Guest guest Posted March 9, 2005 Report Share Posted March 9, 2005 Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: >Hi Stefan, > >You are bringing another level of experience, one that is not >separated and one that is flow without interruption. Hi Lewis, I was chewing on this for a while. I can see what you mean in this whole context. But I cannot really see any different levels of experiencing. Whenever I judge an experience the judgement itself is again another experience. And neither can I see interruption of experiencing. When an experience is interrupted then the interruption becomes the experience. I come to the conclusion that experiencing itself is always present and neutral. Even unawareness or forgetfulness is experience. When any separation is felt, this is an experienced thought. A silly thought! The experiencing itself cannot be interrupted or separated. Or... what is your experience? :-) Love Stefan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 9, 2005 Report Share Posted March 9, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@c...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > >Hi Stefan, > > > >You are bringing another level of experience, one that is not > >separated and one that is flow without interruption. > > Hi Lewis, > > I was chewing on this for a while. I can see what you mean in this > whole context. But I cannot really see any different levels of > experiencing. Whenever I judge an experience the judgement itself is > again another experience. And neither can I see interruption of > experiencing. When an experience is interrupted then the interruption > becomes the experience. > > I come to the conclusion that experiencing itself is always present > and neutral. Even unawareness or forgetfulness is experience. When any > separation is felt, this is an experienced thought. A silly thought! > The experiencing itself cannot be interrupted or separated. Or... what > is your experience? :-) > > Love > Stefan That is Very Good, Stefan ! regards, ac. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 9, 2005 Report Share Posted March 9, 2005 Stefan wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > >>Hi Stefan, >> >>You are bringing another level of experience, one that is not >>separated and one that is flow without interruption. > > > Hi Lewis, > > I was chewing on this for a while. I can see what you mean in this > whole context. But I cannot really see any different levels of > experiencing. Whenever I judge an experience the judgement itself is > again another experience. And neither can I see interruption of > experiencing. When an experience is interrupted then the interruption > becomes the experience. > > I come to the conclusion that experiencing itself is always present > and neutral. Even unawareness or forgetfulness is experience. When any > separation is felt, this is an experienced thought. A silly thought! > The experiencing itself cannot be interrupted or separated. Or... what > is your experience? :-) > > Love > Stefan Hi Stefan, In the first case, I was referring to you bringing another level of experiencing to the discussion. This was of the nature of experiencing per se without use of discrete analytic conceptual experiences that were placed in time and space and that, later were subsumed in continuous experience. So before you arrived in the first instance, we assumed there is time 1 and then time 2 and experience 1 and experience 2 and first hand experience and second hand experience and so on. We were discussing at that level of experience with those analytic concepts set in time and space. What you brought in was timelessness and nondiscreteness. Timelessness is a different level of analytic concept of experiencing, that is your words, being concepts as all are, loosed all time and interruption in the experience and transmission of knowledge and the flow of experience was continuous. If we assume that conceptualization, than the discussion takes on a new complexion. And so do the statements formed in that new timeless, neutral, and always present context. When we speak in words we are conceptualizing and pointing. We can do this at different levels and that we can do so is why in the teachings of Masters or among us here there are different levels of explanation depending on the approach given at any given moment and the audience and level and type of analytic concepts used in discussion. We do not always make this clear and so we may talk at cross purposes due to different levels of conceptualizing. Some of us write on one level and one level only and respond only on one level and one level only. Some of us write and respond on different levels without reserve. When these levels of conventional talk are not synchronized there are difficulties in communicating unless we allow others to clarify. Some of us can switch between levels without hesitation others may be more circumspect. We do as we are. In the second case, in my experience, interrupted waking experience is not possible. Experience for me is always timeless, continuous and as you say always present and neutral. It is not possible otherwise since I am always on. Conscious waking experience is not interruptible unless I am rendered unconscious in all the ways that that can happen. Even so, there is a great deal of evidence that experience, conscious or not, continues when not in a waking state such as during sleep, trance, hypnosis, anesthesia, and so on. Having several operations requiring anesthesia, one of a serious nature, I awoke experiencing the appearance and others differently in definable and undefinable ways. After all, being surgically cut open and rummaged through by surgeons as it was is not forgotten by the appearance even though one is not aware of what has been undergone during the operation. And during consciousness there are billions of stimuli that are experienced and