Guest guest Posted May 28, 2004 Report Share Posted May 28, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@a...> wrote: > > > The old dialectic was communicating discrete > packets of information. The new dialectic is a > dynamic. In the old dialectic the notion of > subject/object was a misleading distinction. > The distinction was not in reality, but in the > communication process itself. In the new dialectic > distinctions are the breathing of the fabric of > life. The fabric of life is a complex dynamic. > In the new dialectic the fabric of life is manifest. > These words are the breath of the fabric of life. > > > > > > Bill > > 5-28-04 Could we also say that in the new dialectic that consciousness is what is primary and the physical world secondary? The reason I say this is because we all have consciousness being aware in the present moment. That which consciousness is aware of is only the past, thus the physical world never exists other than as a changing memory in consciousness. /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 30, 2004 Report Share Posted May 30, 2004 You wrote: " ...we all have consciousness being aware in the present moment. " and " That which consciousness is aware of is only the past... " Those two statements don't jibe for me. What do you mean by past? Can consciousness be aware of a bird singing? You could say that is in the past, as by the time I am aware of it in consciousness it has been processed by the brain etc. But I doubt that is what you mean. In the presence of Now is the *buzzz* of being, the aliveness, which is not of the past. Bill - anders_lindman Nisargadatta Friday, May 28, 2004 3:12 PM Re: The New Dialectic Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@a...> wrote: > > > The old dialectic was communicating discrete > packets of information. The new dialectic is a > dynamic. In the old dialectic the notion of > subject/object was a misleading distinction. > The distinction was not in reality, but in the > communication process itself. In the new dialectic > distinctions are the breathing of the fabric of > life. The fabric of life is a complex dynamic. > In the new dialectic the fabric of life is manifest. > These words are the breath of the fabric of life. > > > > > > Bill > > 5-28-04 Could we also say that in the new dialectic that consciousness is what is primary and the physical world secondary? The reason I say this is because we all have consciousness being aware in the present moment. That which consciousness is aware of is only the past, thus the physical world never exists other than as a changing memory in consciousness. /AL ** 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 30, 2004 Report Share Posted May 30, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@a...> wrote: > You wrote: > " ...we all have consciousness being aware in the present moment. " > and > " That which consciousness is aware of is only the past... " > > Those two statements don't jibe for me. > What do you mean by past? > Can consciousness be aware of a bird singing? > You could say that is in the past, as by the time I am > aware of it in consciousness it has been processed > by the brain etc. But I doubt that is what you mean. > > In the presence of Now is the *buzzz* of being, > the aliveness, which is not of the past. > > Bill In the presence of Now consciousness is alive as the observer. In this consciousness a changing past is observed, such as a bird singing. The bird singing is just a ripple in the timeless Now. This changing ripple we call the past, because it gives the appearance of a past going from Big Bang to the present moment, including birds singing, memories about ourselves as children, and also our own " present " body, thoughts and feelings. I say " present " within quotes since the body, thoughts and feelings are also in this ripple called the past. Picture consciousness as a timeless being/observer in the Now. This is the Absolute, the only concrete " thing " there is. This Absolute existence vibrates and thus spawns an ever changing past in the form of an appearant thread out of itself. So it is not the past that creates the future, it is timeless consciousness in the Now that is observing its own vibration giving rise to what appear to be a past. This past is not a " real " in the sense that time has a beginning. Everything is only created Now. The Big Bang for example, was not created billion years ago, the Big Bang is ever recreated in the Now. Only the Now exists. What you are in truth is this timeless Now which effortlessly gives rise to an appearant past. All the struggle you experience is only in the appearant past. The real you is as effortless and infinite as the Now itself. You are the timeless consciousness in the Now, not the ripple in it called the past. See yourself as effortless and enjoy the ripple, but don't identigy yourself with the ripple. /AL > > > - > anders_lindman > Nisargadatta > Friday, May 28, 2004 3:12 PM > Re: The New Dialectic > > > Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@a...> > wrote: > > > > > > The old dialectic was communicating discrete > > packets of information. The new dialectic is a > > dynamic. In the old dialectic the notion of > > subject/object was a misleading distinction. > > The distinction was not in reality, but in the > > communication process itself. In the new dialectic > > distinctions are the breathing of the fabric of > > life. The fabric of life is a complex dynamic. > > In the new dialectic the fabric of life is manifest. > > These words are the breath of the fabric of life. > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > 5-28-04 > > Could we also say that in the new dialectic that consciousness is > what is primary and the physical world secondary? The reason I say > this is because we all have consciousness being aware in the present > moment. That which consciousness is aware of is only the past, thus > the physical world never exists other than as a changing memory in > consciousness. > > /AL > > > > ** > > 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 30, 2004 Report Share Posted May 30, 2004 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@a...