interpretation is always at the there-and-then level

[Guest guest]

Man ordered his experience in terms of psychological

considerations of the nonexistent mind. But the ordering

of experience is always on the here-and-now level. The

interpretation of the ordering is always at the

there-and-then level. Be aware that the brain's

operation is a continuing activity of ordering in the

here-and-now. There was always ordering in the

here-and-now while man deluded himself with

considerations there-and-then, considerations of a world

that didn't exist. A world that never had existed. The

world of the past. A fractional instant, and yet the

past. Because of that interval man was able to exist.

 

Man, a relic of the instantaneous past. Man, an instant

too old to exist. Things not existent should be of no

interest to us. All those things rendered unto man are

based on a system that deals with illusion. The

interpretation of the ordering of the brain takes place

while new ordering is continually happening. It is

almost as though there were two parallel planes.

 

Almost. We might even assume there was a choice between

living in one plane or another. Actually, there is no

choice. There is no choice. There is only the ordering

and arrangement, the here-and-now. Some of us, most of

us, cannot recognize this level and continue by

blindness, by inertia, by pretension, the delusion that

we are men. It's a mistake. Man is dead. Man never

existed at all. Our awareness as experience is past

experience. Dreaming.

 

-- *By the Late John Brockman*

 

 

What you are thinking now is already over.

 

So what is not already over?

 

It surely could not be named.

 

The vibrance, the sparkle of the moment,

whatever those words conjure for you,

might be a hint...

 

But attention to thought is always in the past...

it is useless and worthless...

 

Bill

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote:

>

>

> Man ordered his experience in terms of psychological

> considerations of the nonexistent mind. But the ordering

> of experience is always on the here-and-now level. The

> interpretation of the ordering is always at the

> there-and-then level. Be aware that the brain's

> operation is a continuing activity of ordering in the

> here-and-now. There was always ordering in the

> here-and-now while man deluded himself with

> considerations there-and-then, considerations of a world

> that didn't exist. A world that never had existed. The

> world of the past. A fractional instant, and yet the

> past. Because of that interval man was able to exist.

>

> Man, a relic of the instantaneous past. Man, an instant

> too old to exist. Things not existent should be of no

> interest to us. All those things rendered unto man are

> based on a system that deals with illusion. The

> interpretation of the ordering of the brain takes place

> while new ordering is continually happening. It is

> almost as though there were two parallel planes.

>

> Almost. We might even assume there was a choice between

> living in one plane or another. Actually, there is no

> choice. There is no choice. There is only the ordering

> and arrangement, the here-and-now. Some of us, most of

> us, cannot recognize this level and continue by

> blindness, by inertia, by pretension, the delusion that

> we are men. It's a mistake. Man is dead. Man never

> existed at all. Our awareness as experience is past

> experience. Dreaming.

>

> -- *By the Late John Brockman*

>

>

> What you are thinking now is already over.

>

> So what is not already over?

>

> It surely could not be named.

>

> The vibrance, the sparkle of the moment,

> whatever those words conjure for you,

> might be a hint...

>

> But attention to thought is always in the past...

> it is useless and worthless...

>

> Bill

>

 

yes, interpretation is always at the there and then level.

and who can show me something that is not an interpretation will gain

the right to dare to talk about here and now!

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/25/2006 1:10:49 PM Pacific Standard Time,

Nisargadatta writes:

 

" billrishel " <illusyn

interpretation is always at the there-and-then level

 

 

Man ordered his experience in terms of psychological

considerations of the nonexistent mind. But the ordering

of experience is always on the here-and-now level. The

interpretation of the ordering is always at the

there-and-then level. Be aware that the brain's

operation is a continuing activity of ordering in the

here-and-now. There was always ordering in the

here-and-now while man deluded himself with

considerations there-and-then, considerations of a world

that didn't exist. A world that never had existed. The

world of the past. A fractional instant, and yet the

past. Because of that interval man was able to exist.

 

Man, a relic of the instantaneous past. Man, an instant

too old to exist. Things not existent should be of no

interest to us. All those things rendered unto man are

based on a system that deals with illusion. The

interpretation of the ordering of the brain takes place

while new ordering is continually happening. It is

almost as though there were two parallel planes.

