Guest guest Posted March 7, 2006 Report Share Posted March 7, 2006 Nisargadatta , " Fred " <thejman wrote: > > as gifts from God. they are tools to help humanity to higher realms. But I asked how you *distinguish* them... > - > billrishel > Nisargadatta > Tuesday, March 07, 2006 1:54 PM > mind and ego /Fred (((Re: a series of fortunate ego events > > > How do you distinguish mind and ego? > > Bill > > > Nisargadatta , " Fred " <thejman@> wrote: > > > > exactly so, it's interesting in wayne dyer's new book he talks of > destroying the ego. this in and of itself is remarkably funny. > destroying the illusion doesn't negate it's purpose and why Divinity > sought to give humanity this gift of the mind/intellect and ego. > > > > love and light > > peppery spigots > > - > > ADHHUB@ > > Nisargadatta > > Saturday, March 04, 2006 11:56 PM > > Re: Is There an Inside, a Within?(silver) > > > > > > > > In a message dated 3/4/2006 8:44:48 AM Pacific Standard Time, > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > Sat, 04 Mar 2006 14:12:32 -0000 > > " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > Re: Is There an Inside, a Within?(silver) > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 3/3/2006 11:35:42 PM Pacific Standard Time, > > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > > > Sat, 04 Mar 2006 01:39:10 -0000 > > > " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > > Re: Is There an Inside, a Within?(silver) > > > > > > ...................................... > > > > Pooh`s honey represents its love of beingness, > > > >> > > > > Patricia > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta tells us that our love of being (the illusion > of I am) is > > the > > > crux of our problem. > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, indeedy, which brings up the question, is there really a > 'problem'? > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > Only in mind. > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, it's only a problem in the mind, but that includes our entire > > experience so I can't dismiss it. However, the point was that > perhaps it's only a > > problem because of a lack of understanding about what is really > desired. If we > > really love the illusion, the idea that we want out of it is absurd. > > > > Phil > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 7, 2006 Report Share Posted March 7, 2006 there is no need to do so. the need seems to come from your question - billrishel Nisargadatta Tuesday, March 07, 2006 5:06 PM mind and ego /Fred Nisargadatta , " Fred " <thejman wrote: > > as gifts from God. they are tools to help humanity to higher realms. But I asked how you *distinguish* them... > - > billrishel > Nisargadatta > Tuesday, March 07, 2006 1:54 PM > mind and ego /Fred (((Re: a series of fortunate ego events > > > How do you distinguish mind and ego? > > Bill > > > Nisargadatta , " Fred " <thejman@> wrote: > > > > exactly so, it's interesting in wayne dyer's new book he talks of > destroying the ego. this in and of itself is remarkably funny. > destroying the illusion doesn't negate it's purpose and why Divinity > sought to give humanity this gift of the mind/intellect and ego. > > > > love and light > > peppery spigots > > - > > ADHHUB@ > > Nisargadatta > > Saturday, March 04, 2006 11:56 PM > > Re: Is There an Inside, a Within?(silver) > > > > > > > > In a message dated 3/4/2006 8:44:48 AM Pacific Standard Time, > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > Sat, 04 Mar 2006 14:12:32 -0000 > > " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > Re: Is There an Inside, a Within?(silver) > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 3/3/2006 11:35:42 PM Pacific Standard Time, > > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > > > Sat, 04 Mar 2006 01:39:10 -0000 > > > " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > > Re: Is There an Inside, a Within?(silver) > > > > > > ...................................... > > > > Pooh`s honey represents its love of beingness, > > > >> > > > > Patricia > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta tells us that our love of being (the illusion > of I am) is > > the > > > crux of our problem. > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, indeedy, which brings up the question, is there really a > 'problem'? > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > Only in mind. > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, it's only a problem in the mind, but that includes our entire > > experience so I can't dismiss it. However, the point was that > perhaps it's only a > > problem because of a lack of understanding about what is really > desired. If we > > really love the illusion, the idea that we want out of it is absurd. > > > > Phil > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 8, 2006 Report Share Posted March 8, 2006 Nisargadatta , " Fred " <thejman wrote: > > there is no need to do so. the need seems to come from your question you spoke of mind and ego as being " gifts from God " , yet seem unwilling to elaborate on the meaning of those terms as you have used them. or perhaps I