> > wrote: > > You wrote: > > " ...we all have consciousness being aware in the present moment. " > > and > > " That which consciousness is aware of is only the past... " > > > > Those two statements don't jibe for me. > > What do you mean by past? > > Can consciousness be aware of a bird singing? > > You could say that is in the past, as by the time I am > > aware of it in consciousness it has been processed > > by the brain etc. But I doubt that is what you mean. > > > > In the presence of Now is the *buzzz* of being, > > the aliveness, which is not of the past. > > > > Bill > > In the presence of Now consciousness is alive as the observer. In > this consciousness a changing past is observed, such as a bird > singing. The bird singing is just a ripple in the timeless Now. This > changing ripple we call the past, because it gives the appearance of > a past going from Big Bang to the present moment, including birds > singing, memories about ourselves as children, and also our > own " present " body, thoughts and feelings. I say " present " within > quotes since the body, thoughts and feelings are also in this ripple > called the past. > > Picture consciousness as a timeless being/observer in the Now. This > is the Absolute, the only concrete " thing " there is. This Absolute > existence vibrates and thus spawns an ever changing past in the form > of an appearant thread out of itself. So it is not the past that > creates the future, it is timeless consciousness in the Now that is > observing its own vibration giving rise to what appear to be a past. > This past is not a " real " in the sense that time has a beginning. > Everything is only created Now. The Big Bang for example, was not > created billion years ago, the Big Bang is ever recreated in the Now. > Only the Now exists. > > What you are in truth is this timeless Now which effortlessly gives > rise to an appearant past. All the struggle you experience is only in > the appearant past. The real you is as effortless and infinite as the > Now itself. You are the timeless consciousness in the Now, not the > ripple in it called the past. See yourself as effortless and enjoy > the ripple, but don't identigy yourself with the ripple. > So why are you in fear, All? Is the above just a bunch of concepts lined up like sparrows on a fence? Do you feel the above in your guts, Al? Pete Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 30, 2004 Report Share Posted May 30, 2004 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@a...> > > wrote: > > > You wrote: > > > " ...we all have consciousness being aware in the present moment. " > > > and > > > " That which consciousness is aware of is only the past... " > > > > > > Those two statements don't jibe for me. > > > What do you mean by past? > > > Can consciousness be aware of a bird singing? > > > You could say that is in the past, as by the time I am > > > aware of it in consciousness it has been processed > > > by the brain etc. But I doubt that is what you mean. > > > > > > In the presence of Now is the *buzzz* of being, > > > the aliveness, which is not of the past. > > > > > > Bill > > > > In the presence of Now consciousness is alive as the observer. In > > this consciousness a changing past is observed, such as a bird > > singing. The bird singing is just a ripple in the timeless Now. > This > > changing ripple we call the past, because it gives the appearance > of > > a past going from Big Bang to the present moment, including birds > > singing, memories about ourselves as children, and also our > > own " present " body, thoughts and feelings. I say " present " within > > quotes since the body, thoughts and feelings are also in this > ripple > > called the past. > > > > Picture consciousness as a timeless being/observer in the Now. This > > is the Absolute, the only concrete " thing " there is. This Absolute > > existence vibrates and thus spawns an ever changing past in the > form > > of an appearant thread out of itself. So it is not the past that > > creates the future, it is timeless consciousness in the Now that is > > observing its own vibration giving rise to what appear to be a > past. > > This past is not a " real " in the sense that time has a beginning. > > Everything is only created Now. The Big Bang for example, was not > > created billion years ago, the Big Bang is ever recreated in the > Now. > > Only the Now exists. > > > > What you are in truth is this timeless Now which effortlessly gives > > rise to an appearant past. All the struggle you experience is only > in > > the appearant past. The real you is as effortless and infinite as > the > > Now itself. You are the timeless consciousness in the Now, not the > > ripple in it called the past. See yourself as effortless and enjoy > > the ripple, but don't identigy yourself with the ripple. > > > > > So why are you in fear, All? Is the above just a bunch of concepts > lined up like sparrows on a fence? Do you feel the above in your > guts, Al? > > Pete > > Pete I can see how I identify myself with the past. But I begin to see that I am really not that past, but timeless consciousness, indestructible, formless without size, substance or form. In this formless still consciousness in the Now a past appear effortlessly as a changing ripple. This is more than just concepts. When I think about the past, that past is created Now. When I think about a friend, how he or she looks like and about the moments we have shared, this too is only created Now! There entire past is created Now. There has never been any me, you he or she. Never, ever. All there is is only Now. When we think about a dead person, this thought is created Now. There never has been any person either dead or alive! See? /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 30, 2004 Report Share Posted May 30, 2004 > > > > So why are you in fear, All? Is the above just a bunch of concepts > > lined up like sparrows on a fence? Do you feel the above in your > > guts, Al? > > > > > > Pete > > I can see how I identify myself with the past. But I begin to see > that I am really not that past, but timeless consciousness, > indestructible, formless without size, substance or form. In this > formless still consciousness in the Now a past appear effortlessly as > a changing ripple. This is more than just concepts. > > When I think about the past, that past is created Now. When I think > about a friend, how he or she looks like and about the moments we > have shared, this too is only created Now! There entire past is > created Now. There has never been any me, you he or she. Never, ever. > All there is is only Now. When we think about a dead person, this > thought is created Now. There never has been any person either dead > or alive! See? > > /AL Don't kid, yourself Al, it's all concepts. You are wrap up in conceptuality. You talk about consciousness being all, but you can't abide in your consciosness without concepts cropping up. Feel the consciousness without thoughts, All. Do it as soon as you wake up, stay in bed and feel it without thinking about anything. Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 31, 2004 Report Share Posted May 31, 2004 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> wrote: > > > > > > So why are you in fear, All? Is the above just a bunch of > concepts > > > lined up like sparrows on a fence? Do you feel the above in your > > > guts, Al? > > > > > > > > > > Pete > > > > I can see how I identify myself with the past. But I begin to see > > that I am really not that past, but timeless consciousness, > > indestructible, formless without size, substance or form. In this > > formless still consciousness in the Now a past appear effortlessly > as > > a changing ripple. This is more than just concepts. > > > > When I think about the past, that past is created Now. When I think > > about a friend, how he or she looks like and about the moments we > > have shared, this too is only created Now! There entire past is > > created Now. There has never been any me, you he or she. Never, > ever. > > All there is is only Now. When we think about a dead person, this > > thought is created Now. There never has been any person either dead > > or alive! See? > > > > /AL > > Don't kid, yourself Al, it's all concepts. You are wrap up in > conceptuality. You talk about consciousness being all, but you can't > abide in your consciosness without concepts cropping up. Feel the > consciousness without thoughts, All. Do it as soon as you wake up, > stay in bed and feel it without thinking about anything. > > Pete Concepts are good when they point to something has to do with reality. When I say pure consciousness I mean that which is self aware. That part of you is zero seconds away from yourself, you are that conciousness. You cannot deny that. What is more, everything else you experience including you body, your thoughts, the world you see is not zero seconds away from you. These things are from the past, and the past is only a changing ripple in the Now. You may remember things you did yesterday, or some holiday a year ago, but this is only a memory track created NOW. I am pointing to the moon here, and all you do is looking at the finger. :-) /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 31, 2004 Report Share Posted May 31, 2004 Very nice Anders! This is an excellent description of consciousness as I consider the term (and better than I think I could have written : ) The one thing I would ammend is to change: " In the presence of Now consciousness is alive as the observer. " to... " In the presence of Now consciousness is alive as the *observing* and the observed. " Since consciousness is *all that there is*, it can never get " apart from itself " . So while the quality of " observation " *does* pertain to consciousness, the quality of separation as in subject/object does not. Unable to ever be apart from itself, it is an " observer wannabe " that is always inherently chasing its own tail (or " tale " : ), a chase that seems potentially eternal except for ... Bill - anders_lindman Nisargadatta Sunday, May 30, 2004 4:12 PM Re: The New Dialectic Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@a...> wrote: > You wrote: > " ...we all have consciousness being aware in the present moment. " > and > " That which consciousness is aware of is only the past... " > > Those two statements don't jibe for me. > What do you mean by past? > Can consciousness be aware of a bird singing? > You could say that is in the past, as by the time I am > aware of it in consciousness it has been processed > by the brain etc. But I doubt that is what you mean. > > In the presence of Now is the *buzzz* of being, > the aliveness, which is not of the past. > > Bill In the presence of Now consciousness is alive as the observer. In this consciousness a changing past is observed, such as a bird singing. The bird singing is just a ripple in the timeless Now. This changing ripple we call the past, because it gives the appearance of a past going from Big Bang to the present moment, including birds singing, memories about ourselves as children, and also our own " present " body, thoughts and feelings. I say " present " within quotes since the body, thoughts and feelings are also in this ripple called the past. Picture consciousness as a timeless being/observer in the Now. This is the Absolute, the only concrete " thing " there is. This Absolute existence vibrates and thus spawns an ever changing past in the form of an appearant thread out of itself. So it is not the past that creates the future, it is timeless consciousness in the Now that is observing its own vibration giving rise to what appear to be a past. This past is not a " real " in the sense that time has a beginning. Everything is only created Now. The Big Bang for example, was not created billion years ago, the Big Bang is ever recreated in the Now. Only the Now exists. What you are in truth is this timeless Now which effortlessly gives rise to an appearant past. All the struggle you experience is only in the appearant past. The real you is as effortless and infinite as the Now itself. You are the timeless consciousness in the Now, not the ripple in it called the past. See yourself as effortless and enjoy the ripple, but don't identigy yourself with the ripple. /AL > > > - > anders_lindman > Nisargadatta > Friday, May 28, 2004 3:12 PM > Re: The New Dialectic > > > Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@a...> > wrote: > > > > > > The old dialectic was communicating discrete > > packets of information. The new dialectic is a > > dynamic. In the old dialectic the notion of > > subject/object was a misleading distinction. > > The distinction was not in reality, but in the > > communication process itself. In the new dialectic > > distinctions are the breathing of the fabric of > > life. The fabric of life is a complex dynamic. > > In the new dialectic the fabric of life is manifest. > > These words are the breath of the fabric of life. > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > 5-28-04 > > Could we also say that in the new dialectic that consciousness is > what is primary and the physical world secondary? The reason I say > this is because we all have consciousness being aware in the present > moment. That which consciousness is aware of is only the past, thus > the physical world never exists other than as a changing memory in > consciousness. > > /AL > > > > ** > > 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 31, 2004 Report Share Posted May 31, 2004 Don't kid, yourself Al, it's all concepts. You are wrap up in conceptuality. You talk about consciousness being all, but you can't abide in your consciosness without concepts cropping up. Feel the consciousness without thoughts, All. Do it as soon as you wake up, stay in bed and feel it without thinking about anything. Pete >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don't kid yourself Pete. It's all concepts. You are wrapped up in conceptuality. Don't you see that you are articulating from concepts you have of Anders? What do you know of the origination of the verbage attributed to an Anders? Do you know that " Anders " is not the code name for an AI machine at MIT? Someone uses the term " conscousness " and you say " Ahhh! Gotcha! Using a concept! " ? Is that what you are doing? If so, kinda sophmoric in my view. Nisargadatta talked a great deal about consciousness. How is what Anders is saying different from what Niz was saying? Bill - cerosoul Nisargadatta Sunday, May 30, 2004 9:23 PM Re: The New Dialectic > > > > So why are you in fear, All? Is the above just a bunch of concepts > > lined up like sparrows on a fence? Do you feel the above in your > > guts, Al? > > > > > > Pete > > I can see how I identify myself with the past. But I begin to see > that I am really not that past, but timeless consciousness, > indestructible, formless without size, substance or form. In this > formless still consciousness in the Now a past appear effortlessly as > a changing ripple. This is more than just concepts. > > When I think about the past, that past is created Now. When I think > about a friend, how he or she looks like and about the moments we > have shared, this too is only created Now! There entire past is > created Now. There has never been any me, you he or she. Never, ever. > All there is is only Now. When we think about a dead person, this > thought is created Now. There never has been any person either dead > or alive! See? > > /AL Don't kid, yourself Al, it's all concepts. You are wrap up in conceptuality. You talk about consciousness being all, but you can't abide in your consciosness without concepts cropping up. Feel the consciousness without thoughts, All. Do it as soon as you wake up, stay in bed and feel it without thinking about anything. 