Ivan/Dan/Berkeley/matter

[Guest guest]

At 10:58 AM 9/27/99 , Dan Berkow, PhD wrote:

 

I: Do you doubt materiality? Then you can't type - as in lucid dreams - and

>may fly.

>

>D: You are going in your own direction with these thoughts. Apparently,

>it is important to you to have something you can define as "material

>existence"

>and contrast with, I guess, "immaterial existence." I really can't claim

>to know exactly how you are making this distinction or what it means to

>you. Perhaps you would like to elucidate further on this topic. For me, I

>haven't said I doubt materiality, I said it is we who construct materiality

>as *description*.

>

>I: Matter may exist without description.

>

>D: Not if you observe the descriptive function of sensory perception.

>

>I: Motion may exist without

>description. If i didn't recognise matter as a human being must....i would

>die very soon....hit by a car.

>

>D: And where would you be then??

 

 

Ivan,

 

Dan is pointing out (I think) that description/observation are *creating*

what you think is there - they don't describe an an extant reality.

 

On the notion of material reality, your questions pinpoint this:

 

Have you read George Berkeley's THREE DIALOGUES BETWEEN HYLAS AND

PHILONOUS? Berkeley (1685-1753) argued that material objects appear to the

mind, but nothing can appear to the mind but an idea. Material substance,

therefore, cannot be said to exist outside the mind, and material objects

cannot be anything more substantial than ideas. I've never seen a

(Western) philosopher refute that position, though some of Berkeley's other

ideas are less cogent. Several of my non-dualist friends have read THREE

DIALOGUES and it has totally changed the way they see the world. Berkeley,

officially, is not a non-dualist, but he is very convincing on the notion

of physical materiality.

 

I had a Berkeley seminar from a great Berkeley scholar in 1983, and haven't

believed in material substance since. And though I've never been hit by a

bus, I did have a skating accident 3 months ago, cut my chin almost to the

bone.

 

--Greg

[Guest guest]

Greg:

> I had a Berkeley seminar from a great Berkeley scholar in 1983, and

haven't

> believed in material substance since. And though I've never been hit by a

> bus, I did have a skating accident 3 months ago, cut my chin almost to the

> bone.

 

Is your chin still there when you don't think about it?

Do you feel the pain when your attention isnt focussed on it?

 

I've been trying to make the same point about no matter existing outside of

mind, and all that can arise to the mind is an idea, in my first post to

Ivan. But this probably landed in your Deleted Items Bin already. (Leave it

there please). I would like to know more about Berkeley. Do you have some

more on this?

 

Love always,

 

Mira

[Guest guest]

Ivan,

 

Dan is pointing out (I think) that description/observation are *creating* what

you think is there - they don't describe an an extant reality.

 

On the notion of material reality, your questions pinpoint this:

 

Have you read George Berkeley's THREE DIALOGUES BETWEEN HYLAS AND PHILONOUS?

Berkeley (1685-1753) argued that material objects appear to the mind, but

nothing can appear to the mind but an idea. Material substance, therefore,

cannot be said to exist outside the mind, and material objects cannot be

anything more substantial than ideas. I've never seen a (Western) philosopher

refute that position, though some of Berkeley's other ideas are less cogent.

Several of my non-dualist friends have read THREE DIALOGUES and it has totally

changed the way they see the world. Berkeley, officially, is not a non-dualist,

but he is very convincing on the notion of physical materiality.

 

I had a Berkeley seminar from a great Berkeley scholar in 1983, and haven't

believed in material substance since. And though I've never been hit by a bus,

I did have a skating accident 3 months ago, cut my chin almost to the bone.

 

--Greg

 

ivan: Friend Greg. All materiality (as an exemple) is gathered in the mind. But

the mind itself is gathered in the mind. So all what we see, hear, smell

....perceive

is awlready in it's final and finished stage. What you friend Berckley states,

includes the flaw of not taking mind itsef as being a mind object. No, this

human

dimension if looked upon non-fragmentarily, is an integer manifestation in

emptiness

....without a mind. Any mind is only a projected conceptual notion. Non-duality

is

content and conteiner being the same...wich results in: "This is being it" as

manifestation itself. NOthing is interpreting it .....further....Only

content....no

conteiner...as a mind.

[Guest guest]

At 11:58 AM 9/27/99 , Ivan wrote:

>

>ivan: Friend Greg. All materiality (as an exemple) is gathered in the

>mind. But

>the mind itself is gathered in the mind. So all what we see, hear, smell

>...perceive

>is awlready in it's final and finished stage. What you friend Berckley states,

>includes the flaw of not taking mind itsef as being a mind object.

>No, this human

>dimension if looked upon non-fragmentarily, is an integer manifestation in

>emptiness

>...without a mind. Any mind is only a projected conceptual notion.

>Non-duality is

>content and conteiner being the same...wich results in: "This is being

>it" as manifestation itself. NOthing is interpreting it

>.....further....Only content....no

>conteiner...as a mind.

 

 

Well then why ask about materiality?

 

Oh yes, Berkeley is not a non-dualist officially, but he has been

criticized in the Western tradition for somehow believing in a mind

substance. There is an esoteric side to Berkeley however, where late in

life he repudiates even that. But he was a bishop in the Anglican church.

