Guest guest Report post Posted February 27, 2006 Ok ok, It was the word s-o-u-l which caugtht my attention, but not m-i-n-d or h-e-a-r-t ... But if you believe in a soul, go ahead, Bill. Werner Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > Marc, > > > > I have posted some text about " soul " by Krishnamurti. Please read it > > and maybe it is helpful for you to quit writing nonsens about soul. > > > > Werner > > But Werner, Krishnamurti is only speaking with regard to > " soul " in the context of separation/division, for he defines > soul in the beginning as: > " The soul is a division, born of illusion. " > > But as Marc is using the term " soul " it is not a *division*. > Surely you don't object to, and regard as nonsense, the mere > use of the four letters s-o-u-l strung together regardless > of how it is defined? > > Or do I misunderstand Marc's comments? For he says: > " soul is formless.....infinite.... > therefore....there can only be one soul existing..... > i mean....how could one imagine two infinite souls.....? " > > Sounds pretty nondual to me! > > > Bill > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , epston@ wrote: > > > > > > > > In a message dated 2/27/2006 1:51:45 AM Pacific Standard Time, > > > > dennis_travis33@ writes: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >no ego, no collection of thoughts, no set of beliefs. > > > > > >all phantasy. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Bill, > > > > > > > > > > it's mind business only..... > > > > > some like this business....i mean the ones who are dreaming to > > be > > > > in > > > > > this business..... > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > > L.E: The desciption " imagining " seems clearer > > than " dreaming. " > > > Because > > > > there exists an organism that is occupied with these fantasies. > > > Many. At least > > > > from the ordinary point of view. From the atomic point of view, > > we > > > are all > > > > clouds of mostly neutrons, protons and electrons. And from an > > > infinite point of > > > > view seen from an ordinary point of view, nothing exists but > > > space. Of course > > > > that's all imagination. > > > > > > > > Larry Epston > > > > > > > > > > > > yes.... " imagining " is clearer, you are right > > > > > > soul is formless.....infinite.... > > > therefore....there can only be one soul existing..... > > > i mean....how could one imagine two infinite souls.....? > > > > > > our soul is one.....and everything what appear as two...or > > > many......is a " reflection " of this one and only and infinite > > > soul........ > > > > > > " ego " ... " thoughts " ..... " cloud68 " ....are the waves on the one ocean > > > > > > ...coming and going > > > > > > soul remain soul.....forever > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 28, 2006 In a message dated 2/27/2006 3:09:58 AM Pacific Standard Time, Nisargadatta writes: " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33 Re: Is There an Inside, a Within? Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 2/26/2006 8:47:38 PM Pacific Standard Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > epston > Re: Is There an Inside, a Within? > > > > > Toom: 'You " ....the sense of self......is composed solely of beliefs. > > L.E: Do you even know what a belief is? To say the above shows a profound > lack > of awareness about the issue, and again indicates that your views are > derivative and not authentic at least in part. > Sorry, don't intend to be nasty. > > > P: I'm with Toom on this one. Your sense of self is your ego. Your ego > consists of a collection of thoughts. These thoughts consist of a set of beliefs > about who and what you are. These are entirely subjective perceptions. > > If you were slightly deranged, you might believe yourself to be a platypus. > This would be you subjective sense of self, composed entirely of your beliefs. > > Phil and if " P " might believe himself to be " P " ...? Marc Then he would be equally deranged. Hehe. That was the point of the analogy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 28, 2006 In a message dated 2/27/2006 3:09:58 AM Pacific Standard Time, Nisargadatta writes: " billrishel " <illusyn Re: Is There an Inside, a Within? P: I'm with Toom on this one. Your sense of self is your ego. Your ego consists of a collection of thoughts. These thoughts consist of a set of beliefs about who and what you are. >>>> no ego, no collection of thoughts, no set of beliefs. all phantasy. Bill Are those your thoughts on the matter, or would you call it a belief? Do you or do you not have a sense of self? Do you understand the term 'context'? How far down the rabbit hole do you wanna go? Phil Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 28, 2006 In a message dated 2/27/2006 3:09:58 AM Pacific Standard Time, Nisargadatta writes: " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33 Re: Is There an Inside, a Within? Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > P: I'm with Toom on this one. Your sense of self is your ego. Your > ego > consists of a collection of thoughts. These thoughts consist of a > set of beliefs > about who and what you are. > >>>> > > no ego, no collection of thoughts, no set of beliefs. > all phantasy. > > > Bill Hi Bill, it's mind business only..... some like this business....i mean the ones who are dreaming to be in this business..... Marc From Balsekar and Nisargadatta: " Your own self is your ultimate teacher. The outer teacher is merely a milestone. It is only your inner teacher that will walk with you to the goal, for he is the goal. " Seeking is not a matter of comprehension; it is a matter of intuitive apprehension. But it has to be arrived at through the intellect. The no-mind state is not the vacancy of idiocy but the most supremely alert intelligence, undistracted by extraneous thought. The mind, being nothing more than the stream of thoughts, obviously cannot be extinguished by either the desire or the decision to do so, which itself is a mere thought. The mind, which is the ego, is only fattened by such exertions. Though in itself limited, a developed intellect is nonetheless necessary as the one faculty that can bring us to the brink of true Advaitic understanding. The person with a keen intellect becomes enlightened even when the instruction of the guru is imparted casually, whereas without it the immature seeker continues to remain confused even after a lifetime of seeking. A mature and penetrating intellect will not have divorced itself from intuition and bound itself so extensively in logic and reason as to obstruct its natural receptivity to the spontaneous arising of divinity. Conceptualization being the barrier to self-realization, almost every spiritual teacher has emphasized the necessity of killing the mind. Nonetheless, it is that very mind or intellect that has to be used to come to that point where it may be annihilated in Self-realization. Phil Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 28, 2006 In a message dated 2/27/2006 11:25:44 AM Pacific Standard Time, Nisargadatta writes: " billrishel " <illusyn Re: Is There an Inside, a Within? Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Marc, > > I have posted some text about " soul " by Krishnamurti. Please read it > and maybe it is helpful for you to quit writing nonsens about soul. > > Werner But Werner, Krishnamurti is only speaking with regard to " soul " in the context of separation/division, for he defines soul in the beginning as: " The soul is a division, born of illusion. " But as Marc is using the term " soul " it is not a *division*. Surely you don't object to, and regard as nonsense, the mere use of the four letters s-o-u-l strung together regardless of how it is defined? Or do I misunderstand Marc's comments? For he says: " soul is formless.....infinite.... therefore....there can only be one soul existing..... i mean....how could one imagine two infinite souls.....? " Sounds pretty nondual to me! Bill What's the point of creating a concept of soul if there is only one? I would just call it consciousness. The concept of soul is meant to define an illusory spiritual multiplicity that runs around hopping in and out of bodies. Phil Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 28, 2006 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > P: I'm with Toom on this one. Your sense of self is your ego. Your > > > ego > > > consists of a collection of thoughts. These thoughts consist of a > > > set of beliefs > > > about who and what you are. > > > >>>> > > > > > > no ego, no collection of thoughts, no set of beliefs. > > > all phantasy. > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > Hi Bill, > > > > it's mind business only..... > > some like this business....i mean the ones who are dreaming to be in > > this business..... > > > > Marc > > > ~~~~~ > > you have a fine sense of humor! > > Bill there is an absolut need of sense of humor....writing and reading in here.... Marc > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 28, 2006 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , epston@ wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 2/27/2006 1:51:45 AM Pacific Standard Time, > > > dennis_travis33@ writes: > > > > > > > > > > > >no ego, no collection of thoughts, no set of beliefs. > > > > >all phantasy. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Bill, > > > > > > > > it's mind business only..... > > > > some like this business....i mean the ones who are dreaming to be > > in > > > > this business..... > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > L.E: The desciption " imagining " seems clearer than " dreaming. " > > Because > > > there exists an organism that is occupied with these fantasies. > > Many. At least > > > from the ordinary point of view. From the atomic point of view, we > > are all > > > clouds of mostly neutrons, protons and electrons. And from an > > infinite point of > > > view seen from an ordinary point of view, nothing exists but > > space. Of course > > > that's all imagination. > > > > > > Larry Epston > > > > > > > > > yes.... " imagining " is clearer, you are right > > > > soul is formless.....infinite.... > > therefore....there can only be one soul existing..... > > i mean....how could one imagine two infinite souls.....? > > > > our soul is one.....and everything what appear as two...or > > many......is a " reflection " of this one and only and infinite > > soul........ > > > > " ego " ... " thoughts " ..... " cloud68 " ....are the waves on the one ocean > > > > ...coming and going > > > > soul remain soul.....forever > > > > Marc > > > > Just for fun, Marc, thought I'd ask how many " reflections " > there are ... [per your point of view, of course]. > > Bill there are as many of this " reflections " ....as there are imaginary seperated appearing entities.... so...all the reflections are One.....only...... but still, they remain reflection(s)....of the infinite (in your dream....there are also many things appearing....but there is only one dreamer....not realy involved in the dream actions) Marc Ps: one can imagine to be the infinite....but this doesn't change the fact, that the body-mind-intellect will " go " ....just like it " came " ......one day....... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 28, 2006 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " bigwaaba " <bigwaaba@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > > > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > > > > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc, > > > > > > > > > > > > I have posted some text about " soul " by Krishnamurti. Please > > > read > > > > > it > > > > > > and maybe it is helpful for you to quit writing nonsens about > > > > soul. > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > soul is only a reference point....like " Werner " too.... > > > > > you are right....there are never " many " , means.....soul + > > > whatever > > > > + > > > > > whatever > > > > > > > > > > > > there is nothing but Oneness...or however you like to call > > > > > it....this doesn't matter > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > Ps: why caring so much about the " imaginations " of > > the " imaginary " > > > > seperated ones? > > > > > > > > > > > > > to avoid death > > > > > > yes, sure.....that could be a reason why one care much about > > the " imaginations " of the " imaginary " seperated ones > > > > > > Marc > > > > Ps: " who's " death do you " imagine " to think about? > > > > Many hearty laughs on this end!!! > [PS: Pete does that mean I'm " sensing my 'I' " ] > > > Bill nice to share laughs.....there is oneness in " hearty laughs " .... the imaginary " death " has the source of an imaginary " I " .... Marc > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 28, 2006 > > But Werner, Krishnamurti is only speaking with regard to > > " soul " in the context of separation/division, for he defines > > soul in the beginning as: > > " The soul is a division, born of illusion. " > > > > But as Marc is using the term " soul " it is not a *division*. > > Surely you don't object to, and regard as nonsense, the mere > > use of the four letters s-o-u-l strung together regardless > > of how it is defined? > > > > Or do I misunderstand Marc's comments? For he says: > > " soul is formless.....infinite.... > > therefore....there can only be one soul existing..... > > i mean....how could one imagine two infinite souls.....? " > > > > Sounds pretty nondual to me! > > > > > > Bill Werner wrote: > > Ok ok, > > It was the word s-o-u-l which caugtht my attention, but not m-i-n-d > or h-e-a-r-t ... > > But if you believe in a soul, go ahead, Bill. > > Werner > ~~~~~~~~~ I did not say I believe in anything, Werner. [And indeed I would be hard pressed to identify anything I believe in.] Your comments to Marc seemed rather derisive to me (my impression!)... and unfounded... so I thought to call you on what you said. You seem bent on not addressing the points I raised. You seem to like to confront others, Werner, yet when others confront you.... the above is the kind of response you give: sharp, brief response, full of indirection, and a complete evasion of what you were confronted about. I'm not trying to change you either. But when it comes to taking shots at others then you set yourself up for careful examination of what you have said. It is only fair. Bill Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 28, 2006 > P: Your sense of self is your ego. Your > ego > consists of a collection of thoughts. These thoughts consist of a > set of beliefs > about who and what you are. > >>>> > > no ego, no collection of thoughts, no set of beliefs. > all phantasy. > > > Bill > > > > Are those your thoughts on the matter, or would you call it a belief? Do you > or do you not have a sense of self? Do you understand the term 'context'? > How far down the rabbit hole do you wanna go? > > Phil > Since it was you that used the term " sense of self " when writing: " Your sense of self is your ego. " it would be for you to explain what you mean. What is meant by: " a collection of thoughts " ? It seems a rather airy notion in the first place, and to use it as a defining term for the term " ego " calls for something more than a vague notion, in my view. Could you clarify the term: " a collection of thoughts " ? Similarly for the notion: " set of beliefs " . I can appreciate your remark about context, so I am asking you to fill that context in. For myself, I might say, " I had a thought about that, " (in some context), but would not have any sense of anything specific in saying that. It is a very loose manner of speaking. I mean, in other words, that a thought is not an object that can be " considered " as such, even as a subjective psychological entity. So there can hardly be a collection of thoughts, as I see it. Bill Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 28, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 2/27/2006 11:25:44 AM Pacific Standard Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > " billrishel " <illusyn > Re: Is There an Inside, a Within? > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > Marc, > > > > I have posted some text about " soul " by Krishnamurti. Please read it > > and maybe it is helpful for you to quit writing nonsens about soul. > > > > Werner > > But Werner, Krishnamurti is only speaking with regard to > " soul " in the context of separation/division, for he defines > soul in the beginning as: > " The soul is a division, born of illusion. " > > But as Marc is using the term " soul " it is not a *division*. > Surely you don't object to, and regard as nonsense, the mere > use of the four letters s-o-u-l strung together regardless > of how it is defined? > > Or do I misunderstand Marc's comments? For he says: > " soul is formless.....infinite.... > therefore....there can only be one soul existing..... > i mean....how could one imagine two infinite souls.....? " > > Sounds pretty nondual to me! > > > Bill > > > > What's the point of creating a concept of soul if there is only one? I would > just call it consciousness. The concept of soul is meant to define an > illusory spiritual multiplicity that runs around hopping in and out of bodies. > > Phil But Phil, what's the point of talking about *consciousness* if there is only one? Re: " The concept of soul is meant to define an illusory spiritual multiplicity... " All you are saying is that *ordinarily* it is used as such. But Marc was quite clear in how he was using the term. So why argue with his definition? That's *my* point. There are so many words, especially spiritual/metaphysical terms, that are used in vastly different ways by different writers. It is senseless, it seems to me, to argue about what is the " right " way to define a term. What is important, rather, is to be clear at the outset in how one defines a term being used, especially if it is one that can be intended in different ways. And " soul " is certainly such a word. Myself, I try to stay away from words like " soul " , " Love " , even " Truth " for the very reason that they can be taken to mean very different things. But if a writer *does* use such a term and is very clear from the outset as to the definition of the term that is