Krishnamurti: Consciousness is the Past

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " <douglasmitch1963@>

wrote:

> >

> > 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

> > >

>

>

> > Werner, please cite your neuroscience references so that i may investigate

and come to a conclusion.

>

>

> If your question was meant seriously then just Google neuroscience, neurology,

consciousness and neuroscience, etc. Also Google Benjamin Libet.

>

>

> > But isn't the idea of a brain being " present " to measure the arising of

consciousness a bit contradictory?

>

>

> Neuroscience has nothing to do with nonduality. If you confuse them in your

head then you are just confusing apples with oranges.

>

>

> > If the brain is in the present moment when measurements are being taken

regarding the arising of consciousness of a stimulus, then there is an assumed

present is there not?

>

>

> When neuroscience is measuring brain currents it doesn't use nondual

philosophy but magneto resonance tomographs.

>

>

> > Or do the experiments happen in the past also and therefore have no

meaningful reality?

>

>

> You are proud of your logic and having read some nondual stuff aren't you ?

But neuro-logic is different from Doug-logic .

>

> Werner

>

Werner, i have read the intro to Libet's book " Mind Time: the Temporal Factor in

Consciousness " It doesn't surprise me that there is a time lag from stimulus to

conscious awareness of stimulus (200-500 milliseconds). It does seem to

contradict the NOW as available to conscious awareness in the NOW. The

perception would always be delayed by time. The eternal NOW is really

subjectively known after the fact, albeit a very short delay relatively

speaking. However, both mysic and physicist state that time is an illusion. So

i'm left with everything is an illusion, including the NOW, which is still

nondualism.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " <douglasmitch1963

wrote:

>

> Werner, i have read the intro to Libet's book " Mind Time: the Temporal Factor

in Consciousness " It doesn't surprise me that there is a time lag from stimulus

to conscious awareness of stimulus (200-500 milliseconds). It does seem to

contradict the NOW as available to conscious awareness in the NOW. The

perception would always be delayed by time. The eternal NOW is really

subjectively known after the fact, albeit a very short delay relatively

speaking. However, both mysic and physicist state that time is an illusion. So

i'm left with everything is an illusion, including the NOW, which is still

nondualism.

>

 

Even if the " Now " were really " Now plus 500ms " , that's not the point... at all.

 

Nonduality refers to " Now " as the absence of a world-picture being constructed

that includes " there " and " then " , that cordons off 'now' into a split second

squeezed between past and future. The eternal Now is the absence of a

conceptually constructed past/future with " now " in between, that's all. It has

nothing whatsoever to do with supposed perceptual delays.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " <douglasmitch1963

wrote:

>

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

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " <douglasmitch1963@>

wrote:

> > >

> > > 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

> > > >

> >

> >

> > > Werner, please cite your neuroscience references so that i may investigate

and come to a conclusion.

> >

> >

> > If your question was meant seriously then just Google neuroscience,

neurology, consciousness and neuroscience, etc. Also Google Benjamin Libet.

> >

> >

> > > But isn't the idea of a brain being " present " to measure the arising of

consciousness a bit contradictory?

> >

> >

> > Neuroscience has nothing to do with nonduality. If you confuse them in your

head then you are just confusing apples with oranges.

> >

> >

> > > If the brain is in the present moment when measurements are being taken

regarding the arising of consciousness of a stimulus, then there is an assumed

present is there not?

> >

> >

> > When neuroscience is measuring brain currents it doesn't use nondual

philosophy but magneto resonance tomographs.

> >

> >

> > > Or do the experiments happen in the past also and therefore have no

meaningful reality?

> >

> >

> > You are proud of your logic and having read some nondual stuff aren't you ?

But neuro-logic is different from Doug-logic .

