Guest guest Report post Posted April 23, 2006 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 L.E: But thinking does disturb perception. That's why thinking must stop for accurate perception to occur. Actuallly, we do this all the time, within time. Thinking goes on and off and direct perception occurs in the intervals. Perhaps for some, the intervals are very small, and for others like Bill as artist, and me, the intervals are very long, especially when making art. When thinking stops we are in the here and now, but just don't consciously acknowledge it, by putting a name to it. The here and now is just the recognition of the present, the moment where the real resides so to speak. For those who place their identity in their thinking, this may all be difficult to experience or even acknowledge. 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 4/23/2006 1:21:18 PM Pacific Daylight Time, ADHHUB writes: > 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. > > L.,E: Those who do, and can, are living in the present, the here and now > and are not speculating; they are relating their experience in limited words. > Thought IS NOT perception, as I said, thought interferes or limits or > traslates or re-interprets perception. Wholeness being known in its Totality is a > different but related issue. In this state or condition, there is no conceptualization, just pure Being or Life Itself, Infinity, the All Beyond, the Nameless. Just think, " everything is made of stardust " and perhaps you will experience or become, IT. If that doesn't work, try, " empty space is almost everything " after all, Niz trusted his teacher and concentrated on the nature of I AM, and that is all, and as he said, " I realized. " So can you, but you must go beyond thinking and your precious ideas. Outside of yourself is EVERYTHING ELSE. Become that instead of the small point of self and see what happens. 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 4/23/2006 3:24:06 PM Pacific Daylight Time, lissbon2002 writes: > >>L.,E: Those who do, and can, are living in the present, the > here and now > >>and are not speculating; they are relating their experience in > limited words. > >>Thought IS NOT perception, as I said, thought interferes or > limits or > >>traslates or re-interprets perception. Wholeness being known in > its Totality is a > >>different but related issue. > >In this state or condition, there is no conceptualization, just > pure Being or > >Life Itself, Infinity, the All Beyond, the Nameless. Just think, > > " everything is made of stardust " and perhaps you will experience > or become, IT. If that > >doesn't work, try, " empty space is almost everything " after all, > Niz trusted > >his teacher and concentrated on the nature of I AM, and that is > all, and as > >he said, " I realized. " So can you, but you must go beyond > thinking and your > >precious ideas. Outside of yourself is EVERYTHING ELSE. Become > that instead of > >the small point of self and see what happens. > > > >Larry Epston > > > Yes, Phil, follow this wise advice and one day you will be like > Larry. > Isn´t it a tempting prospect? > > Len L.E: No, you've got it wrong Len. Phil will be like Phil and Len will be like Len. Your individuality remains intact. Nothing to fear about that. Your resentment and mockery are your own, you know. And also your ill will along with Robby/Silver who seems to have kept his word and left the list as he promised to do if Hur didn't throw me off. Wonder what bothered him so much? Or you. > > 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 3:14:17 PM Pacific Daylight Time, lissbon2002 writes: > > > >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 > > > >L.E: But thinking does disturb perception. That's why thinking > must stop for > >accurate perception to occur. Actuallly, we do this all the time, > within > >time. Thinking goes on and off and direct perception occurs in > the intervals. > >Perhaps for some, the intervals are very small, and for others > like Bill as > >artist, and me, the intervals are very long, especially when > making art. When > >thinking stops we are in the here and now, but just don't > consciously acknowledge > >it, by putting a name to it. The here and now is just the > recognition of the > >present, the moment where the real resides so to speak. > >For those who place their identity in their thinking, this may > all be > >difficult to experience or even acknowledge. > > > >Larry Epston > > > > For those who place their identity in their being an artist, it may > be difficult to acknowledge that their poor head is full of bull. > > Len > > L.E: Is the knowledge that I disagree with you so hard to take that the only > place you can go is into insult? Are you that limited? If I said I was a > carpenter and was good at hitting a nail, would you resent that as bragging? > > 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 12:52:02 PM Pacific Daylight Time, anabebe57 writes: > 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. > L.E: As I wrote, there is no gap between the inside and the outside, it is a continual flow in and out. In that sense, there is no inside and outside. Think of a sun millions of light years away. Today it explodes, at the very same moment you are sneezing. They both happen at the very exact same time but, it takes one million years for the light to reach earth before you can know about it. Simultaneaity!! It's a special consideration. Is there a gap between when it happened and when you sneezed? No, no gap, they both happened simultaneously, so in the sense that you as infinite energy or life are, everywhere at once, there is, and can be no gap between the events. The information takes time to travel, but the events are simultaneous. So when you exist as a limited ego in time, the moment of the explosion will take one million years, but an an infinite being, the totality of life which is our real identity, no time is involved because we are everywhere at once, in the moment. But even in that sense, light from the sun is continually streaming, before and after the event of the explosion, so again, there is no gap. The same thing is true for any distance. Larry Epston 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 4/23/2006 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 7:41:27 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 11:58:37 -0000 " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 Re: The Present 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 Perhaps he is in the business of building conceptual boundaries designed to make infinite possibilities appear limited? Where I come from, this is called 'putting God in a box'. 