Taking a step into the world of our Being

This is something I have battled with, the frontal cortex of the brain is the home of our identity model and reasoning faculty, it is an incredible tool, we can use it to grow organic mushrooms or the kind North Korea is playing with, it is a tool of dualism, me and them, us and them, my team and the other team. It is also a tool strongly based on self worth, the "ego" - or better described as Eckhart does as your collection of memories and thoughts that make up your story and can be negative or possitive, anywhere between, I , we, my team SUCK!!! to I, we, my team are the GREATEST!!!

I dont believe that the ego goes away during meditation, you still know that you, the meatsuit, that you like or dislike with or without all the degrees and diploma's on the wall is sitting here meditating, there is still dualism present here, just that you seek an other you....still seperation. What I do feel is that the charge is taken away from the ego, its inactive leading to deeper meditation, as proof of this, try and think of someone or something you dislike and you pop straight out of the meditative state.

At some point one does experience "bliss" or oneness with it all and then, yes, I believe one has for a fleeting moment transcended the "self" or ego or identity construct but these moments are fleeting for most of us.

I like the Chinese internal martial arts (tai chi etc) term of progression towards ones goal, they refer to it as "cultivation" and I think here is the key, to cultivate the "beingness" aspect of the self to a point where you more strongly identify with it than the outer construct of ME, MY NAME, MY CAR, MY POSSITION IN SOCIETY....dualism and through cultivation simply try to be as Dr Wayne Dyer puts it, "better than I used to be", the martial arts uses a belt colour system of progression, so too does one need to realize that its about progression and not a sudden, "okay, I'm meditating, the ego is gone, I am enlightened....Michael, hand me my black meditation cushion......please" process.

At some point one should have cultivated this "Beingness" to a point where we tend to think in terms of US, WE, THE PlANET, ALL LIFE.....the ego will always be there to defend your territory or stand up for you in a meeting or court room but it will be a part time aspect of mind, once used, set aside in favour of a return to being, a mindset free from dualistic thinking which include judgement of oneself or others. In the martial arts, the apex of skill is to do the right thing at the right time without conscious thought, if you try and think about it, it all goes to pieces and you wind up in a heap on the floor, this state of "no mind" is achieved by dissiplined and focussed repetition, so to is it with the spiritual progression, hours of what seems to be meaningless repetition of a mantra and or Lifeflow, somedays it just doesnt work, some days its great, yet slowly one notices a shift from how you used to be and that the you you are and the you you where feel different, and then one day the whole "you" issue just seems unimportant....

Father Thomas Keating best discribes this process of "cultivation" which is GREATLY enhanced by meditation - almost essentialy so - in the movie "ONE".

“The beginning of the spiritual journey is, the realization, not just the information, but a real interior conviction that there is a higher power, or God, or, to make it as easy as possible for everybody, that there is an Other, Capital “O”.

Second step, try to become the Other, still a capital “O”. And finally, the realization that there is no Other, you and the other are ONE, always have been, always will be, you just think that you aren’t”

I believe, here in lies the answer, the realization that there is NO OTHER and thus the ego dissolves as there is no logical reason for its existance, not by way of force - "out ego, out....bad ego!!!....sit, stay!!!" but rather a realization of, as eckhart often says, of what is false in you, in so doing, once this realisation is a true inner conviction, the ego naturaly and quietly goes.

As for the process, each to his own, repetitive meditation though, is a strong tool for that cultivation of what is true in you and ultimately, is you and paradoxicaly me, the tree outside and all else, thus the true you is everywhere....isnt you but everything.....and at this point, you becomes irrelevant.

 

Hi Coenrad !

Great to hear from you again.

It's true, the ego doesn't disappear just like that. There will always be thoughts.
They come up uncontrollably. We don't even actively think, we watch thoughts come up, like I said before.

Most of the time, just watching is enough. Sometimes you will feel an urge to act. Or not.

I like that quote from the movie "One".

The search for the Self is a journey inward so that means that at the very core of you, the basis, that is where the Self is. Ergo, that is in which everything else originates. Thoughts, images, sounds, touch, feelings...

Great to hear from you again

 

Wow, Edwin, Angela, Coenrad, this certainly is an interesting discussion.
Here are some thoughts that came to mind when I read this thread:

Ego-mind isn't just negative (or positive for that matter.) It's simply a tool that the Being has to exist in the world of duality as you all may have said.

