Guest guest Posted October 25, 2002 Report Share Posted October 25, 2002 Hi Larry -- > I can use the word NOW and even capitalize it to boot but I was > using it in temporal sense - as in present moment. But I have seen > the error of my ways and will everytime use it in the timeless way. Time is conceptuality. In conceptuality, now is sandwiched between yesterday and tomorrow. Nonconceptually, experientially, now is never another time -- the yesterday arises as a memory put together and experienced now, the tomorrow arises as an imagination and expectation experienced now. There is no now that isn't now. You can't use it in a timeless way, because timeless being always is the case, regardless of how you use the words you use. snip > > Does that mean you won't mind when I say that > > such bliss is transitory and conceptual? > > > > If you say that one more time I will cry a little bit, then take > temporary refuge in the Upanishads. Between which pages should I look for you? > I had a girlfriend who was a smart-ass, blind fold her, sit her buck > nekked on a ice cream cone, and she could tell you the flavor. I guess she was smart, compliant with authority, and often went hungry. > BTW, I consistantly then passed on the cone. But ate the ice cream? -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 25, 2002 Report Share Posted October 25, 2002 >>Correct me if I'm wrong and I didnt bother to read all the messages concerning " Bill's Now " but isn't now continuously changing? Compared with what? >> When a leaf falls from a tree and decomposes into soil where has the leaf gone? The leaf is constructed from your point of view. Now is just a word for what has no point of view to it. >>I am of the opinion that neither past present nor future exists. So I think to say even the simple eloquent statement: " Now is, " is somewhat ignorant. That judgment is just a thought that occurs to you now. Pay it no mind ... :-) > To say that something is implies that it was as well. To think of now as a something is ignorant. > The " continuation of the past " that pete or somebody mentioned. And Now is a continuation of yestersecond.....but not really. Now is not at all a continuation of anything. > May all of you and those close to you and those close to them be free of suffering. What about those I'm not close to? What do you have against them? -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 25, 2002 Report Share Posted October 25, 2002 > >>Correct me if I'm wrong and I didnt bother to read all the messages >concerning "Bill's Now" but isn't >now continuously changing? > >Compared with what? > >> When a leaf falls from a tree and decomposes into soil where has >the leaf gone? > >The leaf is constructed from your point of view. > >Now is just a word for what has no point of view to it. > > >>I am of the opinion that neither past present nor future exists. So >I think to say even the simple eloquent statement: "Now is," is >somewhat ignorant. > >That judgment is just a thought that occurs to you now. > >Pay it no mind ... :-) > > > To say that something is implies that it was as > well. > >To think of now as a something is ignorant. > > > The "continuation of the past" that pete or somebody mentioned. And >Now is a continuation of yestersecond.....but not really. > >Now is not at all a continuation of anything. > > > May all of you and those close to you and those close to them be >free of suffering. > >What about those I'm not close to? > >What do you have against them? > >-- Dan > Yeah youre right I talk to much Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 25, 2002 Report Share Posted October 25, 2002 > Yeah youre right I talk to much M I'm not sure what this self-judgment is about -- but as far as I'm concerned, talk as little or as much as you'd like. -- D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 26, 2002 Report Share Posted October 26, 2002 And if I don't kiss you that kiss is untasted. I'll never, never get it back. But why should I want to, I'll be in the next moment. Sweet moment Sweet Lover Sweet Now. " This Moment " by Incredible Sring Band Nisargadatta, bardsley@c... wrote: > Hi Dan, Larry, > > This, for me, is the insight upon which hangs every other: > > > Nonconceptually, experientially, now is never another > > time -- the yesterday arises as a memory put together > > and experienced now, the tomorrow arises as an > > imagination and expectation experienced now. > > > > There is no now that isn't now. > > It's easy to understand isn't it?; immediately and obviously available to everyone both logically and intuitively, not even paradoxical, absolutely irrefutable and utterly simple. If it can actually be experienced then experiencing ends, would never have begun, wouldn't it? And that's the paradox. > > Thanks for reminding me of this Dan. > > Grant Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 26, 2002 Report Share Posted October 26, 2002 Hi Dan, Larry, This, for me, is the insight upon which hangs every other: > Nonconceptually, experientially, now is never another > time -- the yesterday arises as a memory put together > and experienced now, the tomorrow arises as an > imagination and expectation experienced now. > > There is no now that isn't now. It's easy to understand isn't it?; immediately and obviously available to everyone both logically and intuitively, not even paradoxical, absolutely irrefutable and utterly simple. If it can actually be experienced then experiencing ends, would never have begun, wouldn't it? And that's the paradox. Thanks for reminding me of this Dan. Grant Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 26, 2002 Report Share Posted October 26, 2002 Nisargadatta, bardsley@c... wrote: > Hi Dan, Larry, > > This, for me, is the insight upon which hangs every other: > > > Nonconceptually, experientially, now is never another > > time -- the yesterday arises as a memory put together > > and experienced now, the tomorrow arises as an > > imagination and expectation experienced now. > > > > There is no now that isn't now. > > It's easy to understand isn't it?; immediately and obviously available to everyone both logically and intuitively, not even paradoxical, absolutely irrefutable and utterly simple. If it can actually be experienced then experiencing ends, would never have begun, wouldn't it? And that's the paradox. > > Thanks for reminding me of this Dan. > > Grant Hi Grant -- Yes. The " core " understanding is extremely simple, too simple for even the word simple, because no opposition pertains, such as simple/complex. This simplicity