 

Almost. We might even assume there was a choice between

living in one plane or another. Actually, there is no

choice. There is no choice. There is only the ordering

and arrangement, the here-and-now. Some of us, most of

us, cannot recognize this level and continue by

blindness, by inertia, by pretension, the delusion that

we are men. It's a mistake. Man is dead. Man never

existed at all. Our awareness as experience is past

experience. Dreaming.

 

-- *By the Late John Brockman*

 

 

What you are thinking now is already over.

 

So what is not already over?

 

It surely could not be named.

 

The vibrance, the sparkle of the moment,

whatever those words conjure for you,

might be a hint...

 

But attention to thought is always in the past...

it is useless and worthless...

 

Bill

 

 

 

 

I understand what you're saying, Bill, but usefulness and value are human

concepts; evaluations based on human needs and desires that arise from the human

experience that you declare as useless and worthless. It implies you would

transcend the human experience in the desire to find something useful and

valuable, only to find that those ideas are left behind in the realm of

uselessness and worthlessness. It's these ideas themselves from which you wish

to

escape. They cannot be the foundation of your escape plan.

 

Phil

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/25/2006 1:10:49 PM Pacific Standard Time,

Nisargadatta writes:

 

" bigwaaba " <bigwaaba

Re: interpretation is always at the there-and-then level

 

Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote:

>

>

> Man ordered his experience in terms of psychological

> considerations of the nonexistent mind. But the ordering

> of experience is always on the here-and-now level. The

> interpretation of the ordering is always at the

> there-and-then level. Be aware that the brain's

> operation is a continuing activity of ordering in the

> here-and-now. There was always ordering in the

> here-and-now while man deluded himself with

> considerations there-and-then, considerations of a world

> that didn't exist. A world that never had existed. The

> world of the past. A fractional instant, and yet the

> past. Because of that interval man was able to exist.

>

> Man, a relic of the instantaneous past. Man, an instant

> too old to exist. Things not existent should be of no

> interest to us. All those things rendered unto man are

> based on a system that deals with illusion. The

> interpretation of the ordering of the brain takes place

> while new ordering is continually happening. It is

> almost as though there were two parallel planes.

>

> Almost. We might even assume there was a choice between

> living in one plane or another. Actually, there is no

> choice. There is no choice. There is only the ordering

> and arrangement, the here-and-now. Some of us, most of

> us, cannot recognize this level and continue by

> blindness, by inertia, by pretension, the delusion that

> we are men. It's a mistake. Man is dead. Man never

> existed at all. Our awareness as experience is past

> experience. Dreaming.

>

> -- *By the Late John Brockman*

>

>

> What you are thinking now is already over.

>

> So what is not already over?

>

> It surely could not be named.

>

> The vibrance, the sparkle of the moment,

> whatever those words conjure for you,

> might be a hint...

>

> But attention to thought is always in the past...

> it is useless and worthless...

>

> Bill

>

 

yes, interpretation is always at the there and then level.

and who can show me something that is not an interpretation will gain

the right to dare to talk about here and now!

 

 

 

 

You want someone to show you a knowing? And nobody has the right to

conceptualize Reality until they can do that for you? I dated a girl in High

School

who had an attitude like that.

 

Phil

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " bigwaaba " <bigwaaba wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote:

> >

> >

> > Man ordered his experience in terms of psychological

> > considerations of the nonexistent mind. But the ordering

> > of experience is always on the here-and-now level. The

> > interpretation of the ordering is always at the

> > there-and-then level. Be aware that the brain's

> > operation is a continuing activity of ordering in the

> > here-and-now. There was always ordering in the

> > here-and-now while man deluded himself with

> > considerations there-and-then, considerations of a world

> > that didn't exist. A world that never had existed. The

> > world of the past. A fractional instant, and yet the

> > past. Because of that interval man was able to exist.

