Guest guest Posted July 20, 2006 Report Share Posted July 20, 2006 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart@> > wrote: > > > > <snip> > > > > > > good, i like that. > > > > Still, is it taboo to talk about a process involving > > > > time, > > > > about a situation (self-created) that is so unbearable > > > > that one let go? > > > > About a death that has a begining and yet no end? > > > > > > > > Patricia > > > > > > the process involving time is experiencing. > > > > > > experiences come and go. > > > > > > it may seem as if this process refers to something outside of itself, > > > but it doesn't. > > > > > > in the process of time, a being changes its situation, because the > > > experiencing changes in quality. > > > > > > so anything that begins, ends. and in endings are beginnings. > > > > > > what has no birth, has no death. > > > > > > the being in time can't know what is not of time. > > > > > > it can only know what is experienced between birth and death. > > > > > > including when it died to a previous unbearable experience, and > > > something new began. but that too will end, because it began. > > > > > > here is a paradox: > > > > > > it can't be known and has no existence as a being, as it isn't > > > occurring in a space between birth and death. > > > > > > it includes all the experiencing, all the knowings, all the beings, > > > all their traumas, endings of traumas, deaths and births. > > > > > > -- Dan > > > > > > > note that the second statement refers only to things in the past. > > > > " a being " is defined by what is in the past. > > > > beingness is only what is now. > > > > if what is now is by definition what is real, > > then " a being " is not real... > > > > and what is real is beingness... or better put, > > What Is. > > > > Bill > > Yes, to get a past, you have to divide from the present. > > You'd have to step out of the present, to be able to divide from the > present. > > But you can't step out of the present, unless there is a past. > > But that's what you have to be able to do, to have a past. > > So, the past is a contradiction. > > Yet memory is the basis for thought, recognition, language, social > roles, cues for survival, etc. > > So, memory is indispensible for the survival of the being that memory > creates and which depends on memory. > > Yet memory has never created a past, because it never stepped out of > the present. > > So, the being that depends on memory, isn't here. > > Now, that's ironic! > > -- Dan > if there is no time... *really*... then the notions of survival and memory make no sense, *really*... if I rely only on what is directly evident in the moment, then memory is a meaningless notion... and so is survival. I guess I don't feel very puzzled... yet there are activities each day that pertain to " survival " in a sense... a continual girding of " myself " to take on matters that are languishing from inattention... and a resistance to keeping lists (memory) of the " shoulds " ... maybe that is why I like the philosophy of Now so much... it's a great escape from all that! ) so it seems a question of " center " ... if the shoulds, wants, and perhaps fears are the center, then that is a *me*... and all turns around it. if openness to What Is is the center... then those ghosts may still swirl around... but there is faith that they will be absorbed... dissolved into... that all will transpire as needs be in its course... Bill 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.