never reach awareness and are not able to be recalled and yet influence behavior in all the ways that such happenings do. Ambient light, noise, odors, and so on affect people in different ways that they are unaware of. Even if I am doing one thing and another thing comes up the flow of experience continues in the ever present even though the activity as a decontextualized analytic concept has been " interrupted. " So experience is not interruptible as long as the appearance is alive, whether one is aware of those experiences or not. My activities, as analytic concepts, are " interruptible " and this is simply conventional talk at the level of time and space as we speak here. I can be folding clothes (analytic concept in time and space) and then my son calls to help with homework and I go and do so (analytic concept in time and space). My first activity (analytic concept) was interrupted by the demand of the second (analytic concept) in time and space as I moved from one activity to the next, but experiencing itself through it all continued in a always present, neutral, and timeless manner (analytic concept without time space as continuos flow). That is my experience, Stefan and it seems not much different than yours. And it is probably not different than anyone else's if it can be experienced and understood. As long as we are alive, experience is continuous, whether conscious or not. Thanks for allowing a response. What do you say, Stefan? Love, Lewis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 9, 2005 Report Share Posted March 9, 2005 Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > Stefan wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > > >>Hi Stefan, > >> > >>You are bringing another level of experience, one that is not > >>separated and one that is flow without interruption. > > > > > > Hi Lewis, > > > > I was chewing on this for a while. I can see what you mean in this > > whole context. But I cannot really see any different levels of > > experiencing. Whenever I judge an experience the judgement itself is > > again another experience. And neither can I see interruption of > > experiencing. When an experience is interrupted then the interruption > > becomes the experience. > > > > I come to the conclusion that experiencing itself is always present > > and neutral. Even unawareness or forgetfulness is experience. When any > > separation is felt, this is an experienced thought. A silly thought! > > The experiencing itself cannot be interrupted or separated. Or... what > > is your experience? :-) > > > > Love > > Stefan > > > Hi Stefan, > > In the first case, I was referring to you bringing another level of > experiencing to the discussion. This was of the nature of experiencing > per se without use of discrete analytic conceptual experiences that were > placed in time and space and that, later were subsumed in continuous > experience. > > So before you arrived in the first instance, we assumed there is time 1 > and then time 2 and experience 1 and experience 2 and first hand > experience and second hand experience and so on. We were discussing at > that level of experience with those analytic concepts set in time and space. > > What you brought in was timelessness and nondiscreteness. Timelessness > is a different level of analytic concept of experiencing, that is your > words, being concepts as all are, loosed all time and interruption in > the experience and transmission of knowledge and the flow of experience > was continuous. If we assume that conceptualization, than the discussion > takes on a new complexion. And so do the statements formed in that new > timeless, neutral, and always present context. > > When we speak in words we are conceptualizing and pointing. We can do > this at different levels and that we can do so is why in the teachings > of Masters or among us here there are different levels of explanation > depending on the approach given at any given moment and the audience and > level and type of analytic concepts used in discussion. We do not always > make this clear and so we may talk at cross purposes due to different > levels of conceptualizing. Some of us write on one level and one level > only and respond only on one level and one level only. Some of us write > and respond on different levels without reserve. When these levels of > conventional talk are not synchronized there are difficulties in > communicating unless we allow others to clarify. Some of us can switch > between levels without hesitation others may be more circumspect. We do > as we are. > > In the second case, in my experience, interrupted waking experience is > not possible. Experience for me is always timeless, continuous and as > you say always present and neutral. It is not possible otherwise since I > am always on. Conscious waking experience is not interruptible unless I > am rendered unconscious in all the ways that that can happen. Which may be exactly zero ways. :-) (Awareness is always on and you are that Awareness [i repeat: memory of having been in deep sleep is not deep sleep {also, seeing a dead or unconsious person is only seeing information which is already 'dead' anyway}])) Hehe. /AL > Even so, > there is a great deal of evidence that experience, conscious or not, > continues when not in a waking state such as during sleep, trance, > hypnosis, anesthesia, and so on. Having several operations requiring > anesthesia, one of a serious nature, I awoke experiencing the appearance > and others differently in definable and undefinable ways. After all, > being surgically cut open and rummaged through by surgeons as it was is > not forgotten by the appearance even though one is not aware of what has > been undergone during the operation. And during consciousness there are > billions of stimuli that are experienced and never reach awareness and > are not able to be recalled and yet influence behavior in all