> >

> > Man, a relic of the instantaneous past. Man, an instant

> > too old to exist. Things not existent should be of no

> > interest to us. All those things rendered unto man are

> > based on a system that deals with illusion. The

> > interpretation of the ordering of the brain takes place

> > while new ordering is continually happening. It is

> > almost as though there were two parallel planes.

> >

> > Almost. We might even assume there was a choice between

> > living in one plane or another. Actually, there is no

> > choice. There is no choice. There is only the ordering

> > and arrangement, the here-and-now. Some of us, most of

> > us, cannot recognize this level and continue by

> > blindness, by inertia, by pretension, the delusion that

> > we are men. It's a mistake. Man is dead. Man never

> > existed at all. Our awareness as experience is past

> > experience. Dreaming.

> >

> > -- *By the Late John Brockman*

> >

> >

> > What you are thinking now is already over.

> >

> > So what is not already over?

> >

> > It surely could not be named.

> >

> > The vibrance, the sparkle of the moment,

> > whatever those words conjure for you,

> > might be a hint...

> >

> > But attention to thought is always in the past...

> > it is useless and worthless...

> >

> > Bill

> >

>

> yes, interpretation is always at the there and then level.

> and who can show me something that is not an interpretation will

gain

> the right to dare to talk about here and now!

>

 

I won't show you a thing!

 

 

Bill

[Guest guest]

I understand what you're saying, Bill, but usefulness and value are

human

concepts; evaluations based on human needs and desires that arise

from the human

experience that you declare as useless and worthless. It implies

you would

transcend the human experience in the desire to find something useful

and

valuable, only to find that those ideas are left behind in the realm

of

uselessness and worthlessness. It's these ideas themselves from which

you wish

to

escape. They cannot be the foundation of your escape plan.

 

Phil

 

 

 

Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote:

>

>

> In a message dated 2/25/2006 1:10:49 PM Pacific Standard Time,

> Nisargadatta writes:

>

> " billrishel " <illusyn

> interpretation is always at the there-and-then level

>

>

> Man ordered his experience in terms of psychological

> considerations of the nonexistent mind. But the ordering

> of experience is always on the here-and-now level. The

> interpretation of the ordering is always at the

> there-and-then level. Be aware that the brain's

> operation is a continuing activity of ordering in the

> here-and-now. There was always ordering in the

> here-and-now while man deluded himself with

> considerations there-and-then, considerations of a world

> that didn't exist. A world that never had existed. The

> world of the past. A fractional instant, and yet the

> past. Because of that interval man was able to exist.

>

> Man, a relic of the instantaneous past. Man, an instant

> too old to exist. Things not existent should be of no

> interest to us. All those things rendered unto man are

> based on a system that deals with illusion. The

> interpretation of the ordering of the brain takes place

> while new ordering is continually happening. It is

> almost as though there were two parallel planes.

>

> Almost. We might even assume there was a choice between

> living in one plane or another. Actually, there is no

> choice. There is no choice. There is only the ordering

> and arrangement, the here-and-now. Some of us, most of

> us, cannot recognize this level and continue by

> blindness, by inertia, by pretension, the delusion that

> we are men. It's a mistake. Man is dead. Man never

> existed at all. Our awareness as experience is past

> experience. Dreaming.

>

> -- *By the Late John Brockman*

>

>

> What you are thinking now is already over.

>

> So what is not already over?

>

> It surely could not be named.

>

> The vibrance, the sparkle of the moment,

> whatever those words conjure for you,

> might be a hint...

>

> But attention to thought is always in the past...

> it is useless and worthless...

>

> Bill

>

>

>

>

> I understand what you're saying, Bill, but usefulness and value are

human

> concepts; evaluations based on human needs and desires that arise

from the human

> experience that you declare as useless and worthless. It implies

you would

> transcend the human experience in the desire to find something

useful and

> valuable, only to find that those ideas are left behind in the

realm of

> uselessness and worthlessness. It's these ideas themselves from

which you wish to

> escape. They cannot be the foundation of your escape plan.

>

> Phil

 

Don't talk about *my* escape plan, if that is what you

intend by the words: " your escape plan " . For one, it is

more meaningful to speak of oneself than of others, yes?

