Guest guest Report post Posted January 11, 2005 No, this is not about the Internet, or any advance in human communication. This is about information itself. Inf. in its most rudimentary form: the transmission of change from one quantum field to another. It's obvious, that for information to have occurred a change of some kind must have taken place. For example the transmission of spin from particle A to particle B. Viewed in this way, energy itself is information. Quantum information laws form a consistency network that creates all fields, particles and even space/time itself. So, we could correctly label phenomena as information instead of energy/matter. It's been shown that large scale quantum fields could be used in computation. Therefore, the theory that these fields are involved in the creation of conscious states has, if still unproved, some experimental backup in the field of computer science. Consciousness might very well be only a self-referential inf. system. Information, reaching critical mass, and exploding into self awareness. You could agree, add to, subtract from, alter, or reject in totality this theory, but just by reading it, your brain, the very universe has changed in a very small way, even among the noise and clatter of language and opinions, some information, even if corrupted, has bridged the abysmal gap between me and you. Pete Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 11, 2005 In a message dated 1/11/05 6:31:14 PM, anders_lindman writes: > Hi Pete, > > >I read that scientists working on understanding the universe are > >beginning to see everything as information being processed. Even black > >holes are considered to be information processing 'entities'. > Hi Al, P: Yes, very much so. Until recently it was believed that quantum inf. was for ever lost when it fell through the event horizon of a black hole, but now even Steve Hawking admitted that quantum inf.. leaks out of a black hole. I don't know if any scientist has gone as far as saying that black holes process inf. but at least it proves that inf., can't be completed destroyed. This gives more credence to the theory that what we call inf. and energy are aspects of the behavior of quantum fields and particles. > > >And it's a good analogy to think of the universe as a gigantic > >information process. When we make a mental picture of information, we > think of it as something that itself has no substance, no solidity. > >Information is always represented by something else, like a memory > chip inside a computer. What scientist now are coming to, is to see > >the memory chip itself as information. All matter is information. > > >A human being - including the physical body - is a program running > inside - or rather, being a part of - a bigger program we call the > >universe. > P: Yes, one way to look at it (only a theory) is that the universe is a brew of quantum probabilities which gets collapsed by each observer into his/her individual perceptual universe. > > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 12, 2005 Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: > No, this is not about the Internet, or any advance > in human communication. This is about information > itself. Inf. in its most rudimentary form: the transmission > of change from one quantum field to another. It's > obvious, that for information to have occurred a change > of some kind must have taken place. For example the > transmission of spin from particle A to particle B. Viewed > in this way, energy itself is information. > > Quantum information laws form a consistency network that > creates all fields, particles and even space/time itself. So, > we could correctly label phenomena as information instead > of energy/matter. It's been shown that large scale quantum > fields could be used in computation. Therefore, the theory > that these fields are involved in the creation of conscious states > has, if still unproved, some experimental backup in the field > of computer science. > > Consciousness might very well be only a self-referential inf. > system. Information, reaching critical mass, and exploding > into self awareness. > You could agree, add to, subtract from, alter, or reject > in totality this theory, but just by reading it, your brain, > the very universe has changed in a very small > way, even among the noise and clatter of language and > opinions, some information, even if corrupted, has bridged > the abysmal gap between me and you. > > Pete > Hi Pete, I read that scientists working on understanding the universe are beginning to see everything as information being processed. Even black holes are considered to be information processing 'entities'. And it's a good analogy to think of the universe as a gigantic information process. When we make a mental picture of information, we think of it as something that itself has no substance, no solidity. Information is always represented by something else, like a memory chip inside a computer. What scientist now are coming to, is to see the memory chip itself as information. All matter is information. A human being - including the physical body - is a program running inside - or rather, being a part of - a bigger program we call the universe. /AL Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 12, 2005 In a message dated 1/12/05 9:33:11 AM, anders_lindman writes: > Maybe there is only one observer? > P: There is none. Observation happens when organized inf. reaches a threshold. Then memory traces an imaginary line connecting pass observations, that line is mistakenly taken as the observer. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 12, 2005 In a message dated 1/12/05 11:54:13 AM, anders_lindman writes: > P: There is none. Observation happens > > when organized inf. reaches a threshold. > > Then memory traces an imaginary line > > connecting pass observations, that line > > is mistakenly taken as the observer. > > > > > > A: Maybe not. Information is discrete pieces: 'this' and 'that', '0' > and '1' e t c. Something fragmented like information can never make up > a wholeness, yet existence is a wholeness; it is a web. Information > exists _within_ a no-thing holding it. That no-thing is perhaps the > observer. Information cannot see itself. > > P: My reply was a theory, your reply is a theory. Theories are > good only to free us from more constraining beliefs, but if they take their place, then it's all useless, unless we want just a past-time. > > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 12, 2005 Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: > > In a message dated 1/11/05 6:31:14 PM, anders_lindman writes: > > > > Hi Pete, > > > > >I read that scientists working on understanding the universe are > > >beginning to see everything as information being processed. Even black > > >holes are considered to be information processing 'entities'. > > > Hi Al, > > P: Yes, very much so. Until recently it was believed that quantum > inf. > was for ever lost when it fell through the event horizon of a black > hole, > but now even Steve Hawking admitted that quantum inf.. leaks out of a > black hole. I don't know if any scientist has gone as far as saying that > black holes process inf. but at least it proves that inf., can't be > completed > destroyed. This gives more credence to the theory that what we call > inf. and energy are aspects of the behavior of quantum fields and > particles. > > > > > >And it's a good analogy to think of the universe as a gigantic > > >information process. When we make a mental picture of information, we > > think of it as something that itself has no substance, no solidity. > > >Information is always represented by something else, like a memory > > chip inside a computer. What scientist now are coming to, is to see > > >the memory chip itself as information. All matter is information. > > > > >A human being - including the physical body - is a program running > > inside - or rather, being a part of - a bigger program we call the > > >universe. > > > P: Yes, one way to look at it (only a theory) is that the universe is a > brew of quantum probabilities which gets collapsed by each observer > into his/her individual perceptual universe. > > > > Maybe there is only one observer? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 12, 2005 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: > > > > In a message dated 1/11/05 6:31:14 PM, anders_lindman writes: > > > > > > > Hi Pete, > > > > > > >I read that scientists working on understanding the universe are > > > >beginning to see everything as information being processed. Even > black > > > >holes are considered to be information processing 'entities'. > > > > > Hi Al, > > > > P: Yes, very much so. Until recently it was believed that > quantum > > inf. > > was for ever lost when it fell through the event horizon of a > black > > hole, > > but now even Steve Hawking admitted that quantum inf.. leaks out of a > > black hole. I don't know if any scientist has gone as far as saying that > > black holes process inf. but at least it proves that inf., can't be > > completed > > destroyed. This gives more credence to the theory that what we call > > inf. and energy are aspects of the behavior of quantum fields and > > particles. > > > > > > > > >And it's a good analogy to think of the universe as a gigantic > > > >information process. When we make a mental picture of information, we > > > think of it as something that itself has no substance, no solidity. > > > >Information is always represented by something else, like a memory > > > chip inside a computer. What scientist now are coming to, is to see > > > >the memory chip itself as information. All matter is information. > > > > > > >A human being - including the physical body - is a program running > > > inside - or rather, being a part of - a bigger program we call the > > > >universe. > > > > > P: Yes, one way to look at it (only a theory) is that the universe is a > > brew of quantum probabilities which gets collapsed by each > observer > > into his/her individual perceptual universe. Could you think of a group of two dimentional symbols to represent the above.... that we could use to help Coco understand her own conundrum a little better? t. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 12, 2005 Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: > > In a message dated 1/12/05 9:33:11 AM, anders_lindman writes: > > > > Maybe there is only one observer? > > > > P: There is none. Observation happens > when organized inf. reaches a threshold. > Then memory traces an imaginary line > connecting pass observations, that line > is mistakenly taken as the observer. > > A: Maybe not. Information is discrete pieces: 'this' and 'that', '0' and '1' e t c. Something fragmented like information can never make up a wholeness, yet existence is a wholeness; it is a web. Information exists _within_ a no-thing holding it. That no-thing is perhaps the observer. Information cannot see itself. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 13, 2005 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: > > > > In a message dated 1/12/05 9:33:11 AM, anders_lindman writes: > > > > > > > Maybe there is only one observer? > > > > > > > P: There is none. Observation happens > > when organized inf. reaches a threshold. > > Then memory traces an imaginary line > > connecting pass observations, that line > > is mistakenly taken as the observer. > > > > > > A: Maybe not. Information is discrete pieces: 'this' and 'that', '0' > and '1' e t c. Something fragmented like information can never make up > a wholeness, yet existence is a wholeness; it is a web. Information > exists _within_ a no-thing holding it. That no-thing is perhaps the > observer. Information cannot see itself. ************************* That is good Al! Don't be fouled by anyone, no one! If you see the buddha, kill the buddha! You are the one who needs to know, not Master Nis or Ramana. Get in yourself, deep within. Truth is yours, trust your " Self " let it shine. Odysseus, Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 13, 2005 Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: >Theories are >good only to free us from more constraining beliefs, but if they >take their place, then it's all useless, unless we want >just a past-time. Oh yes, dont forget to throw away both thorns once you have pulled one with another. And the third one too. Greetings S. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 13, 2005 Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: >In a message dated 1/12/05 9:33:11 AM, anders_lindman writes: > >>Maybe there is only one observer? >> > >P: There is none. Observation happens >when organized inf. reaches a threshold. >Then memory traces an imaginary line >connecting pass observations, that line >is mistakenly taken as the observer. Hi Pete, this theory is totally meaningless because it leaves one decisive question: WHO or WHAT does mistakenly take that line as the observer? And there we are again and so it could go on forever... The other paradoxon arises when we ask the question how the above could have been written without an observing entity. So: logically we have to accept the observer. When there is no observer then there is no world. When there is world-knowledge then there is an observer. Intellectually it is impossible to deny the observer, because the one who is making the statement would negate himself and the statement itself. This does not make any sense and is useless. Only if we come to the end of world-knowledge can we transcend the observer and the observed. Greetings S. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 13, 2005 Hi Stefan, Allow me to join because it is a interesting topic. I my understanding there is no observer and never was one. The observer is the observed, no matter if one calls it the world or mind or thought. The " observer " is an illusion caused by thought separating itself from the content of consciouseness without realizing that it is itself just another content again. This not realizing being just another content of consciousness, so an object, causes the illusion of being the subject in relation to objects. So it doesn't matter if there is a thought arising taking the position of the observer in relation to the seen. The seen is the seen, constantly changing and the world is the world with or without an illussionary observer. The content remains the same, if thought separates itself from it taking the position of being the (illusionary) subject, or if it doesn't. Werner Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@c...