Guest guest Posted December 3, 2004 Report Share Posted December 3, 2004 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > As I see it, fear is connected to psychological time, and when we > identify with our " future me " all the time, then fear will be there. Yes, psychological fear is the basis for psychological time, a primary fear being " I'll lose my existence. " But there are other fears too, like, " I'll lose what gives me pleasure " or " I'll have to go on dealing with this stress. " Psychological time has to do not just with the future (which is a projection of the past) but with the sense of time passing, in which things are gained and lost, for an ongoing self, which is trying to establish its own security, and avoid its own loss. Nonetheless, that self is nothing but the fear of not having security, and of losing the basis of ongoing experience. -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 3, 2004 Report Share Posted December 3, 2004 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <berkowd@u...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > As I see it, fear is connected to psychological time, and when we > > identify with our " future me " all the time, then fear will be there. > > Yes, psychological fear is the basis for psychological time, > a primary fear being " I'll lose my existence. " But there > are other fears too, like, " I'll lose what gives me pleasure " > or " I'll have to go on dealing with this stress. " > > Psychological time > has to do not just with the future (which is a projection > of the past) but with the sense of time passing, in which > things are gained and lost, for an ongoing self, which is > trying to establish its own security, and avoid its own loss. > > Nonetheless, that self is nothing but the fear of not having > security, and of losing the basis of ongoing > experience. > > -- Dan The funny thing about fear of loss is that it only a projection from this now which is never lost. The now just is, complete, now, including any projection. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 3, 2004 Report Share Posted December 3, 2004 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > The funny thing about fear of loss is that it only a projection from > this now which is never lost. The now just is, complete, now, > including any projection. How can there be any projection from something complete? There's no place else to project anything. Not even the idea of " completeness. " -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 3, 2004 Report Share Posted December 3, 2004 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <berkowd@u...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > The funny thing about fear of loss is that it only a projection from > > this now which is never lost. The now just is, complete, now, > > including any projection. > > How can there be any projection from something complete? > > There's no place else to project anything. > > Not even the idea of " completeness. " > > -- Dan The now is complete, but not yet. :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 3, 2004 Report Share Posted December 3, 2004 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <berkowd@u...> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > The funny thing about fear of loss is that it only a projection from > > > this now which is never lost. The now just is, complete, now, > > > including any projection. > > > > How can there be any projection from something complete? > > > > There's no place else to project anything. > > > > Not even the idea of " completeness. " > > > > -- Dan > > The now is complete, but not yet. :-) If something can be complete, then something else is incomplete. Otherwise, there would be no way to detect, feel, talk about " completion " or " being complete. " If there is nothing else, there isn't anything. If there isn't anything, there isn't nothing. If there isn't is, there isn't isn't. -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 6, 2004 Report Share Posted December 6, 2004 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <berkowd@u...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <berkowd@u...> > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > The funny thing about fear of loss is that it only a projection > from > > > > this now which is never lost. The now just is, complete, now, > > > > including any projection. > > > > > > How can there be any projection from something complete? > > > > > > There's no place else to project anything. > > > > > > Not even the idea of " completeness. " > > > > > > -- Dan > > > > The now is complete, but not yet. :-) > > If something can be complete, then something else is > incomplete. > > Otherwise, there would be no way to detect, feel, > talk about " completion " or " being complete. " > > If there is nothing else, there isn't anything. > > If there isn't anything, there isn't nothing. > > If there isn't is, there isn't isn't. > > -- Dan But there is the world of phenomenon, and that is ever unfolding. We could say that the world of phenomenon is complete at any given moment in time, but the unfoldoing of phenomenon is a continuous process. The psychological projection made by the human mind is called the future. We don't know that there ever will be a future, but all our experience tells us that there will be a next moment. The real next moment we can never experience, but we experience a changing past, and that creates a movement in time. So there will be change (at least that is what we experience). But there is also a completeness of the present moment itself. In every instant, in every moment, all particles in the universe are beautifully held together to make a complete whole. Then the next moment will make the universe take another configuration, a new whole, but that next moment will also in itself be complete. So there is completeness, and openness to new things happening at the same time. If the human intellect which likes completeness, order, security and final objects can dive into this very moment itself, it will find all those things there! It is only when the human intellect tries to create a complete picture of the future that fear comes into being. It would be nice if we could leave the " serious " future to the universe - it will know how to create it - and enjoy the present moment instead of creating fearful projections. /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 6, 2004 Report Share Posted December 6, 2004 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <berkowd@u...> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <berkowd@u...> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > > The funny thing about fear of loss is that it only a projection > > from > > > > > this now which is never lost. The now just is, complete, now, > > > > > including any projection. > > > > > > > > How can there be any projection from something complete? > > > > > > > > There's no place else to project anything. > > > > > > > > Not even the idea of " completeness. " > > > > > > > > -- Dan > > > > > > The now is complete, but not yet. :-) > > > > If something can be complete, then something else is > > incomplete. > > > > Otherwise, there would be no way to detect, feel, > > talk about " completion " or " being complete. " > > > > If there is nothing else, there isn't anything. > > > > If there isn't anything, there isn't nothing. > > > > If there isn't is, there isn't isn't. > > > > -- Dan > > But there is the world of phenomenon, and that is ever unfolding. We > could say that the world of phenomenon is complete at any given moment > in time, but the unfoldoing of phenomenon is a continuous process. Says who? How do you know it's continuous? > The > psychological projection made by the human mind is called the future. > We don't know that there ever will be a future, but all our experience > tells us that there will be a next moment. Does it really? Or is that just a programmed way to formulate pictures and commentary? > The real next moment we can > never experience, Who says there even is such a thing as a " real next moment " apart from constructions about such moments? Those constructions are always present when they are apprehended. So, who says there ever is, could be, or has been a " next moment " in actuality? but we experience a changing past, and that creates > a movement in time. I don't experience a changing past. Nor do I experience a future. Therefore, the present isn't moving between a past and future. This present isn't a something, isn't known, yet allows formulations of all kinds of things, from unicorns, to automobiles, to beauty, truth, and " the next moment. " > So there will be change (at least that is what we experience). I don't experience change. I experience constructions that refer to change. Those constructions, like everything else, are apprehended now. The apprehender and the apprehended are never separate. But > there is also a completeness of the present moment itself. There is no " also " involved. It is how it is. In every > instant, in every moment, all particles in the universe are > beautifully held together to make a complete whole. Nothing is being held together. There is no separation involved, for things to appear which could be held together. Then the next > moment will make the universe take another configuration, a new whole, > but that next moment will also in itself be complete. This is a constructed picture. But it only is apprehended now. What is the feeling of completeness compared with? Something incomplete? But, if so, completeness and incompleteness are relative and comparative constructions, not " what is, as is. " So there is > completeness, and openness to new things happening at the same time. > If the human intellect which likes completeness, order, security and > final objects can dive into this very moment itself, it will find all > those things there! There's nothing to dive into. The mind which could dive into anything is not, is only a construction that appears to explain constructs, when an explanation is wanted. With no explanation needed or desired, no mind. Just this as is. No diving into nor moving away from this. It is only when the human intellect tries to > create a complete picture of the future that fear comes into being. It > would be nice if we could leave the " serious " future to the universe - > it will know how to create it - and enjoy the present moment instead > of creating fearful projections. Fearful projections, pleasant projections -- where are they to be projected to? If I understand there is no place to project a projection, then the story of me and my projections is over -- now! -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 6, 2004 Report Share Posted December 6, 2004 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <berkowd@u...> > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <berkowd@u...> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > The funny thing about fear of loss is that it only a > projection > > > from > > > > > > this now which is never lost. The now just is, complete, > now, > > > > > > including any projection. > > > > > > > > > > How can there be any projection from something complete? > > > > > > > > > > There's no place else to project anything. > > > > > > > > > > Not even the idea of " completeness. " > > > > > > > > > > -- Dan > > > > > > > > The now is complete, but not yet. :-) > > > > > > If something can be complete, then something else is > > > incomplete. > > > > > > Otherwise, there would be no way to detect, feel, > > > talk about " completion " or " being complete. " > > > > > > If there is nothing else, there isn't anything. > > > > > > If there isn't anything, there isn't nothing. > > > > > > If there isn't is, there isn't isn't. > > > > > > -- Dan > > > > But there is the world of phenomenon, and that is ever unfolding. We > > could say that the world of phenomenon is complete at any given > moment > > in time, but the unfoldoing of phenomenon is a continuous process. > > Says who? > > How do you know it's continuous? Because change takes time, but change itself _is_ time. There is no external clock making the universe tick. The universe itself is the clock that ticks, and it ticks infinitely fast, because there is no external time. Hence change is continuous. > > > The > > psychological projection made by the human mind is called the > future. > > We don't know that there ever will be a future, but all our > experience > > tells us that there will be a next moment. > > Does it really? > > Or is that just a programmed way to formulate > pictures and commentary? My experience tells me that there will be a next moment. And what I can tell by watching the news on TV e t c, other people too thinks that there will be a tomorrow. > > > The real next moment we can > > never experience, > > Who says there even is such a thing as a " real next moment " > apart from constructions about such moments? Experience of change tells us that there will be a next moment. > > Those constructions are always present when they > are apprehended. > > So, who says there ever is, could be, or has been > a " next moment " in actuality? I do. > > but we experience a changing past, and that creates > > a movement in time. > > I don't experience a changing past. > > Nor do I experience a future. > > Therefore, the present isn't moving between > a past and future. > > This present isn't a something, isn't known, > yet allows formulations of all kinds of things, > from unicorns, to automobiles, to beauty, truth, > and " the next moment. " You do experience a past. That is called your memory. And you do experience change, and that is the change of this memory of yours. > > > So there will be change (at least that is what we experience). > > I don't experience change. Sure you do. Reading this sentence is a new experience in your mind. > > I experience constructions that refer to change. > > Those constructions, like everything else, are apprehended > now. The apprehender and the apprehended are never separate. The constructions you experience alter, and therefore gives the appearance of change. > > But > > there is also a completeness of the present moment itself. > > There is no " also " involved. It is how it is. > > In every > > instant, in every moment, all particles in the universe are > > beautifully held together to make a complete whole. > > Nothing is being held together. > > There is no separation involved, for things to appear > which could be held together. There is the appearance of separation. That's what makes the phenomenal world possible. > > Then the next > > moment will make the universe take another configuration, a new > whole, > > but that next moment will also in itself be complete. > > This is a constructed picture. But it only is apprehended > now. What is the feeling of completeness compared with? > Something incomplete? But, if so, completeness and incompleteness > are relative and comparative constructions, not " what is, as is. " The now is complete, yet the now unfolds forever (possibly) into new configurations. > > So there is > > completeness, and openness to new things happening at the same time. > > If the human intellect which likes completeness, order, security and > > final objects can dive into this very moment itself, it will find > all > > those things there! > > There's nothing to dive into. > > The mind which could dive into anything is not, is only > a construction that appears to explain constructs, > when an explanation is wanted. > > With no explanation needed or desired, no mind. > > Just this as is. > > No diving into nor moving away from this. Yes, but when the intellect stands there with no explanation needed or desired, then we