Guest guest Posted May 5, 2006 Report Share Posted May 5, 2006 Creation and destruction are two sides of the same coin. The notion that there is a time in between, where something can exist for a period of time, is illusory. This illusion can be viewed in its various aspects, such as time, physical existence, mental concepts, feelings, duration, continuity, becoming, individual existence, existence of things. Because nothing really separates creation and destruction, there is no creation or destruction. The imaginary time in between birth and death is where perception gets played out, and where the words posted on lists like this seem to convey their meanings. Due to belief that there is a duration in between in which to have an existence, people are concerned about their beliefs, what others believe, how to convey truth, what the real truth is, and so on. Although there is nothing being created or destroyed, we perceive, we feel, as if there are things, lives, experiences, beings - each with their characteristics and time of existence. But our perception is a loop that is recursive, and which uses its results to validate its assumptions, and its assumptions to validate its results. It dissolves with clarity. Nonetheless, nothing has dissolved, because there wasn't anything to be dissolved. Understanding this can't be conveyed in words - the nature of words involves assumed duration, time, memory-processes, division into inside and outside, and so on. And yet, people fight over words, images, beliefs -- try to use words to decide who is correct about what truth is, on and on it goes. Or not. :-) -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 6, 2006 Report Share Posted May 6, 2006 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Creation and destruction are two sides of the same coin. > > The notion that there is a time in between, where something can exist > for a period of time, is illusory. > > This illusion can be viewed in its various aspects, such as time, > physical existence, mental concepts, feelings, duration, continuity, > becoming, individual existence, existence of things. > > Because nothing really separates creation and destruction, there is no > creation or destruction. > > The imaginary time in between birth and death is where perception gets > played out, and where the words posted on lists like this seem to > convey their meanings. > > Due to belief that there is a duration in between in which to have an > existence, people are concerned about their beliefs, what others > believe, how to convey truth, what the real truth is, and so on. > > Although there is nothing being created or destroyed, we perceive, we > feel, as if there are things, lives, experiences, beings - each with > their characteristics and time of existence. > > But our perception is a loop that is recursive, and which uses its > results to validate its assumptions, and its assumptions to validate > its results. > > It dissolves with clarity. > > Nonetheless, nothing has dissolved, because there wasn't anything to > be dissolved. > > Understanding this can't be conveyed in words - the nature of words > involves assumed duration, time, memory-processes, division into > inside and outside, and so on. > > And yet, people fight over words, images, beliefs -- try to use words > to decide who is correct about what truth is, on and on it goes. > > Or not. > > :-) > > -- Dan " Or not. " -Beautiful! > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 6, 2006 Report Share Posted May 6, 2006 --- Johan <yohansky a écrit : Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Creation and destruction are two sides of the same coin. > > The notion that there is a time in between, where something can exist > for a period of time, is illusory. > > This illusion can be viewed in its various aspects, such as time, > physical existence, mental concepts, feelings, duration, continuity, > becoming, individual existence, existence of things. > > Because nothing really separates creation and destruction, there is no > creation or destruction. > > The imaginary time in between birth and death is where perception gets > played out, and where the words posted on lists like this seem to > convey their meanings. > > Due to belief that there is a duration in between in which to have an > existence, people are concerned about their beliefs, what others > believe, how to convey truth, what the real truth is, and so on. > > Although there is nothing being created or destroyed, we perceive, we > feel, as if there are things, lives, experiences, beings - each with > their characteristics and time of existence. > > But our perception is a loop that is recursive, and which uses its > results to validate its assumptions, and its assumptions to validate > its results. > > It dissolves with clarity. > > Nonetheless, nothing has dissolved, because there wasn't anything to > be dissolved. > > Understanding this can't be conveyed in words - the nature of words > involves assumed duration, time, memory-processes, division into > inside and outside, and so on. > > And yet, people fight over words, images, beliefs -- try to use words > to decide who is correct about what truth is, on and on it goes. > > Or not. > > :-) > > -- Dan " Or not. " -Beautiful! truth doesn`t give a hoot at being correct.. > ** 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 May 6, 2006 Report Share Posted May 6, 2006 Nisargadatta , OConnor Patricia <gdtige wrote: > > > --- Johan <yohansky a écrit : > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " > <dan330033@> > wrote: > > > > Creation and destruction are two sides of the same > coin. > > > > The notion that there is a time in between, where > something can > exist > > for a period of time, is illusory. > > > > This illusion can be viewed in its various aspects, > such as time, > > physical existence, mental concepts, feelings, > duration, > continuity, > > becoming, individual existence, existence of things. > > > > Because nothing really separates creation and > destruction, there > is no > > creation or destruction. > > > > The imaginary time in between birth and death is > where perception > gets > > played out, and where the words posted on lists like > this seem to > > convey their meanings. > > > > Due to belief that there is a duration in between in > which to have > an > > existence, people are concerned about their beliefs, > what others > > believe, how to convey truth, what the real truth > is, and so on. > > > > Although there is nothing being created or > destroyed, we perceive, > we > > feel, as if there are things, lives, experiences, > beings - each > with > > their characteristics and time of existence. > > > > But our perception is a loop that is recursive, and > which uses its > > results to validate its assumptions, and its > assumptions to > validate > > its results. > > > > It dissolves with clarity. > > > > Nonetheless, nothing has dissolved, because there > wasn't anything > to > > be dissolved. > > > > Understanding this can't be conveyed in words - the > nature of words > > involves assumed duration, time, memory-processes, > division into > > inside and outside, and so on. > > > > And yet, people fight over words, images, beliefs -- > try to use > words > > to decide who is correct about what truth is, on and > on it goes. > > > > Or not. > > > > :-) > > > > -- Dan > > " Or not. " > > -Beautiful! > > > truth doesn`t give a hoot at being correct.. correct or not is not truth though often opined as such Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 6, 2006 Report Share Posted May 6, 2006 --- pliantheart <pliantheart a écrit : Nisargadatta , OConnor Patricia <gdtige wrote: > > > --- Johan <yohansky a écrit : > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " > <dan330033@> > wrote: > > > > Creation and destruction are two sides of the same > coin. > > > > The notion that there is a time in between, where > something can > exist > > for a period of time, is illusory. > > > > This illusion can be viewed in its various aspects, > such as time, > > physical existence, mental concepts, feelings, > duration, > continuity, > > becoming, individual existence, existence of things. > > > > Because nothing really separates creation and > destruction, there > is no > > creation or destruction. > > > > The imaginary time in between birth and death is > where perception > gets > > played out, and where the words posted on lists like > this seem to > > convey their meanings. > > > > Due to belief that there is a duration in between in > which to have > an > > existence, people are concerned about their beliefs, > what others > > believe, how to convey truth, what the real truth > is, and so on. > > > > Although there is nothing being created or > destroyed, we perceive, > we > > feel, as if there are things, lives, experiences, > beings - each > with > > their characteristics and time of existence. > > > > But our perception is a loop that is recursive, and > which uses its > > results to validate its assumptions, and its > assumptions to > validate > > its results. > > > > It dissolves with clarity. > > > > Nonetheless, nothing has dissolved, because there > wasn't anything > to > > be dissolved. > > > > Understanding this can't be conveyed in words - the > nature of words > > involves assumed duration, time, memory-processes, > division into > > inside and outside, and so on. > > > > And yet, people fight over words, images, beliefs -- > try to use > words > > to decide who is correct about what truth is, on and > on it goes. > > > > Or not. > > > > :-) > > > > -- Dan > > " Or not. " > > -Beautiful! > > > truth doesn`t give a hoot at being correct.. correct or not is not truth though often opined as such ............................................. seeing what I feel, And going beyond feelings, Knowing what I know, And letting it be wiped out, Letting action take its course, With open hands... Truth stays beyond it all. 