Krishnamurti: Consciousness is the Past

September 9, 2009

-

wwoehr

Nisargadatta

Wednesday, September 09, 2009 2:23 PM

Re: Krishnamurti: Consciousness is the Past

Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote:

>

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

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote:

> > >

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

> > > >

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

> > > > >

> > > > > -

> > > > > " wwoehr " <wwoehr@>

> > > > > <Nisargadatta >

> > > > > Wednesday, September 09, 2009 12:35 PM

> > > > > Re: Krishnamurti: Consciousness is the

> > > > > Past

> > > > >

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

> > > > > >>

> > > > > >> -

> > > > > >> wwoehr

> > > > > >> Nisargadatta

> > > > > >> Wednesday, September 09, 2009 12:07 PM

> > > > > >> Re: Krishnamurti: Consciousness is the

> > > > > >> Past

> > > > > >>

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

> > > > > >> >

> > > > > >> > Geo,

> > > > > >> >

> > > > > >> > Instead of constantly posting new little 'mental suprises'

> > > > > >> > better stop

> > > > > >> > for

> > > > > >> > a

> > > > > >> > while your intellectual clowning and answer your questions

> > > > > >> > yourself.

> > > > > >> >

> > > > > >> > Werner

> > > > > >> >

> > > > > >> > Your request - as you say - is comming from consciousness,

> > > > > >> > memory, the

> > > > > >> > past, full of prejudices and pre-conceptions. I am not

> > > > > >> > interested.

> > > > > >> > -geo-

> > > > > >> >

> > > > > >>

> > > > > >> Which means you will go on clowning, Geo ?

> > > > > >>

> > > > > >> Werner

> > > > > >>

> > > > > >> Werner, is consciousness, the past, memory, able to look at

> > > > > >> itself? Is

> > > > > >> this

> > > > > >> looking not from the past and so meningless?

> > > > > >> -geo-

> > > > > >>

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Again a question, Geo,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > But ok, we had that already several times: Consciousness is its

> > > > > > content

> > > > > > and such a content cannot look, neither at itself nor a

> > > > > > something else.

> > > > > > Nor can it speak, cry, jump, dance or whatever else. A content

> > > > > > is just a

> > > > > > content.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Now, after you have read this, you can go on clowning.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Werner

> > > > >

> > > > > So who or what is writing then? Who or what says consciousness is

> > > > > its

> > > > > content?

> > > > > -geo-

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > Again a question, geo, questions, questions, endlessly ...

> > > >

> > > > What do you think is saying that consciousness is its content ?

> > > >

> > > > Werner

> > > >

> > >

> > > The content is saying that.

> > >

> > > toombaru

> > >

> >

> > Quite an interesting topic isn't it toomb, and worth a try. But you

> > guessed wrong.

> >

> > A hint: Consciousness never is a doer or initiator. It is just kinda

> > reporter.

> >

> > Next try, Toomb.

> >

> > Werner

> >

>

> The synaptic self is saying that.

>

> toombaru

>

Ok, Toomb, you won ! Not bad, not bad ...

And therefore no more try.

The quiz has closed.

Werner

Yes, no more trying werner. The synaptic self is saying that all is

consciousness.....so it is just one more belief, one more concept that

consciousness is spitting up.

-geo-

avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean.

Virus Database (VPS): 090816-0, 17/08/2009

Tested on: 9/9/2009 15:23:49

September 9, 2009

-

toombaru2006

Nisargadatta

Wednesday, September 09, 2009 2:42 PM

Re: Krishnamurti: Consciousness is the Past

Nisargadatta , " Michael Adamson " <adamson

wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " Michael Adamson " <adamson@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Show me some now.

> >

> > > toombaru

> >

> > Fewtch wrote...

> >

> > > Toom is reading this now. These words are arising in/as/through 'now'.

> > > They are not arising " then " . >

> >

> > It seems to me that nothing, even these typed words, is ever

> > " arising " ...all has always already arisen.

> >

> > Michael A

>

> Fewtch wrote...

>

> < These words are actively arising in and through 'now', as they are read

> and parsed.>

>

> If " these words " (or anything for that matter) are seen as " arising " that

> " arising-ness " (which is noticed) has already " arisen " ...is already

> present. In other words, these words have " already risen " . I never see

> what is arising...only what is already here/there or is. Saying that

> something is arising is simply a way of talking or thinking about

> something. It is conjecture, speculation, conceptualization...which also

> doesn't arise...it is already present. I don't know about you, but can't

> notice what isn't there to be noticed. For me there is no " before arising "

> and " after arising " ...there's merely what's present. Speaking in terms of

> before and after is simply a pragmatic or useful way of communicating and

> functioning in the every-day world, such as " before the sun rises " it's

> difficult to see the terrain!

>

> Michael A

>

Nice Michael

The synaptic self emerges within the process of " freeze-framing " the

perceptual-sentient input.

It is never privy to the moment in which that occurs but surfaces downstream

from from the processing plant.

The only way it can experience its own concept of " this-moment " is by naming

its dog " Now " .

toombaru

Yes, that is true for the imagined self centered time-bound entity. But this

timebound world-frame is being seen.....so...

-geo-

avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean.

Virus Database (VPS): 090816-0, 17/08/2009

Tested on: 9/9/2009 15:23:49

September 9, 2009

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> -

> toombaru2006

> Nisargadatta

> Wednesday, September 09, 2009 1:39 PM

> Re: Krishnamurti: Consciousness is the Past

>

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

> >

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

> > >

> > > -

> > > " wwoehr " <wwoehr@>

> > > <Nisargadatta >

> > > Wednesday, September 09, 2009 12:35 PM

> > > Re: Krishnamurti: Consciousness is the Past

> > >

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

> > > >>

> > > >> -

> > > >> wwoehr

> > > >> Nisargadatta

> > > >> Wednesday, September 09, 2009 12:07 PM

> > > >> Re: Krishnamurti: Consciousness is the Past

> > > >>

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

> > > >> >

> > > >> > Geo,

> > > >> >

> > > >> > Instead of constantly posting new little 'mental suprises' better

> > > >> > stop

> > > >> > for

> > > >> > a

> > > >> > while your intellectual clowning and answer your questions

> > > >> > yourself.

> > > >> >

> > > >> > Werner

> > > >> >

> > > >> > Your request - as you say - is comming from consciousness, memory,

> > > >> > the

> > > >> > past, full of prejudices and pre-conceptions. I am not interested.

> > > >> > -geo-

> > > >> >

> > > >>

> > > >> Which means you will go on clowning, Geo ?

> > > >>

> > > >> Werner

> > > >>

> > > >> Werner, is consciousness, the past, memory, able to look at itself?

> > > >> Is

> > > >> this

> > > >> looking not from the past and so meningless?

> > > >> -geo-

> > > >>

> > > >

> > > > Again a question, Geo,

> > > >

> > > > But ok, we had that already several times: Consciousness is its

> > > > content

> > > > and such a content cannot look, neither at itself nor a something

> > > > else.

> > > > Nor can it speak, cry, jump, dance or whatever else. A content is just

> > > > a

> > > > content.

