Guest guest Report post Posted April 22, 2006 In a message dated 4/22/2006 7:13:12 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Sat, 22 Apr 2006 11:22:11 -0000 " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr Re: The Present & Looking Backwards Yes, Big, Even looking backwards happens in the present. The interesting thing maybe to add is that data processed in the brain need about 200-400 msecs to get conscious. And therefore we never really are in the present. What we see as " present " is just the subjectivity of consciousness " and let me remind that Nit said consciousness is just a fever. Which means the present is just a fever. Werner Well, but what you see as a perceptual lag presumes there's an objective reality that's being perceived after the 'fact'. As you say, this supposed objective reality, along with the supposed perceptual delay, is all actually subjective. The delay doesn't cause one to be pulled out of the present, the idea of such things is just another event in the movie. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 22, 2006 In a message dated 4/22/2006 7:13:12 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Sat, 22 Apr 2006 11:30:01 -0000 " billrishel " <illusyn Re: The Present & Looking Backwards.. Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Yes, Big, > > Even looking backwards happens in the present. > > The interesting thing maybe to add is that data processed in the > brain need about 200-400 msecs to get conscious. And therefore we > never really are in the present. > > What we see as " present " is just the subjectivity of consciousness " > and let me remind that Nit said consciousness is just a fever. Which > means the present is just a fever. > > Werner Let's take a look at that. " We never really are in the present. " What does that actually mean, thinking it through? Does it mean: " Being totally present, " is a joke? Bill Being totally present isn't possible, but not because of perceptual delays. Or maybe more accurately, if we ever were totally present, we wouldn't know it, and so couldn't talk about the 'experience'. There would be no experience of the 'event'. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 22, 2006 In a message dated 4/22/2006 7:13:12 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Sat, 22 Apr 2006 12:51:03 -0000 " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr Re: The Present & Looking Backwards.. If, for example, you you are playing tennis and you try to catch the ball you are always to late. When you see the ball near you it already has passed. Werner Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > You are always totlly present (but always 200-400 msecs to late), > > > Late to what? > > Len > > > > Bill. And that's not a joke, only to see that present as something > > wonderful or even as holy, is a joke. > > > > The present is the subjectivity of consciousness and indeed - its > > just a fever. > > > > Werner Such concepts have nothing to do with foregoing the use of memory, which is all being present means. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 22, 2006 In a message dated 4/22/2006 9:14:18 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Sat, 22 Apr 2006 14:13:04 -0000 " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 Re: The Present & Looking Backwards.. Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Don't say no, Len, > > Just ask tennis players. They will tell you that they are training > not to use conscioiousness to react to the approaching ball - their > brain learns to react without consciously seeing the ball. > > Because consciousness is always to late the same also is with boxers > or soccer keepers, etc. > > Werner I have no idea what you mean with consciousness, but there is obviously something which isn´t too late. But please tell me, what is it that you are too late for? Len For an imaginary present. Now ain't that a kick in the synaptic gap? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 23, 2006 In a message dated 4/22/2006 9:14:18 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Sat, 22 Apr 2006 14:49:43 -0000 " toombaru2006 " <lastrain Re: The Present & Looking Backwards Nisargadatta , " bigwaaba " <bigwaaba wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > wrote: > > > > Yes, Big, > > > > Even looking backwards happens in the present. > > > > The interesting thing maybe to add is that data processed in the > > brain need about 200-400 msecs to get conscious. And therefore we > > never really are in the present. > > > > What we see as " present " is just the subjectivity of consciousness " > > and let me remind that Nit said consciousness is just a fever. > Which > > means the present is just a fever. > > > > Werner > > > So cool Werner! > What if..........the 'self' emerges within.....and experiences its illusory totality .......within that tenth of a second gap? toombaru The gap is meaningless. Nothing can be experienced within the gap because the gap isn't part of experience. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 23, 2006 In a message dated 4/22/2006 7:13:29 AM Pacific Daylight Time, lastrain writes: > Toombaru: A Mind.....which is the source of the illusory self...can never > become > enlightened. > Mind looks at a sage and interprets what it sees as a transformed person. > It then tries to become like what it sees.....It reads thewords.....tries to > copy the motions......and envivions its self as allknowing....sometime in > the future. > The problem....once seen......destroys all questions about the self. > L.E: It seems that the mind cannot " look " at enything. The ego is at the entrance to the mind. The senses, the eyes, 'look " the ego sees and interprets, When there is perception without the ego, there is only perception and no interpretation. That can be done by simple meditation. Agreed that the mind is the source of the illusory self, the ego, but the brain is the source of the illusory mind, and the body is the source and sustinance of the illusory brain. Consider again, music