Guest guest Posted April 1, 2006 Report Share Posted April 1, 2006 Bill: The notion of " time " *is* a construct that I find effective in getting across that whatever takes time is not in Now, and what is not in Now is not real. L.E: The problem here is that the Now includes everything, even what is not real. This is what is so difficult to see, or understand. The Now has no outside, no boundries or borders. It exists from here to there, from zero to infinity and includes all that is. As you realize you are always living in this present moment, even before you were aware of it, much confusion is dispelled. the Now embraces all clocks, dreams and fantasies, those who measure movement and those who don't. Those who believe in God, Christ, Buddha and Mohammed and those who don't. It's all here, it's all now, in this timeless moment, simultaneously. Simultaneously! Another hard to sense reality of Nowness. It's all happening at once, everything, everywere, all at once. All the moans, howls, screams and sex. All the arguments, ideas patterns shapes, forrms animals, plants, planets, suns. All Now, all together, all the same time, timeless, in this endless, eternal moment. Ah! The miracle of it all, happening Now. And we call it ordinary, everyday. What a misnomer. Words cannot contain it. Larry Epston www.epston.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 1, 2006 Report Share Posted April 1, 2006 In a message dated 4/1/2006 7:10:18 AM Pacific Standard Time, illusyn writes: > Nisargadatta , epston wrote: > > > >Bill: The notion of " time " *is* a construct that > >I find effective in getting across that > >whatever takes time is not in Now, and what > >is not in Now is not real. > > > > > >L.E: The problem here is that the Now includes everything, even > what is not > >real. > >This is what is so difficult to see, or understand. The Now has no > outside, > >no boundries or borders. It exists from here to there, from zero > to infinity > >and includes all that is. As you realize you are always living in > this > >present moment, even before you were aware of it, much confusion is > dispelled. the > >Now embraces all clocks, dreams and fantasies, those who measure > movement and > >those who don't. Those who believe in God, Christ, Buddha and > Mohammed and > >those who don't. It's all here, it's all now, in this timeless > moment, > >simultaneously. Simultaneously! Another hard to sense reality of > Nowness. It's all > >happening at once, everything, everywere, all at once. All the > moans, howls, > >screams and sex. All the arguments, ideas patterns shapes, forrms > animals, > >plants, planets, suns. All Now, all together, all the same time, > timeless, in > >this endless, eternal moment. > >Ah! The miracle of it all, happening Now. And we call it > ordinary, > >everyday. What a misnomer. Words cannot contain it. > > > >Larry Epston > >www.epston.com > > What you are talking about is (seems to me) a *concept* of Now. > Hence the notion you describe is like a kind of " container " > in which " everything " belongs. > > The Now I was writing about is different from that. > There is no sense of " me " in the Now I am talking about. > There is no sense of " flow " even. There is no " sense of X " > actually. > > Can you imagine it being *impossible* to have a sense of me? > Can you imagine it being *impossible* to have a sense of > " within " vs. " out there " ? > > If so then perhaps you know what I mean. > > I am not talking theory. > > Bill > > > L.E: Dear Bill, I'm not talking theory either even if you try to enclose > what I am saying in the rubric of a concept, or thought, or imagination. There > are limitations due to language but if your use of the word Now, and mine is > different, what more can I say? Then neither of us knows what the other is > talking about, Certainly my view of the condition or state of Now is not a > " containter " because a container has a limit to its size and an inside and > outside. What I am describing has no inside or outside and includes everywhere > and everything. This now includes all those who talk about an existing me, > and those who do not. Those who are blind, and those who see. Everything and > everybody. Is that so hard to see, or imagine or realize? When the sense of > I is gone you are in the Now state. When the sense of I is not gone, you are > still in the Now, because the Here and Now is all that is, all that exists > and must include everything. Even if what I am describing is theory beyond my > own direct experience, he who is theorizing is still incuded in the Now of > Existence. Is it possible to talk of a self without a self? Is it possible > to talk about an I am, if there is no I am? Can all this take place in the > present moment? Yes it can. Larry Epston > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 1, 2006 Report Share Posted April 1, 2006 Nisargadatta , epston wrote: > > Bill: The notion of " time " *is* a construct that > I find effective in getting across that > whatever takes time is not in Now, and what > is not in Now is not real. > > > L.E: The problem here is that the Now includes everything, even what is not > real. > This is what is so difficult to see, or understand. The Now has no outside, > no boundries or borders. It exists from here to there, from zero to infinity > and includes all that is. As you realize you are always living in this > present moment, even before you were aware of it, much confusion is dispelled. the > Now embraces all clocks, dreams and fantasies, those who measure movement and > those who don't. Those who believe in God, Christ, Buddha and Mohammed and > those who don't. It's all here, it's all now, in this timeless moment, > simultaneously. Simultaneously! Another hard to sense reality of Nowness. It's