Guest guest Posted April 2, 2006 Report Share Posted April 2, 2006 In a message dated 4/2/2006 9:48:28 AM Pacific Daylight Time, illusyn writes: > > I was reflecting this AM about the matter of " leaving > a residue " . I got a speeding ticket this AM, and so > was looking at it in that regard. As it was I was very > (surprisingly actually) calm about it. But could I > leave it behind with *no residue*? > > I seemed to recall Krishnamurti talking about that, so > I did a search and found something. Once again, it seems > to me, he really sparkles: > > Krishnamurti: How do you see those flowers, see the beauty of > them, be completely sensitive to them so that there is no > residue, no memory of them, so that when you see them again an > hour later you see a new flower? That is not possible if you > see as a sensation and that sensation is associated with > flowers, with pleasure. The traditional way is to shut out what > is pleasurable because such associations awaken other forms of > pleasure and so you discipline yourself not to look. To cut > association with a surgical knife is immature. So how is the > mind, how are the eyes, to see the tremendous colour and yet > have it leave no mark? > > I am not asking for a method. How does that state come into > being? Otherwise we cannot be sensitive. It is like a > photographic plate which receives impressions and is self- > renewing. It is exposed, and yet becomes negative for the next > impression. So all the time, it is self- cleansing of every > pleasure. Is that possible or are we playing with words and not > with facts? The fact which I see clearly is that any residual > sensitivity, sensation, dulls the mind. I deny that fact, but I > do not know what it is to be so extraordinarily sensitive that > experience leaves no mark and yet to see the flower with > fullness, with tremendous intensity. I see as an undeniable > fact that every sensation, every feeling, every thought, leaves > a mark, shapes the mind, and that such marks cannot possibly > bring about a new mind. I see that to have a mind with marks is > death, so I deny death. But I do not know the other. I also see > that a good mind is sensitive without the residue of > experience. It experiences, but the experience leaves no mark > from which it draws further experiences, further conclusions, > further death. > > Bill L.E: Perhas you are aware that I don't think highly of K. He asks so many questions and we assume he has the answers which I doubt. Memory exist for most of us, and memory is residue. For " experience to leave no mark " there can't be any memory which for significant experiences is not likely. But, we are surrounded by a total theatre of smell, sound, touch, hearing that we don't pay much attention to. These experiences leave no mark. We are having them all the time in every moment of wakefulness. How much to you remember from passing through a day? Very little, no mark, no residue. K. spent his life asking questions that he probably couldn't answer in kind of a verbal cloud that rained on all around him. Just another preacher that learned how to manipulate an audience just like thoese TV evangelists, Jewish rabbis, Muslim Imams and all those that act with pomposity and superiority. Larry Epston Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 2, 2006 Report Share Posted April 2, 2006 I was reflecting this AM about the matter of " leaving a residue " . I got a speeding ticket this AM, and so was looking at it in that regard. As it was I was very (surprisingly actually) calm about it. But could I leave it behind with *no residue*? I seemed to recall Krishnamurti talking about that, so I did a search and found something. Once again, it seems to me, he really sparkles: Krishnamurti: How do you see those flowers, see the beauty of them, be completely sensitive to them so that there is no residue, no memory of them, so that when you see them again an hour later you see a new flower? That is not possible if you see as a sensation and that sensation is associated with flowers, with pleasure. The traditional way is to shut out what is pleasurable because such associations awaken other forms of pleasure and so you discipline yourself not to look. To cut association with a surgical knife is immature. So how is the mind, how are the eyes, to see the tremendous colour and yet have it leave no mark? I am not asking for a method. How does that state come into being? Otherwise we cannot be sensitive. It is like a photographic plate which receives impressions and is self- renewing. It is exposed, and yet becomes negative for the next impression. So all the time, it is self- cleansing of every pleasure. Is that possible or are we playing with words and not with facts? The fact which I see clearly is that any residual sensitivity, sensation, dulls the mind. I deny that fact, but I do not know what it is to be so extraordinarily sensitive that experience leaves no mark and yet to see the flower with fullness, with tremendous intensity. I see as an undeniable fact that every sensation, every feeling, every thought, leaves a mark, shapes the mind, and that such marks cannot possibly bring about a new mind. I see that to have a mind with marks is death, so I deny death. But I do not know the other. I also see that a good mind is sensitive without the residue of experience. It experiences, but the experience leaves no mark from which it draws further experiences, further conclusions, further death. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 2, 2006 Report Share Posted April 2, 2006 Nisargadatta , epston wrote: > > In a message dated 4/2/2006 9:48:28 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > illusyn writes: > > > > > I was reflecting this AM about the matter of " leaving > > a residue " . I got a speeding ticket this AM, and so > > was looking at it in that regard. As it was I was very > > (surprisingly actually) calm about it. But could I > > leave it behind with *no residue*? > > > > I seemed to recall Krishnamurti talking about that, so > > I did a search and found something. Once again, it seems > > to me, he really sparkles: > > > > Krishnamurti: How do you see those flowers, see the beauty of > > them, be completely sensitive to them so that there is no > > residue, no memory of them, so that when you see them again an > > hour later you see a new flower? That is not possible if you > > see as a sensation and that sensation is associated with > > flowers, with pleasure. The traditional way is to shut out what > > is pleasurable because such associations awaken other forms of > > pleasure and so you discipline yourself not to look. To cut > > association with a surgical knife is immature. So how is the > > mind, how are the eyes, to see the tremendous colour and yet > > have it leave no mark? > > > > I am not asking for a method. How does that state come into > > being? Otherwise we cannot be sensitive. It is like a > > photographic plate which receives impressions and is self- > > renewing. It is exposed, and yet becomes negative for the next > > impression. So all the time, it is self- cleansing of every > > pleasure. Is that possible or are we playing with words and not > > with facts? The fact which I see clearly is that any residual > > sensitivity, sensation, dulls the mind. I deny that fact, but I > > do not know what it is to be so extraordinarily sensitive that > > experience leaves no mark and yet to see the flower with > > fullness, with tremendous intensity. I see as an undeniable > > fact that every sensation, every feeling, every thought, leaves > > a mark, shapes the mind, and that such marks cannot possibly > > bring about a new mind. I see that to have a mind with marks is > > death, so I deny death. But I do not know the other. I also see > > that a good mind is sensitive without the residue of > > experience. It experiences, but the experience leaves no mark > > from which it draws further experiences, further conclusions, > > further death. > > > > Bill > > L.E: Perhas you are aware that I don't think highly of K. He asks so many > questions and we assume he has the answers which I doubt. Memory exist for most > of us, and memory is residue. For " experience to leave no mark " there can't > be any memory which for significant experiences is not likely. But, we are > surrounded by a total theatre of smell, sound, touch, hearing that we don't pay > much attention to. These experiences leave no mark. We are having them all > the time in every moment of wakefulness. How much to you remember from passing > through a day? Very little, no mark, no residue. K. spent his life asking > questions that he probably couldn't answer in kind of a verbal cloud that rained > on all around him. Just another preacher that learned how to manipulate an > audience just like thoese TV evangelists, Jewish rabbis, Muslim Imams and all > those that act with pomposity and superiority. > > Larry Epston > > Those " guys " mentioned above are unlike Larry here Bill, who hasn't learned to manipulate anything or anyone. And unlike K he doesn't ask questions that he can't or can answer either. He just spouts nonsense hoping against hope that someone somewhere sometime might think that he has one idea about anything at all that makes sense or not. But despite the fact that he doesn't ask questions and is unable to manipulate anyone or have any ideas worth anything at all, he still qualifies for his act of pomposity and his delusions of superiority. I get a kick ot of him because he is a male version of Judy Rhodes. I mean you gotta laugh at these nincompoops! Reading this stuff is better than Comedy Central...Keep up the good work Larry..you're cracken me up! Extra time in the sandbox tonite Larry!...bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 2, 2006 Report Share Posted April 2, 2006 Nisargadatta , epston wrote: > > In