In Nisargadatta@, dan330033 dan330033@... wrote:

[Guest guest]

-

Tim G.

Nisargadatta

Saturday, August 08, 2009 4:52 PM

Re: In Nisargadatta , " dan330033 "

<dan330033 wrote:

 

 

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> -

> dan330033

> Nisargadatta

> Saturday, August 08, 2009 2:18 PM

> Re: In Nisargadatta , " dan330033 "

> <dan330033@> wrote:

>

>

> Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> > >

> > > The past is not in a relationship with " what is. "

> > >

> > > " What is " is not divided into portions or segments.

> > >

> > > The person that is of the past, the mode of experiencing that is of

> > > the past, cannot touch the actual living present that is who one

> > > truly is.

> > >

> > > - Dan

> >

> > This past-based 'mode of experiencing' is, of course, not continuous.

> >

> > For example, one may " get into " a piece of music and forget about time

> > altogether.

>

> Yes.

>

> With " full absorption " there is no sense of being absorbed, no starting or

> ending point of it. It is primordial non-division.

>

> One is the music, one is the hearing of it, and that which hears is the

> music.

>

> In this sense, nothing is happening, nothing was heard.

>

> -- D --

>

> No. In this kind of absortion there is a temporary " absent-mindness " , but

> then all comes back and the imagined center is there again.

> -geo-

 

What are you saying " no " to, above?

 

All I said was that the imaginary center isn't continuous, and Dan agreed.

And you then said " no " , and agreed with us as well (?).

=

Sorry..sorry...sorry...sorry..sorry. You are right.

-geo-

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> -

> dan330033

> Nisargadatta

> Saturday, August 08, 2009 2:18 PM

> Re: In Nisargadatta , " dan330033 "

> <dan330033@> wrote:

>

>

> Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> > >

> > > The past is not in a relationship with " what is. "

> > >

> > > " What is " is not divided into portions or segments.

> > >

> > > The person that is of the past, the mode of experiencing that is of

> > > the past, cannot touch the actual living present that is who one

> > > truly is.

> > >

> > > - Dan

> >

> > This past-based 'mode of experiencing' is, of course, not continuous.

> >

> > For example, one may " get into " a piece of music and forget about time

> > altogether.

>

> Yes.

>

> With " full absorption " there is no sense of being absorbed, no starting or

> ending point of it. It is primordial non-division.

>

> One is the music, one is the hearing of it, and that which hears is the

> music.

>

> In this sense, nothing is happening, nothing was heard.

>

> -- D --

>

> No. In this kind of absortion there is a temporary " absent-mindness " , but

> then all comes back and the imagined center is there again.

> -geo-

 

Then it's not " full absorption " is it?

 

- D -

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> -

> Tim G.

> Nisargadatta

> Saturday, August 08, 2009 2:55 PM

> Re: In Nisargadatta , " dan330033 "

> <dan330033@> wrote:

>

>

> Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > The past is not in a relationship with " what is. "

> > > >

> > > > " What is " is not divided into portions or segments.

> > > >

> > > > The person that is of the past, the mode of experiencing that is of

> > > > the past, cannot touch the actual living present that is who one

> > > > truly is.

> > > >

> > > > - Dan

> > >

> > > This past-based 'mode of experiencing' is, of course, not continuous.

> > >

> > > For example, one may " get into " a piece of music and forget about time

> > > altogether.

> >

> > Yes.

> >

> > With " full absorption " there is no sense of being absorbed, no starting or

> > ending point of it. It is primordial non-division.

> >

> > One is the music, one is the hearing of it, and that which hears is the

> > music.

> >

> > In this sense, nothing is happening, nothing was heard.

> >

> >

> > -- D --

>

> Well said... I like the example of music as well, as it tends to have a

> flowing quality that 'creates absorption' through its obvious non-staticity

> (in contrast to an objectified 'me' or 'you').

>

> ==

> For some time the senses are fulfilled, the self forgoten....one is in

> company of the predilect toy. Some minutes later the imagined observer is

> there s if never had left. That is just an experience.

> -geo-

 

Geo -

 

I used " music " as a metaphor.

 

Tim responded to it as a metaphor.

 

You are treating " music " differently, as a concrete experience that a separate

being listens to, gets absorbed to some extent for a while, then disengages

from.

 

But what is full absorption?

 

Not with an experience temporarily.

 

But with this moment, as it is, atemporally?

 

- Dan -

[Guest guest]

-

dan330033

Nisargadatta

Sunday, August 09, 2009 7:23 AM

Re: In Nisargadatta , " dan330033 "

<dan330033 wrote:

 

 

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> -

> Tim G.

> Nisargadatta

> Saturday, August 08, 2009 2:55 PM

> Re: In Nisargadatta , " dan330033 "

> <dan330033@> wrote:

>

>

> Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > The past is not in a relationship with " what is. "

> > > >

> > > > " What is " is not divided into portions or segments.