the ways > that such happenings do. Ambient light, noise, odors, and so on affect > people in different ways that they are unaware of. > > Even if I am doing one thing and another thing comes up the flow of > experience continues in the ever present even though the activity as a > decontextualized analytic concept has been " interrupted. " So experience > is not interruptible as long as the appearance is alive, whether one is > aware of those experiences or not. > > My activities, as analytic concepts, are " interruptible " and this is > simply conventional talk at the level of time and space as we speak > here. I can be folding clothes (analytic concept in time and space) and > then my son calls to help with homework and I go and do so (analytic > concept in time and space). My first activity (analytic concept) was > interrupted by the demand of the second (analytic concept) in time and > space as I moved from one activity to the next, but experiencing itself > through it all continued in a always present, neutral, and timeless > manner (analytic concept without time space as continuos flow). > > That is my experience, Stefan and it seems not much different than > yours. And it is probably not different than anyone else's if it can be > experienced and understood. As long as we are alive, experience is > continuous, whether conscious or not. > > Thanks for allowing a response. What do you say, Stefan? > > Love, > > Lewis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 10, 2005 Report Share Posted March 10, 2005 Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: >What you brought in was timelessness and nondiscreteness. >Timelessness is a different level of analytic concept of experiencing, that is your words, being concepts as all are, loosed all time and interruption in the experience and transmission of knowledge and the flow of experience was continuous. If we assume that conceptualization, than the discussion takes on a new complexion. And so do the statements formed in that new timeless, neutral, and >always present context. I only tried to describe how experience is happening for me, as I think it is happening for everybody. I was hoping this way the discussion becomes more simple. I did not want to introduce another concept, more complexion, timelessness. To me it is obvious that time in its whole unstableness is itself experienced. >...When these levels of conventional talk are not synchronized there >are difficulties in communicating unless we allow others to clarify. >Some of us can switch between levels without hesitation others may >be more circumspect. We do as we are. Oh yes. But I think the task of synchronizing those levels would be futile. I have said it before, I do not expect to be understood. Maybe thats the best condition to be understood, haha! Well, if something rings a bell ... occasionally ... this is great. It seems these days I like the process of expressing myself, trying to understand, inquire. >Conscious waking experience is not interruptible unless I >am rendered unconscious in all the ways that that can happen. Even so, there is a great deal of evidence that experience, conscious or not,continues when not in a waking state such as during sleep, trance, >hypnosis, anesthesia, and so on. More than a great deal of evidence, I think. We experience a daily alternation between waking and sleeping state. If our sleep was not experienced then how could we say that we are awake. Maybe many have a certain expectation in the mind how experience should be and sleep does not match those criteria. Maybe it is hard for the active mind to accept the darkness, passivity and thoughtlessness of deep sleep. But thats just silly thinking. >My activities, as analytic concepts, are " interruptible " and this is >simply conventional talk at the level of time and space as we speak >here. I can be folding clothes (analytic concept in time and space) and then my son calls to help with homework and I go and do so (analytic concept in time and space). My first activity (analytic concept) was interrupted by the demand of the second (analytic concept) in time and space as I moved from one activity to the next, but experiencing itself through it all continued in a always present, neutral, and timeless manner (analytic concept without time space as continuos flow). Yes, but the division into " time/space " and " without time/space " seems unnecessary and artificial to me. Experience itself seems to be untouched even by such distinctions. When you move from folding clothes to helping your son... you might still be for a moment with the laundry although you already look at your sons homework. Then this is your experience as it goes. >That is my experience, Stefan and it seems not much different than yours. And it is probably not different than anyone else's if it can be experienced and understood. As long as we are alive, experience is >continuous, whether conscious or not. >Thanks for allowing a response. What do you say, Stefan? Yes... Love Stefan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 10, 2005 Report Share Posted March 10, 2005 Stefan wrote: Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c... wrote: Lewis: What you brought in was timelessness and nondiscreteness. Timelessness is a different level of analytic concept of experiencing, that is your words, being concepts as all are, loosed all time and interruption in the experience and transmission of knowledge and the flow of experience was continuous. If we assume that conceptualization, than the discussion takes on a new complexion. And so do the statements formed in that new timeless, neutral, and always present context. Stefan: I only tried to describe how experience is happening for me, as I think it is happening for everybody. I was hoping this way the discussion becomes more simple. I did not want to introduce another concept, more