Guest guest Posted June 13, 2004 Report Share Posted June 13, 2004 I think that intellectual ideas can be good as a foundation for finding the truth. But to really know the truth, then it will not do to only know *about* the truth, one must *become* the truth. One can write thousands of Ph.D. papers about the taste of Coca Cola, but one must drink Coca Cola in order to *know* the taste and not only knowledge *about* the taste. Similarly, the spiritual truth must be tasted in the form of a satori and not only held as intellectual ideas. And this is a kind of relief for the intellect. The intellect now knows that mere knowledge *about* the truth will never actually be the same as a personal direct experience of the truth. Something higher must penetrate one's being in the form of an awakening, a satori. /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 13, 2004 Report Share Posted June 13, 2004 Hi again Anders, > I think that intellectual ideas can be good as a foundation for > finding the truth.> Yes, I think that even the process of intellectualizing can be an emormous help, so long as it is completely thrown away later on. >But to really know the truth, then it will not do > to only know *about* the truth, one must *become* the truth.> No-One or Who can become the truth. Truth relies on a subject / object split. We don't need to find the 'truth'. It is about identification which is not in the form of a someone or a who. I know what you are getting at above though, I am just being very specific with terms. Truth to me does not equate with realization, truth is *always* in the relative subject / object level, 'in' realization there is NO truth. >One can > write thousands of Ph.D. papers about the taste of Coca Cola, but one > must drink Coca Cola in order to *know* the taste and not only > knowledge *about* the taste.> Yes. >Similarly, the spiritual truth must be > tasted in the form of a satori and not only held as intellectual > ideas. Any philosophy is a construction of mind and a subjectification of the whole, in itself it is also a part of what makes the whole what it is. > And this is a kind of relief for the intellect. The intellect now > knows that mere knowledge *about* the truth will never actually be > the same as a personal direct experience of the truth.> The intellect cannot be the experiencer, it is being known. >Something > higher must penetrate one's being in the form of an awakening, a > satori. Something higher is ones true nature and it is always there. Kind Regards, Scott. > > /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 14, 2004 Report Share Posted June 14, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > > Hi again Anders, > > > I think that intellectual ideas can be good as a foundation for > > finding the truth.> > > > Yes, I think that even the process of intellectualizing can be an > emormous help, so long as it is completely thrown away later on. > > > >But to really know the truth, then it will not do > > to only know *about* the truth, one must *become* the truth.> > > > No-One or Who can become the truth. > > Truth relies on a subject / object split. > > We don't need to find the 'truth'. > It is about identification which is not in the form of a someone or a > who. > > I know what you are getting at above though, I am just being very > specific with terms. > > Truth to me does not equate with realization, truth is *always* in > the relative subject / object level, 'in' realization there is NO > truth. > Yes, if everything is, then Truth is that everything and there cannot be anything else so when Truth has no opposite, the very term " Truth " loses its meaning. What I mean by satori is that the idea, feeling and experience of separation vanishes. An awakening to into another view of reality. > > > > >One can > > write thousands of Ph.D. papers about the taste of Coca Cola, but > one > > must drink Coca Cola in order to *know* the taste and not only > > knowledge *about* the taste.> > > > Yes. > > > >Similarly, the spiritual truth must be > > tasted in the form of a satori and not only held as intellectual > > ideas. > > > Any philosophy is a construction of mind and a subjectification of > the whole, in itself it is also a part of what makes the whole what > it is. > > > > And this is a kind of relief for the intellect. The intellect now > > knows that mere knowledge *about* the truth will never actually be > > the same as a personal direct experience of the truth.