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 May 6, 2006 Report Share Posted May 6, 2006 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Creation and destruction are two sides of the same coin. > > The notion that there is a time in between, where something can exist > for a period of time, is illusory. > > This illusion can be viewed in its various aspects, such as time, > physical existence, mental concepts, feelings, duration, continuity, > becoming, individual existence, existence of things. > > Because nothing really separates creation and destruction, there is no > creation or destruction. > > The imaginary time in between birth and death is where perception gets > played out, and where the words posted on lists like this seem to > convey their meanings. > > Due to belief that there is a duration in between in which to have an > existence, people are concerned about their beliefs, what others > believe, how to convey truth, what the real truth is, and so on. > > Although there is nothing being created or destroyed, we perceive, we > feel, as if there are things, lives, experiences, beings - each with > their characteristics and time of existence. > > But our perception is a loop that is recursive, and which uses its > results to validate its assumptions, and its assumptions to validate > its results. > > It dissolves with clarity. > > Nonetheless, nothing has dissolved, because there wasn't anything to > be dissolved. > > Understanding this can't be conveyed in words - the nature of words > involves assumed duration, time, memory-processes, division into > inside and outside, and so on. > > And yet, people fight over words, images, beliefs -- try to use words > to decide who is correct about what truth is, on and on it goes. > > Or not. > > :-) > > -- Dan > Thank you for this Dan. And what you say here corresponds exactly to what I was trying to say, though not so clearly. while " destruction " is not actual, as you say, it can be virtual... in the sense that what arises with freshness/newness " interrupts " , is a breaking of, the hypnosis of continuity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 6, 2006 Report Share Posted May 6, 2006 Nisargadatta , OConnor Patricia <gdtige wrote: > > > --- pliantheart <pliantheart a écrit : > > > > Nisargadatta , OConnor Patricia > <gdtige@> wrote: > > > > > > --- Johan <yohansky@> a écrit : > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " > > <dan330033@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Creation and destruction are two sides of the same > > coin. > > > > > > The notion that there is a time in between, where > > something can > > exist > > > for a period of time, is illusory. > > > > > > This illusion can be viewed in its various > aspects, > > such as time, > > > physical existence, mental concepts, feelings, > > duration, > > continuity, > > > becoming, individual existence, existence of > things. > > > > > > Because nothing really separates creation and > > destruction, there > > is no > > > creation or destruction. > > > > > > The imaginary time in between birth and death is > > where perception > > gets > > > played out, and where the words posted on lists > like > > this seem to > > > convey their meanings. > > > > > > Due to belief that there is a duration in between > in > > which to have > > an > > > existence, people are concerned about their > beliefs, > > what others > > > believe, how to convey truth, what the real truth > > is, and so on. > > > > > > Although there is nothing being created or > > destroyed, we perceive, > > we > > > feel, as if there are things, lives, experiences, > > beings - each > > with > > > their characteristics and time of existence. > > > > > > But our perception is a loop that is recursive, > and > > which uses its > > > results to validate its assumptions, and its > > assumptions to > > validate > > > its results. > > > > > > It dissolves with clarity. > > > > > > Nonetheless, nothing has dissolved, because there > > wasn't anything > > to > > > be dissolved. > > > > > > Understanding this can't be conveyed in words - > the > > nature of words > > > involves assumed duration, time, memory-processes, > > division into > > > inside and outside, and so on. > > > > > > And yet, people fight over words, images, beliefs > -- > > try to use > > words > > > to decide who is correct about what truth is, on > and > > on it goes. > > > > > > Or not. > > > > > > :-) > > > > > > -- Dan > > > > " Or not. " > > > > -Beautiful! > > > > > > truth doesn`t give a hoot at being correct.. > > correct or not > is not > truth > > though often opined as such > > ............................................ > > seeing what I feel, > And going beyond feelings, > Knowing what I know, > And letting it be wiped out, > Letting action take its course, > With open hands... > > Truth stays beyond it all. > > Patricia > how wonderful these your words that sweep all analysis aside Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 6, 2006 Report Share Posted May 6, 2006 Hey Dan, Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Creation and destruction are two sides of the same coin. > > The notion that there is a time in between, where something can exist > for a period of time, is illusory. Every other Friday night or so I get together with some Buddhist friends and discuss the old suttas. Part study, part socialising, we offer up our understandings, etc. One sutta stuck out for me this week. Here it is from the Itivuttaka series. § 63. {Iti III.14; Iti 53} This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have heard: " There are these three times. Which three? Past time, future time, & present time. These are the three times. " Perceiving in terms of signs, beings take a stand on signs. Not fully comprehending signs, they come into the bonds of death. But fully comprehending signs, one doesn't construe a signifier. Touching liberation with the heart, the state of peace unsurpassed, consummate in terms of signs, peaceful, enjoying the peaceful state, judicious, an attainer-of wisdom makes use of classifications but can't be classified. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 7, 2006 Report Share Posted May 7, 2006 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Creation and destruction are two sides of the same coin. > > The notion that there is a time in between, where something can exist > for a period of time, is illusory. > > This illusion can be viewed in its various aspects, such as time, > physical existence, mental concepts, feelings, duration, continuity, > becoming, individual existence, existence of things. > > Because nothing really separates creation and destruction, there is no > creation or destruction. > > The imaginary time in between birth and death is where perception gets > played out, and where the words posted on lists like this seem to > convey their meanings. > > Due to belief that there is a duration in between in which to have an > existence, people are concerned about their beliefs, what others > believe, how to convey truth, what the real truth is, and so on. > > Although there is nothing being created or destroyed, we perceive, we > feel, as if there are things, lives, experiences, beings - each with > their characteristics and time of existence. > > But our perception is a loop that is recursive, and which uses its > results to validate its assumptions, and its assumptions to validate > its results. > > It dissolves with clarity. > > Nonetheless, nothing has dissolved, because there wasn't anything to > be dissolved. > > Understanding this can't be conveyed in words - the nature of words > involves assumed duration, time, memory-processes, division into > inside and outside, and so on. > > And yet, people fight over words, images, beliefs -- try to use words > to decide who is correct about what truth is, on and on it goes. > > Or not. > > :-) > > -- Dan > ** To cut through words, constructions and perceptions, light must fall upon what's embedded in them: the intent. The intent IS the personage, the self, the observer-- that very activity. Without that insight, it does just go on and on. And the subtext is: " Well, I am more (or as) 'selfless' (realized, aware, revealing, poetic, earnest, determined, knowing, participatory, appreciating, in awe, deconstructive, insightful, inquiring, etc.) as you are! " Did somebody mention something about " monkeys throwing fruit at each other " ? ;-} Ken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 7, 2006 Report Share Posted May 7, 2006 In a message dated 5/6/2006 5:45:41 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: " kenj02001 " kenj02001 Sat May 6, 2006 3:04pm(PDT) Re: Creation/Destruction Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Creation and destruction are two sides of the same coin. > > The notion that there is a time in between, where something can exist > for a period of time, is illusory. > > This illusion can be viewed in its various aspects, such as time, > physical existence, mental concepts, feelings, duration, continuity, > becoming, individual existence, existence of things. > > Because nothing really separates creation and destruction, there is no > creation or destruction. > > The imaginary time in between birth and death is where perception gets > played out, and where the words posted on lists like this seem