that you can see....is not you. > > > > > > > > > This is just another thought. > > > > > > Len > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for your thoughts, Len. > > > > > > Phil (Just a thought) > > > > > > > > No no no, it´s not a game, it´s obvious that separating your > > imaginary self from what you see is a concept. > > > > Len > > > > > > > > Of course it is. The thing is, the idea that this is a concept is > also a > > concept. What makes one concept superior to another concept? > Perhaps your > > perception? > > > > Not my perception, just perception. There is nothing saying what I > am and what I am not except some thoughts. There is no way to know > myself as anything separate from the perceptions which are there. > There are just perceptions, sensations, thoughts. And some thoughts, > inspired through some religious teachings are suggesting that I > (whoever I am supposed to be) am not this perceptions. Outside of > these thoughts there is no such thing as a separate " me " . > > Len > > > > > Yes. Conceptualization (thought) is part of the process of perception, and > so associating what you " see " with your self is as much a concept as saying > what you see cannot be what you are. The only thing that makes your concept > seem " obvious " is that it's your concept. They are both " just another thought " . > > Phil I´m not associating myself with what I see, neither am I defining myself as not what I see. I just don´t define myself, because I see that such definition is just another superfluous thought, that´s all. Len Okay, I see what you're trying to say, Len. You're saying all defining thoughts, identifying as, or not- as, should be avoided. I agree with that in principle. Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 28, 2006 Report Share Posted February 28, 2006 Mon, 27 Feb 2006 13:22:48 -0000 " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 Re: Mirage In a message dated 2/27/2006 8:37:55 AM Pacific Standard Time, Nisargadatta writes: > Well, you and I seem to be defining direct perception differently. I don't > mean physical perception that involves sensory analysis. I also use Truth > (capital T) to refer to absolute as opposed to relative truth. The perception > that your back is itching is an interpretation of sensory input. > > Phil Well, yes, whatever is perceivable is true, whether it´s love or itchy back, whatever is imagined is conceptual. The capital T in Truth makes me more then suspisious. Thought loves labelling. Len Whatever is perceivable is true? I would ask you if you mean relative truth or Absolute Truth, but I see you believe them to be the same. Interesting. Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 28, 2006 Report Share Posted February 28, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > > Mon, 27 Feb 2006 13:22:48 -0000 > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 > Re: Mirage > > > > In a message dated 2/27/2006 8:37:55 AM Pacific Standard Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > > Well, you and I seem to be defining direct perception differently. > I don't > > mean physical perception that involves sensory analysis. I also > use Truth > > (capital T) to refer to absolute as opposed to relative truth. The > perception > > that your back is itching is an interpretation of sensory input. > > > > Phil > > > > Well, yes, whatever is perceivable is true, whether it´s love or > itchy back, whatever is imagined is conceptual. > The capital T in Truth makes me more then suspisious. > Thought loves labelling. > > Len > > > > Whatever is perceivable is true? I would ask you if you mean relative truth > or Absolute Truth, but I see you believe them to be the same. Interesting. > > Phil " whatever is perceivable is true " ....sounds fine... one should " face " this truth.....as long one is related...emotionally....to this perceived.... i think there is no other choice....than to face this true perceived.... until the cage of " imaginary seperation " opens....one day then....no mind, anymore, can " imagine " what is realy happening....and what is realy perceived still....or not.... then there is no more different kind of truth.... Marc > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 28, 2006 Report Share Posted February 28, 2006 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > S: > Maybe it is fruitless to argue if something is called (a) direct > perception or (b) conceptualization. My point is, that the split > between (a) and (b) has not to be accepted. > ~~~~~~~~ > Absolutely. > > It's all the same stuff... " appearance " ... > > That there is " appearance " we have to accept, it seems. > But what else? Nothing, it seems. > > Bill The split between direct perception and conceptualization is the key of intelligence. Len Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 28, 2006 Report Share Posted February 28, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > > Mon, 27 Feb 2006 13:22:48 -0000 > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 > Re: Mirage > > > > In a message dated 2/27/2006 8:37:55 AM Pacific Standard Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > > Well, you and I seem to be defining direct perception differently. > I don't > > mean physical perception that involves sensory analysis. I also > use Truth > > (capital T) to refer to absolute as opposed to relative truth. The > perception > > that your back is itching is an interpretation of sensory input. > > > > Phil > > > > Well, yes, whatever is perceivable is true, whether it´s love or > itchy back, whatever is imagined is conceptual. > The capital T in Truth makes me more then suspisious. > Thought loves labelling. > > Len > > > > Whatever is perceivable is true? I would ask you if you mean relative truth > or Absolute Truth, but I see you believe them to be the same. Interesting. > > Phil Yes, whatever is factual and not a product of imagination is true. I would´t know what criteria to use in order to split it in absolute and relative? Len Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 28, 2006 Report Share Posted February 28, 2006 Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > > > Mon, 27 Feb 2006 13:22:48 -0000 > > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > > Re: Mirage > > > > > > > > In a message dated 2/27/2006 8:37:55 AM Pacific Standard Time, > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > > Well, you and I seem to be defining direct perception > differently. > > I don't > > > mean physical perception that involves sensory analysis. I also > > use Truth > > > (capital T) to refer to absolute as opposed to relative truth. > The > > perception > > > that your back is itching is an interpretation of sensory input. > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > > > Well, yes, whatever is perceivable is true, whether it´s love or > > itchy back, whatever is imagined is conceptual. > > The capital T in Truth makes me more then suspisious. > > Thought loves labelling. > > > > Len > > > > > > > > Whatever is perceivable is true? I would ask you if you mean > relative truth > > or Absolute Truth, but I see you believe them to be the same. > Interesting. > > > > Phil > > > Yes, whatever is factual and not a product of imagination is true. > I would´t know what criteria to use in order to split it in absolute > and relative? > > Len > puff! but you seem to know the criteria in order to split factual from product of imagination!