"They Said It Was Simple"

[oldernow]

"They Said It Was Simple" - Wei Wu Wei

31. They Said It was Simple

STRANGE TO SAY - and how rare it is! - the term 'phenomena'
implies precisely what etymologically it says. Every
thing, every conceivable thing, that our senses, and
our mind (which interprets what our senses perceive)
cognise, is exactly an 'appearance', i.e., an appearance
in consciousness interpreted as an event extended in space
and in duration and objectified in a world external to that
which cognises it. And simultaneously that which cognises
it assumes that it is the subject of the cognition and,
as such, an entity apart from that which is cognised.

As long as these associated assumptions subsist, the
correlated assumption of 'bondage', and the painful
sensations accompanying that assumption, must necessarily
remain intact.

Therefore release from this assumed 'bondage' can only be
obtained by comprehending the falsity of these assumptions
which are responsible for the presumed bondage, for both
'assumptions' and 'bondage' are apparent only, i.e.,
are purely 'phenomenal'.

'Appearance' is precisely what the word implies, i.e.,
something that 'seems to be', not 'something that is'.

If this is realised - and how obvious it should be, since
the terms themselves say it precisely! - the psychological
elements of a purely psychological bondage are severed,
and only the psychological conditioning occasioned by
that 'bondage' remains, and this, like all conditioning,
will dissolve as a result of a process of de-conditioning
which consists in the establishment of the concept of
'appearance' (phenomenon) in place of the concept of
'reality'.

The dissolution of that which is cognised as 'real' and
'separate', as events extended in space and in time,
necessarily involves the dissolution of the assumed
cognising entity, and both are then seen as phenomena,
or appearance, in consciousness.

When this readjustment is effected both subject and
object no longer exist as such, and no entity remains
which could be conceived as being 'bound'. That is -
bondage is no more.

How very simple indeed it is!

Note: 'Then who am I?' If anyone could tell you that,
what you were told would necessarily be nonsense - for
it would be just another object, as phenomenal as the
rest. Some day you will know automatically what you are -
which is what the Masters meant when they said so often,
'You will know of yourself whether water is tepid or cold'
- or, you will just be that knowledge.

[Richmond]

Post by oldernow
"They Said It Was Simple" - Wei Wu Wei
31. They Said It was Simple
STRANGE TO SAY - and how rare it is! - the term 'phenomena'
implies precisely what etymologically it says. Every
thing, every conceivable thing, that our senses, and
our mind (which interprets what our senses perceive)
cognise, is exactly an 'appearance', i.e., an appearance
in consciousness interpreted as an event extended in space
and in duration and objectified in a world external to that
which cognises it. And simultaneously that which cognises
it assumes that it is the subject of the cognition and,
as such, an entity apart from that which is cognised.
As long as these associated assumptions subsist, the
correlated assumption of 'bondage', and the painful
sensations accompanying that assumption, must necessarily
remain intact.
Therefore release from this assumed 'bondage' can only be
obtained by comprehending the falsity of these assumptions
which are responsible for the presumed bondage, for both
'assumptions' and 'bondage' are apparent only, i.e.,
are purely 'phenomenal'.
'Appearance' is precisely what the word implies, i.e.,
something that 'seems to be', not 'something that is'.
If this is realised - and how obvious it should be, since
the terms themselves say it precisely! - the psychological
elements of a purely psychological bondage are severed,
and only the psychological conditioning occasioned by
that 'bondage' remains, and this, like all conditioning,
will dissolve as a result of a process of de-conditioning
which consists in the establishment of the concept of
'appearance' (phenomenon) in place of the concept of
'reality'.
The dissolution of that which is cognised as 'real' and
'separate', as events extended in space and in time,
necessarily involves the dissolution of the assumed
cognising entity, and both are then seen as phenomena,
or appearance, in consciousness.
When this readjustment is effected both subject and
object no longer exist as such, and no entity remains
which could be conceived as being 'bound'. That is -
bondage is no more.
How very simple indeed it is!
Note: 'Then who am I?' If anyone could tell you that,
what you were told would necessarily be nonsense - for
it would be just another object, as phenomenal as the
rest. Some day you will know automatically what you are -
which is what the Masters meant when they said so often,
'You will know of yourself whether water is tepid or cold'
- or, you will just be that knowledge.

Where does the quotation end?

It looks like a very long way of saying 'The cause of suffering is
clinging'.

