Guest guest Posted March 8, 2000 Report Share Posted March 8, 2000 Hi Moller and Roger, >>Roger: >>If you are perceptually the totality of the universe, do you still have an >>essence? > >Moller: >snip< >I must also admit that this word 'essense' makes me uncomfortable. I know >we have discussed it before, but wholeness to me is not essense. essense is >still an overflow of the god concept. "Essence" is from the Latin "esse," the verb "to be." Essence is what you most basically are, without anything added. You cannot "have" an essence... it is what you _are_. Anything that you can "have" is not your essence. I remember many lives, so I know that my body of this life is not my essence... it is not essential to me. I can exist for long periods of time without being emotional, so I know that my emotions (emotional body) is not essential. I can exist for long periods of time without thinking, so I know that my thinking mind is not essential. Essence is NOT "an overflow of the god concept"... it is not any concept at all. No concept is essential. Body, emotions, and mind could all be taken away, and I would still exist. So none of them are essential... none are of my essence. >-snip- all which can be said about that present situation >is that is only what is. No essense, -snip- "Essence" means "what is"... you are using the word as though "essence" is another attribute that we can have. "Essence" is WHAT IS without attributes. > There somehow has to be some final >'container' of manifest existence. No. I do not think you can substantiate that, either scientifically or philosophically. If you want to imagine the container of the universe, you have to imagine that something exists outside of manifest existence, perhaps other universes out there beyond ours. But then they would also be part of manifest existence. >So it has been suggested that >consciousness, awareness, god, essense and so on could serve as this >container out of which all manifestation springs and to which it all >returns. The manifest universe springs at every instant from the unmanifest. None of the words/concepts you suggest will do for THAT. The man who has gone into the All, into Brahman, into the unmanifest... and returned... knows that nothing in the manifest universe is essential to him. Love, Dharma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 9, 2000 Report Share Posted March 9, 2000 Dear Dharma re:addiction Thanks for your interesting posting. Also for pointing out the original meaning of the word 'essense'. I think it is used somewhat differently /if incorrectly, by many people who enquire along these lines. Strange how difficult communication can be. I agree with many of the things you say, and in fact was under the impression that this understanding is what the discussion from my side has been about. You said: .. Essence is NOT "an overflow of the god >concept"... it is not any concept at all. No concept is essential. ~~(M) I cannot agree more. I was just trying to point to the fact that for those who believe in 'essense' as some sort of personal, inner essense, for those, such an essense is an overflow from the god notion. Of course if essense is what you have defined it to be, which is the same as what is, then it cannot possibly be a concept. In this sense it is then not even something 'you are', rather it is that which EVERYTHING IS. Not made of, but IS. Nothing is prior to anything. There is only what is. Moller said: >> There somehow has to be some final >>'container' of manifest existence. ~~(M) Sorry. Apologies. My poor English. What I meant was that it is generally accepted by many millions of people that there must be a source, an essense - something like consciousness, god etc from which everything emanates and of which everything is made. This is what i meant by 'final container' of existence. This is not my experience and I have tried to point to this in all the communications on this topic. I have contrasted this with what is, and that there is only what is. You said: >The man who has gone into the All, into Brahman, into the unmanifest... >and returned... knows that nothing in the manifest universe is essential >to him. > ~~(M) This is the only part of your posting to which my experience does not point. If there is only what is, and everyhting is part of this, including the 'man', then it seems reasonable to say exactly BECAUSE he is so totally integral part of what is, and what is is none other than the manifest universe, it is impossible for him, as manifest being, not to be already, in all his aspects, part of the whole. It is just for him, as presumably separate entity to realise it. Love Moller Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 9, 2000 Report Share Posted March 9, 2000 Hi Moller, >Thanks for your interesting posting. Also for pointing out the original >meaning of the word 'essense'. I think it is used somewhat differently /if >incorrectly, by many people who enquire along these lines. >>. Essence is NOT "an overflow of the god >>concept"... it is not any concept at all. No concept is essential. > >~~(M) I cannot agree more. I was just trying to point to the fact that for >those who believe in 'essense' as some sort of personal, inner essense, for >those, such an essense is an overflow from the god notion. I think it's possible that you are referring to a meaning that has come from our use of the word "essence" for a perfume or other substance distilled (or otherwise extracted) from a plant. Which I suppose