Guest guest Posted April 22, 2006 Report Share Posted April 22, 2006 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Yes, Big, > > Even looking backwards happens in the present. > > The interesting thing maybe to add is that data processed in the > brain need about 200-400 msecs to get conscious. And therefore we > never really are in the present. > > What we see as " present " is just the subjectivity of consciousness " > and let me remind that Nit said consciousness is just a fever. Which > means the present is just a fever. > > Werner Let's take a look at that. " We never really are in the present. " What does that actually mean, thinking it through? Does it mean: " Being totally present, " is a joke? Bill > Nisargadatta , " bigwaaba " <bigwaaba@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , epston@ wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 4/21/2006 12:15:23 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > > > illusyn@ writes: > > > > > > > > > > > And perhaps, just perhaps, we make decisions only in > > > > looking backwards as well... > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > L.E: Looking backward from the present moment is just using > memory > > which can > > > be useful for making decisions. If you are not in the present, > > looking > > > backward is the same as imagining the past is the present which > > will stop a person > > > from being in the present. Nice. > > > > > > > Hello, > > > > in the present there is no person > > what you are is always present > > > > blessing > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 22, 2006 Report Share Posted April 22, 2006 You are always totlly present (but always 200-400 msecs to late), Bill. And that's not a joke, only to see that present as something wonderful or even as holy, is a joke. The present is the subjectivity of consciousness and indeed - its just a fever. Werner Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > wrote: > > > > Yes, Big, > > > > Even looking backwards happens in the present. > > > > The interesting thing maybe to add is that data processed in the > > brain need about 200-400 msecs to get conscious. And therefore we > > never really are in the present. > > > > What we see as " present " is just the subjectivity of consciousness " > > and let me remind that Nit said consciousness is just a fever. > Which > > means the present is just a fever. > > > > Werner > > Let's take a look at that. > " We never really are in the present. " > What does that actually mean, thinking it through? > > Does it mean: " Being totally present, " is a joke? > > Bill > > > > Nisargadatta , " bigwaaba " <bigwaaba@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , epston@ wrote: > > > > > > > > In a message dated 4/21/2006 12:15:23 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > > > > illusyn@ writes: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And perhaps, just perhaps, we make decisions only in > > > > > looking backwards as well... > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > L.E: Looking backward from the present moment is just using > > memory > > > which can > > > > be useful for making decisions. If you are not in the present, > > > looking > > > > backward is the same as imagining the past is the present which > > > will stop a person > > > > from being in the present. Nice. > > > > > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > in the present there is no person > > > what you are is always present > > > > > > blessing > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 22, 2006 Report Share Posted April 22, 2006 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > You are always totlly present (but always 200-400 msecs to late), > Bill. And that's not a joke, only to see that present as something > wonderful or even as holy, is a joke. > > The present is the subjectivity of consciousness and indeed - its > just a fever. > > Werner Ahh... but let's dig a little deeper, Werner. Is " being present " in the sense Krishnamurti talked about it any different from Joe Couch Potatoe drinking his Blatz beer and watching sports of TV? Don't get me wrong here, either. I agree 100% about the few milliseconds late (maybe it is even longer). But you are talking about " being present " in a special sense, so I am interested to see how you map the special sense you are using it to the sense in which Krishnamurti used it. Cuz I don't think you are really saying that being present in the sense that K talked about it is meaningless. Right? Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 22, 2006 Report Share Posted April 22, 2006 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > You are always totlly present (but always 200-400 msecs to late), Late to what? Len > Bill. And that's not a joke, only to see that present as something > wonderful or even as holy, is a joke. > > The present is the subjectivity of consciousness and indeed - its > just a fever. > > Werner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 22, 2006 Report Share Posted April 22, 2006 If, for example, you you are playing tennis and you try to catch the ball you are always to late. When you see the ball near you it already has passed. Werner Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > You are always totlly present (but always 200-400 msecs to late), > > > Late to what? > > Len > > > > Bill. And that's not a joke, only to see that present as something > > wonderful or even as holy, is a joke. > > > > The present is the subjectivity of consciousness and indeed - its > > just a fever. > > > > Werner > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 22, 2006 Report Share Posted April 22, 