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 28, 2006 Report Share Posted February 28, 2006 Nisargadatta , " bigwaaba " <bigwaaba wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Mon, 27 Feb 2006 13:22:48 -0000 > > > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > > > Re: Mirage > > > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 2/27/2006 8:37:55 AM Pacific Standard Time, > > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > > > > Well, you and I seem to be defining direct perception > > differently. > > > I don't > > > > mean physical perception that involves sensory analysis. I > also > > > use Truth > > > > (capital T) to refer to absolute as opposed to relative truth. > > The > > > perception > > > > that your back is itching is an interpretation of sensory > input. > > > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, yes, whatever is perceivable is true, whether it´s love or > > > itchy back, whatever is imagined is conceptual. > > > The capital T in Truth makes me more then suspisious. > > > Thought loves labelling. > > > > > > Len > > > > > > > > > > > > Whatever is perceivable is true? I would ask you if you mean > > relative truth > > > or Absolute Truth, but I see you believe them to be the same. > > Interesting. > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > Yes, whatever is factual and not a product of imagination is true. > > I would´t know what criteria to use in order to split it in > absolute > > and relative? > > > > Len > > > > puff! but you seem to know the criteria in order to split factual > from product of imagination!!! Yes, this is obvious, but thinking too much seems to destroy this natural capacity in a human being. Len Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 28, 2006 Report Share Posted February 28, 2006 Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " bigwaaba " <bigwaaba@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mon, 27 Feb 2006 13:22:48 -0000 > > > > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > > > > Re: Mirage > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 2/27/2006 8:37:55 AM Pacific Standard > Time, > > > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > > > > > > Well, you and I seem to be defining direct perception > > > differently. > > > > I don't > > > > > mean physical perception that involves sensory analysis. I > > also > > > > use Truth > > > > > (capital T) to refer to absolute as opposed to relative > truth. > > > The > > > > perception > > > > > that your back is itching is an interpretation of sensory > > input. > > > > > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, yes, whatever is perceivable is true, whether it´s love > or > > > > itchy back, whatever is imagined is conceptual. > > > > The capital T in Truth makes me more then suspisious. > > > > Thought loves labelling. > > > > > > > > Len > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Whatever is perceivable is true? I would ask you if you mean > > > relative truth > > > > or Absolute Truth, but I see you believe them to be the same. > > > Interesting. > > > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > > > > Yes, whatever is factual and not a product of imagination is > true. > > > I would´t know what criteria to use in order to split it in > > absolute > > > and relative? > > > > > > Len > > > > > > > puff! but you seem to know the criteria in order to split factual > > from product of imagination!!! > > > > Yes, this is obvious, but thinking too much seems to destroy this > natural capacity in a human being. > > Len > thinking too much .................lol painful or simply addressed as One. all thought is the same according to many on this channel Len beware of the one ...runniness...or is that runs .....like verbal diatribe .............liable to spill out noonsense instead on nonsense , but one letter meanings nothing CAUSE WORDS ARE MEANINGLESS atleast to the ....................nondualers.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 28, 2006 Report Share Posted February 28, 2006 Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " bigwaaba " <bigwaaba@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mon, 27 Feb 2006 13:22:48 -0000 > > > > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > > > > Re: Mirage > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 2/27/2006 8:37:55 AM Pacific Standard > Time, > > > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > > > > > > Well, you and I seem to be defining direct perception > > > differently. > > > > I don't > > > > > mean physical perception that involves sensory analysis. I > > also > > > > use Truth > > > > > (capital T) to refer to absolute as opposed to relative > truth. > > > The > > > > perception > > > > > that your back is itching is an interpretation of sensory > > input. > > > > > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, yes, whatever is perceivable is true, whether it´s love > or > > > > itchy back, whatever is imagined is conceptual. > > > > The capital T in Truth makes me more then suspisious. > > > > Thought loves labelling. > > > > > > > > Len > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Whatever is perceivable is true? I would ask you if you mean > > > relative truth > > > > or Absolute Truth, but I see you believe them to be the same. > > > Interesting. > > > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > > > > Yes, whatever is factual and not a product of imagination is > true. > > > I would´t know what criteria to use in order to split it in > > absolute > > > and relative? > > > > > > Len > > > > > > > puff! but you seem to know the criteria in order to split factual > > from product of imagination!!! > > > > Yes, this is obvious, but thinking too much seems to destroy this > natural capacity in a human being. > > Len > is human being a fact or a product of imagination in this obviousness? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 28, 2006 Report Share Posted February 28, 2006 Nisargadatta , " bigwaaba " <bigwaaba wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " bigwaaba " <bigwaaba@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mon, 27 Feb 2006 13:22:48 -0000 > > > > > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > > > > > Re: Mirage > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 2/27/2006 8:37:55 AM Pacific Standard > > Time, > > > > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > > > > > > > > Well, you and I seem to be defining direct perception > > > > differently. > > > > > I don't > > > > > > mean physical perception that involves sensory analysis. I > > > also > > > > > use Truth > > > > > > (capital T) to refer to absolute as opposed to relative > > truth. > > > > The > > > > > perception > > > > > > that your back is itching is an interpretation of sensory > > > input. > > > > > > > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, yes, whatever is perceivable is true, whether it´s > love > > or > > > > > itchy back, whatever is imagined is conceptual. > > > > > The capital T in Truth makes me more then suspisious. > > > > > Thought loves labelling. > > > > > > > > > > Len > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Whatever is perceivable is true? I would ask you if you mean > > > > relative truth > > > > > or Absolute Truth, but I see you believe them to be the > same. > > > > Interesting. > > > > > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, whatever is factual and not a product of imagination is > > true. > > > > I would´t know what criteria to use in order to split it in > > > absolute > > > > and relative? > > > > > > > > Len > > > > > > > > > > puff! but you seem to know the criteria in order to split factual > > > from product of imagination!!! > > > > > > > > Yes, this is obvious, but thinking too much seems to destroy this > > natural capacity in a human being. > > > > Len > > > > is human being a fact or a product of imagination in this obviousness? > ah yes the human bean? excellent ? well let us see or if one then not a spoken one but simple a manidfestation if injestation as in the seed into the womb , hence a biproduct of two in one and then body . wow imagination extends to want baby do the hanky panky. yes ,.........and out pops the soul, or whole or one or son. which is it? the next bigwaaba ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 28, 2006 Report Share Posted February 28, 2006 Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 wrote: >The split between direct perception and conceptualization is the key >of intelligence. Hi Len, this is a strange definition of intelligence. I dont know if you are very courageous or very naive to find the guts to post such a statement in a group dedicated to Advaita. Here, commonly, intelligence means to be able to go beyond the splitting mind. In any case, I wish you from the bottom of my heart that your intelligence, born in the valley of splits, will lead you to the realization of unity. As Sri Nisargadatta has said: " To know the nature of the mind, you need intelligence, the capacity to look at the mind in silent and dispassionate awareness. " All the best Stefan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 28, 2006 Report Share Posted February 28, 2006 --- Stefan <s.petersilge a écrit : Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 wrote: >The split between direct perception and conceptualization is the key >of intelligence. Hi Len, this is a strange definition of intelligence. I dont know if you are very courageous or very naive to find the guts to post such a statement in a group dedicated to Advaita. Here, commonly, intelligence means to be able to go beyond the splitting mind. In any case, I wish you from the bottom of my heart that your intelligence, born in the valley of splits, will lead you to the realization of unity. As Sri Nisargadatta has said: " To know the nature of the mind, you need intelligence, the capacity to look at the mind in silent and dispassionate awareness. " All the best Stefan ........................................ always nice to read you Stephan! ** 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...
Guest guest Posted February 28, 2006 Report Share Posted February 28, 2006 Nisargadatta , " bigwaaba " <bigwaaba wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " bigwaaba " <bigwaaba@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mon, 27 Feb 2006 13:22:48 -0000 > > > > > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > > > > > Re: Mirage > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 2/27/2006 8:37:55 AM Pacific Standard > > Time, > > > > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > > > > > > > > Well, you and I seem to be defining direct perception > > > > differently. > > > > > I don't > > > > > > mean physical perception that involves sensory analysis. I > > > also > > > > > use Truth > > > > > > (capital T) to refer to absolute as opposed to relative > > truth. > > > > The > > > > > perception > > > > > > that your back is itching is an interpretation of sensory > > > input. > > > > > > > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, yes, whatever is perceivable is true, whether it´s > love > > or > > > > > itchy back, whatever is imagined is conceptual. > > > > > The capital T in Truth makes me more then suspisious. > > > > > Thought loves labelling. > > > > > > > > > > Len > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Whatever is perceivable is true? I would ask you if you mean > > > > relative truth > > > > > or Absolute Truth, but I see you believe them to be the > same. > > > > Interesting. > > > > > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, whatever is factual and not a product of imagination is > > true. > > > > I would´t know what criteria to use in order to split it in > > > absolute > > > > and relative? > > > > > > > > Len > > > > > > > > > > puff! but you seem to know the criteria in order to split factual > > > from product of imagination!!! > > > > > > > > Yes, this is obvious, but thinking too much seems to destroy this > > natural capacity in a human being. > > > > Len > > > > is human being a fact or a product of imagination in this obviousness? A fact with too much imagination ;-) Len 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.