complexion, timelessness. To me it is obvious that time in its whole unstableness is itself experienced. Lewis: It is not problem. Did you consider that speaking about experience and experiencing as being process concepts, that is, when speaking about experience there is more life to the concepts used because they carry movement and flow unlike more unmoving concepts like an apple? " Eating an apple " is more dynamic in image than " apple. " It is clear that in describing the experience " eating an apple " it becomes conceptual and more active, processual, and more enlivening to the intellect than " apple " alone. All that is done in language in conceptual. Lewis: ...When these levels of conventional talk are not synchronized there are difficulties in communicating unless we allow others to clarify. Some of us can switch between levels without hesitation others may be more circumspect. We do as we are. Stefan: Oh yes. But I think the task of synchronizing those levels would be futile. Lewis: Yes. Futile. Stefan: I have said it before, I do not expect to be understood. Maybe thats the best condition to be understood, haha! Well, if something rings a bell ... occasionally ... this is great. It seems these days I like the process of expressing myself, trying to understand, inquire. Lewis: Yes. Such expectations are unwarranted. All expectations would seem so. And what is the harm in expression, inquiry, and understanding? Lewis: Conscious waking experience is not interruptible unless I am rendered unconscious in all the ways that that can happen. Even so, there is a great deal of evidence that experience, conscious or not, continues when not in a waking state such as during sleep, trance, hypnosis, anesthesia, and so on. Stefan: More than a great deal of evidence, I think. We experience a daily alternation between waking and sleeping state. If our sleep was not experienced then how could we say that we are awake. Maybe many have a certain expectation in the mind how experience should be and sleep does not match those criteria. Maybe it is hard for the active mind to accept the darkness, passivity and thoughtlessness of deep sleep. But thats just silly thinking. Lewis: It seems to me that there is experience with an awareness in deep sleep that is inexpressible just as there is awareness in speaking which cannot be fathomed. In both cases there is awareness but there is no way to express it as we would other experiences. No one can explain or describe in detail in any way how it is that we speak, yet we do so without effort and thought or reasoning. It is beyond thought and mind. Lewis: My activities, as analytic concepts, are " interruptible " and this is simply conventional talk at the level of time and space as we speak here. I can be folding clothes (analytic concept in time and space) and then my son calls to help with homework and I go and do so (analytic concept in time and space). My first activity (analytic concept) was interrupted by the demand of the second (analytic concept) in time and space as I moved from one activity to the next, but experiencing itself through it all continued in a always present, neutral, and timeless manner (analytic concept without time space as continuos flow). Stefan: Yes, but the division into " time/space " and " without time/space " seems unnecessary and artificial to me. Lewis: Yes it is. Stefan: Experience itself seems to be untouched even by such distinctions. When you move from folding clothes to helping your son... you might still be for a moment with the laundry although you already look at your sons homework. Then this is your experience as it goes. Lewis: Yes. That there is complete agreement with that as it was stated above. There is no doubt in what you say, Stefan, and remember the distinctions being made are for analytic purposes in description and explanation only regarding those matters in the previous posts. We can make distinctions or remove them or change the concepts themselves. These are plastic and not unchangeable. They are mere concepts. What they point to is another matter. Nothing written is as it is. If we ask when did the folding actually end and homework actually begin there will be great difficulties in exposition. To describe it fully we would need to continue by subdividing the moments of the experience as you did above infinitely. So at one level we can divide in time and space and this is done daily here. We assume, take for granted and relate to each other as if we are in a world of time and space. At another level of description we have continuous experience without such distinctions. And that is done here much less. Another level is to eliminate the concept of experiencing all together, for in the Absolute, Nirguna Brahman, Sunyata, the Unmanifest, the Real... nothing can be said to be occurring at all, especially as we conceive it words and concepts. This is expressed here by some mainly by assertions and denials in doing so and not with clarity. The point of using the distinctions was not to assert their veracity or to say that it is proper to do so or that it is important to do so but to simply show the different levels of descriptions and conceptualizing that can be and is done here. Nothing more. Lewis: That is my experience, Stefan and it seems not much different than yours. And it is probably not different than anyone else's if it can be experienced and understood. As long as we are alive, experience is continuous, whether conscious or not. Thanks for allowing a response. What do you say, Stefan? Stefan: Yes... Love Stefan How about a round on the Absolute? Love, Lewis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 10, 2005 Report Share Posted March 10, 2005 " For the time being " means time itself is being, and all being is time. The way the self arrays itself is the form of the entire world. See each thing in this entire world as a moment of time. Things