1. #file-notice
  2. Saturday discussion XVII, 5.

Saturday discussion XVII, 5.

nina
 

Dear friends,

XVII, 5
I was wondering about the meaning of the words, used by Acharn, “the world of nimitta” and I was not sure whether this is the same as the world of concepts.

Sarah gave additional explanations of Acharn’s words: “we live in the world of nimitta”. 
Since realities arise and fall away, succeeding each other very quickly, a sign or nimitta is experienced of a particular reality. One unit of a nåma or a rúpa cannot be experienced since it has gone immediately. Just the nimitta or sign of it remains. 

Sarah: We live in the world of nimitta or the world of concepts, or the idea of a whole that is a concept, or nimitta as the shadow of realities, it can seem confusing. I think that when there is understanding of realities such as seeing, or of the nimitta of the characteristic of that reality that is known, it does not matter whether we refer to nimitta as the shadow of  realities concept of reality, the whole of being nimitta or a concept. The point is whatever words are used, it is referring to the understanding of realities and to the understanding of the nimitta of realities, which is different from the idea of the whole, the dream world or fantasy world. 
We know that it is the nimitta of reality that has to be known, because realities arise and fall away so fast and through the mind-door there can only be nimitta anyway, even at the moment of vipassanå ñåna. After a reality appears there is thinking of the idea of a whole. Whether we refer to the nimitta or to the concept at different moments, I do not think it is important. The point is to understand that it is reality that arises and falls away and that there has to be nimitta of realities that are understood. When the word nimitta of reality is used there would not be any idea of a whole, or fantasy thinking. Otherwise we get stuck on the terms and the labels: why are we using this term, not that term and we forget the understanding of the nimitta of the reality now. 

 

Nina: Thank you, that is clear now. 

Azita: Acharn, you reminded us that we should consider each word. How is that done? One word again and again?

Acharn: What is seen? 

Azita: We are told: visible object. 

Acharn: If we do not talk about it can there be any moment of just visible object?

Azita: No.

Acharn: See, that is why: just one word, visible object, to remind about one’s own understanding which is enough to understand what is appearing as no thing, no one at all. This will be to let go the idea of self. Not by “me” but by knowing the way to let go the idea of self. Otherwise, “let go, let go”, it is “I”, no understanding. So, there must be ignorance there, always there. 
Just one word from now on: visible oject. That which is seen does not appear as it is. 

Azita: I can remind myself during the day that it is just visible object, not me, but I often wonder: is that ”me” talking? 

Acharn: It is not “me”, (it is) the understanding of what is thought about.  Not me who thinks, not me, not me. No matter it is thinking or reminding. It is not only the word. Anyone can understand the word but not the meaning or the reality represented by that word. Use the word object, that which can be seen, ony a reality. The other realities cannot appear as that which is seen. When this is true, and only when conditions are ready, there can be just thinking about that and later on not just thinking but understanding directly.

————                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             

Nina.                                                                          
Sarah Procter Abbott
 

Nina & Alan

I'd like to edit this para a little to make it a bit clearer. Instead of checking the original, I'll just make a few edits here in bold italic if I may:

Sarah: We can say we live in the world of nimitta or in the world of concepts. We can refer to the idea of a whole that is a concept or nimitta or refer to either concepts or nimitta as the shadow of realities. It can seem confusing. I think that when there is understanding of realities such as seeing, (or rather of the nimitta of the characteristic of a reality), it does not matter whether we refer to nimitta or concepts as being the shadow of  realities, or whether we refer to the whole as being nimitta or a concept. The point is whatever words are used, it is referring to the understanding of realities and to the understanding of the nimitta of realities. This is different from the idea of the whole, the dream world or fantasy world.

We know that it is the nimitta of reality that has to be known, because realities arise and fall away so fast and through the mind-door there can only be nimitta anyway, even at the moment of vipassanå ñåna. After a reality appears there is thinking of the idea of a whole. Whether we refer to the nimitta or to the concept at different moments is not important. The point is to understand that it is reality that arises and falls away and that there has to be nimitta of reality that is understood. When the nimitta of reality is understood there is not  any idea of a whole, or fantasy thinking. Otherwise we get stuck on the terms and the labels, wondering why are we using this term, not that term and we forget the understanding of the nimitta of the reality now. 

Sarah
 
nina
 

Dear Sarah,

Very good amendments

Nina.

Op 6 nov. 2020, om 07:55 heeft Sarah Abbott via groups.io <sarahprocterabbott@...> het volgende geschreven:

Nina & Alan

I'd like to edit this para a little to make it a bit clearer. Instead of checking the original, I'll just make a few edits here in bold italic if I may:

Sarah: We can say we live in the world of nimitta or in the world of concepts. We can refer to the idea of a whole that is a concept or nimitta or refer to either concepts or nimitta as the shadow of realities. It can seem confusing. I think that when there is understanding of realities such as seeing, (or rather of the nimitta of the characteristic of a reality), it does not matter whether we refer to nimitta or concepts as being the shadow of  realities, or whether we refer to the whole as being nimitta or a concept. The point is whatever words are used, it is referring to the understanding of realities and to the understanding of the nimitta of realities. This is different from the idea of the whole, the dream world or fantasy world.

We know that it is the nimitta of reality that has to be known, because realities arise and fall away so fast and through the mind-door there can only be nimitta anyway, even at the moment of vipassanå ñåna. After a reality appears there is thinking of the idea of a whole. Whether we refer to the nimitta or to the concept at different moments is not important. The point is to understand that it is reality that arises and falls away and that there has to be nimitta of reality that is understood. When the nimitta of reality is understood there is not  any idea of a whole, or fantasy thinking. Otherwise we get stuck on the terms and the labels, wondering why are we using this term, not that term and we forget the understanding of the nimitta of the reality now. 

Sarah
 
Alan Weller
 

Hi Nina and Sarah,
I have amended this and uploaded to new file to the file section.
I have also uploaded to www.archive.org. This enables a readership outside of this group and archives it for future generations.
Hope this is okay?
Best wishes, Alan

https://archive.org/details/jottings4/
nina
 

Dear Alan,

Appreciating,

Nina

Op 6 nov. 2020, om 11:53 heeft Alan Weller <aweller32@...> het volgende geschreven:

I have amended this and uploaded to new file to the file section.
I have also uploaded to www.archive.org. 
Sarah Procter Abbott
 

Alan

Hi Nina and Sarah,
I have amended this and uploaded to new file to the file section.
I have also uploaded to www.archive.org. This enables a readership outside of this group and archives it for future generations.
Hope this is okay?
S: No problem. 

Perhaps you can have a link to DSG there for anyone who wishes to discuss further.

Sarah
1 - 6 of 6