Guest guest Posted January 22, 2007 Report Share Posted January 22, 2007 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " > <adithya_comming@> wrote: > > > > >>What people consider to be reality in terms of common-sense > > involves the movement of images through a mental/conceptual filter of time (past, present, future) and an observer of those images, generally experienced as a static awareness that doesn't change. If one deeply investigates this flow of images and the observer, one discovers that they are all " past, " always " the past " - - including the felt sense of the observer as a static awareness. That is, they are memory-dependent images, concepts and feelings. They depend on an imaginary interaction between past and present through memory and thought. > > > > Yes, that maybe so. > > > > But, don't you think many/most " intellectual " people > > understand it to be so? Through my interactions > > with many people, I have come to think that they > > do understand it. > > Our perceptions, then, apparently differ. That is possible... > > What I'm speaking to here, isn't an intellectual understanding. In my experience, ALL 'understanding' is " intellectual " ! IOW... I don't think there is any other kind of 'understanding'! Sure, I can't adequately describe taste of mango, taste of the kiss of beloved intelectually, in 'language'... but, do I even 'understand' it??? My contention is that, I don't 'understand' it! But, that doesn't mean that I am not able to fully enjoy it I can enjoy it, I can taste it, ....yet, I don't 'understand' it! To me 'undersatnding' only happens when I am able to break something into its individual pieces, examine their charcterstics and then I am able to " recarete " it either in 'memory' or in reality! Thus, I neither understand taste of a kiss nor the beauty of a flower! Nor do I 'understand' Awareness... Time on the other hand, is just an 'intellectual' 'concept' and thus, [intellectual] 'understanding' of it should be entirely possible! > > Not a matter of words and ideas. Again, to me, all 'understanding' is a matter of words and ideas. It is possible that with my 'vocabulory', I may not able to adequately describe it but, that doesn't make it not a matter of words and ideas; it only points to the current limitation of [my] langauge. .... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 22, 2007 Report Share Posted January 22, 2007 Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " <adithya_comming wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " > > <adithya_comming@> wrote: > > > > > > >>What people consider to be reality in terms of common-sense > > > involves the movement of images through a mental/conceptual > filter of time (past, present, future) and an observer of those > images, generally experienced as a static awareness that doesn't > change. If one deeply investigates this flow of images and the > observer, one discovers that they are all " past, " always " the past " - > - including the felt sense of the observer as a static awareness. > That is, they are memory-dependent images, concepts and feelings. > They depend on an imaginary interaction between past and present > through memory and thought. > > > > > > > > Yes, that maybe so. > > > > > > But, don't you think many/most " intellectual " people > > > understand it to be so? Through my interactions > > > with many people, I have come to think that they > > > do understand it. > > > > Our perceptions, then, apparently differ. > > > That is possible... > > > > > > What I'm speaking to here, > isn't an intellectual understanding. > > In my experience, > ALL 'understanding' is " intellectual " ! > > IOW... I don't think there is any other > kind of 'understanding'! > > > Sure, I can't adequately describe > taste of mango, taste of the kiss of beloved > intelectually, in 'language'... > > but, do I even 'understand' it??? > > My contention is that, > I don't 'understand' it! > > But, that doesn't mean that I am not > able to fully enjoy it Apparently, we are using the term " understanding " differently in this context. > I can enjoy it, > I can taste it, > ...yet, I don't 'understand' it! > > To me 'undersatnding' only happens when > I am able to break something into its > individual pieces, examine their charcterstics > and then I am able to " recarete " it either > in 'memory' or in reality! > > Thus, > > I neither understand taste of a kiss > nor the beauty of a flower! > > Nor do I 'understand' Awareness... > > Time on the other hand, > is just an 'intellectual' 'concept' > and thus, [intellectual] 'understanding' > of it should be entirely possible! I disagree. An infant senses time because of the way the brain organizes information, before " the intellect " has been organized to ponder abstract concepts or complex verbal information. An infant can have anxiety about separation because the infant remembers the parent who has left the room. This remembering isn't occurring " intellectually " - and is emotional and nonverbal. To understand time fully, to understand one's brain organization at the preverbal level, requires more than an intellectual understanding. An intellectual understanding may provide a springboard for deeper investigation, but isn't the end of the investigation, in my opinion. > > Not a matter of words and ideas. > > Again, to me, > all 'understanding' is a matter of words > and ideas. It is possible that with my > 'vocabulory', I may not able to adequately > describe it but, that doesn't make it not > a matter of words and ideas; it only points > to the current limitation of [my] langauge. Yes, apparently you don't like to use the word " understanding " for knowing something in a way that doesn't involve words. Yet, you seem to be aware that I was using the word to refer to a nonverbal understanding that isn't dependent on intellect. Maybe now that I've explained further you can understand what I meant. One can understand what is, by being what is. In other words, one isn't confused, one isn't misunderstanding. That is how I'm using the word in this context. To understand time, by being beyond time (i.e., atemporal being), is not an intellectual understanding. Yet, the intellect is not negated. One is not confused, one is not misunderstanding time. That is the reason for using the word " understanding. " Use another word if you like. But that is what I'm getting at here. -- D. 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.