Guest guest Report post Posted May 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Awarenesses as plural works for me. > > > > > > > > A couple questions: > > > > > > > > (1) Do these awarenesses exist here and now? > > > > > > > > (2) If so, where are they located? > > > > > > > > (3) If not, are they in the past, in the future, or both? > > > > > > > > Thanks... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is no " here " . > > > There is no " now " . > > > There is no " location " . > > > There is no " past " . > > > There is no " future " . > > > > There is no " neo-advaita " , which blathers endlessly about " there is no xxx " (asserting " truth " , but never daring to look the false in the face and see it as false). Any questions? ;-). > > > > > > In nature......there is no such thing as false. Ahh... so there is no such thing as " there is no " , eh? Doesn't seem to be what you were saying just a moment ago ;-). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Awarenesses as plural works for me. > > > > > > A couple questions: > > > > > > (1) Do these awarenesses exist here and now? > > > > > > (2) If so, where are they located? > > > > > > (3) If not, are they in the past, in the future, or both? > > > > > > Thanks... > > > > > > They exist as a conversational convention, like anything else we are discussing. It depends on agreement, like all language. > > > > (If you don't want to hear me discuss this further because you're > > getting bored, please stop reading now.) > > What I see you doing, Dan, is being very inconsistent, redefining words to fit your preferences at the moment, dismissing arguments when you see fit by saying " words are meaningless " , etc. > > It's not so much what you say that I find boring, it's the way you redefine the " rules " of the conversation to try and keep yourself " in the know " ... or at least that's what I'm assuming you're doing, as I don't see any other reason why you'd avoid answering certain questions by suddenly saying " words mean whatever we want them to " , and answer certain other questions very concisely. > > In other words, I see ego at play here. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. > It is not his ego you see. toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 18, 2009 - Tim G. Nisargadatta Monday, May 18, 2009 4:45 PM Re: no pattern P.S. P.S2 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > geo> I understand what you are saying. Plurality, diversity...no > > problem with that. My question is different, more fundamental > > Is the table diferent from the awareness of the table? > > ------------ > > > > While in ordinary language one might say, " Are you aware of the table? " > > strictly speaking that is a misconception. > > > > Awareness is only now, the absolute present, and as such consists only > > of sensations. There are no " objects " in awareness. > > Even a sensation is a kind of object. > > Unless you involve memory, can you be aware of a sensation? Of course. If it wasn't so, no sensation would ever have come about -- as there would have to have been a " first memory " prior to the first sensation of a newborn infant. Awareness does not require objects. I say this from 'direct experience'. geo> Hmmm...this is interesting. Awareness without object... I must meditate. Please dont disturb. avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 090513-0, 13/05/2009 Tested on: 18/5/2009 16:54:47 avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Awarenesses as plural works for me. > > > > > > > > A couple questions: > > > > > > > > (1) Do these awarenesses exist here and now? > > > > > > > > (2) If so, where are they located? > > > > > > > > (3) If not, are they in the past, in the future, or both? > > > > > > > > Thanks... > > > > > > > > > They exist as a conversational convention, like anything else we are discussing. It depends on agreement, like all language. > > > > > > (If you don't want to hear me discuss this further because you're > > > getting bored, please stop reading now.) > > > > What I see you doing, Dan, is being very inconsistent, redefining words to fit your preferences at the moment, dismissing arguments when you see fit by saying " words are meaningless " , etc. > > > > It's not so much what you say that I find boring, it's the way you redefine the " rules " of the conversation to try and keep yourself " in the know " ... or at least that's what I'm assuming you're doing, as I don't see any other reason why you'd avoid answering certain questions by suddenly saying " words mean whatever we want them to " , and answer certain other questions very concisely. > > > > In other words, I see ego at play here. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. > > > > > It is not his ego you see. I'm merely postulating ego in this case, not claiming he's being egoic. I don't pretend to know what's going on with someone else (if I do, call me on it, cuz it's my own ego). