Guest guest Report post Posted February 25, 2006 > > > > > > Then, what you are referring to must be something unexpressable, > even > > unthinkable. > > > > I´m referring to direct perception, like for instance: stomach ache. > Not the label we give to it, but the actual, perceivable thing. > > Len > Like.............a thing that would exist............even if there were not a word for it? toombaru Does nothing EXIST ? ** 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 February 25, 2006 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > > > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " > > <lissbon2002@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > >>>There is no such thing as " no-conception " . > > > > >>> > > > > >>>Greetings > > > > >>>Stefan > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >>Yes there is. > > > > >> > > > > >>Len > > > > > > > > > >Len, would you say that conception does exist? > > > > > > > > > >Greetings > > > > >Stefan > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > Hmmm... you know, if you would have said " no " my answer would have > > > been that we are talking about the same thing. > > > > > > Language cannot be used non-conceptually, would you agree? > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > > > > > > Then, what you are referring to must be something unexpressable, > > even > > > unthinkable. > > > > > > > > I´m referring to direct perception, like for instance: stomach ache. > > Not the label we give to it, but the actual, perceivable thing. > > > > Len > > > > > > Like.............a thing that would exist............even if there were not a word for it? > > > toombaru Yes. Existence of things is not dependent on words. Only concepts depend on words. Len Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 25, 2006 > Patricia: Does nothing EXIST ? > 'Nothing' is a concept..... and as such it is an attempt by the thought stream to define its assumed sensorial reality. In truth there is no mountain....no river....and no wind.......there is just labeling of perceived movement. The conceptual needs a polar opposite to be. The reality of 'nothing' would imply the presence of something. I'm not sure where this is going now...... but I do know that there in no such thing as an empty box. toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 25, 2006 No no no, it´s not a game, it´s obvious that separating your imaginary self from what you see is a concept. Len L.E: The whole process of an imaginary self trying to discover its true Self is ridiculous. And having arguments about it is even more ridculous. Anyone looking for a bunch of idiots? Larry Epston www.epston.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 25, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: >Yeah, I use (S)elf to denote consciousness. Not human consciousness >but the experiential aspect of Awareness. To me, it doesn't matter >if we call it The Great Pterodactyl, but yes, it's important to >recognize the ego self doesn't wake up to an individual Self. The >illusion of individuality dies. I figure everybody knows that. Well, not sure if everybody knows it :-O But yes! I used to call it " wordless wonder " for a while. But then I started to have my doubts even about this... Greetings Stefan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 25, 2006 Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 wrote: >I�m referring to direct perception, like for instance: stomach ache. >Not the label we give to it, but the actual, perceivable thing. > >Len Hi Len. I see, and I guess this is an important point. For me, I found that I cannot trace back any perception to a point before it became a thought. It somehow dims into darkness. And when I try to catch this very moment - which logically must be full of direct perception - this " catching " is always a millisecond late, so to speak. Besides all this, as " what is " things flow as they come and go, quite perfectly, lets say... undevided. The question about " concept / non-concept " does not arise. But once the question is posed I figure for now that " direct perception " must be itself a concept... Greetings Stefan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 25, 2006 Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > wrote: > > >I�m referring to direct perception, like for instance: stomach ache. > >Not the label we give to it, but the actual, perceivable thing. > > > >Len > > Hi Len. > > I see, and I guess this is an important point. For me, I found that I > cannot trace back any perception to a point before it became a > thought. It somehow dims into darkness. And when I try to catch this > very moment - which logically must be full of direct perception - this > " catching " is always a millisecond late, so to speak. Besides all > this, as " what is " things flow as they come and go, quite perfectly, > lets say... undevided. The question about " concept / non-concept " does > not arise. But once the question is posed I figure for now that > " direct perception " must be itself a concept... > > Greetings > Stefan > yes, Stefan, to me too. it is a concept, and it is always a millisecond late! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 25, 2006 Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " > <lissbon2002@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Stefan " > <s.petersilge@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " > > > <lissbon2002@> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >>>There is no such thing as " no-conception " . > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>Greetings > > > > > >>>Stefan > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>Yes there is. > > > > > >> > > > > > >>Len > > > > > > > > > > > >Len, would you say that conception does exist? > > > > > > > > > > > >Greetings > > > > > >Stefan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > > > Hmmm... you know, if you would have said " no " my answer would > have > > > > been that we are talking about the same thing. > > > > > > > > Language cannot be used non-conceptually, would you agree? > > > > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then, what you are referring to must be something > unexpressable, > > > even > > > > unthinkable. > > > > > > > > > > > > I´m referring to direct perception, like for instance: stomach > ache. > > > Not the label we give to it, but the actual, perceivable thing. > > > > > > Len > > > > > > > > > > > Like.............a thing that would exist............even if there > were not a word for it? > > > > > > toombaru > > > Yes. Existence of things is not dependent on words. > Only concepts depend on words. > > Len > mm Len, you seem to have a knowledge about the difference between things and concepts. I hope you really know it because from here it seem such an absurdity!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 25, 2006 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > > > > Patricia: Does nothing EXIST ? > > > > > 'Nothing' is a concept..... W:yes, 'nothing', as someone likes to write, is a concept. > > and as such it is an attempt by the thought stream to define its assumed sensorial reality. > > In truth there is no mountain....no river....and no wind.......there is just labeling of > perceived movement. W: there is no truth. that's all. > > The conceptual needs a polar opposite to be. > > The reality of 'nothing' would imply the presence of something. W: mmm...talking about 'nothing' > > > I'm not sure where this is going now...... W: of course! > > > but > > I do know that there in no such thing as an empty box. W: That's it! bye bye toombaru > > > > > toombaru > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 25, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 2/24/2006 9:06:10 AM Pacific Standard Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 > Re: Mirage > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > wrote: > > > > > When one sees the mirage for what it ....there is no mirage > > left....just light.....bouncing. > > > > > > 'You " can never see the 'I am. > > > > > > Anything that you can see....is not you. > > > This is just another thought. > > Len > > > > Thanks for your thoughts, Len. > > Phil (Just a thought) No no no, it´s not a game, it´s obvious that separating your imaginary self from what you see is a concept. Len Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 25, 2006 In a message dated 2/25/2006 1:52:45 AM Pacific Standard Time, Nisargadatta writes: " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 Re: Mirage Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@> > > wrote: > > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > > > wrote: > > > > > >>>There is no such thing as " no-conception " . > > >>> > > >>>Greetings > > >>>Stefan > > >> > > >> > > >>Yes there is. > > >> > > >>Len > > > > > >Len, would you say that conception does exist? > > > > > >Greetings > > >Stefan > > > > > > Yes. > > Hmmm... you know, if you would have said " no " my answer would have > been that we are talking about the same thing. > > Language cannot be used non-conceptually, would you agree? Yes. > Then, what you are referring to must be something unexpressable, even > unthinkable. I´m referring to direct perception, like for instance: stomach ache. Not the label we give to it, but the actual, perceivable thing. Len Mayhaps you're thinking of constipation instead of conception? ~ Phil Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 25, 2006 In a message dated 2/25/2006 1:10:49 PM Pacific Standard Time, Nisargadatta writes: " Stefan " <s.petersilge Re: Mirage --- In Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: >Yeah, I use (S)elf to denote consciousness. Not human consciousness >but the experiential aspect of Awareness. To me, it doesn't matter >if we call it The Great Pterodactyl, but yes, it's important to >recognize the ego self doesn't wake up to an individual Self. The >illusion of individuality dies. I figure everybody knows that. Well, not sure if everybody knows it :-O But yes! I used to call it " wordless wonder " for a while. But then I started to have my doubts even about this... Greetings Stefan It's always fun to try to conceptualize the Great Pterodactyl. I see it as impersonal awareness. No thought, no feeling, no memory, no desire, no intention. The more I 'look', the more I find that everything exists and seemingly occurs within it, but spontaneously, without will or volition. One of the shocking realizations was that the