Guest guest Posted March 29, 2001 Report Share Posted March 29, 2001 Dear Dan, Nisargadatta, Daniel Berkow <berkowd@u...> wrote: > Hi Tim! > > I'm not content with giving > the label " Awareness " or > " Consciousness " to a supposedly > absolute nature. Who or what > is able to give or use this label? Understood, these being pointers to something 'experiential' (and even the word 'experiential' being a pointer, lacking any experiencer to experience anything :-)... <snip> > The entire realms of conceptuality, logic, > meaning, and definable experience > (including definitions like " form " > and " formless " ) depend on separation > of inside and outside. Yes... > So, not only does consciousness not require > a body, there is no consciousness for anything > to occur within, to require anything or > to have anything. Yes, even setting down a definition like 'consciousness' is tricky. Various 'sages' seem to approach things in various ways, Buddha simply saying " I am awake, " Shankara uttering " There is only Brahman, " others like Nisargadatta choosing to distinguish between " Brahman and " Parabrahman " (consciousness/Awareness), Neovedanta's similar " Saguna Brahman " and " Nirguna Brahman " and so on. To discuss the undiscussable is impossible. Yet it seems to get discussed anyway, because not to discuss it is to leave it undiscussed <g>. > Saying " entire universe " is no better than > saying " consciousness " , I admit it. Yes, just recalling your words " If you say 'all', you miss me " ... > The funny thing is, that although there is > no separation of inside and outside, > and thus no meaning to any terms, ideas, > or experiential validations or invalidations > of anything -- inside and outside appear. > Differentiation seems to occur. > Sense seems to be, and thus making sense > seems to intuitively make sense. Definitely. One thing is for certain, " nonduality " doesn't negate the world/universe (as appearance). To do so would be 'duality' in the purest sense. > So, in words, it is utterly paradoxical, > like saying, > " With no inside or outside, inside and > outside are. " I would state it as " inside and outside appear to be " (perhaps to lessen the sense of paradox) but your words are 'just as good', seen from here. > It is this paradox (to words, not to > " awareness " -- oops, that word again) Gotta pick some word... use 'pinball' if that feels better ;-). > that is how and why an apparent > body appears to appear, a world > appears to appear, a " mind " or > " consciousness " is > meaninglessly inferred ... I've given up on 'how's' and 'why's' -- especially " why's. " " How's " are sometimes interesting to discuss, but why is anything anything? Because it is, I suppose :-). Staying on topic, Nisargadatta denies causation (clearly there is none) and at least once described the manifest as " chaos " (not a bad pointer imo). His teachings reflect the view that causes are utterly untraceable to a 'first cause'. Perhaps that analogy of a hall of mirrors, all reflecting one another but none locatable applies here. > It is this paradox which is > explored ad infinitum without > ever getting anywhere ... imo paradox is an 'acquired taste'. I remember first investigating this " nonduality stuff " and being baffled and 'turned off' by the inherent paradox ( " neither is nor is not " and so on). In fact paradox was very unpalatable when first encountered, but much less so after even a little 'experience' came into the picture -- and there were lots of " beginner's luck " type " spiritual experiences " in the first year or so -- just enough to keep attention 'focused'. So it goes... Love, Tim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 29, 2001 Report Share Posted March 29, 2001 Hi Tim! To discuss the undiscussable is impossible. Yet it seems to get discussed anyway, because not to discuss it is to leave it undiscussed <g>. Yes, exactly! And any discussion of anything, is discussing the undiscussable. Definitely. One thing is for certain, " nonduality " doesn't negate the world/universe (as appearance). To do so would be 'duality' in the purest sense. Absolutely! Nonseparation is division, the activity of the " primal cell " , or " first point " ... nonduality is infinite diversity. All is " in " each, and each is all. In fact, I'd hang my hat on it! (Where'd it go? In fact, where's my hat? I think it's on your head ... Now, where's your head? Let's play volleyball!) > So, in words, it is utterly paradoxical, > like saying, > " With no inside or outside, inside and > outside are. " I would state it as " inside and outside appear to be " (perhaps to lessen the sense of paradox) but your words are 'just as good', seen from here. Yes... My pointless point being that to choose one over the other can't be validated, as each infers the other. Like Einstein finding that the universe