toombaru's question

[Guest guest]

<snip>

 

> > > > One who understands nonlocally, isn't investing in such a

> dance.

> > > >

> > > > -- D.

> > >

> > > What is the location of the one who understands this?

> > >

> > > toombaru

> > >

> > > Probly an out of town address, doncha think?

> >

> > Instead of deriding, perhaps an honest inquiry into

> > what Dan might actually be saying is in order.

> >

> > Can there be understanding that is not attached to

> > a " here " ?

> >

> > That is the inquiry.

> >

> > Bill

>

>

> Can understanding be attached?

> To what?

>

> Len

 

This thread goes back to Dan's comment:

" One who understands nonlocally, isn't investing in such a

dance. "

 

toombaru asked:

" What is the location of the one who understands this? "

 

The question I asked:

" Can there be understanding that is not attached to

a " here " ?

 

which is a different way of asking:

" Can there be understanding that is nonlocal? "

 

Len's question essentially is:

" Can there be understanding that *is* local? "

 

But we have not yet addressed toombaru's question.

 

Since no one has stepped up to the plate re toombaru's

question, I will.

 

I will break it down by steps as follows:

1) There is indeed understanding that is not connected with

any sense of a " here " .

2) 1) is another way of saying there is understanding that

is nonlocal.

3) Hence understanding that is " nonlocal " is understanding

without a subject. I.e. there is no " one " that *has*

such understanding.

4) Hence the answer to toombaru's question is that his

question is meaningless because there is no such a 'one'.

 

All the above follow if 1) is established.

 

5) 1) is the case if there is experience that is not rooted

in a sense of " here " or a within. There is ample evidence

that such experience is possible and is the case at least

some times for some individuals.

 

Since 1) is an " existence statement " , i.e. only assert that

such-and-such *can be*, not that it necessarily always is,

5) is sufficient to affirm 1).

 

Hence the the answer to toombaru's question is that there is

no such a 'one' in the case of " nonlocal understanding " .

 

Now, Dan spoke of, " One who understands nonlocally... "

I assume, knowing Dan, that he did no mean to *literally*

suggest that there is such a " one " . And I see toombaru's

question as merely a raising of a grammatical point,

as I expect, knowing toombaru, that he did not essentially

disagree with what Dan was saying.

 

Having addressed toombaru's question, there remains Len's

question:

 

" Can understanding be attached? To what? "

 

Which I interpret as being essentially the question:

 

" Can there be understanding that *is* local? "

 

Dan was speaking of a particular kind of understanding

(nonlocal understanding). Len's question opens it up to

*any kind* of understanding. By so doing his question loses

its interesting nondual flavor. For example, understanding

the physics formula f = m x a could be a candidate. Is such

an understanding " attached " (i.e. local)? That gets into

working out what " attached " means in this context etc. etc.

and as the question in general does not have bearing on

nonduality it seems not worth pursuing.

 

That is my take.

 

Bill