is too obvious to be obvious, too available for the word available to apply (as availability implies withholding is possible). Yes, experiencing implies time, which implies contrast and comparison. No experiencing is occurring, except conceptually, which is, within the field of oppositions applying (such as now/then, hot/cold). There is literally nothing to this -- nothing to learn about it, no religion that must adhere, no separations whatsoever that have ever arisen, which would need to be fixed or changed. Nothing stands in the way. Only we stand in our own way, convinced that oppositions are required for knowing and being, unable to realize that they never defined or pertained ever. We believe we are arising as a conceptual entity within the field of the known and perceived, an entity which moves from the past into the future, and whom the present moves by, into the past. The real paradox isn't that nothing has taken place. It's that time is construed as if happening, requiring movement in two directions simultaneously -- events moving into the past, events being brought forward, events moving by me, and me being brought forward to the future. The paradox is that the conventional, common sense notion of time happening to me and for me, makes sense to me. That paradox is the arising of conceptuality, of opposition -- which happens because happening is conceptuality. Peace, Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 27, 2002 Report Share Posted October 27, 2002 Nisargadatta, " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: snip> > The paradox is that the conventional, > common sense notion of time happening > to me and for me, makes sense to me. > > That paradox is the arising of conceptuality, > of opposition -- which happens because > happening is conceptuality. > > Peace, > Dan Pretty thin slicing there, Dan. A real work of art. Mighty fine indeed. Wouldn't serve it with nachos every time...but it'll do. Actually, yes it is so obvious that it isn't. That's the paradox alright. Nothing need exist at all. Pondering this it all fades away. No thought. No keyboard. No fingers. ohmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm yawn... How about rock'em sock'em full blown ahead change the world by changing oneself Realization! yay! huh? yeh, sure. cosmic divine beams of radient love pouring forth from the never ending source of life love and mystery - yummy! and sure enough somebody wants sprinkles on thier big heaping scoop of ThatCream. I like hot fudge. Anyhoo, excellent wordsmithing Dan. hot buttered namastes! - michael hello there - is it time for pie? - michael Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 27, 2002 Report Share Posted October 27, 2002 > The " core " understanding is extremely simple, > too simple for even the word simple, > because no opposition pertains, such > as simple/complex. This understanding is not an " understanding of " . Here the understanding is necessarily non-distinct from the understood. -Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 27, 2002 Report Share Posted October 27, 2002 > > > The " core " understanding is extremely simple, > > too simple for even the word simple, > > because no opposition pertains, such > > as simple/complex. >This understanding is not an " understanding of " . >Here the understanding is necessarily non-distinct >from the understood. > >-Bill > Rather the understander is necessarily non-distinct from the understood and what remains is the understanding. > M > > _______________ Unlimited Internet access -- and 2 months free! Try MSN. http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/2monthsfree.asp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 27, 2002 Report Share Posted October 27, 2002 Nisargadatta, " " <@h...> wrote: > > > > > > > > The " core " understanding is extremely simple, > > > too simple for even the word simple, > > > because no opposition pertains, such > > > as simple/complex. > >This understanding is not an " understanding of " . > >Here the understanding is necessarily non-distinct > >from the understood. > > > >-Bill > > > Rather the understander is necessarily non-distinct from the understood and > what remains is the understanding. > > > M > > not even close - heeheehee ciao - michael Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 27, 2002 Report Share Posted October 27, 2002 > hello there - is it time for pie? - michael Yes, it's just about that time. For a nanosecond of rhyme. Pie in the face for the human race. Blackbirds bake, time to shake. Pizza pi, who am I, squared by lightspeed, Never a need, Never arriving where I already am, Just some more spam ... Lightening up and darkening down, Too much light to have a frown, Batten down the hatches mate, It's all just a matter of fate, Not even a nanosecond to equilibrate, Just glad for this tete a tete, Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 27, 2002 Report Share Posted October 27, 2002 Understanding arises with what is understood, in mutual definition. Such knowing is beyond understanding, Such understanding is beyond knowing, Knownothing Dan Nisargadatta, " Bill Rishel " <plexus@x> wrote: > > The " core " understanding is extremely simple, > > too simple for even the word simple, > > because no opposition pertains, such > > as simple/complex. > This understanding is not an " understanding of " . > Here the understanding is necessarily non-distinct > from the understood. > > -Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 27, 2002 Report Share Posted October 27, 2002 > > not even close - heeheehee > > ciao - michael True -- there's no place for either an understander or an understanding to occur ... -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 27, 2002 Report Share Posted October 27, 2002 > > > > not even close - heeheehee > > > > ciao - michael > >True -- there's no place > for either an understander > or an understanding to occur ... > >-- Dan Understanding requires neither one to understand nor an object to be understood. Understand? M.Unlimited Internet access for only $21.95/month. Try MSN! Click Here Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 28, 2002 Report Share Posted October 28, 2002 >> Understanding requires neither one to understand nor an object to be understood. Understand? M. If not assuming someone there or not there, why assume an understanding to be there? Who would be there to say there is or isn't understanding? You say there are no objects, but referring to understanding makes an object. Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.