attaching importance to being in the now (((Leaving no residue

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote:

>

> My impression is that you attach some importance to this " being in

> > the now " , like you call it. As if it was better then " not being

in

> > the now " . Is this so?

> >

> > Len

> >

>

> That is a *very good* question!

>

> For myself, being in the Now is my entire philosophy.

> It has all boiled down to that. There used to be a lot

> more complexity, but " being in the Now " is all that is

> left. I guess a kind of process of " spiritual erosion " .

>

> I don't see a distinction between " being in the Now "

> on the one hand, and " not being in the Now " on the other,

> however.

>

> One of my favorite authors wrote: The choice is between

> choice and no-choice. Being in the Now is the choice of

> no-choice.

>

> Sometimes something is " up " ... something has happened

> that has left a " residue " ...

>

> By now the reflex is pretty much automatic. If there is

> any persistence of " state " , if there is something " hanging

> around " then the reflex is to slow down, check it out,

> zoom in, pay attention... along the lines we have been

> discussing.

>

> I don't have a monitor that says, " Currently in the Now. "

>

> That doesn't even make sense. The very phrase (which I

> admittedly use): being *in* the Now is self-contradictory

> in a way. Now cannot be punctuated by an in/out.

> [i'm open to suggestions for a replacement phrase!]

>

> Now, lately, meaning for the last year or so I suppose...

> stuff doesn't come up much that I notice. It just

> doesn't. And then there is just a sparkling presence

> with no *distinctions in it*. Like right now. Yes there

> is a laptop in front, but it *isn't a distinction*.

> Can't explain how that is, but it is.

>

> So the choice of no-choice is simply to be present with

> What Is. Sometimes stuff is coming up, uncomfortable

> stuff. So I get to be fully present with that. Sometimes

> stuff doesn't come up for what seems like a pretty long

> time. But there has to be COMPLETE INDIFFERENCE to

> whether stuff comes up or not. It's not about whether

> stuff comes up or not.

>

> So to define Now (I'm going aha!), perhaps it really

> comes down to that COMPLETE INDIFFERENCE to what comes

> up.

>

> So yeah, when stuff isn't coming up for a long time

> it really is kinda amazing. I'll want to talk about

> it, but the messages tend to get criss-crossed.

> Usually people don't know what the hell I'm talking

> about. I'll say there's no sense of " space " , there's

> no sense of " location " , there's not sense of inner/

> outer... I'll say REALLY!

>

> [btw, isn't it interesting that all of those are

> *geometric* distincions?]

>

> BUT, it doesn't matter about the " kinda amazing " .

> It doesn't matter. All that matters is the

> complete indifference.

 

 

 

>And coming back to the notion

> of truth again, you know that symbol for justice?

> The figure holding the scales that is blindfolded?

>

> Complete indifference.

 

 

 

:-) Yes.

Just one remark, Bill.

We must be careful not to make indifference to a goal.

When some very painful stuff comes up, it's initilly impossible to be

indifferent. And trying to be indiffrent anyway may lead to

suppression of what is coming up.

 

Len