Guest guest Posted May 24, 2006 Report Share Posted May 24, 2006 > > The 'entity' is nothing other then its addictions. > > > > I agree, what we won't let go of is who we are. good... now let's put that into the passive voice to get rid of any hypothetical entity involved: what is not let go of is effectively the identity the " not letting go of " needn't be presumed to be as *by* any entity. the strange attractor notion accounts for it without postulating an entity... i.e. there is a " persistence " ... and that persistence is the *appearance of* an entity/identity as-if-behind the persistence. so, " not let go of " means persists or " sticks " what persists or " sticks " has an appearance of an identity " behind " but appearances are only appearances whether there is " letting go " or not, persistence or not, there IS NO ENTITY behind... so there is nothing to DO no need to even " let go " ... just seeing that it is only an appearance, all this " I am this " , " I am that " , etc. ONLY APPEARANCE nothing more Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 24, 2006 Report Share Posted May 24, 2006 Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <illusyn wrote, in part: > so, " not let go of " means persists or " sticks " > > what persists or " sticks " has an appearance of an identity > " behind " > > but appearances are only appearances > > whether there is " letting go " or not, persistence or not, > there IS NO ENTITY behind... > > so there is nothing to DO > > no need to even " let go " ... > > just seeing that it is only an appearance, > all this " I am this " , " I am that " , etc. > > ONLY APPEARANCE > > nothing more Well-said. And the persistance is evaluated subjectively. And the subject's location is only relative to the sense of persistance of an image, sensation, or feeling. So, indeed, subject and object dissolve if " perception " is understood, as does any sense of " dissolving " ... -- D. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 24, 2006 Report Share Posted May 24, 2006 Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <illusyn wrote: > > > > > The 'entity' is nothing other then its addictions. > > > > > > > I agree, what we won't let go of is who we are. > > good... > > now let's put that into the passive voice to get rid > of any hypothetical entity involved: > > what is not let go of is effectively the identity > > the " not letting go of " needn't be presumed to be as > *by* any entity. the strange attractor notion accounts > for it without postulating an entity... i.e. there > is a " persistence " ... and that persistence is the > *appearance of* an entity/identity as-if-behind the > persistence. > > so, " not let go of " means persists or " sticks " > > what persists or " sticks " has an appearance of an identity > " behind " > > but appearances are only appearances > > whether there is " letting go " or not, persistence or not, > there IS NO ENTITY behind... > > so there is nothing to DO > > no need to even " let go " ... > > just seeing that it is only an appearance, > all this " I am this " , " I am that " , etc. > > ONLY APPEARANCE > > nothing more > > > Bill > Agreed, but isn't it hard to do nothing? Your scientific analysis above could imply addiction to something? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 24, 2006 Report Share Posted May 24, 2006 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <illusyn@> > wrote, in part: > > > so, " not let go of " means persists or " sticks " > > > > what persists or " sticks " has an appearance of an identity > > " behind " > > > > but appearances are only appearances > > > > whether there is " letting go " or not, persistence or not, > > there IS NO ENTITY behind... > > > > so there is nothing to DO > > > > no need to even " let go " ... > > > > just seeing that it is only an appearance, > > all this " I am this " , " I am that " , etc. > > > > ONLY APPEARANCE > > > > nothing more > > Well-said. > > And the persistance is evaluated subjectively. > > And the subject's location is only relative to the sense of > persistance of an image, sensation, or feeling. > > So, indeed, subject and object dissolve if " perception " is understood, > as does any sense of " dissolving " ... > > -- D. wonderful... words like this make it so easy to just slip beneath the waves... reminds me of a passage from Krishnamurti where he points out that it is all there, plain in view, nothing hidden... and when so seen, as you say, nothing " holds up " as truly persistent in character. persistence = illusion no persistence, no illusion truly beholding with rapt attention what is, no persistence therefore, truly beholding with rapt attention what(ever) is, no illusion and I wonder if some don't get too complicated about " what is " ... as if they are willing to pay complete attention to " what is " , but they just don't know what " what is " really is! so maybe good to clarify: what is = whatever presents and with the timeframe as narrow as possible if there is a " refresh " of attention, a re-attending to what is anew, every second or so... that is pretty good I'd say. in other words, if the thought-flow is " interrupted " every second or so... to take in anew, completely freshly... what presents... what arises... Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 25, 2006 Report Share Posted May 25, 2006 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <illusyn@> > wrote, in part: > > > so, " not let go of " means persists or " sticks " > > > > what persists or " sticks " has an appearance of an identity > > " behind " > > > > but appearances are only appearances > > > > whether there is " letting go " or not, persistence or not, > > there IS NO ENTITY behind... > > > > so there is nothing to DO > > > > no need to even " let go " ... > > > > just seeing that it is only an appearance, > > all this " I am this " , " I am that " , etc. > > > > ONLY APPEARANCE > > > > nothing more > > Well-said. > > And the persistance is evaluated subjectively. > > And the subject's location is only relative to the sense of > persistance of an image, sensation, or feeling. > > So, indeed, subject and object dissolve if " perception " is understood, > as does any sense of " dissolving " ... > > -- D. wonderful... words like this make it so easy to just slip beneath the waves... reminds me of a passage from Krishnamurti where he points out that it is all there, plain in view, nothing hidden... and when so seen, as you say, nothing " holds up " as truly persistent in character. persistence = illusion no persistence, no illusion truly beholding with rapt attention what is, no persistence therefore, truly beholding with rapt attention what(ever) is, no illusion and I wonder if some don't get too complicated about " what is " ... as if they are willing to pay complete attention to " what is " , but they just don't know what " what is " really is! so maybe good to clarify: what is = whatever presents and with the timeframe as narrow as possible if there is a " refresh " of attention, a re-attending to what is anew, every second or so... that is pretty good I'd say. in other words, if the thought-flow is " interrupted " every second or so... to take in anew, completely freshly... what presents... what arises... Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 25, 2006 Report Share Posted May 25, 2006 Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <illusyn wrote: > wonderful... > > words like this make it so easy > > to just slip beneath the waves... > > > reminds me of a passage from Krishnamurti where > he points out that it is all there, plain in view, > nothing hidden... > > and when so seen, as you say, nothing " holds up " > as truly persistent in character. > > persistence = illusion > > no persistence, no illusion > > truly beholding with rapt attention what is, > no persistence > > therefore, truly beholding with rapt attention what(ever) is, > no illusion > > and I wonder if some don't get too complicated > about " what is " ... as if they are willing to > pay complete attention to " what is " , but they > just don't know what " what is " really is! > > so maybe good to clarify: what is = whatever presents > and with the timeframe as narrow as possible > > if there is a " refresh " of attention, a re-attending > to what is anew, every second or so... that is pretty > good I'd say. > > in other words, if the thought-flow is " interrupted " > every second or so... to take in anew, completely > freshly... what presents... what arises... > > > Bill Yes, and indeed no time involved at all. Time requiring a juxtaposition of " slices " and a judgment about duration -- from a supposedly continuing perceiver who exists between " slices " and within one slice and the next, with the same identity. -- D. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 25, 2006 Report Share Posted May 25, 2006 <snip> > > > wonderful... > > > > words like this make it so easy > > > > to just slip beneath the waves... > > > > > > reminds me of a passage from Krishnamurti where > > he points out that it is all there, plain in view, > > nothing hidden... > > > > and when so seen, as you say, nothing " holds up " > > as truly persistent in character. > > > > persistence = illusion > > > > no persistence, no illusion > > > > truly beholding with rapt attention what is, > > no persistence > > > > therefore, truly beholding with rapt attention what(ever) is, > > no illusion > > > > and I wonder if some don't get too complicated > > about " what is " ... as if they are willing to > > pay complete attention to " what is " , but they > > just don't know what " what is " really is! > > > > so maybe good to clarify: what is = whatever presents > > and with the timeframe as narrow as possible > > > > if there is a " refresh " of attention, a re-attending > > to what is anew, every second or so... that is pretty > > good I'd say. > > > > in other words, if the thought-flow is " interrupted " > > every second or so... to take in anew, completely > > freshly... what presents... what arises... > > > > > > Bill > > Yes, and indeed no time involved at all. > > Time requiring a juxtaposition of " slices " and a judgment > about duration -- from a supposedly continuing perceiver who > exists between " slices " and within one slice and the next, > with the same identity. > > -- D. eventually all becomes as " fused " in a brilliant sparkling attention that is as everywhere at once, just life bouyantly alive and aware... before that kind of " flying without a net " can happen, the sense of continuity and *belief in continuity* must be broken. continually bringing attention back to this just-now micro-moment is a way to break that continuity... to as it were to *defy* it. in the end there are no " moments " ... but moments as a metaphor from breaking away from the bondage of continuity seems a useful one. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 25, 2006 Report Share Posted May 25, 2006 Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <illusyn wrote: > > <snip> > > > > > > wonderful... > > > > > > words like this make it so easy > > > > > > to just slip beneath the waves... > > > > > > > > > reminds me of a passage from Krishnamurti where > > > he points out that it is all there, plain in view, > > > nothing hidden... > > > > > > and when so seen, as you say, nothing " holds up " > > > as truly persistent in character. > > > > > > persistence = illusion > > > > > > no persistence, no illusion > > > > > > truly beholding with rapt attention what is, > > > no persistence > > > > > > therefore, truly beholding with rapt attention what(ever) is, > > > no illusion > > > > > > and I wonder if some don't get too complicated > > > about " what is " ... as if they are willing to > > > pay complete attention to " what is " , but they > > > just don't know what " what is " really is! > > > > > > so maybe good to clarify: what is = whatever presents > > > and with the timeframe as narrow as possible > > > > > > if there is a " refresh " of attention, a re-attending > > > to what is anew, every second or so... that is pretty > > > good I'd say. > > > > > > in other words, if the thought-flow is " interrupted " > > > every second or so... to take in anew, completely > > > freshly... what presents... what arises... > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > Yes, and indeed no time involved at all. > > > > Time requiring a juxtaposition of " slices " and a judgment > > about duration -- from a supposedly continuing perceiver who > > exists between " slices " and within one slice and the next, > > with the same identity. > > > > -- D. > > eventually all becomes as " fused " in a brilliant > sparkling attention that is as everywhere at once, > just life bouyantly alive and aware... > > before that kind of " flying without a net " can > happen, the sense of continuity and *belief in > continuity* must be broken. > > continually bringing attention back to this just-now > micro-moment is a way to break that continuity... > to as it were to *defy* it. > > in the end there are no " moments " ... > but moments as a metaphor from breaking away from the > bondage of continuity seems a useful one. > > > Bill > .............and all the dots break their mooring......and swirl upward into the sun.......laughing. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 25, 2006 Report Share Posted May 25, 2006 Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <illusyn wrote: > in the end there are no " moments " ... > but moments as a metaphor from breaking away from the > bondage of continuity seems a useful one. > > > Bill Yes, there aren't moments, because there aren't many and isn't many-ness with no separated observer. Therefore, with no many-ness as contrast, there isn't one or oneness. What there is, is unthinkable and unspeakable. Yet, we speak. We are communicating beings. So, we have fun with what we are -- what is given us to be. This is the way of things. ;-) -- D. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 25, 2006 Report Share Posted May 25, 2006 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > in the end there are no " moments " ... > > but moments as a metaphor from breaking away from the > > bondage of continuity seems a useful one. > > > > > > Bill > > Yes, there aren't moments, because there aren't many and isn't > many-ness with no separated observer. > > Therefore, with no many-ness as contrast, there isn't one or oneness. > > What there is, is unthinkable and unspeakable. > > Yet, we speak. > > We are communicating beings. > > So, we have fun with what we are -- what is given us to be. > > This is the way of things. > > ;-) > > -- D. > you are sounding like Lao-Tze there Dan! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 25, 2006 Report Share Posted May 25, 2006 Bill, please explain your meaning for " strange attractor " . I have used that term by a very non scientific definition to mean " unseen influences " like several planets and moons causing another planet to have an unexplainable orbit, until the other planets and moons are noticed. So in a person that would be several influences that are unknown to the person, that result in his or her dramatizing unexplainable behavior. Stu " pliantheart " <illusyn wrote: > > > > > The 'entity' is nothing other then its addictions. > > > > > > > I agree, what we won't let go of is who we are. > > good... > > now let's put that into the passive voice to get rid > of any hypothetical entity involved: > > what is not let go of is effectively the identity > > the " not letting go of " needn't be presumed to