Guest guest Posted October 24, 2002 Report Share Posted October 24, 2002 > My point of view: > Now is. > Only now is. > etc. > Rather than write: > To me, " Now is. " > To me, " Only now is. " > etc. Bill, I have nothing against blanket absolutes or grand statements. You are the one that wrote: " Which is why if we limit ourselves to statements regarding our own point of view and do not attempt to make grand statements for everyone, we are on firmer ground when we speak. " Which is a grand statement, in my opinion, about how people should address this list to suit your preferences. > As for your Great Hall comment, I wonder if you > thought > I was being sarcastic when I said what I did about > putting > Dan's statement up in the Great Hall. I wasn't being > > sarcastic. I try to never be sarcastic, for a lot of > > reasons. > > I was very happy with Dan's statement. > I wonder now if my poetic image was so grandiose > that > it was taken for sarcasm. (please advise) No, I didn't think it was sarcasm, I thought you were on the verge of some revelation about 'now', so i was trying to make you see, that if we contaminate 'now' with our expectations ( eg. how people should make statements) then the 'now' is but a continuation of the past. > BTW, I don't consider myself above making absurd > statements. > I just think you could have found a better example. That was the example that was around when that then was now. Peace and Love, PEte Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site http://webhosting./ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 24, 2002 Report Share Posted October 24, 2002 Personally, I like broad statements that pertain to all, and blanket statements that point only at the owner of the statement - - either way, being on " firmer ground " is still in question. For example, I don't understand folks infatuation with NOW. The only difference between Past/Now/Future is degree of famililarity, mostly due to a long-standing habit or preference bred into our species. I am not (the) Past, Now or Future - I AM REALITY. I AM not a subject in or of Past/Now/Future. The whole scene is equa-distant from I AM. Tomorrow I will feel a lot more like I do now then before. Larry Nisargadatta, pete seesaw <seesaw1us> wrote: > > My point of view: > > Now is. > > Only now is. > > etc. > > Rather than write: > > To me, " Now is. " > > To me, " Only now is. " > > etc. > > > > > Bill, I have nothing against blanket absolutes or > grand > statements. You are the one that wrote: > > " Which is why if we limit ourselves to statements > regarding > our own point of view and do not attempt to make > grand > statements > for everyone, we are on firmer ground when we speak. " > > Which is a grand statement, in my opinion, about how > people should address this list to suit your > preferences. > > > > > As for your Great Hall comment, I wonder if you > > thought > > I was being sarcastic when I said what I did about > > putting > > Dan's statement up in the Great Hall. I wasn't being > > > > sarcastic. I try to never be sarcastic, for a lot of > > > > reasons. > > > > I was very happy with Dan's statement. > > I wonder now if my poetic image was so grandiose > > that > > it was taken for sarcasm. (please advise) > > No, I didn't think it was sarcasm, I thought you > were on the verge of some revelation about 'now', so > i was trying to make you see, that if we contaminate > 'now' with our expectations ( eg. how people should > make statements) then the 'now' is but a continuation > of the past. > > > > BTW, I don't consider myself above making absurd > > statements. > > I just think you could have found a better example. > > That was the example that was around when that then > was now. > Peace and Love, > PEte > > > > > Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site > http://webhosting./ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 24, 2002 Report Share Posted October 24, 2002 Pete, OK, I get ya. Yep. Blanket statement. But it was a meta-statement, a statement about the making of statements. Can I get a special exemption? What you say about me seeming to be on the verge of a revelation, contamination of Now etc. is way over my head. But I'm listening. Keep speaking the Dharma. It's going past the mind but I know it's sinking in. This peace, is it real? Or is it just my lack of imagination? -Bill pete seesaw [seesaw1us] Wednesday, October 23, 2002 6:53 PM Nisargadatta RE: Bill's Now > It seemed easier (shorter), and less clumsy to > write: > My point of view: > Now is. > Only now is. > etc. > Rather than write: > To me, " Now is. " > To me, " Only now is. " > etc. Bill, I have