do not hinder each other, just as moments do not hinder each other. A way-seeking moment arises in this mind. Thus the self setting itself out in array sees itself. This is the understanding that the self is time. Know that in this way there are myraids of forms and hundreds of grasses throughout the entire earth, and yet each grass and each form itself is the entire earth. Since there is nothing but this moment, the time-being is all the time there is. Grass-being, form-being are both time. Each moment is all being, is the entire world. Reflect now whether any being or any world is left out of the present moment. " --The Time-Being - from Moon in a Dewdrop Master Dogen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 10, 2005 Report Share Posted March 10, 2005 Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: Hi Lewis, still a few remarks... >We can make distinctions or remove them or change the concepts themselves. These are plastic and not unchangeable. They are mere concepts. What they point to is another matter. Nothing written is as >it is. But, everything is as it is. >If we ask when did the folding actually end and homework actually begin there will be great difficulties in exposition. To describe it fully we would need to continue by subdividing the moments of the experience as you did above infinitely. So at one level we can divide in time and space and this is done daily here. We assume, take for granted and relate to each other as if we are in a world of time and >space. I did not say that there is no time and space. I just said that we experience time and space in our individual way. When I stand on a busy street and want to cross it I experience time and space differently than the guy who is sitting in the car. I try to show that experience is always there and always direct. Everything is as it is. Thoughts can change everything around, conceptualize and assume: experience of it remains. This tells me that it is silly to conceptualize and do all this. I cannot change the system. So I can as well relax and enjoy the stream of experiences. They have brought me to where I am and they will bring me where I am going to be. >Another level is to eliminate the concept of experiencing all together, for in the Absolute, Nirguna Brahman, Sunyata, the Unmanifest, the Real... nothing can be said to be occurring at all, especially as we conceive it words and concepts. This is expressed here by some mainly by assertions and denials in doing so and not with >clarity. Yes, obviously everything ends up there once this experiencing thingy is dropped. >How about a round on the Absolute? You start, I would not dare :-) Love Stefan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 10, 2005 Report Share Posted March 10, 2005 Stefan wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > Hi Lewis, > > still a few remarks... > > >>We can make distinctions or remove them or change the concepts > > themselves. These are plastic and not unchangeable. They are mere > concepts. What they point to is another matter. Nothing written is as > >>it is. > > > But, everything is as it is. Understood. If you wish to adjust levels at whim then we can say that there is no as it is. " As it is " is fantasy creation as is all of what is presumed to exist. There is no as it is. Let it go. > > >>If we ask when did the folding actually end and homework actually > > begin there will be great difficulties in exposition. To describe it > fully we would need to continue by subdividing the moments of the > experience as you did above infinitely. So at one level we can divide > in time and space and this is done daily here. We assume, take for > granted and relate to each other as if we are in a world of time and > >>space. > > > I did not say that there is no time and space. I just said that we > experience time and space in our individual way. No you did not. You just altered the beginning and end of a processual concept as an example. Do no forget that we are just talking here. When I stand on a > busy street and want to cross it I experience time and space > differently than the guy who is sitting in the car. Yes. > > I try to show that experience is always there and always direct. > Everything is as it is. Thoughts can change everything around, > conceptualize and assume: experience of it remains. This tells me that > it is silly to conceptualize and do all this. I cannot change the > system. So I can as well relax and enjoy the stream of experiences. > They have brought me to where I am and they will bring me where I am > going to be. There is no disagreement. If it is silly to that is what it is. Nothing to be concerned about. Flow on, Stefan, no need to get caught in conventional talk. > >>Another level is to eliminate the concept of experiencing all > > together, for in the Absolute, Nirguna Brahman, Sunyata, the > Unmanifest, the Real... nothing can be said to be occurring at all, > especially as we conceive it words and concepts. This is expressed > here by some mainly by assertions and denials in doing so and not with > >>clarity. > > > Yes, obviously everything ends up there once this experiencing thingy > is dropped. Yes. All " silliness " ends. > >>How about a round on the Absolute? > > > You start, I would not dare :-) > > Love > Stefan Not yet completely fearless Stefan? :-) Why the hesitation? Does not experience carry you there? What has anyone said intelligibly say about the Absolute here in this place? All that has been said have been assertions of it, negations of everything else, quotes from the sacred scriptures and the oft repeated line " nothing has ever happened. " When it is experienced it is ineffable. So what is there to say? What possibly can be said that does not render it in " silliness " while allowing it to be the object of ridicule and deconstruction? Lewis 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.