intended, then to attack the statements of such a writer according to a definition of the term that is different from what the writer set out, that seems irrational, in my view (which I am not attributing to you, Phil). Bill Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 28, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 2/27/2006 11:25:44 AM Pacific Standard Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > " billrishel " <illusyn > Re: Is There an Inside, a Within? > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > Marc, > > > > I have posted some text about " soul " by Krishnamurti. Please read it > > and maybe it is helpful for you to quit writing nonsens about soul. > > > > Werner > > But Werner, Krishnamurti is only speaking with regard to > " soul " in the context of separation/division, for he defines > soul in the beginning as: > " The soul is a division, born of illusion. " > > But as Marc is using the term " soul " it is not a *division*. > Surely you don't object to, and regard as nonsense, the mere > use of the four letters s-o-u-l strung together regardless > of how it is defined? > > Or do I misunderstand Marc's comments? For he says: > " soul is formless.....infinite.... > therefore....there can only be one soul existing..... > i mean....how could one imagine two infinite souls.....? " > > Sounds pretty nondual to me! > > > Bill > > > > What's the point of creating a concept of soul if there is only one? The same as the point of creating a concept of only one soul ;-) Len Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 28, 2006 Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 2/27/2006 11:25:44 AM Pacific Standard Time, > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > " billrishel " <illusyn@> > > Re: Is There an Inside, a Within? > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > wrote: > > > > > > Marc, > > > > > > I have posted some text about " soul " by Krishnamurti. Please > read it > > > and maybe it is helpful for you to quit writing nonsens about > soul. > > > > > > Werner > > > > But Werner, Krishnamurti is only speaking with regard to > > " soul " in the context of separation/division, for he defines > > soul in the beginning as: > > " The soul is a division, born of illusion. " > > > > But as Marc is using the term " soul " it is not a *division*. > > Surely you don't object to, and regard as nonsense, the mere > > use of the four letters s-o-u-l strung together regardless > > of how it is defined? > > > > Or do I misunderstand Marc's comments? For he says: > > " soul is formless.....infinite.... > > therefore....there can only be one soul existing..... > > i mean....how could one imagine two infinite souls.....? " > > > > Sounds pretty nondual to me! > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > What's the point of creating a concept of soul if there is only > one? > > > The same as the point of creating a concept of only one soul ;-) > > Len > THIS IS EXACTLY WHY I POINT SAID WHAT I SAID ......... one says " soul " the other says " hole " or was that " w hole " one says one the other says two and whoopy do. is that you or are you me cause we are one? just haveing fun. jump into my life and see me hole, or is that soul or whole. one direct the other percept the other inept. and the sign said " " " " everyone is welcome to come in and ease out their brains " " " " " " peace/over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 28, 2006 In a message dated 2/28/2006 2:53:09 AM Pacific Standard Time, Nisargadatta writes: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 09:44:32 -0000 " billrishel " <illusyn Re: Is There an Inside, a Within? > P: Your sense of self is your ego. Your > ego > consists of a collection of thoughts. These thoughts consist of a > set of beliefs > about who and what you are. > >>>> > > no ego, no collection of thoughts, no set of beliefs. > all phantasy. > > > Bill > > > > Are those your thoughts on the matter, or would you call it a belief? Do you > or do you not have a sense of self? Do you understand the term 'context'? > How far down the rabbit hole do you wanna go? > > Phil > Since it was you that used the term " sense of self " when writing: " Your sense of self is your ego. " it would be for you to explain what you mean. What is meant by: " a collection of thoughts " ? It seems a rather airy notion in the first place, and to use it as a defining term for the term " ego " calls for something more than a vague notion, in my view. Could you clarify the term: " a collection of thoughts " ? Similarly for the notion: " set of beliefs " . I can appreciate your remark about context, so I am asking you to fill that context in. For myself, I might say, " I had a thought about that, " (in some context), but would not have any sense of anything specific in saying that. It is a very loose manner of speaking. I mean, in other words, that a thought is not an object that can be " considered " as such, even as a subjective psychological entity. So there can hardly be a collection of thoughts, as I see it. Bill Since we all have a 'sense of self', it hardly seems necessary to explain it. When somebody yells, " Hey Bill! " , and you think, " Hey, that's me " . That comes from your sense that you are this creature called Bill. A " Collection of thoughts " is a set of thoughts that all have a common theme. In this case, they are all self referential thoughts, such as 'my body, my mind, my thoughts, I am an artist, I am a father, I'm sad, I'm happy'. That sort of thing. A " Set of beliefs " have the same self referential theme, such as, 'There are 6.5 billion humans on the planet' or 'we all have our own opinions' or 'life is short'. Beliefs and thoughts are the same except that a belief may, itself, be a collection of thoughts. A thought may not be an object, but certainly it's not difficult to conceptualize a collection of ideas, such as you might write down for a proposal, or a set of thoughts that you might put in a journal. Does that make my comments more better clearer? Phil Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 1, 2006 In a message dated 2/28/2006 7:54:03 AM Pacific Standard Time, Nisargadatta writes: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 11:30:01 -0000 " billrishel " <illusyn Re: Is There an Inside, a Within? Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 2/27/2006 11:25:44 AM Pacific Standard Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > " billrishel " <illusyn > Re: Is There an Inside, a Within? > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > Marc, > > > > I have posted some text about " soul " by Krishnamurti. Please read it > > and maybe it is helpful for you to quit writing nonsens about soul. > > > > Werner > > But Werner, Krishnamurti is only speaking with regard to > " soul " in the context of separation/division, for he defines > soul in the beginning as: > " The soul is a division, born of illusion. " > > But as Marc is using the term " soul " it is not a *division*. > Surely you don't object to, and regard as nonsense, the mere > use of the four letters s-o-u-l strung together regardless > of how it is defined? > > Or do I misunderstand Marc's comments? For he says: > " soul is formless.....infinite.... > therefore....there can only be one soul existing..... > i mean....how could one imagine two infinite souls.....? " > > Sounds pretty nondual to me! > > > Bill > > > > What's the point of creating a concept of soul if there is only one? I would > just call it consciousness. The concept of soul is meant to define an > illusory spiritual multiplicity that runs around hopping in and out of bodies. > > Phil But Phil, what's the point of talking about *consciousness* if there is only one? Re: " The concept of soul is meant to define an illusory spiritual multiplicity... " All you are saying is that *ordinarily* it is used as such. But Marc was quite clear in how he was using the term. So why argue with his definition? That's *my* point. There are so many words, especially spiritual/metaphysical terms, that are used in vastly different ways by different writers. It is senseless, it seems to me, to argue about what is the " right " way to define a term. What is important, rather, is to be clear at the outset in how one defines a term being used, especially if it is one that can be intended in different ways. And " soul " is certainly such a word. Myself, I try to stay away from words like " soul " , " Love " , even " Truth " for the very reason that they can be taken to mean very different things. But if a writer *does* use such a term and is very clear from the outset as to the definition of the term that is intended, then to attack the statements of such a writer according to a definition of the term that is different from what the writer set out, that seems irrational, in my view (which I am not attributing to you, Phil). Bill You seem to have gained a complete understanding of Marc's 'soul' definition from his short comments. I found them to be characteristically vauge and marginally comprehensible, though partly due to a language barrier and an unusual personal style. He seemed to be describing what most of us would call consciousness so I wondered why he chose to make his writing even more obscure by borrowing a term that, in 30 years of spiritual studies, I've only seen used to describe an individual spirit. What would seem irrational to me would be the seemingly arbitrary redefinition of one of the most common spiritual terms, and then using it in place of another common term. Phil Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 1, 2006 In a message dated 2/28/2006 7:54:03 AM Pacific Standard Time, Nisargadatta writes: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 13:01:43 -0000 " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 Re: Is There an Inside, a Within? Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 2/27/2006 11:25:44 AM Pacific Standard Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > " billrishel " <illusyn > Re: Is There an Inside, a Within? > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > Marc, > > > > I have posted some text about " soul " by Krishnamurti. Please read it > > and maybe it is helpful for you to quit writing nonsens about soul. > > > > Werner > > But Werner, Krishnamurti is only speaking with regard to > " soul " in the context of separation/division, for he defines > soul in the beginning as: > " The soul is a division, born of illusion. " > > But as Marc is using the term " soul " it is not a *division*. > Surely you don't object to, and regard as nonsense, the mere > use of the four letters s-o-u-l strung together regardless > of how it is defined? > > Or do I misunderstand Marc's comments? For he says: > " soul is formless.....infinite.... > therefore....there can only be one soul existing..... > i mean....how could one imagine two infinite souls.....? " > > Sounds pretty nondual to me! > > > Bill > > > > What's the point of creating a concept of soul if there is only one? The same as the point of creating a concept of only one soul ;-) Len And what is that point? Phil Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 1, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 2/28/2006 2:53:09 AM Pacific Standard Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Tue, 28 Feb 2006 09:44:32 -0000 > " billrishel " <illusyn > Re: Is There an Inside, a Within? > > > > P: Your sense of self is your ego. Your > > ego > > consists of a collection of thoughts. These thoughts consist of a > > set of beliefs > > about who and what you are. > > >>>> > > > > no ego, no collection of thoughts, no set of beliefs. > > all phantasy. > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > Are those your thoughts on the matter, or would you call it a > belief? Do you > > or do you not have a sense of self? Do you understand the term > 'context'? > > How far down the rabbit hole do you wanna go? > > > > Phil > > > Since it was you that used the term " sense of self " when > writing: > " Your sense of self is your ego. " > it would be for you to explain what you mean. > > What is meant by: " a collection of thoughts " ? > It seems a rather airy notion in the first place, > and to use it as a defining term for the term " ego " > calls for something more than a vague notion, in > my view. Could you clarify the term: " a collection > of thoughts " ? > > Similarly for the notion: " set of beliefs " . > > I can appreciate your remark about context, > so I am asking you to fill that context in. > > For myself, I might say, " I had a thought about > that, " (in some context), but would not have > any sense of anything specific in saying that. > It is a very loose manner of speaking. I mean, > in other words, that a thought is not an object > that can be " considered " as such, even as a > subjective psychological entity. So there can > hardly be a collection of thoughts, as I see > it. > > > Bill > > > > Since we all have a 'sense of self', it hardly seems necessary to explain > it. When somebody yells, " Hey Bill! " , and you think, " Hey, that's me " . That > comes from your sense that you are this creature called Bill. What you seem to be saying is that you cannot imagine not having a sense of self. And if you cannot imagine it, then you conclude that everyone must have a sense of self. But that is not true. That " not having a sense of self " is virtually impossible to describe does not change the fact. > A " Collection of thoughts " is a set of thoughts that all have a common > theme. In this case, they are all self referential thoughts, such as 'my body, my > mind, my thoughts, I am an artist, I am a father, I'm sad, I'm happy'. That > sort of thing. > > A " Set of beliefs " have the same self referential theme, such as, 'There are > 6.5 billion humans on the planet' or 'we all have our own opinions' or 'life > is short'. Beliefs and thoughts are the same except that a belief may, > itself, be a collection of thoughts. > > A thought may not be an object, but certainly it's not difficult to > conceptualize a collection of ideas, such as you might write down for a proposal, or > a set of thoughts that you might put in a journal. > > Does that make my comments more better clearer? > > Phil > You say a thought is not an object, and I concur. That the notion of a collection of thoughts is not difficult to conceptualize (for you, not for me) does not make it a meaningful notion. Here's a way to perhaps understand what I am saying: Consider sensations instead of thoughts. A sensation is fleeting, is it not? So what sense would there be to talk about a " collection of sensations " ? Maybe my mathematical background is getting in the way of understanding you, as for me the notion of " collection " has a very sharp, formal meaning. I.e. for me a collection is a " set " . Do you mean by collection something more ambiguous, hazy? In Buddhism there is a teaching of the Buddha referred to as the Five Aggregates or Skandhas: The five aggregates (skandhas) are the scheme the Buddha chose to describe the nature of the individual human existence. It is a common doctrine among virtually all schools of Buddhist thought, being basic to the Buddha's philosophical teachings. The remarkable aspect of it is that it describes the human existance as a combination of physical and mental elements without recourse to the idea of a soul that is distinct from the mind, and -- most especially -- does not assert any governing agent that can be identified as a self within the individual. That is to say, each of the five aggregates is an equal component of the individual, which amounts to a conventional self only when all are present and functioning. Briefly, the five aggregates are: the material organism (ruupa); sensation (vedanaa); conception (sa~nj~naa); volition (sam.skaara); and consciousness (vij~nana). So perhaps your use of the term collection is along the lines of the *aggregation of* the " five aggregates " . Bill Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 1, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 2/28/2006 7:54:03 AM Pacific Standard Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Tue, 28 Feb 2006 11:30:01 -0000 > " billrishel " <illusyn > Re: Is There an Inside, a Within? > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 2/27/2006 11:25:44 AM Pacific Standard Time, > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > " billrishel " <illusyn@> > > Re: Is There an Inside, a Within? > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > Marc, > > > > > > I have posted some text about " soul " by Krishnamurti. Please read it > > > and maybe it is helpful for you to quit writing nonsens about soul. > > > > > > Werner > > > > But Werner, Krishnamurti is only speaking with regard to > > " soul " in the context of separation/division, for he defines > > soul in the beginning as: > > " The soul is a division, born of illusion. " > > > > But as Marc is using the term " soul " it is not a *division*. > > Surely you don't object to, and regard as nonsense, the mere > > use of the four letters s-o-u-l strung together regardless > > of how it is defined? > > > > Or do I misunderstand Marc's comments? For he says: > > " soul is formless.....infinite.... > > therefore....there can only be one soul existing..... > > i mean....how could one imagine two infinite souls.....? " > > > > Sounds pretty nondual to me! > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > What's the point of creating a concept of soul if there is only one? > I would > > just call it consciousness. The concept of soul is meant to define an > > illusory spiritual multiplicity that runs around hopping in and out > of bodies. > > > > Phil > > But Phil, what's the point of talking about *consciousness* > if there is only one? > > Re: > " The concept of soul is meant to define an illusory > spiritual multiplicity... " > All you are saying is that *ordinarily* it is used > as such. But Marc was quite clear in how he was using > the term. So why argue with his definition? That's *my* > point. > > There are so many words, especially spiritual/metaphysical > terms, that are used in vastly different ways by different > writers. It is senseless, it seems to me, to argue about > what is the " right " way to define a term. What is important, > rather, is to be clear at the outset in how one defines a > term being used, especially if it is one that can be > intended in different ways. And " soul " is certainly such > a word. Myself, I try to stay away from words like " soul " , > " Love " , even " Truth " for the very reason that they can be > taken to mean very different things. > > But if a writer *does* use such a term and is very clear > from the outset as to the definition of the term that is > intended, then to attack the statements of such a writer > according to a definition of the term that is different > from what the writer set out, that seems irrational, in > my view (which I am not attributing to you, Phil). > > > Bill > > > > You seem to have gained a complete understanding of Marc's 'soul' definition > from his short comments. I found them to be characteristically vauge and > marginally comprehensible, though partly due to a language barrier and an > unusual personal style. He seemed to be describing what most of us would call > consciousness so I wondered why he chose to make his writing even more obscure by > borrowing a term that, in 30 years of spiritual studies, I've only seen used > to describe an individual spirit. > > What would seem irrational to me would be the seemingly arbitrary > redefinition of one of the most common spiritual terms, and then using it in place of > another common term. > > Phil Well, it seems that we have more or less come to terms then. I suggest that you perhaps have been viewing Marc's posts from an analytic point of view, whereas I have been viewing his posts from a poetic point of view. From a poetic point of view there is much more latitude for ambiguity and liberty in the use of terms (it is called " poetic license " Bill Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 1, 2006 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 2/28/2006 2:53:09 AM Pacific Standard Time, > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > Tue, 28 Feb 2006 09:44:32 -0000 > > " billrishel " <illusyn@> > > Re: Is There an Inside, a Within? > > > > > > > P: Your sense of self is your ego. Your > > > ego > > > consists of a collection of thoughts. These thoughts consist of a > > > set of beliefs > > > about who and what you are. > > > >>>> > > > > > > no ego, no collection of thoughts, no set of beliefs. > > > all phantasy. > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > Are those your thoughts on the matter, or would you call it a > > belief? Do you > > > or do you not have a sense of self? Do you understand the term > > 'context'? > > > How far down the rabbit hole do you wanna go? > > > > > > Phil > > > > > Since it was you that used the term " sense of self " when > > writing: > > " Your sense of self is your ego. " > > it would be for you to explain what you mean. > > > > What is meant by: " a collection of thoughts " ? > > It seems a rather airy notion in the first place, > > and to use it as a defining term for the term " ego " > > calls for something more than a vague notion, in > > my view. Could you clarify the term: " a collection > > of thoughts " ? > > > > Similarly for the notion: " set of beliefs " . > > > > I can appreciate your remark about context, > > so I am asking you to fill that context in. > > > > For myself, I might say, " I had a thought about > > that, " (in some context), but would not have > > any sense of anything specific in saying that. > > It is a very loose manner of speaking. I mean, > > in other words, that a thought is not an object > > that can be " considered " as such, even as a > > subjective psychological entity. So there can > > hardly be a collection of thoughts, as I see > > it. > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > Since we all have a 'sense of self', it hardly seems necessary to > explain > > it. When somebody yells, " Hey Bill! " , and you think, " Hey, that's > me " . That > > comes from your sense that you are this creature called Bill. > > What you seem to be saying is that you cannot imagine > not having a sense of self. And if you cannot imagine it, > then you conclude that everyone must have a sense of self. > But that is not true. > > That " not having a sense of self " is virtually impossible > to describe does not change the fact. > > > > A " Collection of thoughts " is a set of thoughts that all have a common > > theme. In this case, they are all self referential thoughts, such as > 'my body, my > > mind, my thoughts, I am an artist, I am a father, I'm sad, I'm > happy'. That > > sort of thing. > > > > A " Set of beliefs " have the same self referential theme, such as, > 'There are > > 6.5 billion humans on the planet' or 'we all have our own opinions' > or 'life > > is short'. Beliefs and thoughts are the same except that a belief may, > > itself, be a collection of thoughts. > > > > A thought may not be an object, but certainly it's not difficult to > > conceptualize a collection of ideas, such as you might write down > for a proposal, or > > a set of thoughts that you might put in a journal. > > > > Does that make my comments more better clearer? > > > > Phil > > > > You say a thought is not an object, and I concur. > > That the notion of a collection of thoughts is > not difficult to conceptualize (for you, not for > me) does not make it a meaningful notion. > > Here's a way to perhaps understand what I am saying: > Consider sensations instead of thoughts. > A sensation is fleeting, is it not? > > So what sense would there be to talk about a > " collection of sensations " ? > > Maybe my mathematical background is getting in the > way of understanding you, as for me the notion of > " collection " has a very sharp, formal meaning. > I.e. for me a collection is a " set " . > > Do you mean by collection something more ambiguous, > hazy? > > In Buddhism there is a teaching of the Buddha > referred to as the Five Aggregates or Skandhas: > > The five aggregates (skandhas) are the scheme the Buddha chose > to describe the nature of the individual human existence. It is > a common doctrine among virtually all schools of Buddhist > thought, being basic to the Buddha's philosophical teachings. > The remarkable aspect of it is that it describes the human > existance as a combination of physical and mental elements > without recourse to the idea of a soul that is distinct from > the mind, and -- most especially -- does not assert any > governing agent that can be identified as a self within the > individual. That is to say, each of the five aggregates is an > equal component of the individual, which amounts to a > conventional self only when all are present and functioning. > > Briefly, the five aggregates are: the material organism > (ruupa); sensation (vedanaa); conception (sa~nj~naa); volition > (sam.skaara); and consciousness (vij~nana). > > So perhaps your use of the term collection is along > the lines of the *aggregation of* the " five aggregates " . > > Bill Hi Bill, interesting this words about the " five aggregates " ...... maybe when all this five aggregates are well " balanced " ........the sense of " individual " dissapear.......just like it never would have been existed before..... this real " individual " ....is nothing but the One being...... all are this One being......without (individual) exceptions when this five aggregates aren't balanced....then there are conflicts rising......this conflicts are represented (reflected) as for example by some exclusive and absolutly fantastic ego minds ...in here..... Marc Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 1, 2006 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 2/28/2006 7:54:03 AM Pacific Standard Time, > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > Tue, 28 Feb 2006 11:30:01 -0000 > > " billrishel " <illusyn@> > > Re: Is There an Inside, a Within? > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 2/27/2006 11:25:44 AM Pacific Standard Time, > > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > > > " billrishel " <illusyn@> > > > Re: Is There an Inside, a Within? > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Marc, > > > > > > > > I have posted some text about " soul " by Krishnamurti. Please > read it > > > > and maybe it is helpful for you to quit writing nonsens about > soul. > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > But Werner, Krishnamurti is only speaking with regard to > > > " soul " in the context of separation/division, for he defines > > > soul in the beginning as: > > > " The soul is a division, born of illusion. " > > > > > > But as Marc is using the term " soul " it is not a *division*. > > > Surely you don't object to, and regard as nonsense, the mere > > > use of the four letters s-o-u-l strung together regardless > > > of how it is defined? > > > > > > Or do I misunderstand Marc's comments? For he says: > > > " soul is formless.....infinite.... > > > therefore....there can only be one soul existing..... > > > i mean....how could one imagine two infinite souls.....? " > > > > > > Sounds pretty nondual to me! > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > What's