could perhaps say that the appearance of diving into the now has happened. > > It is only when the human intellect tries to > > create a complete picture of the future that fear comes into being. > It > > would be nice if we could leave the " serious " future to the > universe - > > it will know how to create it - and enjoy the present moment instead > > of creating fearful projections. > > Fearful projections, pleasant projections -- where are they > to be projected to? > > If I understand there is no place to project a projection, > then the story of me and my projections is over -- now! But an intellectual understanding is not the same as true realisation. > > -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 6, 2004 Report Share Posted December 6, 2004 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > But there is the world of phenomenon, and that is ever unfolding. We > > > could say that the world of phenomenon is complete at any given > > moment > > > in time, but the unfoldoing of phenomenon is a continuous process. > > > > Says who? > > > > How do you know it's continuous? > > Because change takes time, but change itself _is_ time. Change of what? Is there something in existence which can change, which can continue? There is no > external clock making the universe tick. The universe itself is the > clock that ticks, and it ticks infinitely fast, because there is no > external time. Hence change is continuous. Nonsense. If there is no external clock, there is no way to judge speed of any kind, either slow, fast, or " infinitely fast. " Infinitely fast is a meaningless term. How would you differentiate infinitely fast from infinitely slow? Where would your existence be apart, from which to judge? Hence, there is nothing apart which can have the property of continuity. To speak of changing and unchanging is simply a construction, and thus entirely dependent on the context of the construction being provided, which context also is constructed. If you're not concerned with a construction (i.e., if you're not taking something you put together as being truth), then you can't take seriously anything continuing. There is nothing even started, let alone continuing. > > > The > > > psychological projection made by the human mind is called the > > future. > > > We don't know that there ever will be a future, but all our > > experience > > > tells us that there will be a next moment. > > > > Does it really? > > > > Or is that just a programmed way to formulate > > pictures and commentary? > > My experience tells me that there will be a next moment. And what I > can tell by watching the news on TV e t c, other people too thinks > that there will be a tomorrow. Oh, I see, for you " other people " provides the arbitration of what is so. All I can tell you is that there is truth which has nothing to do with consensus agreements, nor the constructions provided by " other people. " And this truth is here, now, and is of this which I am alone -- nothing else. And no next moment is involved whatsoever in this, which I am, having nothing to do with establishment of an " I " a " you " an " it " or anything else with continuity, and thus being vs. not being is not a question here. > > > The real next moment we can > > > never experience, > > > > Who says there even is such a thing as a " real next moment " > > apart from constructions about such moments? > > Experience of change tells us that there will be a next moment. I am raising the question for you, because my immediate experience does not involve anything changing, nor does it involve anything staying the same. Of course, I can participate in the constructions of consensus agreements, I can talk about time, I can talk about the future. But that is not where I live, that is not where my being is. > > Those constructions are always present when they > > are apprehended. > > > > So, who says there ever is, could be, or has been > > a " next moment " in actuality? > > I do. Too bad. Because all that " I " is, is a construction, and that mistaking of who you are is the root of your dilemma. > > but we experience a changing past, and that creates > > > a movement in time. > > > > I don't experience a changing past. > > > > Nor do I experience a future. > > > > Therefore, the present isn't moving between > > a past and future. > > > > This present isn't a something, isn't known, > > yet allows formulations of all kinds of things, > > from unicorns, to automobiles, to beauty, truth, > > and " the next moment. " > > You do experience a past. That is called your memory. And you do > experience change, and that is the change of this memory of yours. Nope. Memory is not mine, is not belonging to a being. Memory is how the construction of individuality, and the group of individuals takes place. So, memory is the " me. " And all memory is, is an illusionary construction of time, which is involved with social formation, and formation of a culture of surviving individuals. I don't live in memory. I don't mistake memory as the basis for true being. Your so-called experience of change is nothing but projection of memory upon its own structuring. And here where I am, there is nothing to change, nothing based on memory constructs. Thus, I see through memory constructs, thought, and perception. They don't fool me. So, they are free to come and go as they will, along with the " someone " who views the memory, who has the memory -- whom I am clear is itself memory-construction. > > > So there will be change (at least that is what we experience). > > > > I don't experience change. > > Sure you do. Reading this sentence is a new experience in your mind. That's where you're wrong. The mind in which changing experience registers, is not itself an existing thing or being. And I am clear on that. > > I experience constructions that refer to change. > > > > Those constructions, like everything else, are apprehended > > now. The apprehender and the apprehended are never separate. > > The constructions you experience alter, and therefore gives the > appearance of change. I don't experience constructions. Constructions form an impression of experience happening. > > But > > > there is also a completeness of the present moment itself. > > > > There is no " also " involved. It is how it is. > > > > In every > > > instant, in every moment, all particles in the universe are > > > beautifully held together to make a complete whole. > > > > Nothing is being held together. > > > > There is no separation involved, for things to appear > > which could be held together. > > There is the appearance of separation. That's what makes the > phenomenal world possible. Why would you have any concern with something you label as an " appearance " ?? Anything that appears, disappears. So? Where is it? > > Then the next > > > moment will make the universe take another configuration, a new > > whole, > > > but that next moment will also in itself be complete. > > > > This is a constructed picture. But it only is apprehended > > now. What is the feeling of completeness compared with? > > Something incomplete? But, if so, completeness and incompleteness > > are relative and comparative constructions, not " what is, as is. " > > The now is complete, yet the now unfolds forever (possibly) into new > configurations. Anders, I'm not going to pretend I can resolve your dilemma for you. Either you see through this nonsense firsthand, or you don't. But if you require the establishment of something unfolding into new configurations, you're going to be stuck with your involvement in the unfolding configurations. If you are clear, you are free this moment, now. You are not configured, nor is anything being configured around you. The configurations of thought have no power to form an actuality, nor a being that has existence. > > So there is > > > completeness, and openness to new things happening at the same time. > > > If