Guest guest Posted May 6, 2003 Report Share Posted May 6, 2003 Pete,>In isolation, yes, these events would not exist for us. But these events do not occur in isolation, so they do appear to exists for us, as we blend these multi-trillion zillions of so called events into a stream of perception that we make sense of. The event does not start and then stop, it is happening all the time. A blur of what is not or what was, with what is or what might be. And the problem in this whole equation is >time. Take out >time and the confusion ends (or becomes to large to comprehend).>Toby Hi Toby, Fascinating as they are these speculations lead nowhere, they don't clarify or explain the nature of time. If you write a few well known equations you can tell me how to get from my house to the moon in space/time ( not that I would be able to understand them) but speculating about how time passes and is simultaneous at the same time is just rearranging the mental furniture. I have thrown most of that furniture out. I think I have a couple of chairs left and they are glued to the floor. (: Best to you, Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 8, 2003 Report Share Posted May 8, 2003 > I have thrown most of that furniture out. I think I have a couple of chairs > > left and they are glued to the floor.Which makes it pretty clear where you will be spending *your* time.Have you considered termites? The logical deconstruction of time is still an exercise in time.As long as you embrace time apriori you will never exorcise it. If one of those chairs is Time, then I'll guess that one of theothers is Logic. And the logical deconstruction of Logic is...reducto ad infinitum. There is no "clear logical explanation" for anything of realsignificance. Logic always boils back to the tautologies ithas sprung from. Time and Logic are the False Gods. But one must trulysee them as such before one can truly forsake them. They will still hang around, of course. But a good "dethroning" is what they really need. -Bill Juansi Nulo [Juansi2]Monday, May 05, 2003 7:24 PMnisar Woffle Pete, >In isolation, yes, these events would not exist for us. But these events do not occur in isolation, so they do appear to exists for us, as we blend these multi-trillion zillions of so called events into a stream of perception that we make sense of. The event does not start and then stop, it is happening all the time. A blur of what is not or what was, with what is or what might be. And the problem in this whole equation is >time. Take out >time and the confusion ends (or becomes to large to comprehend). >Toby Hi Toby, Fascinating as they are these speculations lead nowhere, they don't clarify or explain the nature of time. If you write a few well known equations you can tell me how to get from my house to the moon in space/time ( not that I would be able to understand them) but speculating about how time passes and is simultaneous at the same time is just rearranging the mental furniture. I have thrown most of that furniture out. I think I have a couple of chairs left and they are glued to the floor. (: Best to you, Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 9, 2003 Report Share Posted May 9, 2003 How about doubling Bill? Maybe one day I could encompass everything, every duality and achieve true oneness this way... by intellectually doubling. What do you think? But then, as soon as I achieve this totality, what happens if I double it again? > > Bill Rishel [sMTP:plexus] > Thursday, May 08, 2003 6:24 PM > Nisargadatta > RE: appearances/toby > > There is no Present for one always " halving " . > Better to be a half-not. > " Half-not want not. " > > -Bill > > > Juansi Nulo [Juansi2] > Sunday, May 04, 2003 9:54 PM > nisar > appearances/toby > > > >So however small that spec of a present moment may be, we can still halve it, then halve it again, and again, and again, and literally never stop halving. There is absolutely no end to it's lessening capacity. It brings up the question as to whether 'reality' actually exists. It seems to get lost in the infinate. As long as there is a time-span left within the present moment, however tiny, the halving is not complete, it can be halved again. But at the same time (pardon the pun), however much we halve and however small 'reality' gets, it is always there, however infintesimal, it never actually vanishes. It seems as illusory as it is real and as real as it is >illusory. > > Hi Toby, > Very interesting point, but perceptually for us there is a threshold below which perception vanish. > Any even which last nanoseconds doesn't exist for us. the threshold of course is even higher, maybe > a millisecond. > > Best, > Pete > > > > > > ** > > If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: > > </mygroups?edit=1> > > Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes. > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 9, 2003 Report Share Posted May 9, 2003 Reality is in which the concept