Guest guest Posted November 25, 2003 Report Share Posted November 25, 2003 Hi Steve -- > Thanks for the posts. There is just one question I have after > reading the responses. It has been said that NOW has no beginning or > end (kinda like the Melchezidek Priesthood of the New Testement). Now isn't a thing, nor a person, so no - not like the Melchezidek Priesthood - never written about nor communicated, not the idea of " now. " So " now " is no-thing, no-thing inclusive of all possible possibilities. Now is not permanent. One realizes now by being clear on impermanence, not by trying to be permanent, or have a permanent state or knowledge. It is nondurational. All time comes from it, so it is nondurational, does not have the quality of continuity. It isn't an it. > So > to understand what has been said that there is no permanent state, is > this to mean that NOW is not, or should not be looked at as a state > to be attained? Quite so. How could " now " be a state? A state is a knowable experience -- now is how all experience occurs, yet is never an experience. > If I understand you correctly Dan, NOW is the only > reality so our " attaining " it is irrelevant because the " me " who > wants to attain it is fictional anyway? It is the end of attaining, along with the one who attains, and anything to be attained. To know that the " me " is fictional, is not the same thing as the death of me. Me dying is the end of any continuity of a being within a state, and a being that goes through states, to whom states occur. It is the end of desiring to be in a state, or not be in a state, nor any attempt to be beyond states of being. > Boy I hope this makes sense. Yes, it very much makes sense. -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 25, 2003 Report Share Posted November 25, 2003 Hi Dan, Thanks for the fine tuning. So even if I replace " order of melchezidek " with " ein sof " these are still just labels to something which is un-labelable (which NOW is not and never can be a " something " or " it " if I understand you correctly). It seems all I can do when trying to " think " of this topic is just chase my tail. How to get past this chasing of the tail is also included in my thinking.... which now makes me suspecious of " who it is that wants to get past this chaing of the tail " but me even thinking this is because I read it somewhere...second hand.... then another thought comes in and comments that all of this is just some strange feedback loop. I do suspect these are all concepts that need to be dropped.. but damn it... I also read THAT somewhere, too.. wish I'd thought of that (as I covet someone elses' revelation.. damn)! I don't have or have never had an original thought in this mind.. so then the question begs.... how to have it first hand? wait...don't answer that last one.. it will be one more entry into my collection of second hand information.... ahh.. sweet frustration... a guilty pleasure. Steve Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: > Hi Steve -- > > > Thanks for the posts. There is just one question I have after > > reading the responses. It has been said that NOW has no beginning > or > > end (kinda like the Melchezidek Priesthood of the New Testement). > > Now isn't a thing, nor a person, so no - not like the Melchezidek > Priesthood - never written about nor communicated, not the > idea of " now. " So " now " is no-thing, no-thing inclusive > of all possible possibilities. > > Now is not permanent. One realizes now by being clear > on impermanence, not by trying to be permanent, or have > a permanent state or knowledge. > > It is nondurational. All time comes from it, > so it is nondurational, does not have the quality > of continuity. > > It isn't an it. > > > So > > to understand what has been said that there is no permanent state, > is > > this to mean that NOW is not, or should not be looked at as a state > > to be attained? > > Quite so. How could " now " be a state? A state is a knowable > experience -- now is how all experience occurs, yet is > never an experience. > > > If I understand you correctly Dan, NOW is the only > > reality so our " attaining " it is irrelevant because the " me " who > > wants to attain it is fictional anyway? > > It is the end of attaining, along with the one who attains, > and anything to be attained. > > To know that the " me " is fictional, is not the same thing > as the death of me. > > Me dying is the end of any continuity of a being within a state, > and a being that goes through states, to whom states occur. > > It is the end of desiring to be in a state, or not be in a state, > nor any attempt to be beyond states of being. > > > Boy I hope this makes sense. > > Yes, it very much makes sense. > > -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 25, 2003 Report Share Posted November 25, 2003 Hi Steve - > Hi Dan, > Thanks for the fine tuning. So even if I replace " order of > melchezidek " with " ein sof " these are still just labels to something > which is un-labelable (which NOW is not and never can be > a " something " or " it " if I understand you correctly). Sure, but those are very different labels. Labels mean something depending on the context in which they're used. Labelling strychnine as poison would be more beneficial than labelling it as cough syrup. This which can't be labelled isn't necessarily more effectively discussed as the " unlabelable " than some other way. It depends on the context and the discussants. > It seems all I can do when trying to " think " of this topic is just > chase my tail. Thought can't catch this. Neither can perception or sensation. You want to know it because you've been told it's liberating. But that's just a label :-) So, thought chases the label, but isn't in a position to find what it's looking for, nor is sense, emotion, or perception. What doesn't work, must drop. Otherwise, the tail-chasing goes round and round. When someone shares about " what is " when the tail-chasing is not, words or images are offered which thought can try to grasp, or practices and exercises to affect perception, or ways to alter sensation -- but this all results in more tail-chasing. And so it goes. > How to get past this chasing of the tail is also > included in my thinking.... which now makes me suspecious of " who it > is that wants to get past this chaing of the tail " Yes. That makes sense. The thinker is assumed by thought to be using thought to get somewhere. But the thinker is thought. Just as the perceiver is perception, and the experiencer is experience. > but me even > thinking this is because I read it somewhere...second hand.... then > another thought comes in and comments that all of this is just some > strange feedback loop. Also known as " human life. " The way we learn who we are as an object (body-mind) to which others relate, speak, have feelings about and so on. And the way we learn about the world with which we relate (inside and outside). The " me " forming the relationship, is the relating process -- just as the thinker is the thinking process. The loop only works when there is differentiation with assumed identity, assumption of space, and assumption of a being the gets input through sensing (including thought as sensing). So, the loop gives the sense of time passing, information being transferred across space, experiences being had over time, relationship forming and breaking up, and so on. I do suspect these are all concepts that need > to be dropped.. but damn it... I also read THAT somewhere, too.. wish > I'd thought of that (as I covet someone elses' revelation.. damn)! I > don't have or have never had an original thought in this mind.. Yes, the thoughts won't give what you're looking for. The assumption that there is a thinker to get something from the thoughts, an experiencer wanting an experience, that is the loop. If the loop drops, there is no time, no sense of being, no space across which to have information come in about what is happening, no inside or outside. Descriptions of what this is are futile, as any description requires time, processing, and relationship. You don't have to drop the loop, in fact you can't, because you are the loop. But, because there is no real separation between thinker and thought, perceiver and perception, the loop never actually is taking place. It's like whirling a stick that has an end burning so you see a circle. There's not really a circle. Same as seeing a movie -- there aren't really people doing things -- there are just frames being flashed quickly. There is no real movement, as there is no real space -- all of that depends on an assumption that requires taking an illusion as the basis for a reality. So, the loop never really occurs, nor anything in it -- but no one wants to know this. They say they want to know truth, god, what being is, and so on -- but they want to get something out of it. No one wants the end of self, world, and experience. Why would they? What would you get out of it? Thus, truth is only when you have no other option. > so > then the question begs.... how to have it first hand? You already do. You just don't like what it is. It's nothing you can get anything out of. It doesn't continue you or give you great experiences to share with the seekers. > wait...don't > answer that last one.. it will be one more entry into my collection > of second hand information.... The informational component of what is said is useless. It's like if you push out, but just find that you've been somehow turned back to yourself. No information transfer involved. ahh.. sweet frustration... a guilty > pleasure. Sure. And finding out the identity you thought you had, never really had its existence isn't a pleasure. So, no one really wants to know. How will I get pleasure, feel guilt, have worries, go on with my relationships, find out something spiritual to share with others, etc.? -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 25, 2003 Report Share Posted November 25, 2003 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: > Hi Steve -- > > > Thanks for the posts. There is just one question I have after > > reading the responses. It has been said that NOW has no beginning > or > > end (kinda like the Melchezidek Priesthood of the New Testement). > > Now isn't a thing, nor a person, so no - not like the Melchezidek > Priesthood - never written about nor communicated, not the > idea of " now. " So " now " is no-thing, no-thing inclusive > of all possible possibilities. > > Now is not permanent. One realizes now by being clear > on impermanence, not by trying to be permanent, or have > a permanent state or knowledge. > > It is nondurational. All time comes from it, > so it is nondurational, does not have the quality > of continuity. > > It isn't an it. > > > So > > to understand what has been said that there is no permanent state, > is > > this to mean that NOW is not, or should not be looked at as a state > > to be attained? > > Quite so. How could " now " be a state? A state is a knowable > experience -- now is how all experience occurs, yet is > never an experience. > > > If I understand you correctly Dan, NOW is the only > > reality so our " attaining " it is irrelevant because the " me " who > > wants to attain it is fictional anyway? > > It is the end of attaining, along with the one who attains, > and anything to be attained. > > To know that the " me " is fictional, is not the same thing > as the death of me. > > Me dying is the end of any continuity of a being within a state, > and a being that goes through states, to whom states occur. > > It is the end of desiring to be in a state, or not be in a state, > nor any attempt to be beyond states of being. > > > Boy I hope this makes sense. > > Yes, it very much makes sense. > > -- Dan I think that the NOW is never online Steve hihi Echkart Era 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.