> > > >

> > > > Now, after you have read this, you can go on clowning.

> > > >

> > > > Werner

> > >

> > > So who or what is writing then? Who or what says consciousness is its

> > > content?

> > > -geo-

> > >

> >

> > Again a question, geo, questions, questions, endlessly ...

> >

> > What do you think is saying that consciousness is its content ?

> >

> > Werner

> >

>

> The content is saying that.

>

> toombaru

>

> As per his own understanding, yes. So it is just a belief

> -geo-

>

Just a belife.

:-)

toombaru

September 9, 2009

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> -

> Michael Adamson

> Nisargadatta

> Wednesday, September 09, 2009 2:19 PM

> Re: Krishnamurti: Consciousness is the Past

>

> Nisargadatta , " Michael Adamson " <adamson@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Show me some now.

> >

> > > toombaru

> >

> > Fewtch wrote...

> >

> > > Toom is reading this now. These words are arising in/as/through 'now'.

> > > They are not arising " then " . >

> >

> > It seems to me that nothing, even these typed words, is ever

> > " arising " ...all has always already arisen.

> >

> > Michael A

>

> Fewtch wrote...

>

> < These words are actively arising in and through 'now', as they are read

> and parsed.>

>

> If " these words " (or anything for that matter) are seen as " arising " that

> " arising-ness " (which is noticed) has already " arisen " ...is already present.

> In other words, these words have " already risen " . I never see what is

> arising...only what is already here/there or is. Saying that something is

> arising is simply a way of talking or thinking about something. It is

> conjecture, speculation, conceptualization...which also doesn't arise...it

> is already present. I don't know about you, but can't notice what isn't

> there to be noticed. For me there is no " before arising " and " after

> arising " ...there's merely what's present. Speaking in terms of before and

> after is simply a pragmatic or useful way of communicating and functioning

> in the every-day world, such as " before the sun rises " it's difficult to see

> the terrain!

>

> Michael A

>

> Trying to get rid of memory is ridiculous. Many have tried and are still

> trying. One must not abdicate the world in the sense of loosing the basic

> sense of recognition. Nothing must be dropped in order to understand time.

> On the contrary: full understanding, awareness, seeing of this field of

> time/world is what is. It is timeless.

> -geo-

>

The conceptual self can only imagine that one day it will be able to get a hold

on things....and experience its own concept of timelessness.

It's a funny little monkey......swinging from its own memories.

toombaru

September 9, 2009

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> -

> toombaru2006

> Nisargadatta

> Wednesday, September 09, 2009 2:42 PM

> Re: Krishnamurti: Consciousness is the Past

>

> Nisargadatta , " Michael Adamson " <adamson@>

> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " Michael Adamson " <adamson@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Show me some now.

> > >

> > > > toombaru

> > >

> > > Fewtch wrote...

> > >

> > > > Toom is reading this now. These words are arising in/as/through 'now'.

> > > > They are not arising " then " . >

> > >

> > > It seems to me that nothing, even these typed words, is ever

> > > " arising " ...all has always already arisen.

> > >

> > > Michael A

> >

> > Fewtch wrote...

> >

> > < These words are actively arising in and through 'now', as they are read

> > and parsed.>

> >

> > If " these words " (or anything for that matter) are seen as " arising " that

> > " arising-ness " (which is noticed) has already " arisen " ...is already

> > present. In other words, these words have " already risen " . I never see

> > what is arising...only what is already here/there or is. Saying that

> > something is arising is simply a way of talking or thinking about

> > something. It is conjecture, speculation, conceptualization...which also

> > doesn't arise...it is already present. I don't know about you, but can't

> > notice what isn't there to be noticed. For me there is no " before arising "

> > and " after arising " ...there's merely what's present. Speaking in terms of

> > before and after is simply a pragmatic or useful way of communicating and

> > functioning in the every-day world, such as " before the sun rises " it's

> > difficult to see the terrain!

> >

> > Michael A

> >

>

> Nice Michael

>

> The synaptic self emerges within the process of " freeze-framing " the

> perceptual-sentient input.

>

> It is never privy to the moment in which that occurs but surfaces downstream

> from from the processing plant.

>

> The only way it can experience its own concept of " this-moment " is by naming

> its dog " Now " .

>

> toombaru

>

> Yes, that is true for the imagined self centered time-bound entity. But this

> timebound world-frame is being seen.....so...

> -geo-

>

They are the same.

Ain't that a kick in the ass?

toombaru

September 9, 2009

Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote:

>

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

> >

> > -

> > Michael Adamson

> > Nisargadatta

> > Wednesday, September 09, 2009 2:19 PM

> > Re: Krishnamurti: Consciousness is the Past

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " Michael Adamson " <adamson@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Show me some now.

> > >

> > > > toombaru

> > >

> > > Fewtch wrote...

> > >

> > > > Toom is reading this now. These words are arising in/as/through 'now'.

> > > > They are not arising " then " . >

> > >

> > > It seems to me that nothing, even these typed words, is ever

> > > " arising " ...all has always already arisen.

> > >

> > > Michael A

> >

> > Fewtch wrote...

> >

> > < These words are actively arising in and through 'now', as they are read

> > and parsed.>

> >

> > If " these words " (or anything for that matter) are seen as " arising " that

> > " arising-ness " (which is noticed) has already " arisen " ...is already present.

> > In other words, these words have " already risen " . I never see what is

> > arising...only what is already here/there or is. Saying that something is

> > arising is simply a way of talking or thinking about something. It is

> > conjecture, speculation, conceptualization...which also doesn't arise...it

> > is already present. I don't know about you, but can't notice what isn't

> > there to be noticed. For me there is no " before arising " and " after

> > arising " ...there's merely what's present. Speaking in terms of before and

> > after is simply a pragmatic or useful way of communicating and functioning

> > in the every-day world, such as " before the sun rises " it's difficult to see

> > the terrain!

> >

> > Michael A

> >

> > Trying to get rid of memory is ridiculous. Many have tried and are still

> > trying. One must not abdicate the world in the sense of loosing the basic

> > sense of recognition. Nothing must be dropped in order to understand time.

> > On the contrary: full understanding, awareness, seeing of this field of

> > time/world is what is. It is timeless.

> > -geo-

> >

>

> The conceptual self can only imagine that one day it will be able to get a

hold on things....and experience its own concept of timelessness.

>

toombaru

Yes, but your words, comming from a conceptual self have no meaning, or per any

chance your words are comming from beyond the conceptual self? Just let me

know...

-geo-

>

September 10, 2009

Nisargadatta , " fix123br " <inandor wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote:

> >

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

> > >

> > > -

> > > Michael Adamson

> > > Nisargadatta

> > > Wednesday, September 09, 2009 2:19 PM

> > > Re: Krishnamurti: Consciousness is the Past

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " Michael Adamson " <adamson@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Show me some now.

> > > >

> > > > > toombaru

> > > >

> > > > Fewtch wrote...

> > > >

> > > > > Toom is reading this now. These words are arising in/as/through 'now'.