> > > > The intellect cannot be the experiencer, it is being known. > > > > >Something > > higher must penetrate one's being in the form of an awakening, a > > satori. > > > Something higher is ones true nature and it is always there. I believe there is such a thing as a satori, an awakening. To say " this is it and nothing else is reality " is a continuation of the dream of separation. So even if this something higher is already there, it is not there as a reality in my everyday life. This higher state is hidden behind a very dense ego so an ordinary person like me cannot experience the higher state even if it is there. The shell of the ego must crack open, and that is I think what satori is. /AL > > > > Kind Regards, > > > Scott. > > > > > > > /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 14, 2004 Report Share Posted June 14, 2004 Hi again Anders, > > Truth to me does not equate with realization, truth is *always* in > > the relative subject / object level, 'in' realization there is NO > > truth. >>>>>>>>>>Yes, if everything is, then Truth is that everything and there cannot > be anything else so when Truth has no opposite, the very term " Truth " > loses its meaning>>>>>>> Yes, if everything is, then truth has no meaning, it is only defined by a reflected self that defines consistencies according between it and the 'objective world it sees'. >>>> What I mean by satori is that the idea, feeling and experience of > separation vanishes. An awakening to into another view of reality.>>>>>>>>>>> It is just a label like anything, enlightenment etc. >>>>>>>>>I believe there is such a thing as a satori, an awakening. To > say " this is it and nothing else is reality " is a continuation of the > dream of separation. So even if this something higher is already > there, it is not there as a reality in my everyday life.>>>>>>>>> It is there in everyday life. >>>>>>>>>>This higher > state is hidden behind a very dense ego so an ordinary person like me > cannot experience the higher state even if it is there>>>>>>>>> The ME is the thing that is saying the above. What is the ME's 'relationship' to what you are? >>>>>>The shell of > the ego must crack open, and that is I think what satori is.>>>>>> The ego is not something to be destroyed like an egg The ME is the thing that is claiming and identifying all these problems about itself! Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 14, 2004 Report Share Posted June 14, 2004 Hi again Anders, > > Truth to me does not equate with realization, truth is *always* in > > the relative subject / object level, 'in' realization there is NO > > truth. >>>>>>>>>>Yes, if everything is, then Truth is that everything and there cannot > be anything else so when Truth has no opposite, the very term " Truth " > loses its meaning>>>>>>> Yes, if everything is, then truth has no meaning, it is only defined by a reflected self that defines consistencies according between it and the 'objective world it sees'. >>>> What I mean by satori is that the idea, feeling and experience of > separation vanishes. An awakening to into another view of reality.>>>>>>>>>>> It is just a label like anything, enlightenment etc. >>>>>>>>>I believe there is such a thing as a satori, an awakening. To > say " this is it and nothing else is reality " is a continuation of the > dream of separation. So even if this something higher is already > there, it is not there as a reality in my everyday life.>>>>>>>>> It is there in everyday life. >>>>>>>>>>This higher > state is hidden behind a very dense ego so an ordinary person like me > cannot experience the higher state even if it is there>>>>>>>>> The ME is the thing that is saying the above. What is the ME's 'relationship' to what you are? >>>>>>The shell of > the ego must crack open, and that is I think what satori is.>>>>>> The ego is not something to be destroyed like an egg The ME is the thing that is claiming and identifying all these problems about itself! Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 15, 2004 Report Share Posted June 15, 2004 Hi Anders What is Zen? Can you give me a definition? AL: I think that intellectual ideas can be good as a foundation for finding the truth. But to really know the truth, then it will not do to only know *about* the truth, one must *become* the truth. sk: There is no truth to be found or known. Nothing can become, what it already is. Nothing has never become something. There are no good or bad foundations. There is no thruth according to nothing...this nothing is all. Truth is as relative as time and space. What you experience now, for yourself, is what you are and all what is. There " is " nothing more. Don't fool yourself and others with this blabber about truth and intellectual ideas. One can write thousands of Ph.D. papers about the taste of Coca Cola, but one must drink Coca Cola in order to *know* the taste and not only knowledge *about* the taste. sk: Drink Coca Cola and enjoy it. Speak for yourself. Did you ever think, just for a moment, that possibly all those guys writing Ph.D's perhaps know already all, what you are talking here about? Did you ever get the feeling that the last ignorant person on planet earth is nobody else but you? Listen to your heart! It's your universe. Who is talking *about* something? AL: Similarly, the spiritual truth must be tasted in the form of a satori and not only held as intellectual ideas. sk: Get the satori or whatever, now! We are just waiting for you, and only you. You are the last and the first in the waiting line. AL: And this is a kind of relief for the intellect. The intellect now knows that mere knowledge *about* the truth will never actually be the same as a personal direct experience of the truth. Something higher must penetrate one's being in the form of an awakening, a satori. sk: All depends on you. Can you penetrate yourself? The intellect doesn't need relief......relief us from your intellect ) hälsningar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 15, 2004 Report Share Posted June 15, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > > Hi again Anders, > > > > Truth to me does not equate with realization, truth is *always* > in > > > the relative subject / object level, 'in' realization there is NO > > > truth. > > > >>>>>>>>>>Yes, if everything is, then Truth is that everything and > there cannot > > be anything else so when Truth has no opposite, the very > term " Truth " > > loses its meaning>>>>>>> > > > Yes, if everything is, then truth has no meaning, it is only defined > by a reflected self that defines consistencies according between it > and the 'objective world it sees'. > > > > >>>> What I mean by satori is that the idea, feeling and experience > of > > separation vanishes. An awakening to into another view of > reality.>>>>>>>>>>> > > > It is just a label like anything, enlightenment etc. > > > > > >>>>>>>>>I believe there is such a thing as a satori, an awakening. > To > > say " this is it and nothing else is reality " is a continuation of > the > > dream of separation. So even if this something higher is already > > there, it is not there as a reality in my everyday life.>>>>>>>>> > > > It is there in everyday life. > > > >>>>>>>>>>This higher > > state is hidden behind a very dense ego so an ordinary person like > me > > cannot experience the higher state even if it is there>>>>>>>>> > > > The ME is the thing that is saying the above. What is the > ME's 'relationship' to what you are? > > > >>>>>>The shell of > > the ego must crack open, and that is I think what satori is.>>>>>> > > > The ego is not something to be destroyed like an egg > The ME is the thing that is claiming and identifying all these > problems about itself! > > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. What happens if the ME stops claiming and identifying all these problems about itself? /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 15, 2004 Report Share Posted June 15, 2004 Nisargadatta , " sk000005 " <raav1@m...> wrote: > Hi Anders > > > What is Zen? Can you give me a definition? Zen as I understand it is a way to show the intellect that it is only secondary. > > > AL: I think that intellectual ideas can be good as a foundation for > finding the truth. But to really know the truth, then it will not do > to only know *about* the truth, one must *become* the truth. > > > sk: There is no truth to be found or known. Nothing can become, what > it already is. Nothing has never become something. There are no good > or bad foundations. There is no thruth according to nothing...this > nothing is all. Truth is as relative as time and space. What you > experience now, for yourself, is what you are and all what is. > There " is " nothing more. Don't fool yourself and others with this > blabber about truth and intellectual ideas. If you are so sure about that there is no truth to be found or known, what are you writing about then? You seem to claim that the statement " There is no truth to be found or known " in itself is the truth. How can you do that if there is no truth to be found or known? > > > One can write thousands of Ph.D. papers about the taste of Coca > Cola, but one must drink Coca Cola in order to *know* the taste and > not only knowledge *about* the taste. > > > sk: Drink Coca Cola and enjoy it. Speak for yourself. Did you ever > think, just for a moment, that possibly all those guys writing > Ph.D's perhaps know already all, what you are talking here about? > Did you ever get the feeling that the last ignorant person on planet > earth is nobody else but you? Listen to your heart! It's your > universe. Who is talking *about* something? I think there is a difference between most professors and people like Krishnamurti, Osho and other " Sages " . The Sages seem to have transcended the intellect. I am curios about if this really is possible. > > > AL: Similarly, the spiritual truth must be tasted in the form of a > satori and not only held as intellectual ideas. > > > sk: Get the satori or whatever, now! We are just waiting for you, > and only you. You are the last and the first in the waiting line. I (the personal me) am not the one making me wake up from a