nothing against blanket absolutes or grand statements. You are the one that wrote: " Which is why if we limit ourselves to statements regarding our own point of view and do not attempt to make grand statements for everyone, we are on firmer ground when we speak. " Which is a grand statement, in my opinion, about how people should address this list to suit your preferences. > As for your Great Hall comment, I wonder if you > thought > I was being sarcastic when I said what I did about > putting > Dan's statement up in the Great Hall. I wasn't being > > sarcastic. I try to never be sarcastic, for a lot of > > reasons. > > I was very happy with Dan's statement. > I wonder now if my poetic image was so grandiose > that > it was taken for sarcasm. (please advise) No, I didn't think it was sarcasm, I thought you were on the verge of some revelation about 'now', so i was trying to make you see, that if we contaminate 'now' with our expectations ( eg. how people should make statements) then the 'now' is but a continuation of the past. > BTW, I don't consider myself above making absurd > statements. > I just think you could have found a better example. That was the example that was around when that then was now. Peace and Love, PEte Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site http://webhosting./ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 24, 2002 Report Share Posted October 24, 2002 Larry, " I Am " never did much for me. Not my thing I guess. " I AM REALITY " ...cool. Meta-trigger into altered hyper-presence of the day... For me was Now, but now is Love. Forever changes. Not about specification of metaphysical reality. Just adjustments in programming. " Reality " ...hmmm, maybe tomorrow. What else is on the menu? -Bill trem23 [inmadison] Wednesday, October 23, 2002 8:48 PM Nisargadatta Re: Bill's Now Personally, I like broad statements that pertain to all, and blanket statements that point only at the owner of the statement - - either way, being on " firmer ground " is still in question. For example, I don't understand folks infatuation with NOW. The only difference between Past/Now/Future is degree of famililarity, mostly due to a long-standing habit or preference bred into our species. I am not (the) Past, Now or Future - I AM REALITY. I AM not a subject in or of Past/Now/Future. The whole scene is equa-distant from I AM. Tomorrow I will feel a lot more like I do now then before. Larry Nisargadatta, pete seesaw <seesaw1us> wrote: > > My point of view: > > Now is. > > Only now is. > > etc. > > Rather than write: > > To me, " Now is. " > > To me, " Only now is. " > > etc. > > > > > Bill, I have nothing against blanket absolutes or > grand > statements. You are the one that wrote: > > " Which is why if we limit ourselves to statements > regarding > our own point of view and do not attempt to make > grand > statements > for everyone, we are on firmer ground when we speak. " > > Which is a grand statement, in my opinion, about how > people should address this list to suit your > preferences. > > > > > As for your Great Hall comment, I wonder if you > > thought > > I was being sarcastic when I said what I did about > > putting > > Dan's statement up in the Great Hall. I wasn't being > > > > sarcastic. I try to never be sarcastic, for a lot of > > > > reasons. > > > > I was very happy with Dan's statement. > > I wonder now if my poetic image was so grandiose > > that > > it was taken for sarcasm. (please advise) > > No, I didn't think it was sarcasm, I thought you > were on the verge of some revelation about 'now', so > i was trying to make you see, that if we contaminate > 'now' with our expectations ( eg. how people should > make statements) then the 'now' is but a continuation > of the past. > > > > BTW, I don't consider myself above making absurd > > statements. > > I just think you could have found a better example. > > That was the example that was around when that then > was now. > Peace and Love, > PEte > > > > > Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site > http://webhosting./ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 24, 2002 Report Share Posted October 24, 2002 Nisargadatta - The way back to your self Question: Still, you are different. Your mind seems to be always quiet and happy. And miracles happen around you. Answer: I know nothing about miracles, and I wonder whether nature admits exceptions to her laws, unless we agree that everything is a miracle. As to my mind, there is no such thing. There is a consciousness in which everything happens. It is quite obvious and enough. Look well, and see what I see. Q: What do you see? A: I see what you too