Guest guest Report post Posted April 26, 2006 In a message dated 4/25/2006 4:40:18 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 22:55:57 -0000 " dan330033 " <dan330033 Re: The Present Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > And in that way, all beliefs are limiters; concepts only which are never > actual awareness but only boundaries placed on awareness. Unless such ideas are > verified beyond the conceptual mind, they only serve to shackle by being > placed in the service of the ego that mistakes resistance to what is, for true > understanding. I could be mistaken, but it always seems to me I'm meeting > Buddhas on the 'road' who need to be killed, but I'm too busy trying to kill my > own. > > Phil You and your buddhas die in the same instant, which is now. This means that the death of them and you is inevitable, because it is so, now -- and by postponing the inevitable, one necessarily retreats into a wish that is trying to be held by a desire, ad infinitum - a regression into an endless past that has no place to be located. -- D. I didn't say it wasn't a stupidhead thing to do, just reporting on what's happening. ~ Phil Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 26, 2006 In a message dated 4/25/2006 4:40:18 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 22:58:05 -0000 " dan330033 " <dan330033 Re: The Present Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/24/2006 1:56:53 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Mon, 24 Apr 2006 20:07:12 -0000 > " dan330033 " <dan330033 > Re: The Present > > --- In Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > All effort is medicine for a disease that does not exist. > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > Is that why I can't get my insurance company to pick up the tab? > > > > Phil > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > Let's start an insurance company to pay people for damages due to > results of behavior " in which volition was assumed. " > > The cost of the insurance will be $2,000,000,000 per year, which > should be enough to cover the average amount of damage to the average > person. > > -- D. > > > > That sounds reasonable. If we then made the insurance mandatory, it might > stop all the lawsuits. > > Phil Or, it could lead to endless lawsuits and countersuits -- all with the motive to pay off this year's installment of the mandatory insurance! -- D. Hehe. True..... And the beat goes on. Phil Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 26, 2006 In a message dated 4/25/2006 4:40:18 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 23:05:23 -0000 " dan330033 " <dan330033 Re: The Present Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/24/2006 1:56:53 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Mon, 24 Apr 2006 20:12:50 -0000 > " dan330033 " <dan330033 > Re: The Present > > --- In Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 4/23/2006 9:21:50 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > Mon, 24 Apr 2006 00:16:39 EDT > > epston@ > > Re: The Present > > > > In a message dated 4/23/2006 9:03:45 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > > ADHHUB@ > > writes: > > > > > > > > Sure. Was just discussing with Dan whether 'being present' > involves memory > > > > > or not.......That's all. > > > > > L.E: Sure memory exists in the present it is just free from the > emotional > > charge that keep us from being in the present. > > > > > > > > In my experience, it's not just emotional charge that keeps us from > being in > > the present, unless you label all mental activity as emotional > charge. The > > thought of a past event, or a future projection, whether positive, > negative or > > neutral, will keep you out of the present and locked in thought. > Even the > > simple mental labeling of what is perceived, which is a memory > process, will > > keep you out of the present. > > > > Phil > > Then you are talking about a present that has an outside to it, and > believe you exist separately from it, to be able not to be in it. > > -- D. > > > > Well, I don't know that that's how I see the description, although it's true > I see myself as physically separate from what I perceive. That's an interesting one to look into deeply. Where *exactly* is the boundary between the observer and the observed, the perceiver and the perceived? -- D. Okey dokey. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 28, 2006 In a message dated 4/26/2006 7:10:18 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 12:46:46 -0000 " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 Re: The Present Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/25/2006 2:54:06 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Tue, 25 Apr 2006 16:51:58 -0000 > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 > Re: The Present > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > Perhaps I'm projecting my own inclinations by assuming that one > who explores > > unconscious ego structures, whether through thought or intuition, > is > > inclined toward intellect. > > > > Yes, awareness occurs beyond mind, including awareness of > unconscious ego > > structure. > > > > Phil > > > > OK, we´re moving again. So it is possible to see the whole thought > process creating the illusion of the entity " me " , all together with > body sensations/emotions, triggered by the reactions of " me " . > In this observation, if done to the end, the ego and emotions > collapse. > > > > Phil:Okay, I'll 'look'. > The bodily part of observation is initially not easy, because we > aren´t used to it, but in my case, this observation mostly dissolves > the reaction and it´s trigger: thought. It is important to watch the > body sensation and not to focus on the label which thought gives to > the reaction. The name we give to the reaction doesn´t matter, only > > the bodily structure of it. > > Len > > > > > Phil: I'm not clear about this " bodily part " . Are you talking about feeling > arising in the body out of conflict? This is where we got sidetracked before. > Does the negative feeling have to be there for this exploration? No, there are always body sensations which can be observed. However, when you feel relaxed, no tension, this observation comes down to simply enjoying it and letting it be. No suppression, no avoidance takes place, the things simply are as they are and it´s OK, everything is flowing. The interesting point to observe is, when the awareness of body reactions is avoided because of the negative label which thought puts on it. There you have a big deal of unexplored, suppressed body stuff, there you have blind spots. So called negative emotions, any kind of frustration are immediately being labelled by thought, and avoided. This is how fear works. The exploration of negatively labelled sensations dissolves fear attached to them, so that self- defence at this particular area becomes superfluous. Every fear reaction, explored, both: mentally and bodily, dissolves, which means that a part of defence system is gone. It may even cause the whole thing to stop spinning round for some time. What we call emotions are in fact reactions/resistances. When negatively labelled and therefore avoided and unexplored, they remain intact or even strenghten. When explored, they dissolve. They aren´t necessarily very strong, they strenght depends on the intensity of resistance and the degree to which one is aware of them. But even very subtle " negative " reactions can be observed. The hypothesis is, that it is because the awareness of the bodily part of resistance is lacking, that ego defences remain, even if the observation of the mental movement is there. This is certainly true in my case. I´d be interested to hear about your observations. Len Hmmm, well, my experience is that resistive body tension is the first indicator of unconscious conflict. (If it's conscious, there is both body tension and mental tension present) A quick check of the body reveals the tension. Typically, this tension is released naturally through crying or putting one's fist through the wall or whatever, but as long as the unconscious process is not fully revealed, the tension returns when triggered in a similar way. When the unconscious thought pattern that created the physical tension is 'seen' it dissolves completely, as we've talked about. There is one exception that I observed, which I mentioned before. Through some energetic work, I was able to bring feeling to the surface with it's attendant bodily discomfort. It's very odd to watch the discomfort grow without any apparent thought process occurring. If at this point, it can simply be surrendered, it dissolves, apparently along with the unconscious mental process which was never consciously attached to the feeling. This requires a deep level of surrender but is very efficient. Phil Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 28, 2006 In a message dated 4/26/2006 10:06:04 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 14:25:29 -0000 " billrishel " <illusyn Re: :The Present Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/25/2006 2:54:06 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Tue, 25 Apr 2006 21:05:17 -0000 > " billrishel " <illusyn > Re: The Present > > --- In 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'. > > > > the Now is not an experience > > > Bill > > > > How could you know that? It couldn't be your experience that this is so. > > Phil there is a difference between experiencing and *an* experience. " an experience " entails ownership... experiencing does not necessarily entail a sequence of owned experiences... the Now is experiencing which is not broken up into little parcels of particular experiences... when there are those little parcels, that is " residue " ... the Now leaves no residue... nothing to feed upon itself so the Now remains open for whatever is *now*... could say the Now is " unconditional " as it does not place conditions on what is... Bill I don't see that. Experience presupposes an experiencer, whether it is an experience or 'experiencing'. Both also involve memory. The only way you are able to recall experiencing is by recalling it from memory. Memory is the source and substance of temporal illusion, and therefore denies the possibility of this pure being totally present in the now. If there is memory, it is memory of an event, and the