> >

> > Werner

> >

> Werner, i have read the intro to Libet's book " Mind Time: the Temporal Factor

in Consciousness " It doesn't surprise me that there is a time lag from stimulus

to conscious awareness of stimulus (200-500 milliseconds). It does seem to

contradict the NOW as available to conscious awareness in the NOW. The

perception would always be delayed by time. The eternal NOW is really

subjectively known after the fact, albeit a very short delay relatively

speaking. However, both mysic and physicist state that time is an illusion. So

i'm left with everything is an illusion, including the NOW, which is still

nondualism.

>

 

 

Hi Douglas,

 

I am pleased you have read that intro. When Libet wrote that book the medical

and physical instruments weren't that improved as today.

 

In the meantime a team of neurologists at the Max Planck institue have

realizeded that that this time lag of consciousness is even much larger as Libet

has found. The lag is up to 10 seconds !

 

You can be sure, Doug, realiter there is no Now, it is just a philosophy, a

belief.

 

Werner

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " fewtch " <fewtch wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " <douglasmitch1963@>

wrote:

> >

> > Werner, i have read the intro to Libet's book " Mind Time: the Temporal

Factor in Consciousness " It doesn't surprise me that there is a time lag from

stimulus to conscious awareness of stimulus (200-500 milliseconds). It does

seem to contradict the NOW as available to conscious awareness in the NOW. The

perception would always be delayed by time. The eternal NOW is really

subjectively known after the fact, albeit a very short delay relatively

speaking. However, both mysic and physicist state that time is an illusion. So

i'm left with everything is an illusion, including the NOW, which is still

nondualism.

> >

>

> Even if the " Now " were really " Now plus 500ms " , that's not the point... at

all.

>

> Nonduality refers to " Now " as the absence of a world-picture being constructed

that includes " there " and " then " , that cordons off 'now' into a split second

squeezed between past and future. The eternal Now is the absence of a

conceptually constructed past/future with " now " in between, that's all. It has

nothing whatsoever to do with supposed perceptual delays.

>

The NOW that you have described is another concept. There is no knowing of the

NOW as NOW as you have defined it. It would seem that all consciousness is of

the past as Krishnamurti asserts. Therefore even the NOW is an

illusion/delusion.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " <douglasmitch1963

wrote:

>

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

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " <douglasmitch1963@>

wrote:

> > >

> > > Werner, i have read the intro to Libet's book " Mind Time: the Temporal

Factor in Consciousness " It doesn't surprise me that there is a time lag from

stimulus to conscious awareness of stimulus (200-500 milliseconds). It does

seem to contradict the NOW as available to conscious awareness in the NOW. The

perception would always be delayed by time. The eternal NOW is really

subjectively known after the fact, albeit a very short delay relatively

speaking. However, both mysic and physicist state that time is an illusion. So

i'm left with everything is an illusion, including the NOW, which is still

nondualism.

> > >

> >

> > Even if the " Now " were really " Now plus 500ms " , that's not the point... at

all.

> >

> > Nonduality refers to " Now " as the absence of a world-picture being

constructed that includes " there " and " then " , that cordons off 'now' into a

split second squeezed between past and future. The eternal Now is the absence

of a conceptually constructed past/future with " now " in between, that's all. It

has nothing whatsoever to do with supposed perceptual delays.

> >

> The NOW that you have described is another concept.

 

To you, maybe.

 

Quite honestly, all this stuff is conceptual until it isn't.

 

The main dish at a restaurant you've never tried is a conceptual flavour until

one takes a bite.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " fewtch " <fewtch wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " <douglasmitch1963@>

wrote:

> >

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

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 "

<douglasmitch1963@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Werner, i have read the intro to Libet's book " Mind Time: the Temporal

Factor in Consciousness " It doesn't surprise me that there is a time lag from

stimulus to conscious awareness of stimulus (200-500 milliseconds). It does

seem to contradict the NOW as available to conscious awareness in the NOW. The

perception would always be delayed by time. The eternal NOW is really

subjectively known after the fact, albeit a very short delay relatively

speaking. However, both mysic and physicist state that time is an illusion. So

i'm left with everything is an illusion, including the NOW, which is still

nondualism.