a message dated 4/2/2006 9:48:28 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > illusyn writes: > > > > > I was reflecting this AM about the matter of " leaving > > a residue " . I got a speeding ticket this AM, and so > > was looking at it in that regard. As it was I was very > > (surprisingly actually) calm about it. But could I > > leave it behind with *no residue*? > > > > I seemed to recall Krishnamurti talking about that, so > > I did a search and found something. Once again, it seems > > to me, he really sparkles: > > > > Krishnamurti: How do you see those flowers, see the beauty of > > them, be completely sensitive to them so that there is no > > residue, no memory of them, so that when you see them again an > > hour later you see a new flower? That is not possible if you > > see as a sensation and that sensation is associated with > > flowers, with pleasure. The traditional way is to shut out what > > is pleasurable because such associations awaken other forms of > > pleasure and so you discipline yourself not to look. To cut > > association with a surgical knife is immature. So how is the > > mind, how are the eyes, to see the tremendous colour and yet > > have it leave no mark? > > > > I am not asking for a method. How does that state come into > > being? Otherwise we cannot be sensitive. It is like a > > photographic plate which receives impressions and is self- > > renewing. It is exposed, and yet becomes negative for the next > > impression. So all the time, it is self- cleansing of every > > pleasure. Is that possible or are we playing with words and not > > with facts? The fact which I see clearly is that any residual > > sensitivity, sensation, dulls the mind. I deny that fact, but I > > do not know what it is to be so extraordinarily sensitive that > > experience leaves no mark and yet to see the flower with > > fullness, with tremendous intensity. I see as an undeniable > > fact that every sensation, every feeling, every thought, leaves > > a mark, shapes the mind, and that such marks cannot possibly > > bring about a new mind. I see that to have a mind with marks is > > death, so I deny death. But I do not know the other. I also see > > that a good mind is sensitive without the residue of > > experience. It experiences, but the experience leaves no mark > > from which it draws further experiences, further conclusions, > > further death. > > > > Bill > > L.E: Perhas you are aware that I don't think highly of K. He asks so many > questions and we assume he has the answers which I doubt. Memory exist for most > of us, and memory is residue. For " experience to leave no mark " there can't > be any memory which for significant experiences is not likely. But, we are > surrounded by a total theatre of smell, sound, touch, hearing that we don't pay > much attention to. These experiences leave no mark. We are having them all > the time in every moment of wakefulness. How much to you remember from passing > through a day? Very little, no mark, no residue. K. spent his life asking > questions that he probably couldn't answer in kind of a verbal cloud that rained > on all around him. Just another preacher that learned how to manipulate an > audience just like thoese TV evangelists, Jewish rabbis, Muslim Imams and all > those that act with pomposity and superiority. > > Larry Epston By " leaving a residue " I mean something like: suppose someone says something or does something that is very upsetting to you and that *stays with you* for the remainer of the day. Like that. In my view one is not in the Now when that happens. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 2, 2006 Report Share Posted April 2, 2006 Nisargadatta , epston wrote: > L.E: Perhas you are aware that I don't think highly of K. He asks so many > questions and we assume he has the answers which I doubt. Memory exist for most > of us, and memory is residue. For " experience to leave no mark " there can't > be any memory which for significant experiences is not likely. But, we are > surrounded by a total theatre of smell, sound, touch, hearing that we don't pay > much attention to. These experiences leave no mark. We are having them all > the time in every moment of wakefulness. How much to you remember from passing > through a day? Very little, no mark, no residue. K. spent his life asking > questions that he probably couldn't answer in kind of a verbal cloud that rained > on all around him. Just another preacher that learned how to manipulate an > audience just like thoese TV evangelists, Jewish rabbis, Muslim Imams and all > those that act with pomposity and superiority. > > Larry Epston You just don´t understand him, Larry. K makes a lot of sense. No mark doesn´t mean that you are demented and forget everything. There is memory of what happens which is something completely different from psychological memory, which is a mark left by experience which you don´t properly deal with. When