misinterpret... Do you care to elaborate on the meaning of those terms as you have used them, or do you consider those two terms intrinsically clear in their meaning and that no explanation of what *you* mean by them is necessary? > Nisargadatta , " Fred " <thejman@> wrote: > > > > as gifts from God. they are tools to help humanity to higher realms. > > But I asked how you *distinguish* them... > > > > - > > billrishel > > Nisargadatta > > Tuesday, March 07, 2006 1:54 PM > > mind and ego /Fred (((Re: a series of > fortunate ego events > > > > > > How do you distinguish mind and ego? > > > > Bill > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Fred " <thejman@> wrote: > > > > > > exactly so, it's interesting in wayne dyer's new book he talks of > > destroying the ego. this in and of itself is remarkably funny. > > destroying the illusion doesn't negate it's purpose and why Divinity > > sought to give humanity this gift of the mind/intellect and ego. > > > > > > love and light > > > peppery spigots > > > - > > > ADHHUB@ > > > Nisargadatta > > > Saturday, March 04, 2006 11:56 PM > > > Re: Is There an Inside, a Within?(silver) > > > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 3/4/2006 8:44:48 AM Pacific Standard Time, > > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > > > Sat, 04 Mar 2006 14:12:32 -0000 > > > " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > > Re: Is There an Inside, a Within?(silver) > > > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 3/3/2006 11:35:42 PM Pacific Standard > Time, > > > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > > > > > Sat, 04 Mar 2006 01:39:10 -0000 > > > > " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > > > Re: Is There an Inside, a Within?(silver) > > > > > > > > ...................................... > > > > > Pooh`s honey represents its love of beingness, > > > > >> > > > > > Patricia > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta tells us that our love of being (the illusion > > of I am) is > > > the > > > > crux of our problem. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, indeedy, which brings up the question, is there really a > > 'problem'? > > > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > Only in mind. > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, it's only a problem in the mind, but that includes our > entire > > > experience so I can't dismiss it. However, the point was that > > perhaps it's only a > > > problem because of a lack of understanding about what is really > > desired. If we > > > really love the illusion, the idea that we want out of it is > absurd. > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 8, 2006 Report Share Posted March 8, 2006 didn't we just have a the tautology discussion here? one can only derive meaning through their intellect/ego which they seem to be using right now. deriving meaning basically is a linear form of the dualistic thought process. since no ones thinking, that makes it clearer. you have derived some meaning from the words " gifts from God " . if not, why ask the question? - billrishel Nisargadatta Tuesday, March 07, 2006 6:25 PM Re: mind and ego /Fred Nisargadatta , " Fred " <thejman wrote: > > there is no need to do so. the need seems to come from your question you spoke of mind and ego as being " gifts from God " , yet seem unwilling to elaborate on the meaning of those terms as you have used them. or perhaps I misinterpret... Do you care to elaborate on the meaning of those terms as you have used them, or do you consider those two terms intrinsically clear in their meaning and that no explanation of what *you* mean by them is necessary? > Nisargadatta , " Fred " <thejman@> wrote: > > > > as gifts from God. they are tools to help humanity to higher realms. > > But I asked how you *distinguish* them... > > > > - > > billrishel > > Nisargadatta > > Tuesday, March 07, 2006 1:54 PM > > mind and ego /Fred (((Re: a series of > fortunate ego events > > > > > > How do you distinguish mind and ego? > > > > Bill > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Fred " <thejman@> wrote: > > > > > > exactly so, it's interesting in wayne dyer's new book he talks of > > destroying the ego. this in and of itself is remarkably funny. > > destroying the illusion doesn't negate it's purpose and why Divinity > > sought to give humanity this gift of the mind/intellect and ego. > > > > > > love and light > > > peppery spigots > > > - > > > ADHHUB@ > > > Nisargadatta > > > Saturday, March 04, 2006 11:56 PM > > > Re: Is There an Inside, a Within?(silver) > > > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 3/4/2006 8:44:48 AM Pacific Standard Time, > > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > > > Sat, 04 Mar 2006 14:12:32 -0000 > > > " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > > Re: Is There an Inside, a Within?(silver) > > > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 3/3/2006 11:35:42 PM Pacific Standard > Time, > > > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > > > > > Sat, 04 Mar 2006 01:39:10 -0000 > > > > " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > > > Re: Is There an Inside, a Within?