[MD] Consciousness (explained?)

[markhsmit]

Thanks for that Dwai, I am still struggling to understand

Willblake2

On Aug 22, 2009, at 8:48:55 PM, "Dwaipayan Lahiri" 
<dlahiri at realsysadmin.com> wrote:
 From:  "Dwaipayan Lahiri" <dlahiri at realsysadmin.com>
Subject:    Re: [MD] Consciousness (explained?)
Date:   August 22, 2009 8:48:55 PM PDT
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> There are 4 ways of viewing the world when we are separated
> from the source.  Of things have existence, non-existence, having
> both existence and non-existence, and having neither existence
> or non-existence.  All of these are dualistic.  When I say it is
> not terminal to believe this way, I mean that there is a different
> way to think.


Nagarujuna in a nutshell...

:D


Dwai Lahiri
Ph: 847-845-9956
http://www.realsysadmin.com
dlahiri at realsysadmin.com




On Aug 22, 2009, at 10:37 PM, markhsmit wrote:

> 
> On Aug 20, 2009, at 10:50:31 PM, "Ham Priday" 
> <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:
> 
> I have a problem with "understanding" that is not intellectual. 
> Like your
> friend, I am fond of Wagner's music and can be moved to tears by 
> the strains
> of Tristan and Isolde. But this esthetic experience isn't 
> "understanding",
> nor is an altered state of consciousness induced by chemicals or 
> meditation.
> I can understand a mathematical equation, a logical syllogism, a
> cause-and-effect process, or a set of ideas that relate to my 
> experience.
> I don't know about you, but I'm unable to gain understanding by 
> reciting a
> mystic mantra or contemplating my navel.
> 
> Hi Ham,
> 
> Understanding that is not intellectual is most of your being.
> You can understand intellectually Wagner, and you can
> listen to it with understanding.  You can intellectualize
> a sunset and you can watch it.  You can understand basketball,
> and you can play it.  You can understand reality, and you can
> practice it.
> 
> Which provides more understanding?  I feel that
> intellectualizing it provides less than living it.  It is one step
> removed, and fractioned into words.
> 
> Your estrangement from the source, is what is called Samsara.
> Forget Wikipedia, what I mean is the experience of dualism.
> I think you might agree with me there.  This condition was
> recognized many, many years ago, when man had more time
> to think.
> 
> It is possible to experience the world in a non-dual manner.  You
> may claim that such an experience is simply a condition of the
> brain, but you don't know until you have experienced it, otherwise
> it is simply intellectualizing.
> 
> There are 4 ways of viewing the world when we are separated
> from the source.  Of things have existence, non-existence, having
> both existence and non-existence, and having neither existence
> or non-existence.  All of these are dualistic.  When I say it is
> not terminal to believe this way, I mean that there is a different
> way to think.
> 
> You may claim that you do live your life according to your
> ontology.  If that is true, you are contemplating your navel
> in a most meaningful way.  You are meditating, there is nothing
> magical about it.
> 
> Peace,
> Willblake2
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/

Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/