universe(s) operates with exquisite harmony and perfection and nobody, nothing.....is running the show. Phil Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 25, 2006 In a message dated 2/25/2006 1:10:49 PM Pacific Standard Time, Nisargadatta writes: " Stefan " <s.petersilge Re: Mirage --- In Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 wrote: >I�m referring to direct perception, like for instance: stomach ache. >Not the label we give to it, but the actual, perceivable thing. > >Len Hi Len. I see, and I guess this is an important point. For me, I found that I cannot trace back any perception to a point before it became a thought. It somehow dims into darkness. And when I try to catch this very moment - which logically must be full of direct perception - this " catching " is always a millisecond late, so to speak. Besides all this, as " what is " things flow as they come and go, quite perfectly, lets say... undevided. The question about " concept / non-concept " does not arise. But once the question is posed I figure for now that " direct perception " must be itself a concept... Greetings Stefan From my perspective, direct cognition, (a concept of course) describes a Truth. Whether it's called direct cognition or direct perception, the terminology is deceiving. It's possible to 'look' within consciousness (not human consciousness) and notice something that is not present in mind/memory. This is a realization that does not emerge from thought, and is therefore not conceptual. This is the knowing that precedes though to which you refer. It's not possible to " catch " this moment for the obvious reason that it's mind that is trying to do the catching and to catch it means to conceptualize it. Once it is conceptualized, it's no longer a knowing, but has been taken over by mind and called it's own. Most folks have actually had the experience of a realization that comes from consciousness and precedes thought. This is the 'AHA!' moment. If you watch very carefully, you'll notice there's a momentary pause between the AHA! and the conceptualization of that realization. This is the moment in which God gets raped. Phil Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 25, 2006 In a message dated 2/25/2006 1:10:49 PM Pacific Standard Time, Nisargadatta writes: " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 Re: Mirage Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 2/24/2006 9:06:10 AM Pacific Standard Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 > Re: Mirage > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > wrote: > > > > > When one sees the mirage for what it ....there is no mirage > > left....just light.....bouncing. > > > > > > 'You " can never see the 'I am. > > > > > > Anything that you can see....is not you. > > > This is just another thought. > > Len > > > > Thanks for your thoughts, Len. > > Phil (Just a thought) No no no, it´s not a game, it´s obvious that separating your imaginary self from what you see is a concept. Len Of course it is. The thing is, the idea that this is a concept is also a concept. What makes one concept superior to another concept? Perhaps your perception? Lemme offer yet another concept. The above concept that you're disagreeing with isn't about separation and oneness. Of course everything is one. It's about identifying the Self as Self rather than as the peices parts of the manifestation of the Self. It's not possible for the self to observe the Self. In order for this to occur, there must be the observer and the observed. The eye cannot see the eye, just as the 'I' cannot see the 'I'. Whatever you observe with the mind is not what you are, but just one of your creations. Therefore, you are not your body, your mind, your thoughts or your feelings. The only reason humans believe it's possible to observe the Self is that they believe themselves to be the human and they notice that they can clearly observe that. Phil Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 25, 2006 In a message dated 2/25/2006 1:10:49 PM Pacific Standard Time, Nisargadatta writes: epston Re: Re: Mirage No no no, it´s not a game, it´s obvious that separating your imaginary self from what you see is a concept. Len L.E: The whole process of an imaginary self trying to discover its true Self is ridiculous. And having arguments about it is even more ridculous. Anyone looking for a bunch of idiots? Larry Epston I agree with that. However, this is not what is ultimately occurring. What is happening is that the Self is using a dream to notice that a dream is occurring. When the dream is seen for what it is, there is no longer any particular interest in it. Since it is sourced in the Self, the removal of focus on the dream allows it to dissolve. When the dream dissolves, the 'dreamer' awakens. (The dreamer is not a human, but an aspect of consciousness.) Phil Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 26, 2006 Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > wrote: > > >I�m referring to direct perception, like for instance: stomach ache. > >Not the label we give to it, but the actual, perceivable thing. > > > >Len > > Hi Len. > > I see, and I guess this is an important point. For me, I found that I > cannot trace back any perception to a point before it became a > thought. It