Guest guest Posted January 7, 2005 Report Share Posted January 7, 2005 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " kipalmazy " <kipalmazy> wrote: > > > > > > Is there such a thing as the unconscious? This was a question asked > > > by J. Krishnamurti. Isn't it only when there is fragmented > > > perception the need for concepts like the 'unconscious' is needed? > > > And isn't that fragmentation the main cause of human suffering? > > > > > > > > > > > > Is there such a thing like consciousness? LOL, Anders, the > > > unconscious is much more " real " than you can imagine. I have never > > > read a book of J.K., don't know why, but, I've got know the > > > impression, he asked the wrong question. > > > > > > Consciousness is the " ships-kobold " !!! > > > > J. K. also said that no analysis will ever be complete. Think about > > it! When will any analysis ever be completed? Not even Lacan can > > complete any analysis. > > > > /AL > > Any analysis bifurcates into infinity, and the world of phenomenality > is an ever expanding web. No analysis can ever answer any fundamental > question. That's the fallacy of the thinking mind. Nothing wrong with > analysis, it has its place. But when it comes to spirituality, the > intellect cannot grasp the wholeness pointed to by sages. Analysis is necessarily limited, because it depends on illusion. The illusion that I can stop, stand back, have a fixed position from which to review and put things together. In truth, there is no such position. And experience is continually changing while the analysis is being conducted. And that's the illusion of thought, that it can stop the world to analyze it, when in fact, it is continually " moving on. " Even the thought processes are moving on. It is the design of thought imagary that gives the illusion of staticity. And, as you say, analysis isn't bad or wrong, it's part of human life. And interesting question is: As I am not located truly in the position of the supposed " analyzer " - where am I as thought-analysis proceeds? Which also raises the question: If no separable, fixed, located " analyzer " can be found, then is what is being analyzed any more fixed or actual? The whole sense of reality, location, fixity that thought imaginarily confers (and upon which societies and cultures are built) is thrown into question and upheaval. -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 7, 2005 Report Share Posted January 7, 2005 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " kipalmazy " > <kipalmazy> wrote: > > > > > > > > Is there such a thing as the unconscious? This was a question > asked > > > > by J. Krishnamurti. Isn't it only when there is fragmented > > > > perception the need for concepts like the 'unconscious' is > needed? > > > > And isn't that fragmentation the main cause of human suffering? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is there such a thing like consciousness? LOL, Anders, the > > > > unconscious is much more " real " than you can imagine. I have > never > > > > read a book of J.K., don't know why, but, I've got know the > > > > impression, he asked the wrong question. > > > > > > > > Consciousness is the " ships-kobold " !!! > > > > > > J. K. also said that no analysis will ever be complete. Think > about > > > it! When will any analysis ever be completed? Not even Lacan can > > > complete any analysis. > > > > > > /AL > > > > Any analysis bifurcates into infinity, and the world of > phenomenality > > is an ever expanding web. No analysis can ever answer any > fundamental > > question. That's the fallacy of the thinking mind. Nothing wrong > with > > analysis, it has its place. But when it comes to spirituality, the > > intellect cannot grasp the wholeness pointed to by sages. > > Analysis is necessarily limited, because it depends on illusion. > > The illusion that I can stop, stand back, have a fixed position > from which to review and put things together. > > In truth, there is no such position. > > And experience is continually changing while the analysis is > being conducted. > > And that's the illusion of thought, that it can stop the > world to analyze it, when in fact, it is continually > " moving on. " > > Even the thought processes are moving on. > > It is the design of thought imagary that gives the > illusion of staticity. > > And, as you say, analysis isn't bad or wrong, it's > part of human life. > > And interesting question is: As I am not located > truly in the position of the supposed " analyzer " - > where am I as thought-analysis proceeds? > > Which also raises the question: If no separable, fixed, > located " analyzer " can be found, then is what is being > analyzed any more fixed or actual? > > The whole sense of reality, location, fixity that thought > imaginarily confers (and upon which societies and cultures > are built) is thrown into question and upheaval. > > -- Dan I believe there is such thing as permanency. The past is fixed, unmoveable, indestructible. The past is a permanent ground. We may only be aware of small parts of the past at a time, but I believe the whole past is always there. Then there is change. And new things happen all the time. But the past is firm. 2 + 2 = 4 will be valid tomorrow, as it is today. That is permanency. But there is no number " 2 " to be found as a static entity anywhere. That is impermanence. /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 7, 2005 Report Share Posted January 7, 2005 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " kipalmazy " > > <kipalmazy> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Is there such a thing as the unconscious? This was a question > > asked > > > > > by J. Krishnamurti. Isn't it only when there is fragmented > > > > > perception the need for concepts like the 'unconscious' is > > needed? > > > > > And isn't that fragmentation the main cause of human suffering? