Guest guest Posted May 10, 2003 Report Share Posted May 10, 2003 Toby, In my own private infinity it seems that honesty/Truth is in the absence of a " sense of who " , in the absence of of a self-consciousness or sense of personal identity, to get in the way of a total experience of all that infinity converging, emerging, expanding as one. My own private Infinity is a dynamic, living, pulsing Reality. When the cataract of personal identity is melted away there is no room for questions of honest or dishonest, of distorted or not. That being said, I seem to find resonance in your statement that (condensing): " Truth " is the undistorted reflection of appearances. Not how I would put it exactly, but I do resonate. Interesting how you brought Truth into the equation. For me there is nothing more important than Truth. Revising a statement I made above, I should like to say: When the cataract of personal identity is melted away what remains revealed it Truth. Thank you for the inspiration! -Bill toby20042004 [toby.wilson] Friday, May 09, 2003 5:57 AM Nisargadatta Re: Woffle Very nice Bill! You wrote: " Appearance seems to be the most fundamental concept in that it has the least baggage. " Is this not only if conciousness is honest? For if conciousness is dishonest, the reflection of appearances is distorted. In fact, a distorted reflection of appearances within conciousness is baggage. And " Truth " is nothing more than honesty of conciousness. An undistorted reflection of appearances. Wouldn't you agree? Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@x> wrote: > Your question is like asking, " Can there be consciousness > without a who? " > > It seems to me that a " who " is context dependent. > A " who " has to exist as a separateness to exist > at all. > > It seems that Appearance is. Appearance appears to appear. > Apparently, at least. Does that mean that Appearance is > Real? No. Only that it appears to be. > > If Appearance is not Real, then there is no necessity > for a " who " to whom Appearance appears. Not a Real " who " , > at any rate. > > So my answer to your question is that appearance itself > does not require anything more than an *apparent who* to > whom it appears, if that. If consciousness is an apparent > reflection against an apparent surface then what is that > apparent surface than the " who " you are asking about? > > > Misc Jottings: > > Consciousness and Appearance seem to be the same: > can't have one without the other. > > Conciousness, Appearance, Maya, Illusion seem to be > the same. > > Appearance seems to be the most fundamental concept > in that it has the least baggage. > > There can be Appearance without a " sense of who " . > Perhaps the loss of a " sense of a who " is the real > unburdening. For it seems (appears) that with the > dissolution of a " sense of who " Appearance is > liberated, unconstrained. > > Whereupon the Dance begins. > > And Rumi howls at the Moon. > > -Bill > > > > > > > Wilson, Toby [toby.wilson@t...] > Thursday, May 08, 2003 10:02 PM > Nisargadatta > RE: Woffle > > > To whom is it apparent? > > > > > Bill Rishel [sMTP:plexus@x...] > > Friday, May 09, 2003 4:46 PM > > Nisargadatta > > RE: Woffle > > > > And only an apparent reflection against an apparent surface at that. > > > > Does that mean Consciousness is only apparent? > > > > -Bill > > > > PS: unjumble the following letters to get my guess: > > eys > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 10, 2003 Report Share Posted May 10, 2003 Bravo! From my limited perspective your statement seems absolutely perfect. And I notice something interesting in your statement: " core-splitting honesty " (great phrase!) is a kind of power that itself can come only from Truth. So it is Truth that cuts away the cataract to finally reveal Itself. There can be the notion that " we discover Truth " . But really, I suggest, such a " we " is ficticious. It is simply Truth realizing Itself. -Bill toby20042004 [toby.wilson] Saturday, May 10, 2003 4:03 AM Nisargadatta Re: Woffle (Bill) Bill, Your words ring so true. I hope you don't mind if I take a little poetic licence to them. I would say, before enlightenment, core-splitting honesty is the flame that melts the cataract of personal identity. After enlightenment, there is no more room for questions of honest or dishonest, of distorted or not, for whatever form it takes, all that is left is Truth. Toby Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@x> wrote: > Toby, > > In my own private infinity it seems that honesty/Truth is > in the absence of a " sense of who " , in the absence of > of a self-consciousness or sense of personal identity, > to get in the way of a total experience of all that > infinity converging, emerging, expanding as one. > > My own private Infinity is a dynamic, living, pulsing > Reality. When the cataract of personal identity is > melted away there is no room for questions of honest > or dishonest, of distorted or not. > > That being said, I seem to find resonance in your > statement that (condensing): " Truth " is the undistorted > reflection of appearances. Not how I would put it > exactly, but I do resonate. > > Interesting how you brought Truth into the equation. > For me there is nothing more important than Truth. > > Revising a statement I made above, I should like to > say: > When the cataract of personal identity is > melted away what remains revealed it Truth. > > Thank you for the inspiration! > > -Bill > > > > > toby20042004 [toby.wilson@t...] > Friday, May 09, 2003 5:57 AM > Nisargadatta > Re: Woffle > > > Very nice Bill! You wrote: " Appearance seems to be the most > fundamental concept in that it has the least baggage. " > > Is this not only if conciousness is honest? For if conciousness is > dishonest, the reflection of appearances is distorted. In fact, a > distorted reflection of appearances within conciousness is baggage. > And " Truth " is nothing more than honesty of conciousness. An > undistorted reflection of appearances. Wouldn't you agree? > > > > Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@x> wrote: > > Your question is like asking, " Can there be consciousness > > without a who? " > > > > It seems to me that a " who " is context dependent. > > A " who " has to exist as a separateness to exist > > at all. > > > > It seems that Appearance is. Appearance appears to appear. > > Apparently, at least. Does that mean that Appearance is > > Real? No. Only that it appears to be. > > > > If Appearance is not Real, then there is no necessity > > for a " who " to whom Appearance appears. Not a Real " who " , > > at any rate. > > > > So my answer to your question is that appearance itself > > does not require anything more than an *apparent who* to > > whom it appears, if that. If consciousness is an apparent > > reflection against an apparent surface then what is that > > apparent surface than the " who " you are asking about? > > > > > > Misc Jottings: > > > > Consciousness and Appearance seem to be the same: > > can't have one without the other. > > > > Conciousness, Appearance, Maya, Illusion seem to be > > the same. > > > > Appearance seems to be the most fundamental concept > > in that it has the least baggage. > > > > There can be Appearance without a " sense of who " . > > Perhaps the loss of a " sense of a who " is the real > > unburdening. For it seems (appears) that with the > > dissolution of a " sense of who " Appearance is > > liberated, unconstrained. > > > > Whereupon the Dance begins. > > > > And Rumi howls at the Moon. > > > > -Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wilson, Toby [toby.wilson@t...] > > Thursday, May 08, 2003 10:02 PM > > Nisargadatta > > RE: Woffle > > > > > > To whom is it apparent? > > > > > > > > Bill Rishel [sMTP:plexus@x] > > > Friday, May 09, 2003 4:46 PM > > > Nisargadatta > > > RE: Woffle > > > > > > And only an apparent reflection against an apparent surface at > that. > > > > > > Does that mean Consciousness is only apparent? > > > > > > -Bill > > > > > > PS: unjumble the following letters to get my guess: > > > eys > > > > > > ** If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: /mygroups?edit=1 Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes. 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.