[oldernow]

Post by Richmond

Post by oldernow
"They Said It Was Simple" - Wei Wu Wei
31. They Said It was Simple
STRANGE TO SAY - and how rare it is! - the term 'phenomena'
implies precisely what etymologically it says. Every
thing, every conceivable thing, that our senses, and
our mind (which interprets what our senses perceive)
cognise, is exactly an 'appearance', i.e., an appearance
in consciousness interpreted as an event extended in space
and in duration and objectified in a world external to that
which cognises it. And simultaneously that which cognises
it assumes that it is the subject of the cognition and,
as such, an entity apart from that which is cognised.
As long as these associated assumptions subsist, the
correlated assumption of 'bondage', and the painful
sensations accompanying that assumption, must necessarily
remain intact.
Therefore release from this assumed 'bondage' can only be
obtained by comprehending the falsity of these assumptions
which are responsible for the presumed bondage, for both
'assumptions' and 'bondage' are apparent only, i.e.,
are purely 'phenomenal'.
'Appearance' is precisely what the word implies, i.e.,
something that 'seems to be', not 'something that is'.
If this is realised - and how obvious it should be, since
the terms themselves say it precisely! - the psychological
elements of a purely psychological bondage are severed,
and only the psychological conditioning occasioned by
that 'bondage' remains, and this, like all conditioning,
will dissolve as a result of a process of de-conditioning
which consists in the establishment of the concept of
'appearance' (phenomenon) in place of the concept of
'reality'.
The dissolution of that which is cognised as 'real' and
'separate', as events extended in space and in time,
necessarily involves the dissolution of the assumed
cognising entity, and both are then seen as phenomena,
or appearance, in consciousness.
When this readjustment is effected both subject and
object no longer exist as such, and no entity remains
which could be conceived as being 'bound'. That is -
bondage is no more.
How very simple indeed it is!
Note: 'Then who am I?' If anyone could tell you that,
what you were told would necessarily be nonsense - for
it would be just another object, as phenomenal as the
rest. Some day you will know automatically what you are -
which is what the Masters meant when they said so often,
'You will know of yourself whether water is tepid or cold'
- or, you will just be that knowledge.

Where does the quotation end?

Post by oldernow
- or, you will just be that knowledge.

It looks like a very long way of saying 'The cause of
suffering is clinging'.

Like anything involving words, readers supply their
private meanings to the words, then filter/interpret
the overall result in the context of their
understanding-of/experience-with the notions they believe
they're apprehending.

So, sure.. to you you it "looks like a very long way of
saying 'The cause of suffering is clinging'". I could
type out what it's saying to me, but given what I just
explained, you'll not necessarily know what I mean by my
explanation - or might think you do, but I'll have no way
of knowing whether that's the case in the context of all
my private meanings/filtering/interpretation. In fact,
there's a good chance you don't know what I mean by my
explanation of how conclusions possibly settle out of
collections of words encountered.

What I can say it's I've read those words many times over
a couple decades, and their significance has changed many
times along the way, which is why I'm saying that I can't
say what it says in some way that objectively delivers to
you what it means/seems to me, because that's not even been
the case in my own closed - but evolving - conceptuality
context, aka "mind".

Another thing I can say is my current relationship with
that text is one of being deeply moved by it. But, again,
you don't have my private/specific meanings, my learning,
my experience, and the number of times I've visited the
same text.

So all I can say overall is in my experience, doing the
work to grok and re-grok it pays worthwhile dividends. But
again, *for me*, and I'm assuming it might work for you
the way it did for me.

[Richmond]

If I see a photograph of Albert Einstein, who died before I was born,
what is the most convincing explanation for it? a) It is merely a
phenomenun observed by an imaginary me, with no external or underlying
reality. b) There was a reality before I was born and the photograph is
evidence of it, and there for there is a reality seperate and apart from
myself.


https://www.livescience.com/albert-einstein.html

[Richmond]

Post by Richmond
If I see a photograph of Albert Einstein, who died before I was born,
what is the most convincing explanation for it? a) It is merely a
phenomenon observed by an imaginary me, with no external or underlying
reality. b) There was a reality before I was born and the photograph is
evidence of it, and there for there is a reality separate and apart from
myself.
https://www.livescience.com/albert-einstein.html

I forgot to run the spell checker. :*D

[Richmond]

Having said that, I agree with the conclusion of the text, which is that
the duality is not real. But it is not real because I am not real, or
rather I am only a part of it, rather than because the external world is
not real.

[oldernow]

Post by Richmond
Having said that, I agree with the conclusion of the text,
which is that the duality is not real. But it is not real
because I am not real, or rather I am only a part of it,
rather than because the external world is not real.

As hinted in a previous reply, thinking about it - which
is words based, and words presume an objective reality -
guarantees missing it.

The cognizing magically (or, for the more religious, "by
grace") stops, revealing <ineffable> that was never not,
but seemingly was not for being covered by a thick layer
of opaque ("objective") cognizing....

[oldernow]

Post by Richmond
If I see a photograph of Albert Einstein, who died before
I was born, what is the most convincing explanation for
it? a) It is merely a phenomenun observed by an imaginary
me, with no external or underlying reality. b) There was
a reality before I was born and the photograph is evidence
of it, and there for there is a reality seperate and apart
from myself.
https://www.livescience.com/albert-einstein.html

Words *presume* an objective reality, rendering "knowing"
(which is word-based) useless to getting "beneath the
bottom of things", as it were.