curved back on itself. I've given up on 'how's' and 'why's' -- especially " why's. " " How's " are sometimes interesting to discuss, but why is anything anything? Because it is, I suppose :-). Yup. I am that I am. And I am how I am. Staying on topic, Nisargadatta denies causation (clearly there is none) and at least once described the manifest as " chaos " (not a bad pointer imo). His teachings reflect the view that causes are utterly untraceable to a 'first cause'. Indeed. Every event implies every other event. So much so, that each and every event is all events. And this includes the event of distinguishing " this " from " that " . Perhaps that analogy of a hall of mirrors, all reflecting one another but none locatable applies here. It sure do! imo paradox is an 'acquired taste'. I remember first investigating this " nonduality stuff " and being baffled and 'turned off' by the inherent paradox ( " neither is nor is not " and so on). In fact paradox was very unpalatable when first encountered, but much less so after even a little 'experience' came into the picture -- and there were lots of " beginner's luck " type " spiritual experiences " in the first year or so -- just enough to keep attention 'focused'. So it goes... So it goes ... Love, Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 2, 2001 Report Share Posted April 2, 2001 Dear Tim-Omkara There are probably several different kinds of time. The ordinary intellect naturally believes that there is, and can only be, one time: that which moves or 'passes'. However, a different and higher level of the intellect is able both to experience and to comprehend qualitatively differentiated types of time: Passing-time, Eternity, Timelessness, etc. Passing time is experienced by the person-jiva, time that does not pass is the eternal world of the Atman, and Timelessness is an attempted description of the Absolute. To say that 'there is only now' is to refer to the eternal moment now, but to speak of the 'appearance of time passing' is to be in the illusion of the world. Confusion is caused merely perhaps by the attempt to relate the different types of time into one unified theory of time. Time is different in different worlds. Passing time can be stopped. That sounds strange, I acknowledge. Yet as young children we probably all were able to stop and start time at will. There appears to be a switch in the solar plexus region of the abdomen that initiates and controls the movement, and thus the time, of the world, our world, that is projected on to the screen of the mind. It is as if we appear to be attached to a type of subtle cosmic mechanism that turns, unwinds, and projects the apparent world, in which we find ourselves playing a part, on to a screen of clear space. The show appears to be for the education, or entertainment, of the audience, ie. the Witness or Mahat. As adults we have sadly lost the ability to control the time switch. If time can be stopped then passing-time is an illusion in the sense that it is an incomplete experience of time? And possibly it even demonstrates that time itself does not really exist? The most astonishing aspect of 'time' is that the future has already been. If the future has already occurred, how can time pass? A deeper conception of time is therefore necessary. May I relate the experience of Selwyn Dyffryn, a young englishman of my aquaintance, who has written about his childhood memories and added a philosophical commentary to them. He also compares his experience of time to those of the english poet, Rupert Brooke..... As an appendix I have collected together some of Nisargadatta's statements on time. I hope you find the material useful in your attempt to understand time. Further insight into the mystery of time is revealed in two books: Living Time and the integration of the life. Maurice Nicoll. Time. Philip Turetzky. Best wishes, John Time and Eternity As a young child with those soft pliant features and a nascent hint of tenderness, gently swept by surrender into the idyll of being, I gazed out through the high windows of that confining room, and out and down to the quarry in the fields beyond the house. A procession of rugged lorries arrived, paused briefly, then reversed towards the high quarry edge, stopping at the precipice. The driver, a small rudd-cheeked laughing rustic man, jumped down from the cab, exaggeratedly animated, he walked forward a few steps, stopped and then surveyed, enjoying the scene. The lorry began to tip-up its full heavy load, the rubble sliding, slithering, angled over the edge of the exposed stone face. The rubble began to fall. For several days I had watched this scene. One by one lorries would appear, and tip their loaded rubble slowly over the edge, which would stream downwards in beautiful curls of motion, and finally come to a dusty stillness at the