Fwd: Reality and Replica

[Guest guest]

NonDualPhil , " Tony OClery " <aoclery>

wrote:

NonDualPhil , " Wim Borsboom "

<wim_borsboom> wrote:

> Tony to Lewis:

> > > > The only difference I have with that is that I don't believe

> > > > that there is even an *appearance* on the Self.

>

> As I have mentioned before, Tony, like so many of us, you have a

> confused understanding of the word " appearance " . Most of the time

you

> use it in the sense of 'seeming', and sometimes you use it in the

> sense of 'coming forth' which is the older and original meaning.

>

> About `appearance':

> . Could it be that when you read the writings of your `selected'

sages

> (which writings are actually translations and commentaries based on

> and intermixed with fragments of older original oral transmissions)

> that your confused understanding makes you misinterpret the

> pronouncements that have to do with " appearance " ?

> . Could it be that you MAKE them to mean what YOU expect them to

mean?

 

Namaste W,

 

Such a long post on me? What I understand is very simple. I am not

confused because I keep it simple and logical.

 

It never happened. If it did it would be there in deep sleep,

samadhi and bodiless moksha....That's it folks!!

 

As I have said before the idea of mistaking a rope for a snake is

common to many, but what I am saying is there is no rope or snake.

 

So no need for concepts like Sakti, Saguna, Iswara etc etc.

 

As you are aware I have been on this track a long time. Long before

I found Sages like Gaudapada, Atmananda etc teaching a similar thing.

 

How it all appears like it does, I can never know whilst still in

the mind. The only concept is Nirguna.

 

Having said that Sankara says it is real while one is in it and no

doubt we have to deal with it.

 

For me it is easier to negate the whole thing, rather than examine

how it, or illusion rose in delusion.

 

It is complicated to absorb oneself with understanding samskaras or

vasanas.

 

One started acquiring them with the first piece of individuation of

movement, perhaps in granite, then in various plants, animals,

humans etc. It is a bottomless pit with no beginning.

 

There is the Universal Mind then there is nescience then there is

individualisation.................ONS...Tony.

--- End forwarded message ---

[Guest guest]

NonDualPhil , " Tony OClery " <aoclery>

wrote:

NonDualPhil , Pedsie2@a... wrote:

>

> In a message dated 5/11/05 9:06:09 AM, aoclery writes:

>

>

> > Such a long post on me? What I understand is very simple. I am

not

> > confused because I keep it simple and logical.

> >

> > It never happened. If it did it would be there in deep sleep,

> > samadhi and bodiless moksha....That's it folks!!

> >

> P: Wait, wait! I'm going to step here and slap you around a bit.

> With your consent, of course, because people tend to get

> unreasonably nasty if you slap them without their permission. )

>

> P: What is the logic behind your assertion that for anything to

have happened

> it have to be present in every state of mind? Have you reasoned

> that one out, step by step? If so, share that reasoning, because I

> don't see the connection between the two? It seems to me, you are

equating

> occurance with omnipresence and eternality, Which, amounts to

saying that

> for something to begging, it can't end. And furthermore, you seem

o be

> implying that for something to occur you have to be aware of it at

all times.

> These seems to me kind of unreasonable impositions on occurrence.

> IT predicates what occurs on your ability to pay attention.

 

Namaste,

 

What I am actually saying is; there is no state of mind. There is no

omnipresence or eternality, for they both infer an opposite 'lack

of'. Nothing to do with attention; only minds have

attention....ONS...Tony.

--- End forwarded message ---