Guest guest Report post Posted December 22, 2004 Real space is only in the present moment. Virtual space is a map created by the thinking mind. Try to see the difference between real space and virtual space. We often focus on virtual space more than on real space! Example: You may think about what you said (and what you think you should have said, or not have said) to this or that person at work yesterday. This situation is the past, existing as a memory in your mind, and from that memory your thinking mind re-creates (more or lesssuccessfully), which result in a scenario where you can see yourself in yesterday's situation, in yesterday's space. But this space is not real space, it is only virtual space. The same thing happens when you think about what you will say to that person tomorrow. Again, your thinking mind creates a virtual space, a scenario with you together with that other person at work. This kind of thinking, thinking about you in the past, or you in the future, can never create real space. Real space is now. Look around you. What you see is objects in real space. Now look at your thoughts about you in the past, or you in the future, and how the mind creates/recreates scenarios which only exist in virtual space. Can you notice the difference between real space and virtual space? /AL Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 22, 2004 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Real space is only in the present moment. Virtual space is a map > created by the thinking mind. > > Try to see the difference between real space and virtual space. > > We often focus on virtual space more than on real space! > > Example: You may think about what you said (and what you think you > should have said, or not have said) to this or that person at work > yesterday. This situation is the past, existing as a memory in your > mind, and from that memory your thinking mind re-creates (more or > lesssuccessfully), which result in a scenario where you can see > yourself in yesterday's situation, in yesterday's space. But this > space is not real space, it is only virtual space. > > The same thing happens when you think about what you will say to that > person tomorrow. Again, your thinking mind creates a virtual space, a > scenario with you together with that other person at work. > > This kind of thinking, thinking about you in the past, or you in the > future, can never create real space. Real space is now. Look around > you. What you see is objects in real space. Now look at your thoughts > about you in the past, or you in the future, and how the mind > creates/recreates scenarios which only exist in virtual space. Can you > notice the difference between real space and virtual space? > > /AL ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Anders, can " real space " be described? If so, please describe " real space. " Lewis Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 22, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > Real space is only in the present moment. Virtual space is a map > > created by the thinking mind. > > > > Try to see the difference between real space and virtual space. > > > > We often focus on virtual space more than on real space! > > > > Example: You may think about what you said (and what you think you > > should have said, or not have said) to this or that person at work > > yesterday. This situation is the past, existing as a memory in your > > mind, and from that memory your thinking mind re-creates (more or > > lesssuccessfully), which result in a scenario where you can see > > yourself in yesterday's situation, in yesterday's space. But this > > space is not real space, it is only virtual space. > > > > The same thing happens when you think about what you will say to that > > person tomorrow. Again, your thinking mind creates a virtual space, a > > scenario with you together with that other person at work. > > > > This kind of thinking, thinking about you in the past, or you in the > > future, can never create real space. Real space is now. Look around > > you. What you see is objects in real space. Now look at your thoughts > > about you in the past, or you in the future, and how the mind > > creates/recreates scenarios which only exist in virtual space. Can you > > notice the difference between real space and virtual space? > > > > /AL > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Anders, can " real space " be described? If so, please describe " real > space. " > > Lewis Real space can be experienced by the physical senses of the human body, while virtual space is a thought-product. Real space and virtual space must of course be related somehow, as all 'things' must be. But the difference between real space and virtual space is that while real space is experienced as happening now, virtual space seemingly happens in past or future. We can also talk about real objects vs virtual objects. A real object is the computer screen in front of me now, and a virtual object is the computer screen as I remember it from 10 minutes ago, or my idea of how the computer screen will be tomorrow. /AL Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 22, 2004 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > Real space is only in the present moment. Virtual space is a map > > > created by the thinking mind. > > > > > > Try to see the difference between real space and virtual space. > > > > > > We often focus on virtual space more than on real space! > > > > > > Example: You may think about what you said (and what you think you > > > should have said, or not have said) to this or that person at work > > > yesterday. This situation is the past, existing as a memory in your > > > mind, and from that memory your thinking mind re-creates (more or > > > lesssuccessfully), which result in a scenario where you can see > > > yourself in yesterday's situation, in yesterday's space. But this > > > space is not real space, it is only virtual space. > > > > > > The same thing happens when you think about what you will say to that > > > person tomorrow. Again, your thinking mind creates a virtual space, a > > > scenario with you together with that other person at work. > > > > > > This kind of thinking, thinking about you in the past, or you in the > > > future, can never create real space. Real space is now. Look around > > > you. What you see is objects in real space. Now look at your thoughts > > > about you in the past, or you in the future, and how the mind > > > creates/recreates scenarios which only exist in virtual space. Can you > > > notice the difference between real space and virtual space? > > > > > > /AL > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > Anders, can " real space " be described? If so, please describe " real > > space. " > > > > Lewis > > Real space can be experienced by the physical senses of the human > body, while virtual space is a thought-product. Real space and virtual > space must of course be related somehow, as all 'things' must be. But > the difference between real space and virtual space is that while real > space is experienced as happening now, virtual space seemingly happens > in past or future. We can also talk about real objects vs virtual > objects. A real object is the computer screen in front of me now, and > a virtual object is the computer screen as I remember it from 10 > minutes ago, or my idea of how the computer screen will be tomorrow. > > /AL In the " now " experience there are no " real objects, " just sensation flows. A real object, " computer screen, " is a concept, a stand in for sensation flow and is a thought. If such a thought occurrs while experiencing the sensation flow, there will be interruption of it and the flow and time and space will appear, an ego mediated experience. Does this mean that we do not need concepts? No. Learning concepts is experience, one of millions of sensation flows, and there is no reason not experience them. Once learned and stored in memory, they need never appear again in the field of consciousness to interrupt sensation flows. " What is " uses these as required to flow on. It is the reification and substitution and attachment to concepts that creates fragmented, disrupted experience. Lewis Lewis Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 22, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > Real space is only in the present moment. Virtual space is a map > > > > created by the thinking mind. > > > > > > > > Try to see the difference between real space and virtual space. > > > > > > > > We often focus on virtual space more than on real space! > > > > > > > > Example: You may think about what you said (and what you think you > > > > should have said, or not have said) to this or that person at work > > > > yesterday. This situation is the past, existing as a memory in your > > > > mind, and from that memory your thinking mind re-creates (more or > > > > lesssuccessfully), which result in a scenario where you can see > > > > yourself in yesterday's situation, in yesterday's space. But this > > > > space is not real space, it is only virtual space. > > > > > > > > The same thing happens when you think about what you will say to > that > > > > person tomorrow. Again, your thinking mind creates a virtual > space, a > > > > scenario with you together with that other person at work. > > > > > > > > This kind of thinking, thinking about you in the past, or you in the > > > > future, can never create real space. Real space is now. Look around > > > > you. What you see is objects in real space. Now look at your > thoughts > > > > about you in the past, or you in the future, and how the mind > > > > creates/recreates scenarios which only exist in virtual space. > Can you > > > > notice the difference between real space and virtual space? > > > > > > > > /AL > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > > Anders, can " real space " be described? If so, please describe " real > > > space. " > > > > > > Lewis > > > > Real space can be experienced by the physical senses of the human > > body, while virtual space is a thought-product. Real space and virtual > > space must of course be related somehow, as all 'things' must be. But > > the difference between real space and virtual space is that while real > > space is experienced as happening now, virtual space seemingly happens > > in past or future. We can also talk about real objects vs virtual > > objects. A real object is the computer screen in front of me now, and > > a virtual object is the computer screen as I remember it from 10 > > minutes ago, or my idea of how the computer screen will be tomorrow. > > > > /AL > > In the " now " experience there are no " real objects, " just sensation > flows. A real object, " computer screen, " is a concept, a stand in for > sensation flow and is a thought. If such a thought occurrs while > experiencing the sensation flow, there will be interruption of it and > the flow and time and space will appear, an ego mediated experience. > > Does this mean that we do not need concepts? No. Learning concepts is > experience, one of millions of sensation flows, and there is no reason > not experience them. Once learned and stored in memory, they need > never appear again in the field of consciousness to interrupt > sensation flows. " What is " uses these as required to flow on. It is > the reification and substitution and attachment to concepts that > creates fragmented, disrupted experience. > > Lewis ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Just a note on " sensation flow " . " Sensation flow " is just as much a concept as " computer screen. " There is no thing to it other than a analytic break up of ineffable experience (another concept) and the attempt to make ego take an analytical step towards " absolute futility " (ego thinks in terms of doing by means towards ends) while pointing to what is. Lewis Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 22, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Real space is only in the present moment. Virtual space is a map > > > > > created by the thinking mind. > > > > > > > > > > Try to see the difference between real space and virtual space. > > > > > > > > > > We often focus on virtual space more than on real space! > > > > > > > > > > Example: You may think about what you said (and what you think you > > > > > should have said, or not have said) to this or that person at work > > > > > yesterday. This situation is the past, existing as a memory in > your > > > > > mind, and from that memory your thinking mind re-creates (more or > > > > > lesssuccessfully), which result in a scenario where you can see > > > > > yourself in yesterday's situation, in yesterday's space. But this > > > > > space is not real space, it is only virtual space. > > > > > > > > > > The same thing happens when you think about what you will say to > > that > > > > > person tomorrow. Again, your thinking mind creates a virtual > > space, a > > > > > scenario with you together with that other person at work. > > > > > > > > > > This kind of thinking, thinking about you in the past, or you > in the > > > > > future, can never create real space. Real space is now. Look > around > > > > > you. What you see is objects in real space. Now look at your > > thoughts > > > > > about you in the past, or you in the future, and how the mind > > > > > creates/recreates scenarios which only exist in virtual space. > > Can you > > > > > notice the difference between real space and virtual space? > > > > > > > > > > /AL > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > > > > Anders, can " real space " be described? If so, please describe " real > > > > space. " > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > Real space can be experienced by the physical senses of the human > > > body, while virtual space is a thought-product. Real space and virtual > > > space must of course be related somehow, as all 'things' must be. But > > > the difference between real space and virtual space is that while real > > > space is experienced as happening now, virtual space seemingly happens > > > in past or future. We can also talk about real objects vs virtual > > > objects. A real object is the computer screen in front of me now, and > > > a virtual object is the computer screen as I remember it from 10 > > > minutes ago, or my idea of how the computer screen will be tomorrow. > > > > > > /AL > > > > In the " now " experience there are no " real objects, " just sensation > > flows. A real object, " computer screen, " is a concept, a stand in for > > sensation flow and is a thought. If such a thought occurrs while > > experiencing the sensation flow, there will be interruption of it and > > the flow and time and space will appear, an ego mediated experience. > > > > Does this mean that we do not need concepts? No. Learning concepts is > > experience, one of millions of sensation flows, and there is no reason > > not experience them. Once learned and stored in memory, they need > > never appear again in the field of consciousness to interrupt > > sensation flows. " What is " uses these as required to flow on. It is > > the reification and substitution and attachment to concepts that > > creates fragmented, disrupted experience. > > > > Lewis > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Just a note on " sensation flow " . " Sensation flow " is just as much a > concept as " computer screen. " There is no thing to it other than a > analytic break up of ineffable experience (another concept) and the > attempt to make ego take an analytical step towards " absolute > futility " (ego thinks in terms of doing by means towards ends) while > pointing to what is. > > Lewis I imagine that in sensation flow, the concept of 'now' is not really needed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 22, 2004 anders_lindman wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Real space is only in the present moment. Virtual space is a map > > > > > > created by the thinking mind. > > > > > > > > > > > > Try to see the difference between real space and virtual space. > > > > > > > > > > > > We often focus on virtual space more than on real space! > > > > > > > > > > > > Example: You may think about what you said (and what you > think you > > > > > > should have said, or not have said) to this or that person > at work > > > > > > yesterday. This situation is the past, existing as a memory in > > your > > > > > > mind, and from that memory your thinking mind re-creates > (more or > > > > > > lesssuccessfully), which result in a scenario where you can see > > > > > > yourself in yesterday's situation, in yesterday's space. But > this > > > > > > space is not real space, it is only virtual space. > > > > > > > > > > > > The same thing happens when you think about what you will say to > > > that > > > > > > person tomorrow. Again, your thinking mind creates a virtual > > > space, a > > > > > > scenario with you together with that other person at work. > > > > > > > > > > > > This kind of thinking, thinking about you in the past, or you > > in the > > > > > > future, can never create real space. Real space is now. Look > > around > > > > > > you. What you see is objects in real space. Now look at your > > > thoughts > > > > > > about you in the past, or you in the future, and how the mind > > > > > > creates/recreates scenarios which only exist in virtual space. > > > Can you > > > > > > notice the difference between real space and virtual space? > > > > > > > > > > > > /AL > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > > > > > > Anders, can " real space " be described? If so, please describe > " real > > > > > space. " > > > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > > > Real space can be experienced by the physical senses of the human > > > > body, while virtual space is a thought-product. Real space and > virtual > > > > space must of course be related somehow, as all 'things' must > be. But > > > > the difference between real space and virtual space is that > while real > > > > space is experienced as happening now, virtual space seemingly > happens > > > > in past or future. We can also talk about real objects vs virtual > > > > objects. A real object is the computer screen in front of me > now, and > > > > a virtual object is the computer screen as I remember it from 10 > > > > minutes ago, or my idea of how the computer screen will be tomorrow. > > > > > > > > /AL > > > > > > In the " now " experience there are no " real objects, " just sensation > > > flows. A real object, " computer screen, " is a concept, a stand in for > > > sensation flow and is a thought. If such a thought occurrs while > > > experiencing the sensation flow, there will be interruption of it and > > > the flow and time and space will appear, an ego mediated experience. > > > > > > Does this mean that we do not need concepts? No. Learning concepts is > > > experience, one of millions of sensation flows, and there is no reason > > > not experience them. Once learned and stored in memory, they need > > > never appear again in the field of consciousness to interrupt > > > sensation flows. " What is " uses these as required to flow on. It is > > > the reification and substitution and attachment to concepts that > > > creates fragmented, disrupted experience. > > > > > > Lewis > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Just a note on " sensation flow " . " Sensation flow " is just as much a > > concept as " computer screen. " There is no thing to it other than a > > analytic break up of ineffable experience (another concept) and the > > attempt to make ego take an analytical step towards " absolute > > futility " (ego thinks in terms of doing by means towards ends) while > > pointing to what is. > > > > Lewis > > I imagine that in sensation flow, the concept of 'now' is not really > needed. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ That is correct. There is no time concept necessary in " instantaneous, omni-directional sensation flows. " There has been no success in find a word that describes experience as it is. How could there be? However, because flow implies to some degree " movement from here to there, " it may be put in if desired. But it would wreck its temporary usefulness. For example, experience is instantaneous, it always is. It also is not " static " or rigid. What is continuous and the mind/brain to some degree is always on and so experience is not discontinuous and jerky as it is when ego mediates it. Human life is sensate and sensations can be described differentially in words by " quality quantity, direction, effect, duration and so on. " Duration and direction may indicate a place for time, setting up little ticks and so forth as the sensation flows from time x to time y from head to toe having this quality, quantity direction and effect. But in this way experience is being interrogated and conceptually fragmented so that it cannot be experienced as it is. Leave this to psychologist, neuroscientists, physiologists, etc. to explore. Those concepts can be retrieved and used to refine communication and exchange. Sensation flow is surely inadequate and it adds to the many concepts already floating around but its use in describing the formation of the sensations of discreteness, hardness and separation and time and space is far superior to the popular notion of " now. " It is a pointer that is closer to " what is " than using " now " as a pointer. Ego searching for enlightenment or freedom can catch itself quicker and dissolve itself quicker since experiencing " sensation flows " is easier to pay attention to than experiencing " now " a time concept that draws the past and the future around it by definition drawing ego's attention left and right. Sensation flows draws different issue (time) but allows greater awareness of ego's living out of touch with sensation because of the conceptual soup it favors. Lewis Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 22, 2004 Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > anders_lindman wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Real space is only in the present moment. Virtual space is > a map > > > > > > > created by the thinking mind. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Try to see the difference between real space and virtual > space. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We often focus on virtual space more than on real space! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Example: You may think about what you said (and what you > > think you > > > > > > > should have said, or not have said) to this or that person > > at work > > > > > > > yesterday. This situation is the past, existing as a memory in > > > your > > > > > > > mind, and from that memory your thinking mind re-creates > > (more or > > > > > > > lesssuccessfully), which result in a scenario where you > can see > > > > > > > yourself in yesterday's situation, in yesterday's space. But > > this > > > > > > > space is not real space, it is only virtual space. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The same thing happens when you think about what you will > say to > > > > that > > > > > > > person tomorrow. Again, your thinking mind creates a virtual > > > > space, a > > > > > > > scenario with you together with that other person at work. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This kind of thinking, thinking about you in the past, or you > > > in the > > > > > > > future, can never create real space. Real space is now. Look > > > around > > > > > > > you. What you see is objects in real space. Now look at your > > > > thoughts > > > > > > > about you in the past, or you in the future, and how the mind > > > > > > > creates/recreates scenarios which only exist in virtual space. > > > > Can you > > > > > > > notice the difference between real space and virtual space? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > /AL > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > > > > > > > > Anders, can " real space " be described? If so, please describe > > " real > > > > > > space. " > > > > > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > > > > > Real space can be experienced by the physical senses of the human > > > > > body, while virtual space is a thought-product. Real space and > > virtual > > > > > space must of course be related somehow, as all 'things' must > > be. But > > > > > the difference between real space and virtual space is that > > while real > > > > > space is experienced as happening now, virtual space seemingly > > happens > > > > > in past or future. We can also talk about real objects vs virtual > > > > > objects. A real object is the computer screen in front of me > > now, and > > > > > a virtual object is the computer screen as I remember it from 10 > > > > > minutes ago, or my idea of how the computer screen will be > tomorrow. > > > > > > > > > > /AL > > > > > > > > In the " now " experience there are no " real objects, " just sensation > > > > flows. A real object, " computer screen, " is a concept, a stand > in for > > > > sensation flow and is a thought. If such a thought occurrs while > > > > experiencing the sensation flow, there will be interruption of > it and > > > > the flow and time and space will appear, an ego mediated experience. > > > > > > > > Does this mean that we do not need concepts? No. Learning > concepts is > > > > experience, one of millions of sensation flows, and there is no > reason > > > > not experience them. Once learned and stored in memory, they need > > > > never appear again in the field of consciousness to interrupt > > > > sensation flows. " What is " uses these as required to flow on. It is > > > > the reification and substitution and attachment to concepts that > > > > creates fragmented, disrupted experience. > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > Just a note on " sensation flow " . " Sensation flow " is just as much a > > > concept as " computer screen. " There is no thing to it other than a > > > analytic break up of ineffable experience (another concept) and the > > > attempt to make ego take an analytical step towards " absolute > > > futility " (ego thinks in terms of doing by means towards ends) while > > > pointing to what is. > > > > > > Lewis > > > > I imagine that in sensation flow, the concept of 'now' is not really > > needed. > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > That is correct. There is no time concept necessary in " instantaneous, > omni-directional sensation flows. " There has been no success in find a > word that describes experience as it is. How could there be? However, > because flow implies to some degree " movement from here to there, " it > may be put in if desired. But it would wreck its temporary usefulness. > > For example, experience is instantaneous, it always is. It also is not > " static " or rigid. What is continuous and the mind/brain to some degree > is always on and so experience is not discontinuous and jerky as it is > when ego mediates it. > > Human life is sensate and sensations can be described differentially in > words by " quality quantity, direction, effect, duration and so on. " > Duration and direction may indicate a place for time, setting up little > ticks and so forth as the sensation flows from time x to time y from > head to toe having this quality, quantity direction and effect. > > But in this way experience is being interrogated and conceptually > fragmented so that it cannot be experienced as it is. Leave this to > psychologist, neuroscientists, physiologists, etc. to explore. Those > concepts can be retrieved and used to refine communication and exchange. > > Sensation flow is surely inadequate and it adds to the many concepts > already floating around but its use in describing the formation of the > sensations of discreteness, hardness and separation and time and space > is far superior to the popular notion of " now. " It is a pointer that is > closer to " what is " than using " now " as a pointer. Ego searching for > enlightenment or freedom can catch itself quicker and dissolve itself > quicker since experiencing " sensation flows " is easier to pay attention > to than experiencing " now " a time concept that draws the past and the > future around it by definition drawing ego's attention left and right. > Sensation flows draws different issue (time) but allows greater > awareness of ego's living out of touch with sensation because of the > conceptual soup it favors. > > > Lewis I still think the 'now' is an important concept. The now is what separates bodily sensations from the intellect _and_ what joins body and intellect. Without a good grounding in the present moment by sensing the body and its sense perceptions, the intellect can easily float away on its own into past and future, which is not really flow at all, but rather the worst form of fragmented and discrete view; one fragment called the 'past' is churned around and projected into a permutation of the past called the 'future'. /AL Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 22, 2004 anders_lindman wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > > > anders_lindman wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " > <lbb10@c...> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > > > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Real space is only in the present moment. Virtual > space is > > a map > > > > > > > > created by the thinking mind. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Try to see the difference between real space and virtual > > space. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We often focus on virtual space more than on real space! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Example: You may think about what you said (and what you > > > think you > > > > > > > > should have said, or not have said) to this or that person > > > at work > > > > > > > > yesterday. This situation is the past, existing as a > memory in > > > > your > > > > > > > > mind, and from that memory your thinking mind re-creates > > > (more or > > > > > > > > lesssuccessfully), which result in a scenario where you > > can see > > > > > > > > yourself in yesterday's situation, in yesterday's > space. But > > > this > > > > > > > > space is not real space, it is only virtual space. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The same thing happens when you think about what you will > > say to > > > > > that > > > > > > > > person tomorrow. Again, your thinking mind creates a > virtual > > > > > space, a > > > > > > > > scenario with you together with that other person at work. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This kind of thinking, thinking about you in the past, > or you > > > > in the > > > > > > > > future, can never create real space. Real space is > now. Look > > > > around > > > > > > > > you. What you see is objects in real space. Now look > at your > > > > > thoughts > > > > > > > > about you in the past, or you in the future, and how > the mind > > > > > > > > creates/recreates scenarios which only exist in > virtual space. > > > > > Can you > > > > > > > > notice the difference between real space and virtual > space? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > /AL > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anders, can " real space " be described? If so, please > describe > > > " real > > > > > > > space. " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > > > > > > > Real space can be experienced by the physical senses of > the human > > > > > > body, while virtual space is a thought-product. Real space and > > > virtual > > > > > > space must of course be related somehow, as all 'things' must > > > be. But > > > > > > the difference between real space and virtual space is that > > > while real > > > > > > space is experienced as happening now, virtual space seemingly > > > happens > > > > > > in past or future. We can also talk about real objects vs > virtual > > > > > > objects. A real object is the computer screen in front of me > > > now, and > > > > > > a virtual object is the computer screen as I remember it > from 10 > > > > > > minutes ago, or my idea of how the computer screen will be > > tomorrow. > > > > > > > > > > > > /AL > > > > > > > > > > In the " now " experience there are no " real objects, " just > sensation > > > > > flows. A real object, " computer screen, " is a concept, a stand > > in for > > > > > sensation flow and is a thought. If such a thought occurrs > while > > > > > experiencing the sensation flow, there will be interruption of > > it and > > > > > the flow and time and space will appear, an ego mediated > experience. > > > > > > > > > > Does this mean that we do not need concepts? No. Learning > > concepts is > > > > > experience, one of millions of sensation flows, and there is no > > reason > > > > > not experience them. Once learned and stored in memory, they > need > > > > > never appear again in the field of consciousness to interrupt > > > > > sensation flows. " What is " uses these as required to flow > on. It is > > > > > the reification and substitution and attachment to concepts that > > > > > creates fragmented, disrupted experience. > > > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > Just a note on " sensation flow " . " Sensation flow " is just as > much a > > > > concept as " computer screen. " There is no thing to it other than a > > > > analytic break up of ineffable experience (another concept) > and the > > > > attempt to make ego take an analytical step towards " absolute > > > > futility " (ego thinks in terms of doing by means towards ends) > while > > > > pointing to what is. > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > I imagine that in sensation flow, the concept of 'now' is not really > > > needed. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > That is correct. There is no time concept necessary in " instantaneous, > > omni-directional sensation flows. " There has been no success in find a > > word that describes experience as it is. How could there be? However, > > because flow implies to some degree " movement from here to there, " it > > may be put in if desired. But it would wreck its temporary usefulness. > > > > For example, experience is instantaneous, it always is. It also is not > > " static " or rigid. What is continuous and the mind/brain to some degree > > is always on and so experience is not discontinuous and jerky as it is > > when ego mediates it. > > > > Human life is sensate and sensations can be described differentially in > > words by " quality quantity, direction, effect, duration and so on. " > > Duration and direction may indicate a place for time, setting up little > > ticks and so forth as the sensation flows from time x to time y from > > head to toe having this quality, quantity direction and effect. > > > > But in this way experience is being interrogated and conceptually > > fragmented so that it cannot be experienced as it is. Leave this to > > psychologist, neuroscientists, physiologists, etc. to explore. Those > > concepts can be retrieved and used to refine communication and exchange. > > > > Sensation flow is surely inadequate and it adds to the many concepts > > already floating around but its use in describing the formation of the > > sensations of discreteness, hardness and separation and time and space > > is far superior to the popular notion of " now. " It is a pointer that is > > closer to " what is " than using " now " as a pointer. Ego searching for > > enlightenment or freedom can catch itself quicker and dissolve itself > > quicker since experiencing " sensation flows " is easier to pay attention > > to than experiencing " now " a time concept that draws the past and the > > future around it by definition drawing ego's attention left and right. > > Sensation flows draws different issue (time) but allows greater > > awareness of ego's living out of touch with sensation because of the > > conceptual soup it favors. > > > > > > Lewis > > I still think the 'now' is an important concept. The now is what > separates bodily sensations from the intellect _and_ what joins body > and intellect. Without a good grounding in the present moment by > sensing the body and its sense perceptions, the intellect can easily > float away on its own into past and future, which is not really flow > at all, but rather the worst form of fragmented and discrete view; one > fragment called the 'past' is churned around and projected into a > permutation of the past called the 'future'. > > /AL ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ It is useful and may be used in one way or another. It is not lessened in importance but its limitations are clear as well as the limitations of all concepts exchanged here and elsewhere. A hierarchy of concepts is not intended in any way. The " now " as concept neither separates anything or joins anything. Concepts are empty, passive. How does one experience the " now " ? There is the concept of " now " that can be experienced with an ego, with a partially disintegrated ego, or without an ego. In the cases where ego is present and in charge mainly or weakly etc. of mentation the experience of the concept of now produces bifurcations and trifuracations and multiplicity of ideas about time and endless thoughts. Without ego, the concept of " now " is experienced as " no thing, " " emptiness. " There is no thing, so there is no sensation, no mentation. If experience of what the " now " points to (instead of the concept itself) is undergone by the ego there can only be ego mediated experiences of what is and that would be sensations of hardness, discreteness, separation..time, space and so on. If there is no ego present there no " time " or " now " just unmediated experience. The intellect and other forms of mentation are fully active but the appearance of thoughts, concepts and ideas (emptiness) are not substituted for sensations and remain untouched, unused until a " question " arises, that is, where concepts are requested. Lewis Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 22, 2004 Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > anders_lindman wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > anders_lindman wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " > > <lbb10@c...> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > > > > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Real space is only in the present moment. Virtual > > space is > > > a map > > > > > > > > > created by the thinking mind. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Try to see the difference between real space and virtual > > > space. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We often focus on virtual space more than on real space! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Example: You may think about what you said (and what you > > > > think you > > > > > > > > > should have said, or not have said) to this or that person > > > > at work > > > > > > > > > yesterday. This situation is the past, existing as a > > memory in > > > > > your > > > > > > > > > mind, and from that memory your thinking mind re-creates > > > > (more or > > > > > > > > > lesssuccessfully), which result in a scenario where you > > > can see > > > > > > > > > yourself in yesterday's situation, in yesterday's > > space. But > > > > this > > > > > > > > > space is not real space, it is only virtual space. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The same thing happens when you think about what you will > > > say to > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > person tomorrow. Again, your thinking mind creates a > > virtual > > > > > > space, a > > > > > > > > > scenario with you together with that other person at work. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This kind of thinking, thinking about you in the past, > > or you > > > > > in the > > > > > > > > > future, can never create real space. Real space is > > now. Look > > > > > around > > > > > > > > > you. What you see is objects in real space. Now look > > at your > > > > > > thoughts > > > > > > > > > about you in the past, or you in the future, and how > > the mind > > > > > > > > > creates/recreates scenarios which only exist in > > virtual space. > > > > > > Can you > > > > > > > > > notice the difference between real space and virtual > > space? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > /AL > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anders, can " real space " be described? If so, please > > describe > > > > " real > > > > > > > > space. " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Real space can be experienced by the physical senses of > > the human > > > > > > > body, while virtual space is a thought-product. Real space and > > > > virtual > > > > > > > space must of course be related somehow, as all 'things' must > > > > be. But > > > > > > > the difference between real space and virtual space is that > > > > while real > > > > > > > space is experienced as happening now, virtual space seemingly > > > > happens > > > > > > > in past or future. We can also talk about real objects vs > > virtual > > > > > > > objects. A real object is the computer screen in front of me > > > > now, and > > > > > > > a virtual object is the computer screen as I remember it > > from 10 > > > > > > > minutes ago, or my idea of how the computer screen will be > > > tomorrow. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > /AL > > > > > > > > > > > > In the " now " experience there are no " real objects, " just > > sensation > > > > > > flows. A real object, " computer screen, " is a concept, a stand > > > in for > > > > > > sensation flow and is a thought. If such a thought occurrs > > while > > > > > > experiencing the sensation flow, there will be interruption of > > > it and > > > > > > the flow and time and space will appear, an ego mediated > > experience. > > > > > > > > > > > > Does this mean that we do not need concepts? No. Learning > > > concepts is > > > > > > experience, one of millions of sensation flows, and there is no > > > reason > > > > > > not experience them. Once learned and stored in memory, they > > need > > > > > > never appear again in the field of consciousness to interrupt > > > > > > sensation flows. " What is " uses these as required to flow > > on. It is > > > > > > the reification and substitution and attachment to concepts that > > > > > > creates fragmented, disrupted experience. > > > > > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > Just a note on " sensation flow " . " Sensation flow " is just as > > much a > > > > > concept as " computer screen. " There is no thing to it other than a > > > > > analytic break up of ineffable experience (another concept) > > and the > > > > > attempt to make ego take an analytical step towards " absolute > > > > > futility " (ego thinks in terms of doing by means towards ends) > > while > > > > > pointing to what is. > > > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > > > I imagine that in sensation flow, the concept of 'now' is not really > > > > needed. > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > > That is correct. There is no time concept necessary in " instantaneous, > > > omni-directional sensation flows. " There has been no success in find a > > > word that describes experience as it is. How could there be? However, > > > because flow implies to some degree " movement from here to there, " it > > > may be put in if desired. But it would wreck its temporary usefulness. > > > > > > For example, experience is instantaneous, it always is. It also is not > > > " static " or rigid. What is continuous and the mind/brain to some degree > > > is always on and so experience is not discontinuous and jerky as it is > > > when ego mediates it. > > > > > > Human life is sensate and sensations can be described differentially in > > > words by " quality quantity, direction, effect, duration and so on. " > > > Duration and direction may indicate a place for time, setting up little > > > ticks and so forth as the sensation flows from time x to time y from > > > head to toe having this quality, quantity direction and effect. > > > > > > But in this way experience is being interrogated and conceptually > > > fragmented so that it cannot be experienced as it is. Leave this to > > > psychologist, neuroscientists, physiologists, etc. to explore. Those > > > concepts can be retrieved and used to refine communication and exchange. > > > > > > Sensation flow is surely inadequate and it adds to the many concepts > > > already floating around but its use in describing the formation of the > > > sensations of discreteness, hardness and separation and time and space > > > is far superior to the popular notion of " now. " It is a pointer that is > > > closer to " what is " than using " now " as a pointer. Ego searching for > > > enlightenment or freedom can catch itself quicker and dissolve itself > > > quicker since experiencing " sensation flows " is easier to pay attention > > > to than experiencing " now " a time concept that draws the past and the > > > future