of doubling is not. > > Bill Rishel [sMTP:plexus] > Friday, May 09, 2003 12:02 PM > Nisargadatta > RE: Woffle > > Think again! > > So what is Reality anyway? > That which is doubled...? > Or the Doubling Agent? > > -Bill > > > Wilson, Toby [toby.wilson] > Thursday, May 08, 2003 4:42 PM > Nisargadatta > RE: Woffle > > > How about doubling Bill? Maybe one day I could encompass everything, every > duality and achieve true oneness this way... by intellectually doubling. > What do you think? But then, as soon as I achieve this totality, what > happens if I double it again? > > > > > > Bill Rishel [sMTP:plexus] > > Thursday, May 08, 2003 6:24 PM > > Nisargadatta > > RE: appearances/toby > > > > There is no Present for one always " halving " . > > Better to be a half-not. > > " Half-not want not. " > > > > -Bill > > > > > > Juansi Nulo [Juansi2] > > Sunday, May 04, 2003 9:54 PM > > nisar > > appearances/toby > > > > > > >So however small that spec of a present moment may be, we can still halve > it, then halve it again, and again, and again, and literally never stop > halving. There is absolutely no end to it's lessening capacity. It brings > up the question as to whether 'reality' actually exists. It seems to get > lost in the infinate. As long as there is a time-span left within the > present moment, however tiny, the halving is not complete, it can be halved > again. But at the same time (pardon the pun), however much we halve and > however small 'reality' gets, it is always there, however infintesimal, it > never actually vanishes. It seems as illusory as it is real and as real as > it is >illusory. > > > > Hi Toby, > > Very interesting point, but perceptually for us there is a threshold > below which perception vanish. > > Any even which last nanoseconds doesn't exist for us. the threshold of > course is even higher, maybe > > a millisecond. > > > > Best, > > Pete > > > > > > > > > > > > ** > > > > If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your > subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: > > > > <</mygroups?edit=1>> > > > > Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the Nisargadatta > group and click on Save Changes. > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 9, 2003 Report Share Posted May 9, 2003 Think again! So what is Reality anyway? That which is doubled...? Or the Doubling Agent? -Bill Wilson, Toby [toby.wilson] Thursday, May 08, 2003 4:42 PM Nisargadatta RE: Woffle How about doubling Bill? Maybe one day I could encompass everything, every duality and achieve true oneness this way... by intellectually doubling. What do you think? But then, as soon as I achieve this totality, what happens if I double it again? > > Bill Rishel [sMTP:plexus] > Thursday, May 08, 2003 6:24 PM > Nisargadatta > RE: appearances/toby > > There is no Present for one always " halving " . > Better to be a half-not. > " Half-not want not. " > > -Bill > > > Juansi Nulo [Juansi2] > Sunday, May 04, 2003 9:54 PM > nisar > appearances/toby > > > >So however small that spec of a present moment may be, we can still halve it, then halve it again, and again, and again, and literally never stop halving. There is absolutely no end to it's lessening capacity. It brings up the question as to whether 'reality' actually exists. It seems to get lost in the infinate. As long as there is a time-span left within the present moment, however tiny, the halving is not complete, it can be halved again. But at the same time (pardon the pun), however much we halve and however small 'reality' gets, it is always there, however infintesimal, it never actually vanishes. It seems as illusory as it is real and as real as it is >illusory. > > Hi Toby, > Very interesting point, but perceptually for us there is a threshold below which perception vanish. > Any even which last nanoseconds doesn't exist for us. the threshold of course is even higher, maybe > a millisecond. > > Best, > Pete > > > > > > ** > > If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: > > </mygroups?edit=1> > > Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes. > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 9, 2003 Report Share Posted May 9, 2003 Very nice! And the original doubling is surely the origination of identity, the original Narcissus, Self apperceiving Self. -Bill Wilson, Toby [toby.wilson] Thursday, May 08, 2003 6:43 PM Nisargadatta RE: Woffle Reality is in which the concept of doubling is not. > > Bill Rishel [sMTP:plexus] > Friday, May 09, 2003 12:02 PM > Nisargadatta > RE: Woffle > > Think again! > > So what is Reality anyway? > That which is doubled...? > Or the Doubling Agent? > > -Bill > > > Wilson, Toby [toby.wilson] > Thursday, May 08, 2003 4:42 PM > Nisargadatta > RE: Woffle > > > How about doubling Bill? Maybe one day I could encompass everything, every > duality and achieve true oneness this way... by intellectually doubling. > What do you think? But then, as soon as I achieve this