mind has indeed broken it up into parcels of quality and relationship. This isn't a problem, but it is an experience. The mental corollary is a knowing vs a concept. A knowing retains it's 'quality' of truth only as long as it isn't conceptualized, but unless this is done, it can't be thought or spoken about. Once it is conceptualized, it is no longer a knowing. Mind has distorted the purity of knowing just as it did the purity of being in the now. This is what mind does when it encounters what is. Phil Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 28, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/26/2006 10:06:04 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Wed, 26 Apr 2006 14:25:29 -0000 > " billrishel " <illusyn > Re: :The Present > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 4/25/2006 2:54:06 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > Tue, 25 Apr 2006 21:05:17 -0000 > > " billrishel " <illusyn@> > > Re: The Present > > > > --- In 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'. > > > > > > > the Now is not an experience > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > How could you know that? It couldn't be your experience that this is > so. > > > > Phil > > there is a difference between experiencing and *an* experience. > > " an experience " entails ownership... > > experiencing does not necessarily entail a sequence of owned > experiences... > > the Now is experiencing which is not broken up into little > parcels of particular experiences... > > when there are those little parcels, that is " residue " ... > > the Now leaves no residue... nothing to feed upon itself > > so the Now remains open for whatever is *now*... > could say the Now is " unconditional " as it does not place > conditions on what is... > > > Bill > > > > I don't see that. Experience presupposes an experiencer, whether it is an > experience or 'experiencing'. Both also involve memory. The only way you are > able to recall experiencing is by recalling it from memory. Memory is the source > and substance of temporal illusion, and therefore denies the possibility of > this pure being totally present in the now. > > If there is memory, it is memory of an event, and the mind has indeed broken > it up into parcels of quality and relationship. This isn't a problem, but it > is an experience. > > The mental corollary is a knowing vs a concept. A knowing retains it's > 'quality' of truth only as long as it isn't conceptualized, but unless this is > done, it can't be thought or spoken about. Once it is conceptualized, it is no > longer a knowing. Mind has distorted the purity of knowing just as it did the > purity of being in the now. This is what mind does when it encounters what is. > > Phil > In your view can there be consciousness without an " experiencer " ? For a one day old baby is there an experiencer? Bill Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 28, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/26/2006 7:10:18 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Wed, 26 Apr 2006 12:46:46 -0000 > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 > Re: The Present > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 4/25/2006 2:54:06 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > Tue, 25 Apr 2006 16:51:58 -0000 > > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > > Re: The Present > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > Perhaps I'm projecting my own inclinations by assuming that one > > who explores > > > unconscious ego structures, whether through thought or > intuition, > > is > > > inclined toward intellect. > > > > > > Yes, awareness occurs beyond mind, including awareness of > > unconscious ego > > > structure. > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > > > OK, we´re moving again. So it is possible to see the whole > thought > > process creating the illusion of the entity " me " , all together > with > > body sensations/emotions, triggered by the reactions of " me " . > > In this observation, if done to the end, the ego and emotions > > collapse. > > > > > > > > Phil:Okay, I'll 'look'. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The bodily part of observation is initially not easy, because we > > aren´t used to it, but in my case, this observation mostly > dissolves > > the reaction and it´s trigger: thought. It is important to watch > the > > body sensation and not to focus on the label which thought gives > to > > the reaction. The name we give to the reaction doesn´t matter, > only > > > > the bodily structure of it. > > > > Len > > > > > > > > > > Phil: I'm not clear about this " bodily part " . Are you talking > about feeling > > arising in the body out of conflict? This is where we got > sidetracked before. > > Does the negative feeling have to be there for this exploration? > > > > > No, there are always body sensations which can be observed. > However, when you feel relaxed, no tension, this observation comes > down to simply enjoying it and letting it be. No suppression, no > avoidance takes place, the things simply are as they are and it´s > OK, everything is flowing. > The interesting point to observe is, when the