> > > >

> > > > The person that is of the past, the mode of experiencing that is of

> > > > the past, cannot touch the actual living present that is who one

> > > > truly is.

> > > >

> > > > - Dan

> > >

> > > This past-based 'mode of experiencing' is, of course, not continuous.

> > >

> > > For example, one may " get into " a piece of music and forget about time

> > > altogether.

> >

> > Yes.

> >

> > With " full absorption " there is no sense of being absorbed, no starting

> > or

> > ending point of it. It is primordial non-division.

> >

> > One is the music, one is the hearing of it, and that which hears is the

> > music.

> >

> > In this sense, nothing is happening, nothing was heard.

> >

> >

> > -- D --

>

> Well said... I like the example of music as well, as it tends to have a

> flowing quality that 'creates absorption' through its obvious

> non-staticity

> (in contrast to an objectified 'me' or 'you').

>

> ==

> For some time the senses are fulfilled, the self forgoten....one is in

> company of the predilect toy. Some minutes later the imagined observer is

> there s if never had left. That is just an experience.

> -geo-

 

Geo -

 

I used " music " as a metaphor.

 

Tim responded to it as a metaphor.

 

You are treating " music " differently, as a concrete experience that a

separate being listens to, gets absorbed to some extent for a while, then

disengages from.

 

But what is full absorption?

 

Not with an experience temporarily.

 

But with this moment, as it is, atemporally?

 

- Dan -

 

I dont understand the metaphor quite well...anyway...if some " kind " of music

listening could open the door for the atemporal ground then all one had to

do is find some great enjoyment, something very atractive to play with and

nothing else. I am sure you dont mean that.

-geo-

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " <douglasmitch1963@>

wrote:

>

> > > > Doug -

> > > >

> > > > Thanks, that's good to hear. I appreciate it.

> > > >

> > > > And I appreciate your self-disclosure, too.

> > > >

> > > > The truth that we discuss here is intimately involved with death and

dying.

> > > >

> > > > And the truth we discuss is intimately involved with one's own direct

experience/awareness.

> > > >

> > > > The body that we truly are is a movement.

> > > >

> > > > The body that others identify us as, is an object.

> > > >

> > > > The movement we are didn't begin when our parents conceived us.

> > > >

> > > > What do I know directly, as this movement?

> > > >

> > > > It isn't moving from the past to the future.

> > > >

> > > > It is a nondivided movement opening up from and as the present moment.

> > > >

> >

> >

> > >Isn't the present moment always experienced after it has happened due to

the lag time from input to Awareness? In which case the present moment is also

really the past?

>

> Hi Doug -

>

> Conceptualization of any experience involves an imagined time lag.

>

> The time lag is " built in " because the process of conceptualization requires

an imagined distance between observer and observed.

>

> The actual present is not the conceptualized present.

>

> The conceptualized present is an imaginary point between past and future.

>

> The actual present is not divided into segments, such as past, present, and

future.

>

 

 

>Dan, how does one " experience " the undivided present moment as opposed to the

conceptualized present moment? Doug

 

 

 

 

> So, yes, the conceptualized present is the past.

>

> Concept (memory and thought) only refers to the past.

>

> The past is not in a relationship with " what is. "

>

> " What is " is not divided into portions or segments.

>

> The person that is of the past, the mode of experiencing that is of the past,

cannot touch the actual living present that is who one truly is.

>

> - Dan

>

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " <douglasmitch1963

wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " <douglasmitch1963@>

wrote:

> >

> > > > > Doug -

> > > > >

> > > > > Thanks, that's good to hear. I appreciate it.

> > > > >

> > > > > And I appreciate your self-disclosure, too.

> > > > >

> > > > > The truth that we discuss here is intimately involved with death and

dying.

> > > > >

> > > > > And the truth we discuss is intimately involved with one's own direct

experience/awareness.

> > > > >

> > > > > The body that we truly are is a movement.

> > > > >

> > > > > The body that others identify us as, is an object.

> > > > >

> > > > > The movement we are didn't begin when our parents conceived us.

> > > > >

> > > > > What do I know directly, as this movement?

> > > > >

> > > > > It isn't moving from the past to the future.

> > > > >

> > > > > It is a nondivided movement opening up from and as the present moment.

> > > > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >Isn't the present moment always experienced after it has happened due to

the lag time from input to Awareness? In which case the present moment is also

really the past?

> >

> > Hi Doug -

> >

> > Conceptualization of any experience involves an imagined time lag.

> >

> > The time lag is " built in " because the process of conceptualization requires

an imagined distance between observer and observed.

> >

> > The actual present is not the conceptualized present.

> >

> > The conceptualized present is an imaginary point between past and future.

> >

> > The actual present is not divided into segments, such as past, present, and

future.