could see, here and now, but for the wrong focus of your attention. You give no attention to your self. Your mind is all with things, people, and ideas, never with your self. Bring your self into focus, become aware of your own existence. See how you function, watch the motives and the results of your actions. Study the prison you have built around yourself, by inadvertence. By knowing what you are not, you come to know yourself. The way back to your self is through refusal and rejection. One thing is certain: The real is not imaginary, it is not a product of the mind. Even the sense of `I am´ is not continuous, though it is a useful pointer; it shows where to seek, but not what to seek. Just have a good look at it. Once you have convinced that you cannot say truthfully about your self anything except `I am´, and that nothing that can be pointed at can be your self, the need for the `I am´ is over - you are no longer intent on verbalizing what you are. All you need is to get rid of the tendency to define your self. All definition applies to your body only and to its expressions. Once this obsession with the body goes, you will revert to your natural state, spontaneously and effortlessly. The only difference between us is that I am aware of my natural state, while you are bemused. Just like gold made into ornamentals has no advantage over gold duct, except when the mind makes it so, so are we one in being we differ only in appearance. We discover it by being earnest, by searching, enquiry, questioning daily and hourly, by giving one's life to this discover. - Nisargadatta Maharaj " I am That " Talks with Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj karta Nisargadatta, " Bill Rishel " <plexus@x> wrote: > Larry, > > " I Am " never did much for me. > Not my thing I guess. > " I AM REALITY " ...cool. > > Meta-trigger into altered hyper-presence of the day... > > For me was Now, but now is Love. > > Forever changes. > > Not about specification of metaphysical reality. > > Just adjustments in programming. > > " Reality " ...hmmm, maybe tomorrow. > What else is on the menu? > > -Bill > > > > > > trem23 [inmadison@h...] > Wednesday, October 23, 2002 8:48 PM > Nisargadatta > Re: Bill's Now > > > Personally, I like broad statements that pertain to all, and blanket > statements that point only at the owner of the statement - - either > way, being on " firmer ground " is still in question. > For example, > I don't understand folks infatuation with NOW. The only difference > between Past/Now/Future is degree of famililarity, mostly due to a > long-standing habit or preference bred into our species. I am not > (the) Past, Now or Future - I AM REALITY. I AM not a subject in or > of Past/Now/Future. The whole scene is equa-distant from I AM. > > Tomorrow I will feel a lot more like I do now then before. > Larry > > Nisargadatta, pete seesaw <seesaw1us> wrote: > > > My point of view: > > > Now is. > > > Only now is. > > > etc. > > > Rather than write: > > > To me, " Now is. " > > > To me, " Only now is. " > > > etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 24, 2002 Report Share Posted October 24, 2002 Hi Bill -- You seem sincere and not sarcastic. I don't think it's worth your effort trying to placate Pete, as he's obviously a very cantankerous man. Except when he's nothing, of course. All love, Dan Nisargadatta, " Bill Rishel " <plexus@x> wrote: > Pete, > > It seemed easier (shorter), and less clumsy to write: > My point of view: > Now is. > Only now is. > etc. > Rather than write: > To me, " Now is. " > To me, " Only now is. " > etc. > Why do you can them " grand statements " for everyone if I bracket > them with: " The following statements are all from *my* point of > view " ? > > I'm certainly presenting them for other's consideration. > But in the example you cite, at least, I'm not stating > them as blanket absolutes. > > I'm sure you can find examples where I do make " grand > statements " . It seems odd that you should call me on > it in this particular case, though. > > As for your Great Hall comment, I wonder if you thought > I was being sarcastic when I said what I did about putting > Dan's statement up in the Great Hall. I wasn't being > sarcastic. I try to never be sarcastic, for a lot of > reasons. > > I was very happy with Dan's statement. > I wonder now if my poetic image was so grandiose that > it was taken for sarcasm. (please advise) > > BTW, I don't consider myself above making absurd statements. > I just think you could have found a better example. > > Peace and Love, > Bill > > > > > pete seesaw [seesaw1us] > Wednesday, October 23, 2002 8:30 AM > Nisargadatta > Bill's Now > > > Bill wrote: > > >This seems like a needed realism with respect to > words. > Which is why if we limit ourselves to statements > regarding > our own point of view and do not attempt to make grand > statements > for everyone, we are on firmer ground when we speak. > > The following statements are all from *my* point of > view: > > >Now is. > >It is the fundamental reality. Only Now is. > > Bill, > > That is so funny! Isn't what you wrote a grand > statement for everyone? You are the one telling us > what to say and how to say it to accommodate your > preferences. Let's hang a banner in the great hall: > > May now be free from the tyranny of my expectations. > > This is not an attack, I offer this for your > consideration: you can't pick and choose your now. > A tailor made now is just the past reincarnated. > > Peace, > Pete > > > > > > > Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site > http://webhosting./ > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 24, 2002 Report Share Posted October 24, 2002 Nisargadatta, pete seesaw <seesaw1us> wrote: > > It seemed easier (shorter), and less clumsy to > > write: > > My point of view: > > Now is. > > Only now is. > > etc. > > Rather than write: > > To me, " Now is. " > > To me, " Only now is. " > > etc. > > > > > Bill, I have nothing against blanket absolutes or > grand > statements. You are the one that wrote: > > " Which is why if we limit ourselves to statements > regarding > our own point of view and do not attempt to make > grand > statements > for everyone, we are on firmer ground when we speak. " > > Which is a grand statement, in my opinion, about how > people should address this list to suit your > preferences. > Funny and clear! Thanks for bringing me a smile early in the morning, Pete. Keep up your cantankerous ways! Peace, Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 24, 2002 Report Share Posted October 24, 2002 Hi Pete -- The memory of that then is now. The only that then is as memory, which is only appearing now. Peace and love to you, too, Dan > That was the example that was around when that then > was now. > Peace and Love, > PEte Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 24, 2002 Report Share Posted October 24, 2002 Nisargadatta, " trem23 " <inmadison@h...> wrote: > Personally, I like broad statements that pertain to all, and blanket > statements that point only at the owner of the statement - - either > way, being on " firmer ground " is still in question. > For example, > I don't understand folks infatuation with NOW. The only difference > between Past/Now/Future is degree of famililarity, mostly due to a > long-standing habit or preference bred into our species. I am not > (the) Past, Now or Future - I AM REALITY. I AM not a subject in or > of Past/Now/Future. The whole scene is equa-distant from I AM. > > Tomorrow I will feel a lot more like I do now then before. > Larry Larry -- Do you really think there is a difference between now, I am, and reality? The only difference is conceptual, verbal. The use of now is to indicate that past/present/future simultaneously imply and are one another. Do you really think I am has distance from anything? I am is an imagined point, where time, space, being come together without any distance or separation whatsoever. That point is imaginary. I am dissolves. Peace, Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 24, 2002 Report Share Posted October 24, 2002 > Thanks for bringing me a smile early in the > morning, Pete. > > Keep up your cantankerous ways! > > Peace, > Dan You are welcome, friend. I'm what I am. I think I said that somewhere else. Gosh I'm getting old! ) Pete Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site http://webhosting./ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 24, 2002 Report Share Posted October 24, 2002 I know Dan, but in all humility, I think the way I put it sounds a lot better. You are the Advaita corporate lawyer. I fancy i'm the artist. Pete --- dan330033 <dan330033 wrote: > Hi Pete -- > > The memory of that then is now. > > The only that then is as memory, > which is only appearing now. > > Peace and love to you, too, > Dan > > > > That was the example that was around when that > then > > was now. > > Peace and Love, > > PEte > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 24, 2002 Report Share Posted October 24, 2002 Yeah, let's make this a joint statement and publish it in The North Carolina Pig's Farmers Monthly. Pete > The use of now is to indicate that > past/present/future simultaneously > imply and are one another. > > Do you really think I am has distance from > anything? > > I am is an