totality, what > happens if I double it again? > > > > > > Bill Rishel [sMTP:plexus] > > Thursday, May 08, 2003 6:24 PM > > Nisargadatta > > RE: appearances/toby > > > > There is no Present for one always " halving " . > > Better to be a half-not. > > " Half-not want not. " > > > > -Bill > > > > > > Juansi Nulo [Juansi2] > > Sunday, May 04, 2003 9:54 PM > > nisar > > appearances/toby > > > > > > >So however small that spec of a present moment may be, we can still halve > it, then halve it again, and again, and again, and literally never stop > halving. There is absolutely no end to it's lessening capacity. It brings > up the question as to whether 'reality' actually exists. It seems to get > lost in the infinate. As long as there is a time-span left within the > present moment, however tiny, the halving is not complete, it can be halved > again. But at the same time (pardon the pun), however much we halve and > however small 'reality' gets, it is always there, however infintesimal, it > never actually vanishes. It seems as illusory as it is real and as real as > it is >illusory. > > > > Hi Toby, > > Very interesting point, but perceptually for us there is a threshold > below which perception vanish. > > Any even which last nanoseconds doesn't exist for us. the threshold of > course is even higher, maybe > > a millisecond. > > > > Best, > > Pete > > > > > > > > > > > > ** > > > > If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your > subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: > > > > <</mygroups?edit=1>> > > > > Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the Nisargadatta > group and click on Save Changes. > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 9, 2003 Report Share Posted May 9, 2003 " Consciousness is on contact, a reflection against a surface, a state of duality. " - Nisargadatta Maharaj, " I Am That " > > Bill Rishel [sMTP:plexus] > Friday, May 09, 2003 2:07 PM > Nisargadatta > RE: Woffle > > Very nice! > > And the original doubling is surely the > origination of identity, the original > Narcissus, Self apperceiving Self. > > -Bill > > > Wilson, Toby [toby.wilson] > Thursday, May 08, 2003 6:43 PM > Nisargadatta > RE: Woffle > > > Reality is in which the concept of doubling is not. > > > > > Bill Rishel [sMTP:plexus] > > Friday, May 09, 2003 12:02 PM > > Nisargadatta > > RE: Woffle > > > > Think again! > > > > So what is Reality anyway? > > That which is doubled...? > > Or the Doubling Agent? > > > > -Bill > > > > > > Wilson, Toby [toby.wilson] > > Thursday, May 08, 2003 4:42 PM > > Nisargadatta > > RE: Woffle > > > > > > How about doubling Bill? Maybe one day I could encompass everything, > every > > duality and achieve true oneness this way... by intellectually doubling. > > What do you think? But then, as soon as I achieve this totality, what > > happens if I double it again? > > > > > > > > > > Bill Rishel [sMTP:plexus] > > > Thursday, May 08, 2003 6:24 PM > > > Nisargadatta > > > RE: appearances/toby > > > > > > There is no Present for one always " halving " . > > > Better to be a half-not. > > > " Half-not want not. " > > > > > > -Bill > > > > > > > > > Juansi Nulo [Juansi2] > > > Sunday, May 04, 2003 9:54 PM > > > nisar > > > appearances/toby > > > > > > > > > >So however small that spec of a present moment may be, we can still > halve > > it, then halve it again, and again, and again, and literally never stop > > halving. There is absolutely no end to it's lessening capacity. It > brings > > up the question as to whether 'reality' actually exists. It seems to get > > lost in the infinate. As long as there is a time-span left within the > > present moment, however tiny, the halving is not complete, it can be > halved > > again. But at the same time (pardon the pun), however much we halve and > > however small 'reality' gets, it is always there, however infintesimal, it > > never actually vanishes. It seems as illusory as it is real and as real > as > > it is >illusory. > > > > > > Hi Toby, > > > Very interesting point, but perceptually for us there is a threshold > > below which perception vanish. > > > Any even which last nanoseconds doesn't exist for us. the threshold of > > course is even higher, maybe > > > a millisecond. > > > > > > Best, > > > Pete > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ** > > > > > > If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your > > subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: > > > > > > <<</mygroups?edit=1>>> > > > > > > Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the > Nisargadatta > > group and click on Save Changes. > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 9, 2003 Report Share Posted May 9, 2003 To whom is it apparent? > > Bill Rishel [sMTP:plexus] > Friday, May 09, 2003 4:46 PM > Nisargadatta > RE: Woffle > > And only an apparent reflection against an apparent surface at that. > > Does that mean Consciousness is only apparent? > > -Bill > > PS: unjumble