> > > >

> > >

> > > Even if the " Now " were really " Now plus 500ms " , that's not the point... at

all.

> > >

> > > Nonduality refers to " Now " as the absence of a world-picture being

constructed that includes " there " and " then " , that cordons off 'now' into a

split second squeezed between past and future. The eternal Now is the absence

of a conceptually constructed past/future with " now " in between, that's all. It

has nothing whatsoever to do with supposed perceptual delays.

> > >

> > The NOW that you have described is another concept.

>

> To you, maybe.

>

> Quite honestly, all this stuff is conceptual until it isn't.

>

> The main dish at a restaurant you've never tried is a conceptual flavour until

one takes a bite.

>

How does " taking a bite " of NOW happen except as kNOWledge in the past?

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " <douglasmitch1963

wrote:

>

> > To you, maybe.

> >

> > Quite honestly, all this stuff is conceptual until it isn't.

> >

> > The main dish at a restaurant you've never tried is a conceptual flavour

until one takes a bite.

> >

> How does " taking a bite " of NOW happen except as kNOWledge in the

> past?

 

Find out.

 

All I can do is feed ya more concepts. That's all this talk consists of.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " fewtch " <fewtch wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " <douglasmitch1963@>

wrote:

> >

> > > To you, maybe.

> > >

> > > Quite honestly, all this stuff is conceptual until it isn't.

> > >

> > > The main dish at a restaurant you've never tried is a conceptual flavour

until one takes a bite.

> > >

> > How does " taking a bite " of NOW happen except as kNOWledge in the

> > past?

>

> Find out.

>

> All I can do is feed ya more concepts. That's all this talk consists of.

>

 

 

Sooner or later, ya gotta take a bite of that apple Doug... ain't no two ways

around it. ;-)

 

~A

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana wrote:

>

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

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " <douglasmitch1963@>

wrote:

> > >

> > > > To you, maybe.

> > > >

> > > > Quite honestly, all this stuff is conceptual until it isn't.

> > > >

> > > > The main dish at a restaurant you've never tried is a conceptual flavour

until one takes a bite.

> > > >

> > > How does " taking a bite " of NOW happen except as kNOWledge in the

> > > past?

> >

> > Find out.

> >

> > All I can do is feed ya more concepts. That's all this talk consists of.

> >

>

>

> Sooner or later, ya gotta take a bite of that apple Doug... ain't no two ways

around it. ;-)

>

> ~A

>

The point is that whether you call it a flash of understanding or apperception

in the " eternal " moment, the body/brain/consciousness takes/needs duration/time

to register that apperception as conscious awareness. What then is the timeless

NOW if not an illusion?

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " <douglasmitch1963

wrote:

>

> >

> The point is that whether you call it a flash of understanding or apperception

in the " eternal " moment, the body/brain/consciousness takes/needs duration/time

to register that apperception as conscious awareness. What then is the timeless

NOW if not an illusion?

>

 

It is what it is when known directly as the timeless Now.

 

All words go by the wayside, all concepts, all " scientific discoveries " .

 

This has nothing at all to do with concepts, or conceptuality.

 

It need not be believed in, or even thought about.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " fewtch " <fewtch wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " <douglasmitch1963@>

wrote:

> >

> > >

> > The point is that whether you call it a flash of understanding or

apperception in the " eternal " moment, the body/brain/consciousness takes/needs

duration/time to register that apperception as conscious awareness. What then

is the timeless NOW if not an illusion?

> >

>

> It is what it is when known directly as the timeless Now.

>

> All words go by the wayside, all concepts, all " scientific discoveries " .

>

> This has nothing at all to do with concepts, or conceptuality.

>

> It need not be believed in, or even thought about.

>

There is no direct knowing without duration according to neuorscientific

research. Werner has made a valid point.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " <douglasmitch1963

wrote:

>

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

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " <douglasmitch1963@>

wrote:

> > >

> > > >

> > > The point is that whether you call it a flash of understanding or

apperception in the " eternal " moment, the body/brain/consciousness takes/needs

duration/time to register that apperception as conscious awareness. What then

is the timeless NOW if not an illusion?

