Guest guest Posted August 19, 2006 Report Share Posted August 19, 2006 > Nisargadatta , Pete S > <pedsie5 wrote: > How quickly we forget that > those > are just words on a screen and not a conversation > with someone we personally know . You write 'words on a screen' are somehow different from 'a conversation with someone we personally know.' How can I ever *know* another person? I do not see how that is possible. I can know a collection of attributes formed into patterns, identified with all that went before and stored in memory. To regard this as knowing a person, in my understanding, is unlike anything Nisargadatta stands for. If I decide I *know* someone, even myself, it seems to me I am condemning us to a prison of sorts, which will be maintained by anticipations and expectations of behavior in conformity with that *knowing*. While it seems to be true that some people remain locked in patterns and are quite predictable over years and it is often difficult to transcend the memory of *how they are* I prefer to step out on the proverbial limb, to draw near to the flame. Sometimes the limb breaks and I fall and sometimes my wings are singed but the universe is alive and I have found I can pick myself up and grow new wings. At times, some of what is offered has the quality of 'just words on a screen'. For example, long discourses that appear to be essays directed at no one in particular and everyone in general. Words designed to sell a point of view or glorify a writer. 'Vain repetitions' of *beliefs* designed to convince the writer and perhaps others there is nothing to fear, or simply to preclude seeing the vastness of Reality. This is not all of it, however. Not for me, at least. Every now and then someone communicates something that transcends not only their words but words in general. Something that breaks away from the accepted pattern. Wonderful. Noel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 19, 2006 Report Share Posted August 19, 2006 Nisargadatta , Noel <noel_beau wrote: > > > Nisargadatta , Pete S > > <pedsie5@> wrote: > > > > How quickly we forget that > > those > > are just words on a screen and not a conversation > > with someone we personally know . > > > > You write 'words on a screen' are somehow different > from 'a conversation with someone we personally > know.' How can I ever *know* another person? I do > not see how that is possible. > > I can know a collection of attributes formed into > patterns, identified with all that went before and > stored in memory. To regard this as knowing a person, > in my understanding, is unlike anything Nisargadatta > stands for. > > If I decide I *know* someone, even myself, it seems to > me I am condemning us to a prison of sorts, which will > be maintained by anticipations and expectations of > behavior in conformity with that *knowing*. > > While it seems to be true that some people remain > locked in patterns and are quite predictable over > years and it is often difficult to transcend the > memory of *how they are* I prefer to step out on the > proverbial limb, to draw near to the flame. Sometimes > the limb breaks and I fall and sometimes my wings are > singed but the universe is alive and I have found I > can pick myself up and grow new wings. > > At times, some of what is offered has the quality of > 'just words on a screen'. For example, long > discourses that appear to be essays directed at no one > in particular and everyone in general. Words designed > to sell a point of view or glorify a writer. > 'Vain repetitions' of *beliefs* designed to convince > the writer and perhaps others there is nothing to > fear, or simply to preclude seeing the vastness of > Reality. > > This is not all of it, however. Not for me, at least. > Every now and then someone communicates something > that transcends not only their words but words in > general. Something that breaks away from the accepted > pattern. Wonderful. > > Noel perhaps that's what you're doing here how would we know? inquire within .... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 19, 2006 Report Share Posted August 19, 2006 On Aug 19, 2006, at 3:57 AM, Nisargadatta wrote: > N: How quickly we forget that > > those > > are just words on a screen and not a conversation > > with someone we personally know . > > You write 'words on a screen' are somehow different > from 'a conversation with someone we personally > know.' How can I ever *know* another person? I do > not see how that is possible. Snip N: At times, some of what is offered has the quality of 'just words on a screen'. For example, long discourses that appear to be essays directed at no one in particular and everyone in general. Words designed to sell a point of view or glorify a writer. 