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Awarenesses as plural works for me. > > > > > > > > > > A couple questions: > > > > > > > > > > (1) Do these awarenesses exist here and now? > > > > > > > > > > (2) If so, where are they located? > > > > > > > > > > (3) If not, are they in the past, in the future, or both? > > > > > > > > > > Thanks... > > > > > > > > > > > > They exist as a conversational convention, like anything else we are discussing. It depends on agreement, like all language. > > > > > > > > (If you don't want to hear me discuss this further because you're > > > > getting bored, please stop reading now.) > > > > > > What I see you doing, Dan, is being very inconsistent, redefining words to fit your preferences at the moment, dismissing arguments when you see fit by saying " words are meaningless " , etc. > > > > > > It's not so much what you say that I find boring, it's the way you redefine the " rules " of the conversation to try and keep yourself " in the know " ... or at least that's what I'm assuming you're doing, as I don't see any other reason why you'd avoid answering certain questions by suddenly saying " words mean whatever we want them to " , and answer certain other questions very concisely. > > > > > > In other words, I see ego at play here. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. > > > > > > > > > It is not his ego you see. > > I'm merely postulating ego in this case, not claiming he's being egoic. I don't pretend to know what's going on with someone else (if I do, call me on it, cuz it's my own ego). it's not anyone's call you see. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 18, 2009 - roberibus111 Nisargadatta Monday, May 18, 2009 4:53 PM Re: no pattern P.S. P.S2 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Awarenesses as plural works for me. > > > > > > A couple questions: > > > > > > (1) Do these awarenesses exist here and now? > > > > > > (2) If so, where are they located? > > > > > > (3) If not, are they in the past, in the future, or both? > > > > > > Thanks... > > > > > > > > > > > There is no " here " . > > There is no " now " . > > There is no " location " . > > There is no " past " . > > There is no " future " . > > There is no " neo-advaita " , which blathers endlessly about " there is no > xxx " (asserting " truth " , but never daring to look the false in the face > and see it as false). Any questions? ;-). there is no question. there is no answer. there there. ..b b.b. there there...the fluorescent picture hanging in the darkness... -geo- avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 090513-0, 13/05/2009 Tested on: 18/5/2009 16:58:51 avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > Tim G. > Nisargadatta > Monday, May 18, 2009 4:45 PM > Re: no pattern P.S. P.S2 > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > geo> I understand what you are saying. Plurality, diversity...no > > > problem with that. My question is different, more fundamental > > > Is the table diferent from the awareness of the table? > > > ------------ > > > > > > While in ordinary language one might say, " Are you aware of the table? " > > > strictly speaking that is a misconception. > > > > > > Awareness is only now, the absolute present, and as such consists only > > > of sensations. There are no " objects " in awareness. > > > > Even a sensation is a kind of object. > > > > Unless you involve memory, can you be aware of a sensation? > > Of course. If it wasn't so, no sensation would ever have come about -- as > there would have to have been a " first memory " prior to the first sensation > of a newborn infant. > > Awareness does not require objects. I say this from 'direct experience'. > > geo> Hmmm...this is interesting. Awareness without object... I must > meditate. Please dont disturb. > > > > The conceptual mind trying to think of a world without objects is like............is like............ ....well hell........I can't think of anything like that. :-0 toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 18, 2009 - Tim G. Nisargadatta Monday, May 18, 2009 5:07 PM Re: no pattern P.S. P.S2 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Awarenesses as plural works for me. > > > > > > > > A couple questions: > > > > > > > > (1) Do these awarenesses exist here and now? > > > > > > > > (2) If so, where are they located? > > > > > > > > (3) If not, are they in the past, in the future, or both? > > > > > > > > Thanks... > > > > > > > > > They exist as a conversational convention, like anything else we are > > > discussing. It depends on agreement, like all language. > > > > > > (If you don't want to hear me discuss this further because you're > > > getting bored, please stop reading now.) > > > > What I see you doing, Dan, is being very inconsistent, redefining words > > to fit your preferences at the moment, dismissing arguments when you see > > fit by saying " words are meaningless " , etc. > > > > It's not so much what you say that I find boring, it's the way you > > redefine the " rules " of the conversation to try and keep yourself " in > > the know " ... or at least that's what I'm assuming you're doing, as I > > don't see