> > >

> >

> > It is what it is when known directly as the timeless Now.

> >

> > All words go by the wayside, all concepts, all " scientific discoveries " .

> >

> > This has nothing at all to do with concepts, or conceptuality.

> >

> > It need not be believed in, or even thought about.

> >

> There is no direct knowing without duration according to neuorscientific

research. Werner has made a valid point.

>

 

That's fine.

 

Maybe it " narrowed him down " even more ;-).

[Guest guest]

-

fewtch

Nisargadatta

Friday, September 11, 2009 2:50 PM

Re: Krishnamurti: Consciousness is the Past

 

 

Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 "

<douglasmitch1963 wrote:

>

> >

> The point is that whether you call it a flash of understanding or

> apperception in the " eternal " moment, the body/brain/consciousness

> takes/needs duration/time to register that apperception as conscious

> awareness. What then is the timeless NOW if not an illusion?

>

 

It is what it is when known directly as the timeless Now.

 

All words go by the wayside, all concepts, all " scientific discoveries " .

 

This has nothing at all to do with concepts, or conceptuality.

 

It need not be believed in, or even thought about.

-t-

 

This is one of the impediments for those who claim " all is consciousness " .

There is a need of all kind of mental contortions to fit certain truth like

" timelessness " . No explanations will do the trick. In the other hand: the

awareness of consciousness as a timebound bubble....is timeless...or if you

prefer: now.

-geo-

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana wrote:

>

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

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " <douglasmitch1963@>

wrote:

> > >

> > > > To you, maybe.

> > > >

> > > > Quite honestly, all this stuff is conceptual until it isn't.

> > > >

> > > > The main dish at a restaurant you've never tried is a conceptual flavour

until one takes a bite.

> > > >

> > > How does " taking a bite " of NOW happen except as kNOWledge in the

> > > past?

> >

> > Find out.

> >

> > All I can do is feed ya more concepts. That's all this talk consists of.

> >

>

>

> Sooner or later, ya gotta take a bite of that apple Doug... ain't no two ways

around it. ;-)

>

> ~A

>

I have taken a big bite of that apple only to be bitten back by neuroscientific

research on consciousness.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> -

> dan330033

> Nisargadatta

> Thursday, September 10, 2009 9:00 PM

> Re: Krishnamurti: Consciousness is the Past

>

>

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

> >

> >

> > -

> > dan330033

> > Nisargadatta

> > Thursday, September 10, 2009 5:53 PM

> > Re: Krishnamurti: Consciousness is the Past

> >

> >

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

> > >

> > >

> > > -

> > > dan330033

> > > Nisargadatta

> > > Thursday, September 10, 2009 5:36 PM

> > > Re: Krishnamurti: Consciousness is the Past

> > >

> > >

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

> > > >

> > > > " ve read, but not extensively. Never felt involved by it. Neither he

> > > > nor

> > > > Ouspensky spoke to me..

> > > > -d-

> > > >

> > > > I have read them selectively - LOL - with one critical eye and another

> > > > ear...

> > > > Not the schools stuff....and other things alike. I enjoyed the

> > > > description

> > > > G makes about the ray of creation...and the human factory. But then I

> > > > learned that there scores of G schools in the USA and Europe..with

> > > > " teachers " that have grown a mustache, cut their hair and smoke cigars

> > > > LOL

> > > > LOL LOL

> > > > Not that - no!!

> > > > -geo-

> > >

> > > Yeah, that stuff can get freaky.

> > >

> > > Werner Erhart of " EST " fame had trainers learn to do his teachings with

> > > the

> > > exact same wording he would use, dress and even gesture like him.

> > >

> > > Teaching " awareness " seems to attract plenty of control freaks playing

> > > " master " and plenty of people who want a " master " to emulate.

> > >

> > > I guess that's human nature, all part of the dance.

> > >

> > > But the fact of awareness itself, is transcendent of human nature.