imagined point, where time, space, > being come together without any distance > or separation whatsoever. > > That point is imaginary. > > I am dissolves. > > Peace, > Dan > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 24, 2002 Report Share Posted October 24, 2002 > Larry -- > > Do you really think there is a difference > between now, I am, and reality? Yes, but our difference might be semantic. When I use the word Now as in Be Here Now I use it in context of time, as in, appreciate the present moment. Like appreciating the walk to the store Now is somehow better then the dreaming about the cone you will eat when you get there Now. Such an infatuation with Now is superficial. If on the other hand Now has no time element in it then why use the word? > The only difference is conceptual, verbal. > > The use of now is to indicate that > past/present/future simultaneously > imply and are one another. > No, we are merely more familiar with past or now or future by habit, and this familiarity breeds a sense of difference, however, there is no limit in time or space, or in subtly, to what can be experienced NOW . . that is, if experience is important to one. > Do you really think I am has distance from > anything? > > I am is an imagined point, where time, space, > being come together without any distance > or separation whatsoever. > > That point is imaginary. > > I am dissolves. Here we do disagree - - Yes, there is a distance between I AM and everything else - but not a distance measured in miles. When I close my eyes, all there is is I AM, but eyes open I AM and everything else is not I AM and everything else being not I AM is equivalent or equa- distant in that regard. Perhaps stated in layperson's language " I am bliss and everything else including what was once perceived as internal like ideas and feelings is flat . . . everything is external . . . I have likes and dislikes but there is no need or use for rejection or acceptance. " The Upanishads say: " I am That, You are That, and all this is nothing but That " The " You are That and all this is nothing but That " are a higher standard(s) then " I am That " and not achieved by all and would be a different conversation. Bliss, Larry > > Peace, > Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 24, 2002 Report Share Posted October 24, 2002 Dan, This resonates for me. " I am dissolves " especially resonates. This reminds me of: " That sense of dissolving into a liquid whole, so sweet. " I feel very melted. The liquid metaphor really works for me. But I love every line of your post, Dan. It is such a pleasure to read so cleanly stated what I would like to say, but cannot find the words. Words are a bit beyond me now, at least any kind of precision. Just feeling rather melted. Bear with me, Bill > dan330033 [dan330033] > > Do you really think there is a difference > between now, I am, and reality? > > The only difference is conceptual, verbal. > > The use of now is to indicate that > past/present/future simultaneously > imply and are one another. > > Do you really think I am has distance from > anything? > > I am is an imagined point, where time, space, > being come together without any distance > or separation whatsoever. > > That point is imaginary. > > I am dissolves. > > Peace, > Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 24, 2002 Report Share Posted October 24, 2002 Nisargadatta, pete seesaw <seesaw1us> wrote: > I know Dan, but in all humility, I think the > way I put it sounds a lot better. You are the Advaita > corporate lawyer. I fancy i'm the artist. > > Pete I wanted to give you a spontaneous response, Pete, but I see I'm a nanosecond too slow. Damn, I hate when that happens! -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 24, 2002 Report Share Posted October 24, 2002 Nisargadatta, pete seesaw <seesaw1us> wrote: > > > Yeah, let's make this a joint statement and publish it > in The North Carolina Pig's Farmers Monthly. > > Pete I don't think so, they're dealing with enough shit as it is. Let's make this is pig statement and publish it in High Times. Rollin', Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 24, 2002 Report Share Posted October 24, 2002 Hi Larry -- > > Do you really think there is a difference > > between now, I am, and reality? > > Yes, but our difference might be semantic. When I use the word Now > as in Be Here Now I use it in context of time, as in, appreciate the > present moment. Like appreciating the walk to the store Now is > somehow better then the dreaming about the cone you will eat when you > get there Now. Such an infatuation with Now is superficial. If on > the other hand Now has no