Guest guest Posted July 28, 2006 Report Share Posted July 28, 2006 Hi Bill -- I agree with what you say below, well-said. Yes, it is a wonder, this which one is! Birth/death, emergence/return, formation/dissolution. Along with the perceptual distinction of figure/ground comes the conceptual distinction of is/is not, and along with that comes inside/outside, here/there and now/then. With these distinctions in place, so to speak, one is (as these distinctions forming) the basis for an entire scenario of a life, with time, space, self, other, and a variety of experiences (this is painful, this is not painful, what draws me close is pleasurable, what pushes me away is not pleasurable). The emergence of these distinctions is necessarily mysterious to any explanatory power of the mind (because the mind can't be established, until these distinctions are established). Yet, the emergence of these distinctions is very straightforward and obvious to " intuition " (for want of a better word for understanding/awareness that doesn't depend on distinctions). These distinctions don't just allow relationship, they actually are relationship in action, so to speak. That is, these distinctions are always in flux, always revealing relationship, never coming to an end (hence, never having a beginning, in spite of our conceptual notions of birth and death). That " what is " the " distinctionless and divisionless being " would include manifestation as relationship is obvious to intuition, if not to mind. Because relationship, manifestation indeed *is* the nonmanifest, the boundless with no other. Mutually interdependent co-arising is at once infinite and nonlocalizable (so, in a sense, never happening anywhere). " Awareness " and " infinite co-arising relationship " are not-two. So, distinctions actually *are* the distinctionless. The sense of figure/ground returning to the nonfigure/ground " nowness " is not really a happening, as no time is, or could be involved in such a " return. " Thus, the return is always the case, with no activity involved. How can there be activity when there is nothing to act upon, nothing to act upon something, no location for movement to occur " from " or " to " ? This return is indeed *now* and these distinctions right now are distinctionless. This right *now* as is, is one's divisionless true being. All the wars, manipulations, deceits, and various forms of internalized and externalized holdings and violence don't make any true split occur in what can have no divisions, what has no outside to it. Thus, all our " mistakes " and " enacted horror stories " are included now, as is, as the infinite co-interdependent mutual arisingness. Nothing can or should be other than it is. This requires deep understanding from the intuition that is one's very being -- and because people have self-constructed barriers to this intuition (which barriers are equivalent to " investment " and " bias, " when they hear teachings of this sort, they misinterpret wildly. So, they say things like, " I'm already *this*, " I can do whatever I want to whomever I want, because none of it is real, " or " everything is perfect just as it is, " or " no one should do any kind of practice. " But those kinds of misinterpretations, if examined, show a kind of avoidance of the heart of the matter. The heart of the matter isn't to draw any kind of conclusion in thought of some kind of statement to follow, or logical outcome. There isn't and can't be any such thing in/as this distinctionless nowness, which simultaneously is the instantaneous manifestation of fluxing perception and relating. So, it has been said, " one who knows, doesn't speak - one who speaks, doesn't know " and " the way which is indicated, is not the way. " It's not going to be " gotten " or " had " through any explanation, description, testimonial, or experiential epiphany. All of those begin and end, come and go, form as figures and dissolve. Love to you and all here -- -- Dan Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart wrote: > > Dan wrote: > " How is an image formed? " : > > Consider the notion of figure-ground. > > In the moment (no " time " ) there is no figure-ground... > beholding and beheld are not distinct. > > If there *is* figure-ground that would seem to require > time, some movement *between*... > > Now, if there is figure-ground, that is the fundamental notion > of " image " , is it not? > > And also, it is the fundamental notion of any subject, of any > " you " or " I " for whom an image *appears*. > > So in relation to figure-ground there can be a dissolving > to where beholding and beheld are not distinct and where there > is no image. > > And in relation to the undifferentiated " isness* of What Is > there can be differentiation into figure-ground. > > It seems clear there can be no " how " to the differentiation > into figure-ground. And hence no " how " for the formation of > image. > > So it would seem we must regard the emergence of figure-ground > as fundamentally mysterious. > > And dissolving back into the formless flux of Now as return > to the fundamental nature. > > It is a wonder that form should emerge from the formless. > It is a wonder that form should dissolve back into the formless. > > > Bill > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 28, 2006 Report Share Posted July 28, 2006 I believe it might have been William James under the influence of nitrous oxide who uttered/realized something like... " There are no differences except degrees of difference in a field of non-difference. " Paraphrased, it could also state, " There are no distinctions except degrees of distinctions in a field of non-distinction. " Michael Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 28, 2006 Report Share Posted July 28, 2006 Hi Dan, Got so excited half-way through reading your post I had trouble finishing it, as I got run over by a freight-train-insight- connection with something I had been writing just a moment ago on another list. The sentence that triggered the insight was: " That 'what is' the 'distinctionless and divisionless being' would include manifestation as relationship is obvious to intuition, if not to mind. " I had just been writing in response to someone who had spoken of " the sense of existence " , and I said that at the moment, here there are only fluctuations in consciousness which consist of fragments of sensation, and that there is no coherent sensation of which one could say it is a " sense of existence " . I said that if there *were* anything so solid and coherent, it seems to me that if one were to experience such a sensation more intimately it would become clear that in reality there is no coherent sense but rather a chaos of micro-sensations (sensation *quanta*!) which, like an " electron cloud " , appear as a coherent entity though in reality is not. Going back to your statement now: " That 'what is' the 'distinctionless and divisionless being' would include manifestation as relationship is obvious to intuition, if not to mind. " it strikes me that What Is actually is a flux much like what is described in quantum physics as the perpetual creation and destruction of particles out of " nothing " . In the case of What Is, I am suggesting, rather than particles it is the micro-sensations or sensation-quanta that in themselves are not a discrete sensation and collectively can *appear as* a discrete sensation, but in reality (i.e. upon intimate examination) never are. Your statement confronted me with the fact that while What Is does not " render " relationships and entities in any " real " sense there is nevertheless a kind of virtualness to what is rendered, that, as you say, " 'what is'... would include manifestation as relationship.... " > How can there be activity when there is nothing to act > upon, nothing to act upon something, no location for movement to occur > " from " or " to " ? Hence the answer to this question seems to be that the activity is never real, but can appear to be (i.e. is virtual). It seems to me that your, " ...these distinctions right now are distinctionless... " accords to the notion of sensation-quanta... a given quantum is neither distinct nor distinctionless, and any aggreation of quanta is always virtual. As virtual the existence is observer dependent. Hence is it like the wave/particle. [Note that the " virtual " sense arises only with apparent time.] re: > But those kinds of misinterpretations, if examined, show a kind of > avoidance of the heart of the matter. The heart of the matter isn't > to draw any kind of conclusion in thought of some kind of statement to > follow, or logical outcome. An incredibly high tolerance of ambiguity/uncertainty is required to realize the kind of " naked seeing " that is the intuition you speak of. And you are absolutely right, it is a very special kind of intuition, that can function " in the raw " at the " nerve-level " as it were. I don't want to claim that " sensation-quanta " is a description of " they way it is " . But I find it an interesting metaphor for talking about that border of order and chaos we have been talking about, " Birth/death, emergence/return, formation/dissolution. " Finally, I will mention it strikes me that we are in harmony on a kind of " agnosticism " as when you say, " The emergence of these distinctions is necessarily mysterious to any explanatory power of the mind.... " We can never explain why or how. Highest regards, Bill > I agree with what you say below, well-said. Yes, it is a wonder, this > which one is! Birth/death, emergence/return, formation/dissolution. > > Along with the perceptual distinction of figure/ground comes the > conceptual distinction of is/is not, and along with that comes > inside/outside, here/there and now/then. > > With these distinctions in place, so to speak, one is (as these > distinctions forming) the basis for an entire scenario of a life, with > time, space, self, other, and a variety of experiences (this is > painful, this is not painful, what draws me close is pleasurable, what > pushes me away is not pleasurable). > > The emergence of these distinctions is necessarily mysterious to any > explanatory power of the mind (because the mind can't be established, > until these distinctions are established). > > Yet, the emergence of these distinctions is very straightforward and > obvious to " intuition " (for want of a better word for > understanding/awareness that doesn't depend on distinctions). > > These distinctions don't just allow relationship, they actually are > relationship in action, so to speak. That is, these distinctions are > always in flux, always revealing relationship, never coming to an end > (hence, never having a beginning, in spite of our conceptual notions > of birth and death). > > That " what is " the " distinctionless and divisionless being " would > include manifestation as relationship is obvious to intuition, if not > to mind. > > Because relationship, manifestation indeed *is* the nonmanifest, the > boundless with no other. > > Mutually interdependent co-arising is at once infinite and > nonlocalizable (so, in a sense, never happening anywhere). > " Awareness " and " infinite co-arising relationship " are not-two. > > So, distinctions actually *are* the distinctionless. > > The sense of figure/ground returning to the nonfigure/ground " nowness " > is not really a happening, as no time is, or could be involved in such > a " return. " Thus, the return is always the case, with no activity > involved. How can there be activity when there is nothing to act > upon, nothing to act upon something, no location for movement to occur > " from " or " to " ? > > This return is indeed *now* and these distinctions right now are > distinctionless. This right *now* as is, is one's divisionless true > being. All the wars, manipulations, deceits, and various forms of > internalized and externalized holdings and violence don't make any > true split occur in what can have no divisions, what has no outside to it. > > Thus, all our " mistakes " and " enacted horror stories " are included > now, as is, as the infinite co-interdependent mutual arisingness. > > Nothing can or should be other than it is. > > This requires deep understanding from the intuition that is one's very > being -- and because people have self-constructed barriers to this > intuition (which barriers are equivalent to " investment " and " bias, " > when they hear teachings of this sort, they misinterpret wildly. So, > they say things like, " I'm already *this*, " I can do whatever I want > to whomever I want, because none of it is real, " or " everything is > perfect just as it is, " or " no one should do any kind of practice. " > > But those kinds of misinterpretations, if examined, show a kind of > avoidance of the heart of the matter. The heart of the matter isn't > to draw any kind of conclusion in thought of some kind of statement to > follow, or logical outcome. There isn't and can't be any such thing > in/as this distinctionless nowness, which simultaneously is the > instantaneous manifestation of fluxing perception and relating. > > So, it has been said, " one who knows, doesn't speak - one who speaks, > doesn't know " and " the way which is indicated, is not the way. " > > It's not going to be " gotten " or " had " through any explanation, > description, testimonial, or experiential epiphany. All of those > begin and end, come and go, form as figures and dissolve. > > Love to you and all here -- > > -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.