> > >

> > > There is nothing human-centric about it.

> > >

> > > Yet, it shines as comfortably through human beings as anything else.

> > >

> > > - D -

> > >

> > > So leaving all that aside...the relative dance of the

> > > absolute/worlds/man...the ray of creation..the sense of relativism of

> > > all

> > > there is....the relative influence of one plane on another...lots to

> > > learn

> > > there....if one has the stomach for it.

> > > -geo-

> >

> > You mean if one has the stomach for that trap.

> >

> > The bait has been set.

> >

> > Do you go for it or not?

> >

> > If you go for it, you can go on and on with the quest, for more and more

> > and

> > more.

> >

> > Or, does the quest cease?

> >

> > Is the adventure over?

> >

> > -- D --

> >

> > Reading or not reading....has it become so relevant for you now?

> > Besides...

> > there are no traps.

> >

> > PS - Could you send me a list of books I may read without any danger of

> > falling in THE TRAP?

> > ..joking...

> > -geo-

>

> What are you seeking?

>

> Seeking is the trap.

>

> If there are no traps, there is no seeking, nothing to get.

>

> " ..the relative dance of the

> > > absolute/worlds/man...the ray of creation..the sense of relativism of

> > > all

> > > there is....the relative influence of one plane on another...lots to

> > > learn

> > > there....if one has the stomach for it. "

>

> Lots to learn?

>

> Sounds like good old-fashioned occultic seeking to me.

>

> What do I know?

>

> Nothing.

>

> - D -

>

> A litlle bird told me that dan have read the bible and the caballa....and a

> few other scrilegious books....:>)

> -geo-

 

It's really clear, isn't it, that I'm not saying not to read?

 

It's " how " the reading is happening.

 

And obviously, it's for the one reading to notice, or not to notice.

 

Hint: seeking is an attempt to avoid being the anxiety one is, by having a goal

to get somewhere over time ... seeking compounds the anxiety of avoidance,

avoidance of discontinuity

 

Certainly the bible or krishnamurti can be read with seeking motivation, just as

much as gurdjieff - all I'm saying is that the way G and O's writings came

across to me was as a support and encouragement for seeking - maybe for someone

else that's not the case. Maybe for you, they end all seeking. If so, great.

 

Like I said: what do I know? Nothing ...

 

 

- D -

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

 

> That is what impediment is. The seeking, searching for more....acting as if

> there was a self, as if there was impediment.

> -geo-

 

Yes.

 

Which finally comes down to self-confrontation in the present, not moving away

from the present, not avoiding what is.

 

By self-confrontation, I don't mean that there is an object called " self " that

is confronted. What I mean is that the activity of avoidance is understood for

what it is, and not pretended to be something else that it isn't (like " a great

spiritual adventure " or " a search to get more and more wonderful knowledge and

experience) ...

 

- D -

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana wrote:

 

> No matter what you read Geo, no matter how far you go, you'll always

> come back to *nothing ever happened*. Life hasn't changed one iota.

> And truthfully, neither have you, neither have I.

>

> Just some experiences on the way to *become somebody* (else). But it's all

good, we have(had) time to fill in the blanks of our nothing.

>

>

>

> ~A

 

Yes, there is a reason for all the massive avoidance occurring over centuries

and millenia.

 

A reason for all the introjection, greed, rituals, projection, ruthless activity

....

 

Truth hurts, is not fun. It stops the parade, the march of self to victory and

more and more great experiences.

 

It involves honest awareness of limitation.

 

You don't get to hold onto anything.

 

Truth is not for the romantic, the clinging, the fearful, nor even brave ones

trying to get and have and hold ...

 

- D -

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " fewtch " <fewtch wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " <douglasmitch1963@>

wrote:

> >

> > Werner, i have read the intro to Libet's book " Mind Time: the Temporal

Factor in Consciousness " It doesn't surprise me that there is a time lag from

stimulus to conscious awareness of stimulus (200-500 milliseconds). It does

seem to contradict the NOW as available to conscious awareness in the NOW. The

perception would always be delayed by time. The eternal NOW is really

subjectively known after the fact, albeit a very short delay relatively

speaking. However, both mysic and physicist state that time is an illusion. So

i'm left with everything is an illusion, including the NOW, which is still

nondualism.

