Guest guest Report post Posted August 4, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > Tim G. > Nisargadatta > Tuesday, August 04, 2009 4:26 PM > Re: Seeing Value > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > I don't know what that means, " the perception of consciousness " . > > > > The subjective is an introjection, not a projection. The objective is a > > projection. The two arise together. Projecting 'out there' creates 'in > > here', and introjecting 'in here' creates 'out there'. > > > > geo> Both in here and out there are conceptual. > > Everything we say here on this forum is conceptual. > > Why pick on 'in here' and 'out there' specifically? > > The concept " concept " is conceptual. > > Now that we've got that one out of the way... ;-). > > geo> Would not the seeing/understanding of the limitation of words do > something about it? D: Clarity about the assumptions involved in language use cannot fully be brought about by using language. But, such clarity can be suggested through language. Clarity on the assumptions imbedded in language, thought, memory, and social relationship (which are an interactive web of assumption), changes the attempt to identify, so to speak. The catch is, the clarity itself is the non-identification. Thus, using words always involves the drawback of seeming to infer that someone is receiving the words, which will then affect that someone in some way (such as leading that someone to dis-identify). Dis-identifying can't be done, because there would have to be someone (or something) there to disidentify from the someone who is being disidentified from. So, that's the catch. The clarity is the non-identifying (non-attachment) that the words refer to, which is not in the words, which the words can't convey or bring about, and which doesn't apply to the writer, speaker, or reader of the words (fictitious characters all). - Dan - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 4, 2009 - Tim G. Nisargadatta Tuesday, August 04, 2009 4:44 PM Re: Seeing Value Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > Tim G. > Nisargadatta > Tuesday, August 04, 2009 4:26 PM > Re: Seeing Value > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > I don't know what that means, " the perception of consciousness " . > > > > The subjective is an introjection, not a projection. The objective is a > > projection. The two arise together. Projecting 'out there' creates 'in > > here', and introjecting 'in here' creates 'out there'. > > > > geo> Both in here and out there are conceptual. > > Everything we say here on this forum is conceptual. > > Why pick on 'in here' and 'out there' specifically? > > The concept " concept " is conceptual. > > Now that we've got that one out of the way... ;-). > > geo> Would not the seeing/understanding of the limitation of words do > something about it? Do something about what? Is somebody trying to make something appear, or something go away? If so, that 'somebody' is itself an appearance. geo> No. You changed the subject. I asked whether must words be conceptual once their limitation is understood? You answered about some entity trying to do something. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 4, 2009 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Tuesday, August 04, 2009 4:47 PM Re: Seeing Value Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Tuesday, August 04, 2009 4:19 PM > Re: Seeing Value > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > dan330033 > > Nisargadatta > > Tuesday, August 04, 2009 3:17 PM > > Re: Seeing Value > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > Only when consciousness and its value and meaning is fully seen > > > presently...only then that which is beyond is. > > > -geo- > > > > Geo - > > > > There is no precondition for the unconditional to be. > > > > Period. > > > > Anything involving a pre-condition, like " only when this happens, can > > that > > be, " is conditional. > > > > Whatever word you want to use for the unconditional (awareness, nothing, > > totality) is not sufficient for understanding. > > > > Only being is understanding. > > > > Certainly not the ideas exchanged about it - the being only. > > > > The being, the awareness, the nothing - is unconditional. > > > > Thus, it has been referred to as " unborn. " > > > > Conditionality, conditional beings, conditional consciousness, simply > > can't > > touch, can't apprehend the unconditional being. > > > > The conditional consciousness involves a center. > > > > The conditional conscious dies. > > > > In a certain sense, conditional consciousness is death, because it is > > time. > > > > -- Dan -- > > > > Why are you imposing the condition of inconditionality? > > -geo- > > It would only seem like that to someone existing in a conditional state, > in > which conditions were imposed from outside. > > -- Dan -- > > Yes. The seeing of the conditioned, temporal, does not allow anything to > be > projected as " outside " . After all it is consciousness that projects the > inner and outer concepts. > -geo- And is there a real projector, somewhere, of concepts and perceptions? Or is " consciousness " also imagined and inferred? I'm bringing up this question not to try to be right or score a point. I'm bringing it up because perception changes when the assumption drops that anything is making it happen the way it is. As well as the assumption that someone somewhere knows what it is. Not that these assumptions (which are essentially versions of the same assumption) drop because of an act of will, or something made it drop. But that the assumption drops if it drops. And if it doesn't drop, then there is the attempt to maintain it. After all, believing there are things making other things happen, which could change the way things happen, is carried throughout the commonsense view of the world that is maintained through social conditioning of thought patterns through relationships and actions (rewarding certain types of thought/behavior patterns, punishing or ignoring others). -- Dan -- The projector of concepts is the localized mind, the brain, thinking. Why do you ask this? Consciousness is not imagined at all. And here I am using the expression as per nis. What is writing, typing, thinking, living (here/there) IS the world/consciousness/body It is not a matter of " knowing " what consicousness is, to define it - no. It simply is. In fact the nature of this consciousness changes when it is emptied of the entity. -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 4, 2009 - Tim G. Nisargadatta Tuesday, August 04, 2009 5:06 PM Re: Seeing Value Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > Do something about what? > > Is somebody trying to make something appear, or something go away? > > If so, that 'somebody' is itself an appearance. > > geo> No. You changed the subject. Maybe it's that there's no awareness of any subject here, or any object ;-). There's no effort or attempt to remain 'on point', although I understand that's very important for " the subject " . > I asked whether must words be conceptual > once their limitation is understood? You answered about some entity > > trying > to do something. MMkay, so I did. Something wrong? -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 4, 2009 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Tuesday, August 04, 2009 4:37 PM Re: Seeing Value Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > geo > Nisargadatta > Tuesday, August 04, 2009 3:28 PM > Re: Re: Seeing Value > > > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Tuesday, August 04, 2009 3:17 PM > Re: Seeing Value > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > Only