the human intellect which likes completeness, order, security and > > > final objects can dive into this very moment itself, it will find > > all > > > those things there! > > > > There's nothing to dive into. > > > > The mind which could dive into anything is not, is only > > a construction that appears to explain constructs, > > when an explanation is wanted. > > > > With no explanation needed or desired, no mind. > > > > Just this as is. > > > > No diving into nor moving away from this. > > Yes, but when the intellect stands there with no explanation needed or > desired, then we could perhaps say that the appearance of diving into > the now has happened. The intellect doesn't stand there. So, the best that the intellect can do, is open itself to its own nonentityhood. If this now is all-encompassing, how is there to be diving into it? If there is no surface to it, there is no depth to it -- and nothing standing apart from it to know it or dive into it. > > It is only when the human intellect tries to > > > create a complete picture of the future that fear comes into being. > > It > > > would be nice if we could leave the " serious " future to the > > universe - > > > it will know how to create it - and enjoy the present moment instead > > > of creating fearful projections. > > > > Fearful projections, pleasant projections -- where are they > > to be projected to? > > > > If I understand there is no place to project a projection, > > then the story of me and my projections is over -- now! > > But an intellectual understanding is not the same as true realisation. The intellect is understood -- it isn't the understander of anything. That which is understood, and the one who understands it, have no distance. How can the intellect have any foothold at all? Do you even imagine there could be such a thing as an intellectual understanding of truth? If so, so much the worse for you! Smiles, Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 6, 2004 Report Share Posted December 6, 2004 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > But there is the world of phenomenon, and that is ever > unfolding. We > > > > could say that the world of phenomenon is complete at any given > > > moment > > > > in time, but the unfoldoing of phenomenon is a continuous > process. > > > > > > Says who? > > > > > > How do you know it's continuous? > > > > Because change takes time, but change itself _is_ time. > > Change of what? > > Is there something in existence which can change, which can > continue? > > There is no > > external clock making the universe tick. The universe itself is the > > clock that ticks, and it ticks infinitely fast, because there is no > > external time. Hence change is continuous. > > Nonsense. If there is no external clock, there is no way to > judge speed of any kind, either slow, fast, or " infinitely > fast. " Infinitely fast is a meaningless term. How would > you differentiate infinitely fast from infinitely slow? > Where would your existence be apart, from which to judge? I see the present moment as a single event, an explosion happening infinitely fast in that there is no time between events. What seems like having taken 15 billion years since the Big Bang is compressed into a zero second " time slice " in this now. The universe was born _now_. You and I were born _now_. If you are interested in scientific stuff, check out: http://www.platonia.com/ > > Hence, there is nothing apart which can have the property of > continuity. To speak of changing and unchanging is simply > a construction, and thus entirely dependent on the context > of the construction being provided, which context also is > constructed. > > If you're not concerned with a construction (i.e., if you're > not taking something you put together as being truth), > then you can't take seriously anything continuing. There is > nothing even started, let alone continuing. The now is one, whole and changeless perhaps, but infinite, so therefore the now has already happened so to speak, but not yet. There is no such thing as time between events other than structures in the now. The human mind can think of time, but where in the human mind is time itself? > > > > > The > > > > psychological projection made by the human mind is called the > > > future. > > > > We don't know that there ever will be a future, but all our > > > experience > > > > tells us that there will be a next moment. > > > > > > Does it really? > > > > > > Or is that just a programmed way to formulate > > > pictures and commentary? > > > > My experience tells me that there will be a next moment. And what I > > can tell by watching the news on TV e t c, other people too thinks > > that there will be a tomorrow. > > Oh, I see, for you " other people " provides the arbitration of > what is so. > > All I can tell you is that there is truth which has nothing > to do with consensus agreements, nor the constructions > provided by " other people. " But isn't this also a constuction you are giving me now? I may take it as a pointer to truth perhaps. Eckhart Tolle said something interesting: " The analysis of pointers [meaning spiritual pointers pointing to truth] is pointless. " > > And this truth is here, now, and is of this which I am alone -- > nothing else. > > And no next moment is involved whatsoever in this, which I am, > having nothing to do with establishment of an " I " a " you " > an " it " or anything else with continuity, and thus being > vs. not being is not a question here. I would like to reach such state (although I know some spiritual teachers say that it is not a state). Are you saying that " you " have reached such state? > > > > > The real next moment we can > > > > never experience, > > > > > > Who says there even is such a thing as a " real next moment " > > > apart from constructions about such moments? > > > > Experience of change tells us that there will be a next moment. > > I am raising the question for you, because my immediate > experience does not involve anything changing, nor does > it involve anything staying the same. > > Of course, I can participate in the constructions of consensus > agreements, I can talk about time, I can talk about the future. > > But that is not where I live, that is not where my being is. Sounds like you have had some form of realization into the timeless present moment. > > > > Those constructions are always present when they > > > are apprehended. > > > > > > So, who says there ever is, could be, or has been > > > a " next moment " in actuality? > > > > I do. > > Too bad. Because all that " I " is, is a construction, and > that mistaking of who you are is the root of your > dilemma. Yes, I can understand that my intellect is going around in circles. > > > > but we experience a changing past, and that creates > > > > a movement in time. > > > > > > I don't experience a changing past. > > > > > > Nor do I experience a future. > > > > > > Therefore, the present isn't moving between > > > a past and future. > > > > > > This present isn't a something, isn't known, > > > yet allows formulations of all kinds of things, > > > from unicorns, to automobiles, to beauty, truth, > > > and " the next moment. " > > > > You do experience a past. That is called your memory. And you do > > experience change, and that is the change of this memory of yours. > > Nope. > > Memory is not mine, is not belonging to a being. > > Memory is how the construction of individuality, and > the group of individuals takes place. > > So, memory is the " me. " > > And all memory is, is an illusionary construction of time, > which is involved with social formation, and formation > of a culture of surviving individuals. > > I don't live in memory. > > I don't mistake memory as the basis for true being. > > Your so-called experience of change is nothing but projection > of memory upon its own structuring. > > And here where I am, there is nothing