(silver) > > > > > > > > ...................................... > > > > > Pooh`s honey represents its love of beingness, > > > > >> > > > > > Patricia > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta tells us that our love of being (the illusion > > of I am) is > > > the > > > > crux of our problem. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, indeedy, which brings up the question, is there really a > > 'problem'? > > > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > Only in mind. > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, it's only a problem in the mind, but that includes our > entire > > > experience so I can't dismiss it. However, the point was that > > perhaps it's only a > > > problem because of a lack of understanding about what is really > > desired. If we > > > really love the illusion, the idea that we want out of it is > absurd. > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 8, 2006 Report Share Posted March 8, 2006 didn't we just have a the tautology discussion here? one can only derive meaning through their intellect/ego which they seem to be using right now. deriving meaning basically is a linear form of the dualistic thought process. since no ones thinking, that makes it clearer. you have derived some meaning from the words " gifts from God " . if not, why ask the question? ~~~~~~~~~~~~ Well Fred, your comments about ego, mind, and " gifts from God " seem to me nonsensical/absurd. But rather than say that I thought to give you the benefit of the doubt and ask you to clarify what you meant by what you had said. However, you seem quite adamant about not doing so... So perhaps we just drop the whole thing. You consider that ego and mind are " gifts from God " . It has meaning to you. Good enough. Enjoy. I guess we just speak different languages. Bill > > you have derived some meaning from the words " gifts from God " . if not, why ask the question? > - > billrishel > Nisargadatta > Tuesday, March 07, 2006 6:25 PM > Re: mind and ego /Fred > > > Nisargadatta , " Fred " <thejman@> wrote: > > > > there is no need to do so. the need seems to come from your question > > you spoke of mind and ego as being " gifts from God " , > yet seem unwilling to elaborate on the meaning of > those terms as you have used them. > > or perhaps I misinterpret... > > Do you care to elaborate on the meaning of those terms > as you have used them, or do you consider those > two terms intrinsically clear in their meaning and > that no explanation of what *you* mean by them is > necessary? > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Fred " <thejman@> wrote: > > > > > > as gifts from God. they are tools to help humanity to higher > realms. > > > > But I asked how you *distinguish* them... > > > > > > > - > > > billrishel > > > Nisargadatta > > > Tuesday, March 07, 2006 1:54 PM > > > mind and ego /Fred (((Re: a series of > > fortunate ego events > > > > > > > > > How do you distinguish mind and ego? > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Fred " <thejman@> wrote: > > > > > > > > exactly so, it's interesting in wayne dyer's new book he > talks of > > > destroying the ego. this in and of itself is remarkably funny. > > > destroying the illusion doesn't negate it's purpose and why > Divinity > > > sought to give humanity this gift of the mind/intellect and ego. > > > > > > > > love and light > > > > peppery spigots > > > > - > > > > ADHHUB@ > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > Saturday, March 04, 2006 11:56 PM > > > > Re: Is There an Inside, a > Within?(silver) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 3/4/2006 8:44:48 AM Pacific Standard > Time, > > > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > > > > > Sat, 04 Mar 2006 14:12:32 -0000 > > > > " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > > > Re: Is There an Inside, a Within?(silver) > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 3/3/2006 11:35:42 PM Pacific Standard > > Time, > > > > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > > > > > > > Sat, 04 Mar 2006 01:39:10 -0000 > > > > > " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > > > > Re: Is There an Inside, a Within?(silver) > > > > > > > > > > ...................................... > > > > > > Pooh`s honey represents its love of beingness, > > > > > >> > > > > > > Patricia > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta tells us that our love of being (the > illusion > > > of I am) is > > > > the > > > > > crux of our problem. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, indeedy, which brings up the question, is there > really a > > > 'problem'? > > > > > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > Only in mind. > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, it's only a problem in the mind, but that includes our > > entire > > > > experience so I can't dismiss it. However, the point was that > > > perhaps it's only a > > > > problem because of a lack of understanding about what is > really > > > desired. If we > > > > really love the illusion, the idea that we want out of it is > > absurd. > > > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 8, 2006 Report Share Posted March 8, 2006 no benefit of the doubt is needed, either we look at it or we don't... not trying to cloud over the " discussion " . you said they seem nonsensical/absurd, how did you arrive at that thought... by what comparison are you making it? - billrishel Nisargadatta Tuesday, March 07, 2006 10:06 PM Re: mind and ego /Fred didn't we just have a the tautology discussion here? one can only derive meaning through their intellect/ego which they seem to be using right now. deriving meaning basically is a linear form of the dualistic thought process. since no ones thinking, that makes it clearer. you have derived some meaning from the words " gifts from God " . if not, why ask the question? ~~~~~~~~~~~~ Well Fred, your comments about ego, mind, and " gifts from God " seem to me nonsensical/absurd. But rather than say that I thought to give you the benefit of the doubt and ask you to clarify what you meant by what you had said. However, you seem quite adamant about not doing so... So perhaps we just drop the whole thing. You consider that ego and mind are " gifts from God " . It has meaning to you. Good enough. Enjoy. I guess we just speak different languages. Bill > > you have derived some meaning from the words " gifts from God " . if not, why ask the question? > - > billrishel > Nisargadatta > Tuesday, March 07, 2006 6:25 PM > Re: mind and ego /Fred > > > Nisargadatta , " Fred " <thejman@> wrote: > > > > there is no need to do so. the need seems to come from your question > > you spoke of mind and ego as being " gifts from God " , > yet seem unwilling to elaborate on the meaning of > those terms as you have used them. > > or perhaps I misinterpret... > > Do you care to elaborate on the meaning of those terms > as you have used them, or do you consider those > two terms intrinsically clear in their meaning and > that no explanation of what *you* mean by them is > necessary? > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Fred " <thejman@> wrote: > > > > > > as gifts from God. they are tools to help humanity to higher > realms. > > > > But I asked how you *distinguish* them... > > > > > > > - > > > billrishel > > > Nisargadatta > > > Tuesday, March 07, 2006 1:54 PM > > > mind and ego /Fred (((Re: a series of > > fortunate ego events > > > > > > > > > How do you distinguish mind and ego? > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Fred " <thejman@> wrote: > > > > > > > > exactly so, it's interesting in wayne dyer's new book he > talks of > > > destroying the ego. this in and of itself is remarkably funny. > > > destroying the illusion doesn't negate it's purpose and why > Divinity > > > sought to give humanity this gift of the mind/intellect and ego. > > > > > > > > love and light > > > > peppery spigots > > > > - > > > > ADHHUB@ > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > Saturday, March 04, 2006 11:56 PM > > > > Re: Is There an Inside, a > Within?(silver) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 3/4/2006 8:44:48 AM Pacific Standard > Time, > > > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > > > > > Sat, 04 Mar 2006 14:12:32 -0000 > > > > " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > > > Re: Is There an Inside, a Within?(silver) > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 3/3/2006 11:35:42 PM Pacific Standard > > Time, > > > > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > > > > > > > Sat, 04 Mar 2006 01:39:10 -0000 > > > > > " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > > > > Re: Is There an Inside, a Within?(silver) > > > > > > > > > > ...................................... > > > > > > Pooh`s honey represents its love of beingness, > > > > > >> > > > > > > Patricia > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta tells us that our love of being (the > illusion > > > of I am) is > > > > the > > > > > crux of our problem. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, indeedy, which brings up the question, is there > really a > > > 'problem'? > > > > > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > Only in mind. > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, it's only a problem in the mind, but that includes our > > entire > > > > experience so I can't dismiss it. However, the point was that > > > perhaps it's only a > > > > problem because of a lack of understanding about what is > really > > > desired. If we > > > > really love the illusion, the idea that we want out of it is > > absurd. > > > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 8, 2006 Report Share Posted March 8, 2006 Nisargadatta , " Fred " <thejman wrote: > > no benefit of the doubt is needed, either we look at it or we don't... not trying to cloud over the " discussion " . you said they seem nonsensical/absurd, how did you arrive at that thought... by what comparison are you making it? > very good question. And here I just suggested that you speak straight out more directly, and Doh... maybe I haven't followed my own advice. Here is what you originally said: destroying the illusion doesn't negate it's purpose