Guest guest Posted June 20, 2006 Report Share Posted June 20, 2006 In a message dated 6/20/2006 2:09:28 PM Pacific Daylight Time, jasondedonno writes: > > Here's a question I've been meaning to ask for some time. Everything I > experience is in consciousness, right? So the world and universe are > manifestations in consciousness. > > But there must be something on the outside that causes the > manifestations. Even though this outside existence can only be > inferred, we do know it's there. I wonder how N would have explained > this outside? What is it? How can we talk about it? How can it be not- > two? > > > L.E: In the nameless beyond realization there is no inside and outside, that > is why it is called the nameless beyond. Otherness vanishes as well. Then, > THERE IS NO OTHER. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 21, 2006 Report Share Posted June 21, 2006 In a message dated 6/20/2006 8:47:50 PM Pacific Daylight Time, pliantheart writes: > In a message dated 6/20/2006 2:09:28 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > >jasondedonno writes: > > > >> > >>Here's a question I've been meaning to ask for some time. > Everything I > >>experience is in consciousness, right? So the world and universe are > >>manifestations in consciousness. > >> > >>But there must be something on the outside that causes the > >>manifestations. Even though this outside existence can only be > >>inferred, we do know it's there. I wonder how N would have explained > >>this outside? What is it? How can we talk about it? How can it be not- > >>two? > >> > >> > >>L.E: In the nameless beyond realization there is no inside and > outside, that > >>is why it is called the nameless beyond. Otherness vanishes as > well. Then, > >>THERE IS NO OTHER. > >> > > He was asking about an " other " in relation to consciousness, > not in relation to " the nameless beyond " ... > > In relation to consciousness there *is* an " other " ... > call it unconsciousness or some other name such as > the Absolute. > > From the standpoint of consciousness the Absolute is > " other " . But with respect to the Absolute there is > no " other " . So it is not symmetrical. In this regard > it is not like opposites. If white is the opposite of > black, then black is the opposite of white. But while > the Absolute is " other " with respect to consciousness, > consciousness is not " other " with respect to the Absolute. > > Bill > > PS: I mention both unconsciousness and the Absolute. > Note that it doesn't work to equate the Absolute with > unconsciousness. > > Bill > L.E: For the question, " But there must be something on the outside that causes the manifestations. Even though this outside existence can only be inferred, we do know it's there. I wonder how N would have explained >>this outside? What is it? How can we talk about it? How can it be not-two? " I gave a complete and fully described, answer. Answer: L.E: In the nameless beyond realization there is no inside and outside, that is why it is called the nameless beyond. Otherness vanishes as well. Then, THERE IS NO OTHER. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 21, 2006 Report Share Posted June 21, 2006 Nisargadatta , epston wrote: > > In a message dated 6/20/2006 2:09:28 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > jasondedonno writes: > > > > > Here's a question I've been meaning to ask for some time. Everything I > > experience is in consciousness, right? So the world and universe are > > manifestations in consciousness. > > > > But there must be something on the outside that causes the > > manifestations. Even though this outside existence can only be > > inferred, we do know it's there. I wonder how N would have explained > > this outside? What is it? How can we talk about it? How can it be not- > > two? > > > > > > L.E: In the nameless beyond realization there is no inside and outside, that > > is why it is called the nameless beyond. Otherness vanishes as well. Then, > > THERE IS NO OTHER. > > He was asking about an " other " in relation to consciousness, not in relation to " the nameless beyond " ... In relation to consciousness there *is* an " other " ... call it unconsciousness or some other name such as the Absolute. From the standpoint of consciousness the Absolute is " other " . But with respect to the Absolute there is no " other " . So it is not symmetrical. In this regard it is not like opposites. If white is the opposite of black, then black is the opposite of white. But while the Absolute is " other " with respect to consciousness, consciousness is not " other " with respect to the Absolute. Bill PS: I mention both unconsciousness and the Absolute. Note that it doesn't work to equate the Absolute with unconsciousness. 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.