to change, nothing based > on memory constructs. > > Thus, I see through memory constructs, thought, and perception. > > They don't fool me. > > So, they are free to come and go as they will, along with > the " someone " who views the memory, who has the memory -- > whom I am clear is itself memory-construction. I take my memories as being my identity. I can notice that there is awareness that is timeless, but I have my " home " in my memories. If I could see that these memories truly are not who I am, then I would have no fears I believe. > > > > > So there will be change (at least that is what we experience). > > > > > > I don't experience change. > > > > Sure you do. Reading this sentence is a new experience in your mind. > > That's where you're wrong. > > The mind in which changing experience registers, is not > itself an existing thing or being. > > And I am clear on that. The mind makes itself into an object, or several objects in fact. But awareness itself is not an object I agree. That 'no thing' which is being aware of information in the mind (memories, projections e t c) is a true subject. I understand what you mean on an intellectual level, but I don't feel like I have a deeper understanding. > > > > I experience constructions that refer to change. > > > > > > Those constructions, like everything else, are apprehended > > > now. The apprehender and the apprehended are never separate. > > > > The constructions you experience alter, and therefore gives the > > appearance of change. > > I don't experience constructions. > > Constructions form an impression of experience happening. > > > > But > > > > there is also a completeness of the present moment itself. > > > > > > There is no " also " involved. It is how it is. > > > > > > In every > > > > instant, in every moment, all particles in the universe are > > > > beautifully held together to make a complete whole. > > > > > > Nothing is being held together. > > > > > > There is no separation involved, for things to appear > > > which could be held together. > > > > There is the appearance of separation. That's what makes the > > phenomenal world possible. > > Why would you have any concern with something you label > as an " appearance " ?? > > Anything that appears, disappears. > > So? > > Where is it? My body, for example. I want to feel my body as light, pleasant and peaceful. > > > > Then the next > > > > moment will make the universe take another configuration, a new > > > whole, > > > > but that next moment will also in itself be complete. > > > > > > This is a constructed picture. But it only is apprehended > > > now. What is the feeling of completeness compared with? > > > Something incomplete? But, if so, completeness and > incompleteness > > > are relative and comparative constructions, not " what is, as > is. " > > > > The now is complete, yet the now unfolds forever (possibly) into new > > configurations. > > Anders, I'm not going to pretend I can resolve your dilemma > for you. > > Either you see through this nonsense firsthand, or you don't. > > But if you require the establishment of something unfolding > into new configurations, you're going to be stuck with > your involvement in the unfolding configurations. > > If you are clear, you are free this moment, now. > > You are not configured, nor is anything being configured > around you. > > The configurations of thought have no power to form an actuality, > nor a being that has existence. Would you not say that this post is an actuality? > > > > So there is > > > > completeness, and openness to new things happening at the same > time. > > > > If the human intellect which likes completeness, order, > security and > > > > final objects can dive into this very moment itself, it will > find > > > all > > > > those things there! > > > > > > There's nothing to dive into. > > > > > > The mind which could dive into anything is not, is only > > > a construction that appears to explain constructs, > > > when an explanation is wanted. > > > > > > With no explanation needed or desired, no mind. > > > > > > Just this as is. > > > > > > No diving into nor moving away from this. > > > > Yes, but when the intellect stands there with no explanation needed > or > > desired, then we could perhaps say that the appearance of diving > into > > the now has happened. > > The intellect doesn't stand there. > > So, the best that the intellect can do, is open > itself to its own nonentityhood. > > If this now is all-encompassing, how is there to be > diving into it? > > If there is no surface to it, there is no depth to it -- > and nothing standing apart from it to know it or dive > into it. I believe there is a surface to the present moment, and a depth to it that the intellect cannot see, but can be realized. > > > > It is only when the human intellect tries to > > > > create a complete picture of the future that fear comes into > being. > > > It > > > > would be nice if we could leave the " serious " future to the > > > universe - > > > > it will know how to create it - and enjoy the present moment > instead > > > > of creating fearful projections. > > > > > > Fearful projections, pleasant projections -- where are they > > > to be projected to? > > > > > > If I understand there is no place to project a projection, > > > then the story of me and my projections is over -- now! > > > > But an intellectual understanding is not the same as true > realisation. > > The intellect is understood -- it isn't the understander > of anything. > > That which is understood, and the one who understands it, > have no distance. How can the intellect have any foothold > at all? > > Do you even imagine there could be such a thing as an > intellectual understanding of truth? > > If so, so much the worse for you! > > Smiles, > Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 6, 2004 Report Share Posted December 6, 2004 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > There is no > > > external clock making the universe tick. The universe itself is the > > > clock that ticks, and it ticks infinitely fast, because there is no > > > external time. Hence change is continuous. > > > > Nonsense. If there is no external clock, there is no way to > > judge speed of any kind, either slow, fast, or " infinitely > > fast. " Infinitely fast is a meaningless term. How would > > you differentiate infinitely fast from infinitely slow? > > Where would your existence be apart, from which to judge? > > I see the present moment as a single event, an explosion happening > infinitely fast in that there is no time between events. If there is no time between events, then how can you call it " fast " ? Fast compared with what? What is going slow, if all events have no time between them? What seems > like having taken 15 billion years since the Big Bang is compressed > into a zero second " time slice " in this now. The universe was born > _now_. You and I were born _now_. Why call it a zero second time slice, if there's simply no time involved? How can you slice anything, unless you bring in time in which to slice it? If there is no time, how can anything be born? Being born is a process occurring over time, and in comparison with other separable events. > > Hence, there is nothing apart which can have the property of > > continuity. To speak of changing and unchanging is simply > > a construction, and thus entirely dependent on the context > > of the construction being provided, which context also is > > constructed. > > > > If you're not concerned with a construction (i.e., if you're > > not taking something you put together as being truth), > > then you can't take seriously anything continuing. There is > > nothing even started, let alone continuing. > > The now is one, whole and changeless perhaps, but infinite, so > therefore the now has already happened so to speak, but not yet. You're juxtaposing statements that assume time, such as " already