you deal with some experience to the end, with all sensitivity and attention, no mark is left, no psychological residue, which means that the whole thing is finished and you don´t have to carry it with you till your death. Len Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 2, 2006 Report Share Posted April 2, 2006 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , epston@ wrote: > > > > In a message dated 4/2/2006 9:48:28 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > > illusyn@ writes: > > > > > > > > I was reflecting this AM about the matter of " leaving > > > a residue " . I got a speeding ticket this AM, and so > > > was looking at it in that regard. As it was I was very > > > (surprisingly actually) calm about it. But could I > > > leave it behind with *no residue*? > > > > > > I seemed to recall Krishnamurti talking about that, so > > > I did a search and found something. Once again, it seems > > > to me, he really sparkles: > > > > > > Krishnamurti: How do you see those flowers, see the beauty of > > > them, be completely sensitive to them so that there is no > > > residue, no memory of them, so that when you see them again an > > > hour later you see a new flower? That is not possible if you > > > see as a sensation and that sensation is associated with > > > flowers, with pleasure. The traditional way is to shut out what > > > is pleasurable because such associations awaken other forms of > > > pleasure and so you discipline yourself not to look. To cut > > > association with a surgical knife is immature. So how is the > > > mind, how are the eyes, to see the tremendous colour and yet > > > have it leave no mark? > > > > > > I am not asking for a method. How does that state come into > > > being? Otherwise we cannot be sensitive. It is like a > > > photographic plate which receives impressions and is self- > > > renewing. It is exposed, and yet becomes negative for the next > > > impression. So all the time, it is self- cleansing of every > > > pleasure. Is that possible or are we playing with words and not > > > with facts? The fact which I see clearly is that any residual > > > sensitivity, sensation, dulls the mind. I deny that fact, but I > > > do not know what it is to be so extraordinarily sensitive that > > > experience leaves no mark and yet to see the flower with > > > fullness, with tremendous intensity. I see as an undeniable > > > fact that every sensation, every feeling, every thought, leaves > > > a mark, shapes the mind, and that such marks cannot possibly > > > bring about a new mind. I see that to have a mind with marks is > > > death, so I deny death. But I do not know the other. I also see > > > that a good mind is sensitive without the residue of > > > experience. It experiences, but the experience leaves no mark > > > from which it draws further experiences, further conclusions, > > > further death. > > > > > > Bill > > > > L.E: Perhas you are aware that I don't think highly of K. He asks > so many > > questions and we assume he has the answers which I doubt. Memory > exist for most > > of us, and memory is residue. For " experience to leave no mark " > there can't > > be any memory which for significant experiences is not likely. But, > we are > > surrounded by a total theatre of smell, sound, touch, hearing that > we don't pay > > much attention to. These experiences leave no mark. We are having > them all > > the time in every moment of wakefulness. How much to you remember > from passing > > through a day? Very little, no mark, no residue. K. spent his life > asking > > questions that he probably couldn't answer in kind of a verbal cloud > that rained > > on all around him. Just another preacher that learned how to > manipulate an > > audience just like thoese TV evangelists, Jewish rabbis, Muslim > Imams and all > > those that act with pomposity and superiority. > > > > Larry Epston > > By " leaving a residue " I mean something like: suppose someone says > something or does something that is very upsetting to you and > that *stays with you* for the remainer of the day. Like that. > > In my view one is not in the Now when that happens. > > Bill > Actually I would like to qualify that a bit: If one is very present with " it's staying with you " then one is in the Now, as I see it. But when that is no longer " with you " then immersion in the Now is more complete. As I have been saying, " being in the Now " is relative. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 2, 2006 Report Share Posted April 2, 2006 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > By " leaving a residue " I mean something like: suppose someone says > something or does something that is very upsetting to you and > that *stays with you* for the remainer of the day. Like that. Yes. > In my view one is not in the Now when that happens. And what happens when one is " in the Now " ? :-) Len 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.