[ Boards: Main, Type4, Type5, Movie, Care, Chat ][ Top 10 ] [ HOME ]

RE: Great Answers

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Type 5 Message Board ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by daniel on January 27, 2002 at 20:25:13:

In Reply to: Re: Answers to all the Greatest Questions by Avatar Adi Da posted by pork on January 27, 2002 at 19:35:07:

That's cool that you read one of his books and as a kid!

Well yes words such as "is" and "to be" are very human concepts. I think Adi Da was pointing out in those "considerations" that we can not know anything ultimatly in the objective sense. We can only delve deeper and deeper into an object's qualities and patterns. Because ultimately every "thing" is not an object but merely an arising pattern within the Radiance of Consciousness. There is no "object" Ultimately.

He is pointing out that Truth or Reality can only be fully known as the Subjective Condition upon most complete Divine Realization. He terms this subjective Knowing "Divine Ignorance". These considerations are meant to liberate us from the fundamental anxiety of feeling like a seperate and mortal "thing" in the midst of endless other threatening "things".

Daniel

I read one of his lesser-known small books--"The Four Fundamental Questions," I think--when I was a kid. I particularly remember his argument, "You call it an ashtray, but do you know what it IS?" He says we cannot know what anything IS. We can only know what it looks like, what it's commonly referred to, etc.

: My reply to this: The verb "to be" is an etymological concept that was created precisely to *describe* such qualities as visual appearance and nomenclature. The word "IS" has no substantial meaning beyond that. The concept "to be" is an artificial (human-created) abstraction that does not exist independently of human conceptualization, just as the concept of time is unrecognized by some cultures. Thus (again), the concept of being ("IS") means what we created it to mean, nothing more.

: The Da Avatar does modify this argument by stating something like, "You do not know what its TRUE NATURE is." To that statement, my argument against the palpability of the "mystery of being" might equally apply--even more so, since the term "true nature," besides being an artificial abstraction like "to be," is considerably more subjective in its meaning than "to be."

: I still think his writing is very interesting. He's probably a 2w1, ENFJ. The fact that he his "religion" (for lack of a better term) has survived for 30 years betrays a shrewdness that puts him above most of his ilk.

: ^(oo)^

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject:

Comments:
: That's cool that you read one of his books and as a kid! : Well yes words such as "is" and "to be" are very human concepts. I think Adi Da was pointing out in those "considerations" that we can not know anything ultimatly in the objective sense. We can only delve deeper and deeper into an object's qualities and patterns. Because ultimately every "thing" is not an object but merely an arising pattern within the Radiance of Consciousness. There is no "object" Ultimately. : He is pointing out that Truth or Reality can only be fully known as the Subjective Condition upon most complete Divine Realization. He terms this subjective Knowing "Divine Ignorance". These considerations are meant to liberate us from the fundamental anxiety of feeling like a seperate and mortal "thing" in the midst of endless other threatening "things". : Daniel : : I read one of his lesser-known small books--"The Four Fundamental Questions," I think--when I was a kid. I particularly remember his argument, "You call it an ashtray, but do you know what it IS?" He says we cannot know what anything IS. We can only know what it looks like, what it's commonly referred to, etc. : : My reply to this: The verb "to be" is an etymological concept that was created precisely to *describe* such qualities as visual appearance and nomenclature. The word "IS" has no substantial meaning beyond that. The concept "to be" is an artificial (human-created) abstraction that does not exist independently of human conceptualization, just as the concept of time is unrecognized by some cultures. Thus (again), the concept of being ("IS") means what we created it to mean, nothing more. : : The Da Avatar does modify this argument by stating something like, "You do not know what its TRUE NATURE is." To that statement, my argument against the palpability of the "mystery of being" might equally apply--even more so, since the term "true nature," besides being an artificial abstraction like "to be," is considerably more subjective in its meaning than "to be." : : I still think his writing is very interesting. He's probably a 2w1, ENFJ. The fact that he his "religion" (for lack of a better term) has survived for 30 years betrays a shrewdness that puts him above most of his ilk. : : ^(oo)^

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Type 5 Message Board ] [ FAQ ]