and why Divinity sought to give humanity this gift of the mind/intellect and ego. First off, your statement seems murky with ambiguity to me. How is mind different from ego? Are either of them *real*, or only appearances? My view is that mind and ego are only appearances. They can " seem " to be, but from the standpoint of immersion in Now there is no such thing. Both can " seem to be " only in the context of time. In the Now there is no time. And since only Now is real, mind and ego are not real. It is a popular conception that " illusion " is somehow *real*. This seems to stem from the fact that those holding such a view *do* struggle mightily with illusion (or so they imagine). If illusion is so unreal, then why are they having such a struggle with being in the Now etc., they seem to ask. But what someone in the grips of illusion thinks about " what is " is certainly not a basis. When fully immersed in Now there *Is No Illusion*! I will qualify that by saying that immersion in Now is relative... but that is a subtle point. When immersed in Now all considerations about illusion become meaningless. Now, there *is* a sense in which what you say (in the quote above) could be considered meaningful (per my view that is). And that pertains to the relation between Consciousness and Awareness. It is a deep topic. So I ask... have you read enough of Nisargadatta to get into his distinction between Consciousness and Awareness? One of the things very interesting about Nisargadatta is how he treats of a difference between Consciousness and Awareness. Most mystics don't make such a distinction. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 8, 2006 Report Share Posted March 8, 2006 In a message dated 3/7/2006 11:35:38 PM Pacific Standard Time, Nisargadatta writes: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 03:47:01 -0000 " billrishel " <illusyn Re: mind and ego /Fred Nisargadatta , " Fred " <thejman wrote: > > no benefit of the doubt is needed, either we look at it or we don't... not trying to cloud over the " discussion " . you said they seem nonsensical/absurd, how did you arrive at that thought... by what comparison are you making it? > very good question. And here I just suggested that you speak straight out more directly, and Doh... maybe I haven't followed my own advice. Here is what you originally said: destroying the illusion doesn't negate it's purpose and why Divinity sought to give humanity this gift of the mind/intellect and ego. First off, your statement seems murky with ambiguity to me. How is mind different from ego? Are either of them *real*, or only appearances? My view is that mind and ego are only appearances. They can " seem " to be, but from the standpoint of immersion in Now there is no such thing. Both can " seem to be " only in the context of time. In the Now there is no time. And since only Now is real, mind and ego are not real. It is a popular conception that " illusion " is somehow *real*. This seems to stem from the fact that those holding such a view *do* struggle mightily with illusion (or so they imagine). If illusion is so unreal, then why are they having such a struggle with being in the Now etc., they seem to ask. But what someone in the grips of illusion thinks about " what is " is certainly not a basis. When fully immersed in Now there *Is No Illusion*! I will qualify that by saying that immersion in Now is relative... but that is a subtle point. When immersed in Now all considerations about illusion become meaningless. Now, there *is* a sense in which what you say (in the quote above) could be considered meaningful (per my view that is). And that pertains to the relation between Consciousness and Awareness. It is a deep topic. So I ask... have you read enough of Nisargadatta to get into his distinction between Consciousness and Awareness? One of the things very interesting about Nisargadatta is how he treats of a difference between Consciousness and Awareness. Most mystics don't make such a distinction. Bill Lemme throw my two cents in here, if I may. Clearly, I'm not opposed to what I see as productive thought or conceptualizing, but I try to be careful about the analyzing. This is the nature of mind, so it's difficult to avoid. The terms 'mind' and 'ego' have slightly different connotations even though they can be lumped together and called the same thing. Mind connotes thought, ego connotes self identity. There's no real need to do anything with the terms, such as further differentiating or dissolving into one. The discrimination as to what is real and what is unreal is also not a basis for dismissing the unreal. This is more of a mind trick that reasons about illusion and concludes it's not meaningful, but everything that is meaningful to us is illusion as long as that's what we experience. It's only in reason that it gets dismissed, not in our experience. Being in the Now is great, but you're not always 'there'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 8, 2006 Report Share Posted March 8, 2006 Here is what you originally said: destroying the illusion doesn't negate it's purpose and why Divinity sought to give humanity