to > convey their meanings. > > Due to belief that there is a duration in between in which to have an > existence, people are concerned about their beliefs, what others > believe, how to convey truth, what the real truth is, and so on. > > Although there is nothing being created or destroyed, we perceive, we > feel, as if there are things, lives, experiences, beings - each with > their characteristics and time of existence. > > But our perception is a loop that is recursive, and which uses its > results to validate its assumptions, and its assumptions to validate > its results. > > It dissolves with clarity. > > Nonetheless, nothing has dissolved, because there wasn't anything to > be dissolved. > > Understanding this can't be conveyed in words - the nature of words > involves assumed duration, time, memory-processes, division into > inside and outside, and so on. > > And yet, people fight over words, images, beliefs -- try to use words > to decide who is correct about what truth is, on and on it goes. > > Or not. > > :-) > > -- Dan > ** To cut through words, constructions and perceptions, light must fall upon what's embedded in them: the intent. The intent IS the personage, the self, the observer-- that very activity. Without that insight, it does just go on and on. And the subtext is: " Well, I am more (or as) 'selfless' (realized, aware, revealing, poetic, earnest, determined, knowing, participatory, appreciating, in awe, deconstructive, insightful, inquiring, etc.) as you are! " Did somebody mention something about " monkeys throwing fruit at each other " ? ;-} Ken I don't think so but it sounds like fun.............Got any fruit? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 7, 2006 Report Share Posted May 7, 2006 Dan: > Due to belief that there is a duration in between in which to have an > >existence, people are concerned about their beliefs, what others > >believe, how to convey truth, what the real truth is, and so on. > L.E: At what age does this commonly held belief take place? Is it consciously chosen? Are you saying: due to belief, people are concerned about their beliefs etc. This hardly makes sense to me. Does a baby have a belief that there is a duration in which to have an existence? Most people IMO are not concerned with these ideas at all. And the beliefs they have are mostly false and do not correlate to anything that exists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 7, 2006 Report Share Posted May 7, 2006 Nisargadatta , epston wrote: > > Dan: > Due to belief that there is a duration in between in which to have an > > >existence, people are concerned about their beliefs, what others > > >believe, how to convey truth, what the real truth is, and so on. > > > > L.E: At what age does this commonly held belief take place? Is it > consciously chosen? Beliefs are just programs. They are not consciously chosen. > Are you saying: due to belief, people are concerned about their > beliefs etc. This hardly makes sense to me. > Does a baby have a belief that there is a duration in which to have an > existence? > Most people IMO are not concerned with these ideas at all. Since beliefs are just programs (the term belief is used to refer to a class of program in the human brain), they are naturally for the most part unconscious. That is just the nature of the beast. So yeah, not much concern or consciousness about them, generally speaking. Which is consistent with what Dan was saying. > And the beliefs > they have are mostly false and do not correlate to anything > that exists. Again, no surprise, as they are just programs. Nothing in what you say here contradicts what Dan said, as far as I can see. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 7, 2006 Report Share Posted May 7, 2006 Nisargadatta , " kenj02001 " <kenj02001 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Creation and destruction are two sides of the same coin. > > > > The notion that there is a time in between, where something can exist > > for a period of time, is illusory. > > > > This illusion can be viewed in its various aspects, such as time, > > physical existence, mental concepts, feelings, duration, continuity, > > becoming, individual existence, existence of things. > > > > Because nothing really separates creation and destruction, there is no > > creation or destruction. > > > > The imaginary time in between birth and death is where perception gets > > played out, and where the words posted on lists like this seem to > > convey their meanings. > > > > Due to belief that there is a duration in between in which to have an > > existence, people are concerned about their beliefs, what others > > believe, how to convey truth, what the real truth is, and so on. > > > > Although there is nothing being created or destroyed, we perceive, we > > feel, as if there are things, lives, experiences, beings - each with > > their characteristics and time of existence. > > > > But our perception is a loop that is recursive, and which uses its > > results to validate its assumptions, and its assumptions to validate > > its results. > > > > It dissolves with clarity. > > > > Nonetheless, nothing has dissolved, because there wasn't anything to > > be dissolved. > > > > Understanding this can't be conveyed in words - the nature of words > > involves assumed duration, time, memory-processes, division into > > inside and outside, and so on. > > > > And yet, people fight over words, images, beliefs -- try to use words > > to decide who is correct about what truth is, on and on it goes. > > > > Or not. > > > > :-) > > > > -- Dan > > > > ** To cut through words, constructions and perceptions, > light must fall upon what's embedded in them: the intent. > The intent IS the personage, the self, the observer-- > that very activity. > > Without that insight, it does just go on and on. And the > subtext is: " Well, I am more (or as) 'selfless' (realized, > aware, revealing, poetic, earnest, determined, > knowing, participatory, appreciating, in awe, deconstructive, > insightful, inquiring, etc.) as you are! " > > Did somebody mention something about " monkeys throwing > fruit at each other " ? ;-} > > Ken > Nice to have your comments here Ken. > Did somebody mention something about " monkeys throwing > fruit at each other " ? ;-} Yes, I believe you just did. And did you know that monkeys can be into throwing their feces at each other, humans, etc.? Perhaps that is the better analogy. There can be a feces-throwing monkey without others throwing back though. Best just to ignore that crap, in my view. Reminds me of the joke about the sadist and the masochist: The masochist says, " Beat me! " The sadist says, " No! " Nothing a feces-throwing monkey hates more than to be ignored. But ignoring them is the most compassionate response, in my view. A question, Ken: I don't see how your post relates to the one it ostensibly is in response to... namely Dan's remarks. If you see Dan's remarks there as a form on one-up-manship then your reading is entirely different from mine. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 7, 2006 Report Share Posted May 7, 2006 Nothing a feces-throwing monkey hates more than to be ignored. But ignoring them is the most compassionate response, in my view. LE: It seems that the most compassionate thing to do is to join in the fun and throw feces along with everyone else, otherwise the group will hate you for being arrogant, superior, and a snob. Ignoring will be seen as self-centered, egotistical, and unacceptable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 7, 2006 Report Share Posted May 7, 2006 On 5/7/06, epston <epston wrote: > Nothing a feces-throwing monkey hates more than to > be ignored. > > But ignoring them is the most compassionate response, > in my view. > > > LE: It seems that the most compassionate thing to do is to join in the fun > > >> Your definition of fun perhaps, but not mine! << and throw feces along with everyone else, otherwise the group will hate you > for > being arrogant, superior, and a snob. Ignoring will be seen as > self-centered, > egotistical, and unacceptable. > >>>> Oh dear! Well Larry, I don't give up on people easily. But there comes a time for a good long cooling off period. And am just talking about a couple of people that really aren't into genuine dialog (my assessment, which is the one that I go by). And when I *was* engaging with those particular parties I was siphoning off much more deserved attention from the significant number of other members. And since those particular parties that I have chosen to ignore have such a *very low* esteem of me anyhow, let them think what they will! Heaven knows I couldn't care less as to what they think. Also Larry, perhaps you haven't noticed, but almost no one pays much attention to those individuals I have chosen to ignore. So I think of it as me being the slow one in the group, and only finally catching up. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 7, 2006 Report Share Posted May 7, 2006 Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <illusyn wrote: > > On 5/7/06, epston <epston wrote: > > > Nothing a feces-throwing monkey hates more than to > > be ignored. > > > > But ignoring them is the most compassionate response, > > in my view. > > > > > > LE: It seems that the most compassionate thing to do is to join in the fun > > > > > > >> > > Your definition of fun perhaps, but not mine! > > << > > and throw feces along with everyone else, otherwise the group will hate you > > for > > being arrogant, superior, and a snob. Ignoring will be seen as > > self-centered, > > egotistical, and unacceptable. > > > >>>> > > Oh dear! > > Well Larry, I don't give up on people easily. > But there comes a time for a good long cooling off period. > And am just talking about a couple of people that really > aren't into genuine dialog (my assessment, which is the > one that I go by). > > And when I *was* engaging with those particular parties > I was siphoning off much more deserved attention from the > significant number of other members. > > And since those particular parties that I have chosen > to ignore have such a *very low* esteem of me anyhow, > let them think what they will! > Heaven knows I couldn't care less as to what they think. > > Also Larry, perhaps you haven't noticed, but almost no > one pays much attention to those individuals I have > chosen to ignore. So I think of it as me being the slow one > in the group, and only finally catching up. > > Bill Beautiful. ....bob > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 7, 2006 Report Share Posted May 7, 2006 Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <illusyn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " kenj02001 " <kenj02001@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > Creation and destruction are two sides of the same coin.> > > > > > The notion that there is a time in between, where something can > exist > > > for a period of time, is illusory. > > > > > > This illusion can be viewed in its various aspects, such as time, > > > physical existence, mental concepts, feelings, duration,> continuity, > > > becoming, individual existence, existence of things. > > > > > > Because nothing really separates creation and destruction, there > is no > > > creation or destruction. > > > > > > The imaginary time in between birth and death is where perception > gets > > > played out, and where the words posted on lists like this seem to > > > convey their meanings. > > > > > > Due to belief that there is a duration in between in which to > have an > > > existence, people are concerned about their beliefs, what others > > > believe, how to convey truth, what the real truth is, and so on. > > > > > > Although there is nothing being created or destroyed, we > perceive, we > > > feel, as if there are things, lives, experiences, beings - each > with > > > their characteristics and time of existence. > > > > > > But our perception is a loop that is recursive, and which uses its > > > results to validate its assumptions, and its assumptions to > validate > > > its results. > > > > > > It dissolves with clarity. > > > > > > Nonetheless, nothing has dissolved, because there wasn't anything > to > > > be dissolved. > > > > > > Understanding this can't be conveyed in words - the nature of > words > > > involves assumed duration, time, memory-processes, division into > > > inside and outside, and so on. > > > > > > And yet, people fight over words, images, beliefs -- try to use > words > > > to decide who is correct about what truth is, on and on it goes. > > > > > > Or not. > > > > > > :-) > > > > > > -- Dan > > > > > > > ** To cut through words, constructions and perceptions, > > light must fall upon what's embedded in them: the intent. > > The intent IS the personage, the self, the observer-- > > that very activity. > > > > Without that insight, it does just go on and on. And the > > subtext is: " Well, I am more (or as) 'selfless' (realized, > > aware, revealing, poetic, earnest, determined, > > knowing, participatory, appreciating, in awe, deconstructive, > > insightful, inquiring, etc.) than you are! " > > > > Did somebody mention something about " monkeys throwing > > fruit at each other " ? ;-} > > > > Ken > > > > Nice to have your comments here Ken. > > > Did somebody mention something about " monkeys throwing > > fruit at each other " ? ;-} > Yes, I believe you just did. ** Howdy, Bill: The 'monkeys throwing fruit' was a comment Dan made on one of his lists awhile back, which came to mind, as pertinent. > > And did you know that monkeys can be into throwing > their feces at each other, humans, etc.? > Perhaps that is the better analogy. ** I hadn't read much on this list for awhile, but I did drop in just about the time that you're alluding to. > > There can be a feces-throwing monkey without others > throwing back though. > > Best just to ignore that crap, in my view. ** Well, you just brought it up again, didn't you? So you're not really ignoring it. This was the point I was making in the last post: Anytime a description is made, there's intent. It's made by and for 'someone'; it's a self- representation--or in this case, a characterization about other(s). The question for inquiry is: what's being brought into the construction being made? What is being assumed or attempted by the concepts, the descriptions, the intent 'behind' them? (As Dan was saying, there's time, comparison/division, self/other/object-location, duration, continuity, and so forth.) In sum: the (attempted) fixing of things/events/personages/ qualities, having no inherent being whatsoever. Or, if you like, (merely) knowledge, conditioning-- moving, in operation. > > Reminds me of the joke about the sadist and the masochist: > The masochist says, " Beat me! " > The sadist says, " No! " > > Nothing a feces-throwing monkey hates more than to > be ignored. > > But ignoring them is the most compassionate response, > in my view. ** I don't see it that way. I see an agenda there, but that's for you to examine, if there's 'readiness' for that. I don't see that it matters whether it's gems or blossoms, or fruit, or rotten fruit, or feces that's being 'thrown.' Back when the exchanges were heating up, gloves coming off, I was caught up in, trying to evaluate/fix who was coming from where, who was correct, who was deluded, who was posing, etc. It happens I didn't join in. While I could construct how various representations might be deconstructed, there wasn't at the time any deconstruction of my 'own' activity. Iow, not a full inquiry, not clarity. Which leads me to say that it's really about all-at-once inquiry/clarity, and not about cycling, repeatedly, through 'constructions' and some remedy called 'deconstruction.' > > A question, Ken: > I don't see how your post relates to the one it ostensibly > is in response to... namely Dan's remarks. > > If you see Dan's remarks there as a form on one-up-manship > then your reading is entirely different from mine. ** No, I intended to take his theme and make it a little more 'targeted.' I thought what he said cut through it. Ken > > Bill > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 8, 2006 Report Share Posted May 8, 2006 Dear freind; Whenever you think about God, the thinking itself is a form made of awareness or mind, even though you claim that you are thinking about formless God. You can never think anything, which is formless because your thinking itself is a form. The form may have some specific boundaries like a statue. Alternatively, the form may not have specific boundaries like air or water. But the air or water also has some regular or irregular boundaries, since even the air or water has certain limits. You call space as a formless object. But space has some limitations somewhere and you do not perceive those limits. Such limits may not be perceived but they certainly exist. Therefore, the concept of your formless object has some boundaries, which are either irregular or not perceived. When you think of God as Awareness (Chit), the awareness is ‘mind’, which is nervous energy. Energy is in the form of waves and thus cannot be formless. According to the special theory of relativity of Einstein, space is also a form of energy because space exhibits the property of bending. In that case, space also cannot be formless. Even if you consider space as infinite vacuum, you are aware of the space. Such awareness itself means that space has become a form of awareness or mental energy. Therefore, strictly speaking there is no formless object in the creation. What you call as formless is an object, which has either irregular or infinite boundaries and which is imagined. Since, such a formless object is a form in the strict sense, an actual formless concept is impossible. Therefore, whether you say that God created space or God created energy in the beginning, both statements mean the same because space is also a form of energy. The Veda said that Parabrahman created the space in the beginning (Atmana Akasah…). The Veda says again that Parabrahman created energy in the beginning (Tat Tejo…). Both the Vedic statements mean the same in terms of the latest concept of science. However, let such space or energy be called as the Formless God in your language. Thinking of such a Formless God, it becomes very very difficult for any ordinary human being. Even a scholar cannot maintain such a concept in his mind for a long time. Even if you are able to maintain such a concept in your mind, such a God is not the absolute God because the absolute God is completely unimaginable as per the Veda and the Gita (Yasyaa matam…, Mamtu Veda Na…). God imagined as space or awareness (mental energy) is not the absolute God, who is beyond space and awareness. The Veda says that God created space. The Veda says that God is beyond awareness. The creator is always beyond the creation. Even in the absence of the creation, the creator must exist. At the Lotus Feet of Shri Datta Swami www.Universal-spirituality.org kenj02001 <kenj02001 wrote: Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <illusyn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " kenj02001 " <kenj02001@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > Creation and destruction are two sides of the same coin.