Now is not the sense of here and now described by Nisargadatta

[Guest guest]

This is all fine except for one very important thing:

 

The present doesn't become the past.

 

The past becomes further past, according

to the view imposed by the system of memory.

 

That is all.

 

The present doesn't become anything.

 

It doesn't move into something else, called the

past.

 

Memory never accesses the present.

 

The memory system accesses memories.

 

It never has encountered the present.

 

Thus, what we (memory) consider to be the

present, is actually just the most " recent "

memory, as interpreted according to the memory

system.

 

The actual present is timeless, isn't accessed by the memory

system -- because it isn't an image.

 

It can't be divided into most recent, less

recent, and very distant aspects.

 

Love,

Danielsan

 

 

Nisargadatta , Jan Sultan <swork@m...> wrote:

> Between the remembered and the actual there is a basic difference

which can be observed from moment to moment. At no point of time is

the actual the remembered. Between the two there is a difference in

kind, not merely in intensity. The actual is unmistakably so. By no

effort of will or imagination can you interchange the two. Now, what

is it that gives this unique quality to the actual? A moment back,

the remembered was actual, in a moment the actual will be the

remembered. What makes the actual unique?

> Obviously, it is the sense of being present. In memory and

anticipation, there is a clear feeling that it is a mental state

under observation, while in the actual the feeling is primarily of

being present and aware. Wherever you go, the sense of here and now

you carry with you all the time. It means that you are independent of

space and time, that space and time are in you, not you in them. It

is your self-identification with the body, which, of course, is

limited in space and time, that gives you the feeling of finiteness.

In reality you are infinite and eternal.

>

> Look closely and you will see that the seer and the seen appear

only when there is seeing. They are attributes of seeing. When you

say " I am seeing this " , " I am " and " this " come with the seeing, nor

before. You cannot have an unseen " this " nor an unseeing " I am " .

Knowing is a reflection of your true nature along with being and

loving. The knower and the known are added by the mind. It is in the

nature of the mind to create a subject-object duality, where there is

none.

>

> This reality is so concrete, so actual, so much more tangible than

mind and matter, that compared to it even diamond is soft like

butter. This overwhelming actuality makes the world dreamlike, misty,

irrelevant.

>

> My feeling is that all that happens in space and time happens to

me, that every experience is my experience, every form is my form.

What I take myself to be becomes my body, and all that happens to

that body becomes my mind. But at the root of the universe there is

pure awareness, beyond space and time, here and now. Know it to be

your real being and act accordingly.

>

> Nisargadatta

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033>

wrote:

> This is all fine except for one very important thing:

>

> The present doesn't become the past.

>

> The past becomes further past, according

> to the view imposed by the system of memory.

>

> That is all.

>

> The present doesn't become anything.

>

> It doesn't move into something else, called the

> past.

>

> Memory never accesses the present.

>

> The memory system accesses memories.

>

> It never has encountered the present.

>

> Thus, what we (memory) consider to be the

> present, is actually just the most " recent "

> memory, as interpreted according to the memory

> system.

>

> The actual present is timeless, isn't accessed by the memory

> system -- because it isn't an image.

>

> It can't be divided into most recent, less

> recent, and very distant aspects.

>

> Love,

> Danielsan

 

so danieru-sensei, my question is this,

does memory arise as a result of the past?

does it exist in the present?

(but there would be no place to lay it dow)

does it arise at the border between the present and the future?

you (personally) abide as the present, so where is your memory?

if we are not a colony of stones, something among us happens in time?

at least language does, right?

so abiding as the present you are assailled by language and memory

from outside, the spy who came in from the cold.

hmmm! dualité quand tu nous tiens!

eric-deshi

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " eric paroissien "

<vertvetiver> wrote:

> Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033>

> wrote:

> > This is all fine except for one very important thing:

> >

> > The present doesn't become the past.

> >

> > The past becomes further past, according

> > to the view imposed by the system of memory.

> >

> > That is all.

> >

> > The present doesn't become anything.

> >

> > It doesn't move into something else, called the

> > past.

> >

> > Memory never accesses the present.

> >

> > The memory system accesses memories.

> >

> > It never has encountered the present.

