The Now *is* Inquiry (((Self Confrontation and Self Inquiry

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , OConnor Patricia <gdtige wrote:

>

>

> --- billrishel <illusyn a écrit :

>

>

>

> Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 "

> <lastrain@> wrote:

> >

> >

> > > >

> > > > That is what is " timeless " about this knowing.

> > > >

> > > > -- Dan

> > > >

>

> >

> > All knowing is within time.

>

> Then how is what you say there known?

>

> I'm not playing word games. It seems an

> open question...

>

> Perhaps a totally open, complete attention

> is itself a kind of knowing, a knowing

> utterly distinct from " ordinary knowing " ,

> a knowing not *of* anything in particular,

> but a dynamic knowing of What Is.

>

> I went back to the original message from which you

> clipped the bit you responded to. Interestingly,

> Dan explicitly addresses the point of a " different

> kind of knowing " :

>

> So, it's a different order of knowing than the

> usual

> way we believe we know ourselves, which is in

> relation

> to and with others who give us feedback about

> ourselves, and vice versa -- which of course all

> depends on a situational point of view and

> experience

> construed in time.

>

> But it's not that you have some other kind of

> knowing

> in another sphere. It's simultaneous with the

> movement we construe as time and relationship.

> It's

> just that nothing is being " held " here, so to

> speak.

> And that differentiates it from the usual kind of

> self-knowing through interacting with an other,

> which

> involves holding the image of other with self, in

> relation, comparing and contrasting, having

> feelings,

> making and losing contacts, and so on.

>

> You don't make contact with who you are.

>

> That is what is " timeless " about this knowing.

>

> It isn't fair, really, to take on his last statement

> there out of context of all that wonderful

> clarification

> he has provided around the special sense of " knowing "

> that he is using, and which is not at all addressed

> by your remark.

>

> Realizing that " Now is the case " is a distinct kind of

> knowing in itself. But it isn't the *end*. It is just

> a beginning... of something very very new.

>

> And yes, a *beginning* within timelessness...

>

> > > You don't make contact with who you are.

> >

> > Quite simply..........because there is no you.

> >

>

> Or is it that there is no " you " because there

> is no contact?

>

> Works equally well both ways it seems, provided

> " no contact " is allowed to stand for " evidence "

> in general. I.e.: " Is it that there is no 'you'

> because there is no evidence? "

>

> Also, is the statement: " You don't make contact with

> who you are. "

> any different from: " You don't make contact with what

> you are. "

>

> Comparable to asking if God is personal or impersonal.

>

>

> Bill

>

> PS: Good to hear from you again Toombaru. I was *just

> thinking today* that it would be nice should you

> appear

> and Shazam!

>

>

> <....Perhaps a totally open, complete attention

> is itself a kind of knowing, a knowing

> utterly distinct from " ordinary knowing " ,

> a knowing not *of* anything in particular,

> but a dynamic knowing of What Is....>

>

>

> not based on memory, but discovery of What Is..

 

Many many moons ago Dan made a statement that at the

time was startling: The Now *is* Inquiry (paraphrase)

 

Now is not just a passive allowing, but an ever-digging-

deeper, an ever-more-fundamental unearthing of the roots.

It is not that there is an *effort* in that. It is like

what you say... " discovery " ... as if some kind of

unfolding process, once begun, continues of its own,

ever revealing again and again deeper and deeper roots.

 

Bill

 

> Beautiful,

>

> Patricia

>

>