> > > > > They are not arising " then " . >

> > > >

> > > > It seems to me that nothing, even these typed words, is ever

> > > > " arising " ...all has always already arisen.

> > > >

> > > > Michael A

> > >

> > > Fewtch wrote...

> > >

> > > < These words are actively arising in and through 'now', as they are read

> > > and parsed.>

> > >

> > > If " these words " (or anything for that matter) are seen as " arising " that

> > > " arising-ness " (which is noticed) has already " arisen " ...is already

present.

> > > In other words, these words have " already risen " . I never see what is

> > > arising...only what is already here/there or is. Saying that something is

> > > arising is simply a way of talking or thinking about something. It is

> > > conjecture, speculation, conceptualization...which also doesn't arise...it

> > > is already present. I don't know about you, but can't notice what isn't

> > > there to be noticed. For me there is no " before arising " and " after

> > > arising " ...there's merely what's present. Speaking in terms of before and

> > > after is simply a pragmatic or useful way of communicating and functioning

> > > in the every-day world, such as " before the sun rises " it's difficult to

see

> > > the terrain!

> > >

> > > Michael A

> > >

> > > Trying to get rid of memory is ridiculous. Many have tried and are still

> > > trying. One must not abdicate the world in the sense of loosing the basic

> > > sense of recognition. Nothing must be dropped in order to understand time.

> > > On the contrary: full understanding, awareness, seeing of this field of

> > > time/world is what is. It is timeless.

> > > -geo-

>

> > >

> >

> > The conceptual self can only imagine that one day it will be able to get a

hold on things....and experience its own concept of timelessness.

> >

> toombaru

>

> Yes, but your words, comming from a conceptual self have no meaning, or per

any chance your words are coming from beyond the conceptual self? Just let me

know...

>

> -geo-

> >

>

.......looking................looking.............

......nope.......it doesnt't seem to be coming from something beyond who I think

I am......

.....hummmmmmmm........if there were something beyond me.......I'm pretty sure I

would never know it.......because......well you know...................it would

be beyond me.

:-0

toombaru

September 10, 2009

Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " <douglasmitch1963@>

wrote:

> >

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

> > >

> > > What does it mean, the present? Have you ever tried to live in the

present, to

> > > deny the past, deny the future and live completely in the present? How can

you

> > > deny the past? You cannot scrub it away! The past is of time, your

memories,

> > > your experiences, your conditioning, your tendencies, your urges, your

> > > animalistic instincts, intuitions, demands, pursuits - all that is the

past. The

> > > whole of the consciousness is the past, the whole of it. And to say, " I

will

> > > deny all that and try to live in the present " has no meaning; but if you

> > > understand the process of time, which is the past, all the conditioning,

all the

> > > background which flows through the present and forms the future - if you

> > > understand this whole movement of time, then when there is no observer as

one

> > > who says, " I must be " or " I must not be " , then only is it possible to

live not

> > > in the past, not in the future, not in the " now " . Then you are living in

a

> > > totally different dimension which has no relationship to time.

> > >

> > > (Saanen, 1966)

> > >

>

> > This totally different dimension is the eternal, which is timeless, hence

NOW. NOW knows no time. NOW is the eternal present. All happens in the NOW,

including the past. When thinking of the past... the content of consciousness

as K would say...that thinking is happening in the NOW. NOW is not the past,

rather the thinking of the past happens in the NOW. This is basic Advaita as i

understand it.

> >

>

> Douglas,

>

> Neuroscience has proven that the brain needs for the creation of consciousness

between 200msecs and 500msecs. Which means when you seem to hear a bang 'now'

then in reality it already has passed and was gone.

>

> Therefore the NOW is an illusion we cannot solve or catch with the instrument

of consciousness. Consciousness always is to late and is in any case the past.

>

> Therefore also this lovely idea of an erternal now remains just an idea and

nothing else. It is an idea we cannot make true.

>

> Werner

Hi Werner -

You are assuming something that exists, a brain, in the present, which is

constructing consciousness after a time lapse.

How do you know a brain exists in the present to construct consciousness?

How could you possibly know of anything existing in the present?

You say there is always a time lapse involved with consciousness.

Yet the only reason you can assume there is a brain, is because the notion

" brain " was formulated in and through your consciousness.

Therefore, there is no logical way for you to assert the existence of a brain in

the present, given your own statement that consciousness involves a time lapse.

The only way you can assert the existence of a brain in the present, is through

blind faith, as a kind of personal religion.

- Dan

September 10, 2009

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> -

> wwoehr

> Nisargadatta

> Wednesday, September 09, 2009 10:27 AM

> Re: Krishnamurti: Consciousness is the Past

>

> Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 "

> <douglasmitch1963@> wrote:

> >

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

> > >

> > > What does it mean, the present? Have you ever tried to live in the

> > > present, to

> > > deny the past, deny the future and live completely in the present? How

> > > can you

> > > deny the past? You cannot scrub it away! The past is of time, your

> > > memories,

> > > your experiences, your conditioning, your tendencies, your urges, your

> > > animalistic instincts, intuitions, demands, pursuits - all that is the

> > > past. The

> > > whole of the consciousness is the past, the whole of it. And to say, " I

> > > will

> > > deny all that and try to live in the present " has no meaning; but if you

> > > understand the process of time, which is the past, all the conditioning,

> > > all the

> > > background which flows through the present and forms the future - if you

> > > understand this whole movement of time, then when there is no observer

> > > as one

> > > who says, " I must be " or " I must not be " , then only is it possible to

> > > live not

> > > in the past, not in the future, not in the " now " . Then you are living

> > > in a

> > > totally different dimension which has no relationship to time.

> > >

> > > (Saanen, 1966)

> > >

>

> > This totally different dimension is the eternal, which is timeless, hence

> > NOW. NOW knows no time. NOW is the eternal present. All happens in the

> > NOW, including the past. When thinking of the past... the content of

> > consciousness as K would say...that thinking is happening in the NOW. NOW

> > is not the past, rather the thinking of the past happens in the NOW. This

> > is basic Advaita as i understand it.

> >

>

> Douglas,

>

> Neuroscience has proven that the brain needs for the creation of

> consciousness between 200msecs and 500msecs. Which means when you seem to

> hear a bang 'now' then in reality it already has passed and was gone.

>

> Therefore the NOW is an illusion we cannot solve or catch with the

> instrument of consciousness. Consciousness always is to late and is in any

> case the past.

>

> Therefore also this lovely idea of an erternal now remains just an idea and

> nothing else. It is an idea we cannot make true.

>

> Werner

>

> True. So what is the nature of that which aknowledges change/time?

> -geo-

Change/time is merely a construction of this consciousness that you say is of

the past.

It is a logical contradiction for you to say that consciousness requires time

and only knows in terms of the past, and then say that there is some kind of

actual event, such as " change " that is truly present.

Whatever construction you've made about " change " is the result of the very

consciousness that you're saying is of the past.