> >

> > Thus, what we (memory) consider to be the

> > present, is actually just the most " recent "

> > memory, as interpreted according to the memory

> > system.

> >

> > The actual present is timeless, isn't accessed by the memory

> > system -- because it isn't an image.

> >

> > It can't be divided into most recent, less

> > recent, and very distant aspects.

> >

> > Love,

> > Danielsan

>

> so danieru-sensei, my question is this,

> does memory arise as a result of the past?

> does it exist in the present?

> (but there would be no place to lay it dow)

> does it arise at the border between the present and the future?

> you (personally) abide as the present, so where is your memory?

> if we are not a colony of stones, something among us happens in

time?

> at least language does, right?

> so abiding as the present you are assailled by language and memory

> from outside, the spy who came in from the cold.

> hmmm! dualité quand tu nous tiens!

> eric-deshi

 

articulation is the keyword here, if something is ar-ti-cu-la-ted,

like language, ideation, memory, etc. it has to happen, to arise and

to change...

that is time

time is articulated?

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " eric paroissien "

<vertvetiver> wrote:

> Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033>

> wrote:

> > This is all fine except for one very important thing:

> >

> > The present doesn't become the past.

> >

> > The past becomes further past, according

> > to the view imposed by the system of memory.

> >

> > That is all.

> >

> > The present doesn't become anything.

> >

> > It doesn't move into something else, called the

> > past.

> >

> > Memory never accesses the present.

> >

> > The memory system accesses memories.

> >

> > It never has encountered the present.

> >

> > Thus, what we (memory) consider to be the

> > present, is actually just the most " recent "

> > memory, as interpreted according to the memory

> > system.

> >

> > The actual present is timeless, isn't accessed by the memory

> > system -- because it isn't an image.

> >

> > It can't be divided into most recent, less

> > recent, and very distant aspects.

> >

> > Love,

> > Danielsan

>

> so danieru-sensei, my question is this,

> does memory arise as a result of the past?

 

No, because memory is the past.

 

So, that's like saying memory arises because of

memory (which arises because of memory)

 

> does it exist in the present?

 

There is no it existing in the true present.

 

There is no division into one thing and another thing

in the present. Thus, " not-two " ...

 

> (but there would be no place to lay it dow)

 

Don't know what you mean by a place to lay it dow(n).

 

Lay what down? Why do you need to lay something down

somewhere?

 

> does it arise at the border between the present and the future?

 

No, the division into past, present, future is memory activity.

Related to memory is thought and sensory registration of events.

It is one system, always responding to its own images, which

are never the true present, which has no image, being

undivided into a thing and another being which could register

that thing as an image.

 

> you (personally) abide as the present, so where is your memory?

 

There are no separable beings, such as me personally, abiding

as the present. The whole idea of something abiding as

the present is nonsense, as there isn't anything separable

to abide as it or in it or for it.

 

Memory is a system of images and reflection of images, the images

themselves being reflections. It is a system that constructs

things, objects, and subjects which view objects, experiences

that happen over a period of time, positions from which to

view those experiences, to observe across a space, and so on.

It is a system that supports thought, logic, perception,

interaction, and relationship.

 

> if we are not a colony of stones, something among us happens in

time?

 

No. Nothing happens. Time is memory being activated. Events

happening in time don't really take place, because place is

supplied by memory. Memory isn't occurring somewhere. Memory

is constructing the where's and the when's.

 

> at least language does, right?

 

Not really. Language is part of the memory system, evolved

in a certain way for certain beings to communicate using

sounds for other beings who hear the sounds. But all of it,

language, being, sounds, space between, is memory activation

and construction. There is a logic to the communication, which

depends on memory structuring. But because memory never

touches or interacts with " now, " none of the communications,

nor the logic, have anything to do with " now " -- yet none

of it occurs any other time or place than " now. " Very ironic,

sort of humorous.

 

> so abiding as the present you are assailled by language and memory

> from outside,

 

No. There is no outside to " now. " Memory doesn't enter into

" now. " Nothing does. The now produced by memory, between

the past and the future, isn't ever truly present, truly now.

 

the spy who came in from the cold.