happened " and " not yet " with a previous statement that there is no time between events. So, all this does is provide a paradoxical juxtaposition, " time " and " no time " simultaneously. You can do this trick with anything. Like " rabbit " and " no rabbit. " You can say " yes " and " no " simultaneously. Okay, fine. There is, then, nothing to be said. Anything said dissolves the instant of its saying. Any event perceived doesn't happen that instant of its perception. > ere > is no such thing as time between events other than structures in the > now. There are no structures in the now -- structures take time to build up, organize, and relate with other structures. The human mind can think of time, but where in the human mind is > time itself? The human mind is time. And the human mind knows only its own constructions, which assume time. Therefore, the mind is only knowing itself, which it can't really do, except for the trick of providing time for itself to formulate constructions, which themselves are time. There is no mind apart from constructions, and no constructions apart from mind, therefore no actual distance between the perceiver and what is perceived. Therefore, as there is no distance, there is no true time, and therefore nothing being constructed. > > Oh, I see, for you " other people " provides the arbitration of > > what is so. > > > > All I can tell you is that there is truth which has nothing > > to do with consensus agreements, nor the constructions > > provided by " other people. " > > But isn't this also a constuction you are giving me now? Anything in words or even sensory perceptions is constructed. But that doesn't mean they are, for me, arbiters of " what is. " I don't assume that " what is " changes because constructs of sensory percepts change, or that meaning is altered because different words are exchanged. > I may take it > as a pointer to truth perhaps. Eckhart Tolle said something > interesting: " The analysis of pointers [meaning spiritual pointers > pointing to truth] is pointless. " Why refer to Tolle as if he is an authority? Aren't you the authority on your own knowing of truth? Is anything made more clear when you provide an external referent, like a Tolle? > > And this truth is here, now, and is of this which I am alone -- > > nothing else. > > > > And no next moment is involved whatsoever in this, which I am, > > having nothing to do with establishment of an " I " a " you " > > an " it " or anything else with continuity, and thus being > > vs. not being is not a question here. > > I would like to reach such state (although I know some spiritual > teachers say that it is not a state). Are you saying that " you " have > reached such state? I am saying it is not a state, and there is no one inhabiting this truth. Neither a me or a you. And yes, I'm saying there is no next moment for me (or you), and that is true for me here, now. So, it isn't to be reached. Rather, it is the ending of " reaching, " the end of entering or leaving states of being. > > I am raising the question for you, because my immediate > > experience does not involve anything changing, nor does > > it involve anything staying the same. > > > > Of course, I can participate in the constructions of consensus > > agreements, I can talk about time, I can talk about the future. > > > > But that is not where I live, that is not where my being is. > > Sounds like you have had some form of realization into the timeless > present moment. What is the division between you and realization, you and what you're terming " this timeless present moment " ? Is there any actual division? Has there ever been, could there ever be? Further -- is anything preventing or interfering with you being fully aware of this now? Other than tendencies to believe there must be more, must be something to get to, that it must be something other than this, exactly as this is now? snip > I take my memories as being my identity. I can notice that there is > awareness that is timeless, but I have my " home " in my memories. If I > could see that these memories truly are not who I am, then I would > have no fears I believe. The question now is: can I be acute, aware, such that without relying on time, I am clear how memory constructs time, place, and person -- as " me " and " my situation " and " my experience " and " my set of relations ongoing in time. " Is there anything to prevent such clarity? Or is the only impediment the activity of memory which acts only on its own constructions? If I am clear that memory is only organizing its own constructions, as self, as other, as time, as relationship -- is not this very now-moment freedom itself? Not freedom as opposed to some state of being bound -- but unopposed freedom which isn't interfered with by constructions, by time, by persons, by beliefs? > The mind makes itself into an object, or several objects in fact. But > awareness itself is not an object I agree. That 'no thing' which is > being aware of information in the mind (memories, projections e t c) > is a true subject. I understand what you mean on an intellectual > level, but I don't feel like I have a deeper understanding. The question now is: is there anything at all standing between you and what you are calling " deep understanding " ? What barrier is there? Do you find any actual barrier, any actual division? Is memory activity actually constructing something called self, time, movement in and out of states? Has any such thing ever really occurred somewhere, which needs to be " remedied " by a deep understanding that you will get to later, after you are no longer relying on intellectual understanding? Or does the attempt to get to a remedy, itself establish the dissatisfaction, which is reflected in an attempt to form and keep an " intellectual understanding " (which can't truly be had in the first place)? snip > My body, for example. I want to feel my body as light, pleasant and > peaceful. And by putting energy into your own imaginary construction ( " I will get to an experience in the future in which I feel my body as light, pleasant, and peaceful " ) you construct dissatisfaction, and a separable being who can go in and out of states, and who exists with duration in time. So, you are responsible for constructing and maintaining the very thing you say you don't want, and say you wish to be free of (at some imaginary experiential point in the future). snip > > The configurations of thought have no power to form an actuality, > > nor a being that has existence. > > Would you not say that this post is an actuality? I would say it is an interpretation of a constructed form. It's real enough in terms of being an interpretation of a constructed form. But it's not actual in terms of having its own existence somewhere, with its own qualities and terms of being. What is actual, is not the imagined form, nor the interpretational response. Yet, what is actual isn't somewhere else, something else, other than form and response. Thus, one knows this truth first-hand, without mediation, and not by going somewhere else, getting to another experience. And because this is first-hand, it isn't a product of the past and of memory, and thus isn't a way of interpreting or of forming perception in a certain way, or having a certain kind of experience. snip > I believe there is a surface to the present moment, and a depth to it > that the intellect cannot see, but can be realized. If there is a surface to something, then there is something outside of it. If there is a depth to something, there is someone existing apart from it, who can perceive it in terms of surface and depth. - Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 6, 2004 Report Share Posted December 6, 2004 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > There is no > > > > external clock making the universe tick. The universe itself is > the > > > > clock that ticks, and