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 7:41:27 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 12:05:51 -0000 " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 Re: The Present 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: > > > > --- In 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 Zackly. And so it can be said that the effort must always be directed toward the goal of awareness that results in the releasing of effort rather than an attempt to cause the releasing of effort directly. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 24, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > 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? The idea? The ideal? The goal? It slips so easily into our image system, and then, chasing begins. There is nothing to avoid, we just need to recognize things for what they are, this brings all misleading images to their end. While trying to get rid of them only strengthens them. Len Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 24, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > 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. So it´s useless, it´s just an image. Len Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 24, 2006 Nisargadatta , epston wrote: > > 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 > > L.E: But thinking does disturb perception. That's why thinking must stop for > accurate perception to occur. Actuallly, we do this all the time, within > time. Thinking goes on and off and direct perception occurs in the intervals. > Perhaps for some, the intervals are very small, and for others like Bill as > artist, and me, the intervals are very long, especially when making art. When > thinking stops we are in the here and now, but just don't consciously acknowledge > it, by putting a name to it. The here and now is just the recognition of the > present, the moment where the real resides so to speak. > For those who place their identity in their thinking, this may all be > difficult to experience or even acknowledge. > > Larry Epston For those who place their identity in their being an artist, it may be difficult to acknowledge that their poor head is full of bull. Len Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 24, 2006 >In other words: effort. > >Len L.E: Not effort. Effort is needed. It is intention and goals that appear to be the obstacle. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 24, 2006 Nisargadatta , epston wrote: > > In a message dated 4/23/2006 1:21:18 PM Pacific Daylight Time, ADHHUB > writes: > > > 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. > > > > L.,E: Those who do, and can, are living in the present, the here and now > > and are not speculating; they are relating their experience in limited words. > > Thought IS NOT perception, as I said, thought interferes or limits or > > traslates or re-interprets perception. Wholeness being known in its Totality is a > > different but related issue. > In this state or condition, there is no conceptualization, just pure Being or > Life Itself, Infinity, the All Beyond, the Nameless. Just think, > " everything is made of stardust " and perhaps you will experience or become, IT. If that > doesn't work, try, " empty space is almost everything " after all, Niz trusted > his teacher and concentrated on the nature of I AM, and that is all, and as > he said, " I realized. " So can you, but you must go beyond thinking and your > precious ideas. Outside of yourself is EVERYTHING ELSE. Become that instead of > the small point of self and see what happens. > > Larry Epston Yes, Phil, follow this wise advice and one day you will be like Larry. Isn´t it a tempting prospect? Len Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 24, 2006 In a message dated 4/23/2006 4:22:32 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 22:02:05 -0000 " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 Re: The Present Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > 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 > > --- In 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? The idea? The ideal? The goal? It slips so easily into our image system, and then, chasing begins. There is nothing to avoid, we just need to recognize things for what they are, this brings all misleading images to their end. While trying to get rid of them only strengthens them. Len Sure. Was just discussing with Dan whether 'being present' involves memory or not.......That's all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 24, 2006 In a message dated 4/23/2006 4:22:32 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 22:04:10 -0000 " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 Re: The Present Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > 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 > > --- 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'. > > > > 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. So it´s useless, it´s just an image. Len Everything in the mind is an image, Len. Every word written in these posts is a concept that isn't True. Every thought you ever had exists only in the realm of thought. Speculation is no more useless than what passes for knowing in the illusion. Is the monitor you're looking at now real, or is that just speculation? If you believe one answer makes it useful and the other makes it useless, you're going to want to know which it is. It's just another quest to take us down the rabbit hole. How far down the rabbit hole do you wanna go? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 24, 2006 In a message dated 4/23/2006 4:22:32 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 18:05:30 EDT epston Re: The Present 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 L.E: But thinking does disturb perception. That's why thinking must stop for accurate perception to occur. Actuallly, we do this all the time, within time. Thinking goes on and off and direct perception occurs in the intervals. Perhaps for some, the intervals are very small, and for others like Bill as artist, and me, the intervals are very long, especially when making art. When thinking stops we are in the here and now, but just don't consciously acknowledge it, by putting a name to it. The here and now is just the recognition of the present, the moment where the real resides so to speak. For those who place their identity in their thinking, this may all be difficult to experience or even acknowledge. Larry Epston I agree with all that, which is kind of a rare thing, so I thought I'd mention it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 24, 2006 In a message dated 4/23/2006 4:22:32 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 18:16:24 EDT epston Re: The Present In a message dated 4/23/2006 1:21:18 PM Pacific Daylight Time, ADHHUB writes: > 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. > > L.,E: Those who do, and can, are living in the present, the here and now > and are not speculating; they are relating their experience in limited words. > Thought IS NOT perception, as I said, thought interferes or limits or > traslates or re-interprets perception. The speculation was not about being present. I understand what that is experientially and if at all possible, I'd rather avoid having that discussion again about how I should try it. What I was speculating about was being TOTALLY present, which implies no thought at all, which means no memory traces, which means no experience, which means the one who is TOTALLY present cannot even know that he has been. In that way, thought is integral to perception and experience will not occur without it. Mind is what forms experience, as well as the temporal framework in which it appears. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 24, 2006 In a message dated 4/23/2006 4:22:32 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 22:22:52 -0000 " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 Re: The Present Nisargadatta , epston wrote: > > In a message dated 4/23/2006 1:21:18 PM Pacific Daylight Time, ADHHUB > writes: > > > 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. > > > > L.,E: Those who do, and can, are living in the present, the here and now > > and are not speculating; they are relating their experience in limited words. > > Thought IS NOT perception, as I said, thought interferes or limits or > > traslates or re-interprets perception. Wholeness being known in its Totality is a > > different but related issue. > In this state or condition, there is no conceptualization, just pure Being or > Life Itself, Infinity, the All Beyond, the Nameless. Just think, > " everything is made of stardust " and perhaps you will experience or become, IT. If that > doesn't work, try, " empty space is almost everything " after all, Niz trusted > his teacher and concentrated on the nature of I AM, and that is all, and as > he said, " I realized. " So can you, but you must go beyond thinking and your > precious ideas. Outside of yourself is EVERYTHING ELSE. Become that instead of > the small point of self and see what happens. > > Larry Epston Yes, Phil, follow this wise advice and one day you will be like Larry. Isn´t it a tempting prospect? Len Now, now, lets not be too hard on each other. The mind is a tool to help deal with ego's self deceptions and is very useful, but the inclination to follow this path amounts to an identification with thought which means the ultimate release of the basic ego structure itself (mind) becomes more difficult so Larry has a valid point even if he doesn't acknowledge the value of that exploration. On the other hand, to bypass the ego work and accomplish various states of presence in meditation or to even carry that over into 'normal' life to some extent, as wonderful an experience as that is, locks the ego dynamics in place and ego will take possession of such experiences, becoming identified with them rather than thought. So, I see both paths as valid. In our case, the challenge is to release mind. In Larry's case, the challenge is to deal with the unexplored ego structure, so nobody's got a lock on the truth here. However, ultimately, ego is the problem, so I'm glad to be where I am in that process. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 24, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/23/2006 7:41:27 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Sun, 23 Apr 2006 12:05:51 -0000 > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 > Re: The Present > > 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: > > > > > > --- In 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 > > > > Zackly. And so it can be said that the effort must always be directed toward > the goal of awareness that results in the releasing of effort rather than an > attempt to cause the releasing of effort directly. > > All effort is medicine for a disease that does not exist. toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 24, 2006 In a message dated 4/23/2006 9:21:50 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 02:11:13 -0000 " toombaru2006 " <lastrain Re: The Present Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/23/2006 7:41:27 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Sun, 23 Apr 2006 12:05:51 -0000 > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 > Re: The Present > > --- In 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: > > > > > > --- In 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 > > > > Zackly. And so it can be said that the effort must always be directed toward > the goal of awareness that results in the releasing of effort rather than an > attempt to cause the releasing of effort directly. > > 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 24, 2006 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 