> >

>

> Even if the " Now " were really " Now plus 500ms " , that's not the point... at

all.

>

> Nonduality refers to " Now " as the absence of a world-picture being constructed

that includes " there " and " then " , that cordons off 'now' into a split second

squeezed between past and future. The eternal Now is the absence of a

conceptually constructed past/future with " now " in between, that's all. It has

nothing whatsoever to do with supposed perceptual delays.

 

 

Yes, an expansive, indivisble, unfragmented now-moment, now-being, now-aware.

 

The only reason for using the word " now " is to indicate there is no " there " or

" then " involved - be clear on that, and forget the word " now " ... as has been

said a million times, it is not a word or concept, there is no special sacred

word to hold to ...

 

- D -

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " <douglasmitch1963

wrote:

>

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

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " <douglasmitch1963@>

wrote:

> > >

> > > Werner, i have read the intro to Libet's book " Mind Time: the Temporal

Factor in Consciousness " It doesn't surprise me that there is a time lag from

stimulus to conscious awareness of stimulus (200-500 milliseconds). It does

seem to contradict the NOW as available to conscious awareness in the NOW. The

perception would always be delayed by time. The eternal NOW is really

subjectively known after the fact, albeit a very short delay relatively

speaking. However, both mysic and physicist state that time is an illusion. So

i'm left with everything is an illusion, including the NOW, which is still

nondualism.

> > >

> >

> > Even if the " Now " were really " Now plus 500ms " , that's not the point... at

all.

> >

> > Nonduality refers to " Now " as the absence of a world-picture being

constructed that includes " there " and " then " , that cordons off 'now' into a

split second squeezed between past and future. The eternal Now is the absence

of a conceptually constructed past/future with " now " in between, that's all. It

has nothing whatsoever to do with supposed perceptual delays.

> >

> The NOW that you have described is another concept. There is no knowing of

the NOW as NOW as you have defined it. It would seem that all consciousness is

of the past as Krishnamurti asserts. Therefore even the NOW is an

illusion/delusion.

 

Hi Doug -

 

But certainly your own words above " therefore even the NOW is an

illusion/delusion " are equally of the past as any other words or concepts, no?

 

What happens when my saying that something is an illusion/delusion is equally as

illusory and delusional as anything else?

 

The mind stops.

 

The attempt to have certain knowledge ceases.

 

- D -

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana wrote:

>

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

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " <douglasmitch1963@>

wrote:

> > >

> > > > To you, maybe.

> > > >

> > > > Quite honestly, all this stuff is conceptual until it isn't.

> > > >

> > > > The main dish at a restaurant you've never tried is a conceptual flavour

until one takes a bite.

> > > >

> > > How does " taking a bite " of NOW happen except as kNOWledge in the

> > > past?

> >

> > Find out.

> >

> > All I can do is feed ya more concepts. That's all this talk consists of.

> >

>

>

> Sooner or later, ya gotta take a bite of that apple Doug... ain't no two ways

around it. ;-)

>

> ~A

 

 

Sooner or later, the apple eats you up.

 

And you have no say in the matter.

 

- D -

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " <douglasmitch1963

wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana@> wrote:

> >

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

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 "

<douglasmitch1963@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > > To you, maybe.

> > > > >

> > > > > Quite honestly, all this stuff is conceptual until it isn't.

> > > > >

> > > > > The main dish at a restaurant you've never tried is a conceptual

flavour until one takes a bite.

> > > > >

> > > > How does " taking a bite " of NOW happen except as kNOWledge in the

> > > > past?

> > >

> > > Find out.

> > >

> > > All I can do is feed ya more concepts. That's all this talk consists of.