the following letters to get my guess: > eys > > > > > Wilson, Toby [toby.wilson] > Thursday, May 08, 2003 9:31 PM > Nisargadatta > RE: Woffle > > > " Consciousness is on contact, a reflection against a surface, a state of > duality. " - Nisargadatta Maharaj, " I Am That " > > > > > Bill Rishel [sMTP:plexus] > > Friday, May 09, 2003 2:07 PM > > Nisargadatta > > RE: Woffle > > > > Very nice! > > > > And the original doubling is surely the > > origination of identity, the original > > Narcissus, Self apperceiving Self. > > > > -Bill > > > > > > Wilson, Toby [toby.wilson] > > Thursday, May 08, 2003 6:43 PM > > Nisargadatta > > RE: Woffle > > > > > > Reality is in which the concept of doubling is not. > > > > > > > > Bill Rishel [sMTP:plexus] > > > Friday, May 09, 2003 12:02 PM > > > Nisargadatta > > > RE: Woffle > > > > > > Think again! > > > > > > So what is Reality anyway? > > > That which is doubled...? > > > Or the Doubling Agent? > > > > > > -Bill > > > > > > > > > Wilson, Toby [toby.wilson] > > > Thursday, May 08, 2003 4:42 PM > > > Nisargadatta > > > RE: Woffle > > > > > > > > > How about doubling Bill? Maybe one day I could encompass everything, > > every > > > duality and achieve true oneness this way... by intellectually doubling. > > > What do you think? But then, as soon as I achieve this totality, what > > > happens if I double it again? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill Rishel [sMTP:plexus] > > > > Thursday, May 08, 2003 6:24 PM > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > RE: appearances/toby > > > > > > > > There is no Present for one always " halving " . > > > > Better to be a half-not. > > > > " Half-not want not. " > > > > > > > > -Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > Juansi Nulo [Juansi2] > > > > Sunday, May 04, 2003 9:54 PM > > > > nisar > > > > appearances/toby > > > > > > > > > > > > >So however small that spec of a present moment may be, we can still > > halve > > > it, then halve it again, and again, and again, and literally never stop > > > halving. There is absolutely no end to it's lessening capacity. It > > brings > > > up the question as to whether 'reality' actually exists. It seems to > get > > > lost in the infinate. As long as there is a time-span left within the > > > present moment, however tiny, the halving is not complete, it can be > > halved > > > again. But at the same time (pardon the pun), however much we halve and > > > however small 'reality' gets, it is always there, however infintesimal, > it > > > never actually vanishes. It seems as illusory as it is real and as real > > as > > > it is >illusory. > > > > > > > > Hi Toby, > > > > Very interesting point, but perceptually for us there is a threshold > > > below which perception vanish. > > > > Any even which last nanoseconds doesn't exist for us. the threshold of > > > course is even higher, maybe > > > > a millisecond.> > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > Pete > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ** > > > > > > > > If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your > > > subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: > > > > > > > > <<<</mygroups?edit=1>>>> > > > > > > > > Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the > > Nisargadatta > > > group and click on Save Changes. > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 9, 2003 Report Share Posted May 9, 2003 And only an apparent reflection against an apparent surface at that. Does that mean Consciousness is only apparent? -Bill PS: unjumble the following letters to get my guess: eys Wilson, Toby [toby.wilson] Thursday, May 08, 2003 9:31 PM Nisargadatta RE: Woffle " Consciousness is on contact, a reflection against a surface, a state of duality. " - Nisargadatta Maharaj, " I Am That " > > Bill Rishel [sMTP:plexus] > Friday, May 09, 2003 2:07 PM > Nisargadatta > RE: Woffle > > Very nice! > > And the original doubling is surely the > origination of identity, the original > Narcissus, Self apperceiving Self. > > -Bill > > > Wilson, Toby [toby.wilson] > Thursday, May 08, 2003 6:43 PM > Nisargadatta > RE: Woffle > > > Reality is in which the concept of doubling is not. > > > > > Bill Rishel [sMTP:plexus] > > Friday, May 09, 2003 12:02 PM > > Nisargadatta > > RE: Woffle > > > > Think again! > > > > So what is Reality anyway? > > That which is doubled...? > > Or the Doubling Agent? > > > > -Bill > > > > > > Wilson, Toby [toby.wilson] > > Thursday, May 08, 2003 4:42 PM > > Nisargadatta > > RE: Woffle > > > > > > How about doubling Bill? Maybe one day I could encompass everything, > every > > duality and achieve true oneness this way... by intellectually doubling. > > What do you think? But then, as soon as I achieve this totality, what > > happens if I double it again? > > > > > > > > > > Bill Rishel [sMTP:plexus] > > > Thursday, May 08, 2003 6:24 PM > > > Nisargadatta > > > RE: appearances/toby > > > > > > There is no Present for