Guest guest Posted March 28, 2001 Report Share Posted March 28, 2001 Hi Thomas, I 'puzzled through this' a couple times, but it just doesn't 'speak to me'. I definitely get the aspect of the waking state 'seeming more real' than the dream state (something not necessarily true here anymore), as well as the fact that memory gives a sense of continuity to the waking state... (something that also seems discontinuous, although not continuously ;-). It still makes no sense, on the level of thought, that things appear to age and change, if no time is involved (logically speaking or otherwise). Yes, understood that history and historical context is a false 'reference point'... but why the appearance of aging/changing within the context? This appearance can't be denied, *as appearance*. Anyway, the response is appreciated. Namaste, Tim Nisargadatta, " thomas murphy " <tma@c...> wrote: > >Tim: ...why there's such a great abundance > >of evidence of 'time passing' in the manifest > >seems a mystery... > > Mind may resolve this mystery by careful > observation of the dreaming phenomenon. > In the " sleeping dream " whenever an entity > appears--person, thing or whatever--it is > accompanied by a complete history that > endows it with compelling meaning within the > context of the dream. This is equally true in > the " waking dream. " However, awareness > detached from the dream, either during or > following the sleep state is able to ascertain > that this seemingly comprehensive history > is entirely ad hoc. That is, the timeline or > worldline of the dream event is seen to > erupt into consciousness all at once. > Detached awareness discerns that the > history, though integrally consistent within > its context, is yet a spontaneous creation. > > This ability to discern the spontaneous > creation of worldlines is the reason that > sleeping dreams are discounted as being > less real than waking dreams, where such > discrimination is far less common, owing to > the fact that awareness is more likely to be > enthralled by the contents of the dream. > > The paradox is resolved when the assumption > of continuity is eliminated. The problem is that > in the waking dream continuity goes largely > unquestioned, owing to the seamless > consistency of events occurring within its > venue. > > -tomas > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > >Tim: The whole thing could only be akin to a hallucination or a dream. > >How does such a simple reality appear so incredibly tangled and > >convoluted? > > >It is indeed a mystery. Some have put forth the notion of all this > >being 'a survival mechanism', and offered various other explanations, > >none of which really make much sense (seen from here). > > >It seems that sometimes inquiry takes place in dream or immediately > >upon waking. Waking up this morning, I was struck with how it can be > >so clearly observed that 'things age' (milk 'becomes' rancid left out > >of the refrigerator, a magazine from 1802 looks 'old', etc.) and so > >how can it be derived 'there is only now'? > > >Realizing of course (after waking up more fully) that this is how > >things appear to thought only... but why there's such a great > >abundance of evidence of 'time passing' in the manifest seems a > >mystery as well. Can you shed any light on this? > > >Thought asks -- if 'time does not pass', why is there such a great > >deal of appearance of 'time passing'? > > > >>Dan: A great mystery. > >>How is it that memory > >> can say, " I remember being > >> in a room with you yesterday " , > >> in way which not only involves > >> the perception of a self noticing > >> itself in a room, but a self > >> looking at its memory of itself, > >> remembering how it was thinking > >> about whether or not to speak, > >> due to something it remembered > >> about itself and the person to > >> whom it was speaking? > > >> Acutely observed, the paradox is > >> incredible. Without acute > >> observation, it's just accepted > >> as the way things actually are. > > >>The functioning of memory and thought > >> construct an apparently tangible > >> reality of time and space, requiring > >> the appearance of an " observer " > >> to whom " events, feelings, and > >> perceptions occur " ... > > >>For the " observer " to seem to appear, > >> along with time, space, and substance, > >> there must be a self noticing itself, > >> as memory functions in a way > >> that constructs time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 28, 2001 Report Share Posted March 28, 2001 Hello Tim, You wrote: >I 'puzzled through this' a couple times, but it just doesn't 'speak >to me'. I definitely get the aspect of the waking state 'seeming >more real' than the dream state (something not necessarily true here >anymore), as well as the fact that memory gives a sense of continuity >to the waking state... (something that also seems discontinuous, >although not continuously ;-). >It still makes no sense, on the level of thought, that things appear >to age and change, if no time is involved (logically speaking or >otherwise). >Yes, understood that history and historical context is a >false 'reference point'... but why the appearance of aging/changing >within the context? This appearance can't be denied, *as appearance*. One must