'Vain repetitions' of *beliefs* designed to convince the writer and perhaps others there is nothing to fear, or simply to preclude seeing the vastness of Reality. This is not all of it, however. Not for me, at least. Every now and then someone communicates something that transcends not only their words but words in general. Something that breaks away from the accepted pattern. Wonderful. Noel P: Knowing another accurately and forever is impossible, as knowing the shape of tomorrow's clouds is impossible. As far the last paragraph Stephen's words often have that quality, no? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 19, 2006 Report Share Posted August 19, 2006 Nisargadatta , Noel <noel_beau wrote: >can know a collection of attributes formed into >patterns, identified with all that went before and >stored in memory. To regard this as knowing a person, >in my understanding, is unlike anything Nisargadatta >stands for. Hi Noel, I liked some of the stuff that you wrote here... but I am not sure if you have really meant what the above statement implies, implies for me. What Nisargadatta stands for... hmmm... did he not emphasize again and again that the person is simply and exactly this, as you have described it very well: " a collection of attributes formed into patterns, identified with all that went before and stored in memory " ? Once you know this... then you already know the whole person. There is nothing deeper, nothing more profound inside the personality. The problem is our identification with this fluctuant and conceptual conglomerate. Advaita is teaching: when we go beyond the personality, then can we come closer to what we really are. So, I do not think that there is any better possibility of " knowing a person " than exactly this kind of provisory staring at a mirage. The idea of " understanding and being understood " is romantic babbling. The next step is not to study the mirage better, to know it better. The next step is to understand that the mirage is simply a mirage, and to take it for what it is. Greetings Stefan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 19, 2006 Report Share Posted August 19, 2006 Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Noel <noel_beau@> wrote: > > >can know a collection of attributes formed into > >patterns, identified with all that went before and > >stored in memory. To regard this as knowing a person, > >in my understanding, is unlike anything Nisargadatta > >stands for. > > Hi Noel, I liked some of the stuff that you wrote here... but I am not > sure if you have really meant what the above statement implies, > implies for me. > > What Nisargadatta stands for... hmmm... did he not emphasize again and > again that the person is simply and exactly this, as you have > described it very well: " a collection of attributes formed into > patterns, identified with all that went before and stored in memory " ? > > Once you know this... then you already know the whole person. There is > nothing deeper, nothing more profound inside the personality. The > problem is our identification with this fluctuant and conceptual > conglomerate. Advaita is teaching: when we go beyond the personality, > then can we come closer to what we really are. > > So, I do not think that there is any better possibility of " knowing a > person " than exactly this kind of provisory staring at a mirage. The > idea of " understanding and being understood " is romantic babbling. The > next step is not to study the mirage better, to know it better. The > next step is to understand that the mirage is simply a mirage, and to > take it for what it is. > > Greetings > Stefan > Nisargadatta stands for; The Lover Day And Night A Mirage In The Dessert Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 20, 2006 Report Share Posted August 20, 2006 --- Pete S <pedsie5 wrote: Noel wrote: > > > > You write 'words on a screen' are somehow > different > > from 'a conversation with someone we personally > > know.' How can I ever *know* another person? I do > > not see how that is possible. > Pete wrote: > P: Knowing another accurately and forever is > impossible, > as knowing the shape of tomorrow's clouds is > impossible. Pete, I was very confused by your above response to my message: Words on a Screen, because in the response you are writing esstentially the same thing I am. Then I noticed you attributed your own words to me with the little " N: " : > > On Aug 19, 2006, at 3:57 AM, > Nisargadatta wrote: > > > N: How quickly we forget that > > > those > > > are just words on a screen and not a > conversation > > > with someone we personally know . I did not offer the above words, Pete, nor did I attach the little " N: " to them. You did and they are from the following message: Nisargadatta/message/48823 My message: Nisargadatta/message/48843 was a refutation of your statement: How quickly we forget that > > > those > > > are just words on a screen and not a > conversation > > > with someone we personally know . This is so interesting and has provided me with a valuable insight. Noel 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.