it ticks infinitely fast, because there > is no > > > > external time. Hence change is continuous. > > > > > > Nonsense. If there is no external clock, there is no way to > > > judge speed of any kind, either slow, fast, or " infinitely > > > fast. " Infinitely fast is a meaningless term. How would > > > you differentiate infinitely fast from infinitely slow? > > > Where would your existence be apart, from which to judge? > > > > I see the present moment as a single event, an explosion happening > > infinitely fast in that there is no time between events. > > If there is no time between events, then how can you call > it " fast " ? Fast compared with what? What is going slow, > if all events have no time between them? Fast and slow are appearances of how phenomenon are organized in the now. There is time in the sense that the matrix of phenomenon contains relations in a space of information/events. > > What seems > > like having taken 15 billion years since the Big Bang is compressed > > into a zero second " time slice " in this now. The universe was born > > _now_. You and I were born _now_. > > Why call it a zero second time slice, if there's simply > no time involved? Just to point to the timeless nature of the now. > > How can you slice anything, unless you bring in time > in which to slice it? Phenomenon is 'this' and 'that', and that creates the appearance of separation/slicing. > > If there is no time, how can anything be born? > > Being born is a process occurring over time, and in comparison > with other separable events. Everything is born _now_. This is what I call instant evolution. There is a past, but only a past now in the form of phenomenon/information. > > > > Hence, there is nothing apart which can have the property of > > > continuity. To speak of changing and unchanging is simply > > > a construction, and thus entirely dependent on the context > > > of the construction being provided, which context also is > > > constructed. > > > > > > If you're not concerned with a construction (i.e., if you're > > > not taking something you put together as being truth), > > > then you can't take seriously anything continuing. There is > > > nothing even started, let alone continuing. > > > > The now is one, whole and changeless perhaps, but infinite, so > > therefore the now has already happened so to speak, but not yet. > > You're juxtaposing statements that assume time, such as " already > happened " and " not yet " with a previous statement that there > is no time between events. > > So, all this does is provide a paradoxical juxtaposition, > " time " and " no time " simultaneously. > > You can do this trick with anything. Like " rabbit " and " no rabbit. " > > You can say " yes " and " no " simultaneously. > > Okay, fine. > > There is, then, nothing to be said. > > Anything said dissolves the instant of its saying. > > Any event perceived doesn't happen that instant > of its perception. > > > ere > > is no such thing as time between events other than structures in the > > now. > > There are no structures in the now -- structures take time > to build up, organize, and relate with other structures. There is no time, there is only structure and the 'no thing' holding this unfolding structure in place. > > The human mind can think of time, but where in the human mind is > > time itself? > > The human mind is time. > > And the human mind knows only its own constructions, > which assume time. > > Therefore, the mind is only knowing itself, which it > can't really do, except for the trick of providing > time for itself to formulate constructions, which themselves > are time. > > There is no mind apart from constructions, and no constructions > apart from mind, therefore no actual distance between > the perceiver and what is perceived. > > Therefore, as there is no distance, > there is no true time, and therefore > nothing being constructed. Distance and time are phenomenon in the now. > > > > Oh, I see, for you " other people " provides the arbitration of > > > what is so. > > > > > > All I can tell you is that there is truth which has nothing > > > to do with consensus agreements, nor the constructions > > > provided by " other people. " > > > > But isn't this also a constuction you are giving me now? > > Anything in words or even sensory perceptions is constructed. > > But that doesn't mean they are, for me, arbiters of " what is. " > > I don't assume that " what is " changes because constructs > of sensory percepts change, or that meaning is altered > because different words are exchanged. > > > I may take it > > as a pointer to truth perhaps. Eckhart Tolle said something > > interesting: " The analysis of pointers [meaning spiritual pointers > > pointing to truth] is pointless. " > > Why refer to Tolle as if he is an authority? Aren't you the > authority on your own knowing of truth? Maybe there is no real separation between Tolle and me and you and Osama Bin Laden for example. ;-) > > Is anything made more clear when you > provide an external referent, like a Tolle? Is there really such thing as external reference? > > > > And this truth is here, now, and is of this which I am alone -- > > > nothing else. > > > > > > And no next moment is involved whatsoever in this, which I am, > > > having nothing to do with establishment of an " I " a " you " > > > an " it " or anything else with continuity, and thus being > > > vs. not being is not a question here. > > > > I would like to reach such state (although I know some spiritual > > teachers say that it is not a state). Are you saying that " you " have > > reached such state? > > I am saying it is not a state, and there is no one inhabiting > this truth. Neither a me or a you. > > And yes, I'm saying there is no next moment for me (or you), > and that is true for me here, now. So, it isn't to be > reached. Rather, it is the ending of " reaching, " the end of > entering or leaving states of being. The reaching for oneness has to go if one is to realize it, I suppose. > > > > I am raising the question for you, because my immediate > > > experience does not involve anything changing, nor does > > > it involve anything staying the same. > > > > > > Of course, I can participate in the constructions of consensus > > > agreements, I can talk about time, I can talk about the future. > > > > > > But that is not where I live, that is not where my being is. > > > > Sounds like you have had some form of realization into the timeless > > present moment. > > What is the division between you and realization, you and > what you're terming " this timeless present moment " ? > > Is there any actual division? Maybe not. > > Has there ever been, could there ever be? > > Further -- is anything preventing or interfering with you > being fully aware of this now? Other than tendencies to > believe there must be more, must be something to get to, > that it must be something other than this, exactly as this > is now? I want to feel peace in body and mind. I want what I imagine enlightenment to be. > > snip > > > I take my memories as being my identity. I can notice that there is > > awareness that is timeless, but I have my " home " in my memories. If > I > > could see that these memories truly are not who I am, then I would > > have no fears I believe. > > The question now is: can I be acute, aware, such that > without relying on time, I am clear how memory constructs > time, place, and person -- as " me " and " my situation " > and " my experience " and " my set of relations ongoing in time. " > > Is there anything to prevent such clarity? > > Or is the only impediment the activity of memory which acts > only on its own constructions? > > If I am clear that memory is only organizing its own constructions, > as self, as other, as time, as relationship -- is not this > very now-moment freedom itself? Not freedom as opposed to > some state of being bound -- but unopposed