the point of creating a concept of soul if there is only one? > > I would > > > just call it consciousness. The concept of soul is meant to > define an > > > illusory spiritual multiplicity that runs around hopping in and out > > of bodies. > > > > > > Phil > > > > But Phil, what's the point of talking about *consciousness* > > if there is only one? > > > > Re: > > " The concept of soul is meant to define an illusory > > spiritual multiplicity... " > > All you are saying is that *ordinarily* it is used > > as such. But Marc was quite clear in how he was using > > the term. So why argue with his definition? That's *my* > > point. > > > > There are so many words, especially spiritual/metaphysical > > terms, that are used in vastly different ways by different > > writers. It is senseless, it seems to me, to argue about > > what is the " right " way to define a term. What is important, > > rather, is to be clear at the outset in how one defines a > > term being used, especially if it is one that can be > > intended in different ways. And " soul " is certainly such > > a word. Myself, I try to stay away from words like " soul " , > > " Love " , even " Truth " for the very reason that they can be > > taken to mean very different things. > > > > But if a writer *does* use such a term and is very clear > > from the outset as to the definition of the term that is > > intended, then to attack the statements of such a writer > > according to a definition of the term that is different > > from what the writer set out, that seems irrational, in > > my view (which I am not attributing to you, Phil). > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > You seem to have gained a complete understanding of Marc's 'soul' > definition > > from his short comments. I found them to be characteristically vauge > and > > marginally comprehensible, though partly due to a language barrier > and an > > unusual personal style. He seemed to be describing what most of us > would call > > consciousness so I wondered why he chose to make his writing even > more obscure by > > borrowing a term that, in 30 years of spiritual studies, I've only > seen used > > to describe an individual spirit. > > > > What would seem irrational to me would be the seemingly arbitrary > > redefinition of one of the most common spiritual terms, and then > using it in place of > > another common term. > > > > Phil > > > Well, it seems that we have more or less come to terms then. > > I suggest that you perhaps have been viewing Marc's posts > from an analytic point of view, whereas I have been viewing > his posts from a poetic point of view. From a poetic point > of view there is much more latitude for ambiguity and > liberty in the use of terms (it is called " poetic license " > > Bill maybe Phil is preparing a nice book.....another book....one more book.......of theories and concepts......a book of analytic language......for analytic people..... i mean...people who are in the mind-business.... creating all the time " new " fabulous ...dreams.....as an expression of what ignorance look like Marc > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 1, 2006 Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 2/28/2006 7:54:03 AM Pacific Standard Time, > > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > > > Tue, 28 Feb 2006 11:30:01 -0000 > > > " billrishel " <illusyn@> > > > Re: Is There an Inside, a Within? > > > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 2/27/2006 11:25:44 AM Pacific Standard > Time, > > > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > > > > > " billrishel " <illusyn@> > > > > Re: Is There an Inside, a Within? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Marc, > > > > > > > > > > I have posted some text about " soul " by Krishnamurti. Please > > read it > > > > > and maybe it is helpful for you to quit writing nonsens > about > > soul. > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > But Werner, Krishnamurti is only speaking with regard to > > > > " soul " in the context of separation/division, for he defines > > > > soul in the beginning as: > > > > " The soul is a division, born of illusion. " > > > > > > > > But as Marc is using the term " soul " it is not a *division*. > > > > Surely you don't object to, and regard as nonsense, the mere > > > > use of the four letters s-o-u-l strung together regardless > > > > of how it is defined? > > > > > > > > Or do I misunderstand Marc's comments? For he says: > > > > " soul is formless.....infinite.... > > > > therefore....there can only be one soul existing..... > > > > i mean....how could one imagine two infinite souls.....? " > > > > > > > > Sounds pretty nondual to me! > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What's the point of creating a concept of soul if there is > only one? > > > I would > > > > just call it consciousness. The concept of soul is meant to > > define an > > > > illusory spiritual multiplicity that runs around hopping in > and out > > > of bodies. > > > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > But Phil, what's the point of talking about *consciousness* > > > if there is only one? > > > > > > Re: > > > " The concept of soul is meant to define an illusory > > > spiritual multiplicity... " > > > All you are saying is that *ordinarily* it is used > > > as such. But Marc was quite clear in how he was using > > > the term. So why argue with his definition? That's *my* > > > point. > > > > > > There are so many words, especially spiritual/metaphysical > > > terms, that are used in vastly different ways by different > > > writers. It is senseless, it seems to me, to argue about > > > what is the " right " way to define a term. What is important, > > > rather, is to be clear at the outset in how one defines a > > > term being used, especially if it is one that can be > > > intended in different ways. And " soul " is certainly such > > > a word. Myself, I try to stay away from words like " soul " , > > > " Love " , even " Truth " for the very reason that they can be > > > taken to mean very different things. > > > > > > But if a writer *does* use such a term and is very clear > > > from the outset as to the definition of the term that is > > > intended, then to attack the statements of such a writer > > > according to a definition of the term that is different > > > from what the writer set out, that seems irrational, in > > > my view (which I am not attributing to you, Phil). > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > You seem to have gained a complete understanding of Marc's 'soul' > > definition > > > from his short comments. I found them to be characteristically > vauge > > and > > > marginally comprehensible, though partly due to a language barrier > > and an > > > unusual personal style. He seemed to be describing what most of us > > would call > > > consciousness so I wondered why he chose to make his writing even > > more obscure by > > > borrowing a term that, in 30 years of spiritual studies, I've only > > seen used > > > to describe an individual spirit. > > > > > > What would seem irrational to me would be the seemingly > arbitrary > > > redefinition of one of the most common spiritual terms, and then > > using it in place of > > > another common term. > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > Well, it seems that we have more or less come to terms then. > > > > I suggest that you perhaps have been viewing Marc's posts > > from an analytic point of view, whereas I have been viewing > > his posts from a poetic point of view. From a poetic point > > of view there is much more latitude for ambiguity and > > liberty in the use of terms (it is called " poetic license " > > > > Bill > > > > maybe Phil is preparing a nice book.....another book....one more > book.......of theories and concepts......a book of analytic > language......for analytic people..... > > i mean...people who are in the mind-business.... > creating all the time " new " fabulous ...dreams.....as an expression > of what ignorance look like > > Marc > > > maybe it would be better a book on Deep Peace,mm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 1, 2006 Nisargadatta , " bigwaaba " <bigwaaba wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 2/28/2006 7:54:03 AM Pacific Standard Time, > > > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > > > > > Tue, 28 Feb 2006 11:30:01 -0000 > > > > " billrishel " <illusyn@> > > > > Re: Is There an Inside, a Within? > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 2/27/2006 11:25:44 AM Pacific Standard > > Time, > > > > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > > > > > > > " billrishel " <illusyn@> > > > > > Re: Is There an Inside, a Within? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " > <wwoehr@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc, > > > > > > > > > > > > I have posted some text about " soul " by Krishnamurti. > Please > > > read it > > > > > > and maybe it is helpful for you to quit writing nonsens > > about > > > soul. > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > But Werner, Krishnamurti is only speaking with regard to > > > > > " soul " in the context of separation/division, for he defines > > > > > soul in the beginning as: > > > > > " The soul is a division, born of illusion. " > > > > > > > > > > But as Marc is using the term " soul " it is not a *division*. > > > > > Surely you don't object to, and regard as nonsense, the mere > > > > > use of the four letters s-o-u-l strung together regardless > > > > > of how it is defined? > > > > > > > > > > Or do I misunderstand Marc's comments? For he says: > > > > > " soul is formless.....infinite.... > > > > > therefore....there can only be one soul existing..... > > > > > i mean....how could one imagine two infinite souls.....? " > > > > > > > > > > Sounds pretty nondual to me! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What's the point of creating a concept of soul if there is > > only one? > > > > I would > > > > > just call it consciousness. The concept of soul is meant to > > > define an > > > > > illusory spiritual multiplicity that runs around hopping in > > and out > > > > of bodies. > > > > > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > > > But Phil, what's the point of talking about *consciousness* > > > > if there is only one? > > > > > > > > Re: > > > > " The concept of soul is meant to define an illusory > > > > spiritual multiplicity... " > > > > All you are saying is that *ordinarily* it is used > > > > as such. But Marc was quite clear in how he was using > > > > the term. So why argue with his definition? That's *my* > > > > point. > > > > > > > > There are so many words, especially spiritual/metaphysical > > > > terms, that are used in vastly different ways by different > > > > writers. It is senseless, it seems to me, to argue about > > > > what is the " right " way to define a term. What is important, > > > > rather, is to be clear at the outset in how one defines a > > > > term being used, especially if it is one that can be > > > > intended in different ways. And " soul " is certainly such > > > > a word. Myself, I try to stay away from words like " soul " , > > > > " Love " , even " Truth " for the very reason that they can be > > > > taken to mean very different things. > > > > > > > > But if a writer *does* use such a term and is very clear > > > > from the outset as to the definition of the term that is > > > > intended, then to attack the statements of such a writer > > > > according to a definition of the term that is different > > > > from what the writer set out, that seems irrational, in > > > > my view (which I am not attributing to you, Phil). > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You seem to have gained a complete understanding of > Marc's 'soul' > > > definition > > > > from his short comments. I found them to be characteristically > > vauge > > > and > > > > marginally comprehensible, though partly due to a language > barrier > > > and an > > > > unusual personal style. He seemed to be describing what most of > us > > > would call > > > > consciousness so I wondered why he chose to make his writing > even > > > more obscure by > > > > borrowing a term that, in 30 years of spiritual studies, I've > only > > > seen used > > > > to describe an individual spirit. > > > > > > > > What would seem irrational to me would be the seemingly > > arbitrary > > > > redefinition of one of the most common spiritual terms, and then > > > using it in place of > > > > another common term. > > > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > > > > Well, it seems that we have more or less come to terms then. > > > > > > I suggest that you perhaps have been viewing Marc's posts > > > from an analytic point of view, whereas I have been viewing > > > his posts from a poetic point of view. From a poetic point > > > of view there is much more latitude for ambiguity and > > > liberty in the use of terms (it is called " poetic license " > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > maybe Phil is preparing a nice book.....another book....one more > > book.......of theories and concepts......a book of analytic > > language......for analytic people..... > > > > i mean...people who are in the mind-business.... > > creating all the time " new " fabulous ...dreams.....as an expression > > of what ignorance look like > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > maybe it would be better a book on Deep Peace,mm? i don't think that the concerned person could write something on this subject.... Marc > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 1, 2006 Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " bigwaaba " <bigwaaba@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 2/28/2006 7:54:03 AM Pacific Standard > Time, > > > > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > > > > > > > Tue, 28 Feb 2006 11:30:01 -0000 > > > > > " billrishel " <illusyn@> > > > > > Re: Is There an Inside, a Within? > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 2/27/2006 11:25:44 AM Pacific Standard > > > Time, > > > > > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > > > > > > > > > " billrishel " <illusyn@> > > > > > > Re: Is There an Inside, a Within? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " > > <wwoehr@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have posted some text about " soul " by Krishnamurti. > > Please > > > > read it > > > > > > > and maybe it is helpful for you to quit writing nonsens > > > about > > > > soul. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > But Werner, Krishnamurti is only speaking with regard to > > > > > > " soul " in the context of separation/division, for he > defines > > > > > > soul in the beginning as: > > > > > > " The soul is a division, born of illusion. " > > > > > > > > > > > > But as Marc is using the term " soul " it is not a > *division*. > > > > > > Surely you don't object to, and regard as nonsense, the > mere > > > > > > use of the four letters s-o-u-l strung together regardless > > > > > > of how it is defined? > > > > > > > > > > > > Or do I misunderstand Marc's comments? For he says: > > > > > > " soul is formless.....infinite.... > > > > > > therefore....there can only be one soul existing..... > > > > > > i mean....how could one imagine two infinite souls.....? " > > > > > > > > > > > > Sounds pretty nondual to me! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What's the point of creating a concept of soul if there is > > > only one? > > > > > I would > > > > > > just call it consciousness. The concept of soul is meant to > > > > define an > > > > > > illusory spiritual multiplicity that runs around hopping in > > > and out > > > > > of bodies. > > > > > > > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > > > > > But Phil, what's the point of talking about *consciousness* > > > > > if there is only one? > > > > > > > > > > Re: > > > > > " The concept of soul is meant to define an illusory > > > > > spiritual multiplicity... " > > > > > All you are saying is that *ordinarily* it is used > > > > > as such. But Marc was quite clear in how he was using > > > > > the term. So why argue with his definition? That's *my* > > > > > point. > > > > > > > > > > There are so many words, especially spiritual/metaphysical > > > > > terms, that are used in vastly different ways by different > > > > > writers. It is senseless, it seems to me, to argue about > > > > > what is the " right " way to define a term. What is important, > > > > > rather, is to be clear at the outset in how one defines a > > > > > term being used, especially if it is one that can be > > > > > intended in different ways. And " soul " is certainly such > > > > > a word. Myself, I try to stay away from words like " soul " , > > > > > " Love " , even " Truth " for the very reason that they can be > > > > > taken to mean very different things. > > > > > > > > > > But if a writer *does* use such a term and is very clear > > > > > from the outset as to the definition of the term that is > > > > > intended, then to attack the statements of such a writer > > > > > according to a definition of the term that is different > > > > > from what the writer set out, that seems irrational, in > > > > > my view (which I am not attributing to you, Phil). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You seem to have gained a complete understanding of > > Marc's 'soul' > > > > definition > > > > > from his short comments. I found them to be > characteristically > > > vauge > > > > and > > > > > marginally comprehensible, though partly due to a language > > barrier > > > > and an > > > > > unusual personal style. He seemed to be describing what most > of > > us > > > > would call > > > > > consciousness so I wondered why he chose to make his writing > > even > > > > more obscure by > > > > > borrowing a term that, in 30 years of spiritual studies, I've > > only > > > > seen used > > > > > to describe an individual spirit. > > > > > > > > > > What would seem irrational to me would be the seemingly > > > arbitrary > > > > > redefinition of one of the most common spiritual terms, and > then > > > > using it in place of > > > > > another common term. > > > > > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, it seems that we have more or less come to terms then. > > > > > > > > I suggest that you perhaps have been viewing Marc's posts > > > > from an analytic point of view, whereas I have been viewing > > > > his posts from a poetic point of view. From a poetic point > > > > of view there is much more latitude for ambiguity and > > > > liberty in the use of terms (it is called " poetic license " > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > maybe Phil is preparing a nice book.....another book....one more > > > book.......of theories and concepts......a book of analytic > > > language......for analytic people..... > > > > > > i mean...people who are in the mind-business.... > > > creating all the time " new " fabulous ...dreams.....as an > expression > > > of what ignorance look like > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > > > > > maybe it would be better a book on Deep Peace,mm? > > > i don't think that the concerned person could write something on this > subject.... > > Marc > > > what a shame! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 1, 2006 Nisargadatta , " bigwaaba " <bigwaaba wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " bigwaaba " <bigwaaba@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > > > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 2/28/2006 7:54:03 AM Pacific Standard > > Time, > > > > > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > > > > > > > > > Tue, 28 Feb 2006 11:30:01 -0000 > > > > > > " billrishel " <illusyn@> > > > > > > Re: Is There an Inside, a Within? > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 2/27/2006 11:25:44 AM Pacific > Standard > > > > Time, > > > > > > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " billrishel " <illusyn@> > > > > > > > Re: Is There an Inside, a Within? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " > > > <wwoehr@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have posted some text about " soul " by Krishnamurti. > > > Please > > > > > read it > > > > > > > > and maybe it is helpful for you to quit writing > nonsens > > > > about > > > > > soul. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But Werner, Krishnamurti is only speaking with regard to > > > > > > > " soul " in the context of separation/division, for he > > defines > > > > > > > soul in the beginning as: > > > > > > > " The soul is a division, born of illusion. " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But as Marc is using the term " soul " it is not a > > *division*. > > > > > > > Surely you don't object to, and regard as nonsense, the > > mere > > > > > > > use of the four letters s-o-u-l strung together > regardless > > > > > > > of how it is defined? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Or do I misunderstand Marc's comments? For he says: > > > > > > > " soul is formless.....infinite.... > > > > > > > therefore....there can only be one soul existing..... > > > > > > > i mean....how could one imagine two infinite > souls.....? " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sounds pretty nondual to me! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What's the point of creating a concept of soul if there > is > > > > only one? > > > > > > I would > > > > > > > just call it consciousness. The concept of soul is meant > to > > > > > define an > > > > > > > illusory spiritual multiplicity that runs around hopping > in > > > > and out > > > > > > of bodies. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > > > > > > > But Phil, what's the point of talking about *consciousness* > > > > > > if there is only one? > > > > > > > > > > > > Re: > > > > > > " The concept of soul is meant to define an illusory > > > > > > spiritual multiplicity... " > > > > > > All you are saying is that *ordinarily* it is used > > > > > > as such. But Marc was quite clear in how he was using > > > > > > the term. So why argue with his definition? That's *my* > > > > > > point. > > > > > > > > > > > > There are so many words, especially spiritual/metaphysical > > > > > > terms, that are used in vastly different ways by different > > > > > > writers. It is senseless, it seems to me, to argue about > > > > > > what is the " right " way to define a term. What is > important, > > > > > > rather, is to be clear at the outset in how one defines a > > > > > > term being used, especially if it is one that can be > > > > > > intended in different ways. And " soul " is certainly such > > > > > > a word. Myself, I try to stay away from words like " soul " , > > > > > > " Love " , even " Truth " for the very reason that they can be > > > > > > taken to mean very different things. > > > > > > > > > > > > But if a writer *does* use such a term and is very clear > > > > > > from the outset as to the definition of the term that is > > > > > > intended, then to attack the statements of such a writer > > > > > > according to a definition of the term that is different > > > > > > from what the writer set out, that seems irrational, in > > > > > > my view (which I am not attributing to you, Phil). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You seem to have gained a complete understanding of > > > Marc's 'soul' > > > > > definition > > > > > > from his short comments. I found them to be > > characteristically > > > > vauge > > > > > and > > > > > > marginally comprehensible, though partly due to a language > > > barrier > > > > > and an > > > > > > unusual personal style. He seemed to be describing what > most > > of > > > us > > > > > would call > > > > > > consciousness so I wondered why he chose to make his > writing > > > even > > > > > more obscure by > > > > > > borrowing a term that, in 30 years of spiritual studies, > I've > > > only > > > > > seen used > > > > > > to describe an individual spirit. > > > > > > > > > > > > What would seem irrational to me would be the seemingly > > > > arbitrary > > > > > > redefinition of one of the most common spiritual terms, and > > then > > > > > using it in place of > > > > > > another common term. > > > > > > > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, it seems that we have more or less come to terms then. > > > > > > > > > > I suggest that you perhaps have been viewing Marc's posts > > > > > from an analytic point of view, whereas I have been viewing > > > > > his posts from a poetic point of view. From a poetic point > > > > > of view there is much more latitude for ambiguity and > > > > > liberty in the use of terms (it is called " poetic license " > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > maybe Phil is preparing a nice book.....another book....one > more > > > > book.......of theories and concepts......a book of analytic > > > > language......for analytic people..... > > > > > > > > i mean...people who are in the mind-business.... > > > > creating all the time " new " fabulous ...dreams.....as an > > expression > > > > of what ignorance look like > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > maybe it would be better a book on Deep Peace,mm? > > > > > > i don't think that the concerned person could write something on > this > > subject.... > > > > Marc > > > > > > > what a shame! yes...!... because " possibly maybe " ....it would change the whole of consciousness......and create so a completely new.....dream-world what a shame! Marc Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 1, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 2/28/2006 7:54:03 AM Pacific Standard Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Tue, 28 Feb 2006 13:01:43 -0000 > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 > Re: Is There an Inside, a Within? > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 2/27/2006 11:25:44 AM Pacific Standard Time, > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > " billrishel " <illusyn@> > > Re: Is There an Inside, a Within? > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > wrote: > > > > > > Marc, > > > > > > I have posted some text about " soul " by Krishnamurti. Please > read it > > > and maybe it is helpful for you to quit writing nonsens about > soul. > > > > > > Werner > > > > But Werner, Krishnamurti is only speaking with regard to > > " soul " in the context of separation/division, for he defines > > soul in the beginning as: > > " The soul is a division, born of illusion. " > > > > But as Marc is using the term " soul " it is not a *division*. > > Surely you don't object to, and regard as nonsense, the mere > > use of the four letters s-o-u-l strung together regardless > > of how it is defined? > > > > Or do I misunderstand Marc's comments? For he says: > > " soul is formless.....infinite.... > > therefore....there can only be one soul existing..... > > i mean....how could one imagine two infinite souls.....? " > > > > Sounds pretty nondual to me! > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > What's the point of creating a concept of soul if there is only > one? > > > The same as the point of creating a concept of only one soul ;-) > > Len > > > > And what is that point? > > Phil None :-) Or: to keep the mind busy. Len Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