What we know of " others " is so scant to be not worth

mentioning (my view).

 

The notion of " transcending the human experience " is a

decidedly human one. In other words, the post was not

going in that direction at all.

 

Regarding the simple phrase:

" Attention to thought is always in the past... "

is that clear or not?

 

Because if true then " attention to thought " is not

in the Now, yes?

 

And if not in the Now...

 

Is not the Now the one true reality?

 

It is by my definition.

 

 

Bill

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/26/2006 8:56:43 AM Pacific Standard Time,

Nisargadatta writes:

 

" billrishel " <illusyn

Re: interpretation is always at the there-and-then level

 

I understand what you're saying, Bill, but usefulness and value are

human

concepts; evaluations based on human needs and desires that arise

from the human

experience that you declare as useless and worthless. It implies

you would

transcend the human experience in the desire to find something useful

and

valuable, only to find that those ideas are left behind in the realm

of

uselessness and worthlessness. It's these ideas themselves from which

you wish

to

escape. They cannot be the foundation of your escape plan.

 

Phil

 

 

 

Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote:

>

>

> In a message dated 2/25/2006 1:10:49 PM Pacific Standard Time,

> Nisargadatta writes:

>

> " billrishel " <illusyn

> interpretation is always at the there-and-then level

>

>

> Man ordered his experience in terms of psychological

> considerations of the nonexistent mind. But the ordering

> of experience is always on the here-and-now level. The

> interpretation of the ordering is always at the

> there-and-then level. Be aware that the brain's

> operation is a continuing activity of ordering in the

> here-and-now. There was always ordering in the

> here-and-now while man deluded himself with

> considerations there-and-then, considerations of a world

> that didn't exist. A world that never had existed. The

> world of the past. A fractional instant, and yet the

> past. Because of that interval man was able to exist.

>

> Man, a relic of the instantaneous past. Man, an instant

> too old to exist. Things not existent should be of no

> interest to us. All those things rendered unto man are

> based on a system that deals with illusion. The

> interpretation of the ordering of the brain takes place

> while new ordering is continually happening. It is

> almost as though there were two parallel planes.

>

> Almost. We might even assume there was a choice between

> living in one plane or another. Actually, there is no

> choice. There is no choice. There is only the ordering

> and arrangement, the here-and-now. Some of us, most of

> us, cannot recognize this level and continue by

> blindness, by inertia, by pretension, the delusion that

> we are men. It's a mistake. Man is dead. Man never

> existed at all. Our awareness as experience is past

> experience. Dreaming.

>

> -- *By the Late John Brockman*

>

>

> What you are thinking now is already over.

>

> So what is not already over?

>

> It surely could not be named.

>

> The vibrance, the sparkle of the moment,

> whatever those words conjure for you,

> might be a hint...

>

> But attention to thought is always in the past...

> it is useless and worthless...

>

> Bill

>

>

>

>

> I understand what you're saying, Bill, but usefulness and value are

human

> concepts; evaluations based on human needs and desires that arise

from the human

> experience that you declare as useless and worthless. It implies

you would

> transcend the human experience in the desire to find something

useful and

> valuable, only to find that those ideas are left behind in the

realm of

> uselessness and worthlessness. It's these ideas themselves from

which you wish to

> escape. They cannot be the foundation of your escape plan.

>

> Phil

 

Don't talk about *my* escape plan, if that is what you

intend by the words: " your escape plan " . For one, it is

more meaningful to speak of oneself than of others, yes?

What we know of " others " is so scant to be not worth

mentioning (my view).

 

The notion of " transcending the human experience " is a

decidedly human one. In other words, the post was not

going in that direction at all.

 

Regarding the simple phrase:

" Attention to thought is always in the past... "

is that clear or not?

 

Because if true then " attention to thought " is not

in the Now, yes?

 

And if not in the Now...

 

Is not the Now the one true reality?

 

It is by my definition.

 

 

Bill

 

 

 

It wasn't personal, Bill. The 'escape plan' was a hypothetical extrapolation

based on your statements.

 

 

The post declares " Man never

> existed at all. Our awareness as experience is past

> experience. " He is indeed talking about transcending the human experience.

