Guest guest Report post Posted October 16, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anna " <kailashana@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anna " <kailashana@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Nonsense Dan. > > > > > > > > > > > > I suppose awareness doesn't type on a keyboard, read the screen or gather its *thoughts*. > > > > > > > > > > > > Call it nothing call it everything, including make-believe fantasy and projection, but you can't escape its reality, even if it seems > > > > > > arbitrary and ephemeral. > > > > > > > > > > > > ~A > > > > > > > > > > There is no " it " doing anything, Anna. > > > > > > > > > > You seem to balk at this. > > > > > > > > > > And that's okay with me. > > > > > > > > > > I'm not trying to convince you of anything. > > > > > > > > > > Probably it is best that you don't even go there. > > > > > > > > > > Please don't, in fact. > > > > > > > > > > Having everything fall apart isn't a wonderful love picnic. > > > > > > > > > > It's just what is. > > > > > > > > > > One will never understand one's own knowing process, unless and until the fundamental assumptions of that process are laid bare and allowed to dissolve. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You assume too much about me, Dan. There is no bottom to fall out > > > > when identity is fluid, and understanding is a flowing relationship > > > > with reality. > > > > > > What is it that's having a relationship with reality? Unreality? ;-). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is no such thing as unreality. > > > > > > And that means that there could be no such thing as reality. > > > > > > Any questions? > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > Nope. Nicely stated :-). It is assumed that " I am a body " . The sages have said, " I am not the body " . Does this mean that I am disembodied? No. It means that the body appears in awareness. It is a cognized 'object', the same as the computer monitor in front of the body. " My " body is " inside me " , inside awareness. " Your " body is " inside me " , inside awareness, too. If I'm not trying to be a separate 'being' (body) as opposed to 'your being' (body), this is clear. Both of us appear in 'my' awareness. In fact, *all of us* appear in 'my' awareness. And so, " who am I? " ;-). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 16, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anna " <kailashana@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > snippity snippity snap > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No 'better' or 'worse' than any other repartee, really. > > > > > > > > > > Awareness seems to enjoy blabbering, while pretending something/one 'else' exists.... eh? :-p. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Awareness seems to be doing everything, nothing and something else. > > > > > > > > ~A > > > > > > > > > > Nonsense. > > > > > > There is no " Awareness " doing everything. > > > > > > That's purely make-believe fantasy and projection. > > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > Yes Dan, true, > > > > And if you do the next step seeing how awareness is created by the brain yo will see that awareness does not exist: > > > > The firing of memory cells within the neuronal netweork is what we experience as awareness. > > > > To use a metaphor for that firing of memory cells one could say that awareness (or consciousness) is a flow of contents of those atcivated memory cells and that flow we call awareness. But awareness is neither a function nor a state. It is just millions of 'sparkles' happening in the neuronal network. > > > > Werner > > Werner - > > I'm aware, it's just that my awareness isn't a " thing " that makes other things happen. > > How do you know for sure something exists, such as a cell, if you're not aware of it? > > How do you know for sure what properties a cell has or doesn't have, without being aware? > > > > - D - > Well, Dan, How do you know the dark side of the moon, how do you know the hidden and the unknown, and many more of that kind, etc ? There is direct perception of something and knowing of something. Here is an example of a direct perception: http://ahsmail.uwaterloo.ca/kin356/illusion/direct.html Thanks heavens I know a bit English to be able to talk with you, Dan. Today we have Oct. 16th 2009 (CET, Central European Time) - how do I know ? Do you see now, Dan, how silly is this constant asking 'how do you know ?' Werner Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 16, 2009 Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anna " <kailashana@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > snippity snippity snap > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No 'better' or 'worse' than any other repartee, really. > > > > > > > > > > > > Awareness seems to enjoy blabbering, while pretending something/one 'else' exists.... eh? :-p. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Awareness seems to be doing everything, nothing and something else. > > > > > > > > > > ~A > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nonsense. > > > > > > > > There is no " Awareness " doing everything. > > > > > > > > That's purely make-believe fantasy and projection. > > > > > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes Dan, true, > > > > > > And if you do the next step seeing how awareness is created by the brain yo will see that awareness does not exist: > > > > > > The firing of memory cells within the neuronal netweork is what we experience as awareness. > > > > > > To use a metaphor for that firing of memory cells one could say that awareness (or consciousness) is a flow of contents of those atcivated memory cells and that flow we call awareness. But awareness is neither a function nor a state. It is just millions of 'sparkles' happening in the neuronal network. > > > > > > Werner > > > > Werner - > > > > I'm aware, it's just that my awareness isn't a " thing " that makes other things happen. > > > > How do you know for sure something exists, such as a cell, if you're not aware of it? > > > > How do you know for sure what properties a cell has or doesn't have, without being aware? > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > Well, Dan, > > How do you know the dark side of the moon, how do you know the hidden and the unknown, and many more of that kind, etc ? > > There is direct perception of something and knowing of something. > > Here is an example of a direct perception: > > http://ahsmail.uwaterloo.ca/kin356/illusion/direct.html > > Thanks heavens I know a bit English to be able to talk with you, Dan. > > Today we have Oct. 16th 2009 (CET, Central European Time) - how do I know ? > > Do you see now, Dan, how silly is this constant asking 'how do you know ?' > > Werner > I just no longer argue some points, as they are a given in human interaction. Which, btw, is all we are doing here. Sometimes oil and water. Sometimes a chemical reaction, a combustion. Sometimes more smoke, sometimes water. ~A Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 16, 2009 Nisargadatta , " anna " <kailashana wrote: > > And how do you know for sure that awareness is or isn't the very act of creating/recreating? How tall is an awareness? How much does an awareness weigh? Awareness does nothing. Awareness is just a word. You can make up whatever meaning you want for it. And all that is, is a word that now points to other words that you designated as a description for it. And 'round and 'round it goes. When I say, " I am being aware, " I know what I mean. But the meaning is wordless. It doesn't matter to me if anyone else knows or doesn't know the meaning of the word " awareness " when I use it to say " I am aware. " I can communicate, " I am aware, " but what is heard by you, the reader of these words, I can't account for. And yet, I am being aware. And that is enough. And being aware is not a doing, is not a creating or a destructing, and doesn't involve either a doer or a done-to. > And you, I and the dog (words/names given to awareness) are intimately and simultaneously connected in that creating/cocreating of what *Is*? The present presence of the present? That's way to complicated for me. Even giving the name " awareness " is too much, and it's just done for the sake of communicating. There isn't any actual naming involved, because there isn't any way to step back from this to name it. Being aware is what is. It's just the unspeakable and unthinkable fact of what this experiencing/nowmoment is. > p.s. what was your original objection with my representation? It's not important to go back to something that was said in the past. What this is, is not of the past nor from the past. Nor is it from something else, or of something else. - D - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 16, 2009 Nisargadatta , " anna " <kailashana wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anna " <kailashana@> wrote: > > > > > Nonsense Dan. > > > > > > I suppose awareness doesn't type on a keyboard, read the screen or gather its *thoughts*. > > > > > > Call it nothing call it everything, including make-believe fantasy and projection, but you can't escape its reality, even if it seems > > > arbitrary and ephemeral. > > > > > > ~A > > > > There is no " it " doing anything, Anna. > > > > You seem to balk at this. > > > > And that's okay with me. > > > > I'm not trying to convince you of anything. > > > > Probably it is best that you don't even go there. > > > > Please don't, in fact. > > > > Having everything fall apart isn't a wonderful love picnic. > > > > It's just what is. > > > > One will never understand one's own knowing process, unless and until the fundamental assumptions of that process are laid bare and allowed to dissolve. > > > > > > - D - > > > > > You assume too much about me, Dan. There is no bottom to fall out > when identity is fluid, and understanding is a flowing relationship > with reality. > > Not some mental de/construction. > > If you ever want to speak with me on another level, let me know, speaking of dissolving one's opinions. > > ~A Anna, your response points to the reason why the term " self-inquiry " has been offered. And also, it points to the difficulty of self-inquiry, even though self-inquiry involves no effort, no question, and no need of an answer. Giving up the " fludity of identity, " and " the flowing relationship with reality " and the " co-creating of reality " ... That just wouldn't be any fun, would it? - D - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 16, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru " <lastrain wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anna " <kailashana@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anna " <kailashana@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Nonsense