any other reason why you'd avoid answering certain questions > > by suddenly saying " words mean whatever we want them to " , and answer > > certain other questions very concisely. > > > > In other words, I see ego at play here. Feel free to correct me if I'm > > wrong. > > > > > It is not his ego you see. I'm merely postulating ego in this case, not claiming he's being egoic. I don't pretend to know what's going on with someone else (if I do, call me on it, cuz it's my own ego). geo> Is there an ego that is not egoic? Well...then it is just a set of reactions and conditionings...but then that is not ego at all. avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 090513-0, 13/05/2009 Tested on: 18/5/2009 17:13:07 avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Awarenesses as plural works for me. > > > > > > > > > > A couple questions: > > > > > > > > > > (1) Do these awarenesses exist here and now? > > > > > > > > > > (2) If so, where are they located? > > > > > > > > > > (3) If not, are they in the past, in the future, or both? > > > > > > > > > > Thanks... > > > > > > > > > > > > They exist as a conversational convention, like anything else we are discussing. It depends on agreement, like all language. > > > > > > > > (If you don't want to hear me discuss this further because you're > > > > getting bored, please stop reading now.) > > > > > > What I see you doing, Dan, is being very inconsistent, redefining words to fit your preferences at the moment, dismissing arguments when you see fit by saying " words are meaningless " , etc. > > > > > > It's not so much what you say that I find boring, it's the way you redefine the " rules " of the conversation to try and keep yourself " in the know " ... or at least that's what I'm assuming you're doing, as I don't see any other reason why you'd avoid answering certain questions by suddenly saying " words mean whatever we want them to " , and answer certain other questions very concisely. > > > > > > In other words, I see ego at play here. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. > > > > > > > > > It is not his ego you see. > > I'm merely postulating ego in this case, not claiming he's being egoic. I don't pretend to know what's going on with someone else (if I do, call me on it, cuz it's my own ego). > You have your own ego? What do feed it? Where do you keep it? Does it get cold or grumpy? toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > You have your own ego? > > What do feed it? " You " ;-). > Where do you keep it? " There " ;-). > Does it get cold or grumpy? Both ;-). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > You have your own ego? > > > > What do feed it? > > " You " ;-). > > > Where do you keep it? > > " There " ;-). > > > Does it get cold or grumpy? > > Both ;-). > :-) toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , "dan330033" <dan330033 wrote:>> Nisargadatta , "billrishel" illusyn@ wrote:> >> > geo> I understand what you are saying. Plurality, diversity...no> > problem with that. My question is different, more fundamental> > Is the table diferent from the awareness of the table?> > ------------> > > > While in ordinary language one might say, "Are you aware of the table?"> > strictly speaking that is a misconception.> > > > Awareness is only now, the absolute present, and as such consists only> > of sensations. There are no "objects" in awareness.> > Even a sensation is a kind of object.Yes, but I did not refer to "a sensation".If you close your eyes and rub them there are sensations offleeting light "twinklings" and such, but never "a sensation"as such. "A sensation" is an object, in time, and always anillusion.There is an unfortunate double meaning for the term "sensations":A) myriad sensations of which there is no single "a sensation"B) a plural for multiple of what are individually "a sensation".I just posted the piece "Particles of Sensation and the Experience of Now",which hopefully will clarify this topic.> > Unless you involve memory, can you be aware of a sensation?> > A sensation is only known by virtue of some kind of change of state, is it not?> > Sensation is change, change requires comparison, comparison requires memory, and memory infers time.> > So, the "absolute present" as you term it, has no sensation, no change, no stillness, no memory, no quality.> > Is that not so?There is no quality except that of aliveness...which is an artifact of the continual updating ofwhat is presented in consciousness by the brain.There is nothing static about the "absolute present".Aside from that, no change, no stillness, no memory, no quality.> > > The ordinary language confusion comes from careless interchange of> > the terms awareness and consciousness. Hence the question properly> > becomes, "Is the table different from consciousness of the table?"> > > > The table only exists in consciousness. But the table's existence in> > consciousness is effectively "onsciousness of the table". The table's> > existence in consciousness isc entirely due to its being deemed as> > such in consciousness. This means that the table does not exist as> > an entity in consciousness, but that it implicitly exists in its being> > considered as existent in consciousness. Hence the "table" is not> > different from consciousness of the table. [the short answer!]