at once deny nothing and embrace everything at the single-pointed nexus of experience sensing feeling recollecting expecting reasoning willing seen in a dream of breathtaking depth. History telescopes fractally single-point-of-origin and all-that-is harmonize as clamorous infinite abundance resounding in silent eternal beauty. Seen edge-on the entire continuum though single pointed yet contains all. And this is the point. What matters is not the apparent reality or imputed unreality of experience but the stunning spontaneous eruption of panoramic history at a naked singularity grounding the event horizon of experience. Beginning and end what is is what is. Everything's encapsulated within. There's no point in denying anything, even as there's no point in affirming anything everything simply is, history and all. While this may resound as permanence within temporal mind, it is absolute freedom within eternal being. Bizarre as it may sound, history can be anything, as it continually shifts with the prevailing winds of sensing, feeling, dreaming and reasoning. History may well be regarded as a more or less coherent set of circumstances surrounding a point in an impromptu story line. It's apparent continuity is merely a seductively effective way of projecting infinite abundance within yet another self-defining instance of universal body/mind. At the level of oneness, all is nothing and thus all is everything in potency. In moments of silence one attunes with one. Whatever is needed is provided. History is simply what is seen with more or less clarity through the glass of perception from a point beyond time and place. ~tomas ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> Mind may resolve this mystery by careful >> observation of the dreaming phenomenon. >> In the " sleeping dream " whenever an entity >> appears--person, thing or whatever--it is >> accompanied by a complete history that >> endows it with compelling meaning within the >> context of the dream. This is equally true in >> the " waking dream. " However, awareness >> detached from the dream, either during or >> following the sleep state is able to ascertain >> that this seemingly comprehensive history >> is entirely ad hoc. That is, the timeline or >> worldline of the dream event is seen to >> erupt into consciousness all at once. >> Detached awareness discerns that the >> history, though integrally consistent within >> its context, is yet a spontaneous creation. >> >> This ability to discern the spontaneous >> creation of worldlines is the reason that >> sleeping dreams are discounted as being >> less real than waking dreams, where such >> discrimination is far less common, owing to >> the fact that awareness is more likely to be >> enthralled by the contents of the dream. >> >> The paradox is resolved when the assumption >> of continuity is eliminated. The problem is that >> in the waking dream continuity goes largely >> unquestioned, owing to the seamless >> consistency of events occurring within its >> venue. >> >> -tomas >> >> >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> >> >Tim: The whole thing could only be akin to a hallucination or a >dream. >> >How does such a simple reality appear so incredibly tangled and >> >convoluted? >> >> >It is indeed a mystery. Some have put forth the notion of all >this >> >being 'a survival mechanism', and offered various other >explanations, >> >none of which really make much sense (seen from here). >> >> >It seems that sometimes inquiry takes place in dream or >immediately >> >upon waking. Waking up this morning, I was struck with how it can >be >> >so clearly observed that 'things age' (milk 'becomes' rancid left >out >> >of the refrigerator, a magazine from 1802 looks 'old', etc.) and >so >> >how can it be derived 'there is only now'? >> >> >Realizing of course (after waking up more fully) that this is how >> >things appear to thought only... but why there's such a great >> >abundance of evidence of 'time passing' in the manifest seems a >> >mystery as well. Can you shed any light on this? >> >> >Thought asks -- if 'time does not pass', why is there such a great >> >deal of appearance of 'time passing'? >> >> >> >>Dan: A great mystery. >> >>How is it that memory >> >> can say, " I remember being >> >> in a room with you yesterday " , >> >> in way which not only involves >> >> the perception of a self noticing >> >> itself in a room, but a self >> >> looking at its memory of itself, >> >> remembering how it was thinking >> >> about whether or not to speak, >> >> due to something it remembered >> >> about itself and the person to >> >> whom it was speaking? >> >> >> Acutely observed, the paradox is >> >> incredible. Without acute >> >> observation, it's just accepted >> >> as the way things actually are. >> >> >>The functioning of memory and thought >> >> construct an apparently tangible >> >> reality of time and space, requiring >> >> the appearance of an " observer " >> >> to whom " events, feelings, and >> >> perceptions occur " ... >> >> >>For the " observer " to seem to appear, >> >> along with time, space, and substance, >> >> there must be a self noticing itself, >> >> as memory functions in a way >> >> that constructs time. > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.