Relative and Absolute/To Bill

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , epston wrote:

 

>

> pliantheart <pliantheart

> Nisargadatta

> Thu, 8 Jun 2006 10:51:25 -0000

> Relative and Absolute/To Dan

 

Hi Bill --

 

Not sure where this came from. Missed the original post, picked it up

when Larry responded.

 

> Hi Dan,

 

> I think your point was to address the argument: There is

> no such thing as " transcendence " because there is no one to

> do the transcending and nothing to be transcended. And I think

> you addressed that effectively.

>

> But teasing apart the fibers in what you wrote (studying the

> entrails as it were) something interesting came out of it for

> me.

>

> You speak of " the absolute... that which is beyond experience, "

> and I wondered if there really is such a thing.

 

It's not a thing, nor an it, nor something that can be discussed.

 

Putting words to it is fraud, including when I do it.

 

Words relate to experience, what isn't of experience can't be given,

approached, or expressed through words, ideas, feelings, memories,

experiences, perceptions, relations.

 

> Since there cannot be absolute experience, is not " the absolute...

> that which is beyond experience " not really only a concept?

 

It's more like this: because there is experience, there is what is

not experience, not derived from experience, and not of experience.

 

> What struck me as interesting is that when experience does

> transcend the " stuck attempt at located self " there is a *sense

> of absoluteness* about it in contrast to the stuckedness.

>

> When the " located self " is transcended... there is absence of any

> " particular " , nothing stays still, nothing is specific...

> it is very fluid and alive. Such experience, then, can seem to

> be absolute in nature because nothing qualifies it... like looking

> at running water, there is the appearance of form, but there is

> no particular form. So when the " located self " is transcended

> the absence of any particular creates a sense of " generalness "

> to the experience, which can be readily construed as " absolute "

> in nature.

 

How fast is a photon moving, to itself?

 

How fast is the fastest speed in the universe, to itself?

 

There is no sense of life, liveliness, or death, staticness.

 

There isn't movement nor is there staying still.

 

When experience is transcended, it isn't a when because no time is

involved.

 

There isn't any experiential component whatsoever to this, no quality.

 

This is why the deepest teachings end up being negations in terms of

words and thought.

 

But the negations don't give what this is. It's not a negative in any

sense, nor is it a negation of something else. There is no something

else.

 

> But it is not absolute, it is still happening in time; it is simply

> not tied down to particular qualities.

 

One can investigate time, and understand how time is produced.

 

If explained in words, it will seem complex.

 

But it is understood at once, and is very simple.

 

Time is the result of thought, memory, experience (sensation and

perception), comparison, and programming (for survival, including

things like awareness of relationship, depth and body-in-space).

You get at some of this below.

 

> Regarding the matter of time:

>

> Case 1:

> When experience is *mediated by mental activity* then that is a

> sense of " time " as experience ratchets from state to state and

> a sense of sequentiality ensues. This would correspond to experience

> as per the " located self " .

>

> Case 2:

> When experience is not mediated by mental activity, when the

> " local self " is transcended such that what transpires is fluid,

> open, free... what occurs still is technically within time, but

> the " sense of time " is no longer present.

>

> It seems that the second case is still in time but *seems to be*

> beyond time because it does not have the sense of " sequential

> time " as in Case 1. Experience as in Case 2 seems absolute

> relative to Case 1. But Case 2 is not " the absolute... that which

> is beyond experience. "

>

> And I don't see that what is " beyond experience " as really being

> of any interest to us. It is an idea that never has any bearing

> for us.

 

Not so.

 

It is the resolution of everthing, of every aspect of clinging and

attachment, ever sense of self-being. This includes the kind of

self-being you're desribing, of feeling free, open, lifeful.

 

> So then, looking at your statements:

>

> Yet, in absolute terms, there is no transcendence required or

> possible, no self was ever located which could be trancended.

>

> Note that even in Case 2 there is no " self " which is located.

>

> The absolute and the relative, that which is beyond experience,

> and experience -- are not two.

>

> The not-twoness of absolute and relative is not a signficant concern

> for us, because " that which is beyond experience " is never the case.

 

On the contrary, it is never not the case. Simply unrecognized and

unnoticed, unremarked upon.

 

> I am quite intrigued by the new way of looking at absolute and

> relative as described above. I hope my exposition of it is clear

> enough. And I am quite interested in what you think.

>

> Do we sometimes use " absolute " to refer to experience as in

> Case 2?

>

> Is perhaps the term " absolute " in fact an appropriate one for

> experience as in Case 2?

 

There's no such thing as an absolute experience.

 

The word 'absolute' is very misleading, because it is contrasted with

relative to have an understanding of it.

 

Contrast implies time.

 

-- Dan