from a record, tape or CD. The music is not the same as the record, tape or CD yet the music arises from the CD. The CD and the music are quite different just as the mind and the ego are quite different. And the same with the Brain and the mind. They are as different as the molecules in the CD are from the music or the CD as a plastic disk. Each level is different from that below it and each produces the level above it. This is why you can say music is an illusion that has no independent existence compared to the CD disk, and the disk is an illusion and has no independent existence from the molecules. That is why the wise person says the ego is an illusion and no independent existence, because it depends on the existence of the mind, which depends on the existence of the brain, and so on. Eventual you may come to realize that only the Absolute, Eternal Life has independent existence and all else can be called illusion, because it depends on the level beneath it for its existence.There is nothing you as an ego or mind-originated self can do about it, it just exists this way. It is only at the tip of the process, at the ego level can you act, do, see, but Being Itself goes all the way back, or into the Absolute itself that can be understood intellectually and acted upon, or understood experientially and acted upon. If you choose to stay in the awareness of the absolute and not return to an ego state, from the point of ordinary reality you will die, from your internal point of view, you have returned to the source of all life and experienced your life as Infinite Being. Larry Epston Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 23, 2006 In a message dated 4/22/2006 6:36:27 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Sat, 22 Apr 2006 22:46:34 -0000 " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 Re: The Present & Looking Backwards.. Nisargadatta , " bigwaaba " <bigwaaba wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Len, > > > > > > NoOne is to late. But if you say " I am consciousness " then you > are > > > always to late. > > > > > > Then I have to repeat myself: > > Too late for what? > > > > len > > > > " To forget this illusion is the sole means to > kill the mind and remain as Bliss. > Though Shiva, Vishnu, or > Brahman Himself should instruct you, realisation is not > possible without this one means. > Without forgetting > everything, fixity as the Self is impossible. Therefore > altogether forget everything. " > > -- Advaita bodha Deepika Nothing is more doomed to fail then trying to forget anything on purpose ;-) Len Well, I'd put a few more things in that same category of futility. Trying to not think, trying to surrender, trying to accept, trying to believe, trying to be effortless, trying to be desireless, trying to be egoless, trying to be spiritual, trying to be enlightened, trying to be...... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 23, 2006 " To forget this illusion is the sole means to kill the mind and remain as Bliss. Though Shiva, Vishnu, or Brahman Himself should instruct you, realisation is not possible without this one means. Without forgetting everything, fixity as the Self is impossible. Therefore altogether forget everything. " Advaita bodha Deepika Nothing is more doomed to fail then trying to forget anything on purpose ;-) Len Well, I'd put a few more things in that same category of futility. Trying to not think, trying to surrender, trying to accept, trying to believe, trying to be effortless, trying to be desireless, trying to be egoless, trying to be spiritual, trying to be enlightened, trying to be...... L.E: I agree with both of you, rare as that may be, but perhaps he didn't mean it as it is translated or as we are understanding it. I'm willing to give him a break I won't give K. or Ramana after the speech he gave about the silent preacher. But at the end, to forget everying is perhaps what you have written about surrender or as a great teacher said: " Surrender the idea of ego, mind, body and the world and let me, the Absolute appears as your true identity. " If that is what he meant in spite of what he said, then I absolutely agree. Larry Epston Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 23, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > Well, but what you see as a perceptual lag presumes there's an objective > reality that's being perceived after the 'fact'. As you say, this supposed > objective reality, along with the supposed perceptual delay, is all actually > subjective. The delay doesn't cause one to be pulled out of the present, the idea > of such things is just another event in the movie. Yes, the external world and the internal representer/thinker/perceiver are not-two, not divisible from each other -- except conceptually. Conceptually, everything is assumed divided. -- D. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 23, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > Such concepts have nothing to do with foregoing the use of memory, which is > all being present means. No need to forego memory. Do you think memory occurs somewhere outside of the present? Maybe memory occurs within a memory of a memory within a memory, ad infinitum. Or maybe not. ;-) -- D. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 23, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/22/2006 7:13:12 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Sat, 22 Apr 2006 11:22:11 -0000 > " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr > Re: The Present & Looking Backwards > > Yes, Big, > > Even looking backwards happens in the present. > > The interesting thing maybe to add is that data processed in the > brain need about 200-400 msecs to get conscious. And therefore we > never really are in the present. > > What we see as " present " is just the subjectivity of consciousness " > and let me remind that Nit said consciousness is just a fever. Which > means the present is just a fever. > > Werner > > > > Well, but what you see as a perceptual lag presumes there's an objective > reality that's being perceived after the 'fact'. As you say, this supposed > objective reality, along with the supposed perceptual delay, is all actually > subjective. The delay doesn't cause one to be pulled out of the present, the idea > of such things is just another event in the movie. That´s it. People don´t see the difference between what is and what they think there is. Imagined reality is being set as an ideal, and actual reality is being dismissed as an illusion. Len Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 23, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/22/2006 7:13:12 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Sat, 22 Apr 2006 11:30:01 -0000 > " billrishel " <illusyn > Re: The Present & Looking Backwards.. > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > wrote: > > > > Yes, Big, > > > > Even looking backwards happens in the present. > > > > The interesting thing maybe to add is that data processed in the > > brain need about 200-400 msecs to get conscious. And therefore we > > never really are in the present. > > > > What we see as " present " is just the subjectivity of consciousness " > > and let me remind that Nit said consciousness is just a fever. > Which > > means the present is just a fever. > > > > Werner > > Let's take a look at that. > " We never really are in the present. " > What does that actually mean, thinking it through? > > Does it mean: " Being totally present, " is a joke? > > Bill > > > > Being totally present isn't possible, but not because of perceptual delays. > Or maybe more accurately, if we ever were totally present, we wouldn't know > it, and so couldn't talk about the 'experience'. There would be no experience > of the 'event'. Sounds like speculation. The fact that thought doesn´t disturb perception doesn´t mean that we don´t know what is. It is only very hard to transmit what is, later, while using thoughts. Because this perception isn´t translatable into language, that´s all. Len Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 23, 2006 Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 4/22/2006 7:13:12 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > Sat, 22 Apr 2006 11:22:11 -0000 > > " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > > Re: The Present & Looking Backwards > > > > Yes, Big, > > > > Even looking backwards happens in the present. > > > > The interesting thing maybe to add is that data processed in the > > brain need about 200-400 msecs to get conscious. And therefore we > > never really are in the present. > > > > What we see as " present " is just the subjectivity of > consciousness " > > and let me remind that Nit said consciousness is just a fever. > Which > > means the present is just a fever. > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > Well, but what you see as a perceptual lag presumes there's an > objective > > reality that's being perceived after the 'fact'. As you say, this > supposed > > objective reality, along with the supposed perceptual delay, is > all actually > > subjective. The delay doesn't cause one to be pulled out of the > present, the idea > > of such things is just another event in the movie. > > > > That´s it. > People don´t see the difference between what is and what they think > there is. But you do see it, right ? Werner > Imagined reality is being set as an ideal, and actual > reality is being dismissed as an illusion. > > Len > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 23, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/22/2006 9:14:18 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Sat, 22 Apr 2006 14:13:04 -0000 > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 > Re: The Present & Looking Backwards.. > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > wrote: > > > > Don't say no, Len, > > > > Just ask tennis players. They will tell you that they are training > > not to use conscioiousness to react to the approaching ball - > their > > brain learns to react without consciously seeing the ball. > > > > Because consciousness is always to late the same also is with > boxers > > or soccer keepers, etc. > > > > Werner > > > I have no idea what you mean with consciousness, but there is > obviously something which isn´t too late. > But please tell me, what is it that you are too late for? > > Len > > > > For an imaginary present. Now ain't that a kick in the synaptic gap? Yes, I wonder what does he need this concept for? Len Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 23, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/22/2006 6:36:27 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Sat, 22 Apr 2006 22:46:34 -0000 > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 > Re: The Present & Looking Backwards.. > > Nisargadatta , " bigwaaba " <bigwaaba@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Len, > > > > > > > > NoOne is to late. But if you say " I am consciousness " then you > > are > > > > always to late. > > > > > > > > > Then I have to repeat myself: > > > Too late for what? > > > > > > len > > > > > > > > " To forget this illusion is the sole means to > > kill the mind and remain as Bliss. > > Though Shiva, Vishnu, or > > Brahman Himself should instruct you, realisation is not > > possible without this one means. > > Without forgetting > > everything, fixity as the Self is impossible. Therefore > > altogether forget everything. " > > > > -- Advaita bodha Deepika > > > > Nothing is more doomed to fail then trying to forget anything on > purpose ;-) > > Len > > > > Well, I'd put a few more things in that same category of futility. Trying to > not think, trying to surrender, trying to accept, trying to believe, trying > to be effortless, trying to be desireless, trying to be egoless, trying to be > spiritual, trying to be enlightened, trying to be...... In other words: effort. Len Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 23, 2006 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 4/22/2006 7:13:12 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > > > Sat, 22 