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: > > >In a message dated 1/12/05 9:33:11 AM, anders_lindman writes: > > > >>Maybe there is only one observer? > >> > > > >P: There is none. Observation happens > >when organized inf. reaches a threshold. > >Then memory traces an imaginary line > >connecting pass observations, that line > >is mistakenly taken as the observer. > > Hi Pete, this theory is totally meaningless because it leaves one > decisive question: > > WHO or WHAT does mistakenly take that line as the observer? > > And there we are again and so it could go on forever... > > The other paradoxon arises when we ask the question how the above > could have been written without an observing entity. > > So: logically we have to accept the observer. > When there is no observer then there is no world. > When there is world-knowledge then there is an observer. > > Intellectually it is impossible to deny the observer, because the one > who is making the statement would negate himself and the statement > itself. This does not make any sense and is useless. > > Only if we come to the end of world-knowledge can we transcend the > observer and the observed. > > Greetings > S. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 13, 2005 Werner Woehr wrote: > > Hi Stefan, > > Allow me to join because it is a interesting topic. > > I my understanding there is no observer and never was one. The > observer is the observed, no matter if one calls it the world or mind > or thought. The " observer " is an illusion caused by thought > separating itself from the content of consciouseness without > realizing that it is itself just another content again. This not > realizing being just another content of consciousness, so an object, > causes the illusion of being the subject in relation to objects. > > So it doesn't matter if there is a thought arising taking the > position of the observer in relation to the seen. The seen is the > seen, constantly changing and the world is the world with or without > an illussionary observer. > > The content remains the same, if thought separates itself from it > taking the position of being the (illusionary) subject, or if it > doesn't. > > Werner Hi Stefan and Werner, Would you like to go for a walk? Here's the path. It is green and verdant but later becomes barren and desolate as it should for life to spring anew.... After posting thoughts about the brain model introduced by Pete and reading Odysseus's remarks on the Nisargadatta list about its relevance here, I am moved to present other models for examination. The two models are that of Advaita Vedanta and Madhyamika or Madhyamaka. Let's see if we can achieve a mutual understanding and then go on from there. Take a look and let me know where corrections and tweaking needs to be done. All models stand on foundational assumptions upon which the creators of these models build an edifice of thought, concept and practice. If the foundational assumptions are clearly understood, one can see the edifice for what it is. The whole edifice comes down when the foundational assumptions are removed. For example, the Orch OR model of consciousness and others like it, have the foundational assumption of materialist monism or that all existence, all substance underlying appearance is physical matter/energy that operates according to laws known and unknown or yet to be discovered. This assumption upon close examination has no certainty, as all models have no certainty, and therefore, it tumbles with the removal of its foundational assumption(s). The magic wand to make it disappear is to ask how does one conclusively demonstrate that all things are physical? If there is a physical must not' there be a spiritual and how can you account for that which is not present in your model? The answer is that no such final demonstration of the singularity of the physical can be made in words, concepts or by experiment. The question cannot be answered. So the model collapses to become one story among many. Just a story that can be used for various purposes. So what of Advaita Vedanta and Madhyamika or Madhyamaka? Advaita Vedanta, in its various versions, is a model based on the foundational assumptions of either an absolute monism where there is one infinite, immaterial, and unchanging substance or existence. Or one infinite, immaterial, and unchanging substrate of existence that extends or manifests as subatomic particles that are infinite and changing aspects that form the various appearances. Or the interaction between an eternal, infinite, and immaterial consciousness (Purusha) and non-conscious primordial energy including sub-atomic particles (Prakriti). This assumption places in the human appearance an infinite, immaterial, and unchanging extension called an Atman or atman. It is goal of this model to realize Atman, an infinite, immaterial, attribute less, awareness or consciousness as it variously defined. These appear to be the foundational assumptions upon which the edifice of Advaita Vedanta, a metaphysical model, is erected and maintained. Madhyamika or Madhyamaka, as formulated by Nagarjuna, is a very different model than Advaita Vedanta. Its foundational assumption is more complex, but nonetheless an assumption. Also, Madhyamika or Madhyamaka is not metaphysical system or model as is Advaita Vedanta. As it is, Madhyamika or Madhyamaka is an analytical philosophy that focuses exclusively on concepts and language. It has no model or concept of reality as does Advaita Vedanta. It is impossible for this philosophy to describe reality. Nevertheless, in Madhyamika or Madhyamaka, reality is experiential, with no distinctions, with no speech, language or concept, and it quiescent. This is usually misrepresented as " void. " In Madhyamika, no word, thought, concept in any way is allowed to be made in reference to reality in itself and this is Madhyamika's foundational assumption, that language and concept have absolutely nothing to do with reality. If one speaks, describes, or makes models of reality in any way you and believe them to be reality or to represent reality in any way or use them in thinking about reality, you are lost. Asking for information about the Madhyamika reality is rebuffed. Such questions or inquiries are unanswerable, because of the assumption and, therefore are not considered (valid) questions. How can such an assumption be made? Easily, by simply doing so and in this case with authority born of the analytics that enable any well studied practitioner to silence any one else by using their own language and conceptualizations to undermine certainty in all of their and other thought systems, dismantling them to become the reality of Madhyamika as described above. It is similar to modern sciences attempt to silence religions. Both are non-metaphysical systems of thought and practice. So, it is important to note, that this does not mean that Madhyamika reality is beyond words and concepts. Such a statement would be fine for Advaita Vedanta, but not in the practice of Madhyamika. Thinking, dealing with concepts, as we are doing here, is not dealing with reality in Madhyamika. This is, in the Madhyamika practice, a futile effort if it is directed in any way as an attempt to represent reality. In Madhyamika there is no Brahman, Atman, soul, self, or any thing conceptual or metaphysical because of its fundamental assumption. There are no quanta or information bits swirling around. Instead there is a revelation experienced after the cessation of the co-dependent arising of thoughts, concepts, language, that is when there is sunyata or " emptiness " (empty of content [nairatmya] but having existence [abhava]). This is not achieved or not achieved, made with effort or unmade with effort, known or unknown and so on. So it is that Madhyamikas are conceptually undecided about realities; there is nothing to say about that for them. So where does this leave us? Well, we could use Madhyamika to eliminate all the conceptual models in the universe in one fell wave of the mind, including Advaita Vedanta. We can then stop assuming Madhyamika foundational assumption and put down its singular capacity to silence all or smile at not being silenced by its singular focus on concept and language at the expense of experience and living freely. Instead, we can learn well from Madhyamika rise up from sunyata, which we share with ease, to create an enjoy the worlds of ours and others making, doing the best we can with others, harming no one and no thing's appearance as best as we are able. We could do the opposite too. From these assumptions also come the body of concepts and practices. The concepts are not necessary unless you want to go over them for they all come from the foundational assumptions. All those matters usually are a confusion. Nisargadatta is a good example of cleaning up the house and going to the point. If these assumptions are clearly understood the practices should be simple and straightforward. The practices could also be explored to see if there are more efficient ways to realize Atman or sunyata or ........ What do you say? At the ready, Lewis P.S. If one holds tightly or attachedly to the assumptions of models, stories, like the above and this endless conversation occurs automatically without end: Advaita Vedanta: Self Madhyamika: Hmmm. Co-dependent origination! no Self. Advaita Vedanta: Self Madhyamika: Well, Co-dependent origination! no Self. Advaita Vedanta: Self Madhyamika: But, Co-dependent origination! no Self. Advaita Vedanta: Self Madhyamika: See, Co-dependent origination! no Self. Advaita Vedanta: Self Madhyamika: However, Co-dependent origination! no Self. Advaita Vedanta: Self Madhyamika: Nevertheless. Co-dependent origination! no Self. Advaita Vedanta: Self Madhyamika: In other words, Co-dependent origination! no Self......... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 13, 2005 Hi Lewis, Thanks for joining. I just read half of what you wrote then I gave up - to complicated. I cannot share your demonstration of hmmmm, what ? What do you want to tell ? Can you tell it with simple words ? If not it is ok with me. Every bird just has its own song. Werner Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > Werner Woehr wrote: > > > > > Hi Stefan, > > > > Allow me to join because it is a interesting topic. > > > > I my understanding there is no observer and never was one. The > > observer is the observed, no matter if one calls it the world or mind > > or thought. The " observer " is an illusion caused by thought > > separating itself from the content of consciouseness without > > realizing that it is itself just another content again. This not > > realizing being just another content of consciousness, so an object, > > causes the illusion of being the subject in relation to objects. > > > > So it doesn't matter if there is a thought arising taking the > > position of the observer in relation to the seen. The seen is the > > seen, constantly changing and the world is the world with or without > > an illussionary observer. > > > > The content remains the same, if thought separates itself from it > > taking the position of being the (illusionary) subject, or if it > > doesn't. > > > > Werner > > Hi Stefan and Werner, > > Would you like to go for a walk? Here's the path. It is green and > verdant but later becomes barren and desolate as it should for life to > spring anew.... > > After posting thoughts about the brain model introduced by Pete and > reading Odysseus's remarks on the Nisargadatta list about its relevance > here, I am moved to present other models for examination. The two models > are that of Advaita Vedanta and Madhyamika or Madhyamaka. Let's see if > we can achieve a mutual understanding and then go on from there. Take a > look and let me know where corrections and tweaking needs to be done. > > All models stand on foundational assumptions upon which the creators of > these models build an edifice of thought, concept and practice. If the > foundational assumptions are clearly understood, one can see the > edifice for what it is. The whole edifice comes down when the > foundational assumptions are removed. > > For example, the Orch OR model of consciousness and others like it, have > the foundational assumption of materialist monism or that all existence, > all substance underlying appearance is physical matter/energy that > operates according to laws known and unknown or yet to be discovered. > This assumption upon close examination has no certainty, as all models > have no certainty, and therefore, it tumbles with the removal of its > foundational assumption(s). The magic wand to make it disappear is to > ask how does one conclusively demonstrate that all things are physical? > If there is a physical must not' there be a spiritual and how can you > account for that which is not present in your model? > > The answer is that no such final demonstration of the singularity of the > physical can be made in words, concepts or by experiment. The question > cannot be answered. So the model collapses to become one story among > many. Just a story that can be used for various purposes. > > So what of Advaita Vedanta and Madhyamika or Madhyamaka? Advaita > Vedanta, in its various versions, is a model based on the foundational > assumptions of either an absolute monism where there is one infinite, > immaterial, and unchanging substance or existence. > > Or one infinite, immaterial, and unchanging substrate of existence that > extends or manifests as subatomic particles that are infinite and > changing aspects that form the various appearances. > > Or the interaction between an eternal, infinite, and immaterial > consciousness (Purusha) and non-conscious primordial energy including > sub-atomic particles (Prakriti). > > This assumption places in the human appearance an infinite, immaterial, > and unchanging extension called an Atman or atman. It is goal of this > model to realize Atman, an infinite, immaterial, attribute less, > awareness or consciousness as it variously defined. These appear to be > the foundational assumptions upon which the edifice of Advaita Vedanta, > a metaphysical model, is erected and maintained. > > Madhyamika or Madhyamaka, as formulated by Nagarjuna, is a very > different model than Advaita Vedanta. Its foundational assumption is > more complex, but nonetheless an assumption. Also, Madhyamika or > Madhyamaka is not metaphysical system or model as is Advaita Vedanta. As > it is, Madhyamika or Madhyamaka is an analytical philosophy that focuses > exclusively on concepts and language. It has no model or concept of > reality as does Advaita Vedanta. It is impossible for this philosophy to > describe reality. > > Nevertheless, in Madhyamika or Madhyamaka, reality is experiential, with > no distinctions, with no speech, language or concept, and it quiescent. > This is usually misrepresented as " void. " > > In Madhyamika, no word, thought, concept in any way is allowed to be > made in reference to reality in itself and this is Madhyamika's > foundational assumption, that language and concept have absolutely > nothing to do with reality. If one speaks, describes, or makes models of > reality in any way you and believe them to be reality or to represent > reality in any way or use them in thinking about reality, you are lost. > Asking for information about the Madhyamika reality is rebuffed. Such > questions or inquiries are