Question to List-A Net of Jewels June 21

[Guest guest]

Consciousness Only. All that appears is thought.

Thought has no material basis.

Therefore,

there is nothing material that exists.

 

Another way to look at it is that it is the familiar " shifting the

ground of discussion from one state to another " and the responder is

supposed to follow the shift. Krishnamurti does this kind of thing

all through his teaching and if one misses the shift in " ground " then

one gets quite confused.

 

I was studying " Symbolic Logic " about the same time I discovered

Krishnamurti and noticed that others who studied Krishnamurti would

show much anger at his teaching. So I decided to apply the principles

of Symbolic Logic to his writing -- and discovered the " shifting " (my

term) of level. In the same paragraph I would find referents to the

material realm and in the next paragraph he would be referring to a

mental activity and shift it into the spiritual (absolute).

 

The most common such " shifting " is between the relative and the

absolute. Buddhism suffers from the Buddha having taught both levels

as appropriate with his hearers and Buddhism has suffered from

confusion over it ever since. Notice the development of the Mahayana

as an attempt to recover from such " shifting " .

 

In every religion or philosophy when one finds people picking apart a

text and debating over the correct understanding of the " words " then

usually there is just this kind of confusion arising over a

distinction between the absolute and the relative in the context of

the discussion.

 

Without further study I cannot say what Ramesh was doing, but I

suspect my opening syllogism expresses it. If one is awake to what is

being said then there is no confusion. If confusion arises it

generally is an indication that one is having a problem dealing with

the relative and the absolute in the context.

 

One of my math teacher's used to drive us nuts as he said, " The rest

of the solution is 'transparently obvious'. " Well, transparent to him

maybe, but not to us. Getting through that transparancy was sometimes

a matter of hours of work on it! Same thing sometimes with Jnani

Yogis.

 

Nisargadatta, " Omkara " <coresite@h...> wrote:

>

> Dear List,

>

> ANetofJewels, " Manuel V. Hernandez " <manuel1498>

> wrote:

>

> > Other than the primal Absolute subjectivity in which all exists,

> > nothing in fact does exist!

>

> Can anyone explain why in the first part of the sentence above,

> Ramesh (in referring to phenomena) states " in which *all exists*, "

> and in the second part of the sentence states " nothing (in fact)

does

> exist? "

>

> I wonder... is this to place or keep the reader in a state of

> confusion through " clashing of concepts, " or is it just poor

> oratorial style?

>

> I've noticed this quite often before in these writings, and it

always

> seems to appear in the second part (nighttime?) of the daily

reading.

>

> Namaste,

>

> Tim

[Guest guest]

Hi John,

 

Thanks very much for expounding on this.

 

It could just be me, but i would have appreciated the following line:

 

" Other than the primal Absolute subjectivity in which all exists,

nothing in fact does exist! "

 

Restated like this:

 

" Other than the primal Absolute subjectivity in which all seems to

exist, nothing in fact does exist! "

 

That would make far more sense (seen here)... as all this talk is (of

necessity) conceptual only, why not make it as clear as possible?

But it's Ramesh's style, who am i to complain ;-).

 

Namaste and Thanks,

 

Tim

 

Nisargadatta, " John Logan " <johnrloganis> wrote:

> Consciousness Only. All that appears is thought.

> Thought has no material basis.

> Therefore,

> there is nothing material that exists.

>

> Another way to look at it is that it is the familiar " shifting the

> ground of discussion from one state to another " and the responder

is

> supposed to follow the shift. Krishnamurti does this kind of thing

> all through his teaching and if one misses the shift in " ground "

then

> one gets quite confused.

>

> I was studying " Symbolic Logic " about the same time I discovered

> Krishnamurti and noticed that others who studied Krishnamurti would

> show much anger at his teaching. So I decided to apply the

principles

> of Symbolic Logic to his writing -- and discovered the " shifting "

(my

> term) of level. In the same paragraph I would find referents to the

> material realm and in the next paragraph he would be referring to a

> mental activity and shift it into the spiritual (absolute).

>

> The most common such " shifting " is between the relative and the

> absolute. Buddhism suffers from the Buddha having taught both

levels

> as appropriate with his hearers and Buddhism has suffered from

> confusion over it ever since. Notice the development of the

Mahayana

> as an attempt to recover from such " shifting " .

>

> In every religion or philosophy when one finds people picking apart

a

> text and debating over the correct understanding of the " words "

then

> usually there is just this kind of confusion arising over a

> distinction between the absolute and the relative in the context of

> the discussion.

>

> Without further study I cannot say what Ramesh was doing, but I

> suspect my opening syllogism expresses it. If one is awake to what

is

> being said then there is no confusion. If confusion arises it

> generally is an indication that one is having a problem dealing

with

> the relative and the absolute in the context.

>

> One of my math teacher's used to drive us nuts as he said, " The

rest

> of the solution is 'transparently obvious'. " Well, transparent to

him

> maybe, but not to us. Getting through that transparancy was

sometimes

> a matter of hours of work on it! Same thing sometimes with Jnani

> Yogis.

>

> Nisargadatta, " Omkara " <coresite@h...> wrote:

> >

> > Dear List,

> >

> > ANetofJewels, " Manuel V. Hernandez " <manuel1498>

> > wrote:

> >

> > > Other than the primal Absolute subjectivity in which all

exists,

> > > nothing in fact does exist!

> >

> > Can anyone explain why in the first part of the sentence above,

> > Ramesh (in referring to phenomena) states " in which *all

exists*, "

> > and in the second part of the sentence states " nothing (in fact)

> does

> > exist? "

> >

> > I wonder... is this to place or keep the reader in a state of

> > confusion through " clashing of concepts, " or is it just poor

> > oratorial style?

> >

> > I've noticed this quite often before in these writings, and it

> always

> > seems to appear in the second part (nighttime?) of the daily

> reading.

> >

> > Namaste,

> >

> > Tim