awareness of body > reactions is avoided because of the negative label which thought > puts on it. There you have a big deal of unexplored, suppressed body > stuff, there you have blind spots. So called negative emotions, any > kind of frustration are immediately being labelled by thought, and > avoided. This is how fear works. The exploration of negatively > labelled sensations dissolves fear attached to them, so that self- > defence at this particular area becomes superfluous. Every fear > reaction, explored, both: mentally and bodily, dissolves, which > means that a part of defence system is gone. It may even cause the > whole thing to stop spinning round for some time. > What we call emotions are in fact reactions/resistances. When > negatively labelled and therefore avoided and unexplored, they > remain intact or even strenghten. When explored, they dissolve. They > aren´t necessarily very strong, they strenght depends on the > intensity of resistance and the degree to which one is aware of > them. But even very subtle " negative " reactions can be observed. > The hypothesis is, that it is because the awareness of the bodily > part of resistance is lacking, that ego defences remain, even if the > observation of the mental movement is there. This is certainly true > in my case. > I´d be interested to hear about your observations. > > Len > > > > Hmmm, well, my experience is that resistive body tension is the first > indicator of unconscious conflict. (If it's conscious, there is both body tension > and mental tension present) A quick check of the body reveals the tension. > Typically, this tension is released naturally through crying or putting one's > fist through the wall or whatever, but as long as the unconscious process is > not fully revealed, the tension returns when triggered in a similar way. When > the unconscious thought pattern that created the physical tension is 'seen' it > dissolves completely, as we've talked about. > > There is one exception that I observed, which I mentioned before. Through > some energetic work, I was able to bring feeling to the surface with it's > attendant bodily discomfort. It's very odd to watch the discomfort grow without > any apparent thought process occurring. If at this point, it can simply be > surrendered, it dissolves, apparently along with the unconscious mental process > which was never consciously attached to the feeling. This requires a deep level > of surrender but is very efficient. > > Phil What kind of energetic work? Len Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 29, 2006 In a message dated 4/28/2006 7:26:49 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 11:03:06 -0000 " billrishel " <illusyn Re: The Present Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/26/2006 10:06:04 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Wed, 26 Apr 2006 14:25:29 -0000 > " billrishel " <illusyn > Re: :The Present > > --- In Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 4/25/2006 2:54:06 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > Tue, 25 Apr 2006 21:05:17 -0000 > > " billrishel " <illusyn@> > > Re: The Present > > > > --- In 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'. > > > > > > > the Now is not an experience > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > How could you know that? It couldn't be your experience that this is > so. > > > > Phil > > there is a difference between experiencing and *an* experience. > > " an experience " entails ownership... > > experiencing does not necessarily entail a sequence of owned > experiences... > > the Now is experiencing which is not broken up into little > parcels of particular experiences... > > when there are those little parcels, that is " residue " ... > > the Now leaves no residue... nothing to feed upon itself > > so the Now remains open for whatever is *now*... > could say the Now is " unconditional " as it does not place > conditions on what is... > > > Bill > > > > I don't see that. Experience presupposes an experiencer, whether it is an > experience or 'experiencing'. Both also involve memory. The only way you are > able to recall experiencing is by recalling it from memory. Memory is the source > and substance of temporal illusion, and therefore denies the possibility of > this pure being totally present in the now. > > If there is memory, it is memory of an event, and the mind has indeed broken > it up into parcels of quality and relationship. This isn't a problem, but it > is an experience. > > The mental corollary is a knowing vs a concept. A knowing retains it's > 'quality' of truth only as long as it isn't conceptualized, but unless this is > done, it can't be thought or spoken about. Once it is conceptualized, it is no > longer a knowing. Mind has distorted the purity of knowing just as it did the > purity of being in the now. This is what mind does when it encounters what is. > > Phil > In your view can there be consciousness without an " experiencer " ? For a one day old baby is there an experiencer? Bill Of course, there is just no recorded history of any 'events' having occurred. (experience) Hence, you do not recall your first day of life. Such an event! And yet, no