unanswerable, because of the assumption and, > therefore are not considered (valid) questions. > > How can such an assumption be made? Easily, by simply doing so and in > this case with authority born of the analytics that enable any well > studied practitioner to silence any one else by using their own language > and conceptualizations to undermine certainty in all of their and other > thought systems, dismantling them to become the reality of Madhyamika as > described above. It is similar to modern sciences attempt to silence > religions. Both are non-metaphysical systems of thought and practice. > > So, it is important to note, that this does not mean that Madhyamika > reality is beyond words and concepts. Such a statement would be fine for > Advaita Vedanta, but not in the practice of Madhyamika. Thinking, > dealing with concepts, as we are doing here, is not dealing with reality > in Madhyamika. This is, in the Madhyamika practice, a futile effort if > it is directed in any way as an attempt to represent reality. > > In Madhyamika there is no Brahman, Atman, soul, self, or any thing > conceptual or metaphysical because of its fundamental assumption. There > are no quanta or information bits swirling around. Instead there is a > revelation experienced after the cessation of the co-dependent arising > of thoughts, concepts, language, that is when there is sunyata or > " emptiness " (empty of content [nairatmya] but having existence > [abhava]). This is not achieved or not achieved, made with effort or > unmade with effort, known or unknown and so on. > > So it is that Madhyamikas are conceptually undecided about realities; > there is nothing to say about that for them. > > So where does this leave us? Well, we could use Madhyamika to eliminate > all the conceptual models in the universe in one fell wave of the mind, > including Advaita Vedanta. We can then stop assuming Madhyamika > foundational assumption and put down its singular capacity to silence > all or smile at not being silenced by its singular focus on concept and > language at the expense of experience and living freely. Instead, we can > learn well from Madhyamika rise up from sunyata, which we share with > ease, to create an enjoy the worlds of ours and others making, doing the > best we can with others, harming no one and no thing's appearance as > best as we are able. We could do the opposite too. > > From these assumptions also come the body of concepts and practices. > The concepts are not necessary unless you want to go over them for they > all come from the foundational assumptions. All those matters usually > are a confusion. Nisargadatta is a good example of cleaning up the house > and going to the point. If these assumptions are clearly understood the > practices should be simple and straightforward. The practices could also > be explored to see if there are more efficient ways to realize Atman or > sunyata or ........ > > What do you say? > > At the ready, > > Lewis > > > P.S. If one holds tightly or attachedly to the assumptions of models, > stories, like the above and this endless conversation occurs > automatically without end: > > Advaita Vedanta: Self > Madhyamika: Hmmm. Co-dependent origination! no Self. > Advaita Vedanta: Self > Madhyamika: Well, Co-dependent origination! no Self. > Advaita Vedanta: Self > Madhyamika: But, Co-dependent origination! no Self. > Advaita Vedanta: Self > Madhyamika: See, Co-dependent origination! no Self. > Advaita Vedanta: Self > Madhyamika: However, Co-dependent origination! no Self. > Advaita Vedanta: Self > Madhyamika: Nevertheless. Co-dependent origination! no Self. > Advaita Vedanta: Self > Madhyamika: In other words, Co-dependent origination! no Self......... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 13, 2005 Hi Stefan, Some two bits..... - Stefan Nisargadatta Thursday, January 13, 2005 3:12 PM Re: The Information Revolution Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: >In a message dated 1/12/05 9:33:11 AM, anders_lindman writes: > >>Maybe there is only one observer? >> > >P: There is none. Observation happens >when organized inf. reaches a threshold. >Then memory traces an imaginary line >connecting pass observations, that line >is mistakenly taken as the observer. Hi Pete, this theory is totally meaningless because it leaves one decisive question: WHO or WHAT does mistakenly take that line as the observer? --------------- It is observing that throws up a notional gestalt of separation.. ...and thus " exists " a sense of a " discrete observer " notionally apart from the sense of a " discrete observed " It is seeing that throws up a notional gestalt of separation... ..and thus " exists " a sense of a " discrete seer " notionally apart from the sense of a " discrete seen " It is doing that throws a notional gestalt of separation... ..and thus " exists " a sense of a " discrete doer " notionally apart from the sense of a " discrete done " With not a mote of dust disturbed and leaving no stone unturned, the grand ado of evening shadows sweeping the courtyard. ----------- And there we are again and so it could go on forever... The other paradoxon arises when we ask the question how the above could have been written without an observing entity. ---------- The sense of an observing entity assuming itself as the " subject " and thus the sense of the " observed " as the myriad of objects.... ...are nuances of the functioning in the moment. ------------ So: logically we have to accept the observer. ---------- So long the prevailing sense of a belief of the independent existential reality of " that-out-there " , .. ...the inference of the existential reality of the self (for which that reality)........is concurrent. Both arise together. Both dissipate together. -------------- When there is no observer then there is no world. When there is world-knowledge then there is an observer. Intellectually it is impossible to deny the observer, because the one who is making the statement would negate himself and the statement itself. This does not make any sense and is useless. -------- Yes. And hence finally (without the conotation of time, or a process-in-time).... ..the negation of the " negator " . ------ Only if we come to the end of world-knowledge can we transcend the observer and the observed. ----- Unfortunately leaves that pesky " we " shining in all it's nefarious glory.:-) Transcendence is not a transcendence........but the apperception of the notionality of the arising and dissipating of functioning, ..... ...functing whose resultant consequence is the apparent observer-observed hoopla. To apperceive the notionality of the hoopla is to apperceive the absurdity of the very attempt to transcend. And to anticipate the further question.... ...apperceiving is as conceptual a term as any... .. and points to the perceiving without a perceiver thereof. Doooobeeee Dooobeee Doooooo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 13, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@c...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: > > >In a message dated 1/12/05 9:33:11 AM, anders_lindman writes: > > > >>Maybe there is only one observer? > >> > > > >P: There is none. Observation happens > >when organized inf. reaches a threshold. > >Then memory traces an imaginary line > >connecting pass observations, that line > >is mistakenly taken as the observer. > > Hi Pete, this theory is totally meaningless because it leaves one > decisive question: > > WHO or WHAT does mistakenly take that line as the observer? > > And there we are again and so it could go on forever... > > The other paradoxon arises when we ask the question how the above > could have been written without an observing entity. > > So: logically we have to accept the observer. > When there is no observer then there is no world. > When there is world-knowledge then there is an observer. > > Intellectually it is impossible to deny the observer, because the one > who is making the statement would negate himself and the statement > itself. This does not make any sense and is useless. > > Only if we come to the end of world-knowledge can we transcend the > observer and the observed. > > Greetings > S. ************************ Very good Achileas, Your sword is sharpened enough. Let's get ready for war. I kissed Penelope and I'm ready now! A Mild War of course :0) Odysseus, Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 13, 2005 Hi Werner, I am glad to be welcomed.... That is partially correct, Werner. Some birds have more than one song. The song sung below is for you and Stefan and any one else. Is the meaning not clear? Since you say or think it is complicated and wish a simple version then here it is. Stefan posits in questioning a who or what, a makings calls for recognition of the observer, which can only be assumed. You assume and assert that there is no observer and never was one. Two assumptions held, two views emerge. Two efforts made to disorder the logic and dislodge the assumptions of the other. The conclusion is: Stefan: " ...logically we have to accept the observer. " Werner: " there is no observer and never was one. " However, our assumptions make us, you, speak, especially if we are attached to them. Have you examined your assumptions that allow to you to make a such definitive statement that is no more than air to be breathed and exhaled as is Stefan's assumption of an observer or my assumption of no assumptions? all air, nothing but air to breathe. No need to choke on air, there is nothing right or wrong or more correct or incorrect in it. Just air. So I made no definitive statement after singing this one song of many. I wanted to experience your response to the challenge of overcoming assumptions, conversational deadlock or perhaps to see if you were a one song bird or perhaps a multi-song bird of life. Never know till you ask. So, I asked " what do you say " to what was clearly stated below and now above. And in turn, you ask me to reveal what has been revealed already in simpler terms. So I have done so and made everything perfectly clear. What do you say now, Werner? There is nothing hidden here. All is straightforward. And forget about commenting on the air metaphor, unless you you are free. Lewis Werner Woehr wrote: > > Hi Lewis, > > Thanks for joining. > > I just read half of what you wrote then I gave up - to complicated. I > cannot share your demonstration of hmmmm, what ? What do you want to > tell ? Can you tell it with simple words ? If not it is ok with me. > Every bird just has its own song. > > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > > > Werner Woehr wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Stefan, > > > > > > Allow me to join because it is a interesting topic. > > > > > > I my understanding there is no observer and never was one. The > > > observer is the observed, no matter if one calls it the world or > mind > > > or thought. The " observer " is an illusion caused by thought > > > separating itself from the content of consciouseness without > > > realizing that it is itself just another content again. This not > > > realizing being just another content of consciousness, so an > object, > > > causes the illusion of being the subject in relation to objects. > > > > > > So it doesn't matter if there is a thought arising taking the > > > position of the observer in relation to the seen. The seen is the > > > seen, constantly changing and the world is the world with or > without > > > an illussionary observer. > > > > > > The content remains the same, if thought separates itself from it > > > taking the position of being the (illusionary) subject, or if it > > > doesn't. > > > > > > Werner > > > > Hi Stefan and Werner, > > > > Would you like to go for a walk? Here's the path. It is green and > > verdant but later becomes barren and desolate as it should for life > to > > spring anew.... > > > > After posting thoughts about the brain model introduced by Pete and > > reading Odysseus's remarks on the Nisargadatta list about its > relevance > > here, I am moved to present other models for examination. The two > models > > are that of Advaita Vedanta and Madhyamika or Madhyamaka. Let's see > if > > we can achieve a mutual understanding and then go on from there. > Take a > > look and let me know where corrections and tweaking needs to be > done. > > > > All models stand on foundational assumptions upon which the > creators of > > these models build an edifice of thought, concept and practice. If > the > > foundational assumptions are clearly understood, one can see the > > edifice for what it is. The whole edifice comes down when the > > foundational assumptions are removed. > > > > For example, the Orch OR model of consciousness and others like it, > have > > the foundational assumption of materialist monism or that all > existence, > > all substance underlying appearance is physical matter/energy that > > operates according to laws known and unknown or yet to be > discovered. > > This assumption upon close examination has no certainty, as all > models > > have no certainty, and therefore, it tumbles with the removal of > its > > foundational assumption(s). The magic wand to make it disappear is > to > > ask how does one conclusively demonstrate that all things are > physical? > > If there is a physical must not' there be a spiritual and how can > you > > account for that which is not present in your model? > > > > The answer is that no such final demonstration of the singularity > of the > > physical can be made in words, concepts or by experiment. The > question > > cannot be answered. So the model collapses to become one story among > > many. Just a story that can be used for various purposes. > > > > So what of Advaita Vedanta and Madhyamika or Madhyamaka? Advaita > > Vedanta, in its various versions, is a model based on the > foundational > > assumptions of either an absolute monism where there is one > infinite, > > immaterial, and unchanging substance or existence. > > > > Or one infinite, immaterial, and unchanging substrate of existence > that > > extends or manifests as subatomic particles that are infinite and > > changing aspects that form the various appearances. > > > > Or the interaction between an eternal, infinite, and immaterial > > consciousness (Purusha) and non-conscious primordial energy > including > > sub-atomic particles (Prakriti). > > > > This assumption places in the human appearance an infinite, > immaterial, > > and unchanging extension called an Atman or atman. It is goal of > this > > model to realize Atman, an infinite, immaterial, attribute less, > > awareness or consciousness as it variously defined. These appear to > be > > the foundational assumptions upon which the edifice of Advaita > Vedanta, > > a metaphysical model, is erected and maintained. > > > > Madhyamika or Madhyamaka, as formulated by Nagarjuna, is a very > > different model than Advaita Vedanta. Its foundational assumption > is > > more complex, but nonetheless an assumption. Also, Madhyamika