time element in it then why use the word? Why not? It's easy to write, only requires three letters. You got a better three-letter word for " no time element involved " ? > > The only difference is conceptual, verbal. > > > > The use of now is to indicate that > > past/present/future simultaneously > > imply and are one another. > > > > No, we are merely more familiar with past or now or future by habit, > and this familiarity breeds a sense of difference, however, there is > no limit in time or space, or in subtly, to what can be experienced > NOW . . that is, if experience is important to one. Oops, now you done it. Gone and used NOW and even capitalized it to boot. Where is your consistency, man? :-0 Not to worry, consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. Indeed -- all moments past, present, future are equally now. If you don't like the word now, you can say, all temporal moments are equally discontinuous. Nothing is happening, not even the concept of nothing. All time/space/moments condensed to a single point, and that point is not. > > Do you really think I am has distance from > > anything? > > > > I am is an imagined point, where time, space, > > being come together without any distance > > or separation whatsoever. > > > > That point is imaginary. > > > > I am dissolves. > > Here we do disagree - - Yes, there is a distance between I AM and > everything else - but not a distance measured in miles. When I close > my eyes, all there is is I AM, but eyes open I AM and everything else > is not I AM and everything else being not I AM is equivalent or equa- > distant in that regard. To me, what you are describing represents a conceptualized orientation that dissolves. Perhaps, for you, it represents the way things are. To explain myself, I would say that the difference between what is I and what is not-I is only being made by, and in terms of I. Therefore, there is no not-I, except with I. There cannot, therefore, be a distance. Perhaps stated in layperson's language " I am > bliss and everything else including what was once perceived as > internal like ideas and feelings is flat . . . everything is > external . . . I have likes and dislikes but there is no need or use > for rejection or acceptance. " Does that mean you won't mind when I say that such bliss is transitory and conceptual? That there is no external without reference to an internal, and that reality has no inside or outside? > The Upanishads say: " I am That, You are That, and all this is > nothing but That " The " You are That and all this is nothing but > That " are a higher standard(s) then " I am That " and not achieved by > all and would be a different conversation. Conversations come and go. Sacred texts come and go as well, dependent upon the cultures and situations in which they are useful. What doesn't come and go, and isn't named, is how this conversation arises, but will never be provided in the conversation. Sorry for being a smart-ass. I'll go wash my mouth out with soap now. Oops, I mean, whenever. Peace, Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 24, 2002 Report Share Posted October 24, 2002 Nisargadatta, " Bill Rishel " <plexus@x> wrote: > Dan, > > This resonates for me. > > " I am dissolves " especially resonates. > > This reminds me of: > " That sense of dissolving into a liquid whole, so sweet. " > > I feel very melted. The liquid metaphor really works for > me. > > But I love every line of your post, Dan. > It is such a pleasure to read so cleanly > stated what I would like to say, but cannot > find the words. > > Words are a bit beyond me now, at least any > kind of precision. > > Just feeling rather melted. > > Bear with me, > Bill Sure, man -- I'll even hibernate with ya, if that's what it takes. You probably like the metaphor about where is the salt after it's been placed in the water ... Bear hugs, Dan P.S. I hope you don't meet the Wicked Witch of the West out there -- someone told me she got melted at Ozfest ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 25, 2002 Report Share Posted October 25, 2002 Nisargadatta, " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: > Hi Larry -- > > > get there Now. Such an infatuation with Now is superficial. If on > > the other hand Now has no time element in it then why use the word? > > Why not? > > It's easy to write, only requires three letters. > > You got a better three-letter word for " no time element involved " ? Dan you are right, now is shorter than blackout and a lot shorter than Jack Daniel's High. > > no limit in time or space, or in subtly, to what can be experienced > > NOW . . that is, if experience is important to