recall. Phil Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 29, 2006 <snip> > > In your view can there be consciousness without an " experiencer " ? > > For a one day old baby is there an experiencer? > > Bill > > > > Of course, there is just no recorded history of any 'events' having > occurred. (experience) Hence, you do not recall your first day of life. Such an > event! And yet, no recall. > > Phil Then your notion of " experiencer " is different from mine. Per your notion there is always an experiencer *by definition*. Per my view the experiencer is an invented entity. It is a reification, something noun'd in an attempt to provide explanation. The actual movement of mind is not so orderly and coherent as imagined. It can seem there is a coherent entity *behind* the activity of mind. Some are convinced there *must* be such an entity, others (myself included) do not agree and consider it an invention of thought. Krishnamurti: " There is no entity separate from craving; there is only craving, there is no one who craves. " Nisargadatta: M: Obviously, every thing experienced is an experience. And in every experience there arises the experiencer of it. Memory creates the illusion of continuity. In reality each experience has its own experiencer and the sense of identity is due to the common factor at the root of all experiencer-experience relations. Identity and continuity are not the same. Krishnamurti and Nisargadatta seem to contradict, though I see them as essentially saying the same thing. Which brings forward an important point: truth is not about statements. Whether the statement: " There is an experiencer " is true or not isn't and can't be it. It depends on context. It depends on the intent of the one speaking it. Getting back to what you were saying earlier, then: << Experience presupposes an experiencer, whether it is an experience or 'experiencing'. Both also involve memory. The only way you are able to recall experiencing is by recalling it from memory. Memory is the source and substance of temporal illusion, and therefore denies the possibility of this pure being totally present in the now. >> What is your basis for saying the above? Perhaps that describes your experience, or at least seems to. But how can you know it pertains to any experience by anyone? << If there is memory, it is memory of an event, and the mind has indeed broken it up into parcels of quality and relationship. This isn't a problem, but it is an experience. >> So you are saying that a two-hour car trip during which there is no thought, no isolation of anything, is an event? If the memory is quite diffuse, an unbroken blur, then to describe it as broken up into parcels of quality and relationship does not fit. Consider again a passage from Krishnamurti's Notebook: " Woke up in the middle of the night, with a sense of immense and measureless strength. It was not the strength that will or desire has put together but the strength that is there in a river, in a mountain, in a tree. It is in man when every form of desire and will have completely ceased. It has no value, has no profit to a human being, but without it the human being is not, nor the tree. The action of man is choice and will and in such action there is contradiction and conflict and so sorrow. All such action has a cause, a motive and hence it is reaction. Action of this strength has no cause, no motive and therefore is immeasurable and the essence. " That he is describing that means he remembers it. To you that is *an experience*. OK, but then we must distinguish the kind of open, free kind of experience such as K describes here and the other more common sort. There *is* a difference. He makes the distinction by saying that such an experience as he describes here " leaves no residue " . " Residue " is not the same as memory per se. As he uses the term residue means there is something unfinished, incomplete. There *is* experience that is open and unbounded. That not everyone knows such experience does not mean it happens for no one. The mental corollary is a knowing vs a concept. A knowing retains it's 'quality' of truth only as long as it isn't conceptualized, but unless this is done, it can't be thought or spoken about. Once it is conceptualized, it is no longer a knowing. Mind has distorted the purity of knowing just as it did the purity of being in the now. This is what mind does when it encounters what is. What Is is always available, but always hidden to mind. It is in simple openness, fragile vulnerability, that What Is is revealed. What Is cannot be *known*, but What Is *is* a knowing of a different order. It is a knowing without an object. Bill Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 30, 2006 In a message dated 4/29/2006 3:56:39 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Sat, 29 Apr 2006 10:56:05 -0000 " billrishel " <illusyn Re: The Present <snip> > > In your view can there be consciousness without an " experiencer " ? > > For a one day old baby is there an experiencer? > > Bill > > > > Of course, there is just no recorded history of any 'events' having > occurred. (experience) Hence, you do not recall your first day of life. Such an > event! And yet, no