Guest guest Posted April 20, 2006 Report Share Posted April 20, 2006 One of your statement Bill : <....I define Now as simply the entire phenomenal field of what-is-presented (multi-sensorially). Note that includes what is " presented " both as subjective material and as objective (external) material. In Now as so defined there is no time; even memory is presented now....> So that is causal, right? I don`t quite understand your statement. What is the entire phenomenal field? Is it what is perceived through our senses? then why is there no time? And this one : <.... To take the world as real and one's self as unreal is ignorance....> It seems that what you described as the Now, in your first statement, is the world. (Caused, causal..> In your second statement, what is the Now : The Self, or the world? And what is the self ? Please explain like if I was a 5 years old. Patricia ** If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: /mygroups?edit=1 Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 20, 2006 Report Share Posted April 20, 2006 > One of your statement Bill : > > <....I define Now as simply the entire phenomenal > field of what-is-presented (multi-sensorially). Note > that includes what is " presented " both as subjective > material and as objective (external) material. In Now > as so defined there is no time; even memory is > presented now....> > > So that is causal, right? No. Causal entails time. Causal means there is a connection between events, say A and B, such that when A then B. That of course involves time. > I don`t quite understand your statement. What is the > entire phenomenal field? The phenomenal field is the entire sensory field. In other words anything sensed, be it kinesthetic, visual, auditory, etc. It includes " internal " as well as " external " . So for example " hearing a voice in the head " would be part of it. > Is it what is perceived > through our senses? then why is there no time? It refers to just the raw sensation coming through the senses. I am realizing as I consider your question that what I am referring to by " phenomenal field " (or " sensory field " ) is not necessarily so obvious as I had expected it might be. Let's start with the " internal " ... Suppose you are meditating and some " material " presents itself to consciousness. There may be feelings involved, there may be visual content, auditory, and so on. While there may be a tendency to experience that material as thoughts, visions, and the like, if very attentive it becomes evident that there is nothing distinct in what presents. Any thoughts, for example, do not have real boundaries. It is really just blobs of " mental stuff " , squirmy and amorphous. Consider as analogy the expanding ripples in a pond as a result of a drop of water falling onto the surface of the pond. The pattern seems to be *there*; it can seem to be an " object " of sorts. But really the " appearance " of a pattern there is created due to a sequence of sense impressions. At any one moment the sense impressions from the pond do not constitute an expanding pattern at all. There are just sensations of lights and darks, of reflection, of curvature, etc. In other words, if you don't let yourself get sucked into the impression of continuity but rather continually experience the pond in each moment *as if the very first moment*, then there will be an experience of vivid, flashing, ever-changing sensations. I don't know if the above clarifies. Imagine that you are driving and your mind has " drifted off " and that on noticing that you bring your attention back to the road in front of you. Now imagine that just after doing that you *do it again*... that is you bring your attention to the road in front of you *again*, even though you hadn't drifted off this time. Imagine now that *every moment* you repeat that " bringing your attention back " . If you keep doing that you will continually experience the sensations of the road in front of you, but will also be continually *breaking the continuity*. Now imagine doing the same thing in meditation. Each moment you " bring yourself back " to what is immediately presenting itself, being aware that what is " immediately presenting " is constantly being " refreshed " (by the brain). You will discover, if you practice this a great deal, that eventually the lack of continuity, the constant refresh, becomes surprisingly natural. You would *think* that constantly returning to what is *just now* presenting would mean complete disorientation. But it is just the opposite. This is what I mean when I say " complete attention " . There is no drifting off into anything. Each moment stands on its own. And there can be no " doer " , because without continuity there is no time, nothing for any so-called doer to get a handle on. Eventually one learns to be in the constantly updated present even when in the midst of activity (such as typing an email!). The " doer " is not actually needed to *do stuff*. Activity is just being generated by the brain anyhow. Whatever is being " done " is already encoded/programmed by the brain before the idea of doing it even came to consciousness. The only difference now is that the brain isn't encoding the " sense of a doer doing " , it is ony encoding the doing. Thanks for the question, as it has made me realize how no-so-obvious what I had written is! And sorry if the explanations above are clear as mud. Perhaps with your response on unclear points I will be able to clarify. > And this one : > <.... To take the world as real and one's self as > unreal is ignorance....