2006 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > If, for example, you you are playing tennis and you try to catch the > ball you are always to late. When you see the ball near you it > already has passed. > > Werner No, if this was true, we wouldn´t have this amazing tennis matches. It is only because the players are able to catch the ball that the play is possible. But I don´t think this is about the topic. I asked you: late for what. What is it that you want to catch but cannot catch? Are you sure it exists outside of your imagination? Len > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > You are always totlly present (but always 200-400 msecs to late), > > > > > > Late to what? > > > > Len > > > > > > > Bill. And that's not a joke, only to see that present as > something > > > wonderful or even as holy, is a joke. > > > > > > The present is the subjectivity of consciousness and indeed - its > > > just a fever. > > > > > > Werner > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 22, 2006 Report Share Posted April 22, 2006 Don't say no, Len, Just ask tennis players. They will tell you that they are training not to use conscioiousness to react to the approaching ball - their brain learns to react without consciously seeing the ball. Because consciousness is always to late the same also is with boxers or soccer keepers, etc. Werner Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > wrote: > > > > If, for example, you you are playing tennis and you try to catch > the > > ball you are always to late. When you see the ball near you it > > already has passed. > > > > Werner > > > > No, if this was true, we wouldn´t have this amazing tennis matches. > It is only because the players are able to catch the ball that the > play is possible. > But I don´t think this is about the topic. > I asked you: late for what. What is it that you want to catch but > cannot catch? Are you sure it exists outside of your imagination? > > Len > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > You are always totlly present (but always 200-400 msecs to > late), > > > > > > > > > Late to what? > > > > > > Len > > > > > > > > > > Bill. And that's not a joke, only to see that present as > > something > > > > wonderful or even as holy, is a joke. > > > > > > > > The present is the subjectivity of consciousness and indeed - > its > > > > just a fever. > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 22, 2006 Report Share Posted April 22, 2006 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Don't say no, Len, > > Just ask tennis players. They will tell you that they are training > not to use conscioiousness to react to the approaching ball - their > brain learns to react without consciously seeing the ball. > > Because consciousness is always to late the same also is with boxers > or soccer keepers, etc. > > Werner I have no idea what you mean with consciousness, but there is obviously something which isn´t too late. But please tell me, what is it that you are too late for? Len > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > > wrote: > > > > > > If, for example, you you are playing tennis and you try to catch > > the > > > ball you are always to late. When you see the ball near you it > > > already has passed. > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > No, if this was true, we wouldn´t have this amazing tennis matches. > > It is only because the players are able to catch the ball that the > > play is possible. > > But I don´t think this is about the topic. > > I asked you: late for what. What is it that you want to catch but > > cannot catch? Are you sure it exists outside of your imagination? > > > > Len > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > You are always totlly present (but always 200-400 msecs to > > late), > > > > > > > > > > > > Late to what? > > > > > > > > Len > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill. And that's not a joke, only to see that present as > > > something > > > > > wonderful or even as holy, is a joke. > > > > > > > > > > The present is the subjectivity of consciousness and indeed - > > its > > > > > just a fever. > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 22, 2006 Report Share Posted April 22, 2006 I am afraid you are to late to understand what I mean. Werner Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > wrote: > > > > Don't say no, Len, > > > > Just ask tennis players. They will tell you that they are training > > not to use conscioiousness to react to the approaching ball - > their > > brain learns to react without consciously seeing the ball. > > > > Because consciousness is always to late the same also is with > boxers > > or soccer keepers, etc. > > > > Werner > > > I have no idea what you mean with consciousness, but there is > obviously something which isn´t too late. > But please tell me, what is it that you are too late for? > > Len > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > If, for example, you you are playing tennis and you try to > catch > > > the > > > > ball you are always to late. When you see the ball near you it > > > > already has passed. > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > No, if this was true, we wouldn´t have this amazing tennis > matches. > > > It is only because the players are able to catch the ball that > the > > > play is possible. > > > But I don´t think this is about the topic. > > > I asked you: late for what. What is it that you want to catch > but > > > cannot catch? Are you sure it exists outside of your imagination? > > > > > > Len > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " > <lissbon2002@> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " > <wwoehr@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > You are always totlly present (but always 200-400 msecs to > > > late), > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Late to what? > > > > > > > > > > Len > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill. And that's not a joke, only to see that present as > > > > something > > > > > > wonderful or even as holy, is a joke. > > > > > > > > > > > > The present is the subjectivity of consciousness and > indeed - > > > its > > > > > > just a fever. > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 22, 2006 Report Share Posted April 22, 2006 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > wrote: > > > > Yes, Big, > > > > Even looking backwards happens in the present. > > > > The interesting thing maybe to add is that data processed in the > > brain need about 200-400 msecs to get conscious. And therefore we > > never really are in the present. > > > > What we see as " present " is just the subjectivity of consciousness " > > and let me remind that Nit said consciousness is just a fever. > Which > > means the present is just a fever. > > > > Werner > > Let's take a look at that. > " We never really are in the present. " > What does that actually mean, thinking it through? > > Does it mean: " Being totally present, " is a joke? > > Bill > It means the illusory self....is a joke. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 22, 2006 Report Share Posted April 22, 2006 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > I am afraid you are to late to understand what I mean. > > Werner Aah, so it´s me who is too late. Is this your problem? Len Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 22, 2006 Report Share Posted April 22, 2006 Len, I don't mind if you are to late and I don't mind if you don't understand. Ok, in some way its a pity, but who cares ? Werner Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > I am afraid you are to late to understand what I mean. > > > > Werner > > > > Aah, so it´s me who is too late. > Is this your problem? > > Len > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 22, 2006 Report Share Posted April 22, 2006 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Len, > > I don't mind if you are to late and I don't mind if you don't > understand. Ok, in some way its a pity, but who cares ? > > Werner One is only too late if one has a goal. It is not so difficult to understand. len Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 22, 2006 Report Share Posted April 22, 2006 Len, NoOne is to late. But if you say " I am consciousness " then you are always to late. It depends on what reference is used for that " YOU " . And that's a never ending source of misunderstandings in a communication at spiritual lists like Niz's or others. This expression " you are always to late " also contains that joke " who is it to be always to late ? " Werner Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > Len, > > > > I don't mind if you are to late and I don't mind if you don't > > understand. Ok, in some way its a pity, but who cares ? > > > > Werner > > > One is only too late if one has a goal. > It is not so difficult to understand. > > len > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 22, 2006 Report Share Posted April 22, 2006 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Len, > > NoOne is to late. But if you say " I am consciousness " then you are > always to late. It depends on what reference is used for that " YOU " . > > And that's a never ending source of misunderstandings in a > communication at spiritual lists like Niz's or others. > > This expression " you are always to late " also contains that joke " who > is it to be always to late ? " > > Werner > You are the lateness. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 22, 2006 Report Share Posted April 22, 2006 Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > Len, > > > > I don't mind if you are to late and I don't mind if you don't > > understand. Ok, in some way its a pity, but who cares ? > > > > Werner > > > One is only too late if one has a goal. > It is not so difficult to understand. > > len > neither to teach! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 22, 2006 Report Share Posted April 22, 2006 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Len, > > NoOne is to late. But if you say " I am consciousness " then you are > always to late. Then I have to repeat myself: Too late for what? len > It depends on what reference is used for that " YOU " . > > And that's a never ending source of misunderstandings in a > communication at spiritual lists like Niz's or others. > > This expression " you are always to late " also contains that joke " who > is it to be always to late ? " > > Werner > > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > Len, > > > > > > I don't mind if you are to late and I don't mind if you don't > > > understand. Ok, in some way its a pity, but who cares ? > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > One is only too late if one has a goal. > > It is not so difficult to understand. > > > > len > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 22, 2006 Report Share Posted April 22, 2006 Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > wrote: > > > > Len, > > > > NoOne is to late. But if you say " I am consciousness " then you are > > always to late. > > > Then I have to repeat myself: > Too late for what? > > len " To forget this illusion is the sole means to kill the mind and remain as Bliss. Though Shiva, Vishnu, or Brahman Himself should instruct you, realisation is not possible without this one means. Without forgetting everything, fixity