> > > > > > The notion that there is a time in between, where something can > exist > > > for a period of time, is illusory. > > > > > > This illusion can be viewed in its various aspects, such as time, > > > physical existence, mental concepts, feelings, duration,> continuity, > > > becoming, individual existence, existence of things. > > > > > > Because nothing really separates creation and destruction, there > is no > > > creation or destruction. > > > > > > The imaginary time in between birth and death is where perception > gets > > > played out, and where the words posted on lists like this seem to > > > convey their meanings. > > > > > > Due to belief that there is a duration in between in which to > have an > > > existence, people are concerned about their beliefs, what others > > > believe, how to convey truth, what the real truth is, and so on. > > > > > > Although there is nothing being created or destroyed, we > perceive, we > > > feel, as if there are things, lives, experiences, beings - each > with > > > their characteristics and time of existence. > > > > > > But our perception is a loop that is recursive, and which uses its > > > results to validate its assumptions, and its assumptions to > validate > > > its results. > > > > > > It dissolves with clarity. > > > > > > Nonetheless, nothing has dissolved, because there wasn't anything > to > > > be dissolved. > > > > > > Understanding this can't be conveyed in words - the nature of > words > > > involves assumed duration, time, memory-processes, division into > > > inside and outside, and so on. > > > > > > And yet, people fight over words, images, beliefs -- try to use > words > > > to decide who is correct about what truth is, on and on it goes. > > > > > > Or not. > > > > > > :-) > > > > > > -- Dan > > > > > > > ** To cut through words, constructions and perceptions, > > light must fall upon what's embedded in them: the intent. > > The intent IS the personage, the self, the observer-- > > that very activity. > > > > Without that insight, it does just go on and on. And the > > subtext is: " Well, I am more (or as) 'selfless' (realized, > > aware, revealing, poetic, earnest, determined, > > knowing, participatory, appreciating, in awe, deconstructive, > > insightful, inquiring, etc.) than you are! " > > > > Did somebody mention something about " monkeys throwing > > fruit at each other " ? ;-} > > > > Ken > > > > Nice to have your comments here Ken. > > > Did somebody mention something about " monkeys throwing > > fruit at each other " ? ;-} > Yes, I believe you just did. ** Howdy, Bill: The 'monkeys throwing fruit' was a comment Dan made on one of his lists awhile back, which came to mind, as pertinent. > > And did you know that monkeys can be into throwing > their feces at each other, humans, etc.? > Perhaps that is the better analogy. ** I hadn't read much on this list for awhile, but I did drop in just about the time that you're alluding to. > > There can be a feces-throwing monkey without others > throwing back though. > > Best just to ignore that crap, in my view. ** Well, you just brought it up again, didn't you? So you're not really ignoring it. This was the point I was making in the last post: Anytime a description is made, there's intent. It's made by and for 'someone'; it's a self- representation--or in this case, a characterization about other(s). The question for inquiry is: what's being brought into the construction being made? What is being assumed or attempted by the concepts, the descriptions, the intent 'behind' them? (As Dan was saying, there's time, comparison/division, self/other/object-location, duration, continuity, and so forth.) In sum: the (attempted) fixing of things/events/personages/ qualities, having no inherent being whatsoever. Or, if you like, (merely) knowledge, conditioning-- moving, in operation. > > Reminds me of the joke about the sadist and the masochist: > The masochist says, " Beat me! " > The sadist says, " No! " > > Nothing a feces-throwing monkey hates more than to > be ignored. > > But ignoring them is the most compassionate response, > in my view. ** I don't see it that way. I see an agenda there, but that's for you to examine, if there's 'readiness' for that. I don't see that it matters whether it's gems or blossoms, or fruit, or rotten fruit, or feces that's being 'thrown.' Back when the exchanges were heating up, gloves coming off, I was caught up in, trying to evaluate/fix who was coming from where, who was correct, who was deluded, who was posing, etc. It happens I didn't join in. While I could construct how various representations might be deconstructed, there wasn't at the time any deconstruction of my 'own' activity. Iow, not a full inquiry, not clarity. Which leads me to say that it's really about all-at-once inquiry/clarity, and not about cycling, repeatedly, through 'constructions' and some remedy called 'deconstruction.' > > A question, Ken: > I don't see how your post relates to the one it ostensibly > is in response to... namely Dan's remarks. > > If you see Dan's remarks there as a form on one-up-manship > then your reading is entirely different from mine. ** No, I intended to take his theme and make it a little more 'targeted.' I thought what he said cut through it. Ken > > Bill > ** 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 May 8, 2006 Report Share Posted May 8, 2006 Nisargadatta , prakki surya <dattapr2000 wrote: > > Dear freind; > > Whenever you think about God, the thinking itself is a form made of awareness or mind, even though you claim that you are thinking about formless God. You can never think anything, which is formless because your thinking itself is a form. The form may have some specific boundaries like a statue. Alternatively, the form may not have specific boundaries like air or water. But the air or water also has some regular or irregular boundaries, since even the air or water has certain limits. You call space as a formless object. But space has some limitations somewhere and you do not perceive those limits. Such limits may not be perceived but they certainly exist. Therefore, the concept of your formless object has some boundaries, which are either irregular or not perceived. > When you think of God as Awareness (Chit), the awareness is `mind', which is nervous energy. Energy is in the form of waves and thus cannot be formless. According to the special theory of relativity of Einstein, space is also a form of energy because space exhibits the property of bending. In that case, space also cannot be formless. Even if you consider space as infinite vacuum, you are aware of the space. Such awareness itself means that space has become a form of awareness or mental energy. Therefore, strictly speaking there is no formless object in the creation. What you call as formless is an object, which has either irregular or infinite boundaries and which is imagined. Since, such a formless object is a form in the strict sense, an actual formless concept is impossible. > Therefore, whether you say that God created space or God created energy in the beginning, both statements mean the same because space is also a form of energy. The Veda said that Parabrahman created the space in the beginning (Atmana Akasah…). The Veda says again that Parabrahman created energy in the beginning (Tat Tejo…). Both the Vedic statements mean the same in terms of the latest concept of science. > > However, let such space or energy be called as the Formless God in your language. Thinking of such a Formless God, it becomes very very difficult for any ordinary human being. Even a scholar cannot maintain such a concept in his mind for a long time. Even if you are able to maintain such a concept in your mind, such a God is not the absolute God because the absolute God is completely unimaginable as per the Veda and the Gita (Yasyaa matam…, Mamtu Veda Na…). God imagined as space or awareness (mental energy) is not the absolute God, who is beyond space and awareness. The Veda says that God created space. The Veda says that God is beyond awareness. The creator is always beyond the creation. Even in the absence of the creation, the creator must exist. > > > At the Lotus Feet of Shri Datta Swami > www.Universal-spirituality.org could you please summarize this in five words for me? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 8, 2006 Report Share Posted May 8, 2006 Nisargadatta , " bigwaaba " <bigwaaba wrote: > > Nisargadatta , prakki surya <dattapr2000@> > wrote: > > > > Dear freind; > > > > Whenever you think about God, the thinking itself is a form made > of awareness or mind, even though you claim that you are thinking > about formless God. You can never think anything, which is formless > because your thinking itself is a form. The form may have some > specific boundaries like a statue. Alternatively, the form may not > have specific boundaries like air or water. But the air or water also > has some regular or irregular boundaries, since even the air or water > has certain limits. You call space as a formless object. But space > has some limitations somewhere and you do not perceive those limits. > Such limits may not be perceived but they certainly exist. Therefore, > the concept of your formless object has some boundaries, which are > either irregular or not perceived. > > When you think of God as Awareness (Chit), the awareness > is `mind', which is nervous energy. Energy is in the form of waves > and thus cannot be formless. According to the special theory of > relativity of Einstein, space is also a form of energy because space > exhibits the property of bending. In that case, space also cannot be > formless. Even if you consider space as infinite vacuum, you are > aware of the space. Such awareness itself means that space has become > a form of awareness or mental energy. Therefore, strictly speaking > there is no formless object in the creation. What you call as > formless is an object, which has either irregular or infinite > boundaries and which is imagined. Since, such a formless object is a > form in the strict sense, an actual formless concept is impossible. > > Therefore, whether you say that God created space or God created > energy in the beginning, both statements mean the same because space > is also a form of energy. The Veda said that Parabrahman created the > space in the beginning (Atmana Akasah…). The Veda says again that > Parabrahman created energy in the beginning (Tat Tejo…). Both the > Vedic statements mean the same in terms of the latest concept of > science. > > > > However, let such space or energy be called as the Formless God > in your language. Thinking of such a Formless God, it becomes very > very difficult for any ordinary human being. Even a scholar cannot > maintain such a concept in his mind for a long time. Even if you are > able to maintain such a concept in your mind, such a God is not the > absolute God because the absolute God is completely unimaginable as > per the Veda and the Gita (Yasyaa matam…, Mamtu Veda Na…). God > imagined as space or awareness (mental energy) is not the absolute > God, who is beyond space and awareness. The Veda says that God > created space. The Veda says that God is beyond awareness. The > creator is always beyond the creation. Even in the absence of the > creation, the creator must exist. > > > > > > At the Lotus Feet of Shri Datta Swami > > www.Universal-spirituality.org > > could you please summarize this in five words for me? Sure thing: What a nice tasting strawberry! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 9, 2006 Report Share Posted May 9, 2006 Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <illusyn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , epston@ wrote: > > > > Dan: > Due to belief that there is a duration in between in which > to have an > > > >existence, people are concerned about their beliefs, what others > > > >believe, how to convey truth, what the real truth is, and so on. > > > > > > > L.E: At what age does this commonly held belief take place? Is it > > consciously chosen? > > Beliefs are just programs. They are not consciously chosen. Yes, I agree. Is there an ultimate and final separation between mind and body, thought and form, mental and physical? If one understands no divisions or separations have ultimate reality, then the line between belief/idea, and form/physicality, is not set in stone. So " hair must and shall grow on head " is a belief which is constructed as hair on one's head. There is no need for the belief to be consciously recognized or " owned " in order for it to operate. " Food must be digested, " " toxins must be eliminated, " etc. > > Are you saying: due to belief, people are concerned about their > > beliefs etc. This hardly makes sense to me. > > Does a baby have a belief that there is a duration in which to have > an > > existence? > > Most people IMO are not concerned with these ideas at all. > > Since beliefs are just programs (the term belief is used > to refer to a class of program in the human brain), they > are naturally for the most part unconscious. That is just > the nature of the beast. So yeah, not much concern or > consciousness about them, generally speaking. Which is > consistent with what Dan was saying. Yes, I agree. And the brain is " pre-wired " for beliefs, such as time, space, duration. Does the brain have its own physical existence, apart from belief? Does anything one can experience have a reality apart from the experiencer, and does the experiencer have any reality of an existence separated from the experiencing? Yet, if there can be a maintained belief -- there can also be nonmaintenence/release of belief. What is it to hold no belief, thus not to be involved in perceptible experiencing as such? And what is it when there is no division between having and not having? One can experience without any experience being held/registered. One experiences and the experience is simultaneously released in/as immediacy. There can be no premeditation, no thought, no self-consciousness involved -- because all of these involve held belief. Often people have the thought that " this will happen to me, " or " I can make this happen, " or " it must be great for someone this happens to. " And so, you get a whole circus of people presenting themselves as awakened, people who want to be awakened, people who want to debunk the awakeners, etc. But it is not a person who awakes. It is the held-belief constituting as personhood that is awakened from. Which doesn't prevent the apparently individual life from manifesting - indeed, it already has manifested and been completed -- even while seemingly " being experienced. " The metaphor of " awakening " is quite limiting -- apparently it can lead to quite a circus. One's life is as it is - that is all. Belief is understood for what it is. Anything that can be held, can be, and is released. > > And the beliefs > > they have are mostly false and do not correlate to anything > > that exists. > > Again, no surprise, as they are just programs. > > Nothing in what you say here contradicts what Dan said, as > far as I can see. > > Bill To think that there is a correlation between belief and things that exist, or a lack of correlation, is to miss that existence is itself belief, that " things " and " beliefs " aren't ultimately separable. Typically, people will respond by saying, " if you get hit by a truck, and don't want to believe it, it doesn't matter, you will still be hurt. " This is true. So, we are talking about a deeper level of belief than the individual conscious mind - belief that structures what we call the universe, or manifestation - without separation of believer and believed-in, idea and form, mind and body, spirit and material. -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 9, 2006 Report Share Posted May 9, 2006 <snip> > > > > Since beliefs are just programs (the term belief is used > > to refer to a class of program in the human brain), they > > are naturally for the most part unconscious. That is just > > the nature of the beast. So yeah, not much concern or > > consciousness about them, generally speaking. Which is > > consistent with what Dan was saying. > > Yes, I agree. > > And the brain is " pre-wired " for beliefs, such as time, space, duration. > > Does the brain have its own physical existence, apart from belief? > > Does anything one can experience have a reality apart from the > experiencer, and does the experiencer have any reality of an existence > separated from the experiencing? > > Yet, if there can be a maintained belief -- there can also be > nonmaintenence/release of belief. > > What is it to hold no belief, thus not to be involved in perceptible > experiencing as such? > > And what is it when there is no division between having and not having? > > One can experience without any experience being held/registered. Nice to hear someone else saying this here. There can be experience without a separation of experience/experiencer. This should be clear. To argue otherwise is to say either: - there is always a separation of experience/experiencer, and thus experience is always " dual " ~ in which case why are we discussing nondualism here? - there can be an ending of separation of experience/experiencer, but that cannot be " experienced " . ~ if so how can it be known that there can be an ending of separation of experience/experiencer? Once one has experienced: " One can experience without any experience being held/registered, " then it becomes quite clear it is possible. Therefore to argue that it is not possible is simply evidence that one has not experienced that. > One experiences and the experience is simultaneously released in/as > immediacy. I tend to see it as a being-in-the-now that is so complete that there is no " isolation of " anything as *what is happening* within that. In other words, nothing is *objectified* as " that which is experienced " . I can also see in terms of what you describe here, but I find that as applying only sometimes. What you seem to describe is the return of whatever might be " objectified " back into wholeness. But there can be experience that does not break down into particular experienceS (never *an* experience) such that nothing is " objectified " within the experiencing. > There can be no premeditation, no thought, no self-consciousness > involved -- because all of these involve held belief. And glad to see your use of " self-consciousness " here also. Where there is self-consciousness there is confusion. That simple. [Note: when I have discussed " self-consciousness " in the past some seem not to understand what I mean. If walking into a room with a lot of people and everyone's eyes turn to you, if there is complete indifference to that one the one hand vs. really feeling everyone's eyes on you on the other hand. That is what I mean. The same applies to times when " alone " . If there is self-consciousness about how one is going to be seen by others in any undertaking... that is what I mean.] [Note about the Note: Notice how self-consciousness seems always to tie in with some notion of how one is being perceived or potentially might be perceived by " others " ? Society has given us its disease. The loss of the " natural state " can be strictly traced to society/Society. Seen in this way, nondualism is not about evolution to a " higher level " but about