> hmmm! dualité quand tu nous tiens!

 

You'll have to translate that for me, Eric.

 

But no, the spy doesn't get to come in.

 

So, the dissolution of the spy as a meaningful reference

point is all that can " occur " here.

 

Dissolution being a metaphor, because no time is involved.

 

-- Dan

[Guest guest]

> articulation is the keyword here, if something is ar-ti-cu-la-ted,

> like language, ideation, memory, etc. it has to happen, to arise

and

> to change...

> that is time

> time is articulated?

 

What you are talking about is the logic of language,

which depends on memory, which requires references for its meaning.

 

Once that referential system is established,

things arise, interact, change,

all according to the way events register for observers

of those events.

 

In fact, that referential system is " things " is " time " is

" me. "

 

That none of this ever really takes place " now " means that

to know the truth, the false drops away (timelessly, instantly).

 

The false isn't absolutely false, but is false relative to

what is truly " now " which it can never touch.

 

" Now " having no outside, can't be touched, nor imaged, nor

imagined. All the sacred texts fall apart. All the great

teachers dissolve. All the spiritual experiences null.

 

" Now "

 

:-)

 

-- Dan

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033>

wrote:

> > articulation is the keyword here, if something is ar-ti-cu-la-

ted,

> > like language, ideation, memory, etc. it has to happen, to arise

> and

> > to change...

> > that is time

> > time is articulated?

>

> What you are talking about is the logic of language,

> which depends on memory, which requires references for its

meaning.

>

> Once that referential system is established,

> things arise, interact, change,

> all according to the way events register for observers

> of those events.

>

> In fact, that referential system is " things " is " time " is

> " me. "

>

> That none of this ever really takes place " now " means that

> to know the truth, the false drops away (timelessly, instantly).

>

> The false isn't absolutely false, but is false relative to

> what is truly " now " which it can never touch.

>

> " Now " having no outside, can't be touched, nor imaged, nor

> imagined. All the sacred texts fall apart. All the great

> teachers dissolve. All the spiritual experiences null.

>

> " Now "

>

> :-)

>

> -- Dan

 

 

thank you Dan, the other reflexions on memory came after your answers

eric

dualité quand tu nous tiens! means: duality! the hold you have on us!

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " eric paroissien "

<vertvetiver> wrote:

> Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033>

> wrote:

> > > articulation is the keyword here, if something is ar-ti-cu-la-

> ted,

> > > like language, ideation, memory, etc. it has to happen, to

arise

> > and

> > > to change...

> > > that is time

> > > time is articulated?

> >

> > What you are talking about is the logic of language,

> > which depends on memory, which requires references for its

> meaning.

> >

> > Once that referential system is established,

> > things arise, interact, change,

> > all according to the way events register for observers

> > of those events.

> >

> > In fact, that referential system is " things " is " time " is

> > " me. "

> >

> > That none of this ever really takes place " now " means that

> > to know the truth, the false drops away (timelessly, instantly).

> >

> > The false isn't absolutely false, but is false relative to

> > what is truly " now " which it can never touch.

> >

> > " Now " having no outside, can't be touched, nor imaged, nor

> > imagined. All the sacred texts fall apart. All the great

> > teachers dissolve. All the spiritual experiences null.

> >

> > " Now "

> >

> > :-)

> >

> > -- Dan

>

>

> thank you Dan, the other reflexions on memory came after your

answers

 

no, i meant came before your answers (my dyslexia)

 

> eric

> dualité quand tu nous tiens! means: duality! the hold you have on

us!

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033>

wrote:

>

> Once that referential system is established,

> things arise, interact, change,

> all according to the way events register for observers

> of those events.

>

> In fact, that referential system is " things " is " time " is

> " me. "

>

> That none of this ever really takes place " now " means that

> to know the truth, the false drops away (timelessly, instantly).

>

> The false isn't absolutely false, but is false relative to

> what is truly " now " which it can never touch.

>

> " Now " having no outside, can't be touched, nor imaged, nor

> imagined. All the sacred texts fall apart. All the great

> teachers dissolve. All the spiritual experiences null.