around it by definition drawing ego's attention left and right. > > > Sensation flows draws different issue (time) but allows greater > > > awareness of ego's living out of touch with sensation because of the > > > conceptual soup it favors. > > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > I still think the 'now' is an important concept. The now is what > > separates bodily sensations from the intellect _and_ what joins body > > and intellect. Without a good grounding in the present moment by > > sensing the body and its sense perceptions, the intellect can easily > > float away on its own into past and future, which is not really flow > > at all, but rather the worst form of fragmented and discrete view; one > > fragment called the 'past' is churned around and projected into a > > permutation of the past called the 'future'. > > > > /AL > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > It is useful and may be used in one way or another. It is not lessened > in importance but its limitations are clear as well as the limitations > of all concepts exchanged here and elsewhere. A hierarchy of concepts is > not intended in any way. > > The " now " as concept neither separates anything or joins anything. > Concepts are empty, passive. > > How does one experience the " now " ? > > There is the concept of " now " that can be experienced with an ego, with > a partially disintegrated ego, or without an ego. In the cases where ego > is present and in charge mainly or weakly etc. of mentation the > experience of the concept of now produces bifurcations and > trifuracations and multiplicity of ideas about time and endless thoughts. > > Without ego, the concept of " now " is experienced as " no thing, " > " emptiness. " There is no thing, so there is no sensation, no mentation. > > If experience of what the " now " points to (instead of the concept > itself) is undergone by the ego there can only be ego mediated > experiences of what is and that would be sensations of hardness, > discreteness, separation..time, space and so on. > > If there is no ego present there no " time " or " now " just unmediated > experience. The intellect and other forms of mentation are fully active > but the appearance of thoughts, concepts and ideas (emptiness) are not > substituted for sensations and remain untouched, unused until a > " question " arises, that is, where concepts are requested. > > Lewis ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ An additional note: When experience is ego meditated and interpreted, concepts become real so that the body and mind machinery treat the concept as it would " sensation flows. " So an ego meditated experience of the concept " now " leads to time thoughts as well as " sensations " of time is passing slow or fast or standing still or being lost and all the emotional sensations that accompany these. This is the ole rope is snake effect. Lewis Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 23, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> wrote: > .... (The concept 'now') > > > > It is useful and may be used in one way or another. It is not lessened > > in importance but its limitations are clear as well as the limitations > > of all concepts exchanged here and elsewhere. A hierarchy of > concepts is > > not intended in any way. > > > > The " now " as concept neither separates anything or joins anything. > > Concepts are empty, passive. > > > > How does one experience the " now " ? > > > > There is the concept of " now " that can be experienced with an ego, with > > a partially disintegrated ego, or without an ego. In the cases where > ego > > is present and in charge mainly or weakly etc. of mentation the > > experience of the concept of now produces bifurcations and > > trifuracations and multiplicity of ideas about time and endless > thoughts. > > > > Without ego, the concept of " now " is experienced as " no thing, " > > " emptiness. " There is no thing, so there is no sensation, no mentation. > > > > If experience of what the " now " points to (instead of the concept > > itself) is undergone by the ego there can only be ego mediated > > experiences of what is and that would be sensations of hardness, > > discreteness, separation..time, space and so on. > > > > If there is no ego present there no " time " or " now " just unmediated > > experience. The intellect and other forms of mentation are fully active > > but the appearance of thoughts, concepts and ideas (emptiness) are not > > substituted for sensations and remain untouched, unused until a > > " question " arises, that is, where concepts are requested. > > > > Lewis > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > An additional note: When experience is ego meditated and interpreted, > concepts become real so that the body and mind machinery treat the > concept as it would " sensation flows. " So an ego meditated experience > of the concept " now " leads to time thoughts as well as " sensations " of > time is passing slow or fast or standing still or being lost and all > the emotional sensations that accompany these. This is the ole rope is > snake effect. > > Lewis The now is experience by the intellect, the thinking mind, like driving a car: the thinking mind cannot see the future directly, but has only the personal and limited memory of the past to look at. So if we imagine that the thinking mind is the driver, and the car is the now, then the driver is not looking at the road ahead (the real future) but instead looking in the rear view mirror (the past) all the time (because that is the only thing the driver [the thinking mind] can see). In this way the driver tries to steer the car to a thought about destination. The driver cannot see the road ahead directly, so it is always afraid of making mistakes. If we translate this to everyday life experiences, we can say that the driver, the thinking mind, creates a future to look at; for example a scenario of what one is going to say at a meeting at the office in a few hours from now. The future office is only a virtual office in the mind created by images and ideas from the past. The thinking mind creates a " me " sitting inside this virtual office and creates ideas of what it will be like for this " me " , while the real person is sitting in real space in his or her home having breakfast. Drinking the morning coffee is in the now, and that is what is happening in real space. The coffee is a real object, while the office in the future is a virtual object. While having breakfast, the mind wanders off into virtual space and constructs a scenario of how life will be in a few hours from now at the meeting. And many other future scenarios too may be thought up in this way while sipping the hot coffee. A virtual landscape of the future is created by the thinking mind. And in this landscape the vulnerable " me " is trying to find ways of how to be, what to do, what to say e t c. No wonder why people get depressed! They (we) live in a dim virtual landscape most of the time. This is called waiting and planning. We are always waiting for the next moment, the next moment which we can only see as a part of a dim virtual landscape. /AL Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 23, 2004 Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > anders_lindman wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Real space is only in the present moment. Virtual space is > a map > > > > > > > created by the thinking mind. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Try to see the difference between real space and virtual > space. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We often focus on virtual space more than on real space! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Example: You may think about what you said (and what you > > think you > > > > > > > should have said, or not have said) to this or that person > > at work > > > > > > > yesterday. This situation is the past, existing as a memory in > > > your > > > > > > > mind, and from that memory your thinking mind re- creates > > (more or > > > > > > > lesssuccessfully), which result in a scenario where you > can see > > > > > > > yourself in yesterday's situation, in yesterday's space. But > > this > > > > > > > space is not real space, it is only virtual space. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The same thing happens when you think about what you will > say to > > > > that > > > > > > > person tomorrow. Again, your thinking mind creates a virtual > > > > space, a > > > > > > > scenario with you together with that other person at work. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This kind of thinking, thinking about you in the past, or you > > > in the > > > > > > > future, can never create real space. Real space is now. Look > > > around > > > > > > > you. What you see is objects in real space. Now look at your > > > > thoughts > > > > > > > about you in the past, or you in the future, and how the mind > > > > > > > creates/recreates scenarios which only exist in virtual space. > > > > Can you > > > > > > > notice the difference between real space and virtual space? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > /AL > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > > > > > > > > Anders, can " real space " be described? If so, please describe > > " real > > > > > > space. " > > > > > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > > > > > Real space can be experienced by the physical senses of the human > > > > > body, while virtual space is a thought-product. Real space and > > virtual > > > > > space must of course be related somehow, as all 'things' must > > be. But > > > > > the difference between real space and virtual space is that > > while real > > > > > space is experienced as happening now, virtual space seemingly > > happens > > > > > in past or future. We can also talk about real objects vs virtual > > > > > objects. A real object is the computer screen in front of me > > now, and > > > > > a virtual object is the computer screen as I remember it from 10 > > > > > minutes ago, or my idea of how the computer screen will be > tomorrow. > > > > > > > > > > /AL > > > > > > > > In the " now " experience there are no " real objects, " just sensation > > > > flows. A real object, " computer screen, " is a concept, a stand > in for > > > > sensation flow and is a thought. If such a thought occurrs while > > > > experiencing the sensation flow, there will be interruption of > it and > > > > the flow and time and space will appear, an ego mediated experience. > > > > > > > > Does this mean that we do not need concepts? No. Learning > concepts is > > > > experience, one of millions of sensation flows, and there is no > reason > > > > not experience them. Once learned and stored in memory, they need > > > > never appear again in the field of consciousness to interrupt > > > > sensation flows. " What is " uses these as required to flow on. It is > > > > the reification and substitution and attachment to concepts that > > > > creates fragmented, disrupted experience. > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > Just a note on " sensation flow " . " Sensation flow " is just as much a > > > concept as " computer screen. " There is no thing to it other than a > > > analytic break up of ineffable experience (another concept) and the > > > attempt to make ego take an analytical step towards " absolute > > > futility " (ego thinks in terms of doing by means towards ends) while > > > pointing to what is. > > > > > > Lewis > > > > I imagine that in sensation flow, the concept of 'now' is not really > > needed. > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > That is correct. There is no time concept necessary in " instantaneous, > omni-directional sensation flows. " There has been no success in find a > word that describes experience as it is. How could there be? However, > because flow implies to some degree " movement from here to there, " it > may be put in if desired. But it would wreck its temporary usefulness. > > For example, experience is instantaneous, it always is. It also is not > " static " or rigid. What is continuous and the mind/brain to some degree > is always on and so experience is not discontinuous and jerky as it is > when ego mediates it. > > Human life is sensate and sensations can be described differentially in > words by " quality quantity, direction, effect, duration and so on. " > Duration and direction may indicate a place for time, setting up little > ticks and so forth as the sensation flows from time x to time y from > head to toe having this quality, quantity direction and effect. > > But in this way experience is being interrogated and conceptually > fragmented so that it cannot be experienced as it is. Leave this to > psychologist, neuroscientists, physiologists, etc. to explore. Those > concepts can be retrieved and used to refine communication and exchange. > > Sensation flow is surely inadequate and it adds to the many concepts > already floating around but its use in describing the formation of the > sensations of discreteness, hardness and separation and time and space > is far superior to the popular notion of " now. " It is a pointer that is > closer to " what is " than using " now " as a pointer. Ego searching for > enlightenment or freedom can catch itself quicker and dissolve itself > quicker since experiencing " sensation flows " is easier to pay attention > to than experiencing " now " a time concept that draws the past and the > future around it by definition drawing ego's attention left and right. > Sensation flows draws different issue (time) but allows greater > awareness of ego's living out of touch with sensation because of the > conceptual soup it favors. > > > Lewis ** Very interesting stuff you write, Lewis. Appreciating, Ken Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 23, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Real space is only in the present moment. Virtual space is a map > > > > > created by the thinking mind. > > > > > > > > > > Try to see the difference between real space and virtual space. > > > > > > > > > > We often focus on virtual space more than on real space! > > > > > > > > > > Example: You may think about what you said (and what you think you > > > > > should have said, or not have said) to this or that person at work > > > > > yesterday. This situation is the past, existing as a memory in > your > > > > > mind, and from that memory your thinking mind re-creates (more or > > > > > lesssuccessfully), which result in a scenario where you can see > > > > > yourself in yesterday's situation, in yesterday's space. But this > > > > > space is not real space, it is only virtual space. > > > > > > > > > > The same thing happens when you think about what you will say to > > that > > > > > person tomorrow. Again, your thinking mind creates a virtual > > space, a > > > > > scenario with you together with that other person at work. > > > > > > > > > > This kind of thinking, thinking about you in the past, or you > in the > > > > > future, can never create real space. Real space is now. Look > around > > > > > you. What you see is objects in real space. Now look at your > > thoughts > > > > > about you in the past, or you in the future, and how the mind > > > > > creates/recreates scenarios which only exist in virtual space. > > Can you > > > > > notice the difference between real space and virtual space? > > > > > > > > > > /AL > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > > > > Anders, can " real space " be described? If so, please describe " real > > > > space. " > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > Real space can be experienced by the physical senses of the human > > > body, while virtual space is a thought-product. Real space and virtual > > > space must of course be related somehow, as all 'things' must be. But > > > the difference between real space and virtual space is that while real > > > space is experienced as happening now, virtual space seemingly happens > > > in past or future. We can also talk about real objects vs virtual > > > objects. A real object is the computer screen in front of me now, and > > > a virtual object is the computer screen as I remember it from 10 > > > minutes ago, or my idea of how the computer screen will be tomorrow. > > > > > > /AL > > > > In the " now " experience there are no " real objects, " just sensation > > flows. A real object, " computer screen, " is a concept, a stand in for > > sensation flow and is a thought. If such a thought occurrs while > > experiencing the sensation flow, there will be interruption of it and > > the flow and time and space will appear, an ego mediated experience. > > > > Does this mean that we do not need concepts? No. Learning concepts is > > experience, one of millions of sensation flows, and there is no reason > > not experience them. Once learned and stored in memory, they need > > never appear again in the field of consciousness to interrupt > > sensation flows. " What is " uses these as required to flow on. It is > > the reification and substitution and attachment to concepts that > > creates fragmented, disrupted experience. > > > > Lewis > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Just a note on " sensation flow " . " Sensation flow " is just as much a > concept as " computer screen. " There is no thing to it other than a > analytic break up of ineffable experience (another concept) and the > attempt to make ego take an analytical step towards " absolute > futility " (ego thinks in terms of doing by means towards ends) while > pointing to what is. > > Lewis ** Lol, you ain't kiddin'!! Nicely put. Ken Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 23, 2004 Hi Lewis and Anders, Have you thought from the point of view of the SELF, ( from your proper point like the Supreme Reality that you really are ) and not the ego, these question about the real space and virtual space? Why do I say it? 1 - Because the Self stands beyond mind, and you are the Self always, 2 - Because the mind/body and universe are automatic they work with input and out put from one to another, " cause and effect between them " 3 - The universe is not permanent, is a illusion that modify itself from instant to instant 4 - When the space is open the forms appear up 5 - When the space is closed there are no forms. Lets see the concept about real space: If the universe are not real, where can we find the real space? In what moment " in the now " ? If like the Self that we are, we have no pass no future, " we were no born " what is " now " ?, because the now can only be if has the pass and future, then the passed, now and future are time of the mind, ok? For we, that were no born neither can die, there are no space, no time, and yes to the mind, ok? We must remember that we are no mind no body, but the Self that is beyond. Lets see the concept about virtual space: I see that the concept of virtual space is the same to the real space, because we are speaking about the mind only. The mind " our mind " explain about itself and make confusion in relation with the Self that we are. If we speake from what we are, the Supreme Reality " the Self " I believe that is better to understand, see: For we understand what really we are is very simple: say I AM only, that automatically we become ourselves in the witness that observe only, this witness is the I AM, and " I am that or I am this " is the mind. We are I AM when ther are objets in the mind only. We can do it by the auto observation, that is observe the mind only. After some time that we have observed the mind like the witness, we can know that we are the Self, beyond the proper witness, because the witness see if do the auto observation, if has something to observe in the mind, if not we stay in our conscious, not in the conscious of the objets of the mind, but in the conscious of " BEING " that is awareness, or rather in ourselves " in the Self " , in silence, immobility and plenitude. " That " is what we are, the no manifested beyond mind and mind is the reflex scarcely. Thank you and Thing about Namastê Swami Nirgunananda - kenj02001 Nisargadatta Thursday, December 23, 2004 4:15 AM Re: Real & virtual space Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > anders_lindman wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Real space is only in the present moment. Virtual space is > a map > > > > > > > created by the thinking mind. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Try to see the difference between real space and virtual > space. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We often focus on virtual space more than on real space! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Example: You may think about what you said (and what you > > think you > > > > > > > should have said, or not have said) to this or that person > > at work > > > > > > > yesterday. This situation is the past, existing as a memory in > > > your > > > > > > > mind, and from that memory your thinking mind re- creates > > (more or > > > > > > > lesssuccessfully), which result in a scenario where you > can see > > > > > > > yourself in yesterday's situation, in yesterday's space. But > > this > > > > > > > space is not real space, it is only virtual space. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The same thing happens when you think about what you will > say to > > > > that > > > > > > > person tomorrow. Again, your thinking mind creates a virtual > > > > space, a > > > > > > > scenario with you together with that other person at work. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This kind of thinking, thinking about you in the past, or you > > > in the > > > > > > > future, can never create real space. Real space is now. Look > > > around > > > > > > > you. What you see is objects in real space. Now look at your > > > > thoughts > > > > > > > about you in the past, or you in the future, and how the mind > > > > > > > creates/recreates scenarios which only exist in virtual space. > > > > Can you > > > > > > > notice the difference between real space and virtual space? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > /AL > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > > > > > > > > Anders, can " real space " be described? If so, please describe > > " real > > > > > > space. " > > > > > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > > > > > Real space can be experienced by the physical senses of the human > > > > > body, while virtual space is a thought-product. Real space and > > virtual > > > > > space must of course be related somehow, as all 'things' must > > be. But > > > > > the difference between real space and virtual space is that > > while real > > > > > space is experienced as happening now, virtual space seemingly > > happens > > > > > in past or future. We can also talk about real objects vs virtual > > > > > objects. A real object is the computer screen in front of me > > now, and > > > > > a virtual object is the computer screen as I remember it from 10 > > > > > minutes ago, or my idea of how the computer screen will be > tomorrow. > > > > > > > > > > /AL > > > > > > > > In the " now " experience there are no " real objects, " just sensation > > > > flows. A real object, " computer screen, " is a concept, a stand > in for > > > > sensation flow and is a thought. If such a thought occurrs while > > > > experiencing the sensation flow, there will be interruption of > it and > > > > the flow and time and space will appear, an ego mediated experience. > > > > > > > > Does this mean that we do not need concepts? No. Learning > concepts is > > > > experience, one of millions of sensation flows, and there is no > reason > > > > not experience them. Once learned and stored in memory, they need > > > > never appear again in the field of consciousness to interrupt > > > > sensation flows. " What is " uses these as required to flow on. It is > > > > the reification and substitution and attachment to concepts that > > > > creates fragmented, disrupted experience. > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > Just a note on " sensation flow " . " Sensation flow " is just as much a > > > concept as " computer screen. " There is no thing to it other than a > > > analytic break up of ineffable experience (another concept) and the > > > attempt to make ego take an analytical step towards " absolute > > > futility " (ego thinks in terms of doing by means towards ends) while > > > pointing to what is. > > > > > > Lewis > > > > I imagine that in sensation flow, the concept of 'now' is not really > > needed. > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > That is correct. There is no time concept necessary in " instantaneous, > omni-directional sensation flows. " There has been no success in find a > word that describes experience as it is. How could there be? However, > because flow implies to some degree " movement from here to there, " it > may be put in if desired. But it would wreck its temporary usefulness. > > For example, experience is instantaneous, it always is. It also is not > " static " or rigid. What is continuous and the mind/brain to some degree > is always on and so experience is not discontinuous and jerky as it is > when ego mediates it. > > Human life is sensate and sensations can be described differentially in > words by " quality quantity, direction, effect, duration and so on. " > Duration and direction may indicate a place for time, setting up little > ticks and so forth as the sensation flows from time x to time y from > head to toe having this quality, quantity direction and effect. > > But in this way experience is being interrogated and conceptually > fragmented so that it cannot be experienced as it is. Leave this to > psychologist, neuroscientists, physiologists, etc. to explore. Those > concepts can be retrieved and used to refine communication and exchange. > > Sensation flow is surely inadequate and it adds to the many concepts > already floating around but its use in describing the formation of the > sensations of discreteness, hardness and separation and time and space > is far superior to the popular notion of " now. " It is a pointer that is > closer to " what is " than using " now " as a pointer. Ego searching for > enlightenment or freedom can catch itself quicker and dissolve itself > quicker since experiencing " sensation flows " is easier to pay attention > to than experiencing " now " a time concept that draws the past and the > future around it by definition drawing ego's attention left and right. > Sensation flows draws different issue (time) but allows greater > awareness of ego's living out of touch with sensation because of the > conceptual soup it favors. > > > Lewis ** Very interesting stuff you write, Lewis. Appreciating, Ken ** If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: /mygroups?edit=1 Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 23, 2004 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > ... (The concept 'now') > > > > > > It is useful and may be used in one way or another. It is not > lessened > > > in importance but its limitations are clear as well as the > limitations > > > of all concepts exchanged here and elsewhere. A hierarchy of > > concepts is > > > not intended in any way. > > > > > > The " now " as concept neither separates anything or joins anything. > > > Concepts are empty, passive. > > > > > > How does one experience the " now " ? > > > > > > There is the concept of " now " that can be experienced with an ego, > with > > > a partially disintegrated ego, or without an ego. In the cases where > > ego > > > is present and in charge mainly or weakly etc. of mentation the > > > experience of the concept of now produces bifurcations and > > > trifuracations and multiplicity of ideas about time and endless > > thoughts. > > > > > > Without ego, the concept of " now " is experienced as " no thing, " > > > " emptiness. " There is no thing, so there is no sensation, no > mentation. > > > > > > If experience of what the " now " points to (instead of the concept > > > itself) is undergone by the ego there can only be ego mediated > > > experiences of what is and that would be sensations of hardness, > > > discreteness, separation..time, space and so on. > > > > > > If there is no ego present there no " time " or " now " just unmediated > > > experience. The intellect and other forms of mentation are fully > active > > > but the appearance of thoughts, concepts and ideas (emptiness) are > not > > > substituted for sensations and remain untouched, unused until a > > > " question " arises, that is, where concepts are requested. > > > > > > Lewis > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > An additional note: When experience is ego meditated and interpreted, > > concepts become real so that the body and mind machinery treat the > > concept as it would " sensation flows. " So an ego meditated experience > > of the concept " now " leads to time thoughts as well as " sensations " of > > time is passing slow or fast or standing still or being lost and all > > the emotional sensations that accompany these. This is the ole rope is > > snake effect. > > > > Lewis > > The now is experience by the intellect, the thinking mind, like > driving a car: the thinking mind cannot see the future directly, but > has only the personal and limited memory of the past to look at. So if > we imagine that the thinking mind is the driver, and the car is the > now, then the driver is not looking at the road ahead (the real > future) but instead looking in the rear view mirror (the past) all the > time (because that is the only thing the driver [the thinking mind] > can see). In this way the driver tries to steer the car to a thought > about destination. The driver cannot see the road ahead directly, so > it is always afraid of making mistakes. > > If we translate this to everyday life experiences, we can say that the > driver, the thinking mind, creates a future to look at; for example a > scenario of what one is going to say at a meeting at the office in a > few