In other words, there is no logically valid way for you to posit anything like

" real change existing in the present " or " the nature of that which acknowledges

change/time. "

All such constructions must necessarily themselves be " of the past, " simply

because they are " arising in and through consciousness. "

Once you've concluded that consciousness is of the past, there is no way to

posit anything at all about the present.

Indeed whatever idea or feeling one has about " the present, " is the past, is it

not?

- Dan -

September 10, 2009

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> -

> fewtch

> Nisargadatta

> Wednesday, September 09, 2009 10:34 AM

> Re: Krishnamurti: Consciousness is the Past

>

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

> >

> > True. So what is the nature of that which aknowledges change/time?

> > -geo-

>

> It's just memory, isn't it? There isn't anything separate from memory to

> " acknowedge " anything... memory arises of the past, which seems different

> than the present, and so it seems something has changed.

> -t-

>

> Memory aknowledging memory? Time seeing time? Change looking at change? Is

> it?

> -geo-

Yes.

Knowledge breaks down on close inspection.

It is memory supporting the existence of a memory.

It is the assumption of time being used to prove that there is time.

- Dan -

September 10, 2009

Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr wrote:

>

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

> >

> > -

> > fewtch

> > Nisargadatta

> > Wednesday, September 09, 2009 10:34 AM

> > Re: Krishnamurti: Consciousness is the Past

> >

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

> > >

> > > True. So what is the nature of that which aknowledges change/time?

> > > -geo-

> >

> > It's just memory, isn't it? There isn't anything separate from memory to

> > " acknowedge " anything... memory arises of the past, which seems different

> > than the present, and so it seems something has changed.

> > -t-

> >

> > Memory aknowledging memory? Time seeing time? Change looking at change? Is

> > it?

> > -geo-

>

> Geo,

>

> Instead of constantly posting new little 'mental suprises' better stop for a

while your intellectual clowning and answer your questions yourself.

>

> Werner

Here is the heart of the matter.

It is between one and oneself.

There isn't any mediator or other involved.

The question arises because of a sense of inadequacy, a sense of something

lacking that needs to be supplied.

Rather than looking for an objective answer, one stays with and acknowledges the

sense of lack.

One doesn't project or avoid it.

One doesn't pretend to be somewhere else, other than where one is.

This sense of lack, of tension, of division.

There is no indivisible truth outside of this sense of being divided and needing

an answer.

- D -

September 10, 2009

-

toombaru2006

Nisargadatta

Wednesday, September 09, 2009 7:27 PM

Re: Krishnamurti: Consciousness is the Past

Nisargadatta , " fix123br " <inandor wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote:

> >

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

> > >

> > > -

> > > Michael Adamson

> > > Nisargadatta

> > > Wednesday, September 09, 2009 2:19 PM

> > > Re: Krishnamurti: Consciousness is the Past

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " Michael Adamson " <adamson@>

> > > wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@>

> > > > wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Show me some now.

> > > >

> > > > > toombaru

> > > >

> > > > Fewtch wrote...

> > > >

> > > > > Toom is reading this now. These words are arising in/as/through

> > > > > 'now'.

> > > > > They are not arising " then " . >

> > > >

> > > > It seems to me that nothing, even these typed words, is ever

> > > > " arising " ...all has always already arisen.

> > > >

> > > > Michael A

> > >

> > > Fewtch wrote...

> > >

> > > < These words are actively arising in and through 'now', as they are

> > > read

> > > and parsed.>

> > >

> > > If " these words " (or anything for that matter) are seen as " arising "

> > > that

> > > " arising-ness " (which is noticed) has already " arisen " ...is already

> > > present.

> > > In other words, these words have " already risen " . I never see what is

> > > arising...only what is already here/there or is. Saying that something

> > > is

> > > arising is simply a way of talking or thinking about something. It is

> > > conjecture, speculation, conceptualization...which also doesn't

> > > arise...it

> > > is already present. I don't know about you, but can't notice what

> > > isn't

> > > there to be noticed. For me there is no " before arising " and " after

> > > arising " ...there's merely what's present. Speaking in terms of before

> > > and

> > > after is simply a pragmatic or useful way of communicating and

> > > functioning

> > > in the every-day world, such as " before the sun rises " it's difficult

> > > to see

> > > the terrain!

> > >

> > > Michael A

> > >

> > > Trying to get rid of memory is ridiculous. Many have tried and are

> > > still

> > > trying. One must not abdicate the world in the sense of loosing the

> > > basic

> > > sense of recognition. Nothing must be dropped in order to understand

> > > time.

> > > On the contrary: full understanding, awareness, seeing of this field

> > > of

> > > time/world is what is. It is timeless.

> > > -geo-

>

> > >

> >

> > The conceptual self can only imagine that one day it will be able to get

> > a hold on things....and experience its own concept of timelessness.

> >

> toombaru

>

> Yes, but your words, comming from a conceptual self have no meaning, or

> per any chance your words are coming from beyond the conceptual self? Just

> let me know...

>

> -geo-

> >

>

.......looking................looking.............

......nope.......it doesnt't seem to be coming from something beyond who I

think I am......

.....hummmmmmmm........if there were something beyond me.......I'm pretty

sure I would never know it.......because......well you

know...................it would be beyond me.

:-0

toombaru

So....it comes from the conceptual self. Then it is meaningless, just

concepts, right?

-geo-

September 10, 2009

-

dan330033

Nisargadatta

Wednesday, September 09, 2009 8:13 PM

Re: Krishnamurti: Consciousness is the Past

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> -

> wwoehr

> Nisargadatta

> Wednesday, September 09, 2009 10:27 AM

> Re: Krishnamurti: Consciousness is the Past

>

> Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 "

> <douglasmitch1963@> wrote:

> >

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

> > >

> > > What does it mean, the present? Have you ever tried to live in the

> > > present, to

> > > deny the past, deny the future and live completely in the present? How

> > > can you

> > > deny the past? You cannot scrub it away! The past is of time, your

> > > memories,

> > > your experiences, your conditioning, your tendencies, your urges, your

> > > animalistic instincts, intuitions, demands, pursuits - all that is the

> > > past. The

> > > whole of the consciousness is the past, the whole of it. And to say, "

> > > I

> > > will

> > > deny all that and try to live in the present " has no meaning; but if

> > > you

> > > understand the process of time, which is the past, all the

> > > conditioning,

> > > all the

> > > background which flows through the present and forms the future - if

> > > you

> > > understand this whole movement of time, then when there is no observer

> > > as one

> > > who says, " I must be " or " I must not be " , then only is it possible

> > > to

> > > live not

> > > in the past, not in the future, not in the " now " . Then you are living

> > > in a

> > > totally different dimension which has no relationship to time.

> > >

> > > (Saanen, 1966)

> > >

>

> > This totally different dimension is the eternal, which is timeless,

> > hence

> > NOW. NOW knows no time. NOW is the eternal present. All happens in the

> > NOW, including the past. When thinking of the past... the content of

> > consciousness as K would say...that thinking is happening in the NOW.

> > NOW

> > is not the past, rather the thinking of the past happens in the NOW.

> > This

> > is basic Advaita as i understand it.

