|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 15, 2013 2:58:53 GMT -8
This is the discussion thread for "The Daily Ramana". Here you can post your comments about Ramana or anything else related.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Feb 15, 2013 4:11:33 GMT -8
Reefs,
What he speaks is not a proof, but only an assumption. But we can strongly prove this using the concept of nothing, Nothing simply means "not perceived" or the one which is not being focused. So such a place can't be focused. So perceiver is perceived as well. So outer world can't exist by itself independent of observer.
|
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 15, 2013 6:21:08 GMT -8
He's playing with words and logic, yes.
The moment you talk about 'nothing' it already has become something.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Feb 15, 2013 9:34:08 GMT -8
He's playing with words and logic, yes. The moment you talk about 'nothing' it already has become something. Yes it became something while we talk about it. But what you are coming to say by this? And also he is not playing with words i think, He tried to bring the proof for outer world doesn't exist. But that is not proof that's the assumption if we look into what he says. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 15, 2013 13:17:32 GMT -8
He's playing with words and logic, yes. The moment you talk about 'nothing' it already has become something. Yes it became something while we talk about it. But what you are coming to say by this? And also he is not playing with words i think, He tried to bring the proof for outer world doesn't exist. But that is not proof that's the assumption if we look into what he says. I don't think Ramana ever tried to prove anything. What he's talking about can only be seen prior to mind and ideas, and then ideas have to be used to talk about what is seen. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 15, 2013 23:41:02 GMT -8
I don't think Ramana ever tried to prove anything. What he's talking about can only be seen prior to mind and ideas, and then ideas have to be used to talk about what is seen. Right. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 16, 2013 2:30:24 GMT -8
"Practice seems to be necessary. Who is to practice? Looking for the doer, the act and the accessories disappear." Bingo. |
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Feb 16, 2013 9:41:59 GMT -8
Yes it became something while we talk about it. But what you are coming to say by this? And also he is not playing with words i think, He tried to bring the proof for outer world doesn't exist. But that is not proof that's the assumption if we look into what he says. I don't think Ramana ever tried to prove anything. What he's talking about can only be seen prior to mind and ideas, and then ideas have to be used to talk about what is seen. He is speaking about why outside world need not to exit in order for mind to perceive. Isn't it? And he was giving the Dream Analogy. So what I meant to say was, that is only an assumption. Perceiver is not entity which is sitting and watching something and when nothing left for watching it is assumed from your side that perceiver is perceiving nothing.But the truth is perceiver is no more than an "act of perceiving",So Perceiver couldn't perceive into nothing, this is solid proof outside world can't exist in itself.Outside world are 'the' focuses which are alternated by percieiver when he perceives, when he changes it exist in his awareness where it is grasped by bigger consciousness.Everything has to return to Consciousness otherwise nothing is there to say. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 16, 2013 23:45:41 GMT -8
I don't think Ramana ever tried to prove anything. What he's talking about can only be seen prior to mind and ideas, and then ideas have to be used to talk about what is seen. He is speaking about why outside world need not to exit in order for mind to perceive. Isn't it? And he was giving the Dream Analogy. So what I meant to say was, that is only an assumption. Perceiver is not entity which is sitting and watching something and when nothing left for watching it is assumed from your side that perceiver is perceiving nothing.But the truth is perceiver is no more than an "act of perceiving",So Perceiver couldn't perceive into nothing, this is solid proof outside world can't exist in itself.Outside world are 'the' focuses which are alternated by percieiver when he perceives, when he changes it exist in his awareness where it is grasped by bigger consciousness.Everything has to return to Consciousness otherwise nothing is there to say. Yes, the perceiver is the act of perceiving. I don't follow your proof and I don't know why you call it an assumption. |
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Feb 17, 2013 7:07:04 GMT -8
Enigma
My proof is very simple, perceiver can't perceive nothing because perceiver is act of perceiving which you did admit,that being said, act of perceiving is not possible into nothing.so outside world can't exist by itself.
He uses dream analogy to convey the message that outside world need not to exist in order for mind to perceive.That's what I said it only assumption, not a solid proof.