or > > Madhyamaka is not metaphysical system or model as is Advaita > Vedanta. As > > it is, Madhyamika or Madhyamaka is an analytical philosophy that > focuses > > exclusively on concepts and language. It has no model or concept of > > reality as does Advaita Vedanta. It is impossible for this > philosophy to > > describe reality. > > > > Nevertheless, in Madhyamika or Madhyamaka, reality is experiential, > with > > no distinctions, with no speech, language or concept, and it > quiescent. > > This is usually misrepresented as " void. " > > > > In Madhyamika, no word, thought, concept in any way is allowed to > be > > made in reference to reality in itself and this is Madhyamika's > > foundational assumption, that language and concept have absolutely > > nothing to do with reality. If one speaks, describes, or makes > models of > > reality in any way you and believe them to be reality or to > represent > > reality in any way or use them in thinking about reality, you are > lost. > > Asking for information about the Madhyamika reality is rebuffed. > Such > > questions or inquiries are unanswerable, because of the assumption > and, > > therefore are not considered (valid) questions. > > > > How can such an assumption be made? Easily, by simply doing so and > in > > this case with authority born of the analytics that enable any well > > studied practitioner to silence any one else by using their own > language > > and conceptualizations to undermine certainty in all of their and > other > > thought systems, dismantling them to become the reality of > Madhyamika as > > described above. It is similar to modern sciences attempt to > silence > > religions. Both are non-metaphysical systems of thought and > practice. > > > > So, it is important to note, that this does not mean that > Madhyamika > > reality is beyond words and concepts. Such a statement would be > fine for > > Advaita Vedanta, but not in the practice of Madhyamika. Thinking, > > dealing with concepts, as we are doing here, is not dealing with > reality > > in Madhyamika. This is, in the Madhyamika practice, a futile effort > if > > it is directed in any way as an attempt to represent reality. > > > > In Madhyamika there is no Brahman, Atman, soul, self, or any thing > > conceptual or metaphysical because of its fundamental assumption. > There > > are no quanta or information bits swirling around. Instead there is > a > > revelation experienced after the cessation of the co-dependent > arising > > of thoughts, concepts, language, that is when there is sunyata or > > " emptiness " (empty of content [nairatmya] but having existence > > [abhava]). This is not achieved or not achieved, made with effort > or > > unmade with effort, known or unknown and so on. > > > > So it is that Madhyamikas are conceptually undecided about > realities; > > there is nothing to say about that for them. > > > > So where does this leave us? Well, we could use Madhyamika to > eliminate > > all the conceptual models in the universe in one fell wave of the > mind, > > including Advaita Vedanta. We can then stop assuming Madhyamika > > foundational assumption and put down its singular capacity to > silence > > all or smile at not being silenced by its singular focus on concept > and > > language at the expense of experience and living freely. Instead, > we can > > learn well from Madhyamika rise up from sunyata, which we share > with > > ease, to create an enjoy the worlds of ours and others making, > doing the > > best we can with others, harming no one and no thing's appearance > as > > best as we are able. We could do the opposite too. > > > > From these assumptions also come the body of concepts and > practices. > > The concepts are not necessary unless you want to go over them for > they > > all come from the foundational assumptions. All those matters > usually > > are a confusion. Nisargadatta is a good example of cleaning up the > house > > and going to the point. If these assumptions are clearly understood > the > > practices should be simple and straightforward. The practices could > also > > be explored to see if there are more efficient ways to realize > Atman or > > sunyata or ........ > > > > What do you say? > > > > At the ready, > > > > Lewis > > > > > > P.S. If one holds tightly or attachedly to the assumptions of > models, > > stories, like the above and this endless conversation occurs > > automatically without end: > > > > Advaita Vedanta: Self > > Madhyamika: Hmmm. Co-dependent origination! no Self. > > Advaita Vedanta: Self > > Madhyamika: Well, Co-dependent origination! no Self. > > Advaita Vedanta: Self > > Madhyamika: But, Co-dependent origination! no Self. > > Advaita Vedanta: Self > > Madhyamika: See, Co-dependent origination! no Self. > > Advaita Vedanta: Self > > Madhyamika: However, Co-dependent origination! no Self. > > Advaita Vedanta: Self > > Madhyamika: Nevertheless. Co-dependent origination! no Self. > > Advaita Vedanta: Self > > Madhyamika: In other words, Co-dependent origination! no > Self......... > > > > > > ** > > 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 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 13, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > > Hi Stefan, > > Allow me to join because it is a interesting topic. > > I my understanding there is no observer and never was one. Odysseus: Untrue, The > observer is the observed, Odysseus: True, no matter if one calls it the world or mind > or thought. The " observer " is an illusion caused by thought > separating itself from the content of consciouseness without > realizing that it is itself just another content again. This not > realizing being just another content of consciousness, so an object, causes the illusion of being the subject in relation to objects. Odysseus: Is this the theorie of the objet is real but not the observer? Untrue, an apple doesn't create a consciousness because it wants to be observed? isn't that theory ridiculous? Not yours but that theory. It is not the first time I read stuff like that. :0) The power of the apple! > So it doesn't matter if there is a thought arising taking the > position of the observer in relation to the seen. The seen is the > seen, Odysseus: The seen doesn't change. What is seen changes right! constantly changing and the world is the world with or without > an illussionary observer. > Odysseus: Are you sure? > The content remains the same, if thought separates itself from it > taking the position of being the (illusionary) subject, or if it > doesn't. > Odysseus: Yes you can not think and be like an elephant eating without the Ego. Just the seen. But that doesn't mean that there is no one there!!! When Masters say there is nothing to realise it is a way of express something, a revelation etc. To achive what cannot be acheave is a paradox, life (maya)is a paradox. When the paradox is transcended, There is Master Nis absolute, Beyond " I am state " . No paradox. But not because we don't understand, it is because that person understands as Nis did!!! Odysseus, > Werner > > > > Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@c...> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: > > > > >In a message dated 1/12/05 9:33:11 AM, anders_lindman writes: > > > > > >>Maybe there is only one observer? > > >> > > > > > >P: There is none. Observation happens > > >when organized inf. reaches a threshold. > > >Then memory traces an imaginary line > > >connecting pass observations, that line > > >is mistakenly taken as the observer. > > > > Hi Pete, this theory is totally meaningless because it leaves one > > decisive question: > > > > WHO or WHAT does mistakenly take that line as the observer? > > > > And there we are again and so it could go on forever... > > > > The other paradoxon arises when we ask the question how the above > > could have been written without an observing entity. > > > > So: logically we have to accept the observer. > > When there is no observer then there is no world. > > When there is world-knowledge then there is an observer. > > > > Intellectually it is impossible to deny the observer, because the > one > > who is making the statement would negate himself and the statement > > itself. This does not make any sense and is useless. > > > > Only if we come to the end of world-knowledge can we transcend the > > observer and the observed. > > > > Greetings > > S. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 13, 2005 Hi Lewis, Now I got you. Thanks for the simple version. When revising my belief system (opinios) you are definitely right. Just all air .. Ok, from now on lets chop wood and carry water. And you start with it Werner Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > Hi Werner, > > I am glad to be welcomed.... > > That is partially correct, Werner. Some birds have more than one song. > The song sung below is for you and Stefan and any one else. Is the > meaning not clear? Since you say or think it is complicated and wish a > simple version then here it is. > > Stefan posits in questioning a who or what, a makings calls for > recognition of the observer, which can only be assumed. You assume and > assert that there is no observer and never was one. Two assumptions > held, two views emerge. Two efforts made to disorder the logic and > dislodge the assumptions of the other. The conclusion is: > > Stefan: " ...logically we have to accept the observer. " > Werner: " there is no observer and never was one. " > > However, our assumptions make us, you, speak, especially if we are > attached to them. Have you examined your assumptions that allow to you > to make a such definitive statement that is no more than air to be > breathed and exhaled as is Stefan's assumption of an observer or my > assumption of no assumptions? all air, nothing but air to breathe. No > need to choke on air, there is nothing right or wrong or more correct or > incorrect in it. Just air. > > So I made no definitive statement after singing this one song of many. I > wanted to experience your response to the challenge of overcoming > assumptions, conversational deadlock or perhaps to see if you were a one > song bird or perhaps a multi-song bird of life. Never know till you ask. > So, I asked " what do you say " to what was clearly stated below and now > above. And in turn, you ask me to reveal what has been revealed already > in simpler terms. So I have done so and made everything perfectly clear. > > What do you say now, Werner? There is nothing hidden here. All is > straightforward. And forget about commenting on the air metaphor, unless > you you are free. > > > Lewis > > > > > Werner Woehr wrote: > > > > Hi Lewis, > > > > Thanks for joining. > > > > I just read half of what you wrote then I gave up - to complicated. I > > cannot share your demonstration of hmmmm, what ? What do you want to > > tell ? Can you tell it with simple words ? If not it is ok with me. > > Every bird just has its own song. > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Werner Woehr wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Stefan, > > > > > > > > Allow me to join because it is a interesting topic. > > > > > > > > I my understanding there is no observer and never was one. The > > > > observer is the observed, no matter if one calls it the world or > > mind > > > > or thought. The " observer " is an illusion caused by thought > > > > separating itself from the content of consciouseness without > > > > realizing that it is itself just another content again. This not > > > > realizing being just another content of consciousness, so an > > object, > > > > causes the illusion of being the subject in relation to objects. > > > > > > > > So it doesn't matter if there is a thought arising taking the > > > > position of the observer in relation to the seen. The seen is the > > > > seen, constantly changing and the world is the world with or > > without > > > > an illussionary observer. > > > > > > > > The content remains the same, if thought separates itself from it > > > > taking the position of being the (illusionary) subject, or if it > > > > doesn't. > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > Hi Stefan and Werner, > > > > > > Would you like to go for a walk? Here's the path. It is green and > > > verdant but later becomes barren and desolate as it should for life > > to > > > spring anew.... > > > > > > After posting thoughts about the brain model introduced by Pete and > > > reading Odysseus's remarks on the Nisargadatta list about its > > relevance > > > here, I am moved to present other models for examination. The two > > models > > > are that of Advaita Vedanta and Madhyamika or Madhyamaka. Let's see > > if > > > we can achieve a mutual understanding and then go on from there. > > Take a > > > look and let me know where corrections and tweaking needs to be > > done. > > > > > > All models stand on foundational assumptions upon which the > > creators of > > > these models build an edifice of thought, concept and practice. If > > the > > > foundational assumptions are clearly understood, one can see the > > > edifice for what it is. The whole edifice comes down when the > > > foundational assumptions are removed. > > > > > > For example, the Orch OR model of consciousness and others like it, > > have > > > the foundational assumption of materialist monism or that all > > existence, > > > all substance underlying appearance is physical matter/energy that > > > operates according to laws known and unknown or yet to be > > discovered. > > > This assumption upon close examination has no certainty, as all > > models > > > have no certainty, and therefore, it tumbles with the removal of > > its > > > foundational assumption(s). The magic wand to make it disappear is > > to > > > ask how does one conclusively demonstrate that all things are > > physical? > > > If there is a physical must not' there be a spiritual and how can > > you > > > account for that which is not present in your model? > > > > > > The answer is that no such final demonstration of the singularity > > of the > > > physical can be made in words, concepts or by experiment. The > > question > > > cannot be answered. So the model collapses to become one story among > > > many. Just a story that can be used for various purposes. > > > > > > So what of Advaita Vedanta and Madhyamika or Madhyamaka? Advaita > > > Vedanta, in its various versions, is a model based on the > > foundational > > > assumptions of either an absolute monism where there is one > > infinite, > > > immaterial, and unchanging substance or existence. > > > > > > Or one infinite, immaterial, and unchanging substrate of existence > > that > > > extends or manifests as subatomic particles that are infinite and > > > changing aspects that form the various appearances. > > > > > > Or the interaction between an eternal, infinite, and immaterial > > > consciousness (Purusha) and non-conscious primordial energy > > including > > > sub-atomic particles (Prakriti). > > > > > > This assumption places in the human appearance