> >

>

> Douglas,

>

> Neuroscience has proven that the brain needs for the creation of

> consciousness between 200msecs and 500msecs. Which means when you seem to

> hear a bang 'now' then in reality it already has passed and was gone.

>

> Therefore the NOW is an illusion we cannot solve or catch with the

> instrument of consciousness. Consciousness always is to late and is in any

> case the past.

>

> Therefore also this lovely idea of an erternal now remains just an idea

> and

> nothing else. It is an idea we cannot make true.

>

> Werner

>

> True. So what is the nature of that which aknowledges change/time?

> -geo-

Change/time is merely a construction of this consciousness that you say is

of the past.

It is a logical contradiction for you to say that consciousness requires

time and only knows in terms of the past, and then say that there is some

kind of actual event, such as " change " that is truly present.

Whatever construction you've made about " change " is the result of the very

consciousness that you're saying is of the past.

In other words, there is no logically valid way for you to posit anything

like " real change existing in the present " or " the nature of that which

acknowledges change/time. "

All such constructions must necessarily themselves be " of the past, " simply

because they are " arising in and through consciousness. "

Once you've concluded that consciousness is of the past, there is no way to

posit anything at all about the present.

Indeed whatever idea or feeling one has about " the present, " is the past, is

it not?

- Dan -

This is something for immediate seeing.. Change is not something you

conclude, something you compare with. There it is...the bubble of changes,

of time, of limitedness. Change is not the opposite of changelessness. The

same ridlle of objective-subjective. No way to " explain " this.

Now....of course I am not saying that the world, consciousness, does not

participate in this perception. And yes...memory is part of the world, of

life.

-geo-

September 10, 2009

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> -

> wwoehr

> Nisargadatta

> Wednesday, September 09, 2009 12:07 PM

> Re: Krishnamurti: Consciousness is the Past

>

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

> >

> > Geo,

> >

> > Instead of constantly posting new little 'mental suprises' better stop for

> > a

> > while your intellectual clowning and answer your questions yourself.

> >

> > Werner

> >

> > Your request - as you say - is comming from consciousness, memory, the

> > past, full of prejudices and pre-conceptions. I am not interested.

> > -geo-

> >

>

> Which means you will go on clowning, Geo ?

>

> Werner

>

> Werner, is consciousness, the past, memory, able to look at itself? Is this

> looking not from the past and so meningless?

> -geo-

It's a great question, Geo.

What is involved in knowledge?

There is always a contradiction involved, is there not?

This includes the knowledge that " there is looking going on. "

That, too, is a kind of knowledge.

- D -

September 10, 2009

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> -

> geo

> Nisargadatta

> Wednesday, September 09, 2009 12:18 PM

> Re: Re: Krishnamurti: Consciousness is the Past

>

> -

> wwoehr

> Nisargadatta

> Wednesday, September 09, 2009 12:07 PM

> Re: Krishnamurti: Consciousness is the Past

>

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

> >

> > Geo,

> >

> > Instead of constantly posting new little 'mental suprises' better stop for

> > a

> > while your intellectual clowning and answer your questions yourself.

> >

> > Werner

> >

> > Your request - as you say - is comming from consciousness, memory, the

> > past, full of prejudices and pre-conceptions. I am not interested.

> > -geo-

> >

>

> Which means you will go on clowning, Geo ?

>

> Werner

>

> Werner, is consciousness, the past, memory, able to look at itself? Is this

> looking not from the past and so meningless?

>

> See? When you say that all is consciousness, that statement is the past,

> memory.....so has no value, is meaningless.

> -geo-

Yes.

Also true of your statement: " that statement is the past, memory ... so has no

value, is meaningless. "

Also true of this statement being made in my post.

What do you make of this statement:

" This statement is meaningless. "

Does it have meaning?

Does it lack meaning?

- D -

September 10, 2009

-

dan330033

Nisargadatta

Wednesday, September 09, 2009 8:49 PM

Re: Krishnamurti: Consciousness is the Past

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> -

> wwoehr

> Nisargadatta

> Wednesday, September 09, 2009 12:07 PM

> Re: Krishnamurti: Consciousness is the Past

>

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

> >

> > Geo,

> >

> > Instead of constantly posting new little 'mental suprises' better stop

> > for

> > a

> > while your intellectual clowning and answer your questions yourself.

> >

> > Werner

> >

> > Your request - as you say - is comming from consciousness, memory, the

> > past, full of prejudices and pre-conceptions. I am not interested.

> > -geo-

> >

>

> Which means you will go on clowning, Geo ?

>

> Werner

>

> Werner, is consciousness, the past, memory, able to look at itself? Is

> this

> looking not from the past and so meningless?

> -geo-

It's a great question, Geo.

What is involved in knowledge?

There is always a contradiction involved, is there not?

This includes the knowledge that " there is looking going on. "

That, too, is a kind of knowledge.

- D -

What knowledge dan? What is the nature of knowledge you are referring to? Is

there need for knowledge for a seeing that already is? What is it that says

" this or that is knowledge, the past " ? More knowledge? Existence is

knowledge to what extent?

-geo-

September 10, 2009

-

dan330033

Nisargadatta

Wednesday, September 09, 2009 8:51 PM

Re: Krishnamurti: Consciousness is the Past

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> -

> geo

> Nisargadatta

> Wednesday, September 09, 2009 12:18 PM

> Re: Re: Krishnamurti: Consciousness is the Past

>

> -

> wwoehr

> Nisargadatta

> Wednesday, September 09, 2009 12:07 PM

> Re: Krishnamurti: Consciousness is the Past

>

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

> >

> > Geo,

> >

> > Instead of constantly posting new little 'mental suprises' better stop

> > for

> > a

> > while your intellectual clowning and answer your questions yourself.

> >

> > Werner

> >

> > Your request - as you say - is comming from consciousness, memory, the

> > past, full of prejudices and pre-conceptions. I am not interested.

> > -geo-

> >

>

> Which means you will go on clowning, Geo ?

>

> Werner

>

> Werner, is consciousness, the past, memory, able to look at itself? Is

> this

> looking not from the past and so meningless?

>

> See? When you say that all is consciousness, that statement is the past,

> memory.....so has no value, is meaningless.

> -geo-

Yes.

Also true of your statement: " that statement is the past, memory ... so has

no value, is meaningless. "

Also true of this statement being made in my post.

What do you make of this statement:

" This statement is meaningless. "

Does it have meaning?

Does it lack meaning?

- D -

You are thinking. Seeing is not thought.. Seeing is not consciosness.

-geo-

September 10, 2009

Nisargadatta , " Michael Adamson " <adamson wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " Michael Adamson " <adamson@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Show me some now.

> >

> > > toombaru

> >

> > Fewtch wrote...

> >

> > > Toom is reading this now. These words are arising in/as/through 'now'.

They are not arising " then " . >

> >

> > It seems to me that nothing, even these typed words, is ever " arising " ...all

has always already arisen.

> >

> > Michael A

>

> Fewtch wrote...