 

 

Yes, the premise of attention to thought being in the past is clear and

agreeable. I didn't address that at all. I didn't realize you needed my

validation.

 

 

Phil

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote:

>

>

> In a message dated 2/26/2006 8:56:43 AM Pacific Standard Time,

> Nisargadatta writes:

>

> " billrishel " <illusyn

> Re: interpretation is always at the there-and-then level

>

> I understand what you're saying, Bill, but usefulness and value

are

> human

> concepts; evaluations based on human needs and desires that arise

> from the human

> experience that you declare as useless and worthless. It implies

> you would

> transcend the human experience in the desire to find something

useful

> and

> valuable, only to find that those ideas are left behind in the

realm

> of

> uselessness and worthlessness. It's these ideas themselves from

which

> you wish

> to

> escape. They cannot be the foundation of your escape plan.

>

> Phil

>

>

>

> Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote:

> >

> >

> > In a message dated 2/25/2006 1:10:49 PM Pacific Standard Time,

> > Nisargadatta writes:

> >

> > " billrishel " <illusyn@>

> > interpretation is always at the there-and-then level

> >

> >

> > Man ordered his experience in terms of psychological

> > considerations of the nonexistent mind. But the ordering

> > of experience is always on the here-and-now level. The

> > interpretation of the ordering is always at the

> > there-and-then level. Be aware that the brain's

> > operation is a continuing activity of ordering in the

> > here-and-now. There was always ordering in the

> > here-and-now while man deluded himself with

> > considerations there-and-then, considerations of a world

> > that didn't exist. A world that never had existed. The

> > world of the past. A fractional instant, and yet the

> > past. Because of that interval man was able to exist.

> >

> > Man, a relic of the instantaneous past. Man, an instant

> > too old to exist. Things not existent should be of no

> > interest to us. All those things rendered unto man are

> > based on a system that deals with illusion. The

> > interpretation of the ordering of the brain takes place

> > while new ordering is continually happening. It is

> > almost as though there were two parallel planes.

> >

> > Almost. We might even assume there was a choice between

> > living in one plane or another. Actually, there is no

> > choice. There is no choice. There is only the ordering

> > and arrangement, the here-and-now. Some of us, most of

> > us, cannot recognize this level and continue by

> > blindness, by inertia, by pretension, the delusion that

> > we are men. It's a mistake. Man is dead. Man never

> > existed at all. Our awareness as experience is past

> > experience. Dreaming.

> >

> > -- *By the Late John Brockman*

> >

> >

> > What you are thinking now is already over.

> >

> > So what is not already over?

> >

> > It surely could not be named.

> >

> > The vibrance, the sparkle of the moment,

> > whatever those words conjure for you,

> > might be a hint...

> >

> > But attention to thought is always in the past...

> > it is useless and worthless...

> >

> > Bill

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > I understand what you're saying, Bill, but usefulness and value

are

> human

> > concepts; evaluations based on human needs and desires that

arise

> from the human

> > experience that you declare as useless and worthless. It

implies

> you would

> > transcend the human experience in the desire to find something

> useful and

> > valuable, only to find that those ideas are left behind in the

> realm of

> > uselessness and worthlessness. It's these ideas themselves from

> which you wish to

> > escape. They cannot be the foundation of your escape plan.

> >

> > Phil

>

> Don't talk about *my* escape plan, if that is what you

> intend by the words: " your escape plan " . For one, it is

> more meaningful to speak of oneself than of others, yes?

> What we know of " others " is so scant to be not worth

> mentioning (my view).

>

> The notion of " transcending the human experience " is a

> decidedly human one. In other words, the post was not

> going in that direction at all.

>

> Regarding the simple phrase:

> " Attention to thought is always in the past... "

> is that clear or not?

>

> Because if true then " attention to thought " is not

> in the Now, yes?

>

> And if not in the Now...

>

> Is not the Now the one true reality?

>

> It is by my definition.

>

>

> Bill

>

>

>

> It wasn't personal, Bill. The 'escape plan' was a hypothetical

extrapolation

> based on your statements.