hours from now. The future office is only a virtual office in the > mind created by images and ideas from the past. The thinking mind > creates a " me " sitting inside this virtual office and creates ideas of > what it will be like for this " me " , while the real person is sitting > in real space in his or her home having breakfast. Drinking the > morning coffee is in the now, and that is what is happening in real > space. The coffee is a real object, while the office in the future is > a virtual object. While having breakfast, the mind wanders off into > virtual space and constructs a scenario of how life will be in a few > hours from now at the meeting. And many other future scenarios too may > be thought up in this way while sipping the hot coffee. > > A virtual landscape of the future is created by the thinking mind. And > in this landscape the vulnerable " me " is trying to find ways of how to > be, what to do, what to say e t c. No wonder why people get depressed! > They (we) live in a dim virtual landscape most of the time. This is > called waiting and planning. We are always waiting for the next > moment, the next moment which we can only see as a part of a dim > virtual landscape. > > /AL ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Yes, ego mediated experience can be depressing. However, the creation of virtual landscapes need not be depressing. In fact such landscapes and others like it, scientific, architectural, philosohpical, economic, ecological, technological, anthropological, historical, literary, artistic, etc. can be formed to live, to create, to enjoy, to flourish as human beings. Human beings are the only organisms " out of touch with reality. " The " natural world " is a marvel living without thought of itself. What if human beings did the same? Virtual landscapes are useful. With their creation and use without ego mediation, human life can also be a living marvel. The problem has been that ego's creation of distorted landscapes, material expressions of the same, the following self-created and self-centered purposes, and the ignorant use of and selfish attachment to it all has made things messy, ego directed thought and action creates sensations flows that are, to say the least, unpleasant. Back to the scenario. When something needs to be done can it be done without creating " virtual landscapes " that interrupt the flow of sensations? In the planning and waiting scenario what would be different in an ego-less experience? Lewis Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 23, 2004 kenj02001 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> > wrote: > > > > > > anders_lindman wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " > <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " > <lbb10@c...> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " > <lbb10@c...> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > > > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Real space is only in the present moment. Virtual > space is > > a map > > > > > > > > created by the thinking mind. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Try to see the difference between real space and > virtual > > space. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We often focus on virtual space more than on real > space! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Example: You may think about what you said (and what > you > > > think you > > > > > > > > should have said, or not have said) to this or that > person > > > at work > > > > > > > > yesterday. This situation is the past, existing as a > memory in > > > > your > > > > > > > > mind, and from that memory your thinking mind re- > creates > > > (more or > > > > > > > > lesssuccessfully), which result in a scenario where > you > > can see > > > > > > > > yourself in yesterday's situation, in yesterday's > space. But > > > this > > > > > > > > space is not real space, it is only virtual space. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The same thing happens when you think about what you > will > > say to > > > > > that > > > > > > > > person tomorrow. Again, your thinking mind creates a > virtual > > > > > space, a > > > > > > > > scenario with you together with that other person at > work. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This kind of thinking, thinking about you in the > past, or you > > > > in the > > > > > > > > future, can never create real space. Real space is > now. Look > > > > around > > > > > > > > you. What you see is objects in real space. Now look > at your > > > > > thoughts > > > > > > > > about you in the past, or you in the future, and how > the mind > > > > > > > > creates/recreates scenarios which only exist in > virtual space. > > > > > Can you > > > > > > > > notice the difference between real space and virtual > space? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > /AL > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anders, can " real space " be described? If so, please > describe > > > " real > > > > > > > space. " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > > > > > > > Real space can be experienced by the physical senses of > the human > > > > > > body, while virtual space is a thought-product. Real > space and > > > virtual > > > > > > space must of course be related somehow, as all 'things' > must > > > be. But > > > > > > the difference between real space and virtual space is > that > > > while real > > > > > > space is experienced as happening now, virtual space > seemingly > > > happens > > > > > > in past or future. We can also talk about real objects > vs virtual > > > > > > objects. A real object is the computer screen in front > of me > > > now, and > > > > > > a virtual object is the computer screen as I remember it > from 10 > > > > > > minutes ago, or my idea of how the computer screen will > be > > tomorrow. > > > > > > > > > > > > /AL > > > > > > > > > > In the " now " experience there are no " real objects, " just > sensation > > > > > flows. A real object, " computer screen, " is a concept, a > stand > > in for > > > > > sensation flow and is a thought. If such a thought > occurrs while > > > > > experiencing the sensation flow, there will be > interruption of > > it and > > > > > the flow and time and space will appear, an ego mediated > experience. > > > > > > > > > > Does this mean that we do not need concepts? No. Learning > > concepts is > > > > > experience, one of millions of sensation flows, and there > is no > > reason > > > > > not experience them. Once learned and stored in memory, > they need > > > > > never appear again in the field of consciousness to > interrupt > > > > > sensation flows. " What is " uses these as required to flow > on. It is > > > > > the reification and substitution and attachment to > concepts that > > > > > creates fragmented, disrupted experience. > > > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > Just a note on " sensation flow " . " Sensation flow " is just as > much a > > > > concept as " computer screen. " There is no thing to it other > than a > > > > analytic break up of ineffable experience (another concept) > and the > > > > attempt to make ego take an analytical step towards " absolute > > > > futility " (ego thinks in terms of doing by means towards > ends) while > > > > pointing to what is. > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > I imagine that in sensation flow, the concept of 'now' is not > really > > > needed. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > That is correct. There is no time concept necessary > in " instantaneous, > > omni-directional sensation flows. " There has been no success in > find a > > word that describes experience as it is. How could there be? > However, > > because flow implies to some degree " movement from here to there, " > it > > may be put in if desired. But it would wreck its temporary > usefulness. > > > > For example, experience is instantaneous, it always is. It also is > not > > " static " or rigid. What is continuous and the mind/brain to some > degree > > is always on and so experience is not discontinuous and jerky as > it is > > when ego mediates it. > > > > Human life is sensate and sensations can be described > differentially in > > words by " quality quantity, direction, effect, duration and so on. " > > Duration and direction may indicate a place for time, setting up > little > > ticks and so forth as the sensation flows from time x to time y > from > > head to toe having this quality, quantity direction and effect. > > > > But in this way experience is being interrogated and conceptually > > fragmented so that it cannot be experienced as it is. Leave this > to > > psychologist, neuroscientists, physiologists, etc. to explore. > Those > > concepts can be retrieved and used to refine communication and > exchange. > > > > Sensation flow is surely inadequate and it adds to the many > concepts > > already floating around but its use in describing the formation of > the > > sensations of discreteness, hardness and separation and time and > space > > is far superior to the popular notion of " now. " It is a pointer > that is > > closer to " what is " than using " now " as a pointer. Ego searching > for > > enlightenment or freedom can catch itself quicker and dissolve > itself > > quicker since experiencing " sensation flows " is easier to pay > attention > > to than experiencing " now " a time concept that draws the past and > the > > future around it by definition drawing ego's attention left and > right. > > Sensation flows draws different issue (time) but allows greater > > awareness of ego's living out of touch with sensation because of > the > > conceptual soup it favors. > > > > > > Lewis > > > ** Very interesting stuff you write, Lewis. > > Appreciating, > > Ken ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Receiving a loving mind is joy. Thanks. Lewis Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 23, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> wrote: > .... > > Yes, ego mediated experience can be depressing. However, the creation > of virtual landscapes need not be depressing. In fact such landscapes > and others like it, scientific, architectural, philosohpical, > economic, ecological, technological, anthropological, historical, > literary, artistic, etc. can be formed to live, to create, to enjoy, > to flourish as human beings. Human beings are the only organisms " out > of touch with reality. " The " natural world " is a marvel living without > thought of itself. What if human beings did the same? Virtual > landscapes are useful. With their creation and use without ego > mediation, human life can also be a living marvel. > > The problem has been that ego's creation of distorted landscapes, > material expressions of the same, the following self-created and > self-centered purposes, and the ignorant use of and selfish attachment > to it all has made things messy, ego directed thought and action > creates sensations flows that are, to say the least, unpleasant. > > Back to the scenario. When something needs to be done can it be done > without creating " virtual landscapes " that interrupt the flow of > sensations? In the planning and waiting scenario what would be > different in an ego-less experience? > > Lewis Without creating virtual landscapes we could, I believe, enter the real landscape of the present moment which is vibrant, creative and alive when not covered by these blankets of virtual landscapes. In present-moment awareness there would not be any need for waiting in the normal meaning of the word. Planning can be done as a creative act in the moment when needed, and waiting for things in the future could be a part of the plans. Waiting in present-moment awareness need not be unpleasant. For example, sitting in a car waiting for the green traffic light for a long time need _not_ be accompanied by irritation, stress or boredom. Let's assume we have a plan for taking us from A to B by driving a car. Maybe the plan includes a limited time span, so that we need to reach point B (for example a meeting) at a certain time. If we then are caught in a traffic jam, this plan can be spoiled (we will not reach point B in time), and that causes unpleasant emotions such as stress, fear and anger. This kind of plan is a very rigid constuct. And our whole life is filled with such rigid plans and ideas how things ought to be. Present-moment awareness could 'soften up' this discreteness and rigidity so that instead of a few crude plans held in the mind, the contiuous flow of life itself could become the guide for how to live, wich could include and embrace plans, but be much vaster and flexible than just the mechanical slavery to rigid plans and virtual landscapes. /AL Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 23, 2004 anders_lindman wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > ... > > > > Yes, ego mediated experience can be depressing. However, the creation > > of virtual landscapes need not be depressing. In fact such landscapes > > and others like it, scientific, architectural, philosohpical, > > economic, ecological, technological, anthropological, historical, > > literary, artistic, etc. can be formed to live, to create, to enjoy, > > to flourish as human beings. Human beings are the only organisms " out > > of touch with reality. " The " natural world " is a marvel living without > > thought of itself. What if human beings did the same? Virtual > > landscapes are useful. With their creation and use without ego > > mediation, human life can also be a living marvel. > > > > The problem has been that ego's creation of distorted landscapes, > > material expressions of the same, the following self-created and > > self-centered purposes, and the ignorant use of and selfish attachment > > to it all has made things messy, ego directed thought and action > > creates sensations flows that are, to say the least, unpleasant. > > > > Back to the scenario. When something needs to be done can it be done > > without creating " virtual landscapes " that interrupt the flow of > > sensations? In the planning and waiting scenario what would be > > different in an ego-less experience? > > > > Lewis > > Without creating virtual landscapes we could, I believe, enter the > real landscape of the present moment which is vibrant, creative and > alive when not covered by these blankets of virtual landscapes. In > present-moment awareness there would not be any need for waiting in > the normal meaning of the word. Planning can be done as a creative act > in the moment when needed, and waiting for things in the future could > be a part of the plans. Waiting in present-moment awareness need not > be unpleasant. For example, sitting in a car waiting for the green > traffic light for a long time need _not_ be accompanied by irritation, > stress or boredom. > > Let's assume we have a plan for taking us from A to B by driving a > car. Maybe the plan includes a limited time span, so that we need to > reach point B (for example a meeting) at a certain time. If we then > are caught in a traffic jam, this plan can be spoiled (we will not > reach point B in time), and that causes unpleasant emotions such as > stress, fear and anger. This kind of plan is a very rigid constuct. > And our whole life is filled with such rigid plans and ideas how > things ought to be. Present-moment awareness could 'soften up' this > discreteness and rigidity so that instead of a few crude plans held in > the mind, the contiuous flow of life itself could become the guide for > how to live, wich could include and embrace plans, but be much vaster > and flexible than just the mechanical slavery to rigid plans and > virtual landscapes. > > /AL ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Yes. Agreed. Does entrance to the " present moment awareness, " the " real landscape of the present moment which is vibrant, creative and alive, " require the end of the " mechanical slavery to rigid plans and virtual landscapes? " If yes, the circle closes again. How does liberation from mechanical slavery occur? Who put " me " into mechanical slavery? Did " I " put " my self " into slavery? Can " I " liberate " my self, " throw off the chains? " Or does someone liberate " me? " Is it a cooperative venture between " me " and another " I " or is it " me " and a " no me " ? Is " someone " being liberated or is it change in interior states? Is it possible to be liberated? Is liberation necessary? What is liberation? Is it a concept, a goal, a state, an experience? Is liberation non-sense? If not, how does it occur? Is it by " biological mutation, " " chemical, " " meditation, " " self-inquiry, " " Jesus Christ, " " God, " " grace " , infused contemplation, sunyatta, , fana' fi Allah, baqa' bi Allah,.... etc. If no, what is.....? Lewis Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 23, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Nirgunananda " <nirgunananda@t...