> > >

> >

> >

> > Sooner or later, ya gotta take a bite of that apple Doug... ain't no two

ways around it. ;-)

> >

> > ~A

> >

> The point is that whether you call it a flash of understanding or apperception

in the " eternal " moment, the body/brain/consciousness takes/needs duration/time

to register that apperception as conscious awareness. What then is the timeless

NOW if not an illusion?

 

It's not the words or concepts, as has been said a million times before.

 

The point of using " now " as a pointer is that the mind isn't able to grasp

anything in the immediacy.

 

Immediacy = unmediated.

 

But the mind/self is the attempt to hold to something known.

 

As long as a concept of having knowledge about what is real and what is false

can be held onto, then that will be an anchoring point. A concept about a

" timeless, eternal now " can also be a mental anchoring point. Even the concept

" there is no anchoring point where mind can grasp and have a hold " can be an

anchor.

 

So, one is on one's own, so much so that one can't make a " leap " into the

unknown.

 

The one who would want to leap, is the past, and isn't here - never was.

 

The unknown leaps into me, so much so that there is no room here for I or other

....

 

All the words shared about this throughout history are only suggestive, that's

all they can be. They can never be nor give the actuality in which no knowledge

can be held, no past can be present, no self/other configuration can be acted

on, no meanings or associations pertain ...

 

- D -

[Guest guest]

-

dan330033

Nisargadatta

Friday, September 11, 2009 4:32 PM

Re: Krishnamurti: Consciousness is the Past

 

 

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> -

> dan330033

> Nisargadatta

> Thursday, September 10, 2009 9:00 PM

> Re: Krishnamurti: Consciousness is the Past

>

>

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

> >

> >

> > -

> > dan330033

> > Nisargadatta

> > Thursday, September 10, 2009 5:53 PM

> > Re: Krishnamurti: Consciousness is the Past

> >

> >

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

> > >

> > >

> > > -

> > > dan330033

> > > Nisargadatta

> > > Thursday, September 10, 2009 5:36 PM

> > > Re: Krishnamurti: Consciousness is the Past

> > >

> > >

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

> > > >

> > > > " ve read, but not extensively. Never felt involved by it. Neither he

> > > > nor

> > > > Ouspensky spoke to me..

> > > > -d-

> > > >

> > > > I have read them selectively - LOL - with one critical eye and

> > > > another

> > > > ear...

> > > > Not the schools stuff....and other things alike. I enjoyed the

> > > > description

> > > > G makes about the ray of creation...and the human factory. But then

> > > > I

> > > > learned that there scores of G schools in the USA and Europe..with

> > > > " teachers " that have grown a mustache, cut their hair and smoke

> > > > cigars

> > > > LOL

> > > > LOL LOL

> > > > Not that - no!!

> > > > -geo-

> > >

> > > Yeah, that stuff can get freaky.

> > >

> > > Werner Erhart of " EST " fame had trainers learn to do his teachings

> > > with

> > > the

> > > exact same wording he would use, dress and even gesture like him.

> > >

> > > Teaching " awareness " seems to attract plenty of control freaks playing

> > > " master " and plenty of people who want a " master " to emulate.

> > >

> > > I guess that's human nature, all part of the dance.

> > >

> > > But the fact of awareness itself, is transcendent of human nature.

> > >

> > > There is nothing human-centric about it.

> > >

> > > Yet, it shines as comfortably through human beings as anything else.

> > >

> > > - D -

> > >

> > > So leaving all that aside...the relative dance of the

> > > absolute/worlds/man...the ray of creation..the sense of relativism of

> > > all

> > > there is....the relative influence of one plane on another...lots to

> > > learn

> > > there....if one has the stomach for it.

> > > -geo-

> >

> > You mean if one has the stomach for that trap.

> >

> > The bait has been set.

> >

> > Do you go for it or not?

> >

> > If you go for it, you can go on and on with the quest, for more and more

> > and

> > more.

> >

> > Or, does the quest cease?

> >

> > Is the adventure over?

