Guest guest Report post Posted August 17, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > == > Now, considering temporal and spacial events....(math, streeets, chairs) of > course it must " feel strange " . But it is not part of our " experience > repertoaire " to have time and history and space and localization.......side > by side with the timeless, spaceless, history-less, non-localized. And it is > exaclty because there is no such experience that it is possible - but the > quest for experience must not be there - which is the same as MElessness. > -geo- Yes, the gist of what you're saying seems on-target to me. I would put it that time is subsumed by the timeless, such that no temporal event ever happened, even though memory can function as if something happened. The memory function itself never happened, is " as if. " This gives the sense of events spontaneously ordering themselves as if nothing could ever happen out of place, nor ever has. As if a perfect geometric ordering spontaneously constantly occurs from and as what is usually considered chaotic and out-of-control (the now as is). Nothing has ever happened, so nothing happens out of place or out of its time. There can't be any quest for experience, because there is no experience to be had. - D - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 17, 2009 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Monday, August 17, 2009 5:06 PM Re: timeless nonexperience Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > == > Now, considering temporal and spacial events....(math, streeets, chairs) > of > course it must " feel strange " . But it is not part of our " experience > repertoaire " to have time and history and space and > localization.......side > by side with the timeless, spaceless, history-less, non-localized. And it > is > exaclty because there is no such experience that it is possible - but the > quest for experience must not be there - which is the same as MElessness. > -geo- Yes, the gist of what you're saying seems on-target to me. I would put it that time is subsumed by the timeless, such that no temporal event ever happened, even though memory can function as if something happened. The memory function itself never happened, is " as if. " -d- Let me see this... Well, memory does a painting, a representation of some sensorial input, that becomes a fax-simile of the input itself. A poor fax. -geo- This gives the sense of events spontaneously ordering themselves as if nothing could ever happen out of place, nor ever has. As if a perfect geometric ordering spontaneously constantly occurs from and as what is usually considered chaotic and out-of-control (the now as is). Nothing has ever happened, so nothing happens out of place or out of its time. There can't be any quest for experience, because there is no experience to be had. - D - avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 090816-0, 17/08/2009 Tested on: 17/8/2009 17:12:10 avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 17, 2009 - geo Nisargadatta Monday, August 17, 2009 5:29 PM Re: Re: timeless nonexperience - dan330033 Nisargadatta Monday, August 17, 2009 5:06 PM Re: timeless nonexperience Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > == > Now, considering temporal and spacial events....(math, streeets, chairs) > of > course it must " feel strange " . But it is not part of our " experience > repertoaire " to have time and history and space and > localization.......side > by side with the timeless, spaceless, history-less, non-localized. And it > is > exaclty because there is no such experience that it is possible - but the > quest for experience must not be there - which is the same as MElessness. > -geo- Yes, the gist of what you're saying seems on-target to me. I would put it that time is subsumed by the timeless, such that no temporal event ever happened, even though memory can function as if something happened. The memory function itself never happened, is " as if. " -d- Let me see this... Well, memory does a painting, a representation of some sensorial input, that becomes a fax-simile of the input itself. A poor fax. -geo- This gives the sense of events spontaneously ordering themselves as if nothing could ever happen out of place, nor ever has. As if a perfect geometric ordering spontaneously constantly occurs from and as what is usually considered chaotic and out-of-control (the now as is). Nothing has ever happened, so nothing happens out of place or out of its time. There can't be any quest for experience, because there is no experience to be had. - D - I think the miracle of making some orderly world out of caos is not-understandable. In other words, perception is beyond understanding. -geo- avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 090816-0, 17/08/2009 Tested on: 17/8/2009 17:12:10 avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 090816-0, 17/08/2009 Tested on: 17/8/2009 17:34:24 avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > Let me see this... Well, memory does a painting, a representation of some > sensorial input, that becomes a fax-simile of the input itself. A poor fax. > -geo- Well, no, it's even more baffling than that to the logical mind (remember, " limits of knowledge " ...) Putting it into words is a kind of sacrilege, but what the hell: The sensory input is not coming from outside (there is no such thing as an outside, as you need memory and concept to be functioning for there to be any outside or inside to anything). So, sensory input is a required aspect of the memory loop that constructs time, experience, defines events, makes images, uses concepts. Sensory input " exists " (without ever happening) only with and due to the memory system that " records " it, thus constructing time. But time constructs the system as the system constructs time. So, it doesn't really happen, even though it is very convincing ... that is, it constructs the belief that it is convincing itself that it exists ... but that belief can never have more reality than the system that constructs the belief .... This system is unable to actually validate the existence of a center, therefore can't validate a center to anything else, therefore can't validate a periphery, therefore can't validate inside or outside, therefore can't validate time, therefore can't validate anything happening. The experiences, pictures, events, people, sense of knowing, sense of reality .... all depend on this system maintaining a sense of existence (to self, to things, to events, to experiences) ... a sense of time and space ... And the system is unable to validate any of this. It's all interdependently co-arising conceptually, even the most basic sensations of heat, cold, pain, pleasure, along with the " I " that is implied as the reference for the experiences. So, we have birth, death, pain, pleasure as the bottom-line convincers to maintain belief in a body that exists in time and space. But, how is the belief of someone being convinced produced? Once you are clearly aware of this loop functioning (as memory/consciousness, time, experience) the understanding dawns that nothing is happening. Everything is happening, is one, nothing happens, everything is the observer, there is no observer ... The primordial awareness is not of time, yet fully understands the timing of time as itself. Not that it has a self or that it is understanding an object. It's transcendent to any knowledge of time, of a being, of sentience, or based on any experience. One is free of time, and lived by time, at the same time. The timing of each event exactly " so, " because all events are one, and nothing ever occurred. - D - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > I think the miracle of making some orderly world out of caos is > not-understandable. In other words, perception is beyond understanding. > -geo- So much so, that the invention of language is sacrilegious. But, of course, can't be helped. ;-) - D - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 18, 2009 And the system is unable to validate any of this. It's all interdependently co-arising conceptually, even the most basic sensations of heat, cold, pain, pleasure, along with the "I" that is implied as the reference for the experiences. -d- I dont see the need of an I at all. A new born baby feels heat and cries, feels cold and cries, hunger, thirst. In fact the first cry of a baby is because the lungs are burnt by oxigen. -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 18, 2009 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Monday, August 17, 2009 7:41 PM Re: timeless nonexperience Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > I think the miracle of making some orderly world out of caos is > not-understandable. In other words, perception is beyond understanding. > -geo- So much so, that the invention of language is sacrilegious. But, of course, can't be helped. ;-) - D - Language? waht is wrong with it? -geo- avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 090816-0, 17/08/2009 Tested on: 17/8/2009 19:45:55 avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > And the system is unable to validate any of this. It's all interdependently co-arising conceptually, even the most basic sensations of heat, cold, pain, pleasure, along with the " I " that is implied as the reference for the experiences. > -d- > > I dont see the need of an I at all. A new born baby feels heat and cries, feels cold and cries, hunger, thirst. In fact the first cry of a baby is because the lungs are burnt by oxigen. > -geo- > I is only the I that doesn't see its own purpose. toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Monday, August 17, 2009 7:41 PM > Re: timeless nonexperience > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > I think the miracle of making some orderly world out of caos is > > not-understandable. In other words, perception is beyond understanding. > > -geo- > > So much so, that the invention of language is sacrilegious. > > But, of course, can't be helped. > > ;-) > > - D - > > Language? waht is wrong with it? > -geo- > > > > > > Out of language the dream of separation and its imaginary struggle emerge. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with that. It is a highly evolved phenomenon. But there is a resulting tension that can lead to suffering if consciousness identifies itself as the phantom that emerges into the naming of things. The sense of me and other it a fear-based overlay. Its function is survival and reproduction of the species. But for the imaginary individual.....its a scary place. And there is no way around that. toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > The primordial awareness is not of time, yet fully understands the > timing of time as itself. > > Not that it has a self or that it is understanding an object. It is 'understanding as Being'. " Knowing " that isn't separable from being. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > The primordial awareness is not of time, yet fully understands the > > timing of time as itself. > > > > Not that it has a self or that it is understanding an object. > > It is 'understanding as Being'. > > " Knowing " that isn't separable from being. > It it knows anything......it is conceptually separate. toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > The primordial awareness is not of time, yet fully understands the > > > timing of time as itself. > > > > > > Not that it has a self or that it is understanding an object. > > > > It is 'understanding as Being'. > > > > " Knowing " that isn't separable from being. > > > > > > It it knows anything......it is conceptually separate. > > > > toombaru 'Knowing' is direct, as 'being'. What is known indirectly (conceptual knowledge) is ignorance. What is " known " directly, that which isn't knowledge, isn't ignorance either. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 18, 2009 > > > > > > If it knows anything......it is conceptually separate. > > > > > > > > toombaru > > 'Knowing' is direct, as 'being'. > > What is known indirectly (conceptual knowledge) is ignorance. > > What is " known " directly, that which isn't knowledge, isn't ignorance either. > Being and knowing exist only in relationship to other. There is no direct knowing. toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > If it knows anything......it is conceptually separate. > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > 'Knowing' is direct, as 'being'. > > > > What is known indirectly (conceptual knowledge) is ignorance. > > > > What is " known " directly, that which isn't knowledge, isn't ignorance either. > > > > > > > Being and knowing exist only in relationship to other. Nothing has ever existed in relationship, and nothing ever will. Toom is in delusion. He is the delusion. > There is no direct knowing. There will never be for Toom... .... for one very good reason. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If it knows anything......it is conceptually separate. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > 'Knowing' is direct, as 'being'. > > > > > > What is known indirectly (conceptual knowledge) is ignorance. > > > > > > What is " known " directly, that which isn't knowledge, isn't ignorance either. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Being and knowing exist only in relationship to other. > > Nothing has ever existed in relationship, and nothing ever will. > " Things " exist only in relationship. > Toom is in delusion. He is the delusion. > Granted. Although some are in deeper delusion than others. > > There is no direct knowing. > > There will never be for Toom... Simply because there is no such thing. And no one to have it. Is it you belief that you are in " direct knowing " ? > > ... for one very good reason. > Indeed. toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > > Toom is in delusion. He is the delusion. > > > > > > > Granted. > > Although some are in deeper delusion than others. Oh, of course. There's an entire world out there in relationship. Some relating better than others, some worse... some in delusion, some not. And then... there's me. Eh? ;-). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > Toom is in delusion. He is the delusion. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Granted. > > > > Although some are in deeper delusion than others. > > Oh, of course. > > There's an entire world out there in relationship. > > Some relating better than others, some worse... some in delusion, some not. > > And then... there's me. Eh? ;-). > I don't know...... I see colors.......and shapes.... I see a room full of things. That damn fox keeps making a funny noise down Strawberry Canyon. It's getting dark and the fog is rolling over the redwoods. I look up at my wife........she smiles. My son is getting married next month. Might see the grandbabies tomorrow. That's about it. toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > I don't know...... > > I see colors.......and shapes.... > > I see a room full of things. Oh? So there is something separate from all of it, seeing it? And if I'm there seeing it too, there are two separate " somethings " that are somehow both within the situation, and separate from the situation? The illogic and absurdity of this sort of thing is apparently missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > I don't know...... > > > > I see colors.......and shapes.... > > > > I see a room full of things. > > Oh? > > So there is something separate from all of it, seeing it? I never said that the separation was anything but conceptual. That is you inference. > > And if I'm there seeing it too, there are two separate " somethings " that are somehow both within the situation, and separate from the situation? > > The illogic and absurdity of this sort of thing is apparently missed. > Why do you pretend to know what my experiential reality is? Do you think that you know me? Are you able to not only understand your personal reality....but claim that your knowledge embraces the world view of a perceived other. And you claim to have a handle on this issue? toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Why do you pretend to know what my experiential reality is? > Do you think that you know me? Because you pretend to know what mine is. " He and Dan don't know what they're talking about " . Tit-for-tat seems reasonable here. You're my hallucination, and I'm yours. I'm enjoying dreaming you up... and apparently, the feeling is mutual. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > Why do you pretend to know what my experiential reality is? > > Do you think that you know me? > > Because you pretend to know what mine is. > > " He and Dan don't know what they're talking about " . > > Tit-for-tat seems reasonable here. > > You're my hallucination, and I'm yours. > > I'm enjoying dreaming you up... and apparently, the feeling is mutual. P.S. in my view, this is why discussion (on mailing lists or otherwise) are going to be utterly fruitless. It's socializing, like saying " pass me the ketchup, please " -- and that's all it is. Reality or 'truth' is not something traded between two imaginary beings, like money being exchanged at a market. It's 'seen directly', or isn't. Directly meaning immediately, not mediated by a " me " or a " you " . And immediacy means also: " Now " . If it isn't seen now, directly, it isn't seen ever. And that is perfectly clear. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > dan330033 > > Nisargadatta > > Monday, August 17, 2009 7:41 PM > > Re: timeless nonexperience > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > I think the miracle of making some orderly world out of caos is > > > not-understandable. In other words, perception is beyond understanding. > > > -geo- > > > > So much so, that the invention of language is sacrilegious. > > > > But, of course, can't be helped. > > > > ;-) > > > > - D - > > > > Language? waht is wrong with it? > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Out of language the dream of separation and its imaginary struggle emerge. Toomb, If I might suggest, don't use the word dream when you meant delusion or illusion. A dream happens when sleeping. To say that life is a dream is the same way incorrect. Life is not a dream. Life is life. Werner > > There is nothing intrinsically wrong with that. > > It is a highly evolved phenomenon. > > But there is a resulting tension that can lead to suffering if consciousness identifies itself as the phantom that emerges into the naming of things. > > The sense of me and other it a fear-based overlay. > > Its function is survival and reproduction of the species. > > But for the imaginary individual.....its a scary place. > > And there is no way around that. > > > > > > toombaru > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > And the system is unable to validate any of this. It's all interdependently co-arising conceptually, even the most basic sensations of heat, cold, pain, pleasure, along with the " I " that is implied as the reference for the experiences. > -d- > > I dont see the need of an I at all. A new born baby feels heat and cries, feels cold and cries, hunger, thirst. In fact the first cry of a baby is because the lungs are burnt by oxigen. > -geo- That's just " you " saying you don't need any " I, " as you explain things that happened in a past that never was. Just as this response to " you " is made by " me " telling you something about what you wrote. Whatever is now, what actually is so, has no divided out you's or me's to tell each other things about what is going on. Explanations and descriptions are always of a past that never was. How else could it be? What is, already always is present. The present arises without anything arising, just is, that always already is so. There is no explanation. There is no " I " required or involved, nor is there any " I " that is not required or not involved. Such conceptualities simply don't pertain. Any and every concept is a reference to the past, that is not. And the only reason you are fooled by any concept (which is merely co-arising with everything that is not that concept, now), is that there is an attempt for a " you " to step outside of " now " to make some comment, some ideation, find some truth, say something about the way things are. There is no way things are. There is no thought of This or about this. - D - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > dan330033 > > Nisargadatta > > Monday, August 17, 2009 7:41 PM > > Re: timeless nonexperience > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > I think the miracle of making some orderly world out of caos is > > > not-understandable. In other words, perception is beyond understanding. > > > -geo- > > > > So much so, that the invention of language is sacrilegious. > > > > But, of course, can't be helped. > > > > ;-) > > > > - D - > > > > Language? waht is wrong with it? > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Out of language the dream of separation and its imaginary struggle emerge. > > There is nothing intrinsically wrong with that. > > It is a highly evolved phenomenon. > > But there is a resulting tension that can lead to suffering if consciousness identifies itself as the phantom that emerges into the naming of things. > > The sense of me and other it a fear-based overlay. > > Its function is survival and reproduction of the species. > > But for the imaginary individual.....its a scary place. > > And there is no way around that. > > > > > > toombaru Explanations are always of the past. There is no " the past. " - D - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 18, 2009 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Tuesday, August 18, 2009 1:10 PM Re: timeless nonexperience Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > And the system is unable to validate any of this. It's all > interdependently co-arising conceptually, even the most basic sensations > of heat, cold, pain, pleasure, along with the " I " that is implied as the > reference for the experiences. > -d- > > I dont see the need of an I at all. A new born baby feels heat and cries, > feels cold and cries, hunger, thirst. In fact the first cry of a baby is > because the lungs are burnt by oxigen. > -geo- That's just " you " saying you don't need any " I, " as you explain things that happened in a past that never was. Just as this response to " you " is made by " me " telling you something about what you wrote. Whatever is now, what actually is so, has no divided out you's or me's to tell each other things about what is going on. Explanations and descriptions are always of a past that never was. How else could it be? What is, already always is present. The present arises without anything arising, just is, that always already is so. There is no explanation. There is no " I " required or involved, nor is there any " I " that is not required or not involved. Such conceptualities simply don't pertain. Any and every concept is a reference to the past, that is not. And the only reason you are fooled by any concept (which is merely co-arising with everything that is not that concept, now), is that there is an attempt for a " you " to step outside of " now " to make some comment, some ideation, find some truth, say something about the way things are. There is no way things are. There is no thought of This or about this. - D - This does not adress the fact that heat, cold, pain is felt by an organism not some I. Babys dont have Is. -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