> > > It seems that what you described as the Now, in your > first statement, is the world. (Caused, causal..> Does that still seem that case after what I just wrote? > In your second statement, what is the Now : > The Self, or the world? > And what is the self ? Probably couldn't explain this to a five-year-old. But your questions here go straight to the heart of a deep question. It is in essence the same question I posed to Michael when I wrote: > Further though, is the question of what recognizes such as Reality? > > To use his definition, do we have to postulate something *else* > apart from Reality as he defines it? You can interpret experience as Now, or you can interpret experience as " events in the world " . But you *can't* have both interpretations. [Do you know of that image that can be seen as two faces or as a vase? You can't see it both ways at the same time.] The notion of " Self " is not one that has seemed important to me (that is Nisargadatta's notion). I prefer to stick with the one notion of Now. Obviously Now does not account for everything in terms of *explanation*. But explanation is not what is needed, in my view. What is needed is survival in the midst of this chaos of existence. And Now is the one true life raft, as I see it. But you *could* say that the Self is that which beholds the Now. I just don't see a value in stipulating that, and even perhaps some harm in doing so. Bill > > Please explain like if I was a 5 years old. > > Patricia > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 20, 2006 Report Share Posted April 20, 2006 --- billrishel <illusyn a écrit : > One of your statement Bill : > > <....I define Now as simply the entire phenomenal > field of what-is-presented (multi-sensorially). Note > that includes what is " presented " both as subjective > material and as objective (external) material. In Now > as so defined there is no time; even memory is > presented now....> > > So that is causal, right? No. Causal entails time. Causal means there is a connection between events, say A and B, such that when A then B. That of course involves time. > I don`t quite understand your statement. What is the > entire phenomenal field? The phenomenal field is the entire sensory field. In other words anything sensed, be it kinesthetic, visual, auditory, etc. It includes " internal " as well as " external " . So for example " hearing a voice in the head " would be part of it. > Is it what is perceived > through our senses? then why is there no time? It refers to just the raw sensation coming through the senses. I am realizing as I consider your question that what I am referring to by " phenomenal field " (or " sensory field " ) is not necessarily so obvious as I had expected it might be. Let's start with the " internal " ... Suppose you are meditating and some " material " presents itself to consciousness. There may be feelings involved, there may be visual content, auditory, and so on. While there may be a tendency to experience that material as thoughts, visions, and the like, if very attentive it becomes evident that there is nothing distinct in what presents. Any thoughts, for example, do not have real boundaries. It is really just blobs of " mental stuff " , squirmy and amorphous. Consider as analogy the expanding ripples in a pond as a result of a drop of water falling onto the surface of the pond. The pattern seems to be *there*; it can seem to be an " object " of sorts. But really the " appearance " of a pattern there is created due to a sequence of sense impressions. At any one moment the sense impressions from the pond do not constitute an expanding pattern at all. There are just sensations of lights and darks, of reflection, of curvature, etc. In other words, if you don't let yourself get sucked into the impression of continuity but rather continually experience the pond in each moment *as if the very first moment*, then there will be an experience of vivid, flashing, ever-changing sensations. I don't know if the above clarifies. Imagine that you are driving and your mind has " drifted off " and that on noticing that you bring your attention back to the road in front of you. Now imagine that just after doing that you *do it again*... that is you bring your attention to the road in front of you *again*, even though you hadn't drifted off this time. Imagine now that *every moment* you repeat that " bringing your attention back " . If you keep doing that you will continually experience the sensations of the road in front of you, but will also be continually *breaking the continuity*. Now imagine doing the same thing in meditation. Each moment you " bring yourself back " to what is immediately presenting itself, being aware that what is " immediately presenting " is constantly being " refreshed " (by the brain). You will discover, if you practice this a great deal, that eventually the lack of continuity, the constant refresh, becomes surprisingly natural. You would *think* that constantly returning to what is *just now* presenting would mean complete disorientation. But it is just the opposite. This is what I mean when I say " complete attention " . There is no drifting off into anything. Each moment stands on its own. And there can be no " doer " , because without continuity there is no time, nothing for any so-called doer to get a handle on. Eventually one learns to be in the constantly updated present even when in the midst of activity (such as typing an email!). The " doer " is not actually needed to *do stuff*. Activity is just being generated by the brain anyhow. Whatever is being " done " is already encoded/programmed by the brain before the idea of doing it even came to consciousness. The only difference now is that the brain isn't encoding the " sense of a doer doing " , it is ony encoding the doing. Thanks for the question, as it has made me realize how no-so-obvious what I had written is! And sorry if the explanations above are clear as mud. Perhaps with your response on unclear points I will be able to clarify. > And this one : > <.... To take the world as real and one's self as > unreal is ignorance....> > > It seems that what you described as the Now, in your > first statement, is the world. (Caused, causal..> Does that still seem that case after what I just wrote? > In your second statement, what is the Now : > The Self, or the world? > And what is the self ? Probably couldn't explain this to a five-year-old. But your questions here go straight to the heart of a deep question. It is in essence the same question I posed to Michael when I wrote: > Further though, is the question of what recognizes such as Reality? > > To use his definition, do we have to postulate something *else* > apart from Reality as he defines it? You can interpret experience as Now, or you can interpret experience as " events in the world " . But you *can't* have both interpretations. [Do you know of that image that can be seen as two faces or as a vase? You can't see it both ways at the same time.] The notion of " Self " is not one that has seemed important to me (that is Nisargadatta's notion). I prefer to stick with the one notion of Now. Obviously Now does not account for everything in terms of *explanation*. But explanation is not what is needed, in my view. What is needed is survival in the midst of this chaos of existence. And Now is the one true life raft, as I see it. But you *could* say that the Self is that which beholds the Now. I just don't see a value in stipulating that, and even perhaps some harm in doing so. Bill > > Please explain like if I was a 5 years old. > > Patricia I am going to make that my evening lecture, and get back to you. Thank-you Bill. Patricia > ** If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: /mygroups?edit=1 Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 20, 2006 Report Share Posted April 20, 2006 --- billrishel <illusyn a écrit : > One of your statement Bill : > > <....I define Now as simply the entire phenomenal > field of what-is-presented (multi-sensorially). Note > that includes what is " presented " both as subjective > material and as objective (external) material. In Now > as so defined there is no time; even memory is > presented now....> > > So that is causal, right? No. Causal entails time. Causal means there is a connection between events, say A and B, such that when A then B. That of course involves time. > I don`t quite understand your statement. What is the > entire phenomenal field? The phenomenal field is the entire sensory field. In other words anything sensed, be it kinesthetic, visual, auditory, etc. It includes " internal " as well as " external " . So for example " hearing a voice in the head " would be part of it. > Is it what is perceived > through our senses? then why is there no time? It refers to just the raw sensation coming through the senses. I am realizing as I consider your question that what I am referring to by " phenomenal field " (or " sensory field " ) is not necessarily so obvious as I had expected it might be. Let's start with the " internal " ... Suppose you are meditating and some " material " presents itself to consciousness. There may be feelings involved, there may be visual content, auditory, and so on. While there may be a tendency to experience that material as thoughts, visions, and the like, if very attentive it becomes