|
|
|
|
Post by humphrey on Feb 19, 2013 6:23:30 GMT -8
The gist here: realizinghappiness.freeforums.net/index.cgi?action=gotopost&board=nonduality&thread=53&post=1020seems to be that all is illusory, including the watcher: "An illusory being watches an illusory world." and "You and the world are as real as the cinema figure and the cinema world." But the gist here: realizinghappiness.freeforums.net/index.cgi?action=gotopost&board=nonduality&thread=53&post=1034seems to be that there is illusion and there is that upon which illusion plays out -- the real. Like this: "the world is a phenomenon on the single Reality, which is not affected in any manner. Reality is only one." and "The discussion about illusion is due to the difference in the angle of vision. Change your angle of vision to one of jnana and then find the universe to be only Brahman. Being now in the world, you see the world as such. Get beyond it and this will disappear: the Reality alone will shine." I was just getting comfortable with the idea that everything is imagined -- everything. Where the concept of "Reality alone", points to an unspeakable awareness of all is imagined, (or something). But this last Ramana post seems to be saying that the 'unspeakable awareness' (quoting myself) is Reality, not subject to imagination or illusion. edit: Also, who or what changes the angle of vision?  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 19, 2013 22:02:41 GMT -8
The gist here: realizinghappiness.freeforums.net/index.cgi?action=gotopost&board=nonduality&thread=53&post=1020seems to be that all is illusory, including the watcher: "An illusory being watches an illusory world." and "You and the world are as real as the cinema figure and the cinema world." But the gist here: realizinghappiness.freeforums.net/index.cgi?action=gotopost&board=nonduality&thread=53&post=1034seems to be that there is illusion and there is that upon which illusion plays out -- the real. Like this: "the world is a phenomenon on the single Reality, which is not affected in any manner. Reality is only one." and "The discussion about illusion is due to the difference in the angle of vision. Change your angle of vision to one of jnana and then find the universe to be only Brahman. Being now in the world, you see the world as such. Get beyond it and this will disappear: the Reality alone will shine." I was just getting comfortable with the idea that everything is imagined -- everything. Where the concept of "Reality alone", points to an unspeakable awareness of all is imagined, (or something). But this last Ramana post seems to be saying that the 'unspeakable awareness' (quoting myself) is Reality, not subject to imagination or illusion. edit: Also, who or what changes the angle of vision? But "Reality" isn't something that can be imagined. Reality isn't 'something'. It's your beingness, prior to mind and imagination. It can't be talked about (like this) because whatever can be talked about is imagination. The idea of beingness and Reality is not what beingness and Reality are. Those ideas are imagination. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 24, 2013 10:40:02 GMT -8
realizinghappiness.freeforums.net/index.cgi?action=gotopost&board=nonduality&thread=53&post=1115Maybe the betterer question is, 'Is consciousness in the body or is the body in consciousness?' As Niz points out, the nightly dream is full of objects, including the body of the dreamer. That's not to say the body of the dreamer moved into the dream, but only to say that a body/mind can and does appear as an appearance only in consciousness, complete with all sense perception and thought/feeling processes, and it is clearly not the source of consciousness. The analogy merely opens opens the door to the possibility that the same thing is happening in the waking state; that the body/mind/brain is not the source of consciousness but rather local appearances in consciousness, which is not local. That is, the body and brain can be observed to have a location in space, and the process of mind can be observed to move in time, but consciousness is not locatable in space and is not a process that involves time. It naturally seems as though consciousness is located in space, but this is an illusion formed by the process of perception in time/space. There must a physical point of origin from which a spatial perspective is formed, but this doesn't imply that the source of that perception is located there. If you are watching a security camera, the scene may form the (unconvincing) illusion that you are at the location of the camera for your observation, which of course is not so. The body sensations are sufficiently convincing that the assumption is made that the source of the perception is located where the visual perspective indicates it is located. The interest in what is at this apparent source location leads to identifying the source as a sensory mechanism and a thinking process (A particular body and mind), and this particular body/mind is assumed to not only be the source of consciousness, leading to the conclusion that consciousness is in the body, but is also identified as what you are. What you appear to be, then, is consciousness contained within a body and located in a particular place and time, but it's all constructed from imagined conclusions and assumptions about the experience that's actually happening. You can step back and see that whatever knows about these appearances cannot BE the appearances, but must 'prior to' those appearances such that the appearances are appearing to that which knows about them. That which knows about location must be non-local. That which knows about time and space must be timeless and spaceless. Non-local is a way of saying everywhere and nowhere, infinite and eternal. These are the familiar spearachual terms, which are not paradoxical once it is seen that time, space, body and mind appear IN consciousness.
|
|
|
|
Post by Portto on Feb 27, 2013 16:13:36 GMT -8
ToothacheVisitor: I feel toothache. Is it only a thought? Ramana: Yes. Visitor: Why can I not think that there is no toothache and thus cure myself? Ramana: When engrossed in other thoughts one does not feel the toothache. When one sleeps toothache is not felt. Visitor: But toothache remains all the same. Ramana: Such is the firm conviction of the reality of the world that it is not easily shaken off. The world does not become, for that reason, any more real than the individual himself. Visitor: Now there is the Sino-Japanese war. If it is only in imagination, can or will Sri Bhagavan imagine the contrary and put an end to the war? Ramana: The Bhagavan of the questioner is as much a thought as the Sino-Japanese war. 4th February, 1938 Really nice find! The questioner creates/imagines/invents the questions/objects/individuals, is attached to their reality, and is interested in them working a certain way instead of dispelling the illusion. The main tension seems to arise from the fact that whatever is imagined is somehow not enough/complete, and therefore it must be worked on. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 27, 2013 20:34:17 GMT -8
ToothacheVisitor: I feel toothache. Is it only a thought? Ramana: Yes. Visitor: Why can I not think that there is no toothache and thus cure myself? Ramana: When engrossed in other thoughts one does not feel the toothache. When one sleeps toothache is not felt. Visitor: But toothache remains all the same. Ramana: Such is the firm conviction of the reality of the world that it is not easily shaken off. The world does not become, for that reason, any more real than the individual himself. Visitor: Now there is the Sino-Japanese war. If it is only in imagination, can or will Sri Bhagavan imagine the contrary and put an end to the war? Ramana: The Bhagavan of the questioner is as much a thought as the Sino-Japanese war. 4th February, 1938 Really nice find! The questioner creates/imagines/invents the questions/objects/individuals, is attached to their reality, and is interested in them working a certain way instead of dispelling the illusion. The main tension seems to arise from the fact that whatever is imagined is somehow not enough/complete, and therefore it must be worked on. Yup. Fits right into your dream scam.  |
|