 

Mind can't gather in the mind. If the mind's activities can be noticed,

then the mind must be appearing to something anterior to the mind....

 

--Greg

[Guest guest]

Is your chin still there when you don't think about it?

Do you feel the pain when your attention isnt focussed on it?

 

I've been trying to make the same point about no matter existing outside of

mind, and all that can arise to the mind is an idea, in my first post to

Ivan. But this probably landed in your Deleted Items Bin already. (Leave it

there please). I would like to know more about Berkeley. Do you have some

more on this?

 

Love always,

 

Mira

 

ivan: Friends Mira, Dan, Greg. It is being a real plesure

to converse with you. I´ve been hearing many talk

of the "blessed self", but i must say that the feeling

of falling upon this self may be an incomplete "experience",

if the excence of non-fragmentation is not captured in

an almoust explosive way. Manifestation is awlready

the final "stage". Existence is not conteined in any mind.

Then emptiness is completly full. Silence is explosive, and

the sense of ablsolute aloness cries with all its lungs.

It is being it all by itself....Hear the thunder of silence?

 

PS - yes...i want to read that Berckley thing too...

[Guest guest]

ivan: Friend Greg. All materiality (as an exemple) is gathered in the mind.

But

the mind itself is gathered in the mind. So all what we see, hear, smell

....perceive

is awlready in it's final and finished stage. What you friend Berckley

states,

includes the flaw of not taking mind itsef as being a mind object. No, this

human

dimension if looked upon non-fragmentarily, is an integer manifestation in

emptiness

...without a mind. Any mind is only a projected conceptual notion.

Non-duality is

content and conteiner being the same...wich results in: "This is being it"

as manifestation itself. NOthing is interpreting it .....further....Only

content....no

conteiner...as a mind.

Well then why ask about materiality?

 

ivan: I don't. Dan did. I am exactly saying that there is nothing

to ask about it...

 

Oh yes, Berkeley is not a non-dualist officially, but he has been criticized in

the Western tradition for somehow believing in a mind substance. There is an

esoteric side to Berkeley however, where late in life he repudiates even that.

But he was a bishop in the Anglican church.

 

Mind can't gather in the mind. If the mind's activities can be noticed, then

the mind must be appearing to something anterior to the mind....

 

ivan: Yes...as a final and finished product. Where is the mind apart from

a mind object....a thought....a concept. Manifestation is nowhere...as this.

 

--Greg

[Guest guest]

Ivan:

Friends Mira, Dan, Greg. It is being a real plesure

to converse with you. I´ve been hearing many talk

of the "blessed self", but i must say that the feeling

of falling upon this self may be an incomplete "experience",

if the excence of non-fragmentation is not captured in

an almoust explosive way.

 

~Mira~:

I'm sorry Ivan, I had no idea that the essence of non fragmentation could be

captured at all. Much less in fragments such as words. If I would have known

that to be your intention, I wouldn't even have said anything to begin with.

 

Ivan:

Manifestation is awlready

the final "stage". Existence is not conteined in any mind.

Then emptiness is completly full. Silence is explosive, and

the sense of ablsolute aloness cries with all its lungs.

It is being it all by itself....Hear the thunder of silence?

 

~Mira~:

I like that. Explosive silence. I am that. That's why I can't shut my mouth.

 

With love,

 

Mira

*Mirror*

 

 

 

 

http://welcome.to/mirror

[Guest guest]

Ivan:

Friends Mira, Dan, Greg. It is being a real plesure

to converse with you. I´ve been hearing many talk

of the "blessed self", but i must say that the feeling

of falling upon this self may be an incomplete "experience",

if the excence of non-fragmentation is not captured in

an almoust explosive way.

 

~Mira~:

I'm sorry Ivan, I had no idea that the essence of non fragmentation could be

captured at all. Much less in fragments such as words. If I would have known

that to be your intention, I wouldn't even have said anything to begin with.

 

ivan: Ahhhh.....You don't know me...I am shy. Then i will stop, if you

prefer...I hate to sound professoral....i thought we where having fun. :^(

 

Ivan:

Manifestation is awlready

the final "stage". Existence is not conteined in any mind.

Then emptiness is completly full. Silence is explosive, and

the sense of ablsolute aloness cries with all its lungs.

It is being it all by itself....Hear the thunder of silence?

 

~Mira~:

I like that. Explosive silence. I am that. That's why I can't shut my mouth.

 

With love,

 

Mira

*Mirror*

 

 

 

 

http://welcome.to/mirror

 

All paths go somewhere. No path goes nowhere. Nowhere is Now Here. All paths,

places, and sights and perceptions exist only in the Space of Awareness.

Awareness does not come and go but is always Here. You are not "in" the now. You

Are the Now! Here is Home. Home is where True Rest Is. Home is where the Heart

Is. It is the Seer resting in the Seer, the Self-Nature, the Buddha Nature, or

call it what you will. The Radical Truth is Radiance of Awareness. It is both

the path, process, and the goal. It is Finality of Being without any support. It

is Total Independence and Ever Present. The Truth of the Self needs no

psychological or spiritual crutches. It needs no philosophy, no religion, no

explanation, no teaching, and no teacher, and yet It is always their support. A

true devotee relishes in the Truth. The Truth of Self-Knowledge which is Pure

Intelligence. Welcome all to a.