A question to ponder is whether we have to purify the mind in order to realize that we are Being or Self on an ongoing basis. Mooji says no. We just have to move beyond identifying with ego-mind. It'll always be there, available, but it won't run the show.

But Sri Ramana Maharishi points out that Inquiry is really only suitable for 'ripe souls' whatever that may mean to you. It's certainly true that we have to reach the point where the mind is still enough in order to do the inquiry, "Who am I?" Otherwise the mind will be assailed with wayward thoughts or sleep. (from The Spiritual Teachings of Ramana Maharshi, Shambala Classics, a really excellent book.) This we get through concentration practices by focusing on mantra or breath and using LF, plus ethical behaviour which Buddhists say is essential for achieving concentration.

If you think that Self-Inquiry is your path, there's another practice that accompanies "Who am I" that hasn't been mentioned. It is to remember "I'm not the doer." Being or Consciousness is using this form (body/mind) in the play of duality. When we remember that, identification with ego gets further eroded because with this thought comes "How does consciousness want to move through this situation" instead of I want this...my way or the highway, etc! And if we do something great, we know that we were only the instrument (though it's great to know that you were clear enough to let it flow through you!)

This forum is great for presenting the vast array of practices available to us. Thanks to all of you who so generously share your thoughts and experience. It's all a process of evolution, no two paths are the same, but eventually we'll all get there. Inshallah

Though of course we are already that!

Bhavya

 

Apologies for coming to this discussion late and for picking up such an early post but I just have to make a comment or two about it.

This post, Edwin, has had SUCH a profound impact on me - I have read this thread several times now and I keep being drawn back to this post. Each time I do it is almost as if a bell were being struck somewhere deep within me - a deep resonating sound which echoes throughout me. It is not heavy or unpleasant but it is almost as if something (a truth) is being deeply embedded within me (or perhaps, more accurately, something is being awoken deep within me and I am now conscious of it).
There is profound truth in what you have written and I want to thank you for stopping me in my tracks - I think something wonderful has been planted and I am excited to see what happens next.

 

Maybe I am missing something.

In my humble opinion....Thoughts DO exist. Thoughts are energy.

A thought can be measured in brainwave activity. In the movie "What the bleep do we know?" this point is illustrated as follows: It shows a person staring at a candle. The tester measures the brainwave activity. Then the tester asks the person to close their eyes and picture the candle in their mind and to think only of that candle....The brainwaves are again measured. The exact same brainwave activity is observed. Now granted I have not personally done this test to measure brainwave activity so I am only believing what I was shown in a movie...but I am going to assume that they are presenting data correctly.

Our memories exist...our collection of thoughts and memories... DO SERVE us. We learn and grow in relation to our past experiences. The conscious decisions we make is what keeps us in the moment. We need to be awake and alert and able to see, feel and hear the universal consciousness in the now. We can not repress or control our thoughts or our feelings...We can acknowledge and be aware of them and CHOOSE to either dwell on them or let them go.

How else would the telephone have been invented?

Why else are we practicing brainwave entrainment to create whole brain "thinking"?

Even so called "bad thoughts" have their place in teaching us and allowing us to CHOOSE how we want to act on these thoughts. It is up to us to be open enough to the collective consciousness on how to better serve us and the greater good by the actions we take regarding our thoughts in the "now".

So in my humble opinion it is not that the mind and its thoughts "don't exist" it is that we need to choose what we want to focus the mind and its thoughts on. And that meditation trains us to focus our minds to hopefully... better serve us and the greater good.

And practice makes this easier to do.

 

Some very profound and deeply moving reply's made by Ta Tsu Wa and Bhavya seem to have been lost after the forum was down

I had even saved a reply on Ta Tsu Wa's post on my pc. Did you guys happen to save it ?

@ Fuzzy
I am happy to have moved you. Maybe you can join us in our group meditation tomorrow ?

@ Islovin
Apparently I was not clear at what I tried to bring across.
I will ask you a series of questions now, these are not critisism !!! I am interested to see where my message was transformed into yours.

I am pretty sure I never said that thoughts don't exist

Exactly ! Did I say you could ?

That is exactly why I said it is important to only observe the thoughts. I never said that you have to fight them, or judge them, discard them. Just watch them ! From the Self !
Life unfolds wether we think about it or not. We react, wether we think about it or not. Not from thought, but from pure consiousness itself ! But before you can see that, you have to let go of your attachment to thought, memory or thoughts of the future. You don't have to take actions to make them go away, you just have to see that they are not you, just something happening in you. Of course you are free to react to thoughts. Just don't let thought pull your attention into it.