> >

>

>

> >Dan, how does one " experience " the undivided present moment as opposed to the

conceptualized present moment? Doug

> Meditation watches the rising and disolving of thoughts/concepts in the

apparent present moment. Is this the undivided present moment? Or is it

" getting lost in the music " as Tim mentioned? Doug

>

>

>

> > So, yes, the conceptualized present is the past.

> >

> > Concept (memory and thought) only refers to the past.

> >

> > The past is not in a relationship with " what is. "

> >

> > " What is " is not divided into portions or segments.

> >

> > The person that is of the past, the mode of experiencing that is of the

past, cannot touch the actual living present that is who one truly is.

> >

> > - Dan

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> -

> dan330033

> Nisargadatta

> Sunday, August 09, 2009 7:23 AM

> Re: In Nisargadatta , " dan330033 "

> <dan330033@> wrote:

>

>

> Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> >

> >

> > -

> > Tim G.

> > Nisargadatta

> > Saturday, August 08, 2009 2:55 PM

> > Re: In Nisargadatta , " dan330033 "

> > <dan330033@> wrote:

> >

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > The past is not in a relationship with " what is. "

> > > > >

> > > > > " What is " is not divided into portions or segments.

> > > > >

> > > > > The person that is of the past, the mode of experiencing that is of

> > > > > the past, cannot touch the actual living present that is who one

> > > > > truly is.

> > > > >

> > > > > - Dan

> > > >

> > > > This past-based 'mode of experiencing' is, of course, not continuous.

> > > >

> > > > For example, one may " get into " a piece of music and forget about time

> > > > altogether.

> > >

> > > Yes.

> > >

> > > With " full absorption " there is no sense of being absorbed, no starting

> > > or

> > > ending point of it. It is primordial non-division.

> > >

> > > One is the music, one is the hearing of it, and that which hears is the

> > > music.

> > >

> > > In this sense, nothing is happening, nothing was heard.

> > >

> > >

> > > -- D --

> >

> > Well said... I like the example of music as well, as it tends to have a

> > flowing quality that 'creates absorption' through its obvious

> > non-staticity

> > (in contrast to an objectified 'me' or 'you').

> >

> > ==

> > For some time the senses are fulfilled, the self forgoten....one is in

> > company of the predilect toy. Some minutes later the imagined observer is

> > there s if never had left. That is just an experience.

> > -geo-

>

> Geo -

>

> I used " music " as a metaphor.

>

> Tim responded to it as a metaphor.

>

> You are treating " music " differently, as a concrete experience that a

> separate being listens to, gets absorbed to some extent for a while, then

> disengages from.

>

> But what is full absorption?

>

> Not with an experience temporarily.

>

> But with this moment, as it is, atemporally?

>

> - Dan -

>

> I dont understand the metaphor quite well...anyway...if some " kind " of music

> listening could open the door for the atemporal ground then all one had to

> do is find some great enjoyment, something very atractive to play with and

> nothing else. I am sure you dont mean that.

> -geo-

 

Hi Geo -

 

You're right, I don't mean having a certain attitude involved in listening.

 

The listening and the hearing and what is heard are occurring at once, are the

same experiential moment.

 

How long does this moment last?

 

It's impossible to say.

 

One could call this " full absorption. "

 

You actually already are fully absorbed.

 

That is why it is not recognized.

 

Listening to music is being used as a metaphor for the sensory now-moment of

experience.

 

One is fully absorbed from before the beginning of the trance-like unfolding of

the story of a life.

 

To be awake from the trance, understand that one is fully absorbed, from before

it ever started (that is, antecedent to time).

 

One can't help being fully absorbed.

 

That is why one's life seems real to oneself.

 

And, it is why it never happened.

 

-- Dan --

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " <douglasmitch1963

wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " <douglasmitch1963@>

wrote:

> >

> > > > > Doug -

> > > > >

> > > > > Thanks, that's good to hear. I appreciate it.

> > > > >

> > > > > And I appreciate your self-disclosure, too.

> > > > >

> > > > > The truth that we discuss here is intimately involved with death and

dying.

> > > > >

> > > > > And the truth we discuss is intimately involved with one's own direct

experience/awareness.

> > > > >

> > > > > The body that we truly are is a movement.

> > > > >

> > > > > The body that others identify us as, is an object.

> > > > >

> > > > > The movement we are didn't begin when our parents conceived us.

> > > > >

> > > > > What do I know directly, as this movement?

> > > > >

> > > > > It isn't moving from the past to the future.

> > > > >

> > > > > It is a nondivided movement opening up from and as the present moment.

> > > > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >Isn't the present moment always experienced after it has happened due to

the lag time from input to Awareness? In which case the present moment is also

really the past?

> >

> > Hi Doug -

> >

> > Conceptualization of any experience involves an imagined time lag.