> > > > When attention is not on things (such as tables) but strictly in the> > immediacy of now such issues do not arise. In immediacy of now> > there are no objects, and things such as tables and car keys take of> > themselves.> > > > Collapsing into the infinite vertical moment, the world disappears.> > I agree with the heart of this statement.> > At the same time, I wonder why do you use the term vertical?metaphorical...time is metaphorically the horizontal...> And has anything real collapsed?nothing "real" has collapsed.it is not that "something out there" has collapsed, but that attention no longeris invested "out there"...so it is effectively attention that has "collapsed"into the present.> What has collapsed is only the imagined belief that something was being sustained ... no?absolutely, yes> Vishnu is not happy at this moment?> > Brahman and Shiva are unemployed.> > Oops.Perhaps.... not a bad thing in any case.And Brahman and Shiva looking forward totheir retirement, I rather expect.Bill Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 18, 2009 > And Brahman and Shiva looking forward to > their retirement, I rather expect. > > Bill > :-) toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 19, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Awarenesses as plural works for me. > > > > > > A couple questions: > > > > > > (1) Do these awarenesses exist here and now? > > > > > > (2) If so, where are they located? > > > > > > (3) If not, are they in the past, in the future, or both? > > > > > > Thanks... > > > > > > They exist as a conversational convention, like anything else we are discussing. It depends on agreement, like all language. > > > > (If you don't want to hear me discuss this further because you're > > getting bored, please stop reading now.) > > What I see you doing, Dan, is being very inconsistent, redefining words to fit your preferences at the moment, dismissing arguments when you see fit by saying " words are meaningless " , etc. > It's not so much what you say that I find boring, it's the way you redefine the " rules " of the conversation to try and keep yourself " in the know " ... or at least that's what I'm assuming you're doing, as I don't see any other reason why you'd avoid answering certain questions by suddenly saying " words mean whatever we want them to " , and answer certain other questions very concisely. > In other words, I see ego at play here. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. No thanks. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 19, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > In other words, I see ego at play here. Feel free to correct me if > I'm wrong. > > No thanks. Hehehe.... :-). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 19, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > In other words, I see ego at play here. Feel free to correct me if > > I'm wrong. > > > > No thanks. > > Hehehe.... :-). > This has been like a poker game........with no cards. toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 19, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > > Unless you involve memory, can you be aware of a sensation? > > Of course. If it wasn't so, no sensation would ever have come about -- as > there would have to have been a " first memory " prior to the first sensation > of a newborn infant. Infants are born with memory templates. That is why they respond differently to the stimuli that make up " mother's face. " DNA carries memory templates. DNA is memory in motion, constructing time through patterned matter. -- Dan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 19, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > Unless you involve memory, can you be aware of a sensation? > > > > Of course. If it wasn't so, no sensation would ever have come about -- as > > there would have to have been a " first memory " prior to the first sensation > > of a newborn infant. > > Infants are born with memory templates. > > That is why they respond differently to the stimuli that make up " mother's face. " > > DNA carries memory templates. > > DNA is memory in motion, constructing time through patterned matter. > > > -- Dan In any event, I disagree that awareness requires memory. Even advanced Alzheimer's patients are clearly aware, they just can't remember anything. If you mean being aware *of* something, then I agree... but " being aware of " I would term " consciousness " , not awareness. This is Nisargadatta's usage of the two words as well. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 19, 2009 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " illusyn@ wrote: > > > > > > geo> I understand what you are saying. Plurality, diversity...no > > > problem with that. My question is different, more fundamental > > > Is the table diferent from the awareness of the table? > > > ------------ > > > > > > While in ordinary language one might say, " Are you aware of the > table? " > > > strictly speaking that is a misconception. > > > > > > Awareness is only now, the absolute present, and as such consists > only > > > of sensations. There are no " objects " in awareness. > > > > Even a sensation is a kind of object. > > Yes, but I did not refer to " a sensation " . > If you close your eyes and rub them there are sensations of > fleeting light " twinklings " and such, but never " a sensation " > as such. " A sensation " is an object, in time, and always an > illusion. > > There is an unfortunate double meaning for the term " sensations " : > A) myriad sensations of which there is no single " a sensation " > B) a plural for multiple of what are individually " a sensation " . > > I just posted the piece " Particles of Sensation and the Experience of > Now " , > which hopefully will clarify this topic. > > > > Unless you involve memory, can you be aware of a sensation? > > > > A sensation is only known by virtue of some kind of change of state, > is it not? > > > > Sensation is change, change requires comparison, comparison requires > memory, and memory infers time. > > > > So, the " absolute present " as you term it, has no sensation, no > change, no stillness, no memory, no quality. > > > > Is that not so? > > There is no quality except that of aliveness... > which is an artifact of the continual updating of > what is presented in consciousness by the brain. > > There is nothing static about the " absolute present " . > > Aside from that, no change, no stillness, no memory, no quality. > > > > > The ordinary language confusion comes from careless interchange of > > > the terms awareness and consciousness. Hence the question properly > > > becomes, " Is the table different from consciousness of the table? " > > > > > > The table only exists in consciousness. But the table's existence in > > > consciousness is effectively " onsciousness of the table " . The > table's > > > existence in consciousness isc entirely due to its being deemed as > > > such in consciousness. This means that the table does not exist as > > > an entity in consciousness, but that it implicitly exists in its > being > > > considered as existent in consciousness. Hence the " table " is not > > > different from consciousness of the table. [the short answer!] > > > > > > When attention is not on things (such as tables) but strictly in the > > > immediacy of now such issues do not arise. In immediacy of now > > > there are no objects, and things such as tables and car keys take of > > > themselves. > > > > > > Collapsing into the infinite vertical moment, the world disappears. > > > > I agree with the heart of this statement. > > > > At the same time, I wonder why do you use the term vertical? > > metaphorical... > > time is metaphorically the horizontal... > > > And has anything real collapsed? > > nothing " real " has collapsed. > > it is not that " something out there " has > collapsed, but that attention no longer > is invested " out there " ... > so it is effectively attention that has " collapsed " > into the present. > > > What has collapsed is only the imagined belief that something was > being sustained ... no? > > absolutely, yes > > > Vishnu is not happy at this moment? > > > > Brahman and Shiva are unemployed. > > > > Oops. > > Perhaps.... > > not a bad thing in any case. > > And Brahman and Shiva looking forward to > their retirement, I rather expect. > > Bill Yes, they are retired and at play in the fields of the lord. Lol - It's good what you said about attention collapsing into the now. It's a good metaphor. Words are based on metaphor. And here we are wildly using words to discuss the space between the words. Using the tooth to bite itself, the tongue to taste itself. We are funny! This now makes me laugh, Dan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 19, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Yes, they are retired and at play in the fields of the lord. > > Lol - > > It's good what you said about attention collapsing into the now. > > It's a good metaphor. > > Words are based on metaphor. > > And here we are wildly using words to discuss the space between the > words. Is it not the 'space between the words' actually doing all the discussing? Words emanate from 'space'. Words don't go in, though. Anyone ever noticed that? ;-). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 19, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Unless you involve memory, can you be aware of a sensation? > > > > > > Of course. If it wasn't so, no sensation would ever have come about -- as > > > there would have to have been a " first memory " prior to the first sensation > > > of a newborn infant. > > > > Infants are born with memory templates. > > > > That is why they respond differently to the stimuli that make up " mother's face. " > > > > DNA carries memory templates. > > > > DNA is memory in motion, constructing time through patterned matter. > > > > > > -- Dan > > In any event, I disagree that awareness requires memory. Even advanced Alzheimer's patients are clearly aware, they just can't remember anything. > > If you mean being aware *of* something, then I agree... but " being aware of " I would term " consciousness " , not awareness. This is Nisargadatta's usage of the two words as well. I didn't say that awareness requires memory. I said awareness of sensation requires memory. Awareness without memory isn't recognizing anything. Hence, memory is constructed so recognition occurs. And recognition occurs because memory is constructed. Memory constructs and is constructed. Circular loop, implodes into awareness, which implodes into .... .... The Alzheimer's patients you are talking about still register and respond to sensation, still evidence at least some basic reflexes (until they are dead). And the memory I'm talking about is available at the lowest level of the brain stem, is involved in basic reflexes. I can trace the concept of memory back farther, although scientists might not agree. I'd go so far as to view memory as involved in dealing with toxins that are recognized as such in the blood. Because perception and awareness are interconnected, and memory is interwined with awareness recognizing (forming) structure, memory is involved in any structure that can be perceived, including atoms and electrons. Atoms have atomic awarenesses, by the way, just as galaxies have galactic awarenesses. I have this on good authority, mind you. Atoms with their awarnesses, galaxies, with theirs, and here I am, stuck in the middle with you. -- Dan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 19, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Yes, they are retired and at play in the fields of the lord. > > > > Lol - > > > > It's good what you said about attention collapsing into the now. > > > > It's a good metaphor. > > > > Words are based on metaphor. > > > > And here we are wildly using words to discuss the space between the > words. > > Is it not the 'space between the words' actually doing all the discussing? > > Words emanate from 'space'. > > Words don't go in, though. > > Anyone ever noticed that? ;-). Yes, space is forming the words. Space is also eating the words for dinner. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 19, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > I'd go so far as to view memory as involved in dealing with toxins that are recognized as such in the blood. > > Because perception and awareness are interconnected, and memory is > interwined with awareness recognizing (forming) structure, memory > is involved in any structure that can be perceived, including atoms > and electrons. > > Atoms have atomic awarenesses, by the way, just as galaxies have > galactic awarenesses. I have this on good authority, mind you. Hah ;-). I'll defer to your " superior authority " for this view on memory. Quite a construction. I'm a simple fellow, and don't have this sort of view on memory. From here, if something is remembered there's memory involved... and if the mind is quiet and no memory arises, there's no memory (awareness is quite capable of being aware of the absence of thought). I'm not one to postulate invisible stuffs. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 19, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " dan330033@ wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Unless you involve memory, can you be aware of a sensation? > > > > > > Of course. If it wasn't so, no sensation would ever have come about -- as > > > there would have to have been a " first memory " prior to the first sensation > > > of a newborn infant. > > > > Infants are born with memory templates. > > > > That is why they respond differently to the stimuli that make up " mother's face. " > > > > DNA carries memory templates. > > > > DNA is memory in motion, constructing time through patterned matter. > > > > > > -- Dan > > In any event, I disagree that awareness requires memory. Even advanced Alzheimer's patients are clearly aware, they just can't remember anything. > > If you mean being aware *of* something, then I agree... but " being aware of " I would term " consciousness " , not awareness. This is Nisargadatta's usage of the two words as well. I TOTALLY agree re your " being aware of " as consciousness, not awareness. Bill Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 19, 2009 > > > > And Brahman and Shiva looking forward to> > their retirement, I rather expect.> > > > Bill> > Yes, they are retired and at play in the fields of the lord.> > Lol -> > It's good what you said about attention collapsing into the now.> > It's a good metaphor.> > Words are based on metaphor.> > And here we are wildly using words to discuss the space between the words.> > Using the tooth to bite itself, the tongue to taste itself.> > We are funny!> > This now makes me laugh,> > Danlaughter mak'um good medicine....and the best laughter is when thejoke is on ourselves and we know it.Bill Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