> >

> > -- D --

> >

> > Reading or not reading....has it become so relevant for you now?

> > Besides...

> > there are no traps.

> >

> > PS - Could you send me a list of books I may read without any danger of

> > falling in THE TRAP?

> > ..joking...

> > -geo-

>

> What are you seeking?

>

> Seeking is the trap.

>

> If there are no traps, there is no seeking, nothing to get.

>

> " ..the relative dance of the

> > > absolute/worlds/man...the ray of creation..the sense of relativism of

> > > all

> > > there is....the relative influence of one plane on another...lots to

> > > learn

> > > there....if one has the stomach for it. "

>

> Lots to learn?

>

> Sounds like good old-fashioned occultic seeking to me.

>

> What do I know?

>

> Nothing.

>

> - D -

>

> A litlle bird told me that dan have read the bible and the caballa....and

> a

> few other scrilegious books....:>)

> -geo-

 

It's really clear, isn't it, that I'm not saying not to read?

 

It's " how " the reading is happening.

 

And obviously, it's for the one reading to notice, or not to notice.

 

Hint: seeking is an attempt to avoid being the anxiety one is, by having a

goal to get somewhere over time ... seeking compounds the anxiety of

avoidance, avoidance of discontinuity

 

Certainly the bible or krishnamurti can be read with seeking motivation,

just as much as gurdjieff - all I'm saying is that the way G and O's

writings came across to me was as a support and encouragement for seeking -

maybe for someone else that's not the case. Maybe for you, they end all

seeking. If so, great.

 

Like I said: what do I know? Nothing ...

 

- D -

 

I am open to talk about almost anything...but when it comes to details of

how... or when... or should I... or must I not... or can I.....I sort of

smile. Not two human beings are equal - obviously, otherwise they would

occupy the same place at the same time.

-geo-

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " <douglasmitch1963

wrote:

>

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

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " <douglasmitch1963@>

wrote:

> > >

> > > >

> > > The point is that whether you call it a flash of understanding or

apperception in the " eternal " moment, the body/brain/consciousness takes/needs

duration/time to register that apperception as conscious awareness. What then

is the timeless NOW if not an illusion?

> > >

> >

> > It is what it is when known directly as the timeless Now.

> >

> > All words go by the wayside, all concepts, all " scientific discoveries " .

> >

> > This has nothing at all to do with concepts, or conceptuality.

> >

> > It need not be believed in, or even thought about.

> >

> There is no direct knowing without duration according to neuorscientific

research. Werner has made a valid point.

 

It's not knowledge.

 

There is no thing to be known here, now.

 

That is *how* it is nondurational truth, Doug.

 

Anything that can be measured by instrumentation, and replicated, and agreed

upon by a community of observers, by definition, involves duration.

 

- D -

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> -

> fewtch

> Nisargadatta

> Friday, September 11, 2009 2:50 PM

> Re: Krishnamurti: Consciousness is the Past

>

>

> Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 "

> <douglasmitch1963@> wrote:

> >

> > >

> > The point is that whether you call it a flash of understanding or

> > apperception in the " eternal " moment, the body/brain/consciousness

> > takes/needs duration/time to register that apperception as conscious

> > awareness. What then is the timeless NOW if not an illusion?

> >

>

> It is what it is when known directly as the timeless Now.

>

> All words go by the wayside, all concepts, all " scientific discoveries " .

>

> This has nothing at all to do with concepts, or conceptuality.

>

> It need not be believed in, or even thought about.

> -t-

>

> This is one of the impediments for those who claim " all is consciousness " .

> There is a need of all kind of mental contortions to fit certain truth like

> " timelessness " . No explanations will do the trick. In the other hand: the

> awareness of consciousness as a timebound bubble....is timeless...or if you

> prefer: now.

> -geo-

 

This is the point where the Zen teacher yells, or slaps you in the face, or

walks out of the room.

 

Yes, it is direct and not a matter of description, of second-hand knowledge

through words or ideas ...

 

- D -