came from the feeling that you were boiling down or distilling the plant until there was nothing left but its essence... the fragrance. Maybe the keyword is "personal"... but to me any sort of special quality or "scent" that distinguishes me as Dharma Fisher is attribute, not essence. > Of course if >essense is what you have defined it to be, which is the same as what is, >then it cannot possibly be a concept. In this sense it is then not even >something 'you are', rather it is that which EVERYTHING IS. Not made of, >but IS. Nothing is prior to anything. There is only what is. Well, it doesn't mean that essence is everything... philosophically, we distinguish between essence and attributes... My old Webster's gives a pretty complete definition: >esse [L. to be.] Existence; actual being. > >essence, n. [F., fr. L. _essentia_, formed as if fr. a pres. part. of >_esse_ to be.] 1. _Philos._ That in being which underlies all outward >manifestations and is permanent and unchangeable; substance. 2. >Substance; primarily, a necessary constituent; element; secondarily, >metaphysical substance; substance as distinguished from and as supporting >attributes. 3. Ultimate or intrinsic nature; prime character; as, to >fathom the _essence_ of poetry. 4. Something that exists; an entity. 5. >A substance distilled or otherwise extracted from a plant, drug, etc., and >believed to possess its virtues in concentrated form; also, an alcoholic >solution of such a substance, esp. of an oil. 6. Perfume, or the volatile >matter constituting perfume. > >essential, adj. [see ESSENCE.] 1. Being such in essence, or by reason of >its substance or intrinsic nature; absolute; as, what is _essential_ >poetry? 2. Ideally perfect or complete; as, _essential_ bliss. 3. >Important in the highest degree; indispensable; as, _essential_ foods. 4. >Having the nature of, or containing, an essence (see ESSENCE, n., 4 & 5). >Thus an essential oil is one of the volatile oils found in plants and >imparting odor and, often, other characteristic properties. 5. _Logic._ >Pertaining to the essence; necessary; inherent; as, an _essential_ >property of matter. >Syn, Essential, fundamental, vital, cardinal mean so important as to be >indispensable. _Essential_ implies a belonging to the very nature or >essence of a thing and, therefore, incapable of removal without destroying >the thing itself or its character, efficacy, or the like; _fundamental_ >applies to that upon which everything else in a system, institution, or >the like, is built up or by which the whle is supported, or from which >each addition is derived and without which, therefore, the entire >construction would collapse; _vital_ applies to something as necessary to >a thing's continued vigor, efficiency, etc., as food, drink, and health >are to living things; _cardinal_ applies to something comparable to a >hinge, on which everything else turns or depends. >-n. Something essential, inherent, intrinsic, or indispensable. >-essentiality, n. -essentially, adv. - essentialness, n. > >_Attribute_ comes from the Latin _ad-_ + _tribuere_ to bestow. > >attribute, n. 1. That which is attributed, as a quality or character >ascribed to, or inherent in, a person or thing; as, mercy is an >_attribute_ of God. 2. _Obs._ Reputation. 3. _Gram._ A word, esp. an >adjective, ascribing a quality (to some person or thing). 4. _Painting & >Sculp._ A conventional symbol of office, character, or identity, added to >any particular figure; as a club is the _attribute_ of Hercules. - _Syn._ >See QUALITY. ------- >Moller said: >> There somehow has to be some final >>>'container' of manifest existence. > >~~(M) Sorry. Apologies. My poor English. What I meant was that it is >generally accepted by many millions of people that there must be a source, >an essense - something like consciousness, god etc from which everything >emanates and of which everything is made. This is what i meant by 'final >container' of existence. This is not my experience and I have tried to >point to this in all the communications on this topic. I have contrasted >this with what is, and that there is only what is. When I say that the manifested universe... everything that is... flashes into and out of manifestation at every instant, I think you would find that modern physics is taking pretty much the same view. We found out about atoms... and then subatomic particles... and now they don't seem to be particles at all... Antoine, what's the latest? Are they just motion? >You said: > >>The man who has gone into the All, into Brahman, into the unmanifest... >>and returned... knows that nothing in the manifest universe is essential >>to him. >> > >~~(M) This is the only part of your posting to which my experience does not >point. Well, it just isn't something you can get from reading, because there are no words adequate... no way to tell it. If you want to know, you just have to do it yourself. ) Go and see. > If there is only what is, and everyhting is part of this, including >the 'man', then it seems reasonable to say exactly BECAUSE he is so totally >integral part of what is, and what is is none other than the manifest >universe, There is the unmanifest... > it is impossible for him, as manifest being, not to be already, in >all his aspects, part of the whole. It is just for him, as presumably >separate entity to realise it. On this, Govinda speaks so beautifully that I want to scan something for you. Love, Dharma 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.