dreamless deep sleep state, and I guess I am equally powerless when it comes to creating a satori. > > > AL: And this is a kind of relief for the intellect. The intellect > now knows that mere knowledge *about* the truth will never actually > be the same as a personal direct experience of the truth. Something > higher must penetrate one's being in the form of an awakening, a > satori. > > > sk: All depends on you. Can you penetrate yourself? The intellect > doesn't need relief......relief us from your intellect ) Hehe. :-) /AL > > > hälsningar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 15, 2004 Report Share Posted June 15, 2004 > > I (the personal me) am not the one making me wake up from a dreamless > deep sleep state, and I guess I am equally powerless when it comes to > creating a satori. I must reply to myself here: Who is this personal me not able to create a satori? And who is this me who is aware of this me thinking itself not able to create a satori? And who is aware of the one being aware of a personal me not able to create a satori? And on, and on, ... The observer observing the observer obsering the observer, only that the " observer " here is just thought, only the intellect. There is no need to think about thinking about thinking... It is all just the intellect trying to catch its own tail. :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 15, 2004 Report Share Posted June 15, 2004 Hi Anders AL: Zen as I understand it is a way to show the intellect that it is only secondary. sk: LOL! AL: If you are so sure about that there is no truth to be found or known, what are you writing about then? You seem to claim that the statement " There is no truth to be found or known " in itself is the truth. How can you do that if there is no truth to be found or known? sk: Aaah! Finally a response, which is worth to be called so:) Re- read my answer to you...the point is, actually, that I don't claim anything and, more than ever truth, whatever that might be. Just having fun, dancing a while with you AL: I think there is a difference between most professors and people like Krishnamurti, Osho and other " Sages " . The Sages seem to have transcended the intellect. I am curios about if this really is possible. sk: There are a lot of " sages " around you. You just have to listen. Some clean up public toilettes, others, publish in scientifical journals. You will be surprised, there are no differences. Only different ways in telling the same thing. AL: I (the personal me) am not the one making me wake up from a dreamless deep sleep state, and I guess I am equally powerless when it comes to creating a satori. sk: Who wakes you up every morning? Does the alarm-clock wake up or is it you, who wakes up? What creates what? How much time will you spend waiting to see an alarm-clock waking up? LOL! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 15, 2004 Report Share Posted June 15, 2004 Nisargadatta , " sk000005 " <raav1@m...> wrote: > Hi Anders > > > AL: Zen as I understand it is a way to show the intellect that it is > only secondary. > > > sk: LOL! > > > AL: If you are so sure about that there is no truth to be found or > known, what are you writing about then? You seem to claim that the > statement " There is no truth to be found or known " in itself is the > truth. How can you do that if there is no truth to be found or known? > > > sk: Aaah! Finally a response, which is worth to be called so:) Re- > read my answer to you...the point is, actually, that I don't claim > anything and, more than ever truth, whatever that might be. > Just having fun, dancing a while with you > > > AL: I think there is a difference between most professors and people > like Krishnamurti, Osho and other " Sages " . The Sages seem to have > transcended the intellect. I am curios about if this really is > possible. > > > sk: There are a lot of " sages " around you. You just have to listen. > Some clean up public toilettes, others, publish in scientifical > journals. You will be surprised, there are no differences. Only > different ways in telling the same thing. > > > AL: I (the personal me) am not the one making me wake up from a > dreamless deep sleep state, and I guess I am equally powerless when > it comes to creating a satori. > > > sk: Who wakes you up every morning? Does the alarm-clock wake up or > is it you, who wakes up? What creates what? How much time will you > spend waiting to see an alarm-clock waking up? > > > LOL! Waking up in the morning? Me? All there is is now, there never has been any past! An alarm-clock waking up? When? There is only now, and nothing can wake up now because what is now is already fully awake. Even an alarm-clock. Nothing has ever been asleep. There has never been a past. LOL! :-) Did you sleep last night? NO. There is only now. Memory of having been asleep or awake yesterday is not the same as