somehow dims into darkness. And when I try to catch this > very moment - which logically must be full of direct perception - this > " catching " is always a millisecond late, so to speak. Besides all > this, as " what is " things flow as they come and go, quite perfectly, > lets say... undevided. The question about " concept / non-concept " does > not arise. But once the question is posed I figure for now that > " direct perception " must be itself a concept... > > Greetings > Stefan Hi Stefan, Tracing and catching is thoughts job. It doesn´t mean that there is no direct perception. It´s just that every reflection on direct perception is thought. Imagine though swimming in the sea, in beautiful blue water. Thought is of course giving a comment about it, for instance: " I love swimming " , but outside of this comment the direct perception is there. Now imagine thinking of the swim you had last year. The thought creates images and comments, however the direct perception of the water on your skin is lacking. The part of direct perception is missing this time. The same is the case when you´re hungry and have nothing to eat; you may dream of a lovely meal, but the direct perception of stilling your hunger is missing. And if you´re without food for long enough, direct perception will present you with pain, no matter how vivid your imagination is. This pain is not a concept. Len Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 26, 2006 Nisargadatta , " bigwaaba " <bigwaaba wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " > > <lissbon2002@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Stefan " > > <s.petersilge@> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " > > > > <lissbon2002@> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>There is no such thing as " no-conception " . > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>>Greetings > > > > > > >>>Stefan > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >>Yes there is. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >>Len > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Len, would you say that conception does exist? > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Greetings > > > > > > >Stefan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > > > > > Hmmm... you know, if you would have said " no " my answer would > > have > > > > > been that we are talking about the same thing. > > > > > > > > > > Language cannot be used non-conceptually, would you agree? > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then, what you are referring to must be something > > unexpressable, > > > > even > > > > > unthinkable. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I´m referring to direct perception, like for instance: stomach > > ache. > > > > Not the label we give to it, but the actual, perceivable thing. > > > > > > > > Len > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Like.............a thing that would exist............even if > there > > were not a word for it? > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > Yes. Existence of things is not dependent on words. > > Only concepts depend on words. > > > > Len > > > > mm Len, you seem to have a knowledge about the difference between > things and concepts. I hope you really know it because from here it > seem such an absurdity!!! Yes I really have it. It only seems an absurdity when you conceptualize everything to death ;-) Len Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 27, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 2/25/2006 1:10:49 PM Pacific Standard Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > " Stefan " <s.petersilge > Re: Mirage > > --- In Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > wrote: > > >I�m referring to direct perception, like for instance: stomach ache. > >Not the label we give to it, but the actual, perceivable thing. > > > >Len > > Hi Len. > > I see, and I guess this is an important point. For me, I found that I > cannot trace back any perception to a point before it became a > thought. It somehow dims into darkness. And when I try to catch this > very moment - which logically must be full of direct perception - this > " catching " is always a millisecond late, so to speak. Besides all > this, as " what is " things flow as they come and go, quite perfectly, > lets say... undevided. The question about " concept / non-concept " does > not arise. But once the question is posed I figure for now that > " direct perception " must be itself a concept... > > Greetings > Stefan > > > > > From my perspective, direct cognition, (a concept of course) describes a > Truth. Whether it's called direct cognition or direct perception, the > terminology is deceiving. It's possible to 'look' within consciousness (not human > consciousness) and notice something that is not present in mind/memory. This is a > realization that does not emerge from thought, and is therefore not > conceptual. > > This is the knowing that precedes though to which you refer. It's not > possible to " catch " this moment for the obvious reason that it's mind that is > trying to do the catching and to catch it means to conceptualize it. Once it is > conceptualized, it's no longer a knowing, but has been taken over by mind and > called it's own. > > Most folks have actually had the experience of a realization that comes from > consciousness and precedes thought. This is the 'AHA!' moment. If you watch > very carefully, you'll notice there's a momentary pause between the AHA! and > the conceptualization of that realization. This is the moment in which God > gets raped. > > Phil Your back itching is also direct perception, and therfore Truth ;-) Shall we also call it the AHA moment? :-) Len Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 27, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 2/25/2006 1:10:49 PM Pacific Standard Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 > Re: Mirage > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 2/24/2006 9:06:10 AM Pacific Standard Time, > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > > Re: Mirage > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > When one sees the mirage for what it ....there is no mirage > > > left....just light.....bouncing. > > > > > > > > 'You " can never see the 'I am. > > > > > > > > Anything that you can see....is not you. > > > > > > This is just another thought. > > > > Len > > > > > > > > Thanks for your thoughts, Len. > > > > Phil (Just a thought) > > > > No no no, it´s not a game, it´s obvious that separating your > imaginary self from what you see is a concept. > > Len > > > > Of course it is. The thing is, the idea that this is a concept is also a > concept. What makes one concept superior to another concept? Perhaps your > perception? Not my perception, just perception. There is nothing saying what I am and what I am not except some thoughts. There is no way to know myself as anything separate from the perceptions which are there. There are just perceptions, sensations, thoughts. And some thoughts, inspired through some religious teachings are suggesting that I (whoever I am supposed to be) am not this perceptions. Outside of these thoughts there is no such thing as a separate " me " . Len > Lemme offer yet another concept. The above concept that you're disagreeing > with isn't about separation and oneness. Of course everything is one. It's > about identifying the Self as Self rather than as the peices parts of the > manifestation of the Self. > > It's not possible for the self to observe the Self. In order for this to > occur, there must be the observer and the observed. The eye cannot see the eye, > just as the 'I' cannot see the 'I'. Whatever you observe with the mind is not > what you are, but just one of your creations. Therefore, you are not your > body, your mind, your thoughts or your feelings. The only reason humans believe > it's possible to observe the Self is that they believe themselves to be the > human and they notice that they can clearly observe that. > > Phil > > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 27, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: >It's possible to 'look' within consciousness (not human >consciousness) and notice something that is not present in mind/memory. This is a >realization that does not emerge from thought, and is therefore not >conceptual. Phil, I do not know about any " non human consciousness " . I am not able to " notice " anything which is not present in my mind/memory. Please dont get me wrong, I do not say this to argue. I have tested it, and this is the result. Greetings Stefan > From my perspective, direct cognition, (a concept of course) describes a > Truth. Whether it's called direct cognition or direct perception, the > terminology is deceiving. It's possible to 'look' within consciousness (not human > consciousness) and notice something that is not present in mind/memory. This is a > realization that does not emerge from thought, and is therefore not > conceptual. > > This is the knowing that precedes though to which you refer. It's not > possible to " catch " this moment for the obvious reason that it's mind that is > trying to do the catching and to catch it means to conceptualize it. Once it is > conceptualized, it's no longer a knowing, but has been taken over by mind and > called it's own. > > Most folks have actually had the experience of a realization that comes from > consciousness and precedes thought. This is the 'AHA!' moment. If you watch > very carefully, you'll notice there's a momentary pause between the AHA! and > the conceptualization of that realization. This is the moment in which God > gets raped. > > Phil Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 27, 2006 Hi Len, the fact that you are able to describe perceived events proves, that they have been recognized by the mind. Events that have been perceived but have not been recognized can not be recalled and ergo not verified. I am afraid " direct perception " independent of thought is an unprovable hypothesis, moreover it is irrelevant. The relevance lies in the recognition, which forms consciousness. From what I have found I would say: if we sincerely investigate with the tools that are to our disposal we are left with a perception that is identical with its recognition. In my understanding, this means that the question of " direct " becomes irrelevant, and the stream of experiencing itself alone forms our reality. (What could be more " direct " than that? )) Greetings