Guest guest Posted July 13, 2007 Report Share Posted July 13, 2007 Sri Atmananda says this: there is knower, known, and knowing.When there is knowing both knower and known disappear into that knowing so that in effect there is only knowing at that point. I want to ask Atmananda this:if a tree falls in the forest when there is no ear there to hear it does that tree make a noise? Or, what is the known by itself apart from knower and knowing?Is it not imaginary?Somehow this seems an important subject to me--it bears on the question of oneness, unity, the identity of subject and object. WHEN I LOOK AT A TREE I AM NO LONGER ME.I AM A TREEME. The foregoing capitalized sentences make sense if we take the I and the me to refer to consciousness and not that nasty little consciousness wannabe Mr. Ego. I realize that the above paragraph has two themes and is therefore confused but maybe it will generate some useful commentary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 14, 2007 Report Share Posted July 14, 2007 Is this a serious question tom? Just because you are blind it doesn't mean there is no world, just because you are deaf it doesn't mean there is no noise. what is the known apart from known? Blind deaf ignorance? Mr Ego and Mr, Tree ... what's the difference? Ego is only a problem fro those who have problem with other ego's, of course if you have no ego that problem is solved, but if you respect other egos that problem is solved as well. god Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen wrote: > > Sri Atmananda says this: there is knower, known, and knowing.When > there is knowing both knower and known disappear into that knowing so > that in effect there is only knowing at that point. I want to ask > Atmananda this:if a tree falls in the forest when there is no ear > there to hear it does that tree make a noise? Or, what is the known by > itself apart from knower and knowing?Is it not imaginary?Somehow this > seems an important subject to me--it bears on the question of oneness, > unity, the identity of subject and object. WHEN I LOOK AT A TREE I AM > NO LONGER ME.I AM A TREEME. The foregoing capitalized sentences make > sense if we take the I and the me to refer to consciousness and not > that nasty little consciousness wannabe Mr. Ego. > I realize that the above paragraph has two themes and is > therefore confused but maybe it will generate some useful commentary. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 14, 2007 Report Share Posted July 14, 2007 Nisargadatta , " zen_mirror " <zen_mirror wrote: > > > > > Is this a serious question tom? > > > Just because you are blind it doesn't mean there is no world, > just because you are deaf it doesn't mean there is no noise. > > what is the known apart from known? Blind deaf ignorance? > > Mr Ego and Mr, Tree ... what's the difference? > > Ego is only a problem fro those who have problem with other ego's, > of course if you have no ego that problem is solved, but if you > respect other egos that problem is solved as well. > > > god > > > Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen@> wrote: > > > > Sri Atmananda says this: there is knower, known, and knowing.When > > there is knowing both knower and known disappear into that knowing > so > > that in effect there is only knowing at that point. I want to ask > > Atmananda this:if a tree falls in the forest when there is no ear > > there to hear it does that tree make a noise? Or, what is the > known by > > itself apart from knower and knowing?Is it not imaginary?Somehow > this > > seems an important subject to me--it bears on the question of > oneness, > > unity, the identity of subject and object. WHEN I LOOK AT A TREE I > AM > > NO LONGER ME.I AM A TREEME. The foregoing capitalized sentences > make > > sense if we take the I and the me to refer to consciousness and > not > > that nasty little consciousness wannabe Mr. Ego. > > I realize that the above paragraph has two themes and is > > therefore confused but maybe it will generate some useful > commentary. > > >Yes, it is a serious question.The question is this:If I am blind is there a visual world? Answer:No. For you there is only an imaginary visual world. And since you only know what is there for you, then when you say: Yes, but for others with this (imaginary again) power of sight there is a visual world. Well, that too is imaginary.The fact is that even for sighted people the visual world is mostly imaginary.We imagine a lot more than we see.You may see the back end of a car and you imagine the rest.In fact you have never in you r life seen a whole car but only parts or planes and have imagined the rest.Whole cars are imaginary.Whole anythings are imaginary.You see a bright star in the sky and imagine a body 20 times the size of the sun blazing away at a distance of 300 lightyears--which distance is also imaginary--and so on and on.Your body is full of imaginary organs.You walk into a building and the outside with its' trees and gardens and streets becomes imaginary.So on.Is this quibbling or importnat--I think important but don't have time to say why and it is not on the tip of my tongue or I would take time anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 15, 2007 Report Share Posted July 15, 2007 That's pretty witty, good observation, imaginery world and sounds, so should we take the word of the blind and deaf, or the word of the imaginery? You decide. Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " zen_mirror " <zen_mirror@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Is this a serious question tom? > > > > > > Just because you are blind it doesn't mean there is no world, > > just because you are deaf it doesn't mean there is no noise. > > > > what is the known apart from known? Blind deaf ignorance? > > > > Mr Ego and Mr, Tree ... what's the difference? > > > > Ego is only a problem fro those who have problem with other ego's, > > of course if you have no ego that problem is solved, but if you > > respect other egos that problem is solved as well. > > > > > > god > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen@> wrote: > > > > > > Sri Atmananda says this: there is knower, known, and > knowing.When > > > there is knowing both knower and known disappear into that > knowing > > so > > > that in effect there is only knowing at that point. I want to > ask > > > Atmananda this:if a tree falls in the forest when there is no > ear > > > there to hear it does that tree make a noise? Or, what is the > > known by > > > itself apart from knower and knowing?Is it not imaginary? Somehow > > this > > > seems an important subject to me--it bears on the question of > > oneness, > > > unity, the identity of subject and object. WHEN I LOOK AT A TREE > I > > AM > > > NO LONGER ME.I AM A TREEME. The foregoing capitalized sentences > > make > > > sense if we take the I and the me to refer to consciousness and > > not > > > that nasty little consciousness wannabe Mr. Ego. > > > I realize that the above paragraph has two themes and is > > > therefore confused but maybe it will generate some useful > > commentary. > > > > >Yes, it is a serious question.The question is this:If I am blind is > there a visual world? Answer:No. For you there is only an imaginary > visual world. And since you only know what is there for you, then > when you say: Yes, but for others with this (imaginary again) power > of sight there is a visual world. Well, that too is imaginary.The > fact is that even for sighted people the visual world is mostly > imaginary.We imagine a lot more than we see.You may see the back end > of a car and you imagine the rest.In fact you have never in you r > life seen a whole car but only parts or planes and have imagined the > rest.Whole cars are imaginary.Whole anythings are imaginary.You see > a bright star in the sky and imagine a body 20 times the size of > the sun blazing away at a distance of 300 lightyears--which distance > is also imaginary--and so on and on.Your body is full of imaginary > organs.You walk into a building and the outside with its' trees and > gardens and streets becomes imaginary.So on.Is this quibbling or > important--I think important but don't have time to say why and it > is not on the tip of my tongue or I would take time anyway. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 15, 2007 Report Share Posted July 15, 2007 Nisargadatta , " zen_mirror " <zen_mirror wrote: > > That's pretty witty, > good observation, > imaginery world and sounds, > so should we take the word of the blind and deaf, > or the word of the imaginery? > > You decide. > > > Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " zen_mirror " <zen_mirror@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is this a serious question tom? > > > > > > > > > Just because you are blind it doesn't mean there is no world, > > > just because you are deaf it doesn't mean there is no noise. > > > > > > what is the known apart from known? Blind deaf ignorance? > > > > > > Mr Ego and Mr, Tree ... what's the difference? > > > > > > Ego is only a problem fro those who have problem with other > ego's, > > > of course if you have no ego that problem is solved, but if you > > > respect other egos that problem is solved as well. > > > > > > > > > god > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Sri Atmananda says this: there is knower, known, and > > knowing.When > > > > there is knowing both knower and known disappear into that > > knowing > > > so > > > > that in effect there is only knowing at that point. I want to > > ask > > > > Atmananda this:if a tree falls in the forest when there is no > > ear > > > > there to hear it does that tree make a noise? Or, what is the > > > known by > > > > itself apart from knower and knowing?Is it not imaginary? > Somehow > > > this > > > > seems an important subject to me--it bears on the question of > > > oneness, > > > > unity, the identity of subject and object. WHEN I LOOK AT A > TREE > > I > > > AM > > > > NO LONGER ME.I AM A TREEME. The foregoing capitalized > sentences > > > make > > > > sense if we take the I and the me to refer to consciousness > and > > > not > > > > that nasty little consciousness wannabe Mr. Ego. > > > > I realize that the above paragraph has two themes and is > > > > therefore confused but maybe it will generate some useful > > > commentary. > > > > > > > >Yes, it is a serious question.The question is this:If I am blind > is > > there a visual world? Answer:No. For you there is only an > imaginary > > visual world. And since you only know what is there for you, then > > when you say: Yes, but for others with this (imaginary again) > power > > of sight there is a visual world. Well, that too is imaginary.The > > fact is that even for sighted people the visual world is mostly > > imaginary.We imagine a lot more than we see.You may see the back > end > > of a car and you imagine the rest.In fact you have never in you r > > life seen a whole car but only parts or planes and have imagined > the > > rest.Whole cars are imaginary.Whole anythings are imaginary.You > see > > a bright star in the sky and imagine a body 20 times the size of > > the sun blazing away at a distance of 300 lightyears--which > distance > > is also imaginary--and so on and on.Your body is full of imaginary > > organs.You walk into a building and the outside with its' trees > and > > gardens and streets becomes imaginary.So on.Is this quibbling or > > important--I think important but don't have time to say why and it > > is not on the tip of my tongue or I would take time anyway. > > >human mind:fish is in a sea of imagination illuminated mind:fish in the sea of itSelf. 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.