be as > *by* any entity. the strange attractor notion accounts > for it without postulating an entity... i.e. there > is a " persistence " ... and that persistence is the > *appearance of* an entity/identity as-if-behind the > persistence. > > so, " not let go of " means persists or " sticks " > > what persists or " sticks " has an appearance of an identity > " behind " > > but appearances are only appearances > > whether there is " letting go " or not, persistence or not, > there IS NO ENTITY behind... > > so there is nothing to DO > > no need to even " let go " ... > > just seeing that it is only an appearance, > all this " I am this " , " I am that " , etc. > > ONLY APPEARANCE > > nothing more > > > Bill > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 25, 2006 Report Share Posted May 25, 2006 " pliantheart " <illusyn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <illusyn@> > > wrote, in part: > > > > > so, " not let go of " means persists or " sticks " > > > > > > what persists or " sticks " has an appearance of an identity > > > " behind " > > > > > > but appearances are only appearances > > > > > > whether there is " letting go " or not, persistence or not, > > > there IS NO ENTITY behind... > > > > > > so there is nothing to DO > > > > > > no need to even " let go " ... > > > > > > just seeing that it is only an appearance, > > > all this " I am this " , " I am that " , etc. > > > > > > ONLY APPEARANCE > > > > > > nothing more > > > > Well-said. > > > > And the persistance is evaluated subjectively. > > > > And the subject's location is only relative to the sense of > > persistance of an image, sensation, or feeling. > > > > So, indeed, subject and object dissolve if " perception " is understood, > > as does any sense of " dissolving " ... > > > > -- D. > > wonderful... > > words like this make it so easy > > to just slip beneath the waves... > > > reminds me of a passage from Krishnamurti where > he points out that it is all there, plain in view, > nothing hidden... > > and when so seen, as you say, nothing " holds up " > as truly persistent in character. > > persistence = illusion > > no persistence, no illusion > > truly beholding with rapt attention what is, > no persistence > > therefore, truly beholding with rapt attention what(ever) is, > no illusion *** Rapt attention, in my experience, is only given to what has the necessary ingredients to cause this much interest. The nothingness between thoughts is never as interesting as the thoughts. I think " the now " is the space between the thoughts and I find it very hard to attach my attention to it when the thoughts and memories and future are sooo interesting...:-( Stu > > and I wonder if some don't get too complicated > about " what is " ... as if they are willing to > pay complete attention to " what is " , but they > just don't know what " what is " really is! > > so maybe good to clarify: what is = whatever presents > and with the timeframe as narrow as possible > > if there is a " refresh " of attention, a re-attending > to what is anew, every second or so... that is pretty > good I'd say. > > in other words, if the thought-flow is " interrupted " > every second or so... to take in anew, completely > freshly... what presents... what arises... > > > Bill > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 25, 2006 Report Share Posted May 25, 2006 Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <illusyn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > in the end there are no " moments " ... > > > but moments as a metaphor from breaking away from the > > > bondage of continuity seems a useful one. > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > Yes, there aren't moments, because there aren't many and isn't > > many-ness with no separated observer. > > > > Therefore, with no many-ness as contrast, there isn't one or oneness. > > > > What there is, is unthinkable and unspeakable. > > > > Yet, we speak. > > > > We are communicating beings. > > > > So, we have fun with what we are -- what is given us to be. > > > > This is the way of things. > > > > ;-) > > > > -- D. > > > > you are sounding like Lao-Tze there Dan! He's been a very good friend! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 25, 2006 Report Share Posted May 25, 2006 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > in the end there are no " moments " ... > > > > but moments as a metaphor from breaking away from the > > > > bondage of continuity seems a useful one. > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > Yes, there aren't moments, because there aren't many and isn't > > > many-ness with no separated observer. > > > > > > Therefore, with no many-ness as contrast, there isn't one or oneness. > > > > > > What there is, is unthinkable and unspeakable. > > > > > > Yet, we speak. > > > > > > We are communicating beings. > > > > > > So, we have fun with what we are -- what is given us to be. > > > > > > This is the way of things. > > > > > > ;-) > > > > > > -- D. > > > > > > > you are sounding like Lao-Tze there Dan! > > He's been a very good friend! > I've warmed my heart by that very same fire *so many* times! 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.