Guest guest Posted January 20, 2007 Report Share Posted January 20, 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. Yes, that maybe so. But, don't you think many/most " intellectual " people understand it to be so? Through my interactions with many people, I have come to think that they do understand it. >>There is no actual interaction of present with past, as there is no division of " what is " into segments like past, present, future. I am not sure what you mean. How can present interact with past or anything else? As I understand, present is just a name used to divide eternity into time fragments in order to arrange images in memory. As I understand, none of these time fragments exist in reality. These are just conceptual constructs used to order set of images of reality with different labels [time-stamps]. They are inert by nature and has no real existence. They serve only as conceptual " labels " to separate one set of memory images from the other. Their usage is only in conceptual and they work only in the thought/imagination/memory domain. Time is a function of memory and it doesn't exist outside the memory. In reality, there is no such thing as " time " ! As it is often said: Everything is happening now! and, paradoxically, it is Always Only Now! >>This means that what is generally considered to be present, and to be real, isn't what is present, nor what is actually so. Yes, _What_Is_ and our recollection [memory/image/thinking] of _What_Is_ is never SAME thing! It is like a river and its picture. And, picture is always old and a picture of the river is never the river! >>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. Yes, observer too is part of the same NOW and can NEVER be separated. >>Why then is there the appearance as if there were time, I don't think there is any such appearance. Time is just our cleverly 'designed' construct that helps us in using memory efficiently. It helps us function better as a 'memory' and 'knowledge' enabled organism and it greatly increases our chances of survival and growth. We use this construct as a tool to 'learn' and 'apply' 'lessons'! >>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? I am not really sure what you mean here. Any observer is always part of the NOW! There is nothing outside _What_Is_ and there is nothing outside _NOW_ and Now and _What_Is_ are NOT two different things! " Memory " [and what is stored inside the memory] too is part of the SAME Reality! Sometimes, we just use this memory to apply lessons and function better in Now! >>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. As I understand, There is nothing like " illusion " and there is nothing " illusory " . " Illusion " is simply the name given to the phenomenon in which a thing " appears " different than other things 'like it'! Example, a concrete road in desert " not appearing " like 'other concrete roads' but, appearing like water! It doesn't mean that the road [or its appearance as water] doesn't exist - it simply means that it appears different than other roads and that its 'substance' is different than the thing [water] that it 'looks like'. >>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. Yes, concept of time does serve a very useful and essential function! >>What is the function of an illusion that can't possibly touch or interact with what is so? I don't know what you mean. Illusion is simply a phenomenon in which something looks different than others 'like it'! >>The function is to be illusory. I don't know what you mean? Be illusory to " whom " and 'why'? What is OUTSIDE _What_Is_ in order of What_Is To be illusory for? >>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.)? These are some very useful conceptual constructs that helps humans live an easier life. However, the fact that these are thought constructs doesn't make them " illusory " . >>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. These being 'conceptual constructs', don't mean that they don't exist! >>What is so is an infinite dimensionless energy that includes every possible possibibility but no (separable) location to express it. I am neither sure about its infinity nor about its dimensions. But, yes _What_Is_ has to include everything including every possible possibilities and the observer who can ascertain its infinity or dimensions. There can be no outside to it - or, you can say; it includes the " outside " too! >>The illusion is for the sake of expressing what can't be expressed, for manifesting what can't be manifested. There is nothing that can not be expressed! Everything is ALWAYS expressed. Its expression might not be fully 'comprehensible' by the human intelligence - but, it doesn't mean it is not FULLY Expressed! >>It has to be this way, as inconceivable as it may be. I am not sure what you mean here. >>In advaita it is said that there actually is neither creation nor destruction. Yes, other than 'in memory', there is NO such thing. Yet, it doesn't mean that they don't exist [ as very useful Concepts 'in memory']! >>But even that teaching never took place. Yes, not outside 'memory'! >>-- Dan Regards, ac 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: > > >>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. > > > > Yes, that maybe so. > > But, don't you think many/most " intellectual " people > understand it to be so? Through my interactions > with many people, I have come to think that they > do understand it. Our perceptions, then, apparently differ. What I'm speaking to here, isn't an intellectual understanding. Not a matter of words and ideas. The dissolution of the self-perception as existing as a static awareness by which experiences move past, in time. > > >>There is no actual interaction of present with past, as there is no > division of " what is " into segments like past, present, future. > > I am not sure what you mean. > > How can present interact with past or anything else? Look at memory operations and how they are used. Memory is assumed to interact with the present. Present experiences are placed into memory, and memory is used as a template to understand the present. This is what I meant by assumed interaction of past and present. Like when you apply for a car loan, and they check your credit rating to see whether you've paid your bills in the past, and then make a decision about whether to give you the loan now. This same dynamic occurs with forming relationships, organizing your home, etc. > As I understand, > present