Guest guest Posted April 29, 2006 Report Share Posted April 29, 2006 In a message dated 4/29/2006 8:46:57 AM Pacific Daylight Time, lastrain writes: > > Nisargadatta , epston wrote: > > > >In a message dated 4/28/2006 10:49:05 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > >lastrain writes: > > > >>Conceptual thinking is confined to its own accumulation of acquired > >>impressions. > >> > >>It has to search among its own swirling post-its....for answers to its > >>own questions about post-its. > >> > >>All questions are about 'things'. > >> > >>All things are conceptual. > >> > >>All questions are about concepts. > >> > >>toombaru > >> > >>L.E: This is not a dead-end process as you seem to be implying. > Accumulated > >experience can be reviewed and contemplated and searched for meaning or > >significance. And then, more experience can to gathered and > recapitulated. > >It can go on and on as we try to make decisions and keep moving > within the > >process of change. What's the problem here? > > > >The problem occurs when mind starts believing that those 'things' that > it has invented (such as all matters spiritual, philosophical, > religious etc) are real. > > This is the secondary conceptual overlay...the world of thought that > obscures the 'natural world'.....the dream of separation..that is the > 'suffering'. > > In the truest sense...it never happened....but dreams can still be > very painful. > > > toombaru > > > toombaru L.E: Which one am I talking to? > > > L.E: Do you mean to write, all looking is trying? Because Bill is stating > that it's possible to look or percieve with no ego effort. Perhaps that is > best called " seeing " rather than looking which implies some intention and > effort. You respond, " trying is trying " to which he might write, " looking is > looking. " Niz showed a way out of our deilemma (?) but some writers here allow > no exit. Whatever is written they reply, " you are still trapped, " " you are > still wrong. " Len and Werner come to mind. Maybe Marc. It's like no one ever > get it right with them. They offer no approval or encouragement. > To me, it's like a telescope. Looking from one side you are large and see > everything small. For the other, you are small and see everything large. > Everyone is seeing the same reality but from a different orientation. Much of > the discussion about the ego and mind seem to be of this nature. From the > vast sense of the Absolute, the ego doesn't exist, but from the ego's point of > view it has all these problems. > > But you write: " The problem occurs when mind starts believing that those > 'things' thatit has invented (such as all matters spiritual, philosophical, > religious etc) are real. > This is the secondary conceptual overlay...the world of thought that > obscures the 'natural world'.....the dream of separation..that is the > 'suffering'. > In the truest sense...it never happened....but dreams can still be > very painful. L.E: Let's say the mind is like a library of experience and organizes these many impressions. The ego is like the librarian who must make choices depending and what's in the library. So sometimes the librarian or ego chooses correctly and sometimes makes a mistake. In this picture, the mind doesn't believe anything, it just accumulates and organizes. I don't see that " thought obscurs the natural world. The ego may make mistakes about the natural world depending on the information in the library, but it's not like a dirty film obscuring vision. The ego is not always in action and even when it is, it, I, we, don't stop seeing, our attention is just diverted to thinking for a bit, and then the natural world is again clearly experienced. Then there is the continual problem of who is the dreamer and who is the dreamed. Or are you dreaming or are you in the dream and don't know it. This image is as much a problem as Niz's use of the movie comparison and that we are the light, and not the projected image. But it all depends on where you are looking from that decides what you see and what it is. (reality). If you are in the Absolute, either nothing is happening or ordinary reality is a dream and unreal. But if you live in the ordinary world, ego, mind, problems are not a dream. Is there a benefit to move or change your experience to the Absolute from the realitve, and how does the individual, a separate self do that? If you can do that, make that change, you can lose the pain of suffering, and if you are intensely suffering perhaps you as an individual ego will want to do that. Let's say a person takes on the belief that reality or the everyday world is a conflict between god and the devil. If that is your belief and it is strong enough, and continual enough it can be called a " secondary overlay " that obscures what is real and natural. Fortunately, most people I think, cannot maintain a belief overlay continually so they are kind of split in experience. Sometimes they are open to the real and sometimes they are not. The ability to hold and maintain a belief takes energy and energy is produced by food. So perhaps when a believer gets hungry, their belief system, or overlay, collapses and they again are experiencing the ordinary world. And then, people change and give up beliefs so their realm of experience is always changing. Some kinds of suffering can be described as trying to maintain beliefs when the natural world or the everyday shows them to be false. If the difference between the real and the belief is exteme, suffering becomes extreme. And then as I said, for most, I assume, belief go on and off, open and closed so they are part in the real world and part time in their imaginary world. Anyhow, perhaps we are in agreement about the situation, perhaps not. Hard to tell. For me. Larry Epston > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 30, 2006 Report Share Posted April 30, 2006 In a message dated 4/29/2006 1:34:26 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Sat, 29 Apr 2006 12:35:02 EDT epston Re: Toom-: " True " meaning In a message dated 4/29/2006 8:46:57 AM Pacific Daylight Time, lastrain writes: > > Nisargadatta , epston wrote: > > > >In a message dated 4/28/2006 10:49:05 