when consciousness and its value and meaning is fully seen > > presently...only then that which is beyond is. > > -geo- > > Geo - > > There is no precondition for the unconditional to be. > > Period. > > Anything involving a pre-condition, like " only when this happens, can that > be, " is conditional. > > Whatever word you want to use for the unconditional (awareness, nothing, > totality) is not sufficient for understanding. > > Only being is understanding. > > Certainly not the ideas exchanged about it - the being only. > > The being, the awareness, the nothing - is unconditional. > > Thus, it has been referred to as " unborn. " > > Conditionality, conditional beings, conditional consciousness, simply > can't > touch, can't apprehend the unconditional being. > > The conditional consciousness involves a center. > > The conditional conscious dies. > > In a certain sense, conditional consciousness is death, because it is > time. > > -- Dan -- > > Why are you imposing the condition of inconditionality? > Anyway the condition is not for the unconditioned to " exist " - which it > does, but for the inner conceptual entity not to appear consceptualy. You (the imaginary writer of the post) have predetermined the condition of " no arising of something I call the 'inner conceptual entity,' " which apparently sometimes arises and sometimes doesn't. And you prefer that it doesn't. Thus, you take the position of a conceptual entity that has preferences about what kind of conceptions arise or don't arise. You have an idea of an " inner conceptual entity " based on memory, because you've learned things about such an entity. And you determined it is better for it not to arise. Such a determination can only be made in the past by a fictitious conceptual entity. " What is " has no conditionality, and involves no attempt to prevent certain kinds of conceptions from arising. Please note, I'm not saying that it is wrong that you've taken the position of a conceptual entity deciding what kind of conceptual situations are better (those without an inner entity involved). I'm just pointing out that this is what appears to be arising, through the words you've shared about it. And the conceptual entity that doesn't want an " inner conceptual entity " to appear, or would prefer that it doesn't appear, is itself a transient image, devoid of any actual ability to make its preferences occur, and, in fact, devoid of any volition involved in its appearing (apparently ;-) and disappearing. > Without a clear perception of consciousness and its limitations there is > fragmentation and a part of consciousness speaks/writes as if it was the > ground itself. But what happens is that what is stated/felt to be the > subjective is a concept projected by the fragment. Your words lead me to question the kinds of powers you attribute to a " fragment. " Is there any really existing fragment anywhere, that has powers to do things - such as project something? - Dan - I would not put it this way. There is the feeling of fragmentation (here), the pain of it....then there is the sudden understanding of the meaning/scope of this " world/consciousness " . It is almost a falling away from it...a detachement. First there is the entity and the pain...then understanding and seeing. -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 4, 2009 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Tuesday, August 04, 2009 4:53 PM Re: Seeing Value Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > Tim G. > Nisargadatta > Tuesday, August 04, 2009 4:26 PM > Re: Seeing Value > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > I don't know what that means, " the perception of consciousness " . > > > > The subjective is an introjection, not a projection. The objective is a > > projection. The two arise together. Projecting 'out there' creates 'in > > here', and introjecting 'in here' creates 'out there'. > > > > geo> Both in here and out there are conceptual. > > Everything we say here on this forum is conceptual. > > Why pick on 'in here' and 'out there' specifically? > > The concept " concept " is conceptual. > > Now that we've got that one out of the way... ;-). > > geo> Would not the seeing/understanding of the limitation of words do > something about it? D: Clarity about the assumptions involved in language use cannot fully be brought about by using language. But, such clarity can be suggested through language. Clarity on the assumptions imbedded in language, thought, memory, and social relationship (which are an interactive web of assumption), changes the attempt to identify, so to speak. The catch is, the clarity itself is the non-identification. Thus, using words always involves the drawback of seeming to infer that someone is receiving the words, which will then affect that someone in some way (such as leading that someone to dis-identify). Dis-identifying can't be done, because there would have to be someone (or something) there to disidentify from the someone who is being disidentified from. So, that's the catch. The clarity is the non-identifying (non-attachment) that the words refer to, which is not in the words, which the words can't convey or bring about, and which doesn't apply to the writer, speaker, or reader of the words (fictitious characters all). - Dan - It is the same " old " story. Clarity or darkness. Clarity is empty of entity. -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 4, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Tuesday, August 04, 2009 4:47 PM > Re: Seeing Value > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > dan330033 > > Nisargadatta > > Tuesday, August 04, 2009 4:19 PM > > Re: Seeing Value > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > dan330033 > > > Nisargadatta > > > Tuesday, August 04, 2009 3:17 PM > > > Re: Seeing Value > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Only when consciousness and its value and meaning is fully seen > > > > presently...only then that which is beyond is. > > > > -geo- > > > > > > Geo - > > > > > > There is no precondition for the unconditional to be. > > > > > > Period. > > > > > > Anything involving a pre-condition, like " only when this happens, can > > > that > > > be, " is conditional. > > > > > > Whatever word you want to use for the unconditional (awareness, nothing, > > > totality) is not sufficient for understanding. > > > > > > Only being is understanding. > > > > > > Certainly not the ideas exchanged about it - the being only. > > > > > > The being, the awareness, the nothing - is unconditional. > > > > > > Thus, it has been referred to as " unborn. " > > > > > > Conditionality, conditional beings, conditional consciousness, simply > > > can't > > > touch, can't apprehend the unconditional being. > > > > > > The conditional consciousness involves a center. > > > > > > The conditional conscious dies. > > > > > > In a certain sense, conditional consciousness is death, because it is > > > time. > > > > > > -- Dan -- > > > > > > Why are you imposing the condition of inconditionality? > > > -geo- > > > > It would only seem like that to someone existing in a conditional state, > > in > > which conditions were imposed from outside. > > > > -- Dan -- > > > > Yes. The seeing of the conditioned, temporal, does not allow anything to > > be > > projected as " outside " . After all it is consciousness that projects the > > inner and outer concepts. > > -geo- > > And is there a real projector, somewhere, of concepts and perceptions? > > Or is " consciousness " also imagined and inferred? > > I'm bringing up this question not to try to be right or score a point. > > I'm bringing it up because perception changes when the assumption drops that > anything is making it happen the way it is. > > As well as the assumption that someone somewhere knows what it is. > > Not that these assumptions (which are essentially versions of the same > assumption) drop because of an act of will, or something made it drop. > > But that the assumption drops if it drops. > > And if it doesn't drop, then there is the attempt to maintain it. > > After all, believing there are things making other things happen, which > could change the way things happen, is carried throughout the commonsense > view of the world that is maintained through social conditioning of thought > patterns through relationships and actions (rewarding certain types of > thought/behavior patterns, punishing or ignoring others). > > -- Dan -- > > The projector of concepts is the localized mind, the brain, thinking. Why do > you ask this? Because any localization involves fiction, employed in a relative manner. > Consciousness is not imagined at all. And here I am using the expression as > per nis. What is writing, typing, thinking, living (here/there) IS the > world/consciousness/body You are not convincing in your statement that your interpretation of consciousness is what actually is. And bringing Nis. into it doesn't make it any more convincing. > It is not a matter of " knowing " what consicousness is, to define it - no. It > simply is. You believe that what is, has been successfully defined? > In fact the nature of this consciousness changes when it is emptied of the > entity. This is something you read about and learned in the past. You assert words as if they make something a fact. The word content refers to the past, and you are unable to use words in any way that does not refer to the past, unless they become meaningless (true also for me, and any reader or writer). Without any memory content involved, words have no referents and no meaning. " xptlwk witnt golbogw rentwl! " -- Dan -- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 4, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > I would not put it this way. There is the feeling of fragmentation (here), > the pain of it....then there is the sudden understanding of the > meaning/scope of this " world/consciousness " . It is almost a falling away > from it...a detachement. First there is the entity and the pain...then > understanding and seeing. > -geo- As long as it is: " first this, then this, " it is in the realm of time and experience. One experience ends, and another (bigger, better) begins. But, still in the realm of time and experience. And whatever begins, ends. Also, experiences that begin and end are localized to whatever being is associated with having that experience (which being also is assumed to have its beginning, ending, memory-chain, and physical limits - allowing it to be named and localized in space-time). Thus, Geo saying, " I understood world/consciousness and I felt a falling away, a detachment, " is different from Joe Blow saying, " I feel like crap. My boss was rude to me at work today, and I'm going to get a beer and forget about it. " Just two different versions of localized experience, with their apparent referents (Geo and Joe, two different I's, two different experiences in their relative framework for " present experience. " ) Both these sets of localized experiencing, with beginnings and endings appears in and through awareness. I'd like to note that the word " awareness " has a beginning and end to its use and is localized in a sentence. The actuality is not nameable, and does not begin and end, and is not localized. In this sense, " awareness " is similar to " mutual co-arising of phenomena, " which is not itself a localized phenomenon, but becomes one when offered as a description. - Dan - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 4, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Tuesday, August 04, 2009 4:53 PM > Re: Seeing Value > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > Tim G. > > Nisargadatta > > Tuesday, August 04, 2009 4:26 PM > > Re: Seeing Value > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > I don't know what that means, " the perception of consciousness " . > > > > > > The subjective is an introjection, not a projection. The objective is a > > > projection. The two arise together. Projecting 'out there' creates 'in > > > here', and introjecting 'in here' creates 'out there'. > > > > > > geo> Both in here and out there are conceptual. > > > > Everything we say here on this forum is conceptual. > > > > Why pick on 'in here' and 'out there' specifically? > > > > The concept " concept " is conceptual. > > > > Now that we've got that one out of the way... ;-). > > > > geo> Would not the seeing/understanding of the limitation of words do > > something about it? > > D: Clarity about the assumptions involved in language use cannot fully be > brought about by using language. But, such clarity can be suggested through > language. > > Clarity on the assumptions imbedded in language, thought, memory, and social > relationship (which are an interactive web of assumption), changes the > attempt to identify, so to speak. > > The catch is, the clarity itself is the non-identification. > > Thus, using words always involves the drawback of seeming to infer that > someone is receiving the words, which will then affect that someone in some > way (such as leading that someone to dis-identify). > > Dis-identifying can't be done, because there would have to be someone (or > something) there to disidentify from the someone who is being disidentified > from. > > So, that's the catch. > > The clarity is the non-identifying (non-attachment) that the words refer to, > which is not in the words, which the words can't convey or bring about, and > which doesn't apply to the writer, speaker, or reader of the words > (fictitious characters all). > > - Dan - > > It is the same " old " story. Clarity or darkness. Clarity is empty of entity. > -geo- There is no " or. " There is no alternate state, because this is not a state. This is unconditional. - D - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 4, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > dan330033 > > Nisargadatta > > Tuesday, August 04, 2009 4:53 PM > > Re: Seeing Value > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > Tim G. > > > Nisargadatta > > > Tuesday, August 04, 2009 4:26 PM > > > Re: Seeing Value > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > I don't know what that means, " the perception of consciousness " . > > > > > > > > The subjective is an introjection, not a projection. The objective is a > > > > projection. The two arise together. Projecting 'out there' creates 'in > > > > here', and introjecting 'in here' creates 'out there'. > > > > > > > > geo> Both in here and out there are conceptual. > > > > > > Everything we say here on this forum is conceptual. > > > > > > Why pick on 'in here' and 'out there' specifically? > > > > > > The concept " concept " is conceptual. > > > > > > Now that we've got that one out of the way... ;-). > > > > > > geo> Would not the seeing/understanding of the limitation of words do > > > something about it? > > > > D: Clarity about the assumptions involved in language use cannot fully be > > brought about by using language. But, such clarity can be suggested through > > language. > > > > Clarity on the assumptions imbedded in language, thought, memory, and social > > relationship (which are an interactive web of assumption), changes the > > attempt to identify, so to speak. > > > > The catch is, the clarity itself is the non-identification. > > > > Thus, using words always involves the drawback of seeming to infer