as the Self is impossible. Therefore altogether forget everything. " -- Advaita bodha Deepika Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 23, 2006 Report Share Posted April 23, 2006 Nisargadatta , " bigwaaba " <bigwaaba wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Len, > > > > > > NoOne is to late. But if you say " I am consciousness " then you > are > > > always to late. > > > > > > Then I have to repeat myself: > > Too late for what? > > > > len > > > > " To forget this illusion is the sole means to > kill the mind and remain as Bliss. > Though Shiva, Vishnu, or > Brahman Himself should instruct you, realisation is not > possible without this one means. > Without forgetting > everything, fixity as the Self is impossible. Therefore > altogether forget everything. " > > -- Advaita bodha Deepika Nothing is more doomed to fail then trying to forget anything on purpose ;-) Len Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 23, 2006 Report Share Posted April 23, 2006 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > If, for example, you you are playing tennis and you try to catch the > ball you are always to late. When you see the ball near you it > already has passed. > > Werner How long did it take to construct " me " being somewhere, where things can be close or far from me, where seeing an object an occur? -- D. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 23, 2006 Report Share Posted April 23, 2006 Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > wrote: > > > > If, for example, you you are playing tennis and you try to catch > the > > ball you are always to late. When you see the ball near you it > > already has passed. > > > > Werner > > > > No, if this was true, we wouldn´t have this amazing tennis matches. > It is only because the players are able to catch the ball that the > play is possible. > But I don´t think this is about the topic. > I asked you: late for what. What is it that you want to catch but > cannot catch? Are you sure it exists outside of your imagination? > > Len You can't catch what has no outside to it. This *now* didn't begin somewhere, and you can't get outside of it, and then try to catch back up to it. -- D. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 23, 2006 Report Share Posted April 23, 2006 I haven't watched the clock, Dan, Maybe 10 secs or more when I was pondering that tennisball example. During a conversation it is not uncommen to use personal nouns to substitute the body with " you " and " I " . Even sages and nondual psychologists are doing that. Werner Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > If, for example, you you are playing tennis and you try to catch the > > ball you are always to late. When you see the ball near you it > > already has passed. > > > > Werner > > How long did it take to construct " me " being somewhere, where things > can be close or far from me, where seeing an object an occur? > > -- D. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 23, 2006 Report Share Posted April 23, 2006 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > I haven't watched the clock, Dan, > > Maybe 10 secs or more when I was pondering that tennisball example. > > During a conversation it is not uncommen to use personal nouns to > substitute the body with " you " and " I " . Even sages and nondual > psychologists are doing that. > > Werner You miss my point, Werner. It's not just the tennis ball that's perceptually constructed. The " perceiver " standing there on the court is being constructed, along with the court. -- D. > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > If, for example, you you are playing tennis and you try to catch > the > > > ball you are always to late. When you see the ball near you it > > > already has passed. > > > > > > Werner > > > > How long did it take to construct " me " being somewhere, where > things > > can be close or far from me, where seeing an object an occur? > > > > -- D. > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 23, 2006 Report Share Posted April 23, 2006 Dan, What you wrote in your Not-Two post, I am completely with you. No need, to say more or to argue. Werner Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > wrote: > > > > I haven't watched the clock, Dan, > > > > Maybe 10 secs or more when I was pondering that tennisball example. > > > > During a conversation it is not uncommen to use personal nouns to > > substitute the body with " you " and " I " . Even sages and nondual > > psychologists are doing that. > > > > Werner > > > You miss my point, Werner. > > It's not just the tennis ball that's perceptually constructed. > > The " perceiver " standing there on the court is being constructed, > along with the court. > > -- D. > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > If, for example, you you are playing tennis and you try to > catch > > the > > > > ball you are always to late. When you see the ball near you it > > > > already has passed. > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > How long did it take to construct " me " being somewhere, where > > things > > > can be close or far from me, where seeing an object an occur? > > > > > > -- D. > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 24, 2006 Report Share Posted April 24, 2006 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Dan, > > What you wrote in your Not-Two post, I am completely with you. No > need, to say more or to argue. > > Werner Hey Werner -- Cool. In truth, there can be no argument. Thought and words (and sometimes bodies) can be used to construct the appearance of an argument - that is all. -- Dan 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.