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is there such a thing like consciousness? LOL, Anders, the > > > > > unconscious is much more " real " than you can imagine. I have > > never > > > > > read a book of J.K., don't know why, but, I've got know the > > > > > impression, he asked the wrong question. > > > > > > > > > > Consciousness is the " ships-kobold " !!! > > > > > > > > J. K. also said that no analysis will ever be complete. Think > > about > > > > it! When will any analysis ever be completed? Not even Lacan can > > > > complete any analysis. > > > > > > > > /AL > > > > > > Any analysis bifurcates into infinity, and the world of > > phenomenality > > > is an ever expanding web. No analysis can ever answer any > > fundamental > > > question. That's the fallacy of the thinking mind. Nothing wrong > > with > > > analysis, it has its place. But when it comes to spirituality, the > > > intellect cannot grasp the wholeness pointed to by sages. > > > > Analysis is necessarily limited, because it depends on illusion. > > > > The illusion that I can stop, stand back, have a fixed position > > from which to review and put things together. > > > > In truth, there is no such position. > > > > And experience is continually changing while the analysis is > > being conducted. > > > > And that's the illusion of thought, that it can stop the > > world to analyze it, when in fact, it is continually > > " moving on. " > > > > Even the thought processes are moving on. > > > > It is the design of thought imagary that gives the > > illusion of staticity. > > > > And, as you say, analysis isn't bad or wrong, it's > > part of human life. > > > > And interesting question is: As I am not located > > truly in the position of the supposed " analyzer " - > > where am I as thought-analysis proceeds? > > > > Which also raises the question: If no separable, fixed, > > located " analyzer " can be found, then is what is being > > analyzed any more fixed or actual? > > > > The whole sense of reality, location, fixity that thought > > imaginarily confers (and upon which societies and cultures > > are built) is thrown into question and upheaval. > > > > -- Dan > > I believe there is such thing as permanency. The past is fixed, > unmoveable, indestructible. The past is a permanent ground. We may > only be aware of small parts of the past at a time, but I believe the > whole past is always there. Then there is change. And new things > happen all the time. But the past is firm. 2 + 2 = 4 will be valid > tomorrow, as it is today. That is permanency. But there is no number > " 2 " to be found as a static entity anywhere. That is impermanence. > > /AL There is no permanent or fixed past, Anders. There are only shared memories and shared ways to interpret them. The past for an ant is different than the past for a human being. If there were no cognizing beings that use memory, there would be no past. Perhaps if you examine the insubstantial nature of the past, you will find something interesting. Perhaps if you notice that there is never any past at all, merely a memory that occurs in the present, you will see that the past is a fiction required for certain brain functions, but not for the acuality of being. It is only with regard to those brain functions, that one will say: the past can't be changed. Otherwise, in truth, there is always only change. The illusion of the fixity of the past is co-occurring with the illusion of a fixed and separable individual center of being. -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 7, 2005 Report Share Posted January 7, 2005 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: > .... > > There is no permanent or fixed past, Anders. I believe there is. I don't believe change is possible other than as an unfolding of _one_ event. > > There are only shared memories and shared ways to > interpret them. > > The past for an ant is different than the past for > a human being. In the fundamental ground of reality all things are connected. > > If there were no cognizing beings that use memory, there would be > no past. There is ultimately only _one_ being. > > Perhaps if you examine the insubstantial nature of the past, > you will find something interesting. > > Perhaps if you notice that there is never any past at all, > merely a memory that occurs in the present, you will > see that the past is a fiction required for certain > brain functions, but not for the acuality of being. Yes, the present moment is what is, and it contains the past. I believe the past is being created in 'zero seconds', in what I call Instant Evolution. See: http://www.platonia.com/ > > It is only with regard to those brain functions, that one > will say: the past can't be changed. > > Otherwise, in truth, there is always only change. > > The illusion of the fixity of the past is co-occurring > with the illusion of a fixed and separable individual > center of being. > > -- Dan Yeah, the unmoved mover. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 7, 2005 Report Share Posted January 7, 2005 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: > > > ... > > > > There is no permanent or fixed past, Anders. > > I believe there is. I don't believe change is possible other than as > an unfolding of _one_ event. > > > > > There are only shared memories and shared ways to > > interpret them. > > > > The past for an ant is different than the past for > > a human being. > > In the fundamental ground of reality all things are connected. > > > > > If there were no cognizing beings that use memory, there would be > > no past. > > There is ultimately only _one_ being. If so, then how can there be anything external to it? And if nothing is external, how can there be a past affecting it? > > Perhaps if you examine the insubstantial nature of the past, > > you will find something interesting. > > > > Perhaps if you notice that there is never any past at all, > > merely a memory that occurs in the present, you will > > see that the past is a fiction required for certain > > brain functions, but not for the acuality of being. > > Yes, the present moment is what is, and it contains the past. I > believe the past is being created in 'zero seconds', in what I call > Instant Evolution. Call it whatever you like. It's an illusion any way you look at it. Because there has to be a time lapse for there to be a past. > See: http://www.platonia.com/ That's okay. I'll take your word for it. :-) > > It is only with regard to those brain functions, that one > > will say: the past can't be changed. > > > > Otherwise, in truth, there is always only change. > > > > The illusion of the fixity of the past is co-occurring > > with the illusion of a fixed and separable individual > > center of being. > > > > -- Dan > > Yeah, the unmoved mover. Not a mover, because nothing external to be moved. The unmoved moving. :-) -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 7, 2005 Report Share Posted January 7, 2005 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> > wrote: > > > > > ... > > > > > > There is no permanent or fixed past, Anders. > > > > I believe there is. I don't believe change is possible other than > as > > an unfolding of _one_ event. > > > > > > > > There are only shared memories and shared ways to > > > interpret them. > > > > > > The past for an ant is different than the past for > > > a human being. > > > > In the fundamental ground of reality all things are connected. > > > > > > > > If there were no cognizing beings that use memory, there would be > > > no past. > > > > There is ultimately only _one_ being. > > If so, then how can there be anything external to it? > > And if nothing is external, how can there be a past > affecting it? Separate things are connected. There is always at least some connection between something and the rest of the universe. If something was truly separate and without any connection to anything else, it would simply not be a part of the universe. So there is 'this' and 'that' but there is always the 'glue' connecting 'this' and 'that'. In this way, everything is a huge web. There is only one 'web'. If there were two separate webs then both cannot be parts of the same universe without having some connection between them, and if there is a connection, the two webs are then in reality one web since they are connected. > > > > Perhaps if you examine the insubstantial nature of the past, > > > you will find something interesting. > > > > > > Perhaps if you notice that there is never any past at all, > > > merely a memory that occurs in the present, you will > > > see that the past is a fiction required for certain > > > brain functions, but not for the acuality of being. > > > > Yes, the present moment is what is, and it contains the past. I > > believe the past is being created in 'zero seconds', in what I call > > Instant Evolution. > > Call it whatever you like. > > It's an illusion any way you look at it. > > Because there has to be a time lapse for there to > be a past. Consider the function A | A (where | means concatination). This function is AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA... going on forever without time. An 'A' to the left of another 'A' is the past. Also consider Pi which is 3.14159265... Here again is a single timeless 'entity' going on forever and with infinite complexity. If we represent Pi binary we can think of it as an infinite computer program unfolding without the need for time. A single Bang starting _now_. > > > See: http://www.platonia.com/ > > That's okay. I'll take your word for it. :-) > > > > It is only with regard to those brain functions, that one > > > will say: the past can't be changed. > > > > > > Otherwise, in truth, there is always only change. > > > > > > The illusion of the fixity of the past is co-occurring > > > with the illusion of a fixed and separable individual > > > center of being. > > > > > > -- Dan > > > > Yeah, the unmoved mover. > > Not a mover, because nothing external to be moved. > > The unmoved