Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

1635[Meditation Society of America] Re: THE SAGE'S VIEW

Expand Messages
  • texasbg2000 <Bigbobgraham@aol.com>
    Jan 2, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Greg:

      That is a great example, it cuts through the mud. However it seems
      to me the word understand can mean either an experience or not.

      If one means to know something then that is not experience. Knowing
      is construed as consciousness in this sense which is pure and

      If one means to have understanding dawn then it is. The dissolving
      of a fantasy could be considered as an event/experience or not
      depending on your understanding of the word.

      I think timeline has something to do with it. Take the distraction
      of sloth. It can keep me from meditating tonight. It can also be
      considered a personality trait that limits my life's goals. These
      two ways of looking at the same word while similar are still.

      Bobby G.

      --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, Gregory Goode
      <goode@d...> wrote:
      > The understanding is not experiential - whatever experience you can
      think of - understanding is "in back of it." If understanding *were*
      experiential (and I don't mean understanding how to fill out one's
      tax form), then it would be just another whiff that comes and goes.
      > It's like when I learned that there's no Santa Claus. I can trace
      the event back to a certain point in chronological time (sneaking
      downstairs one Christmas eve and seeing my parents wrap the
      presents. They talked about they'd make the bike be from Santa...).
      But what was left was not a mental image constantly remembered and
      rehearsed ("There is no Santa, there is no Santa).
      > No, it's more the dissolving of the notion that there *is* a
      Santa. Not having that notion is not an experience....
      > So if you're looking for an experience, then get ready to look for
      the cessation of that experience too!
      > Love,
      > --Greg
      > At 07:38 AM 1/2/03 +0200, Athanor wrote:
      > >Understanding is experiential! How do you understand than, Judi? i
      guess that everyone has experiences... at least everyone alive .. :-)
      and judi, if the ego is not the ground, than what is it? what are you
      standing on?
      > >what's wrong with Sarlo?
      > >mirela
      > >
      > > > understanding is experiential.
      > >
      > > ****** Wrong again! Understanding is non-experiential.
      > > Ever heard the term "non-duality"? Well there you have it.
    • Show all 8 messages in this topic