really having been asleep or awake yesterday. What yesterday? There is only now. You have lived, not for so and so many years, you have lived _zero_ seconds! You have only ever been now. There is no such thing as a past moment, a past now. There will never be a future now. Contemplate this for " a while " , will you? /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 15, 2004 Report Share Posted June 15, 2004 Hi Anders AL: Waking up in the morning? Me? All there is is now, there never has been any past! An alarm-clock waking up? When? There is only now, and nothing can wake up now because what is now is already fully awake. Even an alarm-clock. Nothing has ever been asleep. There has never been a past. LOL! :-) sk: Excellent! ... and, there is not even a " now " to hold on. AL: Did you sleep last night? NO. There is only now. sk: ditto! Memory of having been asleep or awake yesterday is not the same as really having been asleep or awake yesterday. What yesterday? There is only now. You have lived, not for so and so many years, you have lived _zero_seconds! You have only ever been now. There is no such thing as a past moment, a past now. There will never be a future now. Contemplate this for " a while " , will you? sk: I have contemplated that many times. What you say about the " time-and-now-thingy " is, and I said it before, in my opinion, correct. Anyhow, I don't agree with most of the conclusion you draw out of this insight. This way we have, at least, something to talk about. LOL! MvH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 15, 2004 Report Share Posted June 15, 2004 Nisargadatta , " sk000005 " <raav1@m...> wrote: > Hi Anders > > AL: Waking up in the morning? Me? All there is is now, there never > has been any past! An alarm-clock waking up? When? There is only > now, and nothing can wake up now because what is now is already > fully awake. Even an alarm-clock. Nothing has ever been asleep. > There has never been a past. LOL! :-) > > sk: Excellent! ... and, there is not even a " now " to hold on. > > AL: Did you sleep last night? NO. There is only now. > > sk: ditto! > > Memory of having been asleep or awake yesterday is not the same as > really having been asleep or awake yesterday. What yesterday? There > is only now. You have lived, not for so and so many years, you have > lived _zero_seconds! You have only ever been now. There is no such > thing as a past moment, a past now. There will never be a future > now. Contemplate this for " a while " , will you? > > sk: I have contemplated that many times. What you say about > the " time-and-now-thingy " is, and I said it before, in my opinion, > correct. Anyhow, I don't agree with most of the conclusion you draw > out of this insight. > > This way we have, at least, something to talk about. LOL! > > MvH Hi sk, No, you have not contemplated that many times. You have contemplated that _zero_ times. The memory containing the idea, experience and feelings of you having contemplated something is " created " now, or, rather, _appear_ now. There is only now. There is no past 'now' where you have done anything including you contemplating something. /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 15, 2004 Report Share Posted June 15, 2004 Hi again Anders, > What happens if the ME stops claiming and identifying all these > problems about itself? > 'The' ME... ME, what 'we' are talking about as a ME becomes quiet, and then vanishes as what you are. It never was / is ( real ). Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 15, 2004 Report Share Posted June 15, 2004 Hi Anders, > > I (the personal me) am not the one making me wake up from a > dreamless > > deep sleep state, and I guess I am equally powerless when it comes > to > > creating a satori. <<> I must reply to myself here:>> What a good idea! ) Now, I must reply to you replying to yourself also! > Who is this personal me not able to create a satori?>>> Great question!! >>>And who is this > me who is aware of this me thinking itself not able to create a > satori?>>>>>> Another great question!! >>>>>And who is aware of the one being aware of a personal me not > able to create a satori?>>>>>> Another great question!! >>>And on, and on, ... The observer observing > the observer obsering the observer, only that the " observer " here is > just thought, only the intellect.>>>>> Hah??? >>>>There is no need to think about > thinking about thinking... It is all just the intellect trying to > catch its own tail. :-)>>>>> Have you caught it yet? Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 16, 2004 Report Share Posted June 16, 2004 Hej på Dig, Anders! AL: Contemplate this for " a while " , will you? sk: I have contemplated that many times AL: No, you have not contemplated that many times. You have contemplated that _zero_ times. sk: LOL! AL: The memory containing the idea, experience and feelings of you having contemplated something is " created " now, or, rather, _appear_ now. sk:...projections are generated moment to moment and we talk about them. Like talking about the last movie we both could have seen together. It's nothing wrong with that! The same happens, if we would talk about a book both of us have read. Different interpretations, the same book. No writer has ever written this book, we are talking about here. We are the book, the author, publishing company, the reader and the reviewer. The paper, consciousness. Awareness, the absence of it all. AL: There is only now. There is no past 'now' where you have done anything including you contemplating something. sk: You could write a song, perhaps! Instead of " Only You " you could call it " Only Now " . You wouldn't need to rewrite the text nor the melody, I guess always kidding sk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 16, 2004 Report Share Posted June 16, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > > Hi again Anders, > > > > What happens if the ME stops claiming and identifying all these > > problems about itself? > > > > 'The' ME... > ME, what 'we' are talking about as a ME becomes quiet, and then > vanishes as what you are. It never was / is ( real ). > > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. That must be a strange experience! Osho talked about intuition as a kind of natural state where the intellect is only used as a tool instead of being the 'master' in one's life. /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 16, 2004 Report Share Posted June 16, 2004 Hi again, > > > What happens if the ME stops claiming and identifying all these > > > problems about itself? > > > > > > > 'The' ME... > > ME, what 'we' are talking about as a ME becomes quiet, and then > > vanishes as what you are. It never was / is ( real ). > > > > > > Kind Regards, > > > > Scott. > That must be a strange experience!>>> It is a ME that thinks so. >Osho talked about intuition as a > kind of natural state where the intellect is only used as a tool > instead of being the 'master' in one's life.>>>>> What *IS* intuition? Mind; I.e Thought pushes and pulls 'empty bodies' to and from objects, events and things; like and dislike, love and hate, big and small. Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 16, 2004 Report Share Posted June 16, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > > Hi Anders, > > > > I (the personal me) am not the one making me wake up from a > > dreamless > > > deep sleep state, and I guess I am equally powerless when it > comes > > to > > > creating a satori. > > > <<> I must reply to myself here:>> > > > What a good idea! ) > > > Now, I must reply to you replying to yourself also! > > > > Who is this personal me not able to create a satori?>>> > > > Great question!! > > > >>>And who is this > > me who is aware of this me thinking itself not able to create a > > satori?>>>>>> > > > Another great question!! > > > > >>>>>And who is aware of the one being aware of a personal me not > > able to create a satori?>>>>>> > > > Another great question!! > > > >>>And on, and on, ... The observer observing > > the observer obsering the observer, only that the " observer " here > is > > just thought, only the intellect.>>>>> > > > Hah??? > > > >>>>There is no need to think about > > thinking about thinking... It is all just the intellect trying to > > catch its own tail. :-)>>>>> > > > Have you caught it yet? Yes, the timeless now has caught it. :-) /AL > > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 16, 2004 Report Share Posted June 16, 2004 Nisargadatta , " sk000005 " <raav1@m...> wrote: > Hej på Dig, Anders! > > AL: Contemplate this for " a while " , will you? > > sk: I have contemplated that many times > > AL: No, you have not contemplated that many times. You have > contemplated that _zero_ times. > > sk: LOL! > > AL: The memory containing the idea, experience and > feelings of you having contemplated something is " created " now, or, > rather, _appear_ now. > > sk:...projections are generated moment to moment and we talk about > them. Like talking about the last movie we both could have seen > together. It's nothing wrong with that! The same happens, if we would > talk about a book both of us have read. Different interpretations, > the same book. No writer has ever written this book, we are talking > about here. We are the book, the author, publishing company, the > reader and the reviewer. The paper, consciousness. Awareness, the > absence of it all. > > AL: There is only now. There is no past 'now' where you have done > anything including you contemplating something. > > sk: You could write a song, perhaps! Instead of " Only You " you could > call it " Only Now " . You wouldn't need to rewrite the text nor the > melody, I guess > > > always kidding > sk Yes, the past is very much an experience that