> >

> > The time lag is " built in " because the process of conceptualization requires

an imagined distance between observer and observed.

> >

> > The actual present is not the conceptualized present.

> >

> > The conceptualized present is an imaginary point between past and future.

> >

> > The actual present is not divided into segments, such as past, present, and

future.

> >

>

>

> >Dan, how does one " experience " the undivided present moment as opposed to the

conceptualized present moment? Doug

 

Hi Doug -

 

One is experiencing the undivided present moment, because that is what one is.

 

There isn't any experiencer separate from, or other than, this present

experiential moment.

 

Can you find one anywhere?

 

One is not experiencing the conceptualized present moment.

 

(If one understands this, it is clear, and there is no need for any further

elaboration. However, as I tend to be wordy, I'll elaborate for the heck of it

- feel free to skip the rest of this post :-)

 

The conceptualized self and its reality is an image that appears to attempt to

draw a sense of reality to itself.

 

It is a rip-off artist.

 

It is what is referred to in the Old Testament as " missing the mark, " or " sin. "

It is " taking a graven image as God. "

 

In the New Testament it is referred to as " Satan, " as " the deceiver. "

 

It is referred to as " Mara " in Buddhism, as " Maya " in Hinduism.

 

It is what is referred to as " duality " by many nondual teachers.

 

It is the operation of one's own mind.

 

So, all these teachings are saying, " notice the self-deception, notice the

tendency to impart a sense of reality to an image, to the past. "

 

 

The energy falsely becoming invested in what never is (in an image involving

time and self), is the energy of the actual present, the undivided experiential

present moment.

 

Understanding within one's own experience, one's own present awareness, is the

only " demonstration " of this truth that matters.

 

Not all the holy books or teachers or suggestions make one whit of difference,

except to whatever extent they might catalyze this moment of acute awareness.

 

One is never not the undivided present awareness, the experiential now-moment as

it is.

 

One has no choice in this.

 

No volition is involved.

 

Hence, any attempt to try to be more present than one is, is the apparent

activity of a conceptual center, a being that is not really here.

 

Because it is not here, it can't really do anything.

 

That is why it is simply a matter of being aware.

 

One can't choose this or make it happen, because it already always is so.

 

Trying to make something happen is a form of self-deceit. And even that

apparent self-deceit turns out to be an aspect of the present experiential

moment.

 

The instant one is clear on this, it is fully clear.

 

Nothing is left out.

 

It is all-inclusive of one's present experience exactly as it is.

 

There is no center to get rid of.

 

There is no image having its own independent existence to draw energy out of the

present into a divided reality.

 

- D -

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " <douglasmitch1963

wrote:

 

> > >

> > > Hi Doug -

> > >

> > > Conceptualization of any experience involves an imagined time lag.

> > >

> > > The time lag is " built in " because the process of conceptualization

requires an imagined distance between observer and observed.

> > >

> > > The actual present is not the conceptualized present.

> > >

> > > The conceptualized present is an imaginary point between past and future.

> > >

> > > The actual present is not divided into segments, such as past, present,

and future.

> > >

> >

> >

> > >Dan, how does one " experience " the undivided present moment as opposed to

the conceptualized present moment? Doug

> > Meditation watches the rising and disolving of thoughts/concepts in the

apparent present moment. Is this the undivided present moment? Or is it

" getting lost in the music " as Tim mentioned? Doug

 

Hi Doug -

 

There is only one undivided present moment - and this is it.

 

It's not " either this or something else, or maybe this way like someone said, or

maybe this other way like someone else said. "

 

It's just as it is.

 

It's already here.

 

It's always now.

 

What is here, now, as this experiential present moment?

 

Unquestionably, it's this now-moment of one's experiencing.

 

One can't not be experiencing what one now is experiencing.

 

One can't not be aware of what one now is aware-ing.

 

- Dan -

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

> The conceptualized self and its reality is an image that appears to attempt to

draw a sense of reality to itself.

>

> It is a rip-off artist.

>

> It is what is referred to in the Old Testament as " missing the mark, " or

" sin. " It is " taking a graven image as God. "

>

> In the New Testament it is referred to as " Satan, " as " the deceiver. "

>

> It is referred to as " Mara " in Buddhism, as " Maya " in Hinduism.

>

> It is what is referred to as " duality " by many nondual teachers.

 

There are about ten trillion ways to describe this 'deceiver', as there are ten

trillion 'mental deceptions'.

 

In the earlier days here, it became clear that the name of this deceiver is

" YOU " .

 

The tendency to believe in something outside awareness, in 'other selves', in

'you's'.

 

Notice the divisiveness around where this word " YOU " is used often.

 

> It is the operation of one's own mind.

 

Exactly. And, as we've talked about, 'the mind' is the configuration of

awareness when " other " is involved.