Dan. > > > > > > > > > > I suppose awareness doesn't type on a keyboard, read the screen or gather its *thoughts*. > > > > > > > > > > Call it nothing call it everything, including make-believe fantasy and projection, but you can't escape its reality, even if it seems > > > > > arbitrary and ephemeral. > > > > > > > > > > ~A > > > > > > > > There is no " it " doing anything, Anna. > > > > > > > > You seem to balk at this. > > > > > > > > And that's okay with me. > > > > > > > > I'm not trying to convince you of anything. > > > > > > > > Probably it is best that you don't even go there. > > > > > > > > Please don't, in fact. > > > > > > > > Having everything fall apart isn't a wonderful love picnic. > > > > > > > > It's just what is. > > > > > > > > One will never understand one's own knowing process, unless and until the fundamental assumptions of that process are laid bare and allowed to dissolve. > > > > > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > > > > > You assume too much about me, Dan. There is no bottom to fall out > > > when identity is fluid, and understanding is a flowing relationship > > > with reality. > > > > What is it that's having a relationship with reality? Unreality? ;-). > > There is no such thing as unreality. > > > And that means that there could be no such thing as reality. > > > Any questions? > > > > > toombaru You're not able to make a real statement about the nature of either reality or unreality. But nice try anyway. - D - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 16, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anna " <kailashana@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anna " <kailashana@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nonsense Dan. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I suppose awareness doesn't type on a keyboard, read the screen or gather its *thoughts*. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Call it nothing call it everything, including make-believe fantasy and projection, but you can't escape its reality, even if it seems > > > > > > > arbitrary and ephemeral. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~A > > > > > > > > > > > > There is no " it " doing anything, Anna. > > > > > > > > > > > > You seem to balk at this. > > > > > > > > > > > > And that's okay with me. > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not trying to convince you of anything. > > > > > > > > > > > > Probably it is best that you don't even go there. > > > > > > > > > > > > Please don't, in fact. > > > > > > > > > > > > Having everything fall apart isn't a wonderful love picnic. > > > > > > > > > > > > It's just what is. > > > > > > > > > > > > One will never understand one's own knowing process, unless and until the fundamental assumptions of that process are laid bare and allowed to dissolve. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You assume too much about me, Dan. There is no bottom to fall out > > > > > when identity is fluid, and understanding is a flowing relationship > > > > > with reality. > > > > > > > > What is it that's having a relationship with reality? Unreality? ;-). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is no such thing as unreality. > > > > > > > > > And that means that there could be no such thing as reality. > > > > > > > > > Any questions? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > Nope. Nicely stated :-). > > It is assumed that " I am a body " . > > The sages have said, " I am not the body " . > > Does this mean that I am disembodied? > > No. > > It means that the body appears in awareness. > > It is a cognized 'object', the same as the computer monitor in front of the body. > > " My " body is " inside me " , inside awareness. " Your " body is " inside me " , inside awareness, too. > > If I'm not trying to be a separate 'being' (body) as opposed to 'your being' (body), this is clear. > > Both of us appear in 'my' awareness. > > In fact, *all of us* appear in 'my' awareness. > > And so, " who am I? " ;-). And awareness appears in nothing. And nothing neither appears nor disappears, nor involves in or out. Therefore, appearance never appears. - D - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 16, 2009 Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anna " <kailashana@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > snippity snippity snap > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No 'better' or 'worse' than any other repartee, really. > > > > > > > > > > > > Awareness seems to enjoy blabbering, while pretending something/one 'else' exists.... eh? :-p. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Awareness seems to be doing everything, nothing and something else. > > > > > > > > > > ~A > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nonsense. > > > > > > > > There is no " Awareness " doing everything. > > > > > > > > That's purely make-believe fantasy and projection. > > > > > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes Dan, true, > > > > > > And if you do the next step seeing how awareness is created by the brain yo will see that awareness does not exist: > > > > > > The firing of memory cells within the neuronal netweork is what we experience as awareness. > > > > > > To use a metaphor for that firing of memory cells one could say that awareness (or consciousness) is a flow of contents of those atcivated memory cells and that flow we call awareness. But awareness is neither a function nor a state. It is just millions of 'sparkles' happening in the neuronal network. > > > > > > Werner > > > > Werner - > > > > I'm aware, it's just that my awareness isn't a " thing " that makes other things happen. > > > > How do you know for sure something exists, such as a cell, if you're not aware of it? > > > > How do you know for sure what properties a cell has or doesn't have, without being aware? > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > Well, Dan, > > How do you know the dark side of the moon, how do you know the hidden and the unknown, and many more of that kind, etc ? > > There is direct perception of something and knowing of something. > > Here is an example of a direct perception: > > http://ahsmail.uwaterloo.ca/kin356/illusion/direct.html > > Thanks heavens I know a bit English to be able to talk with you, Dan. > > Today we have Oct. 16th 2009 (CET, Central European Time) - how do I know ? > > Do you see now, Dan, how silly is this constant asking 'how do you know ?' > > Werner Werner - You're missing what direct perception is. Your understanding of cells and what cells do is indirect, and involves formulated knowledge. So does your understanding of the time of the day. Direct perception isn't formulated knowledge. It is truly direct. To you, truly direct perception is silly. And to you, your knowledge about cells and the time of day and other things is mistaken for reality. You are taking the indirect and mediated and misrepresenting it as the direct and unmediated. And that truly is your business. If that works for you, great, have fun with it. Meanwhile, unmediated direct perception is missed. - D - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 16, 2009 No one said that. Have you visited that example link about direct perception ? If not, then do it now. -werner- Visit such and such link in order to find out what direct perception is. :>) -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 17, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anna " <kailashana@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anna " <kailashana@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nonsense Dan. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I suppose awareness doesn't type on a keyboard, read the screen or gather its *thoughts*. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Call it nothing call it everything, including make-believe fantasy and projection, but you can't escape its reality, even if it seems > > > > > > > > arbitrary and ephemeral. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~A > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is no " it " doing anything, Anna. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You seem to balk at this. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And that's okay with me. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not trying to convince you of anything. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Probably it is best that you don't even go there. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please don't, in fact. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Having everything fall apart isn't a wonderful love picnic. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's just what is. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One will never understand one's own knowing process, unless and until the fundamental assumptions of that process are laid bare and allowed to dissolve. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You assume too much about me, Dan. There is no bottom to fall out > > > > > > when identity is fluid, and understanding is a flowing relationship > > > > > > with reality. > > > > > > > > > > What is it that's having a relationship with reality? Unreality? ;-). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is no such thing as unreality. > > > > > > > > > > > > And that means that there could be no such thing as reality. > > > > > > > > > > > > Any questions? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > Nope. Nicely stated :-). > > > > It is assumed that " I am a body " . > > > > The sages have said, " I am not the body " . > > > > Does this mean that I am disembodied? > > > > No. > > > > It means that the body appears in awareness. > > > > It is a cognized 'object', the same as the computer monitor in front of the body. > > > > " My " body is " inside me " , inside awareness. " Your " body is " inside me " , inside awareness, too. > > > > If I'm not trying to be a separate 'being' (body) as opposed to 'your being' (body), this is clear. > > > > Both of us appear in 'my' awareness. > > > > In fact, *all of us* appear in 'my' awareness. > > > > And so, " who am I? " ;-). > > > And awareness appears in nothing. Exactly... it is 'non-local', not located anywhere. > And nothing neither appears nor disappears, nor involves in or out. > > > Therefore, appearance never appears. > > > - D - Well, as ya said, words mean whatever they do to the reader/writer. Including the word " appearance " . One may even use a word a certain way 'this time', and use it a different way 'next time'. Who knows? I don't see the need to 'be hardcore' with any word(s). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 17, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anna " <kailashana@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anna " <kailashana@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Nonsense Dan. > > > > > > > > > > > > I suppose awareness doesn't type on a keyboard, read the screen or gather its *thoughts*. > > > > > > > > > > > > Call it nothing call it everything, including make-believe fantasy and projection, but you can't escape its reality, even if it seems > > > > > > arbitrary and ephemeral. > > > > > > > > > > > > ~A > > > > > > > > > > There is no " it " doing anything, Anna. > > > > > > > > > > You seem to balk at this. > > > > > > > > > > And that's okay with me. > > > > > > > > > > I'm not trying to convince you of anything. > > > > > > > > > > Probably it is best that you don't even go there. > > > > > > > > > > Please don't, in fact. > > > > > > > > > > Having everything fall apart isn't a wonderful love picnic. > > > > > > > > > > It's just what is. > > > > > > > > > > One will never understand one's own knowing process, unless and until the fundamental assumptions of that process are laid bare and allowed to dissolve. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You assume too much about me, Dan. There is no bottom to fall out > > > > when identity is fluid, and understanding is a flowing relationship > > > > with reality. > > > > > > What is it that's having a relationship with reality? Unreality? ;-). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is no such thing as unreality. > > > > > > And that means that there could be no such thing as reality. > > > > > > Any questions? > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > You're not able to make a real statement about the nature of either > reality or unreality. > > But nice try anyway. > > - D - He's really able to 'make a statement' tho, eh? The words really arise, and really appear to get posted. It's just that they have no real meaning, aside perhaps from something like " ribbit, chirp " ;-). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 17, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Werner - > > You're missing what direct perception is. > > Your understanding of cells and what cells do is indirect, and involves formulated knowledge. So does your understanding of the time of the day. > > Direct perception isn't formulated knowledge. > > It is truly direct. > > To you, truly direct perception is silly. > > And to you, your knowledge about cells and the time of day and other things is mistaken for reality. > > You are taking the indirect and mediated and misrepresenting it as the direct and unmediated. > > And that truly is your business. > > If that works for you, great, have fun with it. > > Meanwhile, unmediated direct perception is missed. > > > - D - Un " me " -diated, eh? :-p. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 17, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Werner - > > You're missing what direct perception is. > > Your understanding of cells and what cells do is indirect, and involves formulated knowledge. So does your understanding of the time of the day. > > Direct perception isn't formulated knowledge. > > It is truly direct. > > To you, truly direct perception is silly. I rather think his 'problem' with it may be that it can't be shared. That may be everyone's 'problem with it', really. No other is involved with 'direct perception'. And that seems to be a very 'serious' matter for folks... not silly at all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 17, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Werner - > > > > You're missing what direct perception is. > > > > Your understanding of cells and what cells do is indirect, and involves formulated knowledge. So does your understanding of the time of the day. > > > > Direct perception isn't formulated knowledge. > > > > It is truly direct. > > > > To you, truly direct perception is silly. > > I rather think his 'problem' with it may be that it can't be shared. > > That may be everyone's 'problem with it', really. > > No other is involved with 'direct perception'. > > And that seems to be a very 'serious' matter for folks... not silly > at all. > What can be shared, isn't real. What is real, can't be shared. And so, this is man's dilemma. This is what must be looked at, closely. Directly, if ya will ;-). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 17, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > Werner - > > > > > > You're missing what direct perception is. > > > > > > Your understanding of cells and what cells do is indirect, and involves formulated knowledge. So does your understanding of the time of the day. > > > > > > Direct perception isn't formulated knowledge. > > > > > > It is truly direct. > > > > > > To you, truly direct perception is silly. > > > > I rather think his 'problem' with it may be that it can't be shared. > > > > That may be everyone's 'problem with it', really. > > > > No other is involved with 'direct perception'. > > > > And that seems to be a very 'serious' matter for folks... not silly > at all. > > > > What can be shared, isn't real. > > What is real, can't be shared. > > And so, this is man's dilemma. > > This is what must be looked at, closely. > > Directly, if ya will ;-). > That which can or can't be shared is moot when the unreality of the one who shares is apperceived. toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