one. > > Oops, now you done it. Gone and used NOW and even > capitalized it to boot. I can use the word NOW and even capitalize it to boot but I was using it in temporal sense - as in present moment. But I have seen the error of my ways and will everytime use it in the timeless way. Wouldn't it be neat if we could do this to every word. > Therefore, there is no not-I, except with I. > > There cannot, therefore, be a distance. > > Perhaps stated in layperson's language " I am > > bliss and everything else including what was once perceived as > > internal like ideas and feelings is flat . . . everything is > > external . . . I have likes and dislikes but there is no need or > use > > for rejection or acceptance. " > > Does that mean you won't mind when I say that > such bliss is transitory and conceptual? > If you say that one more time I will cry a little bit, then take temporary refuge in the Upanishads. > > Conversations come and go. > > Sacred texts come and go as well, dependent > upon the cultures and situations in which > they are useful. > > What doesn't come and go, and isn't named, > is how this conversation arises, but > will never be provided in the conversation. > > Sorry for being a smart-ass. I had a girlfriend who was a smart-ass, blind fold her, sit her buck nekked on a ice cream cone, and she could tell you the flavor. BTW, I consistantly then passed on the cone. Larry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 25, 2002 Report Share Posted October 25, 2002 Correct me if I'm wrong and I didnt bother to read all the messages concerning "Bill's Now" but isn't now continuously changing? When a leaf falls from a tree and decomposes into soil where has the leaf gone? I am of the opinion that neither past present nor future exists. So I think to say even the simple eloquent statement: "Now is," is somewhat ignorant. To say that something is implies that it was as well. The "continuation of the past" that pete or somebody mentioned. And Now is a continuation of yestersecond.....but not really. May all of you and those close to you and those close to them be free of suffering.Choose an Internet access plan right for you -- try MSN! Click Here Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 25, 2002 Report Share Posted October 25, 2002 [] > Correct me if I'm wrong and I didnt bother to read > all the messages concerning " Bill's Now " but isn't > now continuously changing? When a leaf falls from > a tree and decomposes into soil where has the leaf > gone? I am of the opinion that neither past > present nor future exists. So I think to say even > the simple eloquent statement: " Now is, " is > somewhat ignorant. To say that something is > implies that it was as well. The " continuation of > the past " that pete or somebody mentioned. And Now > is a continuation of yestersecond.....but not > really. May all of you and those close to you and > those close to them be free of suffering. Mark! Good to hear from you again. For me, when I say, " Now is, " it is not about making a truth statement regarding metaphysical reality. For me " Now is " happens to be a powerful statement, but as a " trigger " . All these words we exchange are just " programs " . We are programming each other and ourselves by these exchanges of words. We are engaged in mutual mind-alteration. " Now is " may not work for you. When I say " Now is " I am not trying to accurately define anything. It is, for me, just a statement of priorities. I love Now. -Bill PS: I am not being terribly clear here. Hope you get my gist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 25, 2002 Report Share Posted October 25, 2002 When I was a young boy I used to fervently believe in the monsters of Dungeons and Dragons. My childhood friend Tim and I, used to wander about our backyards (being the dungeons) searching for these mythical beings. Every now and then one of us would shout out, "Look! its a 250 year old cloud dragon!" or, "Oh no! We've stumbled into a layer of Kobolds!" After identifying its nature, we would begin a furious battle with the imaginary monster. Aren't we constinuously battling with our own imaginations? PS thank you for the response Bill. Please write us some more poetry. Choose an Internet access plan right for you -- try MSN! Click Here Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 25, 2002 Report Share Posted October 25, 2002 Mark, Bill et al " Now Is " doesn't work for me, a bit redundant. As far as Past or Future not existing, I can live with that, at least for now. As far as " Now " existing, that should not give " Now " any special privileges, especially since the darn thing keeps