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 31, 2004 Report Share Posted May 31, 2004 Concepts are good when they point to something has to do with reality. >>>>>>>>>>>> Ooops! No such thing as a concept pointing to reality, in my view. If you are going to make such a statement then the onus is on you to explain what you mean by " reality " , and you are in a pickle on that one. Consciousness as you have been using the terms is all-inclusive-everything, so consciousness is by definition (per your parlance) reality. So to say that your notion of consciousness points to reality is circular. " Consciousness " is a useful notion, but there is plenty of room to doubt its " veracity " . Perhaps its value is only didactic. Is " consciousness " really just a myth? There is a huge difference between considering discourse as " useful " for didactic purposes and considering discourse as " explanatory " . The explanatory stuff is deluded, in my view. There is no such thing as the " way things really are " . Bill - anders_lindman Nisargadatta Sunday, May 30, 2004 10:00 PM Re: The New Dialectic Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> wrote: > > > > > > So why are you in fear, All? Is the above just a bunch of > concepts > > > lined up like sparrows on a fence? Do you feel the above in your > > > guts, Al? > > > > > > > > > > Pete > > > > I can see how I identify myself with the past. But I begin to see > > that I am really not that past, but timeless consciousness, > > indestructible, formless without size, substance or form. In this > > formless still consciousness in the Now a past appear effortlessly > as > > a changing ripple. This is more than just concepts. > > > > When I think about the past, that past is created Now. When I think > > about a friend, how he or she looks like and about the moments we > > have shared, this too is only created Now! There entire past is > > created Now. There has never been any me, you he or she. Never, > ever. > > All there is is only Now. When we think about a dead person, this > > thought is created Now. There never has been any person either dead > > or alive! See? > > > > /AL > > Don't kid, yourself Al, it's all concepts. You are wrap up in > conceptuality. You talk about consciousness being all, but you can't > abide in your consciosness without concepts cropping up. Feel the > consciousness without thoughts, All. Do it as soon as you wake up, > stay in bed and feel it without thinking about anything. > > Pete Concepts are good when they point to something has to do with reality. When I say pure consciousness I mean that which is self aware. That part of you is zero seconds away from yourself, you are that conciousness. You cannot deny that. What is more, everything else you experience including you body, your thoughts, the world you see is not zero seconds away from you. These things are from the past, and the past is only a changing ripple in the Now. You may remember things you did yesterday, or some holiday a year ago, but this is only a memory track created NOW. I am pointing to the moon here, and all you do is looking at the finger. :-) /AL ** 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 31, 2004 Report Share Posted May 31, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@a...> wrote: > Very nice Anders! > This is an excellent description of consciousness as I consider the > term (and better than I think I could have written : ) The one thing > I would ammend is to change: > " In the presence of Now consciousness is alive as the observer. " > to... > " In the presence of Now consciousness is alive as the *observing* and > the observed. " > > Since consciousness is *all that there is*, it can never get " apart from > itself " . So while the quality of " observation " *does* pertain to > consciousness, the quality of separation as in subject/object does > not. Unable to ever be apart from itself, it is an " observer wannabe " > that is always inherently chasing its own tail (or " tale " : ), a chase > that seems potentially eternal except for ... > > Bill Yes, consciousness as the observer must be the same as the observed becuase there is a connection between the observer and the observed making them connected, and what is connected cannot really be separate. If we look at the observer as consciousness at rest in the now, we can see the observed as a ripple in the same now. This ripple creates the past as an extrusion of itself but it is only an appearance of a past because it is still the very same now, only that this now has a continuous vibration in it, creating the appearance of a past. So nothing is ever outside this Now. Even the food you have in your stomach after a lunch is not separate in any real time with the food laying on your plate at the restaurant an hour ago. There is no real past. The past is created now, and recreated, and recreated now, giving the appearance of time flowing. So the " you " as a child several years ago with a small body does not exist in a past separate from the now. All your personal history record, from embryo, to baby, to child, to teenager, .. to the present you exist only now. Your entire personal history is created now, instantly, and recreated, and recreated... Therefore there are no dead persons, nor any living persons, because the entire history track in time exists only Now. The physical world is the past, but this past only exists Now as a ripple in this timeless indestructible Now, called consciousness. /AL > > - > anders_lindman > Nisargadatta > Sunday, May 30, 2004 4:12 PM > Re: The New Dialectic > > > Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@a...