bottom. But the fall of the stones always ended before I had the fullest and perfectly complete sense of enjoyment. The passage downwards, although perhaps some fifty feet of vertical descent, was each time completed before I was quite satisfied that everything had been extracted from this pure delight. The rubble began to fall. The stones and paled spumes of dust were falling deliriously down, tumbling upon tumbling, streaming, turning, curling. Their movements and patterns, comminglings and separations, intertwining and caressing, were quietly wondrous to my child consciousness. Remembering gently that the beauty would soon pass, this time I wished to prolong the experience. The falling stream was near to reaching the halfway point, when at will, I appeared to press upon a switch in my organism, a subtle inner switch, that I sensed and saw was present slightly to the left in the centre of my lower body. The flowing mass stopped moving, the curling fall downwards hung silent and still in the air, the whole alluvium of stone and dust and rubble now a frozen cloud of matter, delight and joy, amaranthine being, exultant peace. I dwelled in that delight. I enjoyed, and stayed long in the enjoyment. I looked at the man, he was not moving, his rouge face and laughing cheeks frozen in time, as though he was not really there, nor alive. He, the lorry, the quarry, field, and sky were some painted silent scene, eternal, and unchanging. Nothing moved. Everything had no longer its previous animation. Now everything had the appearance of being not quite real. It is impossible to know, or to express, how long this unmoving moment endured, there was no time that could move, perhaps simple timelessness. Possibly there was some sense as hours, or more. Then eventually I saw a belief, a minute weariness, crept into consciousness, I believed now everything had been extracted to the full. I slightly withdrew. I was satisfied. And so I let the scene go. Released, it began again to move. The rubble began again to fall, tumbling and gliding down to the bottom of the quarry where it became still. Several days my face appeared at that window, watching for the unmoving mystery, and so attentively that my mother found my attraction to the spectacle difficult to comprehend, and I overheard her explain to the others, who were also faintly bemused, that it was simply the harmless preoccupation of a child. Selwyn Dyffryn. When you were there, and you, and you, Happiness crowned the night; I too, Laughing and looking, one of all, I watched the quivering lamplight fall On plate and flowers and pouring tea And cup and cloth; and they and we Flung all the dancing moments by With jest and glitter. Lip and eye Flashed on the glory, shone and cried, Improvident, unmemoried; And fitfully and like a flame The light of laughter went and came. Proud in their careless transience moved The changing faces that I loved. Till suddenly, and otherwhence, I looked upon your innocence. For lifted clear and still and strange From the dark woven flow of change Under a vast and starless sky I saw the immortal moment lie. One instant I, an instant, knew As God knows all. And it and you I, above Time, oh, blind! could see In witless immortality. I saw the marble cup; the tea, Hung on the air, an amber stream; I saw the fire’s unglittering gleam, The painted flame, the frozen smoke. No more the flooding lamplight broke On flying eyes and lips and hair; But lay, but slept unbroken there, On stiller flesh, and body breathless, And lips and laughter stayed and deathless, And words on which no silence grew. Light was more alive than you For suddenly and otherwhence, I looked on your magnificence. I saw the stillness and the light, And you, august, immortal, white, Holy and strange; and every glint Posture and jest and thought and tint Freed of the mask of transiency, Triumphant in eternity, Immote, immortal. Dazed at length Human eyes grew, mortal strength Wearied; and Time began to creep. Change closed about me like a sleep. Light glinted on the eyes I loved. The cup was filled. The bodies moved. The drifting petal came to ground. The laughter chimed it’s perfect round. The broken syllable was ended. And I, so certain and so friended, How could I cloud, or how distress, The heaven of your unconsciousness? Or shake at Time’s sufficient spell, Stammering of lights unutterable? The eternal holiness of you, The timeless end, you never knew, The peace that lay, the light that shone. You never knew that I had gone A million miles away, and stayed A million years. Rupert Brooke. Dining-room Tea. What is time? The senses cannot comprehend it. Time has no appearance, is intangible, abstract, an apparently invisible component of existence? Where has the past gone to? I was once here in it, and living in it, and now it has disappeared, beyond human observation, except