recall. > > Phil Then your notion of " experiencer " is different from mine. Per your notion there is always an experiencer *by definition*. Per my view the experiencer is an invented entity. It is a reification, something noun'd in an attempt to provide explanation. The actual movement of mind is not so orderly and coherent as imagined. It can seem there is a coherent entity *behind* the activity of mind. Some are convinced there *must* be such an entity, others (myself included) do not agree and consider it an invention of thought. Krishnamurti: " There is no entity separate from craving; there is only craving, there is no one who craves. " Nisargadatta: M: Obviously, every thing experienced is an experience. And in every experience there arises the experiencer of it. Memory creates the illusion of continuity. In reality each experience has its own experiencer and the sense of identity is due to the common factor at the root of all experiencer-experience relations. Identity and continuity are not the same. Krishnamurti and Nisargadatta seem to contradict, though I see them as essentially saying the same thing. Which brings forward an important point: truth is not about statements. Whether the statement: " There is an experiencer " is true or not isn't and can't be it. It depends on context. It depends on the intent of the one speaking it. Getting back to what you were saying earlier, then: << Experience presupposes an experiencer, whether it is an experience or 'experiencing'. Both also involve memory. The only way you are able to recall experiencing is by recalling it from memory. Memory is the source and substance of temporal illusion, and therefore denies the possibility of this pure being totally present in the now. >> What is your basis for saying the above? Perhaps that describes your experience, or at least seems to. But how can you know it pertains to any experience by anyone? << If there is memory, it is memory of an event, and the mind has indeed broken it up into parcels of quality and relationship. This isn't a problem, but it is an experience. >> So you are saying that a two-hour car trip during which there is no thought, no isolation of anything, is an event? If the memory is quite diffuse, an unbroken blur, then to describe it as broken up into parcels of quality and relationship does not fit. Consider again a passage from Krishnamurti's Notebook: " Woke up in the middle of the night, with a sense of immense and measureless strength. It was not the strength that will or desire has put together but the strength that is there in a river, in a mountain, in a tree. It is in man when every form of desire and will have completely ceased. It has no value, has no profit to a human being, but without it the human being is not, nor the tree. The action of man is choice and will and in such action there is contradiction and conflict and so sorrow. All such action has a cause, a motive and hence it is reaction. Action of this strength has no cause, no motive and therefore is immeasurable and the essence. " That he is describing that means he remembers it. To you that is *an experience*. OK, but then we must distinguish the kind of open, free kind of experience such as K describes here and the other more common sort. There *is* a difference. He makes the distinction by saying that such an experience as he describes here " leaves no residue " . " Residue " is not the same as memory per se. As he uses the term residue means there is something unfinished, incomplete. There *is* experience that is open and unbounded. That not everyone knows such experience does not mean it happens for no one. The mental corollary is a knowing vs a concept. A knowing retains it's 'quality' of truth only as long as it isn't conceptualized, but unless this is done, it can't be thought or spoken about. Once it is conceptualized, it is no longer a knowing. Mind has distorted the purity of knowing just as it did the purity of being in the now. This is what mind does when it encounters what is. What Is is always available, but always hidden to mind. It is in simple openness, fragile vulnerability, that What Is is revealed. What Is cannot be *known*, but What Is *is* a knowing of a different order. It is a knowing without an object. Bill Yes, I don't think there's fundamental disagreement here. Experience presupposes an experiencer. K, above, rightly calls the experiencer an illusion. Experience happens, and if it is known to have happened, it has been stored in memory. The crux seems to not relate to whether or not it qualifies as an experience. I agree that there are very different types of experience. I've had experiences which I can recall as having occurred, such recollection bring along a delightful feeling content, and yet there are no physical events, images or words associated with these experiences. They literally cannot be talked about because there is nothing at all to say, except perhaps describing the feeling that recalling produces. I admit I'm at a loss right now to know what sort of memory it is that contains no event, no image, no concept. Possibly, the " sense " that K talks about. P Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