One of my posts here was lost in the server crash, I will ask you the same question:

Islovin, I can tell from your reaction that you are a very dishonest person.

this is an example, it is not how I think of you at all.
If I were to tell you this, you would probably say something along the line of:

"That is soooo untrue, I am in fact very honest, you see, just the other day I told this guy at the shop that he gave me too much change, and blabla "

You are an honest person. I see.

So, when you are reading a novel, you are being honest. When you are daydreaming, you are still very busy being honest. When you are visiting the bathroom, you are doing that in your most honest way.
Of course, when asleep, in between dreams, you are still being honest.

Hm. This does not seem to be the case. I don't have to constantly be honest, because I am also not dishonest.

My judgement of you being honest was a thought from my mind.
You took the thought personal. Your "I" felt attacked in the image it had of itself. It immediately tried to make that image into one that felt more comfortable, more of a positive view of the "I".

But as I demonstrated, this view, this image, was made from a thought. The nature of thought is that it comes up, it goes away. It is not constantly there. That would even be very harmfull to how you lead your life. You would crash into a tree with your car because you weren't paying attention to the road, just this one constant thought.
This is why it can only repeat itself. It can't "be" you.

If you let go of the need to judge the thought, but to realise that the thought isn't you, can't describe you, who you are, ever because you are infinately bigger and more beautifull than the mind can ever comprehend ( not a compliment, a fact ! ) makes you realise that there is another I observing that thought
Who is that observer ?

Try to find it ! Where is the observer !

Can you form an image of it ?

Try !

You can't, can you ?
This is the viewer, the observer, the timeless self. It is the source of your consiousness, it IS consiousness. Without it, you would not exist. Your perception of the world would not exist. Intelligence makes you assume that the world won't end when you die, but who knows for sure ? You can only be sure that YOU, that observer, is observing the world directly around you. You can't observe the world from other people's eye's.

It is shapeless. A concept your mind can't process. Shapeless means endless. No beginning, no end. Where does your Self stop ?
this is the space in which everything appears, and which the Self observes. This can be the images of a tree projected in your eye, but also a thought. Everything is watched by the Self.

 

Where did my replies go?
I hadn't saved what I'd written and I'm not sure I can find the time, just yet, to re-write it all.

*sigh* these things happen.

Hugs

Giles

 

That's right, I have a reply to your post saved as well :| damn and we were hitting the right spot !

Too bad that brilliance can never be duplicated

 

Edwin,

Don't say that... all is not lost....it will all come back...brilliance happens over and over again...

I was responding to the following concept

EGO = MIND = collection of thougths and memories

I think you said that there is no "egolobe" in the brain or something like that.

But the ego or the "active mind" can be measured through brainwaves so because there are brainwaves then ..... our ego or our mind or our collection of thoughts and memories do exist.

I agree our collection of thoughts and memories are stories that our mind creates and our mind creates these stories based on our own individual experiences....

I also believe in having attachments ...I choose to be attached to a thought, a belief, a thing, an event, a person or whatever ...if I am conscious and understand all of the consequences of that attachment...then I will hopefully only choose attachments that will serve me and the greater good.

 

Ta Tsu Wa's REPLY

I was so impressed with this that I cut and paste it and have since mailed it to my dearest one.......IT REALLY puts into focus the balance, the mix and the ultimate objective of it all, I AM SO GRATEFUL to Ta Tsu Wa for it and am glad I saved it as something to be treasured and it can thus be re-shared (Ta Tsu Wa's permision pending)

 

Coenrad you rock!

I was lamenting the loss of Ta Tsu Wa's post that i never saw due to server outage...and resultant content purge.. that others were writing about.....thank you Coenrad!

 

Dont thank me - Thank the Alaskan

Hey Cousin,

Not my doing, thank the Native American person / US / South American wisdom a.ka. Ta Tsu Wa, (based on the profile information - who knows where in the world he/she might be ).....those words where so profound and meaningful to me that I saved them, had they not been, I would not have.......I have never touched snow, just seen it on mountain tops but apparently being up to your neck in bears and ice leads to such insight or just being Ta Tsu Wa, so either Alaska here I come or I hope to hear much more from him/her......come to think of it, anything below 25 degrees Celcius is my idea of Hell, so best we hear more from Ta Tsu Wa here......glad it meant something to you as it did to me.

 

First of all, Coenrad, you rock !

