Guest guest Posted January 19, 2007 Report Share Posted January 19, 2007 What people consider to be reality in terms of common-sense involves the movement of images through a mental/conceptual filter of time (past, present, future) and an observer of those images, generally experienced as a static awareness that doesn't change. If one deeply investigates this flow of images and the observer, one discovers that they are all " past, " always " the past " -- including the felt sense of the observer as a static awareness. That is, they are memory-dependent images, concepts and feelings. They depend on an imaginary interaction between past and present through memory and thought. There is no actual interaction of present with past, as there is no division of " what is " into segments like past, present, future. This means that what is generally considered to be present, and to be real, isn't what is present, nor what is actually so. What is truly " now " isn't divided into segments, doesn't interact with memory, and doesn't appear as changing images to a separated observer who remains static. All of that is imagined, is conceptual. Why then is there the appearance as if there were time, as if there were an observer of images moving past, as if that observer could employ interactive memory functions that affect and are affected by a changing present? One way to answer this is by saying it is illusory - then one doesn't have to explain it, because any explanation also is illusory. Another way to answer this is that it serves a function. Not a function for an illusory being that never could have a separable existence, but a function for the undivided truth that actually is " the now " as it is. What is the function of an illusion that can't possibly touch or interact with what is so? The function is to be illusory. Why would what is actual require illusion as illusion (and hence these dialogues, and everything else, such as nations, day to day lives of individuals, etc.)? What is so requires illusion to be illusion because the illusion is never actually there, but is expressing what would be there if something could be there. What is so is an infinite dimensionless energy that includes every possible possibibility but no (separable) location to express it. The illusion is for the sake of expressing what can't be expressed, for manifesting what can't be manifested. It has to be this way, as inconceivable as it may be. In advaita it is said that there actually is neither creation nor destruction. But even that teaching never took place. -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 19, 2007 Report Share Posted January 19, 2007 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > What people consider to be reality in terms of common-sense involves > the movement of images through a mental/conceptual filter of time > (past, present, future) and an observer of those images, generally > experienced as a static awareness that doesn't change. If one deeply > investigates this flow of images and the observer, one discovers that > they are all " past, " always " the past " -- including the felt sense of > the observer as a static awareness. That is, they are > memory-dependent images, concepts and feelings. They depend on an > imaginary interaction between past and present through memory and > thought. > > There is no actual interaction of present with past, as there is no > division of " what is " into segments like past, present, future. > > This means that what is generally considered to be present, and to be > real, isn't what is present, nor what is actually so. > > What is truly " now " isn't divided into segments, doesn't interact with > memory, and doesn't appear as changing images to a separated observer > who remains static. All of that is imagined, is conceptual. > > Why then is there the appearance as if there were time, as if there > were an observer of images moving past, as if that observer could > employ interactive memory functions that affect and are affected by a > changing present? > > One way to answer this is by saying it is illusory - then one doesn't > have to explain it, because any explanation also is illusory. > > Another way to answer this is that it serves a function. Not a > function for an illusory being that never could have a separable > existence, but a function for the undivided truth that actually is > " the now " as it is. > > What is the function of an illusion that can't possibly touch or > interact with what is so? > > The function is to be illusory. > > Why would what is actual require illusion as illusion (and hence these > dialogues, and everything else, such as nations, day to day lives of > individuals, etc.)? > > What is so requires illusion to be illusion because the illusion is > never actually there, but is expressing what would be there if > something could be there. > > What is so is an infinite dimensionless energy that includes every > possible possibibility but no (separable) location to express it. > > The illusion is for the sake of expressing what can't be expressed, > for manifesting what can't be manifested. > > It has to be this way, as inconceivable as it may be. > > In advaita it is said that there actually is neither creation nor > destruction. > > But even that teaching never took place. > > -- Dan > Dan.........diving deep......into the deep. :-) toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 19, 2007 Report Share Posted January 19, 2007 [...] > > Dan.........diving deep......into the deep. Or, is that just your " illusion " > > :-) > > > toombaru > But, frankly speaking, it totally escaped me - Dan's article as well as your comments! Regards, ac Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 20, 2007 Report Share Posted January 20, 2007 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Dan.........diving deep......into the deep. > > :-) > > > > > toombaru o o o o o o o o <--- trail of bubbles .... :-) -- D. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 20, 2007 Report Share Posted January 20, 2007 Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " <adithya_comming wrote: > > [...] > > > > > Dan.........diving deep......into the deep. > > Or, is that just your " illusion " > > > > > > :-) > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > But, frankly speaking, it totally escaped me - > Dan's article as well as your comments! > > > Regards, > ac Hi AC -- What is, necessarily eludes the cognizing mind, no? The eye doesn't view itself as it sees. -- D. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 20, 2007 Report Share Posted January 20, 2007 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " > <adithya_comming@> wrote: > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > Dan.........diving deep......into the deep. > > > > Or, is that just your " illusion " > > > > > > > > > > :-) > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > But, frankly speaking, it totally escaped me - > > Dan's article as well as your comments! > > > > > > Regards, > > ac > > Hi AC -- > > What is, necessarily eludes the cognizing mind, no? I don't know. But, I was referring to your article not about What Is. When you have time and inclination, perhaps, you can expand on it... Or, maybe, I will reply to your post again and ask you few questions. > > The eye doesn't view itself as it sees. > > -- D. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 22, 2007 Report Share Posted January 22, 2007 > " ............... > In advaita it is said that there actually is neither creation nor > destruction. > > But even that teaching never took place. " > > -- Dan .....just like the dream last night..... Marc > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 22, 2007 Report Share Posted January 22, 2007 Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " <adithya_comming wrote: Hi AC - Sure, if you have a question about what I wrote, I'll do my best to answer. -- Dan (nothing new below) > I don't know. > > But, I was referring to your article > not about What Is. > > When you have time and inclination, > perhaps, you can expand on it... > > > Or, maybe, I will reply to your post again > and ask you few questions. > > > > > The eye doesn't view itself as it sees. > > > > -- D. > > > 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.