one always " halving " . > > > Better to be a half-not. > > > " Half-not want not. " > > > > > > -Bill > > > > > > > > > Juansi Nulo [Juansi2] > > > Sunday, May 04, 2003 9:54 PM > > > nisar > > > appearances/toby > > > > > > > > > >So however small that spec of a present moment may be, we can still > halve > > it, then halve it again, and again, and again, and literally never stop > > halving. There is absolutely no end to it's lessening capacity. It > brings > > up the question as to whether 'reality' actually exists. It seems to get > > lost in the infinate. As long as there is a time-span left within the > > present moment, however tiny, the halving is not complete, it can be > halved > > again. But at the same time (pardon the pun), however much we halve and > > however small 'reality' gets, it is always there, however infintesimal, it > > never actually vanishes. It seems as illusory as it is real and as real > as > > it is >illusory. > > > > > > Hi Toby, > > > Very interesting point, but perceptually for us there is a threshold > > below which perception vanish. > > > Any even which last nanoseconds doesn't exist for us. the threshold of > > course is even higher, maybe > > > a millisecond. > > > > > > Best, > > > Pete > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ** > > > > > > If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your > > subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: > > > > > > <<</mygroups?edit=1>>> > > > > > > Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the > Nisargadatta > > group and click on Save Changes. > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 9, 2003 Report Share Posted May 9, 2003 Your question is like asking, " Can there be consciousness without a who? " It seems to me that a " who " is context dependent. A " who " has to exist as a separateness to exist at all. It seems that Appearance is. Appearance appears to appear. Apparently, at least. Does that mean that Appearance is Real? No. Only that it appears to be. If Appearance is not Real, then there is no necessity for a " who " to whom Appearance appears. Not a Real " who " , at any rate. So my answer to your question is that appearance itself does not require anything more than an *apparent who* to whom it appears, if that. If consciousness is an apparent reflection against an apparent surface then what is that apparent surface than the " who " you are asking about? Misc Jottings: Consciousness and Appearance seem to be the same: can't have one without the other. Conciousness, Appearance, Maya, Illusion seem to be the same. Appearance seems to be the most fundamental concept in that it has the least baggage. There can be Appearance without a " sense of who " . Perhaps the loss of a " sense of a who " is the real unburdening. For it seems (appears) that with the dissolution of a " sense of who " Appearance is liberated, unconstrained. Whereupon the Dance begins. And Rumi howls at the Moon. -Bill Wilson, Toby [toby.wilson] Thursday, May 08, 2003 10:02 PM Nisargadatta RE: Woffle To whom is it apparent? > > Bill Rishel [sMTP:plexus] > Friday, May 09, 2003 4:46 PM > Nisargadatta > RE: Woffle > > And only an apparent reflection against an apparent surface at that. > > Does that mean Consciousness is only apparent? > > -Bill > > PS: unjumble the following letters to get my guess: > eys > > > > > Wilson, Toby [toby.wilson] > Thursday, May 08, 2003 9:31 PM > Nisargadatta > RE: Woffle > > > " Consciousness is on contact, a reflection against a surface, a state of > duality. " - Nisargadatta Maharaj, " I Am That " > > > > > Bill Rishel [sMTP:plexus] > > Friday, May 09, 2003 2:07 PM > > Nisargadatta > > RE: Woffle > > > > Very nice! > > > > And the original doubling is surely the > > origination of identity, the original > > Narcissus, Self apperceiving Self. > > > > -Bill > > > > > > Wilson, Toby [toby.wilson] > > Thursday, May 08, 2003 6:43 PM > > Nisargadatta > > RE: Woffle > > > > > > Reality is in which the concept of doubling is not. > > > > > > > > Bill Rishel [sMTP:plexus] > > > Friday, May 09, 2003 12:02 PM > > > Nisargadatta > > > RE: Woffle > > > > > > Think again! > > > > > > So what is Reality anyway? > > > That which is doubled...? > > > Or the Doubling Agent? > > > > > > -Bill > > > > > > > > > Wilson, Toby [toby.wilson] > > > Thursday, May 08, 2003 4:42 PM > > > Nisargadatta > > > RE: Woffle > > > > > > > > > How about doubling Bill? Maybe one day I could encompass everything, > > every > > > duality and achieve true oneness this way... by intellectually doubling. > > > What do you think? But then, as soon as I achieve this totality, what > > > happens if I double it again? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill Rishel [sMTP:plexus] > > > > Thursday, May 08, 2003 6:24 PM > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > RE: appearances/toby > > > > > > > > There is no Present for one always " halving " . > > > > Better to be a half-not. > > > > " Half-not want not. " > > > > > > > > -Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > Juansi Nulo [Juansi2] > > > > Sunday, May 04, 2003 9:54 PM > > > > nisar > > > > appearances/toby > > > > > > > > > > > > >So however small that spec of a present moment may be, we can still > > halve > > > it, then halve it again, and again, and again, and literally never stop > > > halving. There is absolutely no end to it's lessening capacity. It > > brings > > > up the question as to whether 'reality' actually exists. It seems to > get > > > lost in the infinate. As long as there is a time-span left within the > > > present moment, however tiny, the halving is not complete, it can be > > halved > > > again. But at the same time (pardon the pun), however much we halve and > > > however small 'reality' gets, it is always there, however infintesimal, > it > > > never actually vanishes. It seems as illusory as it is real and as real > > as > > > it is >illusory. > > > > > > > > Hi Toby, > > > > Very interesting point, but perceptually for us there is a threshold > > > below which perception vanish. > > > > Any even which last nanoseconds doesn't exist for us. the threshold of > > > course is even higher, maybe > > > > a millisecond.> > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > Pete > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 9, 2003 Report Share Posted May 9, 2003 Very nice Bill! You wrote: " Appearance seems to be the most fundamental concept in that it has the least baggage. " Is this not only if conciousness is honest? For if conciousness is dishonest, the reflection of appearances is distorted. In fact, a distorted reflection of appearances within conciousness is baggage. And " Truth " is nothing more than honesty of conciousness. An undistorted reflection of appearances. Wouldn't you agree? Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@x> wrote: > Your question is like asking, " Can there be consciousness > without a who? " > > It seems to me that a " who " is context dependent. > A " who " has to exist as a separateness to exist > at all. > > It seems that Appearance is. Appearance appears to appear. > Apparently, at least. Does that mean that Appearance is > Real? No. Only that it appears to be. > > If Appearance is not Real, then there is no necessity > for a " who " to whom Appearance appears. Not a Real " who " , > at any rate. > > So my answer to your question is that appearance itself > does not require anything more than an *apparent who* to > whom it appears, if that. If consciousness is an apparent > reflection against an apparent surface then what is that > apparent surface than the " who " you are asking about? > > > Misc Jottings: > > Consciousness and Appearance seem to be the same: > can't have one without the other. > > Conciousness, Appearance, Maya, Illusion seem to be > the same. > > Appearance seems to be the most fundamental concept > in that it has the least baggage. > > There can be Appearance without a " sense of who " . > Perhaps the loss of a " sense of a who " is the real > unburdening. For it seems (appears) that with the > dissolution of a " sense of who " Appearance is > liberated, unconstrained. > > Whereupon the Dance begins. > > And Rumi howls at the Moon. > > -Bill > > > > > > > Wilson, Toby [toby.wilson@t...] > Thursday, May 08, 2003 10:02 PM > Nisargadatta > RE: Woffle > > > To whom is it apparent? > > > > > Bill Rishel [sMTP:plexus@x...] > > Friday, May 09, 2003 4:46 PM > > Nisargadatta > > RE: Woffle > > > > And only an apparent reflection against an apparent surface at that. > > > > Does that mean Consciousness is only apparent? > > > > -Bill > > > > PS: unjumble the following letters to get my guess: > > eys > > > > > > > > > > Wilson, Toby [toby.wilson@t...] > > Thursday, May 08, 2003 9:31 PM > > Nisargadatta > > RE: Woffle > > > > > > " Consciousness is on contact, a reflection against a surface, a state of > > duality. " - Nisargadatta Maharaj, " I Am That " > > > > > > > > Bill Rishel [sMTP:plexus@x...] > > > Friday, May 09, 2003 2:07 PM > > > Nisargadatta > > > RE: Woffle > > > > > > Very nice! > > > > > > And the original doubling is surely the > > > origination of identity, the original > > > Narcissus, Self apperceiving Self. > > > > > > -Bill > > > > > > > > > Wilson, Toby [toby.wilson@t...] > > > Thursday, May 08, 2003 6:43 PM > > > Nisargadatta > > > RE: Woffle > > > > > > > > > Reality is in which the concept of doubling is not. > > > > > > > > > > > Bill Rishel [sMTP:plexus@x...] > > > > Friday, May 09, 2003 12:02 PM > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > RE: Woffle > > > > > > > > Think again! > > > > > > > > So what is Reality anyway? > > > > That which is doubled...? > > > > Or the Doubling Agent? > > > > > > > > -Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > Wilson, Toby [toby.wilson@t...] > > > > Thursday, May 08, 2003 4:42 PM > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > RE: Woffle > > > > > > > > > > > > How about doubling Bill? Maybe one day I could encompass everything, > > > every > > > > duality and achieve true oneness this way... by intellectually > doubling. > > > > What do you think? But then, as soon as I achieve this totality, what > > > > happens if I double it again? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill Rishel [sMTP:plexus@x...] > > > > > Thursday, May 08, 2003 6:24 PM > > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > > RE: appearances/toby > > > > > > > > > > There is no Present for one always " halving " . > > > > > Better to be a half-not. > > > > > " Half-not want not. " > > > > > > > > > > -Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Juansi Nulo [Juansi2@m...] > > > > > Sunday, May 04, 2003 9:54 PM > > > > > nisar > > > > > appearances/toby > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >So however small that spec of a present moment may be, we can still > > > halve > > > > it, then halve it again, and again, and again, and literally never > stop > > > > halving. There is absolutely no end to it's lessening capacity. It > > > brings > > > > up the question as to whether 'reality' actually exists. It seems to > > get > > > > lost in the infinate. As long as there is a time-span left within the > > > > present moment, however tiny, the halving is not complete, it can be > > > halved > > > > again. But at the same time (pardon the pun), however much we halve > and > > > > however small 'reality' gets, it is always there, however > infintesimal, > > it > > > > never actually vanishes. It seems as illusory as it is real and as > real > > > as > > > > it is >illusory. > > > > > > > > > > Hi Toby, > > > > > Very interesting point, but perceptually for us there is a > threshold > > > > below which perception vanish. > > > > > Any even which last nanoseconds doesn't exist for us. the threshold > of > > > > course is even higher, maybe > > > > > a millisecond.> > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > Pete > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 9, 2003 Report Share Posted May 9, 2003 Very nice Bill! You wrote: " Appearance seems to be the most fundamental concept in that it has the least baggage. " Is this not only if conciousness is honest? For if conciousness is dishonest, the reflection of appearances is distorted. In fact, a distorted reflection of appearances within conciousness is baggage. And " Truth " is nothing more than honesty of conciousness. An undistorted reflection of appearances. Wouldn't you say? Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@x> wrote: > Your question is like asking, " Can there be consciousness > without a who? " > > It seems to me that a " who " is context dependent. > A " who " has to exist as a separateness to exist > at all. > > It seems that Appearance is. Appearance appears to appear. > Apparently, at least. Does that mean that Appearance is > Real? No. Only that it appears to be. > > If Appearance is not Real, then there is no necessity > for a " who " to whom Appearance appears. Not a Real " who " , > at any rate. > > So my answer to your question is that appearance itself > does not require anything more than an *apparent who* to > whom it appears, if that. If consciousness is an apparent > reflection against an apparent surface then what is that > apparent surface than the " who " you are asking about? > > > Misc Jottings: > > Consciousness and Appearance seem to be the same: > can't have one without the other. > > Conciousness, Appearance, Maya, Illusion seem to be > the same. > > Appearance seems to be the most fundamental concept > in that it has the least baggage. > > There can be Appearance without a " sense of who " . > Perhaps the loss of a " sense of a who " is the real > unburdening. For it seems (appears) that with the > dissolution of a " sense of who " Appearance is > liberated, unconstrained. > > Whereupon the Dance begins. > > And Rumi howls at the Moon. > > -Bill > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 9, 2003 Report Share Posted May 9, 2003 " Bill Rishel " <plexus@x...> Date: Fri May 9, 2003 10:28 am Subject: RE: Woffle Your question is like asking, " Can there be consciousness without a who? " It seems to me that a " who " is context dependent. A " who " has to exist as a= separateness to exist at all. It seems that Appearance is. Appearance appears to appear. Apparently, at l= east. Does that mean that Appearance is Real? No. Only that it appears to be= .. If Appearance is not Real, then there is no necessity for a " who " to whom A= ppearance appears. Not a Real " who " , at any rate. So my answer to your question is that appearance itself does not require an= ything more than an *apparent who* to whom it appears, if that. If conscious= ness is an apparent reflection against an apparent surface then what is that= apparent surface than the " who " you are asking about? Misc Jottings: Consciousness and Appearance seem to be the same: can't have one without th= e other. Conciousness, Appearance, Maya, Illusion seem to be the same. Appearance seems to be the most fundamental concept in that it has the leas= t baggage. There can be Appearance without a " sense of who " . Perhaps the loss of a " se= nse of a who " is the real unburdening. For it seems (appears) that with the = dissolution of a " sense of who " Appearance is liberated, unconstrained. Whereupon the Dance begins. And Rumi howls at the Moon. -Bill Wilson, Toby And only an apparent reflection against an apparent surface at that. Does that mean Consciousness is only apparent? -Bill PS: unjumble the following letters to get my guess: eys " Consciousness is on contact, a reflection against a surface, a state of du= ality. " - Nisargadatta Maharaj, " I Am That " Bill Rishel [sMTP:plexus@x...] Very nice! And the original doubling is surely the origination of identity, the original Narcissus, Self apperceiving Self. -Bill Wilson, Toby [toby.wilson@t...] Reality is in which the concept of doubling is not. Bill Rishel [sMTP:plexus@x...] Think again! So what is Reality anyway? That which is doubled...? Or the Doubling Agent? -Bill Wilson, Toby [toby.wilson@t...] How about doubling Bill? Maybe one day I could encompass everything, every duality and achieve true oneness this way... by intellectually doubling. What do you think? But then, as soon as I achieve this totality, what happens if I double it again? Bill Rishel [sMTP:plexus@x...] appearances/toby There is no Present for one always " halving " . Better to be a half-not. " Half-not want not. " -Bill Juansi Nulo [Juansi2@m...] appearances/toby So however small that spec of a present moment may be, we can still halve it, then halve it again, and again, and again, and literally never stop hal= ving. There is absolutely no end to it's lessening capacity. It brings up th= e question as to whether 'reality' actually exists. It seems to get lost in the infinate. As long as there is a time-span left within the prese= nt moment, however tiny, the halving is not complete, it can be halved again. But at the same time (pardon the pun), however much we halve and however small 'reality' gets, it is always there, however infintesimal, it never actually vanishes. It seems as illusory as it is real and as real as it is >illusory. Hi Toby, Very interesting point, but perceptually for us there is a threshold below which perception vanish. Any even which last nanoseconds doesn't exist for us. the threshold of course is even higher, maybe a millisecond.> Best, Pete so is there a Consciousness which is capable of precieving reality with a c= learer undertstanding? keeping halfing in mind Karta Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 10, 2003 Report Share Posted May 10, 2003 > > so is there a Consciousness which is capable of precieving reality with a c= > learer undertstanding? keeping halfing in mind > > Karta Karta, The mind need not be changed in any way whatsoever. It is okayness within the perceived dysfunction of the mind which will put you at rest. Absolute, total okayness, stillness and honesty of conciousness in the midst of a distorted and dysfunctional mind. An unclear perception of reality is in no way a problem. You as conciousness wanting to change anything within the mind or emotions is a major problem. Toby Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 10, 2003 Report Share Posted May 10, 2003 " toby20042004 " <toby.wilson@t...> so is there a Consciousness which is capable of precieving reality with a clearer undertstanding? keeping halfing in mind > > Karta > > Karta, > > The mind need not be changed in any way whatsoever. It is okayness > within the perceived dysfunction of the mind which will put you at > rest. Absolute, total okayness, stillness and honesty of > conciousness in the midst of a distorted and dysfunctional mind. An > unclear perception of reality is in no way a problem. You as > conciousness wanting to change anything within the mind or emotions > is a major problem. this was a timely answer, same is being mirrored to me now, but could not put my finger at " its teaching " thanks Toby > > Toby Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 10, 2003 Report Share Posted May 10, 2003 > The mind need not be changed in any way whatsoever. It is okayness > within the perceived dysfunction of the mind which will put you at > rest. Absolute, total okayness, stillness and honesty of > conciousness in the midst of a distorted and dysfunctional mind. An > unclear perception of reality is in no way a problem. You as > conciousness wanting to change anything within the mind or emotions > is a major problem. Beautiful. Except the last line can be deleted. It actually contradicts the rest. Any " you... wanting to change anything " is still the mind. Even that doesn't need to be " fixed " . -Bill 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.