>

>

> The post declares " Man never

> > existed at all. Our awareness as experience is past

> > experience. " He is indeed talking about transcending the human

experience.

>

>

> Yes, the premise of attention to thought being in the past is

clear and

> agreeable. I didn't address that at all. I didn't realize you

needed my

> validation.

>

>

> Phil

>

 

My point is that if there is complete immersion in the

Now then the notion of " me " as a person, as a human

being doesn't come in. I am not saying that concepts

are not useful. Thought does happen. But thought

*about oneself* is not useful, indeed really pathological

(my view). So, in that same vein, any notion of " myself

as a person " is not useful/pathological.

 

And when interacting with others, I need not postulate

their existence as a " person entity " either. The same

emptiness in this which is writing is in that which is

reading, in any " apparent person " .

 

In the terms of the original quote, the notion of

" oneself as a person " is a useless abstraction.

 

 

Bill

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/27/2006 3:09:58 AM Pacific Standard Time,

Nisargadatta writes:

 

" billrishel " <illusyn

Re: interpretation is always at the there-and-then level

 

 

 

> It wasn't personal, Bill. The 'escape plan' was a hypothetical

extrapolation

> based on your statements.

>

>

> The post declares " Man never

> > existed at all. Our awareness as experience is past

> > experience. " He is indeed talking about transcending the human

experience.

>

>

> Yes, the premise of attention to thought being in the past is

clear and

> agreeable. I didn't address that at all. I didn't realize you

needed my

> validation.

>

>

> Phil

>

 

My point is that if there is complete immersion in the

Now then the notion of " me " as a person, as a human

being doesn't come in. I am not saying that concepts

are not useful. Thought does happen. But thought

*about oneself* is not useful, indeed really pathological

(my view). So, in that same vein, any notion of " myself

as a person " is not useful/pathological.

 

And when interacting with others, I need not postulate

their existence as a " person entity " either. The same

emptiness in this which is writing is in that which is

reading, in any " apparent person " .

 

In the terms of the original quote, the notion of

" oneself as a person " is a useless abstraction.

 

 

Bill

 

 

Since delusion seems to be the theme of the day, we'll go with it. What you

deeply believe is that you are a separate human. If this was not your belief,

you would not be 'here', right? The idea that you are not a human is a

concept only for you. You've taken that concept so seriously that you now call

your

own fervent belief as a separate human pathological. This, itself, borders

on pathological (My view). Every thought you have relates in some way to the

Bill that you insist doesn't exist. Shall we look up the term 'pathological'?

Denial was never a recommended path to self realization.

 

Phil

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote:

>

>

> In a message dated 2/27/2006 3:09:58 AM Pacific Standard Time,

> Nisargadatta writes:

>

> " billrishel " <illusyn

> Re: interpretation is always at the there-and-then level

>

>

>

> > It wasn't personal, Bill. The 'escape plan' was a hypothetical

> extrapolation

> > based on your statements.

> >

> >

> > The post declares " Man never

> > > existed at all. Our awareness as experience is past

> > > experience. " He is indeed talking about transcending the human

> experience.

> >

> >

> > Yes, the premise of attention to thought being in the past is

> clear and

> > agreeable. I didn't address that at all. I didn't realize you

> needed my

> > validation.

> >

> >

> > Phil

> >

>

> My point is that if there is complete immersion in the

> Now then the notion of " me " as a person, as a human

> being doesn't come in. I am not saying that concepts

> are not useful. Thought does happen. But thought

> *about oneself* is not useful, indeed really pathological

> (my view). So, in that same vein, any notion of " myself

> as a person " is not useful/pathological.

>

> And when interacting with others, I need not postulate

> their existence as a " person entity " either. The same

> emptiness in this which is writing is in that which is

> reading, in any " apparent person " .

>

> In the terms of the original quote, the notion of

> " oneself as a person " is a useless abstraction.