>

> " Now "

>

> :-)

>

> -- Dan

 

Hi Dan,

 

I'm enjoying reading this discussion on time, which is one my

favorite ways to spend my time! ;-)

 

But, memory can arise now, right?... as an image, as the present. A

memory of my mother arises and that's now. To say that's not now

would mean that the arising of memories as phenomena is somehow

different than other phenomena that comprise some sort of now.

 

Or are you saying that nothing can arise in the Now?

 

The " Now " as you mention above seems to be an object of sorts

independent from anything else. Like the advaitic " Self " . I wonder if

this is what you mean. But even this Now is dependent upon that which

is not " Now " -- correct?

 

Now -- time for some more coffee!

 

Joe

[Guest guest]

> thank you Dan, the other reflexions on memory came after your

answers

> eric

> dualité quand tu nous tiens! means: duality! the hold you have on

us!

 

Aha! Thanks for the translation, Eric.

 

Duality! I am the hold you have on me!

 

Laughing,

Danielitosan

[Guest guest]

Hi Joe --

 

> I'm enjoying reading this discussion on time, which is one my

> favorite ways to spend my time! ;-)

>

> But, memory can arise now, right?...

 

No. That's my point. It arises always to " me " which is

a memory construct.

 

When " me " says a memory is happening now, that's not

the actuality of now, that is memory's concept of

now -- which is never now.

 

The word now, of course, is a memory construct.

 

The real word can't be said or thought, just as the

ancient Hebrews said about the real word for g-d.

 

Same exact thing.

 

as an image, as the present. A

> memory of my mother arises and that's now.

 

Never really now. Always only when " taken into the system "

as if from outside, and evaluated by the system as " now. "

 

Of course, this happens very quickly, there is no way for

the system to time itself, as it is constructing time.

 

To say that's not now

> would mean that the arising of memories as phenomena is somehow

> different than other phenomena that comprise some sort of now.

 

No. There are no phenomena " in " the actuality of now.

 

There is not something else, either, other than phenomena

here.

 

> Or are you saying that nothing can arise in the Now?

 

True, nothing arises in " this " which of course is not a " this "

at all.

 

Never has, never could. Not-two.

 

> The " Now " as you mention above seems to be an object of sorts

> independent from anything else.

 

Seems being the key word. It is going to come across that way

when spoken in words, because " now " has no way to be

languaged. So to words, it is going to be as if " outside of

the system. " But, the whole point is, there is no outside.

Hence, the whole system that requires an outside is illusory.

 

And that is how memory works, by reacting as if images are coming

in, that bring information about real events taking place now,

that require a reaction -- and that dynamic structures a " me "

which is supposedly reacting, benefitting, losing.

 

> Like the advaitic " Self " .

 

Only there's no self to it whatsoever, nor one with a capital S.

 

I wonder if

> this is what you mean. But even this Now is dependent upon that

which

> is not " Now " -- correct?

 

It's not dependent nor independent.

 

Those words each depend on each other for their meaning.

 

With no outside, there is no inside. There is no being

here to make sense of things, hence no use for words,

which are all about making sense of things.

 

There is no interdependency here, nor is there any

independent anything at all, no quality, nor any

negation of anything which could possibly take place.

 

Love,

Danielitosan

[Guest guest]

There is a passage somewhere, in which Niz confers to a determinated " hoopla "

the attribute of real. This " hoopla " is that part of the future, which is

unpredictable, unanticipated and unexpected.

 

Thanks for the hoopla, Sandeep.

 

Surprise surprise, it has no prize...

 

sk

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Protect your identity with Mail AddressGuard

 

 

[Guest guest]

-

skogen

Nisargadatta

Friday, November 07, 2003 11:07 AM

Re: " Now " is not the sense of here and now described

by Nisargadatta

 

 

 

There is a passage somewhere, in which Niz confers to a determinated " hoopla "

the attribute of real. This " hoopla " is that part of the future, which is

unpredictable, unanticipated and unexpected.

 

Thanks for the hoopla, Sandeep.

 

Surprise surprise, it has no prize...

 

-------

Aw shucks.

 

And here I was expecting a cute young co-ed on my left arm.

As an arm candy, a term I just learned today.