this gift of the mind/intellect and ego. First off, your statement seems murky with ambiguity to me. How is mind different from ego? Are either of them *real*, or only appearances? My view is that mind and ego are only appearances. They can " seem " to be, but from the standpoint of immersion in Now there is no such thing. Both can " seem to be " only in the context of time. In the Now there is no time. And since only Now is real, mind and ego are not real. >ok, good. yes can see why you think that way. for this self there can be no separation, all aspects of Divinity are whole as one and where were one is... depends on the perspective point that it chooses to inhabit. the creation of totality is completed and also always ongoing. this possibly, is where ambiguity comes in. perhaps the dualistic mind cannot comprehend it and therefore Divinity created the process of enlightenment to get past the sticky wickets of meaningless endeavors. It is a popular conception that " illusion " is somehow *real*. This seems to stem from the fact that those holding such a view *do* struggle mightily with illusion (or so they imagine). If illusion is so unreal, then why are they having such a struggle with being in the Now etc., they seem to ask. But what someone in the grips of illusion thinks about " what is " is certainly not a basis. When fully immersed in Now there *Is No Illusion*! I will qualify that by saying that immersion in Now is relative... but that is a subtle point. When immersed in Now all considerations about illusion become meaningless. Now, there *is* a sense in which what you say (in the quote above) could be considered meaningful (per my view that is). And that pertains to the relation between Consciousness and Awareness. It is a deep topic. So I ask... have you read enough of Nisargadatta to get into his distinction between Consciousness and Awareness? >why would eye need to do that bill? all sages have said the same thing as is being now said to you. perhaps this would be done to discuss non-dualistic perspectives from the duality of the mind. perhaps that's not your next step.... One of the things very interesting about Nisargadatta is how he treats of a difference between Consciousness and Awareness. Most mystics don't make such a distinction. >and this is important to you? Bill ** 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 March 9, 2006 Report Share Posted March 9, 2006 Nisargadatta , " Fred " <thejman wrote: > > Here is what you originally said: > > destroying the illusion doesn't negate it's purpose and why > Divinity sought to give humanity this gift of the > mind/intellect and ego. > > First off, your statement seems murky with ambiguity to me. > How is mind different from ego? Are either of them *real*, > or only appearances? > > My view is that mind and ego are only appearances. They > can " seem " to be, but from the standpoint of immersion > in Now there is no such thing. Both can " seem to be " only > in the context of time. In the Now there is no time. > And since only Now is real, mind and ego are not real. > > >ok, good. yes can see why you think that way. for this self there can be no separation, all aspects of Divinity are whole as one and where were one is... depends on the perspective point that it chooses to inhabit. the creation of totality is completed and also always ongoing. this possibly, is where ambiguity comes in. perhaps the dualistic mind cannot comprehend it and therefore Divinity created the process of enlightenment to get past the sticky wickets of meaningless endeavors. > > It is a popular conception that " illusion " is somehow > *real*. This seems to stem from the fact that those > holding such a view *do* struggle mightily with illusion > (or so they imagine). If illusion is so unreal, then > why are they having such a struggle with being in the > Now etc., they seem to ask. > > But what someone in the grips of illusion thinks about > " what is " is certainly not a basis. When fully immersed > in Now there *Is No Illusion*! I will qualify that by > saying that immersion in Now is relative... but that is > a subtle point. When immersed in Now all considerations > about illusion become meaningless. > > Now, there *is* a sense in which what you say (in the > quote above) could be considered meaningful (per my > view that is). And that pertains to the relation between > Consciousness and Awareness. It is a deep topic. So I > ask... have you read enough of Nisargadatta to get into > his distinction between Consciousness and Awareness? > > >why would eye need to do that bill? all sages have said the same thing as is being now said to you. perhaps this would be done to discuss non-dualistic perspectives from the duality of the mind. perhaps that's not your next step.... >>>> no need whatsoever... > > One of the things very interesting about Nisargadatta is > how he treats of a difference between Consciousness and > Awareness. Most mystics don't make such a distinction. > > >and this is important to you? Not important. When the topic arises, it arises. And now it does not. Bill 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.