Guest guest Posted April 1, 2006 Report Share Posted April 1, 2006 > L.E: Well Michael, you were doing really well in 3rd grade to follow > that > thought and see into the reality of the situation. And your comments > about the > hurricane are also well written. That relation between verbs and > nouns has a > lot of relevance to how we think and relate to our situation. I > suppose it > could be summed up as " it depends how you look at it. " And there are > choice to > be made. And those choices reflect who we are and how we are in life. > One > person may be lost in words and the other sees the livingness of > things. > Take the idea of clay and a cup. When does the clay turn into the > cup? And > is the cup ever just a cup or does it stay just clay, or is it a clay > cup? > And as the clay is dug up, and rolled out, is the flat sheet of clay > a cup? No. > And as the flat sheet gets lifted up all around is it a cup yet? No. > Then the > clay is lifted up and formed, and slowly, it becomes a cup. Does cup > ever > really exist? Or is it an abstraction and the only real essence is > the clay. > You see there is no distinct point where the clay becomes a cup but > somehow the > clay eventually has an added quality of cuppness. > And so it is with the hurricane as a noun or a verb. It is not clear > when it > is one or the other. It depends and the person and his vision of > things. It > is both, it is neither, like many other aspects of life. > Larry Epston I enjoyed your comments about clay and cup, etc. Fun stuff! From reading what you say, it seems to me that whatever we " call/name/label " the formed or unformed clay (to use your example, or anything else for that matter) to be is what it is (or at least is perceived as that). So, if I call the clay a " cup " and it *becomes* a " cup " (in my perception). In short, I *form* it, give birth to it in a way. I call it a " place mat " and lo and behold it's a " place mat " ...but only as a *conceived* " thing " or " function " ...NOT as *essence*. As a take off on the well-known phrase, " It's all in the eye of the beholder " , perhaps it can also be said that it's all in the eye of the *namer*. So, I ask myself, if there's no naming whatsoever. What is it then? Or is there an *it " at all? And where or what is the *namer* if there is no naming? Is there a sense of separateness or division between so-called *me* and *what is*. Or, even a sense of *unity*? Just wondering! Michael Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 1, 2006 Report Share Posted April 1, 2006 Nisargadatta , " Adamson " <adamson wrote: > > > > > L.E: Well Michael, you were doing really well in 3rd grade to follow > > that > > thought and see into the reality of the situation. And your comments > > about the > > hurricane are also well written. That relation between verbs and > > nouns has a > > lot of relevance to how we think and relate to our situation. I > > suppose it > > could be summed up as " it depends how you look at it. " And there are > > choice to > > be made. And those choices reflect who we are and how we are in life. > > One > > person may be lost in words and the other sees the livingness of > > things. > > Take the idea of clay and a cup. When does the clay turn into the > > cup? And > > is the cup ever just a cup or does it stay just clay, or is it a clay > > cup? > > And as the clay is dug up, and rolled out, is the flat sheet of clay > > a cup? No. > > And as the flat sheet gets lifted up all around is it a cup yet? No. > > Then the > > clay is lifted up and formed, and slowly, it becomes a cup. Does cup > > ever > > really exist? Or is it an abstraction and the only real essence is > > the clay. > > You see there is no distinct point where the clay becomes a cup but > > somehow the > > clay eventually has an added quality of cuppness. > > And so it is with the hurricane as a noun or a verb. It is not clear > > when it > > is one or the other. It depends and the person and his vision of > > things. It > > is both, it is neither, like many other aspects of life. > > > Larry Epston > > I enjoyed your comments about clay and cup, etc. Fun stuff! From > reading what you say, it seems to me that whatever we " call/name/label " > the formed or unformed clay (to use your example, or anything else for > that matter) to be is what it is (or at least is perceived as that). So, > if I call the clay a " cup " and it *becomes* a " cup " (in my perception). > In short, I *form* it, give birth to it in a way. I call it a " place > mat " and lo and behold it's a " place mat " ...but only as a *conceived* > " thing " or " function " ...NOT as *essence*. > > As a take off on the well-known phrase, " It's all in the eye of the > beholder " , perhaps it can also be said that it's all in the eye of the > *namer*. So, I ask myself, if there's no naming whatsoever. What is it > then? Or is there an *it " at all? And where or what is the *namer* if > there is no naming? Is there a sense of separateness or division between > so-called *me* and *what is*. Or, even a sense of *unity*? Just > wondering! > > Michael > I like your line of pursuit about naming and " the namer " . You know the one about how to someone with a hammer everything can look like a nail? To " the namer " everything looks like whatever it is named. As I see it there is no " it " in any fundamental sense. An " it " is what the mind has " drawn a circle around " . All objects are virtual in that sense. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 1, 2006 Report Share Posted April 1, 2006 Nisargadatta , " Adamson " <adamson wrote: > > > > > > I enjoyed your comments about clay and cup, etc. Fun stuff! From > reading what you say, it seems to me that whatever we " call/name/label " > the formed or unformed clay (to use your example, or anything else for > that matter) to be is what it is (or at least is perceived as that). So, > if I call the clay a " cup " and it *becomes* a " cup " (in my perception). > In short, I *form* it, give birth to it in a way. I call it a " place > mat " and lo and behold it's a " place mat " ...but only as a *conceived* > " thing " or " function " ...NOT as *essence*. > > As a take off on the well-known phrase, " It's all in the eye of the > beholder " , perhaps it can also be said that it's all in the eye of the > *namer*. So, I ask myself, if there's no naming whatsoever. What is it > then? Or is there an *it " at all? And where or what is the *namer* if > there is no naming? Is there a sense of separateness or division between > so-called *me* and *what is*. Or, even a sense of *unity*? Just > wondering! > > Michael > Very good questions Michael........bob 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.