Islovin, I think we both agree to the same thing but look at it differently.
Like you said, choosing to what thought to respond, is what it is about.

Thoughts will come up anyway. When you don't personify your Self with that thought, you will recognise it as a thought appearing in the Self. That doesn't mean that you can't react to that thought. Of course you can. But usually, a bit like Youtube, mind sends a series of thoughts and images that are related to that thought when you respond to it, kind of like: "If you are interested in this, you might also be interested in this and this".
If some of the things that come up aren't usefull, you don't have to react. Careful ! Don't reject it. Mind will immediately try to justify itself when you reject it. It will want to defend it's position, the relevance it thinks there is. It can do that because rejecting it is also giving it attention. Like a whining child that is after attention, being it positive or negative. Ignore the whining, and at a certain time will it understand that whining is a waste of energy, because mum or dad won't respond anyway.

When not paying attention to a (non useful ) thought, that process is broken, and your mind will be able to focus it's attention completely on the thought that does need attention.

How often does it happen that you have an intention to do something, and that you find yourself having drifted off with your thoughts until you were thinking about something totally different ?
This is a dead give away that you think that you are in control, while in fact you are not. Or, like Eckhart Tolle sais: Most people think they control their thoughts. When they say that, I usually say to them, "Is that so, if you control your thoughts, stop thinking for the coming 5 minutes".

 

My reply to Ta-Tsu-Wa's post:

I very much enjoyed reading your post Ta-Tsu-Wa !

It is wonderfull to read it in your own words, to see your point of view. I recognise how you talk about completing the circle.

I think of it as the final stage in growing up.
When looking at my daughters growing up, I can see how the ego is built up. They started in perfect bliss, total unity and completely mind-less. Just consciousness. Much like before they were born, or even created.
However, in this reactive world, this is not usefull.

The mind is a complete blank, but from day one ( and probably before that in the womb ) it starts to process all the information coming at it.

At a certain age, in a relative short time after birth, some say within a year, others up to 3-4 years ( I don't agree ) a sense of "I" develops. It is the birth of both self-awareness, and the first step towards developing the ego. They are not yet seperated at this point.
The mind keeps processing information, and based on the awareness of "I", a logical assumption is made by mind. I am here. My body is "I". Where my body ends, I end. That means that everything else exists outside of me. I am seperate from you. This is the start of duality. All this is a healthy progress. It is crucial in the development of a human in this dualistic world.
During this process, the duality also creates duality inside your awareness.
Your thoughts, originating in that same consiousness that has been there from before you were born, being part of that consiousness, make you believe that they ARE consciousness.

I think of it as consiousness as the fire, and thought an iron bar placed in it by a blacksmith. The iron bar is part of the fire. Take it out, and it will quickly lose heat and return to it's before rigid state. It is not what keeps the fire going, it is simply a phenomena in the fire. fueled by the fire, not the fire itself.

The dualistic way of perceiving the world usually forms in puberty. It simply is a stage in growing up. At the end of adolescance, the insight I gave you with the example of the iron bar and the fire should come.
But our society doesn't see that anymore. The final stage in growing up, becoming a fully functional spiritual human being, has been forgotten, leaving the ego-mind the chance to keep growing uncontrollably.

I "grew up" only about a month ago.

Ever since, the search inside me, looking for the next experience, becoming something I didn't understand at all, thinking I wanted to become enlightened has disappeared. Nothing much has changed in my life. I am not suddenly a holy figure. I just realise that I am seperate from thought. Whatever may come in the future to deepen this experience, I will witness just as I witness the world around me and inside me. But there is no need to "chase" anymore

 

Edwin you are right!!!

Yes Edwin, I totally think you and I and most of us on this forum share a similar…”mindset”. Each one of us interprets this and explains it in our own way.

Eckhart Tolle and Oprah are performing a tremendous service by bringing this information to the mainstream. This is not new information but somehow Eckhart Tolle was able to write about this information in a way that appeals to the masses.

I have attempted to read his book the power of now. I got about 1/3 of the way through and could not finish. I have read many books on this subject matter over the last 25 years and I am very familiar with the subject matter and have had many “aha” moments throughout my life.

The reason I could not relate to Eckhart Tolle’s presentation of a subject matter that is very near and dear to my heart is because he chose not to share his journey.

In his introduction to the power of now Eckhart writes about a night that brought him to a spontaneous awakening. He speaks about having a desire to kill himself during this night and then “awakening” the next morning to a new state of “being”.