is just a name used to divide eternity into time > fragments in order to arrange images in memory. > > As I understand, none of these time fragments exist > in reality. These are just conceptual constructs used > to order set of images of reality with different labels > [time-stamps]. > > They are inert by nature > and has no real existence. They serve only as conceptual > " labels " to separate one set of memory images from > the other. Their usage is only in conceptual and they > work only in the thought/imagination/memory domain. Yes, that's what I'm getting at. How those static images of memory-formation mislead. For example, they construct me against you, and lead to apparent division between groups of people, as well as individuals who are " against " each other. > Time is a function of memory and it doesn't exist > outside the memory. In reality, there is no such thing > as " time " ! > > As it is often said: > > Everything is happening now! > > and, paradoxically, it is Always Only Now! Yes, that's what I'm looking into. The nature of this undivided now. > > >>This means that what is generally considered to be present, and to > be real, isn't what is present, nor what is actually so. > > > Yes, _What_Is_ and our recollection [memory/image/thinking] > of _What_Is_ is never SAME thing! True. Our recollections don't touch now, and vice versa. > It is like a river and its picture. And, picture > is always old and a picture of the river is never > the river! Quite 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. > > > > Yes, observer too is part of the same NOW and > can NEVER be separated. Quite so. > >>Why then is there the appearance as if there were time, > > I don't think there is any such appearance. > > Time is just our cleverly 'designed' construct that helps > us in using memory efficiently. It helps us function better as > a 'memory' and 'knowledge' enabled organism and it greatly > increases our chances of survival and growth. > > We use this construct as a tool to 'learn' and 'apply' 'lessons'! The lessons being learned, only can apply to a conceptual being. The learner and the learned are co-constructed out of memory and its interaction (assumed) with the present. > >>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? > > > I am not really sure what you mean here. > > Any observer is always part of the NOW! What I am getting at is that there is no observer of now, as observer and what is observed are the same now. So, there is no static awareness, nor experiences moving by it. > There is nothing outside _What_Is_ and there is > nothing outside _NOW_ and Now and _What_Is_ > are NOT two different things! Yes. > " Memory " [and what is stored inside the memory] > too is part of the SAME Reality! Sometimes, we > just use this memory to apply lessons and function > better in Now! Now, to me, is just what it is. Can't be improved upon. > >>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. > > > As I understand, > > There is nothing like " illusion " and there is nothing " illusory " . > " Illusion " is simply the name given to the phenomenon > in which a thing " appears " different than other things > 'like it'! Yes. The world of time and experience, of individual beings, of their learnings and forgettings. > Example, a concrete road in desert " not appearing " > like 'other concrete roads' but, appearing like water! > It doesn't mean that the road [or its appearance as water] > doesn't exist - it simply means that it appears different > than other roads and that its 'substance' is different than > the thing [water] that it 'looks like'. > > > > > >>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. > > Yes, concept of time does serve a very useful and > essential function! > > > >>What is the function of an illusion that can't possibly touch or > interact with what is so? > > I don't know what you mean. > > Illusion is simply a phenomenon in which something looks > different than others 'like it'! > > > >>The function is to be illusory. > > I don't know what you mean? > > Be illusory to " whom " and 'why'? The illusion constructs the " whom " and the " why " -- without the illusion, no question could arise about " to whom " and " why. " > What is OUTSIDE _What_Is_ in order of What_Is > To be illusory for? > > > >>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.)? > > > These are some very useful conceptual constructs > that helps humans live an easier life. However, the fact > that these are thought constructs doesn't make them > " illusory " . The illusion is that events are taking place, that located objects and beings are interacting in time. > > >>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. > > These being 'conceptual constructs', don't mean that they > don't exist! To have an existence is to be recognizable in separation as having its own characteristics. With no division, no existence for any thing. Nor nonexistence, for that matter. > >>What is so is an infinite dimensionless energy that includes every > possible possibibility but no (separable) location to express it. > > I am neither sure about its infinity nor about its dimensions. > But, yes _What_Is_ has to include everything including > every possible possibilities and the observer who can ascertain > its infinity or dimensions. There can be no outside to it - > or, you can say; it includes the " outside " too! > > > > >>The illusion is for the sake of expressing what can't be expressed, > for manifesting what can't be manifested. > > There is nothing that can not be expressed! > Everything is ALWAYS expressed. Its expression might not be > fully 'comprehensible' by the human intelligence - but, it > doesn't mean it is not FULLY Expressed! > > > > >>It has to be this way, as inconceivable as it may be. > > I am not sure what you mean here. The inevitability of the construction of each apparent moment of experience, and the observer that co-arises with that construction. > >>In advaita it is said that there actually is neither creation nor > destruction. > > Yes, other than 'in memory', there is NO such thing. > Yet, it doesn't mean that they don't exist [ as very useful > Concepts 'in memory']! Memory is only useful when forming images based on a past. Otherwise, memory isn't useful, because it has no place to formulate a " hold " ... > >>But even that teaching never took place. > > Yes, not outside 'memory'! Nice talking to you! -- 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.