>

>

> Bill

>

>

Phil wrote:

 

Since delusion seems to be the theme of the day, we'll

go with it. What you deeply believe is that you are a

separate human. If this was not your belief, you would

not be 'here', right? The idea that you are not a

human is a concept only for you. You've taken that

concept so seriously that you now call your own

fervent belief as a separate human pathological. This,

itself, borders on pathological (My view). Every

thought you have relates in some way to the Bill that

you insist doesn't exist. Shall we look up the term

'pathological'? Denial was never a recommended path to

self realization.

 

~~~~~~

 

?????????

 

Stop with:

" What you deeply believe is that you are a separate human. "

 

How so?

 

What is stated above is the belief of the writer, evidently.

What is the writer's basis for that remark?

 

 

Bill

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/28/2006 2:53:09 AM Pacific Standard Time,

Nisargadatta writes:

 

" billrishel " <illusyn

Re: interpretation is always at the there-and-then level

 

Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote:

>

>

> In a message dated 2/27/2006 3:09:58 AM Pacific Standard Time,

> Nisargadatta writes:

>

> " billrishel " <illusyn

> Re: interpretation is always at the there-and-then level

>

>

>

> > It wasn't personal, Bill. The 'escape plan' was a hypothetical

> extrapolation

> > based on your statements.

> >

> >

> > The post declares " Man never

> > > existed at all. Our awareness as experience is past

> > > experience. " He is indeed talking about transcending the human

> experience.

> >

> >

> > Yes, the premise of attention to thought being in the past is

> clear and

> > agreeable. I didn't address that at all. I didn't realize you

> needed my

> > validation.

> >

> >

> > Phil

> >

>

> My point is that if there is complete immersion in the

> Now then the notion of " me " as a person, as a human

> being doesn't come in. I am not saying that concepts

> are not useful. Thought does happen. But thought

> *about oneself* is not useful, indeed really pathological

> (my view). So, in that same vein, any notion of " myself

> as a person " is not useful/pathological.

>

> And when interacting with others, I need not postulate

> their existence as a " person entity " either. The same

> emptiness in this which is writing is in that which is

> reading, in any " apparent person " .

>

> In the terms of the original quote, the notion of

> " oneself as a person " is a useless abstraction.

>

>

> Bill

>

>

Phil wrote:

 

Since delusion seems to be the theme of the day, we'll

go with it. What you deeply believe is that you are a

separate human. If this was not your belief, you would

not be 'here', right? The idea that you are not a

human is a concept only for you. You've taken that

concept so seriously that you now call your own

fervent belief as a separate human pathological. This,

itself, borders on pathological (My view). Every

thought you have relates in some way to the Bill that

you insist doesn't exist. Shall we look up the term

'pathological'? Denial was never a recommended path to

self realization.

 

~~~~~~

 

?????????

 

Stop with:

" What you deeply believe is that you are a separate human. "

 

How so?

 

What is stated above is the belief of the writer, evidently.

What is the writer's basis for that remark?

 

 

Bill

 

 

 

The writer's basis for the remark that you believe you are separate is that

you do not know yourself to be One. You are not aware of yourself as One. You

are not Self aware. This writer isn't sure how to make the obvious any more

clear.

 

Okay, lets try this. There's a difference between what you truly believe to

be so and a concept that you mentally accept or hope or conclude is valid. If

you do not know the Truth, it's just a concept, as is repeated here often.

Concepts are just ideas that change nothing.

 

You can't choose what to believe. What you believe to be so comes from what

you experience to be so. Beneath the concept that Bill is not a separate

human, everything you perceive tells you that you in fact are a separate human,

and the same mind that embraces the idea of oneness will not let you ignore

your experience of separation.

 

Hey, here's kind of an interesting thing. Didja know that the mind has to

continually reinforce it's existence or it dies? It's not that we just accept

that the mind exists when we're very small and it sticks with us, the mind is

in danger of vanishing any moment, and this is why it scrambles around for

something to think about. This is so because it doesn't actually exist and the

facade keeps breaking down and the Truth is in danger of being noticed. As

long as it's thinking, it proves it must exist. When you try to stop the

thoughts, you notice the mind simply won't cooperate, it smells death. Of

course,

it's the mind that both wants to think and wants to stop at the same time,

which is part of the hilarity of ego.

 

Phil