1. I learn more when someone shares their journey with me.
2. Most people who have spontaneous awakenings do not just stay there.
3. While I was reading his book he wrote “listen to me” and I thought…I am reading your book you do not get much more of my attention then that. I was listening to him until that point.


For me… when I have an “awakening” I need to incorporate my new state of being into my life. It is a process. Meditation helps me to incorporate my new found awareness and my awakened state of being stays with me for longer periods of time. The more I practice the more I stay awake and the easier and faster I am able to incorporate my new levels of awareness.

Irene

P.S. This is the reason I started the thread what motivates you to meditate….I learn by hearing peoples stories rather then being told about awakening.

 

Irene

There is an aphorism from Eastern wisdom that states: "The finger that points to the moon is not the moon."

In the West we have a comparable saying: "The map is not the territory."

No description, no picture, no account, no instruction, no text, will ever be able to convey the experience of transcendence from one person to another. If I could perfectly lay out the events in my life to you that have led me to my present state of existence, it wouldn't bring you any closer to that state yourself. It's an experience, not an intellectual understanding or an assemblage of facts.

Tolle is sharp enough to recognize this principle and to avoid wasting your time and his trying to "make" you relate to his own experiences by recounting them in detail. He lays out some conditions and gives you a few details about where they led him, but by intent he isn't trying to paint you a complete picture. All that would serve to do is to cause you to try to copy where he has traveled and he knows that isn't possible. Not only is it impossible, the act of trying would stifle your own progress because it encourages you to keep seeking an intellectual understanding of something that can only be directly experienced, not intellectually defined or quantified.

As I was reading your post one phrase in particular jumped out at me. You wrote, "The reason I could not relate to Eckhart Tolle’s presentation of a subject matter..."

Therein lies a great potential pitfall. We can only "relate to" things we've experienced ourselves. If we can "relate to it", no narrative explanation is required or even helpful because we've already got direct experience. But if we haven't got the direct experience ourselves then we don't have the necessary common frame of reference that would permit us to "relate to" the thing. Any narrative explanation, no matter how detailed or accurate is not going to resonate with us. It's a catch 22. Regardless of how meticulously detailed Tolle is in his narration of facts, if we lack the experience he is describing we will be incapable of "relating" to whatever he writes.

Tolle therefore tries to reach the reader with a two-pronged approach. First, he points a finger at the moon, so to speak. The meaning of his words are meant to touch you on an intellectual level in such a way that they get you looking in new and unfamiliar directions. He cannot give you the territory, but with his words he attempts to draw for you a crude map. His words are symbols, and like any symbol in order to be effective the reader has to recognize they point to "something" beyond their common meanings. What that "something" is he cannot tell you for, again, that would require a common frame of reference that the seeker is not yet in possession of. Words are imperfect, but they can be helpful if put into their proper context. The critical thing to grasp is that once the words have been recognized simply as pointers, they need to forgotten. They've done their job. If you hang on to them and continue to try to wrest from them the answer to your search they will only hinder you.

The second way he reaches towards the reader is by doing his writing from a place of presence. By writing while in that state he offers a direct, experiential taste of that same state to the reader. The words are meant to act as carriers of the "feeling of presence" rather than to convey any dictionary meanings. In that sense the meanings of the words he writes are actually irrelevent. He could type two hundred pages of bad poetry and it would be just as effective if the words trigger an experience of presence in the reader.

Here's something for you to try. Perhaps it will prove useful. Read some of Tolle's work. It doesn't really matter which, but if I was doing this myself I think I'd opt for his book, "Stillness Speaks." But choose whichever you like or whichever you have available. Then begin reading, but forget about trying to make sense of the words. Just read a few passages then set the book aside and get quiet. Let what you've just read seep into you like a sponge soaking up water. Don't analyze it or try to digest the meanings of the words you just read. Their textbook meanings are unimportant. All you want to do is absorb the sense of presence out of which Tolle wrote those words. This is an exercise of the Spirit, not the Intellect.

Maybe you will have a different experience this time. And maybe Tolle just isn't for you. There is no such thing as cookie-cutter spirituality. One size does not fit all. If Tolle isn't your cup of tea, try reading Thich Nhat Han, Tagore, or Teilhard de Chardin, but read them first as potential points of the experience of presence and second as pointers of the intellect towards truths which transcend the book meanings of the words.

 

I wish I could figure out how to do the quote thing.