evident that there is nothing distinct in what presents. Any thoughts, for example, do not have real boundaries. It is really just blobs of " mental stuff " , squirmy and amorphous. Consider as analogy the expanding ripples in a pond as a result of a drop of water falling onto the surface of the pond. The pattern seems to be *there*; it can seem to be an " object " of sorts. But really the " appearance " of a pattern there is created due to a sequence of sense impressions. At any one moment the sense impressions from the pond do not constitute an expanding pattern at all. There are just sensations of lights and darks, of reflection, of curvature, etc. In other words, if you don't let yourself get sucked into the impression of continuity but rather continually experience the pond in each moment *as if the very first moment*, then there will be an experience of vivid, flashing, ever-changing sensations. I don't know if the above clarifies. Imagine that you are driving and your mind has " drifted off " and that on noticing that you bring your attention back to the road in front of you. Now imagine that just after doing that you *do it again*... that is you bring your attention to the road in front of you *again*, even though you hadn't drifted off this time. Imagine now that *every moment* you repeat that " bringing your attention back " . If you keep doing that you will continually experience the sensations of the road in front of you, but will also be continually *breaking the continuity*. Now imagine doing the same thing in meditation. Each moment you " bring yourself back " to what is immediately presenting itself, being aware that what is " immediately presenting " is constantly being " refreshed " (by the brain). You will discover, if you practice this a great deal, that eventually the lack of continuity, the constant refresh, becomes surprisingly natural. You would *think* that constantly returning to what is *just now* presenting would mean complete disorientation. But it is just the opposite. This is what I mean when I say " complete attention " . There is no drifting off into anything. Each moment stands on its own. And there can be no " doer " , because without continuity there is no time, nothing for any so-called doer to get a handle on. Eventually one learns to be in the constantly updated present even when in the midst of activity (such as typing an email!). The " doer " is not actually needed to *do stuff*. Activity is just being generated by the brain anyhow. Whatever is being " done " is already encoded/programmed by the brain before the idea of doing it even came to consciousness. The only difference now is that the brain isn't encoding the " sense of a doer doing " , it is ony encoding the doing. Thanks for the question, as it has made me realize how no-so-obvious what I had written is! And sorry if the explanations above are clear as mud. Perhaps with your response on unclear points I will be able to clarify. > And this one : > <.... To take the world as real and one's self as > unreal is ignorance....> > > It seems that what you described as the Now, in your > first statement, is the world. (Caused, causal..> Does that still seem that case after what I just wrote? > In your second statement, what is the Now : > The Self, or the world? > And what is the self ? Probably couldn't explain this to a five-year-old. But your questions here go straight to the heart of a deep question. It is in essence the same question I posed to Michael when I wrote: > Further though, is the question of what recognizes such as Reality? > > To use his definition, do we have to postulate something *else* > apart from Reality as he defines it? You can interpret experience as Now, or you can interpret experience as " events in the world " . But you *can't* have both interpretations. [Do you know of that image that can be seen as two faces or as a vase? You can't see it both ways at the same time.] The notion of " Self " is not one that has seemed important to me (that is Nisargadatta's notion). I prefer to stick with the one notion of Now. Obviously Now does not account for everything in terms of *explanation*. But explanation is not what is needed, in my view. What is needed is survival in the midst of this chaos of existence. And Now is the one true life raft, as I see it. But you *could* say that the Self is that which beholds the Now. I just don't see a value in stipulating that, and even perhaps some harm in doing so. Bill After reading your post, I fell asleep.. Not that I got bored, but I <think> best and most deeply that way. I woke up and here is what I saw about the Now and its perception : I like how you described it as < the raw sensation coming through the senses>. I relate. And then I got taken back to another exchange we had on the very same topic. I asked you to tell me why the Now? What are the consequences of being in the Now? What is that passion about being in the Now, how does it feel or not feel? Where