an infinite, > > immaterial, > > > and unchanging extension called an Atman or atman. It is goal of > > this > > > model to realize Atman, an infinite, immaterial, attribute less, > > > awareness or consciousness as it variously defined. These appear to > > be > > > the foundational assumptions upon which the edifice of Advaita > > Vedanta, > > > a metaphysical model, is erected and maintained. > > > > > > Madhyamika or Madhyamaka, as formulated by Nagarjuna, is a very > > > different model than Advaita Vedanta. Its foundational assumption > > is > > > more complex, but nonetheless an assumption. Also, Madhyamika or > > > Madhyamaka is not metaphysical system or model as is Advaita > > Vedanta. As > > > it is, Madhyamika or Madhyamaka is an analytical philosophy that > > focuses > > > exclusively on concepts and language. It has no model or concept of > > > reality as does Advaita Vedanta. It is impossible for this > > philosophy to > > > describe reality. > > > > > > Nevertheless, in Madhyamika or Madhyamaka, reality is experiential, > > with > > > no distinctions, with no speech, language or concept, and it > > quiescent. > > > This is usually misrepresented as " void. " > > > > > > In Madhyamika, no word, thought, concept in any way is allowed to > > be > > > made in reference to reality in itself and this is Madhyamika's > > > foundational assumption, that language and concept have absolutely > > > nothing to do with reality. If one speaks, describes, or makes > > models of > > > reality in any way you and believe them to be reality or to > > represent > > > reality in any way or use them in thinking about reality, you are > > lost. > > > Asking for information about the Madhyamika reality is rebuffed. > > Such > > > questions or inquiries are unanswerable, because of the assumption > > and, > > > therefore are not considered (valid) questions. > > > > > > How can such an assumption be made? Easily, by simply doing so and > > in > > > this case with authority born of the analytics that enable any well > > > studied practitioner to silence any one else by using their own > > language > > > and conceptualizations to undermine certainty in all of their and > > other > > > thought systems, dismantling them to become the reality of > > Madhyamika as > > > described above. It is similar to modern sciences attempt to > > silence > > > religions. Both are non-metaphysical systems of thought and > > practice. > > > > > > So, it is important to note, that this does not mean that > > Madhyamika > > > reality is beyond words and concepts. Such a statement would be > > fine for > > > Advaita Vedanta, but not in the practice of Madhyamika. Thinking, > > > dealing with concepts, as we are doing here, is not dealing with > > reality > > > in Madhyamika. This is, in the Madhyamika practice, a futile effort > > if > > > it is directed in any way as an attempt to represent reality. > > > > > > In Madhyamika there is no Brahman, Atman, soul, self, or any thing > > > conceptual or metaphysical because of its fundamental assumption. > > There > > > are no quanta or information bits swirling around. Instead there is > > a > > > revelation experienced after the cessation of the co-dependent > > arising > > > of thoughts, concepts, language, that is when there is sunyata or > > > " emptiness " (empty of content [nairatmya] but having existence > > > [abhava]). This is not achieved or not achieved, made with effort > > or > > > unmade with effort, known or unknown and so on. > > > > > > So it is that Madhyamikas are conceptually undecided about > > realities; > > > there is nothing to say about that for them. > > > > > > So where does this leave us? Well, we could use Madhyamika to > > eliminate > > > all the conceptual models in the universe in one fell wave of the > > mind, > > > including Advaita Vedanta. We can then stop assuming Madhyamika > > > foundational assumption and put down its singular capacity to > > silence > > > all or smile at not being silenced by its singular focus on concept > > and > > > language at the expense of experience and living freely. Instead, > > we can > > > learn well from Madhyamika rise up from sunyata, which we share > > with > > > ease, to create an enjoy the worlds of ours and others making, > > doing the > > > best we can with others, harming no one and no thing's appearance > > as > > > best as we are able. We could do the opposite too. > > > > > > From these assumptions also come the body of concepts and > > practices. > > > The concepts are not necessary unless you want to go over them for > > they > > > all come from the foundational assumptions. All those matters > > usually > > > are a confusion. Nisargadatta is a good example of cleaning up the > > house > > > and going to the point. If these assumptions are clearly understood > > the > > > practices should be simple and straightforward. The practices could > > also > > > be explored to see if there are more efficient ways to realize > > Atman or > > > sunyata or ........ > > > > > > What do you say? > > > > > > At the ready, > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > > > > P.S. If one holds tightly or attachedly to the assumptions of > > models, > > > stories, like the above and this endless conversation occurs > > > automatically without end: > > > > > > Advaita Vedanta: Self > > > Madhyamika: Hmmm. Co-dependent origination! no Self. > > > Advaita Vedanta: Self > > > Madhyamika: Well, Co-dependent origination! no Self. > > > Advaita Vedanta: Self > > > Madhyamika: But, Co-dependent origination! no Self. > > > Advaita Vedanta: Self > > > Madhyamika: See, Co-dependent origination! no Self. > > > Advaita Vedanta: Self > > > Madhyamika: However, Co-dependent origination! no Self. > > > Advaita Vedanta: Self > > > Madhyamika: Nevertheless. Co-dependent origination! no Self. > > > Advaita Vedanta: Self > > > Madhyamika: In other words, Co-dependent origination! no > > Self......... > > > > > > > > > > > > ** > > > > 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 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 13, 2005 Werner Woehr wrote: > > Hi Lewis, > > Now I got you. Thanks for the simple version. > > When revising my belief system (opinios) you are definitely right. > Just all air .. > > Ok, from now on lets chop wood and carry water. And you start with > it > > Werner Hi Werner, And when your not revising your belief system, it is the " truth " as you assume it, which is to be used for whatever...... Chop, Chop, Chop, Chop. Clang, Clang. Splash, splash. SSSSSShhhhhh. Hey, help out Werner, just don't stand there looking silly, get to work you lazy oaf! Lewis > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > Hi Werner, > > > > I am glad to be welcomed.... > > > > That is partially correct, Werner. Some birds have more than one > song. > > The song sung below is for you and Stefan and any one else. Is the > > meaning not clear? Since you say or think it is complicated and > wish a > > simple version then here it is. > > > > Stefan posits in questioning a who or what, a makings calls for > > recognition of the observer, which can only be assumed. You assume > and > > assert that there is no observer and never was one. Two assumptions > > held, two views emerge. Two efforts made to disorder the logic and > > dislodge the assumptions of the other. The conclusion is: > > > > Stefan: " ...logically we have to accept the observer. " > > Werner: " there is no observer and never was one. " > > > > However, our assumptions make us, you, speak, especially if we are > > attached to them. Have you examined your assumptions that allow to > you > > to make a such definitive statement that is no more than air to be > > breathed and exhaled as is Stefan's assumption of an observer or my > > assumption of no assumptions? all air, nothing but air to breathe. > No > > need to choke on air, there is nothing right or wrong or more > correct or > > incorrect in it. Just air. > > > > So I made no definitive statement after singing this one song of > many. I > > wanted to experience your response to the challenge of overcoming > > assumptions, conversational deadlock or perhaps to see if you were > a one > > song bird or perhaps a multi-song bird of life. Never know till you > ask. > > So, I asked " what do you say " to what was clearly stated below and > now > > above. And in turn, you ask me to reveal what has been revealed > already > > in simpler terms. So I have done so and made everything perfectly > clear. > > > > What do you say now, Werner? There is nothing hidden here. All is > > straightforward. And forget about commenting on the air metaphor, > unless > > you you are free. > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > > > > > Werner Woehr wrote: > > > > > > Hi Lewis, > > > > > > Thanks for joining. > > > > > > I just read half of what you wrote then I gave up - to > complicated. I > > > cannot share your demonstration of hmmmm, what ? What do you want > to > > > tell ? Can you tell it with simple words ? If not it is ok with > me. > > > Every bird just has its own song. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner Woehr wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Stefan, > > > > > > > > > > Allow me to join because it is a interesting topic. > > > > > > > > > > I my understanding there is no observer and never was one. > The > > > > > observer is the observed, no matter if one calls it the > world or > > > mind > > > > > or thought. The " observer " is an illusion caused by thought > > > > > separating itself from the content of consciouseness without > > > > > realizing that it is itself just another content again. This > not > > > > > realizing being just another content of consciousness, so an > > > object, > > > > > causes the illusion of being the subject in relation to > objects. > > > > > > > > > > So it doesn't matter if there is a thought arising taking the > > > > > position of the observer in relation to the seen. The seen > is the > > > > > seen, constantly changing and the world is the world with or > > > without > > > > > an illussionary observer. > > > > > > > > > > The content remains the same, if thought separates itself > from it > > > > > taking the position of being the (illusionary) subject, or > if it > > > > > doesn't. > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > Hi Stefan and Werner, > > > > > > > > Would you like to go for a walk? Here's the path. It is green > and > > > > verdant but later becomes barren and desolate as it should for > life > > > to > > > > spring anew.... > > > > > > > > After posting thoughts about the brain model introduced by > Pete and > > > > reading Odysseus's remarks on the Nisargadatta list about its > > > relevance > > > > here, I am moved to present other models for examination. The > two > > > models > > > > are that of Advaita Vedanta and Madhyamika or Madhyamaka. > Let's see > > > if > > > > we can achieve a mutual understanding and then go on from > there. > > > Take a > > > > look and let me know where corrections and tweaking needs to be > > > done. > > > > > > > > All models stand on foundational assumptions upon which the > > > creators of > > > > these models build an edifice of thought, concept and > practice. If > > > the > > > > foundational assumptions are clearly understood, one can see > the > > > > edifice for what it is. The whole edifice comes down when the > > > > foundational assumptions are removed. > > > > > > > > For example, the Orch OR model of consciousness and others > like it, > > > have > > > > the foundational assumption of materialist monism or that all > > > existence, > > > > all substance underlying appearance is physical matter/energy > that > > > > operates according to laws known and unknown or yet to be > > > discovered. > > > > This assumption upon close examination has no certainty, as all > > > models > > > > have no certainty, and therefore, it tumbles with the removal > of > > > its > > > > foundational assumption(s). The magic wand to make it > disappear is > > > to > > > > ask how does one conclusively demonstrate that all things are > > > physical? > > > > If there is a physical must not' there be a spiritual and how > can > > > you > > > > account for that which is not present in your model? > > > > > > > > The answer is that no such final demonstration of the > singularity > > > of the > > > > physical can be made in words, concepts or by experiment. The > > > question > > > > cannot be answered. So the model collapses to become one story > among > > > > many. Just a story that can be used for various purposes. > > > > > > > > So what of Advaita Vedanta and Madhyamika or Madhyamaka? > Advaita > > > > Vedanta, in its various versions, is a model based on the > > > foundational > > > > assumptions of either an absolute monism where there is one > > > infinite, > > > > immaterial, and unchanging substance or existence. > > > > > > > > Or one infinite, immaterial, and unchanging substrate of > existence > > > that > > > > extends or manifests as subatomic particles that are infinite > and > > > > changing aspects that form the various appearances. > > > > > > > > Or the interaction between an eternal, infinite, and immaterial > > > > consciousness (Purusha) and non-conscious primordial energy > > > including > > > > sub-atomic particles (Prakriti). > > > > > > > > This assumption places in the human appearance an infinite, > > > immaterial, > > > > and unchanging extension called an Atman or atman. It is goal > of > > > this > > > > model to realize Atman, an infinite, immaterial, attribute > less, > > > > awareness or consciousness as it variously defined. These > appear to > > > be > > > > the foundational assumptions upon which the edifice of Advaita > > > Vedanta, > > > > a metaphysical model, is erected and maintained. > > > > > > > > Madhyamika or Madhyamaka, as formulated by Nagarjuna, is a very > > > > different model than Advaita Vedanta. Its foundational > assumption > > > is > > > > more complex, but nonetheless an assumption. Also, Madhyamika > or > > > > Madhyamaka is not metaphysical system or model as is Advaita > > > Vedanta. As > > > > it is, Madhyamika or Madhyamaka is an analytical philosophy > that > > > focuses > > > > exclusively on concepts and language. It has no model or > concept of > > > > reality as does Advaita Vedanta. It is impossible for this > > > philosophy to > > > > describe reality. > > > > > > > > Nevertheless, in Madhyamika or Madhyamaka, reality is > experiential, > > > with > > > > no distinctions, with no speech, language or concept, and it > > > quiescent. > > > > This is usually misrepresented as " void. " > > > > > > > > In Madhyamika, no word, thought, concept in any way is allowed > to > > > be > > > > made in reference to reality in itself and this is Madhyamika's > > > > foundational assumption, that language and concept have > absolutely > > > > nothing to do with reality. If one speaks, describes, or makes > > > models of > > > > reality in any way you