a healing of the wound that Society has placed in us.] > Often people have the thought that " this will happen to me, " or " I can > make this happen, " or " it must be great for someone this happens to. " > > And so, you get a whole circus of people presenting themselves as > awakened, people who want to be awakened, people who want to debunk > the awakeners, etc. > > But it is not a person who awakes. > > It is the held-belief constituting as personhood that is awakened > from. Which doesn't prevent the apparently individual life from > manifesting - indeed, it already has manifested and been completed -- > even while seemingly " being experienced. " > > The metaphor of " awakening " is quite limiting -- apparently it can > lead to quite a circus. > > One's life is as it is - that is all. > > Belief is understood for what it is. > > Anything that can be held, can be, and is released. > > > > And the beliefs > > > they have are mostly false and do not correlate to anything > > > that exists. > > > > Again, no surprise, as they are just programs. > > > > Nothing in what you say here contradicts what Dan said, as > > far as I can see. > > > > Bill > > To think that there is a correlation between belief and things that > exist, or a lack of correlation, is to miss that existence is itself > belief, that " things " and " beliefs " aren't ultimately separable. > > Typically, people will respond by saying, " if you get hit by a truck, > and don't want to believe it, it doesn't matter, you will still be hurt. " > > This is true. > > So, we are talking about a deeper level of belief than the individual > conscious mind - belief that structures what we call the universe, or > manifestation - without separation of believer and believed-in, idea > and form, mind and body, spirit and material. Nice the way you addressed that. Not *opposing* ( " This is true. " ) but reframing into a deeper, richer context. [have made a note for myself here ] Bill > -- Dan > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 9, 2006 Report Share Posted May 9, 2006 Nisargadatta , " kenj02001 " <kenj02001 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " kenj02001 " <kenj02001@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Creation and destruction are two sides of the same coin.> > > > > > > The notion that there is a time in between, where something can > > exist > > > > for a period of time, is illusory. > > > > > > > > This illusion can be viewed in its various aspects, such as time, > > > > physical existence, mental concepts, feelings, duration,> > continuity, > > > > becoming, individual existence, existence of things. > > > > > > > > Because nothing really separates creation and destruction, there > > is no > > > > creation or destruction. > > > > > > > > The imaginary time in between birth and death is where perception > > gets > > > > played out, and where the words posted on lists like this seem to > > > > convey their meanings. > > > > > > > > Due to belief that there is a duration in between in which to > > have an > > > > existence, people are concerned about their beliefs, what others > > > > believe, how to convey truth, what the real truth is, and so on. > > > > > > > > Although there is nothing being created or destroyed, we > > perceive, we > > > > feel, as if there are things, lives, experiences, beings - each > > with > > > > their characteristics and time of existence. > > > > > > > > But our perception is a loop that is recursive, and which uses its > > > > results to validate its assumptions, and its assumptions to > > validate > > > > its results. > > > > > > > > It dissolves with clarity. > > > > > > > > Nonetheless, nothing has dissolved, because there wasn't anything > > to > > > > be dissolved. > > > > > > > > Understanding this can't be conveyed in words - the nature of > > words > > > > involves assumed duration, time, memory-processes, division into > > > > inside and outside, and so on. > > > > > > > > And yet, people fight over words, images, beliefs -- try to use > > words > > > > to decide who is correct about what truth is, on and on it goes. > > > > > > > > Or not. > > > > > > > > :-) > > > > > > > > -- Dan > > > > > > > > > > ** To cut through words, constructions and perceptions, > > > light must fall upon what's embedded in them: the intent. > > > The intent IS the personage, the self, the observer-- > > > that very activity. > > > > > > Without that insight, it does just go on and on. And the > > > subtext is: " Well, I am more (or as) 'selfless' (realized, > > > aware, revealing, poetic, earnest, determined, > > > knowing, participatory, appreciating, in awe, deconstructive, > > > insightful, inquiring, etc.) than you are! " > > > > > > Did somebody mention something about " monkeys throwing > > > fruit at each other " ? ;-} > > > > > > Ken > > > > > > > Nice to have your comments here Ken. > > > > > Did somebody mention something about " monkeys throwing > > > fruit at each other " ? ;-} > > Yes, I believe you just did. > > ** Howdy, Bill: > > The 'monkeys throwing fruit' was a comment Dan made on one of > his lists awhile back, which came to mind, as pertinent. > > > > And did you know that monkeys can be into throwing > > their feces at each other, humans, etc.? > > Perhaps that is the better analogy. > > ** I hadn't read much on this list for awhile, but I did > drop in just about the time that you're alluding to. > > > > There can be a feces-throwing monkey without others > > throwing back though. > > > > Best just to ignore that crap, in my view. > > ** Well, you just brought it up again, didn't you? > So you're not really ignoring it. > > This was the point I was making in the last post: > Anytime a description is made, there's intent. > It's made by and for 'someone'; it's a self- > representation--or in this case, a characterization > about other(s). > > The question for inquiry is: what's being brought into To propose an " inquiry " for another, as this seems to do, is a misunderstanding of the meaning of inquiry, in my view. It is a " playing doctor " , an offering of " advice " ... Are you simply speaking for yourself here? If not, then where are these words going? > the construction being made? What is being assumed or > attempted by the concepts, the descriptions, the > intent 'behind' them? (As Dan was saying, there's time, > comparison/division, self/other/object-location, duration, > continuity, and so forth.) > > In sum: the (attempted) fixing of things/events/personages/ > qualities, having no inherent being whatsoever. Or, if you > like, (merely) knowledge, conditioning-- moving, in operation. > > Reminds me of the joke about the sadist and the masochist: > > The masochist says, " Beat me! " > > The sadist says, " No! " > > > > Nothing a feces-throwing monkey hates more than to > > be ignored. > > > > But ignoring them is the most compassionate response, > > in my view. > > ** I don't see it that way. I see an agenda there, but that's > for you to examine, if there's 'readiness' for that. My comments above reinforced here. > I don't see that it matters whether it's gems or blossoms, > or fruit, or rotten fruit, or feces that's being 'thrown.' > > Back when the exchanges were heating up, gloves coming off, > I was caught up in, trying to evaluate/fix who was > coming from where, who was correct, who was deluded, who was > posing, etc. It happens I didn't join in. While > I could construct how various representations might be > deconstructed, there wasn't at the time any deconstruction > of my 'own' activity. Iow, not a full inquiry, not clarity. Gloves coming off? Saying what I felt to say. I was not " taking anyone on " . You've likely heard this well-known story: Two monks were traveling together when they came across a river crossing. There on the bank, they saw a beautiful woman, finely dressed, who wished to cross the river but was unable to do so. Without a word, the older monk simply picked up the woman and carried her to the other side. The young monk, seemingly agitated for the rest of their journey, could not contain himself. Once they reached their destination after a couple of days, he exploded at the older monk. " How could you, a monk, even consider carrying a woman in your arms, much less a young and beautiful one? It is against our teachings. It is very dangerous. " " I put her down two days ago, " said the older monk. " Why are you still carrying her? " I said what I had to say and moved on. I'm not stuck on it. There is no issue in it Ken. But you, in this post, seem to want to read one into it. BEing unfolds. Words are manifest in its wake. What signficance in those words that poured forth? None. > Which leads me to say that it's really about all-at-once > inquiry/clarity, and not about cycling, repeatedly, through > 'constructions' and some remedy called 'deconstruction.' To whom are you speaking here Ken? " Constructions " are not something one can " see " in another. If any constructions are seen, it is ever and always one's own. > > > > A question, Ken: > > I don't see how your post relates to the one it ostensibly > > is in response to... namely Dan's remarks. > > > > If you see Dan's remarks there as a form on one-up-manship > > then your reading is entirely different from mine. > > ** No, I intended to take his theme and make it a little more > 'targeted.' In so doing you missed the essence of what Dan was saying, in my view. The beauty of what Dan said was in its very " non- targetedness " . Bill > I thought what he said cut through it. > > > Ken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 9, 2006 Report Share Posted May 9, 2006 Hi Bill -- Thanks for your comments, I