changing... As far as " Now " not-existing, that'll never hold up in Peoples Court. The Good News is that we are not trying to define any word here, but if we persist, and with a little grace, we might just get That Big Stun. Stun Me Oh Lord, Larry Nisargadatta, " Bill Rishel " <plexus@x> wrote: > > > Correct me if I'm wrong and I didnt bother to read > > all the messages concerning " Bill's Now " but isn't > > now continuously changing? When a leaf falls from > > a tree and decomposes into soil where has the leaf > > gone? I am of the opinion that neither past > > present nor future exists. So I think to say even > > the simple eloquent statement: " Now is, " is > > somewhat ignorant. To say that something is > > implies that it was as well. The " continuation of > > the past " that pete or somebody mentioned. And Now > > is a continuation of yestersecond.....but not > > really. May all of you and those close to you and > > those close to them be free of suffering. > > Mark! Good to hear from you again. > > For me, when I say, " Now is, " it is not about > making a truth statement regarding metaphysical > reality. For me " Now is " happens to be a powerful > statement, but as a " trigger " . All these words we > exchange are just " programs " . We are programming > each other and ourselves by these exchanges of words. > We are engaged in mutual mind-alteration. > > " Now is " may not work for you. > > When I say " Now is " I am not trying to accurately > define anything. It is, for me, just a statement of > priorities. > > I love Now. > > -Bill > > PS: I am not being terribly clear here. Hope you > get my gist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 25, 2002 Report Share Posted October 25, 2002 Mark, What a marvelous story! > [] > > When I was a young boy I used to fervently believe in the > monsters of Dungeons and Dragons. My childhood friend Tim and > I, used to wander about our backyards (being the dungeons) > searching for these mythical beings. Every now and then one of > us would shout out, " Look! its a 250 year old cloud dragon! " or, > " Oh no! We've stumbled into a layer of Kobolds! " After > identifying its nature, we would begin a furious battle with the > imaginary monster. Aren't we constinuously battling with our > own imaginations? Good question. > PS thank you for the response Bill. Please write us some more poetry. Thanks. I'll put it on my list. Peace and Grace, Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 25, 2002 Report Share Posted October 25, 2002 Bravo! Another masterstroke. Another Bolt out of the Blue. Whew! This is why I'm here. I love you guys. -Bill trem23 [inmadison] Thursday, October 24, 2002 9:13 PM Nisargadatta Re: Bill's Now Mark, Bill et al " Now Is " doesn't work for me, a bit redundant. As far as Past or Future not existing, I can live with that, at least for now. As far as " Now " existing, that should not give " Now " any special privileges, especially since the darn thing keeps changing... As far as " Now " not-existing, that'll never hold up in Peoples Court. The Good News is that we are not trying to define any word here, but if we persist, and with a little grace, we might just get That Big Stun. Stun Me Oh Lord, Larry Nisargadatta, " Bill Rishel " <plexus@x> wrote: > > > Correct me if I'm wrong and I didnt bother to read > > all the messages concerning " Bill's Now " but isn't > > now continuously changing? When a leaf falls from > > a tree and decomposes into soil where has the leaf > > gone? I am of the opinion that neither past > > present nor future exists. So I think to say even > > the simple eloquent statement: " Now is, " is > > somewhat ignorant. To say that something is > > implies that it was as well. The " continuation of > > the past " that pete or somebody mentioned. And Now > > is a continuation of yestersecond.....but not > > really. May all of you and those close to you and > > those close to them be free of suffering. > > Mark! Good to hear from you again. > > For me, when I say, " Now is, " it is not about > making a truth statement regarding metaphysical > reality. For me " Now is " happens to be a powerful > statement, but as a " trigger " . All these words we > exchange are just " programs " . We are programming > each other and ourselves by these exchanges of words. > We are engaged in mutual mind-alteration. > > " Now is " may not work for you. > > When I say " Now is " I am not trying to accurately > define anything. It is, for me, just a statement of > priorities. > > I love Now. > > -Bill > > PS: I am not being terribly clear here. Hope you > get my gist. 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.