> wrote: > > Hi Lewis and Anders, > > Have you thought from the point of view of the SELF, ( from your proper point like the Supreme Reality that you really are ) and not the ego, these question about the real space and virtual space? > > Why do I say it? > 1 - Because the Self stands beyond mind, and you are the Self always, > 2 - Because the mind/body and universe are automatic they work with input and out put from one to another, " cause and effect between them " > 3 - The universe is not permanent, is a illusion that modify itself from instant to instant > 4 - When the space is open the forms appear up > 5 - When the space is closed there are no forms. > > Lets see the concept about real space: > If the universe are not real, where can we find the real space? > In what moment " in the now " ? > If like the Self that we are, we have no pass no future, " we were no born " what is " now " ?, because the now can only be if has the pass and future, then the passed, now and future are time of the mind, ok? > For we, that were no born neither can die, there are no space, no time, and yes to the mind, ok? We must remember that we are no mind no body, but the Self that is beyond. > > Lets see the concept about virtual space: > I see that the concept of virtual space is the same to the real space, because we are speaking about the mind only. > > The mind " our mind " explain about itself and make confusion in relation with the Self that we are. > > If we speake from what we are, the Supreme Reality " the Self " I believe that is better to understand, see: > For we understand what really we are is very simple: say I AM only, that automatically we become ourselves in the witness that observe only, this witness is the I AM, and " I am that or I am this " is the mind. > We are I AM when ther are objets in the mind only. > We can do it by the auto observation, that is observe the mind only. > After some time that we have observed the mind like the witness, we can know that we are the Self, beyond the proper witness, because the witness see if do the auto observation, if has something to observe in the mind, if not we stay in our conscious, not in the conscious of the objets of the mind, but in the conscious of " BEING " that is awareness, or rather in ourselves " in the Self " , in silence, immobility and plenitude. > " That " is what we are, the no manifested beyond mind and mind is the reflex scarcely. > > Thank you > and > Thing about > > Namastê > > Swami Nirgunananda ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dear Swami Nirgunananda, There is no " Self " or " Supreme Reality. " There is no " we. " These are concepts, illusions. How can " you " speak from " Self? " How can you describe the " witness that observes only? " If it is described, it is an " object, " a " perception " or " construct " or " concept. " All of these are empty pointers. How does " we " a concept " automatically [we] become ourselves in the witness that observe only. " This is a concept becoming another concept Ego easily assumes the position of " witness that observes only " and is fully capable of saying " I Am that " by observing it's own mental creations and telling itself it is not any thing (neti, neti) . How is one to distinguish between ego that says " I Am that " (not this, not this) and what is? " That which is beyond the mind " is a koan and nothing more, something aiding ego to realize futility. If " That " equals " in the conscious of " BEING " that is awareness, or rather in ourselves " in the Self " , in silence, immobility and plenitude " then it is a ego state based on conceptual creations. " That " is indescribable and pointers to do little to.... Lewis Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 23, 2004 TO:LEWIS FROM:Swami Nirgunananda I would like answer to Lewis about his questions below : Lewis Who put " me " into mechanical slavery? Swami Nirgunananda Nobody put you into mechanical slavery. You think that you are into mechanical slavery. Lewis Did " I " put " my self " into slavery? Swami Nirgunananda You put when you think that you are into slavery. Lewis Can " I " liberate " my self, " throw off the chains? " Swami Nirgunananda No. You can not, there are not liberate, are thinks about prison. Lewis Or does someone liberate " me? " Swami Nirgunananda No one can liberate you, you must believe that you are not into slavery. Lewis Is it a cooperative venture between " me " and another " I " or is it " me " and a " no me " ? Swami Nirgunananda No it is not, because there are no you, neither other you, no I neither other I. There are no even one, these things of one, two etc, is of the mind. There are the sense of constant " BEING " , the other questions about " I " , " You " , " We " etc is of the mind, not of you, because you are the Supreme Reality that stands beyond of the mind. Lewis Is " someone " being liberated or is it change in interior states? Swami Nirgunananda It is change of concepts of the mind, only. Lewis Is it possible to be liberated? Swami Nirgunananda No it is not possible to be liberated, because You just are liberated, is your mind that think on the contrary. Lewis Is liberation necessary? Swami Nirgunananda Is necessary you understand that you just are liberated. The question of prison is of your mind, only. Lewis What is liberation? Is it a concept, a goal, a state, an experience? Swami Nirgunananda Liberation is not a concept, a goal, a state neither an experience. Liberation is to see the things like the things are: without permanence and without proper essence and substance; or rather the things have not proper existence. Lewis pay attention, see and feel: you are that sense " I AM, the same sense when you were a child, a teen age, a young, an adult and a old, " THAT " the same sense " I AM " are you. But the sense " I am a boy, a old, a young, or I am mother, father, intellectual, a boss, a man, a woman etc is the mind, no you, ok? All the other words, things and concepts are of the mind, remember that you are not the mind/body, you are the SELF,you are THAT, which has no name, only awareness. Thank you very much Namastê Swami Nirgunananda - Lewis Burgess Nisargadatta Thursday, December 23, 2004 2:29 PM Re: Re: Real & virtual space anders_lindman wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > ... > > > > Yes, ego mediated experience can be depressing. However, the creation > > of virtual landscapes need not be depressing. In fact such landscapes > > and others like it, scientific, architectural, philosohpical, > > economic, ecological, technological, anthropological, historical, > > literary, artistic, etc. can be formed to live, to create, to enjoy, > > to flourish as human beings. Human beings are the only organisms " out > > of touch with reality. " The " natural world " is a marvel living without > > thought of itself. What if human beings did the same? Virtual > > landscapes are useful. With their creation and use without ego > > mediation, human life can also be a living marvel. > > > > The problem has been that ego's creation of distorted landscapes, > > material expressions of the same, the following self-created and > > self-centered purposes, and the ignorant use of and selfish attachment > > to it all has made things messy, ego directed thought and action > > creates sensations flows that are, to say the least, unpleasant. > > > > Back to the scenario. When something needs to be done can it be done > > without creating " virtual landscapes " that interrupt the flow of > > sensations? In the planning and waiting scenario what would be > > different in an ego-less experience? > > > > Lewis > > Without creating virtual landscapes we could, I believe, enter the > real landscape of the present moment which is vibrant, creative and > alive when not covered by these blankets of virtual landscapes. In > present-moment awareness there would not be any need for waiting in > the normal meaning of the word. Planning can be done as a creative act > in the moment when needed, and waiting for things in the future could > be a part of the plans. Waiting in present-moment awareness need not > be unpleasant. For example, sitting in a car waiting for the green > traffic light for a long time need _not_ be accompanied by irritation, > stress or boredom. > > Let's assume we have a plan for taking us from A to B by driving a > car. Maybe the plan includes a limited time span, so that we need to > reach point B (for example a meeting) at a certain time. If we then > are caught in a traffic jam, this plan can be spoiled (we will not > reach point B in time), and that causes unpleasant emotions such as > stress, fear and anger. This kind of plan is a very rigid constuct. > And our whole life is filled with such rigid plans and ideas how > things ought to be. Present-moment awareness could 'soften up' this > discreteness and rigidity so that instead of a few crude plans held in > the mind, the contiuous flow of life itself could become the guide for > how to live, wich could include and embrace plans, but be much vaster > and flexible than just the mechanical slavery to rigid plans and > virtual landscapes. > > /AL ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Yes. Agreed. Does entrance to the " present moment awareness, " the " real landscape of the present moment which is vibrant, creative and alive, " require the end of the " mechanical slavery to rigid plans and virtual landscapes? " If yes, the circle closes again. How does liberation from mechanical slavery occur? Who put " me " into mechanical slavery? Did " I " put " my self " into slavery? Can " I " liberate " my self, " throw off the chains? " Or does someone liberate " me? " Is it a cooperative venture between " me " and another " I " or is it " me " and a " no me " ? Is " someone " being liberated or is it change in interior states? Is it possible to be liberated? Is liberation necessary? What is liberation? Is it a concept, a goal, a state, an experience? Is liberation non-sense? If not, how does it occur? Is it by " biological mutation, " " chemical, " " meditation, " " self-inquiry, " " Jesus Christ, " " God, " " grace " , infused contemplation, sunyatta, , fana' fi Allah, baqa' bi Allah,.... etc. If no, what is.....? Lewis ** If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: /mygroups?edit=1 Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 23, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Nirgunananda " <nirgunananda@t...> wrote: > > Hi Lewis and Anders, > > Have you thought from the point of view of the SELF, ( from your proper point like the Supreme Reality that you really are ) and not the ego, these question about the real space and virtual space? > > Why do I say it? > 1 - Because the Self stands beyond mind, and you are the Self always, > 2 - Because the mind/body and universe are automatic they work with input and out put from one to another, " cause and effect between them " > 3 - The universe is not permanent, is a illusion that modify itself from instant to instant > 4 - When the space is open the forms appear up > 5 - When the space is closed there are no forms. > > Lets see the concept about real space: > If the universe are not real, where can we find the real space? > In what moment " in the now " ? > If like the Self that we are, we have no pass no future, " we were no born " what is " now " ?, because the now can only be if has the pass and future, then the passed, now and future are time of the mind, ok? > For we, that were no born neither can die, there are no space, no time, and yes to the mind, ok? We must remember that we are no mind no body, but the Self that is beyond. > > Lets see the concept about virtual space: > I see that the concept of virtual space is the same to the real space, because we are speaking about the mind only. > > The mind " our mind " explain about itself and make confusion in relation with the Self that we are. > > If we speake from what we are, the Supreme Reality " the Self " I believe that is better to understand, see: > For we understand what really we are is very simple: say I AM only, that automatically we become ourselves in the witness that observe only, this witness is the I AM, and " I am that or I am this " is the mind. > We are I AM when ther are objets in the mind only. > We can do it by the auto observation, that is observe the mind only. > After some time that we have observed the mind like the witness, we can know that we are the Self, beyond the proper witness, because the witness see if do the auto observation, if has something to observe in the mind, if not we stay in our conscious, not in the conscious of the objets of the mind, but in the conscious of " BEING " that is awareness, or rather in ourselves " in the Self " , in silence, immobility and plenitude. > " That " is what we are, the no manifested beyond mind and mind is the reflex scarcely. > > Thank you > and > Thing about > > Namaste^ > > Swami Nirgunananda ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dear Swami Nirgunananda, There is no " Self " or " Supreme Reality. " There is no " we. " These are concepts, illusions. How can " you " speak from " Self? " How can " you " describe the " witness that observes only? " If it is described, it is an " object, " a " perception " or " construct " or " concept. " All of these are empty pointers. How does " we " a concept " automatically [we] become ourselves in the witness that observe only? " Is this not simply concept " becoming " another concept? Ego easily assumes the position of " witness that observes only " and is fully capable of saying " I AM THAT " by thinking and saying repeatedly and consistently, with effort however slight, that it is not any " thing " (neti, neti). How is one to distinguish between ego that repeatedly says to others " I AM THAT " (not this, not this) and what is? " THAT which is beyond the mind " and " the Self that stands beyond mind " , are " koans. " If these paradoxes or " lies " are taken in by ego and mentated and meditated and inquired upon long enough will yield absolute futility and infinite regression until ego gives up this practice satisfied with what it has achieved, is mistakenly convinced that it is I AM THAT, or " ATMAN, " " atman, " " SELF, " " God, " etc. or dissolves in what is. Nisargadatta " lied " to " you " to " kill " " you. " All of the words " you " spoke above are for " you, " for " ego. " What is does not need guidance. Lewis Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 23, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Nirgunananda " <nirgunananda@t...