enjoyed reading them. It seems to me that either there actually is a division between experiencer and experience, or there isn't. I have found that there is no basis for such a division, and no such division can be found. As a result, " I " am nonlocated, and there is no other " I " that can be located. (The birds have their nests, the foxes have their holes, but the son of man has no place to lay his head.) Thus, there never is an experiencer separate from experience. Yet, there appears to be all kinds of " evidence " of beliefs that such divison is the case, and all kinds of activity to prove that it is so. Therefore, the actions as if separation is actual, and the beliefs that it is so, give the results we see around us, of a world in fear, a world that denies its fear, a world fragmented, a world in which conceptualized dualities rule as belief systems taken to be " what is so. " Yet, trying to combat the belief systems inevitably results in forming an alternate belief system. A belief system in unity, or nonduality, or whatever, remains another version of assumed fragmentation. So, there is no way to " correct " the problem. There is only being aware without such a problem, regardless of the world's insistence that divisions are actual facts. And by divisions I mean all the splits that are believed real: person and world, person and others, this group and that group, this religion and that religion, believers and unbelievers, etc. To know first hand that there is no actuality to division is to be in the world, but not of the world. -- Dan (nothing new below) Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <illusyn wrote: > > <snip> > > > > > > > Since beliefs are just programs (the term belief is used > > > to refer to a class of program in the human brain), they > > > are naturally for the most part unconscious. That is just > > > the nature of the beast. So yeah, not much concern or > > > consciousness about them, generally speaking. Which is > > > consistent with what Dan was saying. > > > > Yes, I agree. > > > > And the brain is " pre-wired " for beliefs, such as time, space, duration. > > > > Does the brain have its own physical existence, apart from belief? > > > > Does anything one can experience have a reality apart from the > > experiencer, and does the experiencer have any reality of an existence > > separated from the experiencing? > > > > Yet, if there can be a maintained belief -- there can also be > > nonmaintenence/release of belief. > > > > What is it to hold no belief, thus not to be involved in perceptible > > experiencing as such? > > > > And what is it when there is no division between having and not having? > > > > One can experience without any experience being held/registered. > > Nice to hear someone else saying this here. > > There can be experience without a separation of experience/experiencer. > This should be clear. To argue otherwise is to say either: > - there is always a separation of experience/experiencer, and thus > experience is always " dual " > ~ in which case why are we discussing nondualism here? > > - there can be an ending of separation of experience/experiencer, but > that cannot be " experienced " . > ~ if so how can it be known that there can be an ending of separation > of experience/experiencer? > > Once one has experienced: " One can experience without any experience > being held/registered, " then it becomes quite clear it is possible. > Therefore to argue that it is not possible is simply evidence that one > has not experienced that. > > > One experiences and the experience is simultaneously released in/as > > immediacy. > > I tend to see it as a being-in-the-now that is so complete that > there is no " isolation of " anything as *what is happening* within > that. In other words, nothing is *objectified* as " that which is > experienced " . > > I can also see in terms of what you describe here, but > I find that as applying only sometimes. What you seem to > describe is the return of whatever might be " objectified " > back into wholeness. But there can be experience that does > not break down into particular experienceS (never *an* > experience) such that nothing is " objectified " within the > experiencing. > > > > There can be no premeditation, no thought, no self-consciousness > > involved -- because all of these involve held belief. > > And glad to see your use of " self-consciousness " here also. > > Where there is self-consciousness there is confusion. > That simple. > > [Note: when I have discussed " self-consciousness " in the past some > seem not to understand what I mean. If walking into a room > with a lot of people and everyone's eyes turn to you, if > there is complete indifference to that one the one hand vs. > really feeling everyone's eyes on you on the other hand. > That is what I mean. The same applies to times when " alone " . > If there is self-consciousness about how one is going to be seen > by others in any undertaking... that is what I mean.] > > [Note about the Note: Notice how self-consciousness seems > always to tie in with some notion of how one is being > perceived or potentially might be perceived by " others " ? > Society has given us its disease. The loss of the " natural > state " can be strictly traced to society/Society. Seen in > this way, nondualism is not about evolution to a " higher > level " but about a healing of the wound that Society has > placed in us.] > > > Often people have the thought that " this will happen to me, " or " I can > > make this happen, " or " it must be great for someone this happens to. " > > > > And so, you get a whole circus of people presenting themselves as > > awakened, people who want to be awakened, people who want to debunk > > the awakeners, etc. > > > > But it is not a person who awakes. > > > > It is the held-belief constituting as personhood that is awakened > > from. Which doesn't prevent the apparently individual life from > > manifesting - indeed, it already has manifested and been completed -- > > even while seemingly " being experienced. " > > > > The metaphor of " awakening " is quite limiting -- apparently it can > > lead to quite a circus. > > > > One's life is as it is - that is all. > > > > Belief is understood for what it is. > > > > Anything that can be held, can be, and is released. > > > > > > And the beliefs > > > > they have are mostly false and do not correlate to anything > > > > that exists. > > > > > > Again, no surprise, as they are just programs. > > > > > > Nothing in what you say here contradicts what Dan said, as > > > far as I can see. > > > > > > Bill > > > > To think that there is a correlation between belief and things that > > exist, or a lack of correlation, is to miss that existence is itself > > belief, that " things " and " beliefs " aren't ultimately separable. > > > > Typically, people will respond by saying, " if you get hit by a truck, > > and don't want to believe it, it doesn't matter, you will still be > hurt. " > > > > This is true. > > > > So, we are talking about a deeper level of belief than the individual > > conscious mind - belief that structures what we call the universe, or > > manifestation - without separation of believer and believed-in, idea > > and form, mind and body, spirit and material. > > Nice the way you addressed that. > Not *opposing* ( " This is true. " ) > but reframing into a deeper, richer context. > > [have made a note for myself here ] > > Bill > > > -- Dan > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 9, 2006 Report Share Posted May 9, 2006 On 5/9/06, dan330033 <dan330033 wrote: > Hi Bill -- > > Thanks for your comments, I enjoyed reading them. > > It seems to me that either there actually is a division between > experiencer and experience, or there isn't. > > I have found that there is no basis for such a division, and no such > division can be found. For some it is obvious that such divisions are real. For some it is obvious they are not. And never the twain shall met, it would seem. > As a result, " I " am nonlocated, and there is > no other " I " that can be located. (The birds have their nests, the > foxes have their holes, but the son of man has no place to lay his head.) > > Thus, there never is an experiencer separate from experience. > > Yet, there appears to be all kinds of " evidence " of beliefs that such > divison is the case, and all kinds of activity to prove that it is so. > > Therefore, the actions as if separation is actual, and the beliefs > that it is so, give the results we see around us, of a world in fear, > a world that denies its fear, a world fragmented, a world in which > conceptualized dualities rule as belief systems taken to be " what is so. " > > Yet, trying to combat the belief systems inevitably results in forming > an alternate belief system. A belief system in unity, or nonduality, > or whatever, remains another version of assumed fragmentation. > > So, there is no way to " correct " the problem. It is as if there were an " event horizon " ... and once crossed communication " back out " to a world of belief in distinctions is very difficult if not impossible. > There is only being aware without such a problem, regardless of the > world's insistence that divisions are actual facts. > > And by divisions I mean all the splits that are believed real: person > and world, person and others, this group and that group, this religion > and that religion, believers and unbelievers, etc. > > To know first hand that there is no actuality to division is to be in > the world, but not of the world. Nice way to put that! Bill > -- Dan > > (nothing new below) 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.