> > wrote: > > You wrote: > > " ...we all have consciousness being aware in the present moment. " > > and > > " That which consciousness is aware of is only the past... " > > > > Those two statements don't jibe for me. > > What do you mean by past? > > Can consciousness be aware of a bird singing? > > You could say that is in the past, as by the time I am > > aware of it in consciousness it has been processed > > by the brain etc. But I doubt that is what you mean. > > > > In the presence of Now is the *buzzz* of being, > > the aliveness, which is not of the past. > > > > Bill > > In the presence of Now consciousness is alive as the observer. In > this consciousness a changing past is observed, such as a bird > singing. The bird singing is just a ripple in the timeless Now. This > changing ripple we call the past, because it gives the appearance of > a past going from Big Bang to the present moment, including birds > singing, memories about ourselves as children, and also our > own " present " body, thoughts and feelings. I say " present " within > quotes since the body, thoughts and feelings are also in this ripple > called the past. > > Picture consciousness as a timeless being/observer in the Now. This > is the Absolute, the only concrete " thing " there is. This Absolute > existence vibrates and thus spawns an ever changing past in the form > of an appearant thread out of itself. So it is not the past that > creates the future, it is timeless consciousness in the Now that is > observing its own vibration giving rise to what appear to be a past. > This past is not a " real " in the sense that time has a beginning. > Everything is only created Now. The Big Bang for example, was not > created billion years ago, the Big Bang is ever recreated in the Now. > Only the Now exists. > > What you are in truth is this timeless Now which effortlessly gives > rise to an appearant past. All the struggle you experience is only in > the appearant past. The real you is as effortless and infinite as the > Now itself. You are the timeless consciousness in the Now, not the > ripple in it called the past. See yourself as effortless and enjoy > the ripple, but don't identigy yourself with the ripple. > > /AL > > > > > > > - > > anders_lindman > > Nisargadatta > > Friday, May 28, 2004 3:12 PM > > Re: The New Dialectic > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@a...> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > The old dialectic was communicating discrete > > > packets of information. The new dialectic is a > > > dynamic. In the old dialectic the notion of > > > subject/object was a misleading distinction. > > > The distinction was not in reality, but in the > > > communication process itself. In the new dialectic > > > distinctions are the breathing of the fabric of > > > life. The fabric of life is a complex dynamic. > > > In the new dialectic the fabric of life is manifest. > > > These words are the breath of the fabric of life. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > 5-28-04 > > > > Could we also say that in the new dialectic that consciousness is > > what is primary and the physical world secondary? The reason I say > > this is because we all have consciousness being aware in the > present > > moment. That which consciousness is aware of is only the past, thus > > the physical world never exists other than as a changing memory in > > consciousness. > > > > /AL > > > > > > > > ** > > > > 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 31, 2004 Report Share Posted May 31, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@a...> wrote: > Concepts are good when they point to something has to do with > reality. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > Ooops! > No such thing as a concept pointing to reality, in my view. > If you are going to make such a statement then the onus is on > you to explain what you mean by " reality " , and you are in a > pickle on that one. Consciousness as you have been using the > terms is all-inclusive-everything, so consciousness is by definition > (per your parlance) reality. So to say that your notion of > consciousness points to reality is circular. > > " Consciousness " is a useful notion, but there is plenty of > room to doubt its " veracity " . Perhaps its value is only didactic. > > Is " consciousness " really just a myth? > > There is a huge difference between considering discourse as > " useful " for didactic purposes and considering discourse as > " explanatory " . The explanatory stuff is deluded, in my view. > There is no such thing as the " way things really are " . > > > Bill Consciousness is not a myth, because you are self aware right now, and that is what consciousness is. You cannot deny your own existence. Everything else other than the " I am " sense is a concept. Reality is what cannot be denied, and concepts can point to that which cannot be denied and put that as the foundation for reality and put the physical manifestation as only an observed vibration in consciousness. Concepts too are only an observed vibration in consciousness. But we can use concepts to point to that which does not vibrate, that which is timeless. (And vibrate and timeless too are only concepts :-) /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 31, 2004 Report Share Posted May 31, 2004 Yes, consciousness as the observer must be the same as the observed becuase there is a connection between the observer and the observed making them connected, and what is connected cannot really be separate. >>>>>>>>> Or what was never separate must be connected... and that connection is only conceptual in relation to a conceptual separation. If we look at the observer as consciousness at rest in the now, we can see the observed as a ripple in the same now. >>>>>>>>>> You are metaphorizing the " observed " as a " ripple " of conscoiusness itself. What you seem to be saying is that all that is manifest is effectively simply a side-effect of the observing process itself. Hence, in a very real way consciousness is observing itself, not in the sense of a mirror, but nevertheless. <snip> /AL Keep in mind that these are just " notions " . There is nothing real in any of this. This conversation is just more " rippling " . And the notion of " ripple " is just a conversational convenience. There is no such " thing " as a ripple. No ripple has ever been perceived, really. The notion of " ripples " is just a smaller thorn to pry out the bigger thorn of the notion of a " past " . The notion of ripple does not point to any inherent reality. That being said, I find the notion of ripple a nice metaphor for " this buzz of being " .... Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 31, 2004 Report Share Posted May 31, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@a...> wrote: > > Yes, consciousness as the observer must be the same as the observed > becuase there is a connection between the observer and the observed > making them connected, and what is connected cannot really be > separate. > >>>>>>>>> > Or what was never separate must be connected... > and that connection is only conceptual in relation to a conceptual separation. > > If we look at the observer as consciousness at rest in the > now, we can see the observed as a ripple in the same now. > >>>>>>>>>> > You are metaphorizing the " observed " as a " ripple " of conscoiusness itself. > What you seem to be saying is that all that is manifest is effectively simply > a side-effect of the observing process itself. Hence, in a very real way > consciousness is observing itself, not in the sense of a mirror, but nevertheless. > > <snip> > > /AL > > Keep in mind that these are just " notions " . There is nothing real in any of > this. This conversation is just more " rippling " . > > And the notion of " ripple " is just a conversational convenience. There > is no such " thing " as a ripple. No ripple has ever been