that > > someone is receiving the words, which will then affect that someone in some > > way (such as leading that someone to dis-identify). > > > > Dis-identifying can't be done, because there would have to be someone (or > > something) there to disidentify from the someone who is being disidentified > > from. > > > > So, that's the catch. > > > > The clarity is the non-identifying (non-attachment) that the words refer to, > > which is not in the words, which the words can't convey or bring about, and > > which doesn't apply to the writer, speaker, or reader of the words > > (fictitious characters all). > > > > - Dan - > > > > It is the same " old " story. Clarity or darkness. Clarity is empty of entity. > > -geo- > > There is no " or. " > > There is no alternate state, because this is not a state. > > This is unconditional. > > - D - And therefore, this unconditional unborn is empty: of fullness of emptiness of any entity of any lack of an entity of any alternate state, or any state of statelessness of any substance of any lack of substance of any insubstantiality of any grounding of any lack of grounding of being of any lack of being of awareness of any lack of awareness of centering of any lack of centering of any centerlessness of location of lack of location of existence of any lack of existence of any nonexistence Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 4, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > I would not put it this way. There is the feeling of fragmentation (here), > > the pain of it....then there is the sudden understanding of the > > meaning/scope of this " world/consciousness " . It is almost a falling away > > from it...a detachement. First there is the entity and the pain...then > > understanding and seeing. > > -geo- > > As long as it is: " first this, then this, " it is in the realm of time and experience. > > One experience ends, and another (bigger, better) begins. > > But, still in the realm of time and experience. > > And whatever begins, ends. > > Also, experiences that begin and end are localized to whatever being is associated with having that experience (which being also is assumed to have its beginning, ending, memory-chain, and physical limits - allowing it to be named and localized in space-time). > > Thus, Geo saying, " I understood world/consciousness and I felt a falling away, a detachment, " is different from Joe Blow saying, " I feel like crap. My boss was rude to me at work today, and I'm going to get a beer and forget about it. " > > Just two different versions of localized experience, with their apparent referents (Geo and Joe, two different I's, two different experiences in their relative framework for " present experience. " ) > > Both these sets of localized experiencing, with beginnings and endings appears in and through awareness. > > I'd like to note that the word " awareness " has a beginning and end to its use and is localized in a sentence. The actuality is not nameable, and does not begin and end, and is not localized. In this sense, " awareness " is similar to " mutual co-arising of phenomena, " which is not itself a localized phenomenon, but becomes one when offered as a description. > > - Dan - Lots of concepts, bandied about... Geo -- can you recall any times when you were very much 'in the now'... a High School football game, a party, a very special memory? That memory has a certain quality to it, that makes it different from other memories. What is that quality? What is different about 'nowness', as compared to all the other vague, meaningless memories? Don't over-conceptualize. This is more of a heart-thing, a feeling-thing. What one is, not what one thinks about. One's Being. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 4, 2009 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Tuesday, August 04, 2009 5:35 PM Re: Seeing Value Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Tuesday, August 04, 2009 4:53 PM > Re: Seeing Value > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > Tim G. > > Nisargadatta > > Tuesday, August 04, 2009 4:26 PM > > Re: Seeing Value > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > I don't know what that means, " the perception of consciousness " . > > > > > > The subjective is an introjection, not a projection. The objective is > > > a > > > projection. The two arise together. Projecting 'out there' creates 'in > > > here', and introjecting 'in here' creates 'out there'. > > > > > > geo> Both in here and out there are conceptual. > > > > Everything we say here on this forum is conceptual. > > > > Why pick on 'in here' and 'out there' specifically? > > > > The concept " concept " is conceptual. > > > > Now that we've got that one out of the way... ;-). > > > > geo> Would not the seeing/understanding of the limitation of words do > > something about it? > > D: Clarity about the assumptions involved in language use cannot fully be > brought about by using language. But, such clarity can be suggested > through > language. > > Clarity on the assumptions imbedded in language, thought, memory, and > social > relationship (which are an interactive web of assumption), changes the > attempt to identify, so to speak. > > The catch is, the clarity itself is the non-identification. > > Thus, using words always involves the drawback of seeming to infer that > someone is receiving the words, which will then affect that someone in > some > way (such as leading that someone to dis-identify). > > Dis-identifying can't be done, because there would have to be someone (or > something) there to disidentify from the someone who is being > disidentified > from. > > So, that's the catch. > > The clarity is the non-identifying (non-attachment) that the words refer > to, > which is not in the words, which the words can't convey or bring about, > and > which doesn't apply to the writer, speaker, or reader of the words > (fictitious characters all). > > - Dan - > > It is the same " old " story. Clarity or darkness. Clarity is empty of > entity. > -geo- There is no " or. " There is no alternate state, because this is not a state. This is unconditional. - D - Yes, except when conditioning arises. Look...I could also make a dissertation about how THIS is always - unconditionaly. Nonetheless: X says this is non-conditioned and.. Y says this is non-conditioned and both may not be saying the same. And I will not try to guess. The fact here is that in some mysterious way the conditioned arises " within " the unconditioned. So as always...I will leave this open. -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 4, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > I would not put it this way. There is the feeling of fragmentation (here), > > > the pain of it....then there is the sudden understanding of the > > > meaning/scope of this " world/consciousness " . It is almost a falling away > > > from it...a detachement. First there is the entity and the pain...then > > > understanding and seeing. > > > -geo- > > > > As long as it is: " first this, then this, " it is in the realm of time and experience. > > > > One experience ends, and another (bigger, better) begins. > > > > But, still in the realm of time and experience. > > > > And whatever begins, ends. > > > > Also, experiences that begin and end are localized to whatever being is associated with having that experience (which being also is assumed to have its beginning, ending, memory-chain, and physical limits - allowing it to be named and localized in space-time). > > > > Thus, Geo saying, " I understood world/consciousness and I felt a falling away, a detachment, " is different from Joe Blow saying, " I feel like crap. My boss