all > happening at once, everything, everywere, all at once. All the moans, howls, > screams and sex. All the arguments, ideas patterns shapes, forrms animals, > plants, planets, suns. All Now, all together, all the same time, timeless, in > this endless, eternal moment. > Ah! The miracle of it all, happening Now. And we call it ordinary, > everyday. What a misnomer. Words cannot contain it. > > Larry Epston > www.epston.com What you are talking about is (seems to me) a *concept* of Now. Hence the notion you describe is like a kind of " container " in which " everything " belongs. The Now I was writing about is different from that. There is no sense of " me " in the Now I am talking about. There is no sense of " flow " even. There is no " sense of X " actually. Can you imagine it being *impossible* to have a sense of me? Can you imagine it being *impossible* to have a sense of " within " vs. " out there " ? If so then perhaps you know what I mean. I am not talking theory. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 1, 2006 Report Share Posted April 1, 2006 In a message dated 4/1/2006 11:47:08 AM Pacific Standard Time, illusyn writes: > Hopefully you don't consider that there is one " correct " > definition of the term " Now " . > > > Bill > L.E: There may be endless definitions of the term Now, but there is only one actual existing reality that includes everything including the unreal. Larry Epston Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 1, 2006 Report Share Posted April 1, 2006 Nisargadatta , epston wrote: > > In a message dated 4/1/2006 7:10:18 AM Pacific Standard Time, > illusyn writes: > > > Nisargadatta , epston@ wrote: > > > > > >Bill: The notion of " time " *is* a construct that > > >I find effective in getting across that > > >whatever takes time is not in Now, and what > > >is not in Now is not real. > > > > > > > > >L.E: The problem here is that the Now includes everything, even > > what is not > > >real. > > >This is what is so difficult to see, or understand. The Now has no > > outside, > > >no boundries or borders. It exists from here to there, from zero > > to infinity > > >and includes all that is. As you realize you are always living in > > this > > >present moment, even before you were aware of it, much confusion is > > dispelled. the > > >Now embraces all clocks, dreams and fantasies, those who measure > > movement and > > >those who don't. Those who believe in God, Christ, Buddha and > > Mohammed and > > >those who don't. It's all here, it's all now, in this timeless > > moment, > > >simultaneously. Simultaneously! Another hard to sense reality of > > Nowness. It's all > > >happening at once, everything, everywere, all at once. All the > > moans, howls, > > >screams and sex. All the arguments, ideas patterns shapes, forrms > > animals, > > >plants, planets, suns. All Now, all together, all the same time, > > timeless, in > > >this endless, eternal moment. > > >Ah! The miracle of it all, happening Now. And we call it > > ordinary, > > >everyday. What a misnomer. Words cannot contain it. > > > > > >Larry Epston > > >www.epston.com > > > > What you are talking about is (seems to me) a *concept* of Now. > > Hence the notion you describe is like a kind of " container " > > in which " everything " belongs. > > > > The Now I was writing about is different from that. > > There is no sense of " me " in the Now I am talking about. > > There is no sense of " flow " even. There is no " sense of X " > > actually. > > > > Can you imagine it being *impossible* to have a sense of me? > > Can you imagine it being *impossible* to have a sense of > > " within " vs. " out there " ? > > > > If so then perhaps you know what I mean. > > > > I am not talking theory. > > > > Bill > > > > > > L.E: Dear Bill, I'm not talking theory either even if you try to enclose > > what I am saying in the rubric of a concept, or thought, or imagination. There > > are limitations due to language but if your use of the word Now, and mine is > > different, what more can I say? Then neither of us knows what the other is > > talking about, Certainly my view of the condition or state of Now is not a > > " containter " because a container has a limit to its size and an inside and > > outside. What I am describing has no inside or outside and includes everywhere > > and everything. This now includes all those who talk about an existing me, > > and those who do not. Those who are blind, and those who see. Everything and > > everybody. Is that so hard to see, or imagine or realize? When the sense of > > I is gone you are in the Now state. When the sense of I is not gone, you are > > still in the Now, because the Here and Now is all that is, all that exists > > and must include everything. Even if what I am describing is theory beyond my > > own direct experience, he who is theorizing is still incuded in the Now of > > Existence. Is it possible to talk of a self without a self? Is it possible > > to talk about an I am, if there is no I am? Can all this take place in the > > present moment? Yes it can. > > > Larry Epston > You were initially responding to something I had written that included a reference to the notion of Now (as I was using the term). You then made a comment about " Now " that differed from my use. I then clarified that my definition of the term " Now " is different from yours. So you have learned that I was using the term " Now " in a different way that you (are inclined to use it). So, that means, you weren't actually commenting about *what I had to say* afterall. But at least our different respective uses of the term " Now " has somewhat been clarified. Hopefully you don't consider that there is one " correct " definition of the term " Now " . Bill 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.