does it take you? See, you say the notion of Self is not what is important to you, only the notion of Now is important. But that isn`t enough for me. I guess I lack your integrity and simplicity, I want more: ....Knowing self until I lose myself... Because the Self is the source of the Now, in that sense I still seem to think that the Now is causal: The Self is the source and the end of every event. So..Completely emerged in te Now is meditation. Attention permeating into the Now, down to its last atom, reaches the source of life. into what I am. It is pure essence, it is a beginning that is also the end of all searchs and doubts. Only awareness can be completly aware of Now and when doing so, the circle closes. Awareness is its own source : in other words, to allow such a level of pure unfragmented attention in the Now, seem to show Awareness back to its own source. It all begin in awareness and its return is to awareness. There is only awareness. The Gap is gone. That is what I saw during my 20 minute nap. So you see, it doesn`t matter, Even if you didn`t understand , it doesn`t matter. Patricia ** If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: /mygroups?edit=1 Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 21, 2006 Report Share Posted April 21, 2006 Nisargadatta , OConnor Patricia <gdtige wrote: > > > --- billrishel <illusyn a écrit : > > > > > One of your statement Bill : > > > > <....I define Now as simply the entire phenomenal > > field of what-is-presented (multi-sensorially). Note > > that includes what is " presented " both as > subjective > > material and as objective (external) material. In > Now > > as so defined there is no time; even memory is > > presented now....> > > > > So that is causal, right? > > No. Causal entails time. > Causal means there is a connection between events, > say A and B, such that when A then B. > That of course involves time. > > > I don`t quite understand your statement. What is the > > entire phenomenal field? > The phenomenal field is the entire sensory field. > In other words anything sensed, be it kinesthetic, > visual, auditory, etc. It includes " internal " as well > as " external " . So for example " hearing a voice in > the head " would be part of it. > > > Is it what is perceived > > through our senses? then why is there no time? > > It refers to just the raw sensation coming through > the senses. I am realizing as I consider your > question that what I am referring to by " phenomenal > field " (or " sensory field " ) is not necessarily so > obvious as I had expected it might be. > > Let's start with the " internal " ... > Suppose you are meditating and some " material " > presents itself to consciousness. There may be > feelings involved, there may be visual content, > auditory, and so on. > > While there may be a tendency to experience that > material as thoughts, visions, and the like, > if very attentive it becomes evident that there > is nothing distinct in what presents. Any thoughts, > for example, do not have real boundaries. It is > really just blobs of " mental stuff " , squirmy > and amorphous. > > Consider as analogy the expanding ripples in a pond > as a result of a drop of water falling onto the > surface of the pond. The pattern seems to be > *there*; it can seem to be an " object " of sorts. > But really the " appearance " of a pattern there is > created due to a sequence of sense impressions. > At any one moment the sense impressions from the > pond do not constitute an expanding pattern at all. > There are just sensations of lights and darks, of > reflection, of curvature, etc. > > In other words, if you don't let yourself get > sucked into the impression of continuity but rather > continually experience the pond in each moment *as > if the very first moment*, then there will be an > experience of vivid, flashing, ever-changing > sensations. > > I don't know if the above clarifies. > > Imagine that you are driving and your mind has > " drifted off " and that on noticing that you bring > your attention back to the road in front of you. > > Now imagine that just after doing that you *do > it again*... that is you bring your attention > to the road in front of you *again*, even though > you hadn't drifted off this time. > > Imagine now that *every moment* you repeat that > " bringing your attention back " . > > If you keep doing that you will continually > experience the sensations of the road in front > of you, but will also be continually *breaking > the continuity*. > > Now imagine doing the same thing in meditation. > Each moment you " bring yourself back " to what is > immediately presenting itself, being aware that > what is " immediately presenting " is constantly > being " refreshed " (by the brain). > > You will discover, if you practice this a great > deal, that eventually the lack of continuity, the > constant refresh, becomes surprisingly natural. > > You would *think* that constantly returning to > what is *just now* presenting