>

> < These words are actively arising in and through 'now', as they are read and

parsed.>

>

> If " these words " (or anything for that matter) are seen as " arising " that

" arising-ness " (which is noticed) has already " arisen " ...is already present. In

other words, these words have " already risen " . I never see what is

arising...only what is already here/there or is. Saying that something is

arising is simply a way of talking or thinking about something. It is

conjecture, speculation, conceptualization...which also doesn't arise...it is

already present. I don't know about you, but can't notice what isn't there to be

noticed. For me there is no " before arising " and " after arising " ...there's

merely what's present. Speaking in terms of before and after is simply a

pragmatic or useful way of communicating and functioning in the every-day world,

such as " before the sun rises " it's difficult to see the terrain!

>

> Michael A

Hi Michael -

Yes.

And it seems you're saying there is no time.

A timeless present isn't present in the usual terms of past, present, future.

You're saying perception is timeless.

It always already is as it is.

You know, it gets to a point where it is extremely difficult to make any comment

at all.

Because no perception can step outside of its perceptual now-moment to comment

about any other perception.

Words depend on the assumed ability to point to something else.

One is aware that nothing is being said.

Even as it is being said, it isn't being said.

-- D --

September 10, 2009

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> -

> dan330033

> Nisargadatta

> Wednesday, September 09, 2009 8:13 PM

> Re: Krishnamurti: Consciousness is the Past

>

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

> >

> > -

> > wwoehr

> > Nisargadatta

> > Wednesday, September 09, 2009 10:27 AM

> > Re: Krishnamurti: Consciousness is the Past

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 "

> > <douglasmitch1963@> wrote:

> > >

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

> > > >

> > > > What does it mean, the present? Have you ever tried to live in the

> > > > present, to

> > > > deny the past, deny the future and live completely in the present? How

> > > > can you

> > > > deny the past? You cannot scrub it away! The past is of time, your

> > > > memories,

> > > > your experiences, your conditioning, your tendencies, your urges, your

> > > > animalistic instincts, intuitions, demands, pursuits - all that is the

> > > > past. The

> > > > whole of the consciousness is the past, the whole of it. And to say, "

> > > > I

> > > > will

> > > > deny all that and try to live in the present " has no meaning; but if

> > > > you

> > > > understand the process of time, which is the past, all the

> > > > conditioning,

> > > > all the

> > > > background which flows through the present and forms the future - if

> > > > you

> > > > understand this whole movement of time, then when there is no observer

> > > > as one

> > > > who says, " I must be " or " I must not be " , then only is it possible

> > > > to

> > > > live not

> > > > in the past, not in the future, not in the " now " . Then you are living

> > > > in a

> > > > totally different dimension which has no relationship to time.

> > > >

> > > > (Saanen, 1966)

> > > >

> >

> > > This totally different dimension is the eternal, which is timeless,

> > > hence

> > > NOW. NOW knows no time. NOW is the eternal present. All happens in the

> > > NOW, including the past. When thinking of the past... the content of

> > > consciousness as K would say...that thinking is happening in the NOW.

> > > NOW

> > > is not the past, rather the thinking of the past happens in the NOW.

> > > This

> > > is basic Advaita as i understand it.

> > >

> >

> > Douglas,

> >

> > Neuroscience has proven that the brain needs for the creation of

> > consciousness between 200msecs and 500msecs. Which means when you seem to

> > hear a bang 'now' then in reality it already has passed and was gone.

> >

> > Therefore the NOW is an illusion we cannot solve or catch with the

> > instrument of consciousness. Consciousness always is to late and is in any

> > case the past.

> >

> > Therefore also this lovely idea of an erternal now remains just an idea

> > and

> > nothing else. It is an idea we cannot make true.

> >

> > Werner

> >

> > True. So what is the nature of that which aknowledges change/time?

> > -geo-

>

> Change/time is merely a construction of this consciousness that you say is

> of the past.

>

> It is a logical contradiction for you to say that consciousness requires

> time and only knows in terms of the past, and then say that there is some

> kind of actual event, such as " change " that is truly present.

>

> Whatever construction you've made about " change " is the result of the very

> consciousness that you're saying is of the past.

>

> In other words, there is no logically valid way for you to posit anything

> like " real change existing in the present " or " the nature of that which

> acknowledges change/time. "

>

> All such constructions must necessarily themselves be " of the past, " simply

> because they are " arising in and through consciousness. "

>

> Once you've concluded that consciousness is of the past, there is no way to

> posit anything at all about the present.

>

> Indeed whatever idea or feeling one has about " the present, " is the past, is

> it not?

>

> - Dan -

>

> This is something for immediate seeing.. Change is not something you

> conclude, something you compare with. There it is...the bubble of changes,

> of time, of limitedness. Change is not the opposite of changelessness. The

> same ridlle of objective-subjective. No way to " explain " this.

> Now....of course I am not saying that the world, consciousness, does not

> participate in this perception. And yes...memory is part of the world, of

> life.

> -geo-

The more clear this is, the more one is forced into silence.

One can no longer conclude that terms like " meaning " or " lacking meaning " have

any relevance.

One speaks, but the speaking is a human version of a bird singing or a frog

croaking.

The silence is all.

- D -

September 10, 2009

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> -

> dan330033

> Nisargadatta

> Wednesday, September 09, 2009 8:49 PM

> Re: Krishnamurti: Consciousness is the Past

>

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

> >

> > -

> > wwoehr

> > Nisargadatta

> > Wednesday, September 09, 2009 12:07 PM

> > Re: Krishnamurti: Consciousness is the Past

> >

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

> > >

> > > Geo,

> > >

> > > Instead of constantly posting new little 'mental suprises' better stop

> > > for

> > > a

> > > while your intellectual clowning and answer your questions yourself.

> > >

> > > Werner

> > >

> > > Your request - as you say - is comming from consciousness, memory, the

> > > past, full of prejudices and pre-conceptions. I am not interested.

> > > -geo-

> > >

> >

> > Which means you will go on clowning, Geo ?

> >

> > Werner

> >

> > Werner, is consciousness, the past, memory, able to look at itself? Is

> > this

> > looking not from the past and so meningless?

> > -geo-

>

> It's a great question, Geo.

>

> What is involved in knowledge?

>

> There is always a contradiction involved, is there not?

>

> This includes the knowledge that " there is looking going on. "

>

> That, too, is a kind of knowledge.

>

> - D -

>

> What knowledge dan? What is the nature of knowledge you are referring to? Is

> there need for knowledge for a seeing that already is? What is it that says

> " this or that is knowledge, the past " ? More knowledge? Existence is

> knowledge to what extent?

> -geo-

All questions stop.

They can't be had here.

Not in or from this total stillness.

Definitions, explanations, using words to show something or get something ...

all of that dries up and like dust is done with.

- D -

September 10, 2009

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> -

> dan330033

> Nisargadatta

> Wednesday, September 09, 2009 8:51 PM

> Re: Krishnamurti: Consciousness is the Past

>

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

> >

> > -

> > geo

> > Nisargadatta

> > Wednesday, September 09, 2009 12:18 PM

> > Re: Re: Krishnamurti: Consciousness is the Past

> >

> > -

> > wwoehr

> > Nisargadatta

> > Wednesday, September 09, 2009 12:07 PM

> > Re: Krishnamurti: Consciousness is the Past

> >

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

> > >

> > > Geo,

> > >

> > > Instead of constantly posting new little 'mental suprises' better stop

> > > for

> > > a

> > > while your intellectual clowning and answer your questions yourself.