perhaps in the unreliable memories of those who were present, or recorded relatively by a mechanical apparatus, film, sound-recording, literary impression. To ask where the past has gone to is a strange question, as is to ask its companion: Where does the future come from? Future time, which will be apparent now, is now beyond ordinary human observation, except perhaps in the unreliable prophetic visions of those who glimpse it in the present, or is future time also recorded by a mechanical apparatus, and merely awaiting us? The young child and the poetic adult both know that time can be stopped, either at will, or initiated by profound quality of consciousness. To stop time it is necessary to look with innocence upon someone’s innocence. The search for splendour must be obsessive. There must be some love pouring from within for the object seen. Also it is necessary to move a little towards it, so that it is no longer separate but part of consciousness. If love and enjoyment pass too swiftly it is possible to stop time by pressing upon an inner subtle switch, rarely used, so that all movement, and the process of change, cease, until love has enjoyed and surfeited and gathered into being everything that can be taken from experience. The child, the poet, see more and more in less and less. When love is believed full, extraction complete, then the enjoyer may appear to step back so slightly, enough, to release the scene, then movement and life recur, and the passage of time is again experienced. Is the time that appears to be passing the same time as that which never changed? It can only be the same time, or perhaps there is relatively no time which passes from future towards ever receding past. Perhaps there is simply and only the time now, one long, long, long moment now, in which all movement and change occur in the same and single now, this everlasting present? Or perhaps there are a number of moments now, all equally now in the one now, which because I do not search for splendour in them, appear to move from one to the next in procession, casually discarded inexhausted? If I had not believed I was satisfied and stepped back from the quarry scene, would I remain there now, in its timeless unchangeableness? I know that scene must be yet there, existing unchangeable in the eternal present of the now, and although I abandoned it, it will remain there forever existing in its strange stillness? It appears that time is an assumption, merely my mental illusory inference, due to the sensory perception of the movement of objects in relation to each other. The past then has not disappeared, although I may not be able to ordinarily see it with my consciousness, similarly the future is already existing and will continue to exist even after I have cursorily glanced at it and let it fade away, I awaiting the revival of my consciousness in the next moment. In this view the past and future have both already existed and continue to exist before, during, and after my contact with them. Because the apparent passage of events, and the release of apparently living people to perform the animations of their lives, was within my child’s will and control, I wonder whether I am living in my own unique individual time, as contrasted with a possible common universal time? What I saw was not the time of physics, measurable, independent of individual consciousness, and unstoppable by human forces. The man I saw did not appear to have his own time, for I stopped his life in one frozen unsmiling smile, and released him only when I had tired of the whole world scene. It is possible that he has no independence from my consciousness, for he can only have been in my perceived world, not I in his, not I in a world of the physicists. In that state I controlled, studied, and enjoyed my own time. Selwyn Dyffryn. Nisargadatta on Time (Sources: published records of his talks) What is time? Time means space. Time appears spontaneously. With the appearance of consciousness time starts. Time is a succession of moments; each moment appears out of nothing and disappears into nothing, never to reappear. The memory of an event cannot pass for the event itself, nor can the anticipation. There is something exceptional, unique, about the present event, which the previous and the coming do not have. It stands out as if illumined. There is the stamp of reality on the actual, which the past and future do not have. But there is nothing peculiar in the present event to make it different from the past and future, because for a moment the past was actual and the future will become so. The past is in memory, the future is in imagination, and there is nothing in the present event itself that makes it stand out as real. What makes the present different is obviously my presence. I am real because I am always now, in the present. It is