perceived, really. > > The notion of " ripples " is just a smaller thorn to pry out the bigger thorn > of the notion of a " past " . > > The notion of ripple does not point to any inherent reality. > > That being said, I find the notion of ripple a nice metaphor for " this > buzz of being " .... > > > Bill > Thanks, I felt that this description of the concept ripple helped me a bit to get " closer " to the present moment. There is no physical me as a real thing needing protection. I must let this sink in a bit. At first the idea that my physical body doesn't need to be protected is absurd. Then this idea becomes a concept that indeed could be pointing to the truth. Then we have to let this idea sink in a bit to see if it is for real or not. /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 31, 2004 Report Share Posted May 31, 2004 Consciousness is not a myth, because you are self aware right now, and that is what consciousness is. You cannot deny your own existence. Everything else other than the " I am " sense is a concept. Reality is what cannot be denied, and concepts can point to that which cannot be denied and put that as the foundation for reality and put the physical manifestation as only an observed vibration in consciousness. Concepts too are only an observed vibration in consciousness. But we can use concepts to point to that which does not vibrate, that which is timeless. (And vibrate and timeless too are only concepts :-) /AL >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nicely said. I'll see what I can do to create some damage : ) > Everything else other than the " I am " sense is a concept. What " 'I am' sense " ? That too dissolves back into the mist. That too is concept. I declare that there is no sense " I am " . Some will retort that the mere fact that in making that statement I have used the pronoun " I " , and am therefore contradicting myself. But that is no argument. Using the pronoun " I " does not imply any " sense " . Some interpretations of your terminology: " Consciousness " as you have used the term is the conceptualizing process itself. Consciousness = conceptualizing. Your notion of " vibration " seems a connotative way of referring to an " apperception " of said conceptualizing process. " Observing " *is* conceptualizing. There is nothing else that can be said to *be* except conceptualizing. " Pointing " is a key notion in your argument. " Pointing must inherently be, quite simply, " conceptualizing " . To conceptualize is to point. But the notion of pointing inherently implies a subject/object relation, the referent being a presumed object. But if it is consciousness that is doing the pointing, then there is nothing outside of consciousness to be pointed to. Even the so-called ripples/vibrations are not self-existent (i.e. have no independent existence). Hence there is nothing for consciousness to point to (*really*) except consciousness itself. But to affirm that consciousness is a reality... how do you get off the ground with that? What evidence of consciousness is there? Something like, " I think therefore I am? " ... " We are having this discussion therefore consciousness is... " ? re: " But we can use concepts to point to that which does not vibrate, that which is timeless. " Your notion of " that which does not vibrate " is intriguing. How do you know there is such a thing? Perhaps a VERY " elongated " , " slow " vibration can seem as " no vibration " .... Bill PS: We could hold that this very discussion about consciousness is effectively consciousness pointing to itself. But there is something a bit tricky about the notion of a pointer pointing outside the " pointing domain " to the pointing process itself. There are some serious grammatical issues there. Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@a...> wrote: > Concepts are good when they point to something has to do with > reality. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > Ooops! > No such thing as a concept pointing to reality, in my view. > If you are going to make such a statement then the onus is on > you to explain what you mean by " reality " , and you are in a > pickle on that one. Consciousness as you have been using the > terms is all-inclusive-everything, so consciousness is by definition > (per your parlance) reality. So to say that your notion of > consciousness points to reality is circular. > > " Consciousness " is a useful notion, but there is plenty of > room to doubt its " veracity " . Perhaps its value is only didactic. > > Is " consciousness " really just a myth? > > There is a huge difference between considering discourse as > " useful " for didactic purposes and considering discourse as > " explanatory " . The explanatory stuff is deluded, in my view. > There is no such thing as the " way things really are " . > > > Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 31, 2004 Report Share Posted May 31, 2004 Thanks, I felt that this description of the concept ripple helped me a bit to get " closer " to the present moment. >>>>>>>>>>>>> And if so it has certainly been " useful " , in which case it has certainly served its purpose. I find your articulations re consciousness in terms of ripples/vibrations very interesting in terms of their connotative qualities in that they do tend to bring the reader more into an existential apperception than some treatments. As much as these kinds of discussions can have an analytic quality, in my view it all still boils down to poetry. And at the end of the day, a really good nondual poem is one that self-destructs in the mind leaving nothing in its wake. Bill - anders_lindman Nisargadatta Monday, May 31, 2004 9:07 AM Re: The New Dialectic Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@a...> wrote: > > Yes, consciousness as the observer must be the same as the observed > becuase there is a connection between the observer and the observed > making them connected, and what is connected cannot really be > separate. > >>>>>>>>> > Or what was never separate must be connected... > and that connection is only conceptual in relation to a conceptual separation. > > If we look at the observer as consciousness at rest in the > now, we can see the observed as a ripple in the same now. > >>>>>>>>>> > You are metaphorizing the " observed " as a " ripple " of conscoiusness itself. > What you seem to be saying is that all that is manifest is effectively simply > a side-effect of the observing process itself. Hence, in a very real way > consciousness is observing itself, not in the sense of a mirror, but nevertheless. > > <snip> > > /AL > > Keep in mind that these are just " notions " . There is nothing real in any of > this. This conversation is just more " rippling " . > > And the notion of " ripple " is just a conversational convenience. There > is no such " thing " as a ripple. No ripple has ever been perceived, really. > > The notion of " ripples " is just a smaller thorn to pry out the bigger thorn > of the notion of a " past " . > > The notion of ripple does not point to any inherent reality. > > That being said, I find the notion of ripple a nice metaphor for " this > buzz of being " .... > > > Bill > Thanks, I felt that this description of the concept ripple helped me a bit to get " closer " to the present moment. There is no physical me as a real thing needing protection. I must let this sink in a bit. At first the idea that my physical body doesn't need to be protected is absurd. Then this idea becomes a concept that indeed could be pointing to the truth. Then we have to let this idea sink in a bit to see if it is for real or not. /AL ** 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 31, 2004 Report Share Posted May 31, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@a...