Stefan Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 wrote: > Hi Stefan, > > Tracing and catching is thoughts job. It doesn�t mean that there is > no direct perception. It�s just that every reflection on direct > perception is thought. Imagine though swimming in the sea, in > beautiful blue water. Thought is of course giving a comment about > it, for instance: " I love swimming " , but outside of this comment the > direct perception is there. Now imagine thinking of the swim you had > last year. The thought creates images and comments, however the > direct perception of the water on your skin is lacking. The part of > direct perception is missing this time. The same is the case when > you�re hungry and have nothing to eat; you may dream of a lovely > meal, but the direct perception of stilling your hunger is missing. > And if you�re without food for long enough, direct perception will > present you with pain, no matter how vivid your imagination is. This > pain is not a concept. > > Len > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 27, 2006 In a message dated 2/26/2006 8:47:38 PM Pacific Standard Time, Nisargadatta writes: " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 Re: Mirage Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 2/25/2006 1:10:49 PM Pacific Standard Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > " Stefan " <s.petersilge > Re: Mirage > > --- In Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > wrote: > > >I�m referring to direct perception, like for instance: stomach ache. > >Not the label we give to it, but the actual, perceivable thing. > > > >Len > > Hi Len. > > I see, and I guess this is an important point. For me, I found that I > cannot trace back any perception to a point before it became a > thought. It somehow dims into darkness. And when I try to catch this > very moment - which logically must be full of direct perception - this > " catching " is always a millisecond late, so to speak. Besides all > this, as " what is " things flow as they come and go, quite perfectly, > lets say... undevided. The question about " concept / non-concept " does > not arise. But once the question is posed I figure for now that > " direct perception " must be itself a concept... > > Greetings > Stefan > > > > > From my perspective, direct cognition, (a concept of course) describes a > Truth. Whether it's called direct cognition or direct perception, the > terminology is deceiving. It's possible to 'look' within consciousness (not human > consciousness) and notice something that is not present in mind/memory. This is a > realization that does not emerge from thought, and is therefore not > conceptual. > > This is the knowing that precedes though to which you refer. It's not > possible to " catch " this moment for the obvious reason that it's mind that is > trying to do the catching and to catch it means to conceptualize it. Once it is > conceptualized, it's no longer a knowing, but has been taken over by mind and > called it's own. > > Most folks have actually had the experience of a realization that comes from > consciousness and precedes thought. This is the 'AHA!' moment. If you watch > very carefully, you'll notice there's a momentary pause between the AHA! and > the conceptualization of that realization. This is the moment in which God > gets raped. > > Phil Your back itching is also direct perception, and therfore Truth ;-) Shall we also call it the AHA moment? :-) Len Well, you and I seem to be defining direct perception differently. I don't mean physical perception that involves sensory analysis. I also use Truth (capital T) to refer to absolute as opposed to relative truth. The perception that your back is itching is an interpretation of sensory input. Phil Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 27, 2006 In a message dated 2/26/2006 8:47:38 PM Pacific Standard Time, Nisargadatta writes: " Stefan " <s.petersilge Re: Mirage --- In Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: >It's possible to 'look' within consciousness (not human >consciousness) and notice something that is not present in mind/memory. This is a >realization that does not emerge from thought, and is therefore not >conceptual. Phil, I do not know about any " non human consciousness " . I am not able to " notice " anything which is not present in my mind/memory. Please dont get me wrong, I do not say this to argue. I have tested it, and this is the result. Greetings Stefan Okay, fair enough. Is there the belief in what's commonly called intuition, where there seems to be knowledge of events occurring or about to occur that couldn't come from mind? What's referred to as 'mother's intuition' is really quite common. Beyond that, as I say, the AHA! moment is also quite common. If you were to examine what occurs in these moments (slightly after the fact) you'll notice that the realization probably didn't come about during a period of intense mental activity but more often during a period of rest following such activity. Many scientists and inventors have spoken of this phenomena where a problem is worked on using intense thought, logic and analysis, to no avail. Once the mind relaxes, the 'answer' sometimes seems to come out of nowhere. What follows immediately is a very active