Apr 2006 11:22:11 -0000 > > > " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > > > Re: The Present & Looking Backwards > > > > > > Yes, Big, > > > > > > Even looking backwards happens in the present. > > > > > > The interesting thing maybe to add is that data processed in the > > > brain need about 200-400 msecs to get conscious. And therefore > we > > > never really are in the present. > > > > > > What we see as " present " is just the subjectivity of > > consciousness " > > > and let me remind that Nit said consciousness is just a fever. > > Which > > > means the present is just a fever. > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, but what you see as a perceptual lag presumes there's an > > objective > > > reality that's being perceived after the 'fact'. As you say, this > > supposed > > > objective reality, along with the supposed perceptual delay, is > > all actually > > > subjective. The delay doesn't cause one to be pulled out of the > > present, the idea > > > of such things is just another event in the movie. > > > > > > > > That´s it. > > People don´t see the difference between what is and what they think > > there is. > > But you do see it, right ? > > Werner Right. Len > > Imagined reality is being set as an ideal, and actual > > reality is being dismissed as an illusion. > > > > Len > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 23, 2006 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > Well, but what you see as a perceptual lag presumes there's an > objective > > reality that's being perceived after the 'fact'. As you say, this > supposed > > objective reality, along with the supposed perceptual delay, is all > actually > > subjective. The delay doesn't cause one to be pulled out of the > present, the idea > > of such things is just another event in the movie. > > Yes, the external world and the internal representer/thinker/perceiver > are not-two, not divisible from each other -- except conceptually. > > Conceptually, everything is assumed divided. > > -- D. > Indeed Dan, This is the plenum out of which the illusory self emerges. This split mind creates a phantom.....a psychological center...that it names 'me'. It lives in gap between the talking voice and the listening voice. Its totality is its own swirling post-its. toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 23, 2006 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > Such concepts have nothing to do with foregoing the use of memory, > which is > > all being present means. > > No need to forego memory. > > Do you think memory occurs somewhere outside of the present? > > Maybe memory occurs within a memory of a memory within a memory, ad > infinitum. > > Or maybe not. > > ;-) > The entire movie is memory. toombaru > -- D. > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 23, 2006 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > > > Well, but what you see as a perceptual lag presumes there's an > > objective > > > reality that's being perceived after the 'fact'. As you say, this > > supposed > > > objective reality, along with the supposed perceptual delay, is all > > actually > > > subjective. The delay doesn't cause one to be pulled out of the > > present, the idea > > > of such things is just another event in the movie. > > > > Yes, the external world and the internal representer/thinker/perceiver > > are not-two, not divisible from each other -- except conceptually. > > > > Conceptually, everything is assumed divided. > > > > -- D. > > > > > > > Indeed Dan, > > > This is the plenum out of which the illusory self emerges. > > This split mind creates a phantom.....a psychological center...that it > names 'me'. > > It lives in gap between the talking voice and the listening voice. > > Its totality is its own swirling post-its.> > > > toombaru Here made joyfully self-evident in the above. Available in vibrant Spring colours and fashions at: The Gap..... ......bob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 23, 2006 > > > > > > That´s it. > > > People don´t see the difference between what is and what they > think > > > there is. > > Within the conceptual mind.....there is no difference. toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 23, 2006 Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 4/22/2006 7:13:12 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > Sat, 22 Apr 2006 11:30:01 -0000 > > " billrishel " <illusyn@> > > Re: The Present & Looking Backwards.. > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Yes, Big, > > > > > > Even looking backwards happens in the present. > > > > > > The interesting thing maybe to add is that data processed in > the > > > brain need about 200-400 msecs to get conscious. And therefore > we > > > never really are in the present. > > > > > > What we see as " present " is just the subjectivity of > consciousness " > > > and let me remind that Nit said consciousness is just a fever. > > Which > > > means the present is just a fever. > > > > > > Werner > > > > Let's take a look at that. > > " We never really are in the present. " > > What does that actually mean, thinking it through? > > > > Does it mean: " Being totally present, " is a joke? > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > Being totally present isn't possible, but not because of > perceptual delays. > > Or maybe more accurately, if we ever were totally present, we > wouldn't know > > it, and so couldn't talk about the 'experience'. There would be > no experience > > of the 'event'. > > > > Sounds like speculation. The fact that thought doesn´t disturb > perception doesn´t mean that we don´t know what is. It is only very > hard to transmit what is, later, while using thoughts. Because this > perception isn´t translatable into language, that´s all. > > Len > 'Reality' is a concept. The conceptual mind searches within its own concepts for answere to questions about its own concepts. The content of consciousness is searching within the content of consciousness for consciousness itself. This is impossible to see from inside of