> wrote: > Consciousness is not a myth, because you are self aware right now, > and that is what consciousness is. You cannot deny your own > existence. Everything else other than the " I am " sense is a concept. > Reality is what cannot be denied, and concepts can point to that > which cannot be denied and put that as the foundation for reality and > put the physical manifestation as only an observed vibration in > consciousness. Concepts too are only an observed vibration in > consciousness. But we can use concepts to point to that which does > not vibrate, that which is timeless. (And vibrate and timeless too > are only concepts :-) > > /AL > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Nicely said. I'll see what I can do to create some damage : ) > > > Everything else other than the " I am " sense is a concept. > What " 'I am' sense " ? > That too dissolves back into the mist. > That too is concept. > I declare that there is no sense " I am " . Yes, Ramana Maharashi said that " I am " was a stick to stir the fire with and that this stick would itself burn up in the end. > Some will retort that the mere fact that in making that > statement I have used the pronoun " I " , and am therefore > contradicting myself. But that is no argument. Using the > pronoun " I " does not imply any " sense " . > > Some interpretations of your terminology: > > " Consciousness " as you have used the term is the conceptualizing > process itself. Consciousness = conceptualizing. No. I use consciousness to mean the very experience of being self aware. This cannot be denied. This self awareness itself is not a concept. How could a concept be aware of itself? :-) You cannot deny that you are self aware. A concept is something which you can deny. You cannot deny that you are self aware. > > Your notion of " vibration " seems a connotative way of referring to > an " apperception " of said conceptualizing process. The conceptualizing process *is* the vibration, and vibration is just another word for ripple. That which vibrates is the timeless and absolute, or when we see the absolute as a totality, then this vibration exists as an aspect of the absolute, just as stillness is an aspect of the absolute. > > " Observing " *is* conceptualizing. There is nothing else that can > be said to *be* except conceptualizing. Yes, observing could be said to be conceptualizing, but this process requires change. Consciousness is also no change in the present moment, so according to this definition consciousness is more than just conceptualizing unless in you in the word conceptualizing include the timeless. > > " Pointing " is a key notion in your argument. " Pointing must inherently > be, quite simply, " conceptualizing " . To conceptualize is to point. > But the notion of pointing inherently implies a subject/object relation, > the referent being a presumed object. But if it is consciousness that > is doing the pointing, then there is nothing outside of consciousness > to be pointed to. Even the so-called ripples/vibrations are not > self-existent (i.e. have no independent existence). Hence there is > nothing for consciousness to point to (*really*) except consciousness > itself. That is correct. The pointing itself is an automic ripple in consciousness. > > But to affirm that consciousness is a reality... how do you get off > the ground with that? What evidence of consciousness is there? > Something like, " I think therefore I am? " ... " We are having this > discussion therefore consciousness is... " ? Yes, I don't know about you (and that is the truth :-), but I am self aware. That I cannot deny. It is the utter Truth. And That timeless self awareness itself _and_ the observed ripple in it called the past I call consciousness. > > re: > " But we can use concepts to point to that which does not vibrate, > that which is timeless. " > Your notion of " that which does not vibrate " is intriguing. > How do you know there is such a thing? Perhaps a VERY " elongated " , > " slow " vibration can seem as " no vibration " .... But if logic shall prevail there must be a *slowest* vibration, and that I call the timeless. > > Bill > > PS: We could hold that this very discussion about consciousness is > effectively consciousness pointing to itself. But there is something > a bit tricky about the notion of a pointer pointing outside the > " pointing domain " to the pointing process itself. There are some > serious grammatical issues there. If we look at everything as One Automatic Process, then the pointing is just a result/part of this process. /AL Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@a...> > wrote: > > Concepts are good when they point to something has to do with > > reality. > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > Ooops! > > No such thing as a concept pointing to reality, in my view. > > If you are going to make such a statement then the onus is on > > you to explain what you mean by " reality " , and you are in a > > pickle on that one. Consciousness as you have been using the > > terms is all-inclusive-everything, so consciousness is by definition > > (per your parlance) reality. So to say that your notion of > > consciousness points to reality is circular. > > > > " Consciousness " is a useful notion, but there is plenty of > > room to doubt its " veracity " . Perhaps its value is only didactic. > > > > Is " consciousness " really just a myth? > > > > There is a huge difference between considering discourse as > > " useful " for didactic purposes and considering discourse as > > " explanatory " . The explanatory stuff is deluded, in my view. > > There is no such thing as the " way things really are " . > > > > > > Bill > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 31, 2004 Report Share Posted May 31, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@a...> wrote: > Thanks, I felt that this description of the concept ripple helped me > a bit to get " closer " to the present moment. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > And if so it has certainly been " useful " , > in which case it has certainly served its purpose. > > I find your articulations re consciousness in terms > of ripples/vibrations very interesting in terms of > their connotative qualities in that they do tend to > bring the reader more into an existential apperception > than some treatments. > > As much as these kinds of discussions can have an > analytic quality, in my view it all still boils down to > poetry. > > And at the end of the day, a really good nondual > poem is one that self-destructs in the mind leaving > nothing in its wake. > > Bill First intellectual concepts, then perhaps poetic descriptions, art and music, but it all has to sink into one's being. The truth must be _felt_ inside the body as a release of energy and increased clarity of the senses. The ideas must become a fearless liberation felt throughout the body. The contracted ego structure in the form of endless fear within the whole body/mind must melt like ice into the ocean of existence. /AL > > - > anders_lindman > Nisargadatta > Monday, May 31, 2004 9:07 AM > Re: The New Dialectic > > > Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@a...> > wrote: > > > > Yes, consciousness as the observer must be the same as the observed > > becuase there is a connection between the observer and the observed > > making them connected, and what is connected cannot really be > > separate. > > >>>>>>>>> > > Or what was never separate must be connected... > > and that connection is only conceptual in relation to a conceptual > separation. > > > > If we look at the observer as consciousness at rest in the > > now, we can see the observed as a ripple in the same now. > > >>>>>>>>>> > > You are metaphorizing the " observed " as a " ripple " of conscoiusness > itself. > > What you seem to be saying is that all that is manifest is > effectively simply > > a side-effect of the observing process itself. Hence, in a very > real way > > consciousness is observing itself, not in the sense of a mirror, > but nevertheless. > > > > <snip> > > > > /AL > > > > Keep in mind that these are just " notions " . There is nothing real > in any of > > this. This conversation is just more " rippling " . > > > > And the notion of " ripple " is just a conversational convenience. > There > > is no such " thing " as a ripple. No ripple has ever been perceived, > really. > > > > The notion of " ripples " is just a smaller thorn to pry out the > bigger thorn > > of the notion of a " past " . > > > > The notion of ripple does not point to any inherent reality. > > > > That being said, I find the notion of ripple a nice metaphor > for " this > > buzz of being " .... > > > > > > Bill > > > > Thanks, I felt that this description of the concept ripple helped me > a bit to get " closer " to the present moment. There is no physical me > as a real thing needing protection. I must let this sink in a bit. At > first the idea that my physical body doesn't need to be protected is > absurd. Then this idea becomes a concept that indeed could be > pointing to the truth. Then we have to let this idea sink in a bit to > see if it is for real or not. > > /AL > > > > ** > > 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 June 1, 2004 Report Share Posted June 1, 2004 No. I use consciousness to mean the very experience of being self aware. This cannot be denied. This self awareness itself is not a concept. How could a concept be aware of itself? :-) You cannot deny that you are self aware. A concept is something which you can deny. You cannot deny that you are self aware. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Concepts don't " exist " per se. The notion of existence re concepts is undefined (i.e. grammatical nonsense). That we " refer to " concepts does not mean that they exist. This is the old " reification " confusion... the use of a substantive/noun seeming to imply the existence of something corresponding to it. There (apparently) is conceptualizing going on... and that is simply the functioning of consciousness. There is nothing but consciousness... Consciousness *is* the conceptualizing process... The notion that consciousness is a pure something and that concepts are its contents is a confusion. Consciousness is not a " something " . Consciousness is a VERB. Consciousness is aliveness and aliveness is the very process of cognizing... That which is alive is US. It is a confusion to consider that Life is an independent existent reality that a " we " experiences. The aliveness is in the process of experience itself. How could it possibly be apart from that? Looking at it in terms of the notion of a brain perhaps makes that point clearer... consider: Anything experienced is only as *displayed* by the brain. Hence any quality of " aliveness " is only an attribute of the display by the brain. We don't experience anything " outside " really, all experience is limited to what the brain displays. When we encounter the Now the notion of external objects must collapse. To totally encounter the Now is to pierce the charade that is the parade of external objects as to a mind. There is not reality in the appearance of objects. Reality is in the simultaneous happenings of resonate vibrations, the chaotic aliveness of Now. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 1, 2004 Report Share Posted June 1, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@a...> wrote: > No. I use consciousness to mean the very experience of being self > aware. This cannot be denied. This self awareness itself is not a > concept. How could a concept be aware of itself? :-) You cannot deny > that you are self aware. A concept is something which you can deny. > You cannot deny that you are self aware. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > Concepts don't " exist " per se. > The notion of existence re concepts is undefined > (i.e. grammatical nonsense). > That we " refer to " concepts does not mean that they > exist. This is the old " reification " confusion... the use > of a substantive/noun seeming to imply the existence > of something corresponding to it. > > There (apparently) is conceptualizing going on... > and that is simply the functioning of consciousness. > > There is nothing but consciousness... > > Consciousness *is* the conceptualizing process... > The notion that consciousness is a pure something > and that concepts are its contents is a confusion. > Consciousness is not a " something " . > Consciousness is a VERB. > Consciousness is aliveness and aliveness is the very > process of cognizing... > That which is alive is US. > It is a confusion to consider that Life is an independent > existent reality that a " we " experiences. > > The aliveness is in the process of experience itself. > How could it possibly be apart from that? > > Looking at it in terms of the notion of a brain > perhaps makes that point clearer... consider: > Anything experienced is only as *displayed* by the > brain. Hence any quality of " aliveness " is only > an attribute of the display by the brain. We don't > experience anything " outside " really, all experience > is limited to what the brain displays. > > When we encounter the Now the notion of external > objects must collapse. To totally encounter the > Now is to pierce the charade that is the parade > of external objects as to a mind. There is not > reality in the appearance of objects. Reality is > in the simultaneous happenings of resonate vibrations, > the chaotic aliveness of Now. > > > Bill > Yes. Well said. /AL 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.