> > >

> > > Werner

> > >

> > > Your request - as you say - is comming from consciousness, memory, the

> > > past, full of prejudices and pre-conceptions. I am not interested.

> > > -geo-

> > >

> >

> > Which means you will go on clowning, Geo ?

> >

> > Werner

> >

> > Werner, is consciousness, the past, memory, able to look at itself? Is

> > this

> > looking not from the past and so meningless?

> >

> > See? When you say that all is consciousness, that statement is the past,

> > memory.....so has no value, is meaningless.

> > -geo-

>

> Yes.

>

> Also true of your statement: " that statement is the past, memory ... so has

> no value, is meaningless. "

>

> Also true of this statement being made in my post.

>

> What do you make of this statement:

>

> " This statement is meaningless. "

>

> Does it have meaning?

>

> Does it lack meaning?

>

> - D -

>

> You are thinking. Seeing is not thought.. Seeing is not consciosness.

> -geo-

Seeing is not your statements.

Seeing is not me or you.

Seeing is not the word seeing.

There is neither seeing nor is there any lack of seeing.

Is and is not have no application.

Yes or no don't apply.

- D -

September 10, 2009

-

dan330033

Nisargadatta

Wednesday, September 09, 2009 9:03 PM

Re: Krishnamurti: Consciousness is the Past

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> -

> dan330033

> Nisargadatta

> Wednesday, September 09, 2009 8:13 PM

> Re: Krishnamurti: Consciousness is the Past

>

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

> >

> > -

> > wwoehr

> > Nisargadatta

> > Wednesday, September 09, 2009 10:27 AM

> > Re: Krishnamurti: Consciousness is the Past

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 "

> > <douglasmitch1963@> wrote:

> > >

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

> > > >

> > > > What does it mean, the present? Have you ever tried to live in the

> > > > present, to

> > > > deny the past, deny the future and live completely in the present?

> > > > How

> > > > can you

> > > > deny the past? You cannot scrub it away! The past is of time, your

> > > > memories,

> > > > your experiences, your conditioning, your tendencies, your urges,

> > > > your

> > > > animalistic instincts, intuitions, demands, pursuits - all that is

> > > > the

> > > > past. The

> > > > whole of the consciousness is the past, the whole of it. And to say,

> > > > "

> > > > I

> > > > will

> > > > deny all that and try to live in the present " has no meaning; but if

> > > > you

> > > > understand the process of time, which is the past, all the

> > > > conditioning,

> > > > all the

> > > > background which flows through the present and forms the future - if

> > > > you

> > > > understand this whole movement of time, then when there is no

> > > > observer

> > > > as one

> > > > who says, " I must be " or " I must not be " , then only is it possible

> > > > to

> > > > live not

> > > > in the past, not in the future, not in the " now " . Then you are

> > > > living

> > > > in a

> > > > totally different dimension which has no relationship to time.

> > > >

> > > > (Saanen, 1966)

> > > >

> >

> > > This totally different dimension is the eternal, which is timeless,

> > > hence

> > > NOW. NOW knows no time. NOW is the eternal present. All happens in the

> > > NOW, including the past. When thinking of the past... the content of

> > > consciousness as K would say...that thinking is happening in the NOW.

> > > NOW

> > > is not the past, rather the thinking of the past happens in the NOW.

> > > This

> > > is basic Advaita as i understand it.

> > >

> >

> > Douglas,

> >

> > Neuroscience has proven that the brain needs for the creation of

> > consciousness between 200msecs and 500msecs. Which means when you seem

> > to

> > hear a bang 'now' then in reality it already has passed and was gone.

> >

> > Therefore the NOW is an illusion we cannot solve or catch with the

> > instrument of consciousness. Consciousness always is to late and is in

> > any

> > case the past.

> >

> > Therefore also this lovely idea of an erternal now remains just an idea

> > and

> > nothing else. It is an idea we cannot make true.

> >

> > Werner

> >

> > True. So what is the nature of that which aknowledges change/time?

> > -geo-

>

> Change/time is merely a construction of this consciousness that you say is

> of the past.

>

> It is a logical contradiction for you to say that consciousness requires

> time and only knows in terms of the past, and then say that there is some

> kind of actual event, such as " change " that is truly present.

>

> Whatever construction you've made about " change " is the result of the very

> consciousness that you're saying is of the past.

>

> In other words, there is no logically valid way for you to posit anything

> like " real change existing in the present " or " the nature of that which

> acknowledges change/time. "

>

> All such constructions must necessarily themselves be " of the past, "

> simply

> because they are " arising in and through consciousness. "

>

> Once you've concluded that consciousness is of the past, there is no way

> to

> posit anything at all about the present.

>

> Indeed whatever idea or feeling one has about " the present, " is the past,

> is

> it not?

>

> - Dan -

>

> This is something for immediate seeing.. Change is not something you

> conclude, something you compare with. There it is...the bubble of changes,

> of time, of limitedness. Change is not the opposite of changelessness. The

> same ridlle of objective-subjective. No way to " explain " this.

> Now....of course I am not saying that the world, consciousness, does not

> participate in this perception. And yes...memory is part of the world, of

> life.

> -geo-

The more clear this is, the more one is forced into silence.

One can no longer conclude that terms like " meaning " or " lacking meaning "

have any relevance.

One speaks, but the speaking is a human version of a bird singing or a frog

croaking.

The silence is all.

- D -

Pefect-ness.

-geo-

September 10, 2009

-

dan330033

Nisargadatta

Wednesday, September 09, 2009 9:05 PM

Re: Krishnamurti: Consciousness is the Past

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> -

> dan330033

> Nisargadatta

> Wednesday, September 09, 2009 8:49 PM

> Re: Krishnamurti: Consciousness is the Past

>

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

> >

> > -

> > wwoehr

> > Nisargadatta

> > Wednesday, September 09, 2009 12:07 PM

> > Re: Krishnamurti: Consciousness is the Past

> >

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

> > >

> > > Geo,

> > >

> > > Instead of constantly posting new little 'mental suprises' better stop

> > > for

> > > a

> > > while your intellectual clowning and answer your questions yourself.

> > >

> > > Werner

> > >

> > > Your request - as you say - is comming from consciousness, memory, the

> > > past, full of prejudices and pre-conceptions. I am not interested.

> > > -geo-

> > >

> >

> > Which means you will go on clowning, Geo ?

> >

> > Werner

> >

> > Werner, is consciousness, the past, memory, able to look at itself? Is

> > this

> > looking not from the past and so meningless?

> > -geo-

>

> It's a great question, Geo.

>

> What is involved in knowledge?

>

> There is always a contradiction involved, is there not?

>

> This includes the knowledge that " there is looking going on. "

>

> That, too, is a kind of knowledge.