the dynamic of the dream. This is the 'Understanding' that breaks the somnambulistic trance. It does not happen to 'individuals'. The individual cannot bring it about. IT will smile on you .........or not........... but don't hold your breath. toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 23, 2006 Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 4/22/2006 9:14:18 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > Sat, 22 Apr 2006 14:13:04 -0000 > > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > > Re: The Present & Looking Backwards.. > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Don't say no, Len, > > > > > > Just ask tennis players. They will tell you that they are > training > > > not to use conscioiousness to react to the approaching ball - > > their > > > brain learns to react without consciously seeing the ball. > > > > > > Because consciousness is always to late the same also is with > > boxers > > > or soccer keepers, etc. > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > I have no idea what you mean with consciousness, but there is > > obviously something which isn´t too late. > > But please tell me, what is it that you are too late for? > > > > Len > > > > > > > > For an imaginary present. Now ain't that a kick in the synaptic > gap? > > > > Yes, I wonder what does he need this concept for? > > Len > There you go again......assuming that there is a 'he' somehow separate from its concepts. toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 23, 2006 In a message dated 4/23/2006 4:45:56 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 09:38:47 -0000 " dan330033 " <dan330033 Re: The Present Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > Well, but what you see as a perceptual lag presumes there's an objective > reality that's being perceived after the 'fact'. As you say, this supposed > objective reality, along with the supposed perceptual delay, is all actually > subjective. The delay doesn't cause one to be pulled out of the present, the idea > of such things is just another event in the movie. Yes, the external world and the internal representer/thinker/perceiver are not-two, not divisible from each other -- except conceptually. Conceptually, everything is assumed divided. -- D. Yes, and this is what makes 'scientific objectivity' so very funny when brought into a spiritual context. That which 'discovers' such objective truths is itself the subjective creator of those 'truths'. The evolution of science is actually the apparent evolution of awareness reflected in the dreamscape of consciousness. There was never anything to 'discover'. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 23, 2006 In a message dated 4/23/2006 4:45:56 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 09:45:38 -0000 " dan330033 " <dan330033 Re: The Present Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > Such concepts have nothing to do with foregoing the use of memory, which is > all being present means. No need to forego memory. Do you think memory occurs somewhere outside of the present? Maybe memory occurs within a memory of a memory within a memory, ad infinitum. Or maybe not. ;-) -- D. Lordy, lets hope not. ~ Of course, the focus on memory occurs in the present, since there is only the present, but it's a mental reconstruction, and isn't the idea to avoid such mentations as much as possible? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 23, 2006 In a message dated 4/23/2006 4:45:56 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 11:38:19 -0000 " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 Re: The Present Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/22/2006 7:13:12 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Sat, 22 Apr 2006 11:30:01 -0000 > " billrishel " <illusyn > Re: The Present & Looking Backwards.. > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > wrote: > > > > Yes, Big, > > > > Even looking backwards happens in the present. > > > > The interesting thing maybe to add is that data processed in the > > brain need about 200-400 msecs to get conscious. And therefore we > > never really are in the present. > > > > What we see as " present " is just the subjectivity of consciousness " > > and let me remind that Nit said consciousness is just a fever. > Which > > means the present is just a fever. > > > > Werner > > Let's take a look at that. > " We never really are in the present. " > What does that actually mean, thinking it through? > > Does it mean: " Being totally present, " is a joke? > > Bill > > > > Being totally present isn't possible, but not because of perceptual delays. > Or maybe more accurately, if we ever were totally present, we wouldn't know > it, and so couldn't talk about the 'experience'. There would be no experience > of the 'event'. Sounds like speculation. The fact that thought doesn´t disturb perception doesn´t mean that we don´t know what is. It is only very hard to transmit what is, later, while using thoughts. Because this perception isn´t translatable into language, that´s all. Len Yes, of course it's speculation. I'm speculating that to be totally present is to not experience and so it couldn't be my experience that this is so. Thought not only disturbs perception, it IS perception and therefore is the creation of it. Perception is of the mind. " What is " is not a perception. It looks like you're talking about what we've been calling 'direct perception', which basically doesn't involve the mind. However, this 'knowing' has no meaning and is not even 'known' to exist unless there is mind involvement. First, it must conceptualize this 'knowing', which means it already ceases to be a knowing but is now a mental translation of this knowing. The concept is then stored in memory for later recall, which is all that makes it an experience. It's my 'speculation' that this is how it must be when Wholeness is perceived in parts. If wholeness is known in it's Totality, such conceptualization is not needed at all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