in itself is real, and it could be that time begun from a timeless state, i.e. from a state where nothing moved, motion appeared. In a state where there is no time and nothing that moves, what could start moving? I don't know, so this is not my strongest belief. Scientist cannot solve this problem other than people like Julian Barbour who describes the universe as being timeless. My strongest belief is that time began now. So Elvis Presley is " created " now, only now. This gives a completely different view about life and death. Is Elvis Presley dead when he is being created now? Isn't it more probable that the material world is nothing in itself, that there never has been any human beings? All human beings are now, only now. The material world is only a static lifeless history track created now. That is why I say that my body is already dead. It has never been alive. It has never been any " thing " . And it will never be a " thing " . It may be an upside view of reality to take the material world as being real in the sense of having any substance whatsoever. /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 16, 2004 Report Share Posted June 16, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > > Hi again, > > > > > > What happens if the ME stops claiming and identifying all these > > > > problems about itself? > > > > > > > > > > 'The' ME... > > > ME, what 'we' are talking about as a ME becomes quiet, and then > > > vanishes as what you are. It never was / is ( real ). > > > > > > > > > Kind Regards, > > > > > > Scott. > > > > > That must be a strange experience!>>> > > > It is a ME that thinks so. > > > >Osho talked about intuition as a > > kind of natural state where the intellect is only used as a tool > > instead of being the 'master' in one's life.>>>>> > > > What *IS* intuition? > > Mind; I.e Thought pushes and pulls 'empty bodies' to and from > objects, events and things; like and dislike, love and hate, big and > small. > > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. I think intuition is a higher state of being that the intellect. Intuition includes and embraces the intellect. Just as molecules are " higher " than atoms, and cells are " higher " than molecules, so is intuition " higher " than the intellect. Molecules contain atoms, but atoms cannot contain molecules. /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 16, 2004 Report Share Posted June 16, 2004 Hi again, > I think intuition is a higher state of being that the intellect. > Intuition includes and embraces the intellect. Just as molecules > are " higher " than atoms, and cells are " higher " than molecules, so is > intuition " higher " than the intellect. Molecules contain atoms, but > atoms cannot contain molecules.>> If intuition is a 'higher state' than the intellect how then can you *think* about it? My point is, WHY does it matter *what* intuition is if you don't know what you are? Which is the best brand of pepper? Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 16, 2004 Report Share Posted June 16, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > > Hi again, > > > > I think intuition is a higher state of being that the intellect. > > Intuition includes and embraces the intellect. Just as molecules > > are " higher " than atoms, and cells are " higher " than molecules, so > is > > intuition " higher " than the intellect. Molecules contain atoms, but > > atoms cannot contain molecules.>> > > > > If intuition is a 'higher state' than the intellect how then can you > *think* about it? > > My point is, WHY does it matter *what* intuition is if you don't know > what you are? I think intuition is the direct knowing of what one is. /AL > > Which is the best brand of pepper? > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 16, 2004 Report Share Posted June 16, 2004 Hi again, > > If intuition is a 'higher state' than the intellect how then can > you > > *think* about it? > > > > My point is, WHY does it matter *what* intuition is if you don't > know > > what you are? > > I think intuition is the direct knowing of what one is. It is a ME that thinks so! Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 17, 2004 Report Share Posted June 17, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > > Hi again, > > > > > If intuition is a 'higher state' than the intellect how then can > > you > > > *think* about it? > > > > > > My point is, WHY does it matter *what* intuition is if you don't > > know > > > what you are? > > > > I think intuition is the direct knowing of what one is. > > > It is a ME that thinks so! > > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. It is Totality that thinks so! :-) Real separation is in fact impossible. If something was _really_ separate then it would not be a part of existence. Existence is an interrelated wholeness. /AL 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.