what is with me that now shares in my reality. A thing focused in the now is with me, for I am ever present. It is my own reality that I impart to the present event. The moment the mind, drawing on its stock of memories, begins to imagine, it fills the space with objects, and time with events. It is the mind that, itself in movement, sees everything moving, and having created time, worries about the past and future. Past and future are in the mind only. I am in svarupa, in my own state, timelessly in the now. I am now. You can start only from where you are. You are here and now, you cannot get out of here and now. Your being a person is due to the illusion of space and time. You imagine yourself to be at a certain point occupying a certain volume. Your personality is due to your self-identification with the body. Your thoughts and feelings exist in succession, they have their span in time and make you imagine yourself, because of memory, as having duration. In reality time and space exist in you, you do not exist in them. They are modes of perception, but they are not the only ones. Time and space are like words written on paper; the paper is real, the words merely convention. The mind creates time and space and takes its own creations for reality. All is here and now, but we do not see it. Truly, all is in me and by me. There is nothing else. The very idea of ‘else’ is a disaster. That event which is birth, living, and death together constitute nothing but time, duration. Before the sense of presence arrived you were in that state in which the concept of time was never there. Everybody is trying to protect and preserve the time factor.....that is, the consciousness. So long as time is there, consciousness is there; and time is there so long as the body is present. When the life span is over, time has gone. When time has gone, consciousness has gone. Until consciousness is there, without a body and your identification with it, time does not pass. Time and consciousness appear together, when you witness there is time. Without consciousness there is no time, because consciousness is time. There is no consciousness prior to body, it was a timeless state. In nature everything is time-bound, but nature itself is not time-bound. An event which has happened already does not come back. Similar things may happen, but they will never be identical. According to one’s firm conviction, the one who dies will have another dream, in which he will be reborn. What exists as the body, breath, and the knowledge "I Am" is one bundle which has been created, and whatever happens is contained in that bundle. Time has brought this about and time will end it. It has happened, it will continue for a while, then it will go away. But that "I" which was conceived and born has not changed from conception till the present moment. That "I" has come for a particular length of time. Some of the expressions of this knowledge "I Am" have achieved tremendous things. Some have become avatars. But at the end of the time span the magnificent personalities have disappeared, and however long the time, there is an end to that "I Amness". Some of these avatars have realized that the "I Amness" needs a body before it can manifest itself. It is this "I Amness" which has remained unchanged at all times, and which pervades the entire universe. This "I Amness" is the highest God, as far as this manifestation is concerned, and in the manifestation you must be one with that. But ultimately even this is temporary. What you are is spaceless, timeless, and without attributes. Whatever must happen has already happened. Each moment contains the whole of the past and creates the whole of the future. Past and future exist in the mind only. Time is in the mind, space is in the mind. The law of cause and effect is also a way of thinking. In reality all is here and now, and all is one. Multiplicity and diversity are in the mind only. The dream world is very old, it is not new. Your beingness is very powerful. The emergence of this beingness itself constitutes time. Awareness is not of time. Time exists in consciousness only. Beyond consciousness there are no time and space. Timelessness is beyond the illusion of time, it is not an extension in time. - Omkara Nisargadatta Wednesday, March 28, 2001 11:46 PM Dan/Re: Thinking..Outch! Hi Dan,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'?Namaste,TimNisargadatta, Daniel Berkow <berkowd@u...> wrote:> Hi Tim!> > > >How does 'self' stand apart and observe 'self'?> > 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.> > >This is something> >that makes no sense. Never mind whether the 'self' is 'real' or not,> >how about just answering that one, can somebody help?? :-)> > 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.> > Namaste,> Dan 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.