24, 2006 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain 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 11:30:01 -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 You can inquire deeply, beyond words and ideas, what it is to " be " -- not what it means to be, but what it is to be ... The inquiry is deeply individual ... until there is not an individual. But the inquiry can't be avoided, and its personal nature can't be sidestepped. It is inquiry into one's own being and death. To understand is to know what *is* prior to one's own birth and existence. No such understanding can come without the inquiry into what it is to be ... The inquiry must be of the depth to question the very foundations of the existence that previously was taken as rock-solid: the foundations of pleasure, relationship, fear, self, wanting, holding, getting rid of ... As long as there is clinging to existence or desire for nonexistence, there can't be understanding. And in this sense, the inquiry is deeply personal -- and can't be had from reading what some supposed " sage " said, or by conceptually knowing how to answer questions according to some religion or philosophy. It is known first hand, this unknowing. Not through mediation, and doesn't allow for " embedding " in any reality, personal or impersonal (the supposed " impersonal reality " just ends up being a construction for personal benefit). So, truth, being so deeply impersonal as to not be found in any construction of an impersonal reality, is discovered by the individual taken beyond himself or herself, at the point of crisis and emergency brought about by the deepest inquiry of everything previously taken as " sanity, " " pleasure, " " reality, " and " meaning " . And with resolution, one is back again living day to day as a human being, with the pleasures and pains, relationships, and meanings of everday life. -- Dan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 24, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > 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'. Science requires certain assumptions. With these assumptions in place, it can do its job. It operates well within the defined ballpark based on its limiting assumptions. Science simply cannot give what doesn't hold its assumptions. And this is also true of art, poetry, religion, and spirituality. Each of these human operations can function within the limits of the inherent assumptions, but can't give what doesn't hold those assumptions. One who truly wants to understand fully, will come to a point where any assumption being held is an unnecessary limit. And that one will then come to the point where the inquiring one itself, is an assumption being held. -- Dan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 24, 2006 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> 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 11:30:01 -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 > > You can inquire deeply, beyond words and ideas, what it is to " be " -- > > not what it means to be, but what it is to be ... > > The inquiry is deeply individual ... until there is not an individual. > > But the inquiry can't be avoided, and its personal nature can't be > sidestepped. > > It is inquiry into one's own being and death. > > To understand is to know what *is* prior to one's own birth and existence. > > No such understanding can come without the inquiry into what it is to > be ... > > The inquiry must be of the depth to question the very foundations of > the existence that previously was taken as rock-solid: the foundations > of pleasure, relationship, fear, self, wanting, holding, getting rid > of ... > > As long as there is clinging to existence or desire for nonexistence, > there can't be understanding. > > And in this sense, the inquiry is deeply personal -- and can't be had > from reading what some supposed " sage " said, or by conceptually > knowing how to answer questions according to some religion or philosophy. > > It is known first hand, this unknowing. > > Not through mediation, and doesn't allow for " embedding " in any > reality, personal or impersonal (the supposed " impersonal reality " > just ends up being a construction for personal benefit). > > So, truth, being so deeply impersonal as to not be found in any > construction of an impersonal reality, is discovered by the individual > taken beyond himself or herself, at the point of crisis and emergency > brought about by the deepest inquiry of everything previously taken as > " sanity, " " pleasure, " " reality, " and " meaning " . And with resolution, > one is back again living day to day as a human being, with the > pleasures and pains, relationships, and meanings of everday life. > > -- Dan > Yes. You have to go back the way you came. toombaru (and Ramana) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 24, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > 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? The attempt to avoid a certain kind of mentation is itself requiring of a type of mentation. The intent to gain a certain desired state by avoiding certain mentations, is a self-oriented intent. How can following an intention to get a certain result bring truth - truth which isn't dependent nor following one's intent, which doesn't have a " you " or " me " to revolve around? The chief benefit from trying to follow prescriptions to avoid certain kinds of thought, is to see that such prescriptions fail. There isn't any prescription for truth -- regardless of all of the proclamations, agendas, rituals, practices, to the contrary. And knowing that there is no prescription isn't itself some kind of prescription, doesn't give the truth any more than a prescription does. The truth must be known without mediation, including mediation by thought -- but that doesn't mean that one can't think. Thought has its uses, just as one will put on a coat if it is cold outside, there are actions for which thought and premeditation can be useful, or necessary. But thought simply can't yield what isn't a thought construct. -- D. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