moving. Pi (3.14159...) is not moving, yet there is infinite variation in Pi, and where is the end of it? /AL > > :-) > > -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 7, 2005 Report Share Posted January 7, 2005 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > Consider the function A | A (where | means concatination). This > function is AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA... going on forever without > time. An 'A' to the left of another 'A' is the past. > > Also consider Pi which is 3.14159265... Here again is a single > timeless 'entity' going on forever and with infinite complexity. It's not timeless. Observe carefully. It takes time even for the numbers to register, to be read, or to be conceptualized. Word and number, imply and require time and space, even with regard to the cognizing. If we > represent Pi binary we can think of it as an infinite computer program > unfolding without the need for time. A single Bang starting _now_. No. Unfolding implies time. Anything happening, being experienced, registering as thought or memory requires time. > > > See: http://www.platonia.com/ > > > > That's okay. I'll take your word for it. :-) > > > > > > It is only with regard to those brain functions, that one > > > > will say: the past can't be changed. > > > > > > > > Otherwise, in truth, there is always only change. > > > > > > > > The illusion of the fixity of the past is co-occurring > > > > with the illusion of a fixed and separable individual > > > > center of being. > > > > > > > > -- Dan > > > > > > Yeah, the unmoved mover. > > > > Not a mover, because nothing external to be moved. > > > > The unmoved moving. > > Pi (3.14159...) is not moving, yet there is infinite variation in Pi, > and where is the end of it? The crux of the matter is to observe the apparent moving, and to be so clear in your observing, that its nonmoving reality is clear. We imagine we can make comparisons of this moment and that, therefore placing ourselves apart, as an imagined static observer with a continuous location and identity. When that description breaks down, and you realize that it's fabricated, the entire reality built on that assumption, also comes down. Now, there is no observer existing apart, hence no time, and with no time, no movement. Nonetheless, the apparent movement isn't disturbed. It's just that now I know its nonmoving heart, even within the apparent eternal flux. -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 7, 2005 Report Share Posted January 7, 2005 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > Consider the function A | A (where | means concatination). This > > function is AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA... going on forever without > > time. An 'A' to the left of another 'A' is the past. > > > > Also consider Pi which is 3.14159265... Here again is a single > > timeless 'entity' going on forever and with infinite complexity. > > It's not timeless. Observe carefully. It takes time even for > the numbers to register, to be read, or to be conceptualized. > > Word and number, imply and require time and space, even > with regard to the cognizing. But all that cognizing is a part of the one web unfolding. We can only point the web, and any pointing is part of the web. The web pointing to itself, so to speak. What is reality? The answer could be: reality is a circle trying to describe itself. > > If we > > represent Pi binary we can think of it as an infinite computer > program > > unfolding without the need for time. A single Bang starting _now_. > > No. Unfolding implies time. Anything happening, being experienced, > registering as thought or memory requires time. Time is an effect of the web unfolding. The start of this unfolding is: now. Instant evolution. > > > > > See: http://www.platonia.com/ > > > > > > That's okay. I'll take your word for it. :-) > > > > > > > > It is only with regard to those brain functions, that one > > > > > will say: the past can't be changed. > > > > > > > > > > Otherwise, in truth, there is always only change. > > > > > > > > > > The illusion of the fixity of the past is co-occurring > > > > > with the illusion of a fixed and separable individual > > > > > center of being. > > > > > > > > > > -- Dan > > > > > > > > Yeah, the unmoved mover. > > > > > > Not a mover, because nothing external to be moved. > > > > > > The unmoved moving. > > > > Pi (3.14159...) is not moving, yet there is infinite variation in > Pi, > > and where is the end of it? > > The crux of the matter is to observe the apparent moving, > and to be so clear in your observing, that its nonmoving > reality is clear. > > We imagine we can make comparisons of this moment and that, > therefore placing ourselves apart, as an imagined > static observer with a continuous location and identity. > > When that description breaks down, and you realize that it's > fabricated, the entire reality built on that assumption, > also comes down. > > Now, there is no observer existing apart, hence no time, > and with no time, no movement. > > Nonetheless, the apparent movement isn't disturbed. > > It's just that now I know its nonmoving heart, even > within the apparent eternal flux. > > -- Dan We are the web itself, explaining itself. 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.