would mean complete > disorientation. But it is just the opposite. > This is what I mean when I say " complete attention " . > There is no drifting off into anything. Each > moment stands on its own. And there can be no > " doer " , because without continuity there is no > time, nothing for any so-called doer to get a > handle on. > > Eventually one learns to be in the constantly > updated present even when in the midst of activity > (such as typing an email!). The " doer " is not > actually needed to *do stuff*. Activity is just > being generated by the brain anyhow. Whatever is > being " done " is already encoded/programmed by the > brain before the idea of doing it even came to > consciousness. The only difference now is that the > brain isn't encoding the " sense of a doer doing " , > it is ony encoding the doing. > > Thanks for the question, as it has made me realize > how no-so-obvious what I had written is! > > And sorry if the explanations above are clear as > mud. Perhaps with your response on unclear points > I will be able to clarify. > > > And this one : > > <.... To take the world as real and one's self as > > unreal is ignorance....> > > > > It seems that what you described as the Now, in > your > > first statement, is the world. (Caused, causal..> > > Does that still seem that case after what I just > wrote? > > > In your second statement, what is the Now : > > The Self, or the world? > > And what is the self ? > > Probably couldn't explain this to a five-year-old. > > But your questions here go straight to the heart > of a deep question. It is in essence the same question > I posed to Michael when I wrote: > > > Further though, is the question of what > recognizes such as Reality? > > > > To use his definition, do we have to postulate > something *else* > > apart from Reality as he defines it? > > You can interpret experience as Now, or you can > interpret > experience as " events in the world " . But you *can't* > have > both interpretations. [Do you know of that image that > can > be seen as two faces or as a vase? You can't see it > both > ways at the same time.] > > The notion of " Self " is not one that has seemed > important > to me (that is Nisargadatta's notion). I prefer to > stick > with the one notion of Now. > > Obviously Now does not account for everything in terms > of *explanation*. But explanation is not what is > needed, > in my view. > > What is needed is survival in the midst of this chaos > of > existence. And Now is the one true life raft, as I see > it. > > But you *could* say that the Self is that which > beholds the > Now. I just don't see a value in stipulating that, and > > even perhaps some harm in doing so. > > > Bill > > After reading your post, I fell asleep.. > Not that I got bored, but I <think> best and most > deeply that way. That's how I process deep matters as well. > I woke up and here is what I saw about the Now and its > perception : I like how you described it as < the raw > sensation coming through the senses>. I relate. > > And then I got taken back to another exchange we had > on the very same topic. > I asked you to tell me why the Now? > What are the consequences of being in the Now? > What is that passion about being in the Now, how does > it feel or not feel? Where does it take you? > > See, you say the notion of Self is not what is > important to you, only the notion of Now is important. > But that isn`t enough for me. I guess I lack your > integrity and simplicity, I want more: > ...Knowing self until I lose myself... > Because the Self is the source of the Now, > in that sense I still seem to think > that the Now is causal: > The Self is the source and the end of every event. > > So..Completely emerged in te Now is meditation. > Attention permeating into the Now, > down to its last atom, > reaches the source of life. into what I am. > It is pure essence, it is a beginning > that is also the end of all searchs and doubts. > Only awareness can be completly aware of Now > and when doing so, the circle closes. > Awareness is its own source : > in other words, to allow such a level of pure > unfragmented attention in the Now, > seem to show Awareness back to its own source. yes. couldn't have said it as well myself. > It all begin in awareness and its return is to > awareness. > There is only awareness. The Gap is gone. interesting what you say about " The Gap " ... > That is what I saw during my 20 minute nap. > > So you see, it doesn`t matter, > Even if you didn`t understand , > > it doesn`t matter. " it doesn't matter " = Gap is gone Refreshing and insightful comments. As I see it Now is the remedy. I see " Self " as theory... and so I tend to dismiss it. However your comments stir some interesting questions. Your comments are clearly coming in a very fresh way from your own direct experience, your own direct investigations. Which is why you actually have something to say. Bill > Patricia > 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.