and believe them to be reality or to > > > represent > > > > reality in any way or use them in thinking about reality, you > are > > > lost. > > > > Asking for information about the Madhyamika reality is > rebuffed. > > > Such > > > > questions or inquiries are unanswerable, because of the > assumption > > > and, > > > > therefore are not considered (valid) questions. > > > > > > > > How can such an assumption be made? Easily, by simply doing so > and > > > in > > > > this case with authority born of the analytics that enable any > well > > > > studied practitioner to silence any one else by using their own > > > language > > > > and conceptualizations to undermine certainty in all of their > and > > > other > > > > thought systems, dismantling them to become the reality of > > > Madhyamika as > > > > described above. It is similar to modern sciences attempt to > > > silence > > > > religions. Both are non-metaphysical systems of thought and > > > practice. > > > > > > > > So, it is important to note, that this does not mean that > > > Madhyamika > > > > reality is beyond words and concepts. Such a statement would be > > > fine for > > > > Advaita Vedanta, but not in the practice of Madhyamika. > Thinking, > > > > dealing with concepts, as we are doing here, is not dealing > with > > > reality > > > > in Madhyamika. This is, in the Madhyamika practice, a futile > effort > > > if > > > > it is directed in any way as an attempt to represent reality. > > > > > > > > In Madhyamika there is no Brahman, Atman, soul, self, or any > thing > > > > conceptual or metaphysical because of its fundamental > assumption. > > > There > > > > are no quanta or information bits swirling around. Instead > there is > > > a > > > > revelation experienced after the cessation of the co-dependent > > > arising > > > > of thoughts, concepts, language, that is when there is sunyata > or > > > > " emptiness " (empty of content [nairatmya] but having existence > > > > [abhava]). This is not achieved or not achieved, made with > effort > > > or > > > > unmade with effort, known or unknown and so on. > > > > > > > > So it is that Madhyamikas are conceptually undecided about > > > realities; > > > > there is nothing to say about that for them. > > > > > > > > So where does this leave us? Well, we could use Madhyamika to > > > eliminate > > > > all the conceptual models in the universe in one fell wave of > the > > > mind, > > > > including Advaita Vedanta. We can then stop assuming Madhyamika > > > > foundational assumption and put down its singular capacity to > > > silence > > > > all or smile at not being silenced by its singular focus on > concept > > > and > > > > language at the expense of experience and living freely. > Instead, > > > we can > > > > learn well from Madhyamika rise up from sunyata, which we share > > > with > > > > ease, to create an enjoy the worlds of ours and others making, > > > doing the > > > > best we can with others, harming no one and no thing's > appearance > > > as > > > > best as we are able. We could do the opposite too. > > > > > > > > From these assumptions also come the body of concepts and > > > practices. > > > > The concepts are not necessary unless you want to go over them > for > > > they > > > > all come from the foundational assumptions. All those matters > > > usually > > > > are a confusion. Nisargadatta is a good example of cleaning up > the > > > house > > > > and going to the point. If these assumptions are clearly > understood > > > the > > > > practices should be simple and straightforward. The practices > could > > > also > > > > be explored to see if there are more efficient ways to realize > > > Atman or > > > > sunyata or ........ > > > > > > > > What do you say? > > > > > > > > At the ready, > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > > > > > > > P.S. If one holds tightly or attachedly to the assumptions of > > > models, > > > > stories, like the above and this endless conversation occurs > > > > automatically without end: > > > > > > > > Advaita Vedanta: Self > > > > Madhyamika: Hmmm. Co-dependent origination! no Self. > > > > Advaita Vedanta: Self > > > > Madhyamika: Well, Co-dependent origination! no Self. > > > > Advaita Vedanta: Self > > > > Madhyamika: But, Co-dependent origination! no Self. > > > > Advaita Vedanta: Self > > > > Madhyamika: See, Co-dependent origination! no Self. > > > > Advaita Vedanta: Self > > > > Madhyamika: However, Co-dependent origination! no Self. > > > > Advaita Vedanta: Self > > > > Madhyamika: Nevertheless. Co-dependent origination! no Self. > > > > Advaita Vedanta: Self > > > > Madhyamika: In other words, Co-dependent origination! no > > > Self......... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ** > > > > > > 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 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 13, 2005 Hi Lewis, Forgive me just standing there with open mouth. I couldn't believe my eyes, such a highly educated high-brow, seemingly such elevated, getting down on earth himself. Werner Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > Werner Woehr wrote: > > > > Hi Lewis, > > > > Now I got you. Thanks for the simple version. > > > > When revising my belief system (opinios) you are definitely right. > > Just all air .. > > > > Ok, from now on lets chop wood and carry water. And you start with > > it > > > > Werner > > Hi Werner, > > And when your not revising your belief system, it is the " truth " as you > assume it, which is to be used for whatever...... > > Chop, Chop, Chop, Chop. Clang, Clang. Splash, splash. SSSSSShhhhhh. Hey, > help out Werner, just don't stand there looking silly, get to work you > lazy oaf! > > > Lewis > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > Hi Werner, > > > > > > I am glad to be welcomed.... > > > > > > That is partially correct, Werner. Some birds have more than one > > song. > > > The song sung below is for you and Stefan and any one else. Is the > > > meaning not clear? Since you say or think it is complicated and > > wish a > > > simple version then here it is. > > > > > > Stefan posits in questioning a who or what, a makings calls for > > > recognition of the observer, which can only be assumed. You assume > > and > > > assert that there is no observer and never was one. Two assumptions > > > held, two views emerge. Two efforts made to disorder the logic and > > > dislodge the assumptions of the other. The conclusion is: > > > > > > Stefan: " ...logically we have to accept the observer. " > > > Werner: " there is no observer and never was one. " > > > > > > However, our assumptions make us, you, speak, especially if we are > > > attached to them. Have you examined your assumptions that allow to > > you > > > to make a such definitive statement that is no more than air to be > > > breathed and exhaled as is Stefan's assumption of an observer or my > > > assumption of no assumptions? all air, nothing but air to breathe. > > No > > > need to choke on air, there is nothing right or wrong or more > > correct or > > > incorrect in it. Just air. > > > > > > So I made no definitive statement after singing this one song of > > many. I > > > wanted to experience your response to the challenge of overcoming > > > assumptions, conversational deadlock or perhaps to see if you were > > a one > > > song bird or perhaps a multi-song bird of life. Never know till you > > ask. > > > So, I asked " what do you say " to what was clearly stated below and > > now > > > above. And in turn, you ask me to reveal what has been revealed > > already > > > in simpler terms. So I have done so and made everything perfectly > > clear. > > > > > > What do you say now, Werner? There is nothing hidden here. All is > > > straightforward. And forget about commenting on the air metaphor, > > unless > > > you you are free. > > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner Woehr wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Lewis, > > > > > > > > Thanks for joining. > > > > > > > > I just read half of what you wrote then I gave up - to > > complicated. I > > > > cannot share your demonstration of hmmmm, what ? What do you want > > to > > > > tell ? Can you tell it with simple words ? If not it is ok with > > me. > > > > Every bird just has its own song. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner Woehr wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Stefan, > > > > > > > > > > > > Allow me to join because it is a interesting topic. > > > > > > > > > > > > I my understanding there is no observer and never was one. > > The > > > > > > observer is the observed, no matter if one calls it the > > world or > > > > mind > > > > > > or thought. The " observer " is an illusion caused by thought > > > > > > separating itself from the content of consciouseness without > > > > > > realizing that it is itself just another content again. This > > not > > > > > > realizing being just another content of consciousness, so an > > > > object, > > > > > > causes the illusion of being the subject in relation to > > objects. > > > > > > > > > > > > So it doesn't matter if there is a thought arising taking the > > > > > > position of the observer in relation to the seen. The seen > > is the > > > > > > seen, constantly changing and the world is the world with or > > > > without > > > > > > an illussionary observer. > > > > > > > > > > > > The content remains the same, if thought separates itself > > from it > > > > > > taking the position of being the (illusionary) subject, or > > if it > > > > > > doesn't. > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > Hi Stefan and Werner, > > > > > > > > > > Would you like to go for a walk? Here's the path. It is green > > and > > > > > verdant but later becomes barren and desolate as it should for > > life > > > > to > > > > > spring anew.... > > > > > > > > > > After posting thoughts about the brain model introduced by > > Pete and > > > > > reading Odysseus's remarks on the Nisargadatta list about its > > > > relevance > > > > > here, I am moved to present other models for examination. The > > two > > > > models > > > > > are that of Advaita Vedanta and Madhyamika or Madhyamaka. > > Let's see > > > > if > > > > > we can achieve a mutual understanding and then go on from > > there. > > > > Take a > > > > > look and let me know where corrections and tweaking needs to be > > > > done. > > > > > > > > > > All models stand on foundational assumptions upon which the > > > > creators of > > > > > these models build an edifice of thought, concept and > > practice. If > > > > the > > > > > foundational assumptions are clearly understood, one can see > > the > > > > > edifice for what it is. The whole edifice comes down when the > > > > > foundational assumptions are removed. > > > > > > > > > > For example, the Orch OR model of consciousness and others > > like it, > > > > have > > > > > the foundational assumption of materialist monism or that all > > > > existence, > > > > > all substance underlying appearance is physical matter/energy > > that > > > > > operates according to laws known and unknown or yet to be > > > > discovered. > > > > > This assumption upon close examination has no certainty, as all > > > > models > > > > > have no certainty, and therefore, it tumbles with the removal > > of > > > > its > > > > > foundational assumption(s). The magic wand to make it > > disappear is > > > > to > > > > > ask how does one conclusively demonstrate that all things are > > > > physical? > > > > > If there is a physical must not' there be a spiritual and how > > can > > > > you > > > > > account for that which is not present in your model? > > > > > > > > > > The answer is that no such final demonstration of the > > singularity > > > > of the > > > > > physical can be made in words, concepts or by experiment. The > > > > question > > > > > cannot be answered. So the model collapses to become one story > > among > > > > > many. Just a story that can be used for various purposes. > > > > > > > > > > So what of Advaita Vedanta and Madhyamika or Madhyamaka? > > Advaita > > > > > Vedanta, in its various versions, is a model based on the > > > > foundational > > > > > assumptions of either an absolute monism where there is one > > > > infinite, > > > > > immaterial, and unchanging substance or existence. > > > > > > > > > > Or one infinite, immaterial, and unchanging substrate of > > existence > > > > that > > > > > extends or manifests as subatomic particles that are infinite > > and > > > > > changing aspects that form the various appearances. > > > > > > > > > > Or the interaction between an eternal, infinite, and immaterial > > > > > consciousness (Purusha) and non-conscious primordial energy > > > > including > > > > > sub-atomic particles (Prakriti). > > > > > > > > > > This assumption places in the human appearance an infinite, > > > > immaterial, > > > > > and unchanging extension called an Atman or atman. It is goal > > of > > > > this > > > > > model to realize Atman, an infinite, immaterial, attribute > > less, > > > > > awareness or consciousness as it variously defined. These > > appear to > > > > be > > > > > the foundational assumptions upon which the edifice of Advaita > > > > Vedanta, > > > > > a metaphysical model, is erected and maintained. > > > > > > > > > > Madhyamika or Madhyamaka, as formulated by Nagarjuna, is a very > > > > > different model than Advaita Vedanta. Its foundational > > assumption > > > > is > > > > > more complex, but nonetheless an assumption. Also, Madhyamika > > or > > > > > Madhyamaka is not metaphysical system or model as is Advaita > > > > Vedanta. As > > > > > it is, Madhyamika or Madhyamaka is an analytical philosophy > > that > > > > focuses > > > > > exclusively on concepts and language. It has no model or > > concept of > > > > > reality as does Advaita Vedanta. It is impossible for this > > > > philosophy to > > > > > describe reality. > > > > > > > > > > Nevertheless, in Madhyamika or Madhyamaka, reality is > > experiential, > > > > with > > > > > no distinctions, with no speech, language or concept, and it > > > > quiescent. > > > > > This is usually misrepresented as " void. " > > > > > > > > > > In Madhyamika, no word, thought, concept in any way is allowed > > to > > > > be > > > > > made in reference to reality in itself and this is Madhyamika's > > > > > foundational assumption, that language and concept have > > absolutely > > > > > nothing to do with reality. If one speaks, describes, or makes > > > > models of > > > > > reality in any way you and believe them to be reality or to > > > > represent > > > > > reality in any way or use them in thinking about reality, you > > are > > > > lost. > > > > > Asking for information about the Madhyamika reality is > > rebuffed. > > > > Such > > > > > questions or inquiries are unanswerable, because of the > > assumption > > > > and, > > > > > therefore are not considered (valid) questions. > > > > > > > > > > How can such an assumption be made? Easily, by simply doing so > > and > > > > in > > > > > this case with authority born of the analytics that enable any > > well > > > > > studied practitioner to silence any one else by using their own > > > > language > > > > > and conceptualizations to undermine certainty in all of their > > and > > > > other > > > > > thought systems, dismantling them to become the reality of > > > > Madhyamika as > > > > > described above. It is similar to modern sciences attempt to > > > > silence > > > > > religions. Both are non-metaphysical systems of thought and > > > > practice. > > > > > > > > > > So, it is important to note, that this does not mean that > > > > Madhyamika > > > > > reality is beyond words and concepts. Such a statement would be > > > > fine for > > > > > Advaita Vedanta, but not in the practice of Madhyamika. > > Thinking, > > > > > dealing with concepts, as we are doing here, is not dealing > > with > > > > reality > > > > > in Madhyamika. This is, in the Madhyamika practice, a futile > > effort > > > > if > > > > > it is directed in any way as an attempt to represent reality. > > > > > > > > > > In Madhyamika there is no Brahman, Atman, soul, self, or any > > thing > > > > > conceptual or metaphysical because of its fundamental > > assumption. > > > > There > > > > > are no quanta or information bits swirling around. Instead > > there is > > > > a > > > > > revelation experienced after the cessation of the co- dependent > > > > arising > > > > > of thoughts, concepts, language, that is when there is sunyata > > or > > > > > " emptiness " (empty of content [nairatmya] but having existence > > > > > [abhava]). This is not achieved or not achieved, made with > > effort > > > > or > > > > > unmade with effort, known or unknown and so on. > > > > > > > > > > So it is that Madhyamikas are conceptually undecided about > > > > realities; > > > > > there is nothing to say about that for them. > > > > > > > > > > So where does this leave us? Well, we could use Madhyamika to > > > > eliminate > > > > > all the conceptual models in the universe in one fell wave of > > the > > > > mind, > > > > > including Advaita Vedanta. We can then stop assuming Madhyamika > > > > > foundational assumption and put down its singular capacity to > > > > silence > > > > > all or smile at not being silenced by its singular focus on > > concept > > > > and > > > > > language at the expense of experience and living freely. > > Instead, > > > > we can > > > > > learn well from Madhyamika rise up from sunyata, which we share > > > > with > > > > > ease, to create an enjoy the worlds of ours and others making, > > > > doing the > > > > > best we can with others, harming no one and no thing's > > appearance > > > > as > > > > > best as we are able. We could do the opposite too. > > > > > > > > > > From these assumptions also come the body of concepts and > > > > practices. > > > > > The concepts are not necessary unless you want to go over them > > for > > > > they > > > > > all come from the foundational assumptions. All those matters > > > > usually > > > > > are a confusion. Nisargadatta is a good example of cleaning up > > the > > > > house > > > > > and going to the point. If these assumptions are clearly > > understood > > > > the > > > > > practices should be simple and straightforward. The practices > > could > > > > also > > > > > be explored to see if there are more efficient ways to realize > > > > Atman or > > > > > sunyata or ........ > > > > > > > > > > What do you say? > > > > > > > > > > At the ready, > > > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > P.S. If one holds tightly or attachedly to the assumptions of > > > > models, > > > > > stories, like the above and this endless conversation occurs > > > > > automatically without end: > > > > > > > > > > Advaita Vedanta: Self > > > > > Madhyamika: Hmmm. Co-dependent origination! no Self. > > > > > Advaita Vedanta: Self > > > > > Madhyamika: Well, Co-dependent origination! no Self. > > > > > Advaita Vedanta: Self > > > > > Madhyamika: But, Co-dependent origination! no Self. > > > > > Advaita Vedanta: Self > > > > > Madhyamika: See, Co-dependent origination! no Self. > > > > > Advaita Vedanta: Self > > > > > Madhyamika: However, Co-dependent origination! no Self. > > > > > Advaita Vedanta: Self > > > > > Madhyamika: Nevertheless. Co-dependent origination! no Self. > > > > > Advaita Vedanta: Self > > > > > Madhyamika: In other words, Co-dependent origination! no > > > > Self......... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ** > > > > > > > > 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 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 13, 2005 Werner Woehr wrote: > > Hi Lewis, > > Forgive me just standing there with open mouth. I couldn't believe my > eyes, such a highly educated high-brow, seemingly such elevated, > getting down on earth himself. > > Werner Hahhahahahahahaha. Chop, chop, chop. Come on. Stop fussing and let's get some work done. Hahahahahahahaha. (Wiping the sweat from the forehaead with sleeve) Hey, let me see your hands, Werner,..... what no callouses, hmmmmm. Here look at my hands. Calloused since the day I was born. You can get some now. Just follow me, like this, chop, chop, chop. Hahahahahahahahaa. The air is sweet here isn't it?....Green hills, lustrous valley.... And so are you, Werner, sweet. Now pick up you ax and get working. We will never finish with smiles on our faces. Chop, chop, chop, chop, chop...... Lewis > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > > > Werner Woehr wrote: > > > > > > Hi Lewis, > > > > > > Now I got you. Thanks for the simple version. > > > > > > When revising my belief system (opinios) you are definitely right. > > > Just all air .. > > > > > > Ok, from now on lets chop wood and carry water. And you start with > > > it > > > > > > Werner > > > > Hi Werner, > > > > And when your not revising your belief system, it is the " truth " as > you > > assume it, which is to be used for whatever...... > > > > Chop, Chop, Chop, Chop. Clang, Clang. Splash, splash. SSSSSShhhhhh. > Hey, > > help out Werner, just don't stand there looking silly, get to work > you > > lazy oaf! > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> > wrote: > > > > Hi Werner, > > > > > > > > I am glad to be welcomed.... > > > > > > > > That is partially correct, Werner. Some birds have more than > one > > > song. > > > > The song sung below is for you and Stefan and any one else. Is > the > > > > meaning not clear? Since you say or think it is complicated and > > > wish a > > > > simple version then here it is. > > > > > > > > Stefan posits in questioning a who or what, a makings calls for > > > > recognition of the observer, which can only be assumed. You > assume > > > and > > > > assert that there is no observer and never was one. Two > assumptions > > > > held, two views emerge. Two efforts made to disorder the logic > and > > > > dislodge the assumptions of the other. The conclusion is: > > > > > > > > Stefan: " ...logically we have to accept the observer. " > > > > Werner: " there is no observer and never was one. " > > > > > > > > However, our assumptions make us, you, speak, especially if we > are > > > > attached to them. Have you examined your assumptions that > allow to > > > you > > > > to make a such definitive statement that is no more than air > to be > > > > breathed and exhaled as is Stefan's assumption of an observer > or my > > > > assumption of no assumptions? all air, nothing but air to > breathe. > > > No > > > > need to choke on air, there is nothing right or wrong or more > > > correct or > > > > incorrect in it. Just air. > > > > > > > > So I made no definitive statement after singing this one song > of > > > many. I > > > > wanted to experience your response to the challenge of > overcoming > > > > assumptions, conversational deadlock or perhaps to see if you > were > > > a one > > > > song bird or perhaps a multi-song bird of life. Never know > till you > > > ask. > > > > So, I asked " what do you say " to what was clearly stated below > and > > > now > > > > above. And in turn, you ask me to reveal what has been revealed > > > already > > > > in simpler terms. So I have done so and made everything > perfectly > > > clear. > > > > > > > > What do you say now, Werner? There is nothing hidden here. All > is > > > > straightforward. And forget about commenting on the air > metaphor, > > > unless > > > > you you are free. > > > > > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner Woehr wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hi Lewis, > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for joining. > > > > > > > > > > I just read half of what you wrote then I gave up - to > > > complicated. I > > > > > cannot share your demonstration of hmmmm, what ? What do you > want > > > to > > > > > tell ? Can you tell it with simple words ? If not it is ok > with > > > me. > > > > > Every bird just has its own song. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess > <lbb10@c...> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner Woehr wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Stefan, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Allow me to join because it is a interesting topic. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I my understanding there is no observer and never was > one. > > > The > > > > > > > observer is the observed, no matter if one calls it the > > > world or > > > > > mind > > > > > > > or thought. The " observer " is an illusion caused by > thought > > > > > > > separating itself from the content of consciouseness > without > > > > > > > realizing that it is itself just another content again. > This > > > not > > > > > > > realizing being just another content of consciousness, > so an > > > > > object, > > > > > > > causes the illusion of being the subject in relation to > > > objects. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So it doesn't matter if there is a thought arising > taking the > > > > > > > position of the observer in relation to the seen. The > seen > > > is the > > > > > > > seen, constantly changing and the world is the world > with or > > > > > without > > > > > > > an illussionary observer. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The content remains the same, if thought separates > itself > > > from it > > > > > > > taking the position of being the (illusionary) subject, > or > > > if it > > > > > > > doesn't. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Stefan and Werner, > > > > > > > > > > > > Would you like to go for a walk? Here's the path. It is > green > > > and > > > > > > verdant but later becomes barren and desolate as it > should for > > > life > > > > > to > > > > > > spring anew.... > > > > > > > > > > > > After posting thoughts about the brain model introduced by > > > Pete and > > > > > > reading Odysseus's remarks on the Nisargadatta list about > its > > > > > relevance > > > > > > here, I am moved to present other models for examination. > The > > > two > > > > > models > > > > > > are that of Advaita Vedanta and Madhyamika or Madhyamaka. > > > Let's see > > > > > if > > > > > > we can achieve a mutual understanding and then go on from > > > there. > > > > > Take a > > > > > > look and let me know where corrections and tweaking needs > to be > > > > > done. > > > > > > > > > > > > All models stand on foundational assumptions upon which > the > > > > > creators of > > > > > > these models build an edifice of thought, concept and > > > practice. If > > > > > the > > > > > > foundational assumptions are clearly understood, one can > see > > > the > > > > > > edifice for what it is. The whole edifice comes down when > the > > > > > > foundational assumptions are removed. > > > > > > > > > > > > For example, the Orch OR model of consciousness and others > > > like it, > > > > > have > > > > > > the foundational assumption of materialist monism or that > all > > > > > existence, > > > > > > all substance underlying appearance is physical > matter/energy > > > that > > > > > > operates according to laws known and unknown or yet to be > > > > > discovered. > > > > > > This assumption upon close examination has no certainty, > as all > > > > > models > > > > > > have no certainty, and therefore, it tumbles with the > removal > > > of > > > > > its > > > > > > foundational assumption(s). The magic wand to make it > > > disappear is > > > > > to > > > > > > ask how does one conclusively demonstrate that all things > are > > > > > physical? > > > > > > If there is a physical must not' there be a spiritual and > how > > > can > > > > > you > > > > > > account for that which is not present in your model? > > > > > > > > > > > > The answer is that no such final demonstration of the > > > singularity > > > > > of the > > > > > > physical can be made in words, concepts or by experiment. > The > > > > > question > > > > > > cannot be answered. So the model collapses to become one > story > > > among > > > > > > many. Just a story that can be used for various purposes. > > > > > > > > > > > > So what of Advaita Vedanta and Madhyamika or Madhyamaka? > > > Advaita > > > > > > Vedanta, in its various versions, is a model based on the > > > > > foundational > > > > > > assumptions of either an absolute monism where there is > one > > > > > infinite, > > > > > > immaterial, and unchanging substance or existence. > > > > > > > > > > > > Or one infinite, immaterial, and unchanging substrate of > > > existence > > > > > that > > > > > > extends or manifests as subatomic particles that are > infinite > > > and > > > > > > changing aspects that form the various appearances. > > > > > > > > > > > > Or the interaction between an eternal, infinite, and > immaterial > > > > > > consciousness (Purusha) and non-conscious primordial > energy > > > > > including > > > > > > sub-atomic particles (Prakriti). > > > > > > > > > > > > This assumption places in the human appearance an > infinite, > > > > > immaterial, > > > > > > and unchanging extension called an Atman or atman. It is > goal > > > of > > > > > this > > > > > > model to realize Atman, an infinite, immaterial, attribute > > > less, > > > > > > awareness or consciousness as it variously defined. These > > > appear to > > > > > be > > > > > > the foundational assumptions upon which the edifice of > Advaita > > > > > Vedanta, > > > > > > a metaphysical model, is erected and maintained. > > > > > > > > > > > > Madhyamika or Madhyamaka, as formulated by Nagarjuna, is > a very > > > > > > different model than Advaita Vedanta. Its foundational > > > assumption > > > > > is > > > > > > more complex, but nonetheless an assumption. Also, > Madhyamika > > > or > > > > > > Madhyamaka is not metaphysical system or model as is > Advaita > > > > > Vedanta. As > > > > > > it is, Madhyamika or Madhyamaka is an analytical > philosophy > > > that > > > > > focuses > > > > > > exclusively on concepts and language. It has no model or > > > concept of > > > > > > reality as does Advaita Vedanta. It is impossible for