>

> - D -

>

> What knowledge dan? What is the nature of knowledge you are referring to?

> Is

> there need for knowledge for a seeing that already is? What is it that

> says

> " this or that is knowledge, the past " ? More knowledge? Existence is

> knowledge to what extent?

> -geo-

All questions stop.

They can't be had here.

Not in or from this total stillness.

Definitions, explanations, using words to show something or get something

.... all of that dries up and like dust is done with.

- D -

Of course. The perfect conclusion of a dialogue.

-geo-

September 10, 2009

-

dan330033

Nisargadatta

Wednesday, September 09, 2009 9:06 PM

Re: Krishnamurti: Consciousness is the Past

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> -

> dan330033

> Nisargadatta

> Wednesday, September 09, 2009 8:51 PM

> Re: Krishnamurti: Consciousness is the Past

>

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

> >

> > -

> > geo

> > Nisargadatta

> > Wednesday, September 09, 2009 12:18 PM

> > Re: Re: Krishnamurti: Consciousness is the Past

> >

> > -

> > wwoehr

> > Nisargadatta

> > Wednesday, September 09, 2009 12:07 PM

> > Re: Krishnamurti: Consciousness is the Past

> >

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

> > >

> > > Geo,

> > >

> > > Instead of constantly posting new little 'mental suprises' better stop

> > > for

> > > a

> > > while your intellectual clowning and answer your questions yourself.

> > >

> > > Werner

> > >

> > > Your request - as you say - is comming from consciousness, memory, the

> > > past, full of prejudices and pre-conceptions. I am not interested.

> > > -geo-

> > >

> >

> > Which means you will go on clowning, Geo ?

> >

> > Werner

> >

> > Werner, is consciousness, the past, memory, able to look at itself? Is

> > this

> > looking not from the past and so meningless?

> >

> > See? When you say that all is consciousness, that statement is the past,

> > memory.....so has no value, is meaningless.

> > -geo-

>

> Yes.

>

> Also true of your statement: " that statement is the past, memory ... so

> has

> no value, is meaningless. "

>

> Also true of this statement being made in my post.

>

> What do you make of this statement:

>

> " This statement is meaningless. "

>

> Does it have meaning?

>

> Does it lack meaning?

>

> - D -

>

> You are thinking. Seeing is not thought.. Seeing is not consciosness.

> -geo-

Seeing is not your statements.

Seeing is not me or you.

Seeing is not the word seeing.

There is neither seeing nor is there any lack of seeing.

Is and is not have no application.

Yes or no don't apply.

- D -

Yes, but it is not correct to say that one is just clowning - as werner

suggested - until silence is crying. Usually clowning does not lead to

silence.

-geo-

September 10, 2009

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

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

> >

> > -

> > dan330033

> > Nisargadatta

> > Wednesday, September 09, 2009 8:13 PM

> > Re: Krishnamurti: Consciousness is the Past

> >

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

> > >

> > > -

> > > wwoehr

> > > Nisargadatta

> > > Wednesday, September 09, 2009 10:27 AM

> > > Re: Krishnamurti: Consciousness is the Past

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 "

> > > <douglasmitch1963@> wrote:

> > > >

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

> > > > >

> > > > > What does it mean, the present? Have you ever tried to live in the

> > > > > present, to

> > > > > deny the past, deny the future and live completely in the present? How

> > > > > can you

> > > > > deny the past? You cannot scrub it away! The past is of time, your

> > > > > memories,

> > > > > your experiences, your conditioning, your tendencies, your urges, your

> > > > > animalistic instincts, intuitions, demands, pursuits - all that is the

> > > > > past. The

> > > > > whole of the consciousness is the past, the whole of it. And to say, "

> > > > > I

> > > > > will

> > > > > deny all that and try to live in the present " has no meaning; but if

> > > > > you

> > > > > understand the process of time, which is the past, all the

> > > > > conditioning,

> > > > > all the

> > > > > background which flows through the present and forms the future - if

> > > > > you

> > > > > understand this whole movement of time, then when there is no observer

> > > > > as one

> > > > > who says, " I must be " or " I must not be " , then only is it possible

> > > > > to

> > > > > live not

> > > > > in the past, not in the future, not in the " now " . Then you are living

> > > > > in a

> > > > > totally different dimension which has no relationship to time.

> > > > >

> > > > > (Saanen, 1966)

> > > > >

> > >

> > > > This totally different dimension is the eternal, which is timeless,

> > > > hence

> > > > NOW. NOW knows no time. NOW is the eternal present. All happens in the

> > > > NOW, including the past. When thinking of the past... the content of

> > > > consciousness as K would say...that thinking is happening in the NOW.

> > > > NOW

> > > > is not the past, rather the thinking of the past happens in the NOW.

> > > > This

> > > > is basic Advaita as i understand it.

> > > >

> > >

> > > Douglas,

> > >

> > > Neuroscience has proven that the brain needs for the creation of

> > > consciousness between 200msecs and 500msecs. Which means when you seem to

> > > hear a bang 'now' then in reality it already has passed and was gone.

> > >

> > > Therefore the NOW is an illusion we cannot solve or catch with the

> > > instrument of consciousness. Consciousness always is to late and is in any

> > > case the past.

> > >

> > > Therefore also this lovely idea of an erternal now remains just an idea

> > > and

> > > nothing else. It is an idea we cannot make true.

> > >

> > > Werner

> > >

> > > True. So what is the nature of that which aknowledges change/time?

> > > -geo-

> >

> > Change/time is merely a construction of this consciousness that you say is

> > of the past.

> >

> > It is a logical contradiction for you to say that consciousness requires

> > time and only knows in terms of the past, and then say that there is some

> > kind of actual event, such as " change " that is truly present.

> >

> > Whatever construction you've made about " change " is the result of the very

> > consciousness that you're saying is of the past.

> >

> > In other words, there is no logically valid way for you to posit anything

> > like " real change existing in the present " or " the nature of that which

> > acknowledges change/time. "

> >

> > All such constructions must necessarily themselves be " of the past, " simply

> > because they are " arising in and through consciousness. "

> >

> > Once you've concluded that consciousness is of the past, there is no way to

> > posit anything at all about the present.

> >

> > Indeed whatever idea or feeling one has about " the present, " is the past, is

> > it not?

> >

> > - Dan -

> >

> > This is something for immediate seeing.. Change is not something you

> > conclude, something you compare with. There it is...the bubble of changes,

> > of time, of limitedness. Change is not the opposite of changelessness. The

> > same ridlle of objective-subjective. No way to " explain " this.

> > Now....of course I am not saying that the world, consciousness, does not

> > participate in this perception. And yes...memory is part of the world, of

> > life.

> > -geo-

>

> The more clear this is, the more one is forced into silence.

>

> One can no longer conclude that terms like " meaning " or " lacking meaning " have

any relevance.

>

> One speaks, but the speaking is a human version of a bird singing or a frog

croaking.

>

> The silence is all.

>

> - D -

>

Not even that.

toombaru

Sign In

Krishnamurti: Consciousness is the Past

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest