Guest guest Posted November 23, 2009 Report Share Posted November 23, 2009 Questioner: Yours is altogether a subjective view, while science tries to describe everything in objective terms. Is this contradiction inevitable? Nisargadatta: The confusion is apparent and purely verbal. What is, is. It is neither subjective nor objective. Matter and mind are not separate, they are aspects of one energy. Look at the mind as a function of matter and you have science; look at matter as the product of the mind and you have religion. Questioner: But what is true? What comes first, mind or matter? Nisargadatta: Neither comes first. for neither appears alone. -- From " I Am That " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 23, 2009 Report Share Posted November 23, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Questioner: Yours is altogether a subjective view, while science tries to describe everything in objective terms. Is this contradiction inevitable? > > Nisargadatta: The confusion is apparent and purely verbal. What is, is. It is neither subjective nor objective. Matter and mind are not separate, they are aspects of one energy. Look at the mind as a function of matter and you have science; look at matter as the product of the mind and you have religion. > > Questioner: But what is true? What comes first, mind or matter? > > Nisargadatta: Neither comes first. for neither appears alone. > > -- From " I Am That " wow... the " me's " and " you's " of the past... watching the past being reinforced by itself... even the " alone " ' comes back to haunt itself. isn't THAT sumthin'! ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 23, 2009 Report Share Posted November 23, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Questioner: Yours is altogether a subjective view, while science tries to describe everything in objective terms. Is this contradiction inevitable? > > Nisargadatta: The confusion is apparent and purely verbal. What is, is. It is neither subjective nor objective. Matter and mind are not separate, they are aspects of one energy. Look at the mind as a function of matter and you have science; look at matter as the product of the mind and you have religion. > > Questioner: But what is true? What comes first, mind or matter? > > Nisargadatta: Neither comes first. for neither appears alone. > > -- From " I Am That " > Nissy........Can you separate mind and matter? toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 23, 2009 Report Share Posted November 23, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru " <lastrain wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Questioner: Yours is altogether a subjective view, while science tries to describe everything in objective terms. Is this contradiction inevitable? > > > > Nisargadatta: The confusion is apparent and purely verbal. What is, is. It is neither subjective nor objective. Matter and mind are not separate, they are aspects of one energy. Look at the mind as a function of matter and you have science; look at matter as the product of the mind and you have religion. > > > > Questioner: But what is true? What comes first, mind or matter? > > > > Nisargadatta: Neither comes first. for neither appears alone. > > > > -- From " I Am That " > > > > > > Nissy........Can you separate mind and matter? > > > > > > toombaru dear toombaru.. in all likelihood.. Nissy accomplished this mysterious feat.. by employing the same unremarkable sort of legerdemain.. that is considered magical by the naive. it's an act of little merit... and most frequently fools the " perpetrator " .. as often and as commonly as it does " those " for whom it is displayed. it is not actually a performance.. but rather it is part and parcel of the " self-delusion " ... found in and as the plebeian " mind-set " which is.. an occurrence in spontaneity and which arises.. as a conjunctive manifestation and without design or choice. it is the essence of the bourgeois cypher.. and which is designated as the " everyman " nonentity. one can't help being a duped martyr of this... just like everyone else (though there be no " other " ). it is the belief structure of the average. it allows you to believe that there is meaning in your question.. and that it is an action by one with another.. in earnest dialogue... while all the time there exists not one iota of separation.. " between " or " betwixt " the apparent " two " . in summation it's a " fun thing " and that is all. and boys and girls just want to have fun. what else is there? see..there it goes again! ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 23, 2009 Report Share Posted November 23, 2009 - toombaru Nisargadatta Monday, November 23, 2009 2:02 AM Re: tonight's Nisargadatta Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Questioner: Yours is altogether a subjective view, while science tries to > describe everything in objective terms. Is this contradiction inevitable? > > Nisargadatta: The confusion is apparent and purely verbal. What is, is. It > is neither subjective nor objective. Matter and mind are not separate, > they are aspects of one energy. Look at the mind as a function of matter > and you have science; look at matter as the product of the mind and you > have religion. > > Questioner: But what is true? What comes first, mind or matter? > > Nisargadatta: Neither comes first. for neither appears alone. > > -- From " I Am That " > Nissy........Can you separate mind and matter? toombaru No I can not - as I said above. Mind, brain, matter, consciousness, the world....all appeared together. -Nissy- 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.