this > > > > > philosophy to > > > > > > describe reality. > > > > > > > > > > > > Nevertheless, in Madhyamika or Madhyamaka, reality is > > > experiential, > > > > > with > > > > > > no distinctions, with no speech, language or concept, and > it > > > > > quiescent. > > > > > > This is usually misrepresented as " void. " > > > > > > > > > > > > In Madhyamika, no word, thought, concept in any way is > allowed > > > to > > > > > be > > > > > > made in reference to reality in itself and this is > Madhyamika's > > > > > > foundational assumption, that language and concept have > > > absolutely > > > > > > nothing to do with reality. If one speaks, describes, or > makes > > > > > models of > > > > > > reality in any way you and believe them to be reality or > to > > > > > represent > > > > > > reality in any way or use them in thinking about reality, > you > > > are > > > > > lost. > > > > > > Asking for information about the Madhyamika reality is > > > rebuffed. > > > > > Such > > > > > > questions or inquiries are unanswerable, because of the > > > assumption > > > > > and, > > > > > > therefore are not considered (valid) questions. > > > > > > > > > > > > How can such an assumption be made? Easily, by simply > doing so > > > and > > > > > in > > > > > > this case with authority born of the analytics that > enable any > > > well > > > > > > studied practitioner to silence any one else by using > their own > > > > > language > > > > > > and conceptualizations to undermine certainty in all of > their > > > and > > > > > other > > > > > > thought systems, dismantling them to become the reality of > > > > > Madhyamika as > > > > > > described above. It is similar to modern sciences attempt > to > > > > > silence > > > > > > religions. Both are non-metaphysical systems of thought > and > > > > > practice. > > > > > > > > > > > > So, it is important to note, that this does not mean that > > > > > Madhyamika > > > > > > reality is beyond words and concepts. Such a statement > would be > > > > > fine for > > > > > > Advaita Vedanta, but not in the practice of Madhyamika. > > > Thinking, > > > > > > dealing with concepts, as we are doing here, is not > dealing > > > with > > > > > reality > > > > > > in Madhyamika. This is, in the Madhyamika practice, a > futile > > > effort > > > > > if > > > > > > it is directed in any way as an attempt to represent > reality. > > > > > > > > > > > > In Madhyamika there is no Brahman, Atman, soul, self, or > any > > > thing > > > > > > conceptual or metaphysical because of its fundamental > > > assumption. > > > > > There > > > > > > are no quanta or information bits swirling around. Instead > > > there is > > > > > a > > > > > > revelation experienced after the cessation of the co- > dependent > > > > > arising > > > > > > of thoughts, concepts, language, that is when there is > sunyata > > > or > > > > > > " emptiness " (empty of content [nairatmya] but having > existence > > > > > > [abhava]). This is not achieved or not achieved, made with > > > effort > > > > > or > > > > > > unmade with effort, known or unknown and so on. > > > > > > > > > > > > So it is that Madhyamikas are conceptually undecided about > > > > > realities; > > > > > > there is nothing to say about that for them. > > > > > > > > > > > > So where does this leave us? Well, we could use > Madhyamika to > > > > > eliminate > > > > > > all the conceptual models in the universe in one fell > wave of > > > the > > > > > mind, > > > > > > including Advaita Vedanta. We can then stop assuming > Madhyamika > > > > > > foundational assumption and put down its singular > capacity to > > > > > silence > > > > > > all or smile at not being silenced by its singular focus > on > > > concept > > > > > and > > > > > > language at the expense of experience and living freely. > > > Instead, > > > > > we can > > > > > > learn well from Madhyamika rise up from sunyata, which we > share > > > > > with > > > > > > ease, to create an enjoy the worlds of ours and others > making, > > > > > doing the > > > > > > best we can with others, harming no one and no thing's > > > appearance > > > > > as > > > > > > best as we are able. We could do the opposite too. > > > > > > > > > > > > From these assumptions also come the body of concepts and > > > > > practices. > > > > > > The concepts are not necessary unless you want to go over > them > > > for > > > > > they > > > > > > all come from the foundational assumptions. All those > matters > > > > > usually > > > > > > are a confusion. Nisargadatta is a good example of > cleaning up > > > the > > > > > house > > > > > > and going to the point. If these assumptions are clearly > > > understood > > > > > the > > > > > > practices should be simple and straightforward. The > practices > > > could > > > > > also > > > > > > be explored to see if there are more efficient ways to > realize > > > > > Atman or > > > > > > sunyata or ........ > > > > > > > > > > > > What do you say? > > > > > > > > > > > > At the ready, > > > > > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > P.S. If one holds tightly or attachedly to the > assumptions of > > > > > models, > > > > > > stories, like the above and this endless conversation > occurs > > > > > > automatically without end: > > > > > > > > > > > > Advaita Vedanta: Self > > > > > > Madhyamika: Hmmm. Co-dependent origination! no Self. > > > > > > Advaita Vedanta: Self > > > > > > Madhyamika: Well, Co-dependent origination! no Self. > > > > > > Advaita Vedanta: Self > > > > > > Madhyamika: But, Co-dependent origination! no Self. > > > > > > Advaita Vedanta: Self > > > > > > Madhyamika: See, Co-dependent origination! no Self. > > > > > > Advaita Vedanta: Self > > > > > > Madhyamika: However, Co-dependent origination! no Self. > > > > > > Advaita Vedanta: Self > > > > > > Madhyamika: Nevertheless. Co-dependent origination! no > Self. > > > > > > Advaita Vedanta: Self > > > > > > Madhyamika: In other words, Co-dependent origination! no > > > > > Self......... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ** > > > > > > > > > > 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 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 13, 2005 ilikezen2004 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> > wrote: > > > > Hi Lewis, > > > > Now I got you. Thanks for the simple version. > > > > When revising my belief system (opinios) you are definitely right. > > Just all air .. > > > > Ok, from now on lets chop wood and carry water. And you start with > > it > > > > Werner > > > *********************************************** > > Thanks Lewis for your simple version. As Werner I think it is too > long. But of course very interresting!!! :0) > > Odysseus, Hi Odysseus, Well my mercurial lovely, how has it been? Not staying in one assumption to long have you? For you: The Atman being attributeless, requires being assumption less does it not or it will then have an attribute or designation such as Self and observer and so on, which is not the case. is that so or not? In being so, without attribute or designation of any sort, what is there? All things are there it seems to me in my experience, there is Self, no self, neither, both simultaneously yet none of these and all of these and all of the conceptualizations are there for harvesting or burning as chaff. It seems that I can assume anything within thought and mind but not so with the appearances; there are things there that do not allow such mercurial manipulations like the concept of gravity and the concept of differential density of the appearances. Or in the no self way of talking; Any assumption may be held in any way without being any of them and capable of being any or all of them as required as long there is no attachment to them. No Self: Once moved from quiescence in to action, there must be assumption of a form, thought or otherwise into conventional reality. Self/Atman: Once I move from quiescence in to action, I must assume a form, thought or otherwise to act in the world. So why stick to these designations or any one. Self or no self or Old Pigeon or Alexander the great. What difference is there. None. They are simple designations with a set of assumptions, more or less. They are harmless and need no defense or promotion. Sticking to one, believing one, attached to one is...not liberated. This is the dream is it not, liberation? Why chain ourselves to words concepts, systems of thought old or new? Is this not what the predecessors spoke about? Perhaps not. How could one know? What do you say, lovely Odysseus? Lewis Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 13, 2005 Hi Sandeep, for the second time. Are you Sandeep Chatterjee? :0) See: my few comments or questions below: Nisargadatta , " sandeep " <sandeepc@b...> wrote: > Hi Stefan, > > Some two bits..... > > > - > Stefan > Nisargadatta > Thursday, January 13, 2005 3:12 PM > Re: The Information Revolution > > > Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: > > >In a message dated 1/12/05 9:33:11 AM, anders_lindman writes: > > > >>Maybe there is only one observer? > >> > > > >P: There is none. Observation happens > >when organized inf. reaches a threshold. > >Then memory traces an imaginary line > >connecting pass observations, that line > >is mistakenly taken as the observer. > > Hi Pete, this theory is totally meaningless because it leaves one > decisive question: > > WHO or WHAT does mistakenly take that line as the observer? > > --------------- > It is observing that throws up a notional gestalt of separation.. > > ...and thus " exists " a sense of a " discrete observer " notionally apart from the sense of a " discrete observed " > > > It is seeing that throws up a notional gestalt of separation... > > ..and thus " exists " a sense of a " discrete seer " notionally apart from the sense of a " discrete seen " > > > It is doing that throws a notional gestalt of separation... > ..and thus " exists " a sense of a " discrete doer " notionally apart from the sense of a " discrete done " > > With not a mote of dust disturbed > and leaving no stone unturned, > the grand ado of evening shadows > sweeping the courtyard. > > ----------- > Odysseus: You are talking about the ego here. Can we say that when the ego is transcended there is no one, nothing there, nothing that exists, no Reality etc? > > And there we are again and so it could go on forever... > > The other paradoxon arises when we ask the question how the above > could have been written without an observing entity. > > ---------- > > The sense of an observing entity assuming itself as the " subject " and thus the sense of the " observed " as the myriad of objects.... > > ...are nuances of the functioning in the moment. > Odysseus: The nuances you are talking about is Maya, life. Maybe it is nuance for you but for billions of people it is life the myriad of objets and manifestations. Can killing be a nuance? or kiling is killing? > ------------ So: logically we have to accept the observer. > > Odysseus: :0) > ---------- > > So long the prevailing sense of a belief of the independent existential reality of " that-out-there " , .. > > ...the inference of the existential reality of the self (for which that reality)........is concurrent. > > Both arise together. > Both dissipate together. > Odysseus: Nice but you have not answered Stefan, question: WHO or WHAT does mistakenly take that line as the observer? Who? and What? You have explained how it works. But not Who and What which is the same as who! I will add something. You say: Both arise together. Both dissipate together. My questions are, arise from where? and dissipate where? -------------- > > > > When there is no observer then there is no world. > When there is world-knowledge then there is an observer. > > Intellectually it is impossible to deny the observer, because the one > who is making the statement would negate himself and the statement > itself. This does not make any sense and is useless. > > -------- > > > Yes. > And hence finally (without the conotation of time, or a process- in-time).... > > ..the negation of the " negator " . > Odysseus: Neti, neti again, can neti neti bring us to Neti Reality? Never heard the Masters teach. You should reach UnReality!!! and Nirvana has nothing to do with Un Reality or Non-Reality. It is the extinction of the " s " elf or Ego. There must be something for it to die there etc. > ------ > > Only if we come to the end of world-knowledge can we transcend the > observer and the observed. > > ----- > > Unfortunately leaves that pesky " we " shining in all it's nefarious glory.:-) > > Transcendence is not a transcendence........but the of the notionality of the arising and dissipating of functioning, ..... > Odysseus: Who is not transcending nothing? > ...functing whose resultant consequence is the apparent observer- observed hoopla. There is no hoopla at all. There is just the same question. Who? or what? is the apparent observer observing? Is it the apple creating consciousness for it to be observed?? It felt lonely, so it created the world to be observed? Noooo God can't but the apple can of course!! :0)) To apperceive the notionality of the hoopla is to ap the absurdity of the very attempt to transcend. > Odysseus: Transcendance is to go beyond. It is not a state or something. Master Nis says go beyond " I am " to the Absolute. > And to anticipate the further question.... > > ...apperceiving is as conceptual a term as any... > > > .. and points to the perceiving without a perceiver thereof. > > > Odysseus: You lost me with your apperception and perception? > Perceiving without a perceiver?? isn't it ridiculous? Not you of course. I see the apple!!! But there is no one that sees that apple! OOOOOOMMMMMMMMMMM!!!!! Even without the Ego. following the buddha theory. That the Ego is unreal but the body is. Well the body sees the apple. Why do we say " no one " is seeing the apple. They are two. The body (no Ego) Zen Master, who sees the apple and the apple. Isn't this duality? Masters don't teach duality. 7 billion people already live duality. They don't think duality, they live duality!! Love Odysseus, > Doooobeeee Dooobeee Doooooo > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 13, 2005 ************************* Lewis, Names are names. No big deal. I don't stick to them. You call yourself Old pigeon. And it is good! I told you that I am new born pigeon. Is Alberto my real name? No! This is the name my mother chose for me. It is not me! Done with that. You talk about gravity! That is good and true. Gravity exist. If we say it is an illusion and ignore it is ridiculous as you know. The one who says I have a body but I have no blood is not very smart. OR, I have no body!... but as his daily activities takes care of it as it was the greatest jewel on earth? Is someone there or not? Does gravity exist or not? To go beyong the world we must know the world first. Does Love exist or not? or do we need to be heartless bodies, to realise the void? Odysseus, Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