> wrote: > > Hi Lewis and Anders, > > Have you thought from the point of view of the SELF, ( from your proper point like the Supreme Reality that you really are ) and not the ego, these question about the real space and virtual space? > > Why do I say it? > 1 - Because the Self stands beyond mind, and you are the Self always, > 2 - Because the mind/body and universe are automatic they work with input and out put from one to another, " cause and effect between them " > 3 - The universe is not permanent, is a illusion that modify itself from instant to instant > 4 - When the space is open the forms appear up > 5 - When the space is closed there are no forms. > > Lets see the concept about real space: > If the universe are not real, where can we find the real space? > In what moment " in the now " ? > If like the Self that we are, we have no pass no future, " we were no born " what is " now " ?, because the now can only be if has the pass and future, then the passed, now and future are time of the mind, ok? > For we, that were no born neither can die, there are no space, no time, and yes to the mind, ok? We must remember that we are no mind no body, but the Self that is beyond. > > Lets see the concept about virtual space: > I see that the concept of virtual space is the same to the real space, because we are speaking about the mind only. > > The mind " our mind " explain about itself and make confusion in relation with the Self that we are. > > If we speake from what we are, the Supreme Reality " the Self " I believe that is better to understand, see: > For we understand what really we are is very simple: say I AM only, that automatically we become ourselves in the witness that observe only, this witness is the I AM, and " I am that or I am this " is the mind. > We are I AM when ther are objets in the mind only. > We can do it by the auto observation, that is observe the mind only. > After some time that we have observed the mind like the witness, we can know that we are the Self, beyond the proper witness, because the witness see if do the auto observation, if has something to observe in the mind, if not we stay in our conscious, not in the conscious of the objets of the mind, but in the conscious of " BEING " that is awareness, or rather in ourselves " in the Self " , in silence, immobility and plenitude. > " That " is what we are, the no manifested beyond mind and mind is the reflex scarcely. > > Thank you > and > Thing about > > Namaste^ > > Swami Nirgunananda ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dear Swami Nirgunananda, There is no " Self " or " Supreme Reality. " There is no " we. " These are concepts, illusions. How can " you " speak from " Self? " How can " you " describe the " witness that observes only? " If it is described, it is an " object, " a " perception " or " construct " or " concept. " All of these are empty pointers. How does " we " a concept " automatically [we] become ourselves in the witness that observe only? " Is this not simply concept " becoming " another concept? Ego easily assumes the position of " witness that observes only " and is fully capable of saying " I AM THAT " by thinking and saying repeatedly and consistently, with effort however slight, that it is not any " thing " (neti, neti). How is one to distinguish between ego that repeatedly says to others " I AM THAT " (not this, not this) and what is? " THAT which is beyond the mind " and " the Self that stands beyond mind " , are " koans. " If these paradoxes or " lies " are taken in by ego and mentated and meditated and inquired upon long enough will yield absolute futility and infinite regression until ego gives up this practice satisfied with what it has achieved, is mistakenly convinced that it is I AM THAT, or " ATMAN, " " atman, " " SELF, " " God, " etc. or some other partial > ego state or dissolves in what is. Nisargadatta " lied " to " you " to " kill " " you. " All of the words " you " spoke above are for " you, " for " ego. " What is does not need guidance. Lewis ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dear Swami Nirgunananda, Please read Anders post (#14350) on the difference between consciousness and pure awareness in Nisargadatta's teaching. Nisargadatta/message/14350 Lewis Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 23, 2004 Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > anders_lindman wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > > ... > > > > > > Yes, ego mediated experience can be depressing. However, the creation > > > of virtual landscapes need not be depressing. In fact such landscapes > > > and others like it, scientific, architectural, philosohpical, > > > economic, ecological, technological, anthropological, historical, > > > literary, artistic, etc. can be formed to live, to create, to enjoy, > > > to flourish as human beings. Human beings are the only organisms " out > > > of touch with reality. " The " natural world " is a marvel living without > > > thought of itself. What if human beings did the same? Virtual > > > landscapes are useful. With their creation and use without ego > > > mediation, human life can also be a living marvel. > > > > > > The problem has been that ego's creation of distorted landscapes, > > > material expressions of the same, the following self-created and > > > self-centered purposes, and the ignorant use of and selfish attachment > > > to it all has made things messy, ego directed thought and action > > > creates sensations flows that are, to say the least, unpleasant. > > > > > > Back to the scenario. When something needs to be done can it be done > > > without creating " virtual landscapes " that interrupt the flow of > > > sensations? In the planning and waiting scenario what would be > > > different in an ego-less experience? > > > > > > Lewis > > > > Without creating virtual landscapes we could, I believe, enter the > > real landscape of the present moment which is vibrant, creative and > > alive when not covered by these blankets of virtual landscapes. In > > present-moment awareness there would not be any need for waiting in > > the normal meaning of the word. Planning can be done as a creative act > > in the moment when needed, and waiting for things in the future could > > be a part of the plans. Waiting in present-moment awareness need not > > be unpleasant. For example, sitting in a car waiting for the green > > traffic light for a long time need _not_ be accompanied by irritation, > > stress or boredom. > > > > Let's assume we have a plan for taking us from A to B by driving a > > car. Maybe the plan includes a limited time span, so that we need to > > reach point B (for example a meeting) at a certain time. If we then > > are caught in a traffic jam, this plan can be spoiled (we will not > > reach point B in time), and that causes unpleasant emotions such as > > stress, fear and anger. This kind of plan is a very rigid constuct. > > And our whole life is filled with such rigid plans and ideas how > > things ought to be. Present-moment awareness could 'soften up' this > > discreteness and rigidity so that instead of a few crude plans held in > > the mind, the contiuous flow of life itself could become the guide for > > how to live, wich could include and embrace plans, but be much vaster > > and flexible than just the mechanical slavery to rigid plans and > > virtual landscapes. > > > > /AL > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Yes. Agreed. > > Does entrance to the " present moment awareness, " the " real landscape of > the present moment which is vibrant, creative and alive, " require the > end of the " mechanical slavery to rigid plans and virtual landscapes? " > > If yes, the circle closes again. How does liberation from mechanical > slavery occur? Who put " me " into mechanical slavery? Did " I " put " my > self " into slavery? Can " I " liberate " my self, " throw off the chains? " > Or does someone liberate " me? " Is it a cooperative venture between " me " > and another " I " or is it " me " and a " no me " ? Is " someone " being > liberated or is it change in interior states? Is it possible to be > liberated? Is liberation necessary? What is liberation? Is it a concept, > a goal, a state, an experience? Is liberation non-sense? If not, how > does it occur? Is it by " biological mutation, " " chemical, " " meditation, " > " self-inquiry, " " Jesus Christ, " " God, " " grace " , infused contemplation, > sunyatta, , fana' fi Allah, baqa' bi Allah,.... etc. > > If no, what is.....? > > > Lewis I think liberation comes with falling away of the idea of time as something a separate entity can manipulate. /AL Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 24, 2004 > > That is correct. There is no time concept necessary > in " instantaneous, > > omni-directional sensation flows. " There has been no success in > find a > > word that describes experience as it is. How could there be? > However, > > because flow implies to some degree " movement from here to there, " > it > > may be put in if desired. But it would wreck its temporary > usefulness. > > > > For example, experience is instantaneous, it always is. It also is > not > > " static " or rigid. What is continuous and the mind/brain to some > degree > > is always on and so experience is not discontinuous and jerky as > it is > > when ego mediates it. > > > > Human life is sensate and sensations can be described > differentially in > > words by " quality quantity, direction, effect, duration and so on. " > > Duration and direction may indicate a place for time, setting up > little > > ticks and so forth as the sensation flows from time x to time y > from > > head to toe having this quality, quantity direction and effect. > > > > But in this way experience is being interrogated and conceptually > > fragmented so that it cannot be experienced as it is. Leave this > to > > psychologist, neuroscientists, physiologists, etc. to explore. > Those > > concepts can be retrieved and used to refine communication and > exchange. > > > > Sensation flow is surely inadequate and it adds to the many > concepts > > already floating around but its use in describing the formation of > the > > sensations of discreteness, hardness and separation and time and > space > > is far superior to the popular notion of " now. " It is a pointer > that is > > closer to " what is " than using " now " as a pointer. Ego searching > for > > enlightenment or freedom can catch itself quicker and dissolve > itself > > quicker since experiencing " sensation flows " is easier to pay > attention > > to than experiencing " now " a time concept that draws the past and > the > > future around it by definition drawing ego's attention left and > right. > > Sensation flows draws different issue (time) but allows greater > > awareness of ego's living out of touch with sensation because of > the > > conceptual soup it favors. > > > > > > Lewis > > > ** Very interesting stuff you write, Lewis. > > Appreciating, :-) > > Ken Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 24, 2004 Dear Lewis, There is no " Self " or " Supreme Reality. " There is no " we. " These are concepts, illusions. *Indeed, and.....the absence of this absence How can " you " speak from " Self? " How can you describe the " witness that observes only? " If it is described, it is an " object, " a " perception " or " construct " or " concept. " All of these are empty pointers. * " Empty pointer " is an interesting term, Lewis. How does " we " a concept " automatically [we] become ourselves in the witness that observe only. " This is a concept becoming another concept Ego easily assumes the position of " witness that observes only " and is fully capable of saying " I Am that " by observing it's own mental creations and telling itself it is not any thing (neti, neti). *Yes, the ego is a tricky phenomenon. Is witnessing a spawn of the ego or viceversa? What do you think? Are we talking about " apperception " , perhaps? This term coined by Leibniz and so often used by Wei Wu Wei? Does apperception generate concepts? I don't think so. That's why this term is used. Contemplating it from the outside, it is just a concept like everyone else. Made out of the same substance, with the same dignity. Not even " I am " , Lewis, simply " I " . It is that what we lost entering language as infants and what we will lose again when we die. There is no ego, no subject, no object nor " truth " outside of language. How is one to distinguish between ego that says " I Am that " (not this, not this) and what is? *what is, is the absence of you and the absence of this absence. " That which is beyond the mind " is a koan and nothing more, something aiding ego to realize futility. *.....and the futility of this realization If " That " equals " in the conscious of " BEING " that is awareness, or rather in ourselves " in the Self " , in silence, immobility and plenitude " then it is a ego state based on conceptual creations. *No, it is prior to language, to vocabulary, to grammar. Ego states and language co-arise and are co-dependent. I follow here Lacanian concepts, which I would like to recommend you as an interesting read. I would like to recommend you too reads on developmental psychology, such as writings of Melanie Klein, Winnicott or Kohut. I have posted here, on this board, several links which I considered helpful. I will look it up. Even the question of " BEING " is a linguistic affair. " That " is indescribable and pointers to do little to.... *Yes, to the first part of this sentence but, how did you come to the conclusion in the latter part......??? cheers, Kip Almazy Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