freedom which > isn't interfered with by constructions, by time, by persons, > by beliefs? Yes, but I want to feel the truth of this, not only to know it as a possibility by using rational thinking. > > > The mind makes itself into an object, or several objects in fact. > But > > awareness itself is not an object I agree. That 'no thing' which is > > being aware of information in the mind (memories, projections e t c) > > is a true subject. I understand what you mean on an intellectual > > level, but I don't feel like I have a deeper understanding. > > The question now is: is there anything at all standing between > you and what you are calling " deep understanding " ? > > What barrier is there? I believe the barrier is that I as oneness is still trapped in a cage of fear and separation. > > Do you find any actual barrier, any actual division? Yes, I feel separation and fear as real barriers. > > Is memory activity actually constructing something called > self, time, movement in and out of states? Yes, it feels like that. > > Has any such thing ever really occurred somewhere, which needs > to be " remedied " by a deep understanding that you will get > to later, after you are no longer relying on intellectual > understanding? I am waiting for a shift of some kind, so that I can experience oneness as my own truth. > > Or does the attempt to get to a remedy, itself establish > the dissatisfaction, which is reflected in an attempt > to form and keep an " intellectual understanding " (which > can't truly be had in the first place)? Attempt as in the form of struggle is itself a part of the problem, yes. > > snip > > > My body, for example. I want to feel my body as light, pleasant and > > peaceful. > > And by putting energy into your own imaginary construction ( " I will > get to an experience in the future in which I feel my body as > light, pleasant, and peaceful " ) you construct dissatisfaction, > and a separable being who can go in and out of states, and who > exists with duration in time. > > So, you are responsible for constructing and maintaining the > very thing you say you don't want, and say you wish to be free of > (at some imaginary experiential point in the future). Yes, the future is a tricky thing. > > snip > > > > The configurations of thought have no power to form an actuality, > > > nor a being that has existence. > > > > Would you not say that this post is an actuality? > > I would say it is an interpretation of a constructed form. > > It's real enough in terms of being an interpretation of > a constructed form. > > But it's not actual in terms of having its own existence > somewhere, with its own qualities and terms of being. > > What is actual, is not the imagined form, nor the interpretational > response. Yet, what is actual isn't somewhere else, something > else, other than form and response. > > Thus, one knows this truth first-hand, without mediation, and > not by going somewhere else, getting to another experience. > > And because this is first-hand, it isn't a product of the past > and of memory, and thus isn't a way of interpreting or of forming > perception in a certain way, or having a certain kind of > experience. I know this intellectually, but that is not enough. > > snip > > > I believe there is a surface to the present moment, and a depth to > it > > that the intellect cannot see, but can be realized. > > If there is a surface to something, then there is something > outside of it. > > If there is a depth to something, there is someone existing > apart from it, who can perceive it in terms of surface > and depth. > > - Dan An ocean has depth and also a surface. Similarly I think of phenomenon as the surface and noumenon as the ocean. But these are only ideas in my mind. /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 7, 2004 Report Share Posted December 7, 2004 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > There is no time, there is only structure and the 'no thing' holding > this unfolding structure in place. No, Anders. If there is no time, there is no structure. Nothing is being held in place. Only your mind, inventing " place " and locating itself in its invention. > Distance and time are phenomenon in the now. There are no phenomena in the now. The now doesn't have an inside and outside, so nothing is in it, or outside of it. It is not an it. > Maybe there is no real separation between Tolle and me and you and > Osama Bin Laden for example. ;-) No, Anders. Those are imagined constructions. They don't have their own existences, between which there could be no real separation. What involves no real separation, isn't constructed, doesn't have a structure. There is no Tolle in it, nor a you in it, nor a me in it. And this, as I said above, isn't an it. It's not something you can know something about. It is the end of you as knower, and the end of the known along with that knower of the known. > > Is there really such thing as external reference? If there isn't, then there isn't any internal subject, either. And here you dissolve, and your ponderings about how to escape fear come to an end .. now. > The reaching for oneness has to go if one is to realize it, I suppose. That's right. And do does the idea of a realization. > > What is the division between you and realization, you and > > what you're terming " this timeless present moment " ? > > > > Is there any actual division? > > Maybe not. Here is where inquiry demands all you've got. <s> > I want to feel peace in body and mind. I want what I imagine > enlightenment to be. And that imagining has no hold here whatsoever. Not in the least. > Yes, but I want to feel the truth of this, not only to know it as a > possibility by using rational thinking. When you want to feel something, you are forming the construct of something you don't have, then trying to figure out how to get there. Inquiry is into what you're doing. Inquiry is for the sake of honest understanding, not to get something for you. In other words, you are selfishly wanting a special state for yourself to be in, a state of equanimity, peace, and so on. And thus, you aim at attaining and experiencing that imagined state -- rather than inquire into what you are doing as you set up that " search " , that " attempt to get " or " get into. " > I believe the barrier is that I as oneness is still trapped in a cage > of fear and separation. You are the doing which is the trap. There is only self-inquiry, nothing else. > > I am waiting for a shift of some kind, so that I can experience > oneness as my own truth. And thus, you avoid inquiry into your own doing now, which is how the " trap " is constructed *as* " you " and " your situation. " > I know this intellectually, but that is not enough. You don't know this intellectually. Inquiry can be into what is " my intellectual knowing of anything " -- is there anything really held there, as that supposed " intellectual knowing " ? Or is it, in fact, entirely unable to have anything actual for itself at all, as a result of its supposed " intellectual knowing abilities " ? In other words, all it gets is fabrication, images, that don't really constitute anything worthwhile. Like drawing images in running water with a stick. > An ocean has depth and also a surface. Similarly I think of phenomenon > as the surface and noumenon as the ocean. But these are only ideas in > my mind. Exactly. They are ideas in the mind. Relativity and the absolute are formulations. There is no actual substance to mind formulations, just the attempt to have an existence that can't be had, and knowledge that can't be maintained. Once you are clear on this, your investment has to end. You can still think, still imagine. But there is no way to invest in it. Because you are clear on what it is, that it is your own self-created image, and is dissolving the instant of its formation. -- Dan 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.