Ta

you said "it's an experience not an intellectual understanding or an assemblage of facts."

What I am hearing is...."Touch my Heart."

This is exactly why the story or the journey is how I learn and grow...because on some level your story will "touch my heart"....and on some level....I am able to experience, to a certain degree, what you experienced.

What can I say....to me....all the rest of it is intellectual mumbo jumbo.

I will go on line and check out some of the authors you mention.
At some point, since I do have Echkarts "the power of now" I will try the exercise you mentioned.

 

Irene

Here is where I think you're going to hit a wall. You cannot "learn" an experience. No one can. Either you have it yourself, or you don't.

Knowing "about" something, which is what the intellect lets us do, is night and day different from "knowing" that thing. You indicated that it's all just a bunch of words to you. Alright, fair enough. Let's perform a thought experiment that will hopefully make those words become meaningful to you.

Let us imagine that I do not come from your planet; that I come from a world vastly different from this one. On my world there is no such thing as the flavor of salt. We have the other three primary tastes: sweet, sour and bitter, but on my world salt has never existed. None of my people has ever tasted it before. I come to visit Earth and we meet.

"Irene," I say, "I've just been exploring this fascinating world of yours. Over and over I run into references about something your people call 'salt'. I cannot conceive of what this taste is like. Can you help me understand this unknown taste?"

"Sure I can," you say with some confidence.

"Wow," I say, "you sure sound confident. You must have a lot of experience with it."

"I've tasted it a million times or more," you say.

"That's great," I tell you, "because my people pride ourselves on being very precise. When I go back to my planet to make my report I'll need to be able to tell them exactly what this 'salt' stuff tastes like. You're sure you're up to it?"

"Of course," you assure me, "I've been eating things with salt in them since I was an infant. It's a very common, but distinctive taste. Trust me, I know exactly what salt tastes like."

"That's terrific," I say, "but I'd like to make certain. On my way to meet you I stopped at one of your roadside diners. They had little paper packets of salt at their tables and they gave me one. I opened it and looked but it seems they may have made a mistake and given me a packet of sugar by accident. I opened a packet marked as sugar and compared it to the salt they gave me. I have to say they really do look pretty much the same."

"Yes," you agree, "outwardly they do look a lot alike. But as far as taste goes, they're very different."

"So then, Irene, if I let you taste a little of this salt from the diner and a little of the sugar without telling you which was which, you could identify which one of them was the salt? You know the taste of salt that well?"

"Yes," you say, beginning to get a little bit annoyed by my skepticism, "I promise you, I KNOW WHAT SALT TASTES LIKE! I know it as well as I know my own name. I taste it every day and I've been tasting it since the time I was born. Trust me, I know the taste of salt."

Alright, Irene, I've set the stage for our little thought experiment. Here's my character. I'm not from this world and no one from my world has ever tasted salt before. Let's imagine that for reasons of safety I'm not at liberty to simply taste the salt myself, but I need to make a precise report back on my home world about what it tastes like.

On the other hand, you (or your character in this thought experiment at least) have very detailed and explicit experience tasting salt. In fact as you're reading this I'd bet serious money you can close your eyes and recall it so vividly that your mouth begins to water just from the memory. So here's your part in our experiment:

Explain to me (the extraterrestrial me) exactly what salt tastes like. Your description has to be so exact and detailed that when I think about your words it will start my own mouth watering as if recalling something I've tasted before. That's your challenge.

Now, let me save you a little bit of time and tell you what won't work. You can't compare it to something else because salt is one of the four primary tastes. It is qualitatively different than any of the other three and therefore it cannot be described as tasting "like" anything else.

Also, don't describe it to me in terms of what it doesn't taste like because that would be virtually anything else you might name. Simply telling me it doesn't taste like anything else does not give me any idea of what it DOES taste like, so don't try the process of elimination approach.

Just share your experience of salt with me in words so that I know it in the same way you do. You do that and then we'll go from there.

Incidentally, this is essentially what you suggest Tolle and other writers should be able to do with regard to spiritual experiences; to write in such a way so that you, who has never had their experiences, can read their words and will feel as though you have personally had them. In other words, they've tasted salt that you haven't, and you want them to describe it for you so that it will be as clear to you as if you had tasted it for yourself without actually ever tasting it.

 

WOw.. just to say a big thank you to all the members who have made their
contribution to this thread.The lessons are invaluable.
daffodil

 

I am such a beginner compared to your explanatory skills Ta-Tsu-Wa...