was rude to me at work today, and I'm going to get a beer and forget about it. " > > > > Just two different versions of localized experience, with their apparent referents (Geo and Joe, two different I's, two different experiences in their relative framework for " present experience. " ) > > > > Both these sets of localized experiencing, with beginnings and endings appears in and through awareness. > > > > I'd like to note that the word " awareness " has a beginning and end to its use and is localized in a sentence. The actuality is not nameable, and does not begin and end, and is not localized. In this sense, " awareness " is similar to " mutual co-arising of phenomena, " which is not itself a localized phenomenon, but becomes one when offered as a description. > > > > - Dan - > > Lots of concepts, bandied about... > > Geo -- can you recall any times when you were very much 'in the now'... a High School football game, a party, a very special memory? > > That memory has a certain quality to it, that makes it different from other memories. > > What is that quality? > > What is different about 'nowness', as compared to all the other vague, meaningless memories? > > Don't over-conceptualize. > > This is more of a heart-thing, a feeling-thing. What one is, not what one thinks about. One's Being. No, they weren't bandied about. They were placed with precision and care. But if they don't suit you, if you don't appreciate the care involved, that's okay. My love affair with my words is very brief - instantaneous, in fact. So let's move on, and watch as you get a " Geo " to realize the truth by going through its memories ... LOL! Hey, good luck. Maybe you'll become his guru! Are you " Omkaradatta " the guru? Smiles ... -- Dan -- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 4, 2009 - Tim G. Nisargadatta Tuesday, August 04, 2009 5:41 PM Re: Seeing Value Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > I would not put it this way. There is the feeling of fragmentation > > (here), > > the pain of it....then there is the sudden understanding of the > > meaning/scope of this " world/consciousness " . It is almost a falling away > > from it...a detachement. First there is the entity and the pain...then > > understanding and seeing. > > -geo- > > As long as it is: " first this, then this, " it is in the realm of time and > experience. > > One experience ends, and another (bigger, better) begins. > > But, still in the realm of time and experience. > > And whatever begins, ends. > > Also, experiences that begin and end are localized to whatever being is > associated with having that experience (which being also is assumed to > have its beginning, ending, memory-chain, and physical limits - allowing > it to be named and localized in space-time). > > Thus, Geo saying, " I understood world/consciousness and I felt a falling > away, a detachment, " is different from Joe Blow saying, " I feel like crap. > My boss was rude to me at work today, and I'm going to get a beer and > forget about it. " > > Just two different versions of localized experience, with their apparent > referents (Geo and Joe, two different I's, two different experiences in > their relative framework for " present experience. " ) > > Both these sets of localized experiencing, with beginnings and endings > appears in and through awareness. > > I'd like to note that the word " awareness " has a beginning and end to its > use and is localized in a sentence. The actuality is not nameable, and > does not begin and end, and is not localized. In this sense, " awareness " > is similar to " mutual co-arising of phenomena, " which is not itself a > localized phenomenon, but becomes one when offered as a description. > > - Dan - Lots of concepts, bandied about... Geo -- can you recall any times when you were very much 'in the now'... a High School football game, a party, a very special memory? That memory has a certain quality to it, that makes it different from other memories. What is that quality? What is different about 'nowness', as compared to all the other vague, meaningless memories? Don't over-conceptualize. This is more of a heart-thing, a feeling-thing. What one is, not what one thinks about. One's Being. -tim- I was around 6.....the first time I " knew " I was. It iwas/is the most unquestionable fact ever. And you? -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 4, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Tuesday, August 04, 2009 5:35 PM > Re: Seeing Value > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > dan330033 > > Nisargadatta > > Tuesday, August 04, 2009 4:53 PM > > Re: Seeing Value > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > Tim G. > > > Nisargadatta > > > Tuesday, August 04, 2009 4:26 PM > > > Re: Seeing Value > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > I don't know what that means, " the perception of consciousness " . > > > > > > > > The subjective is an introjection, not a projection. The objective is > > > > a > > > > projection. The two arise together. Projecting 'out there' creates 'in > > > > here', and introjecting 'in here' creates 'out there'. > > > > > > > > geo> Both in here and out there are conceptual. > > > > > > Everything we say here on this forum is conceptual. > > > > > > Why pick on 'in here' and 'out there' specifically? > > > > > > The concept " concept " is conceptual. > > > > > > Now that we've got that one out of the way... ;-). > > > > > > geo> Would not the seeing/understanding of the limitation of words do > > > something about it? > > > > D: Clarity about the assumptions involved in language use cannot fully be > > brought about by using language. But, such clarity can be suggested > > through > > language. > > > > Clarity on the assumptions imbedded in language, thought, memory, and > > social > > relationship (which are an interactive web of assumption), changes the > > attempt to identify, so to speak. > > > > The catch is, the clarity itself is the non-identification. > > > > Thus, using words always involves the drawback of seeming to infer that > > someone is receiving the words, which will then affect that someone in > > some > > way (such as leading that someone to dis-identify). > > > > Dis-identifying can't be done, because there would have to be someone (or > > something) there to disidentify from the someone who is being > > disidentified > > from. > > > > So, that's the catch. > > > > The clarity is the non-identifying (non-attachment) that the words refer > > to, > > which is not in the words, which the words can't convey or bring about, > > and > > which doesn't apply to the writer, speaker, or reader of the words > > (fictitious characters all). > > > > - Dan - > > > > It is the same " old " story. Clarity or darkness. Clarity is empty of > > entity. > > -geo- > > There is no " or. " > > There is no alternate state, because this is not a state. > > This is unconditional. > > - D - > > Yes, except when conditioning arises. Look...I could also make a > dissertation about how THIS is always - unconditionaly. Nonetheless: > > X says this is non-conditioned > and.. > Y says this is non-conditioned > > and both may not be saying the same. And I will not try to guess. > The fact here is that in some mysterious way the conditioned arises " within " > the unconditioned. > > So as always...I will leave this open. > -geo- That sounds on target to me. The conditional arises within the nonconditional. So, the conditionality of the conditional is apparent, not actual. What is actual is the nonconditional Any conditions arising are the unconditional, in its conditioned aspect, so to speak. Thus, no fragments have ever been created, although they may be imagined. The imagining of fragmentation (which is conditional) itself is never fragmented from the actual. The " energy " of the imagining is the unconditional. The imagining is only happening (as an appearance) because of the unconditional, within and through the unconditional. Thus, this dialogue is not a you interacting with a me, or vice versa, and being affected by each other's concepts. This dialogue is arising, with its conditions, within the unconditional. There is no " you " touching " I " - just the unconditional arising (temporarily, as time) through conditions, as conditions. - Dan - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 4, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > I was around 6.....the first time I " knew " I was. It iwas/is the most > unquestionable fact ever. > And you? > -geo- I didn't mean 'knowing one is'. Quite the opposite. Times when one is very much 'in the now', one is not... the 'now' is. When one knows one is-- one " is " , and the 'now' is not. One's presence is an attempted freezing of time, as though one is apart from the stream of events. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 4, 2009 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Tuesday, August 04, 2009 5:25 PM Re: Seeing Value Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Tuesday, August 04, 2009 4:47 PM > Re: Seeing Value > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > dan330033 > > Nisargadatta > > Tuesday, August 04, 2009 4:19 PM > > Re: Seeing Value > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > dan330033 > > > Nisargadatta > > > Tuesday, August 04, 2009 3:17 PM > > > Re: Seeing Value > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Only when consciousness and its value and meaning is fully seen > > > > presently...only then that which is beyond is. > > > > -geo- > > > > > > Geo - > > > > > > There is no precondition for the unconditional to be. > > > > > > Period. > > > > > > Anything involving a pre-condition, like " only when this happens, can > > > that > > > be, " is conditional. > > > > > > Whatever word you want to use for the unconditional (awareness, > > > nothing, > > > totality) is not sufficient for understanding. > > > > > > Only being is understanding. > > > > > > Certainly not the ideas exchanged about it - the being only. > > > > > > The being, the awareness, the nothing - is unconditional. > > > > > > Thus, it has been referred to as " unborn. " > > > > > > Conditionality, conditional beings, conditional consciousness, simply > > > can't > > > touch, can't apprehend the unconditional being. > > > > > > The conditional consciousness involves a center. > > > > > > The conditional conscious dies. > > > > > > In a certain sense, conditional consciousness is death, because it is > > > time. > > > > > > -- Dan -- > > > > > > Why are you imposing the condition of inconditionality? > > > -geo- > > > > It would only seem like that to someone existing in a conditional state, > > in > > which conditions were imposed from outside. > > > > -- Dan -- > > > > Yes. The seeing of the conditioned, temporal, does not allow anything to > > be > > projected as " outside " . After all it is consciousness that projects the > > inner and outer concepts. > > -geo- > > And is there a real projector, somewhere, of concepts and perceptions? > > Or is " consciousness " also imagined and inferred? > > I'm bringing up this question not to try to be right or score a point. > > I'm bringing it up because perception changes when the assumption drops > that > anything is making it happen the way it is. > > As well as the assumption that someone somewhere knows what it is. > > Not that these assumptions (which are essentially versions of the same > assumption) drop because of an act of will, or something made it drop. > > But that the assumption drops if it drops. > > And if it doesn't drop, then there is the attempt to maintain it. > > After all, believing there are things making other things happen, which > could change the way things happen, is carried throughout the commonsense > view of the world that is maintained through social conditioning of > thought > patterns through relationships and actions (rewarding certain types of > thought/behavior patterns, punishing or ignoring others). > > -- Dan -- > > The projector of concepts is the localized mind, the brain, thinking. Why > do > you ask this? Because any localization involves fiction, employed in a relative manner. Yes, that is what I am saying. > Consciousness is not imagined at all. And here I am using the expression > as > per nis. What is writing, typing, thinking, living (here/there) IS the > world/consciousness/body You are not convincing in your statement that your interpretation of consciousness is what actually is. And bringing Nis. into it doesn't make it any more convincing. First there is no intentional interpretation of it. Second, I dont want to convince you of anything - it is an invitation. Third, I had to bring Nis in because the expression consciousness is used in different manners by different people. > It is not a matter of " knowing " what consicousness is, to define it - no. > It > simply is. You believe that what is, has been successfully defined? Defined??? But to define is a memory stuff. Who would care to define it? The most one do is try to convey a way to look at the same thing. > In fact the nature of this consciousness changes when it is emptied of the > entity. This is something you read about and learned in the past. You assert words as if they make something a fact. No. It is a fact here/now. The word content refers to the past, and you are unable to use words in any way that does not refer to the past, unless they become meaningless (true also for me, and any reader or writer). Without any memory content involved, words have no referents and no meaning. " xptlwk witnt golbogw rentwl! " -- Dan -- We all know that about words, dont we? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 4, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > No, they weren't bandied about. > > They were placed with precision and care. Placed, eh? Bull ;-). > But if they don't suit you, if you don't appreciate the care > involved, that's okay. I 'appreciate' fully the attention, awareness and interest that is. And 'appreciate' that it's quite effortless, as well, and so no props are going to anyone. All props and " shouts out " are to the egoic nonsense bandied about. Great work, guys! Keep it up, just like the energizer bunny! ;-). > LOL! > > Hey, good luck. > > Maybe you'll become his guru! > > Are you " Omkaradatta " the guru? > > Smiles ... Apparent sarcasm, followed by " smiles " , doesn't suit ya. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 4, 2009 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Tuesday, August 04, 2009 5:34 PM Re: Seeing Value Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > I would not put it this way. There is the feeling of fragmentation (here), > the pain of it....then there is the sudden understanding of the > meaning/scope of this " world/consciousness " . It is almost a falling away > from it...a detachement. First there is the entity and the pain...then > understanding and seeing. > -geo- As long as it is: " first this, then this, " it is in the realm of time and experience. One experience ends, and another (bigger, better) begins. But, still in the realm of time and experience. And whatever begins, ends. -d- ---I understand that. But suddenly time happens and timelessness is just theory. From timelessness is all clear and obvious. Then time apperas again. -geo- Also, experiences that begin and end are localized to whatever being is associated with having that experience (which being also is assumed to have its beginning, ending, memory-chain, and physical limits - allowing it to be named and localized in space-time). Thus, Geo saying, " I understood world/consciousness and I felt a falling away, a detachment, " is different from Joe Blow saying, " I feel like crap. My boss was rude to me at work today, and I'm going to get a beer and forget about it. " Just two different versions of localized experience, with their apparent referents (Geo and Joe, two different I's, two different experiences in their relative framework for " present experience. " ) Both these sets of localized experiencing, with beginnings and endings appears in and through awareness. I'd like to note that the word " awareness " has a beginning and end to its use and is localized in a sentence. The actuality is not nameable, and does not begin and end, and is not localized. In this sense, " awareness " is similar to " mutual co-arising of phenomena, " which is not itself a localized phenomenon, but becomes one when offered as a description. - Dan - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 4, 2009 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Tuesday, August 04, 2009 5:54 PM Re: Seeing Value Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Tuesday, August 04, 2009 5:35 PM > Re: Seeing Value > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > dan330033 > > Nisargadatta > > Tuesday, August 04, 2009 4:53 PM > > Re: Seeing Value > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > Tim G. > > > Nisargadatta > > > Tuesday, August 04, 2009 4:26 PM > > > Re: Seeing Value > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > I don't know what that means, " the perception of consciousness " . > > > > > > > > The subjective is an introjection, not a projection. The objective > > > > is > > > > a > > > > projection. The two arise together. Projecting 'out there' creates > > > > 'in > > > > here', and introjecting 'in here' creates 'out there'. > > > > > > > > geo> Both in here and out there are conceptual. > > > > > > Everything we say here on this forum is conceptual. > > > > > > Why pick on 'in here' and 'out there' specifically? > > > > > > The concept " concept " is conceptual. > > > > > > Now that we've got that one out of the way... ;-). > > > > > > geo> Would not the seeing/understanding of the limitation of words do > > > something about it? > > > > D: Clarity about the assumptions involved in language use cannot fully > > be > > brought about by using language. But, such clarity can be suggested > > through > > language. > > > > Clarity on the assumptions imbedded in language, thought, memory, and > > social > > relationship (which are an interactive web of assumption), changes the > > attempt to identify, so to speak. > > > > The catch is, the clarity itself is the non-identification. > > > > Thus, using words always involves the drawback of seeming to infer that > > someone is receiving the words, which will then affect that someone in > > some > > way (such as leading that someone to dis-identify). > > > > Dis-identifying can't be done, because there would have to be someone > > (or > > something) there to disidentify from the someone who is being > > disidentified > > from. > > > > So, that's the catch. > > > > The clarity is the non-identifying (non-attachment) that the words refer > > to, > > which is not in the words, which the words can't convey or bring about, > > and > > which doesn't apply to the writer, speaker, or reader of the words > > (fictitious characters all). > > > > - Dan - > > > > It is the same " old " story. Clarity or darkness. Clarity is empty of > > entity. > > -geo- > > There is no " or. " > > There is no alternate state, because this is not a state. > > This is unconditional. > > - D - > > Yes, except when conditioning arises. Look...I could also make a > dissertation about how THIS is always - unconditionaly. Nonetheless: > > X says this is non-conditioned > and.. > Y says this is non-conditioned > > and both may not be saying the same. And I will not try to guess. > The fact here is that in some mysterious way the conditioned > arises " within " > the unconditioned. > > So as always...I will leave this open. > -geo- That sounds on target to me. The conditional arises within the nonconditional. So, the conditionality of the conditional is apparent, not actual. What is actual is the nonconditional Any conditions arising are the unconditional, in its conditioned aspect, so to speak. Thus, no fragments have ever been created, although they may be imagined. The imagining of fragmentation (which is conditional) itself is never fragmented from the actual. The " energy " of the imagining is the unconditional. The imagining is only happening (as an appearance) because of the unconditional, within and through the unconditional. Thus, this dialogue is not a you interacting with a me, or vice versa, and being affected by each other's concepts. This dialogue is arising, with its conditions, within the unconditional. There is no " you " touching " I " - just the unconditional arising (temporarily, as time) through conditions, as conditions. - Dan - All this can be said conceptually or not. The religious says " all is jesus christ " always unconditionally. But I appreciate your effort. :>)) -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 4, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Tuesday, August 04, 2009 5:25 PM > Re: Seeing Value > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > dan330033 > > Nisargadatta > > Tuesday, August 04, 2009 4:47 PM > > Re: Seeing Value > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > dan330033 > > > Nisargadatta > > > Tuesday, August 04, 2009 4:19 PM > > > Re: Seeing Value > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > dan330033 > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > Tuesday, August 04, 2009 3:17 PM > > > > Re: Seeing Value > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Only when consciousness and its value and meaning is fully seen > > > > > presently...only then that which is beyond is. > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > Geo - > > > > > > > > There is no precondition for the unconditional to be. > > > > > > > > Period. > > > > > > > > Anything involving a pre-condition, like " only when this happens, can > > > > that > > > > be, " is conditional. > > > > > > > > Whatever word you want to use for the unconditional (awareness, > > > > nothing, > > > > totality) is not sufficient for understanding. > > > > > > > > Only being is understanding. > > > > > > > > Certainly not the ideas exchanged about it - the being only. > > > > > > > > The being, the awareness, the nothing - is unconditional. > > > > > > > > Thus, it has been referred to as " unborn. " > > > > > > > > Conditionality, conditional beings, conditional consciousness, simply > > > > can't > > > > touch, can't apprehend the unconditional being. > > > > > > > > The conditional consciousness involves a center. > > > > > > > > The conditional conscious dies. > > > > > > > > In a certain sense, conditional consciousness is death, because it is > > > > time. > > > > > > > > -- Dan -- > > > > > > > > Why are you imposing the condition of inconditionality? > > > > -geo- > > > > > > It would only seem like that to someone existing in a conditional state, > > > in > > > which conditions were imposed from outside. > > > > > > -- Dan -- > > > > > > Yes. The seeing of the conditioned, temporal, does not allow anything to > > > be > > > projected as " outside " . After all it is consciousness that projects the > > > inner and outer concepts. > > > -geo- > > > > And is there a real projector, somewhere, of concepts and perceptions? > > > > Or is " consciousness " also imagined and inferred? > > > > I'm bringing up this question not to try to be right or score a point. > > > > I'm bringing it up because perception changes when the assumption drops > > that > > anything is making it happen the way it is. > > > > As well as the assumption that someone somewhere knows what it is. > > > > Not that these assumptions (which are essentially versions of the same > > assumption) drop because of an act of will, or something made it drop. > > > > But that the assumption drops if it drops. > > > > And if it doesn't drop, then there is the attempt to maintain it. > > > > After all, believing there are things making other things happen, which > > could change the way things happen, is carried throughout the commonsense > > view of the world that is maintained through social conditioning of > > thought > > patterns through relationships and actions (rewarding certain types of > > thought/behavior patterns, punishing or ignoring others). > > > > -- Dan -- > > > > The projector of concepts is the localized mind, the brain, thinking. Why > > do > > you ask this? > > Because any localization involves fiction, employed in a relative manner. > > Yes, that is what I am saying. Okay, so, there is no actual projector. There is the imagining of location, allowing beliefs about projectors to seem to make sense. Yes? With no actually located things, entities, or qualities, there isn't any location from which a projection could be projected, correct? In which case, what perception is, is not what it is taken to be in the realms of consensus opinion, spirituality and religion, or even science. Perception simply is, as is, unfragmented, all-at-once, including all its diversity, sense of time and movement, and communications. > > Consciousness is not imagined at all. And here I am using the expression > > as > > per nis. What is writing, typing, thinking, living (here/there) IS the > > world/consciousness/body > > You are not convincing in your statement that your interpretation of > consciousness is what actually is. And bringing Nis. into it doesn't make it > any more convincing. > > First there is no intentional interpretation of it. Okay, doesn't really matter to me. Second, I dont want to > convince you of anything - it is an invitation. How can you invite me to what already is the case? But anyway, I accept. Third, I had to bring Nis in > because the expression consciousness is used in different manners by > different people. I take his use of consciousness to refer to conditioned and conditional being based on the attempted localization of awareness. Like " body consciousness, " which is also " world consciousness as if a being existed in a world. " > > It is not a matter of " knowing " what consicousness is, to define it - no. > > It > > simply is. > > You believe that what is, has been successfully defined? > > Defined??? But to define is a memory stuff. Who would care to define it? The > most one do is try to convey a way to look at the same thing. Are you aware that any time you try to convey meaning, you are defining? And that any definition of anything is the attempt to " define the absolute " as your friend Nis. might put it - or " to define that which by definition, can't be defined " as someone else might put it. > > In fact the nature of this consciousness changes when it is emptied of the > > entity. > > This is something you read about and learned in the past. > > You assert words as if they make something a fact. > > No. It is a fact here/now. What is? > The word content refers to the past, and you are unable to use words in any > way that does not refer to the past, unless they become meaningless (true > also for me, and any reader or writer). > > Without any memory content involved, words have no referents and no meaning. > > " xptlwk witnt golbogw rentwl! " > > -- Dan -- > > We all know that about words, dont we? " We " ? We are the meanings of words and the referents of memory. That is all " we " are. -- Dan -- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 4, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > Tim G. > Nisargadatta > Tuesday, August 04, 2009 5:57 PM > Re: Seeing Value > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > I was around 6.....the first time I " knew " I was. It iwas/is the most > > unquestionable fact ever. > > And you? > > -geo- > > I didn't mean 'knowing one is'. Quite the opposite. > > Times when one is very much 'in the now', one is not... the 'now' is. > > When one knows one is-- one " is " , and the 'now' is not. > > One's presence is an attempted freezing of time, as though one is apart from > the stream of events. > -tim- > > You are just trying to find a " better " word for what has no name. > -geo- I'm not trying to do anything, Geo. Words appear. Is there effort involved in that? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 4, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Tuesday, August 04, 2009 5:34 PM > Re: Seeing Value > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > I would not put it this way. There is the feeling of fragmentation (here), > > the pain of it....then there is the sudden understanding of the > > meaning/scope of this " world/consciousness " . It is almost a falling away > > from it...a detachement. First there is the entity and the pain...then > > understanding and seeing. > > -geo- > > As long as it is: " first this, then this, " it is in the realm of time and > experience. > > One experience ends, and another (bigger, better) begins. > > But, still in the realm of time and experience. > > And whatever begins, ends. > -d- > > ---I understand that. But suddenly time happens and timelessness is just > theory. From timelessness is all clear and obvious. Then time apperas again. > -geo- Time is free to appear. You are not " in " time. There isn't anyone " in " time. Time is always appearing through the timeless. The timeless is never gone. It can't be theory - by its nature, so to speak, although it doesn't have one (that's why it can't be theory). Theories are of time. - Dan - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 4, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > All this can be said conceptually or not. > The religious says " all is jesus christ " always unconditionally. But I > appreciate your effort. :>)) > -geo- My pleasure. It's easy and fun - so not much effort. You're correct, the unconditional isn't something had through words. It isn't constructed by belief, because of what someone said about it. -- Dan -- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 4, 2009 - Tim G. Nisargadatta Tuesday, August 04, 2009 6:12 PM Re: Seeing Value Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > Tim G. > Nisargadatta > Tuesday, August 04, 2009 5:57 PM > Re: Seeing Value > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > I was around 6.....the first time I " knew " I was. It iwas/is the most > > unquestionable fact ever. > > And you? > > -geo- > > I didn't mean 'knowing one is'. Quite the opposite. > > Times when one is very much 'in the now', one is not... the 'now' is. > > When one knows one is-- one " is " , and the 'now' is not. > > One's presence is an attempted freezing of time, as though one is apart > from > the stream of events. > -tim- > > You are just trying to find a " better " word for what has no name. > -geo- I'm not trying to do anything, Geo. Words appear. Is there effort involved in that? -tim- Irrelevant. -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