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > >lastrain writes: > > > >>Conceptual thinking is confined to its own accumulation of acquired > >>impressions. > >> > >>It has to search among its own swirling post-its....for answers to its > >>own questions about post-its. > >> > >>All questions are about 'things'. > >> > >>All things are conceptual. > >> > >>All questions are about concepts. > >> > >>toombaru > >> > >>L.E: This is not a dead-end process as you seem to be implying. > Accumulated > >experience can be reviewed and contemplated and searched for meaning or > >significance. And then, more experience can to gathered and > recapitulated. > >It can go on and on as we try to make decisions and keep moving > within the > >process of change. What's the problem here? > > > >The problem occurs when mind starts believing that those 'things' that > it has invented (such as all matters spiritual, philosophical, > religious etc) are real. > > This is the secondary conceptual overlay...the world of thought that > obscures the 'natural world'.....the dream of separation..that is the > 'suffering'. > > In the truest sense...it never happened....but dreams can still be > very painful. > > > toombaru > > > toombaru L.E: Which one am I talking to? > > > L.E: Do you mean to write, all looking is trying? Because Bill is stating > that it's possible to look or percieve with no ego effort. Perhaps that is > best called " seeing " rather than looking which implies some intention and > effort. You respond, " trying is trying " to which he might write, " looking is > looking. " Niz showed a way out of our deilemma (?) but some writers here allow > no exit. Whatever is written they reply, " you are still trapped, " " you are > still wrong. " Len and Werner come to mind. Maybe Marc. It's like no one ever > get it right with them. They offer no approval or encouragement. > To me, it's like a telescope. Looking from one side you are large and see > everything small. For the other, you are small and see everything large. > Everyone is seeing the same reality but from a different orientation. Much of > the discussion about the ego and mind seem to be of this nature. From the > vast sense of the Absolute, the ego doesn't exist, but from the ego's point of > view it has all these problems. > > But you write: " The problem occurs when mind starts believing that those > 'things' thatit has invented (such as all matters spiritual, philosophical, > religious etc) are real. > This is the secondary conceptual overlay...the world of thought that > obscures the 'natural world'.....the dream of separation..that is the > 'suffering'. > In the truest sense...it never happened....but dreams can still be > very painful. L.E: Let's say the mind is like a library of experience and organizes these many impressions. The ego is like the librarian who must make choices depending and what's in the library. So sometimes the librarian or ego chooses correctly and sometimes makes a mistake. In this picture, the mind doesn't believe anything, it just accumulates and organizes. I don't see that " thought obscurs the natural world. The ego may make mistakes about the natural world depending on the information in the library, but it's not like a dirty film obscuring vision. The ego is not always in action and even when it is, it, I, we, don't stop seeing, our attention is just diverted to thinking for a bit, and then the natural world is again clearly experienced. Then there is the continual problem of who is the dreamer and who is the dreamed. Or are you dreaming or are you in the dream and don't know it. This image is as much a problem as Niz's use of the movie comparison and that we are the light, and not the projected image. But it all depends on where you are looking from that decides what you see and what it is. (reality). If you are in the Absolute, either nothing is happening or ordinary reality is a dream and unreal. But if you live in the ordinary world, ego, mind, problems are not a dream. Is there a benefit to move or change your experience to the Absolute from the realitve, and how does the individual, a separate self do that? If you can do that, make that change, you can lose the pain of suffering, and if you are intensely suffering perhaps you as an individual ego will want to do that. Let's say a person takes on the belief that reality or the everyday world is a conflict between god and the devil. If that is your belief and it is strong enough, and continual enough it can be called a " secondary overlay " that obscures what is real and natural. Fortunately, most people I think, cannot maintain a belief overlay continually so they are kind of split in experience. Sometimes they are open to the real and sometimes they are not. The ability to hold and maintain a belief takes energy and energy is produced by food. So perhaps when a believer gets hungry, their belief system, or overlay, collapses and they again are experiencing the ordinary world. And then, people change and give up beliefs so their realm of experience is always changing. Some kinds of suffering can be described as trying to maintain beliefs when the natural world or the everyday shows them to be false. If the difference between the real and the belief is exteme, suffering becomes extreme. And then as I said, for most, I assume, belief go on and off, open and closed so they are part in the real world and part time in their imaginary world. Anyhow, perhaps we are in agreement about the situation, perhaps not. Hard to tell. For me. Larry Epston You talk about the " ordinary world " as if it's something objective that is either observed correctly or not. I wouldn't bother to challenge this assumption except that you also talk about the world as a dream. These two views conflict because, in the dream scenario, there is no objective world, it's a dreamscape created subjectively, and thoughts are as much a part of that creation as anything else. IOW, perception itself is the creation. There's nothing to objectively perceive beyond the creative focus of what's in the mind, and so what's in the mind becomes all important. P 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.