mental process in which this 'knowing' must be conceptualized or lost, since the mind is generally interested in using this knowing in a problem solving context, and mind hasn't learned to remain still. This final conceptualized answer is then claimed by mind as it's own, and in a sense it is, since without the conceptualizing, it wouldn't have any utility. But the realization (or idea) did not come from mind/memory. It came from what I see as consciousness beyond mind, where all things can be found. This is part of the Gnostic tradition. If you care to experiment some more , lemme suggest a plan. Contemplate a question you have about how God works. You already know that the answer is not present in mind/memory, except perhaps as a concept with which you are already familiar. You know that mental processing is just a reorganization of your memory contents and so you're not going to find any shocking realizations there, but contemplating what you do know about is important because, conceptually speaking, it allows you to 'align' with a field of consciousness in which both the question and the answer are present. The 'real' answer to your question will be that the question has no meaning, but this isn't enlightenment we're trying to do, it's just direct perception of a new level of understanding that does not presently exist in mind/memory. After contemplating for a bit, stop the thoughts, and just 'look'. This is a passive state of mind where you are not thinking but rather watching passively for a thought to arise without any volition on your part. Nonsense thoughts may arise, but you'll know when the thought you're looking for begins to emerge from this field of consciousness. You'll likely be mesmerized by it as mind tries to follow it and grasp it. The grasping is the process of conceptualizing and is probably going to be inevitable. I've been trying to teach my lady friend to do this in recent months, and it has occurred enough for her that she clearly understands what it's about, although she can't produce the effect at will as of yet. Phil Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 27, 2006 In a message dated 2/26/2006 8:47:38 PM Pacific Standard Time, Nisargadatta writes: " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 Re: Mirage Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 2/25/2006 1:10:49 PM Pacific Standard Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 > Re: Mirage > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 2/24/2006 9:06:10 AM Pacific Standard Time, > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > > Re: Mirage > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > When one sees the mirage for what it ....there is no mirage > > > left....just light.....bouncing. > > > > > > > > 'You " can never see the 'I am. > > > > > > > > Anything that you can see....is not you. > > > > > > This is just another thought. > > > > Len > > > > > > > > Thanks for your thoughts, Len. > > > > Phil (Just a thought) > > > > No no no, it´s not a game, it´s obvious that separating your > imaginary self from what you see is a concept. > > Len > > > > Of course it is. The thing is, the idea that this is a concept is also a > concept. What makes one concept superior to another concept? Perhaps your > perception? Not my perception, just perception. There is nothing saying what I am and what I am not except some thoughts. There is no way to know myself as anything separate from the perceptions which are there. There are just perceptions, sensations, thoughts. And some thoughts, inspired through some religious teachings are suggesting that I (whoever I am supposed to be) am not this perceptions. Outside of these thoughts there is no such thing as a separate " me " . Len Yes. Conceptualization (thought) is part of the process of perception, and so associating what you " see " with your self is as much a concept as saying what you see cannot be what you are. The only thing that makes your concept seem " obvious " is that it's your concept. They are both " just another thought " . Phil Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 27, 2006 In a message dated 2/26/2006 8:47:38 PM Pacific Standard Time, Nisargadatta writes: " Stefan " <s.petersilge Re: Mirage Hi Len, the fact that you are able to describe perceived events proves, that they have been recognized by the mind. Events that have been perceived but have not been recognized can not be recalled and ergo not verified. I am afraid " direct perception " independent of thought is an unprovable hypothesis, moreover it is irrelevant. The relevance lies in the recognition, which forms consciousness. From what I have found I would say: if we sincerely investigate with the tools that are to our disposal we are left with a perception that is identical with its recognition. In my understanding, this means that the question of " direct " becomes irrelevant, and the stream of experiencing itself alone forms our reality. (What could be more " direct " than that? )) Greetings Stefan If we imagine no sensory input at all, is it possible for thought to arise? If so, from whence doth this thought cometh? Keep in mind that the thought to initiate a thought is itself a thought. Phil Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
