Guest guest Posted January 22, 2007 Report Share Posted January 22, 2007 > > > > > >>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. Ok. But, I am not really sure on " how " they are formed! I know they get formed but, " how " is not clear to me! > Memory is assumed to > interact with the present. I don't 'remember' having such " assumption " ! In fact, IMO... it will be foolish to assume so. Memory to me is like a static 'image' such as picture and it can not interact with anything. It is simply a recoding. To me, saying that memory interacts with present is like saying that the tape of my voice lying in my cupboard interacts with me. IOW... it doesn't make sense to me. > Present experiences are placed into > memory, Yes, they get recorded. But, as far I know, I am not selectively 'placing' them somewhere. They pretty much happen without needing my active guidance. Like somthing falls in the vision of eyes, and, it is seen. Similarily, something happens and its 'perception' is recorded without without " me " having to do it. > and memory is used as a template to understand the present. Yes, many times... We humans expect things to behave same 'as before' like water will boil when heated, ice will melt when heated because you have 'memory of it being so and we 'assume' this to be their 'nature'. > This is what I meant by assumed interaction of past and present. Ok. I see what you meant. But, I haven't seen usage of 'interact' in this way. To me, intercation happens between two active things and I see memory as a static image. To me, saying that Awareness/Intelligence acts by accession memory and assessing present situation would make better sense because I see awareness as 'active', 'alive' and mostly 'independent'! Memory is just like bits on hard disk - they need CPU/OS to read and " use " them as well as to 'record' them ]. They by themselves can do nothing. > 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. Sure. And, it is the 'active', 'alive' bank manager that 'does' it and he/she " uses " 'recored information' [memory] to make his/her decision. > This same dynamic > occurs with forming relationships, organizing your home, etc. Sure... and, the active entities do that not some inert piece of information by itself; don't you think? 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 - I'm snipping much of what you wrote, although I read it. I'm just going to use this comment below as a springboard for my response: > > > This same dynamic > > occurs with forming relationships, organizing your home, etc. > > Sure... > > and, the active entities do that not some > inert piece of information by itself; > don't you think? I think the interaction with " live, active entities " is illusory. The " totality-now " or " unnameable all " or whatever we might term it, isn't fragmented into past, present, future, living and nonliving entities, and so on. It isn't using information as a means to manifest -- although conceptually, for human beings, information gets processed. I'm not saying that it's illusory in the sense that one should disregard living beings, or disregard information. I'm saying it's illusory in the sense that understanding (the way I am using that term in this dialogue) reveals that no such interaction occurs. There aren't separable living beings, and a past that is gone and stored in memory, and a present that is currently being translated into memory, and information that is exchanged between one mind and another. Admittedly, this is very difficult to convey in words, is subject to all kinds of possible misinterpretations, and is revealed, not through words, but as direct understanding. And by understanding, in this context, I mean awareness that is unsplit, not intellectual knowledge through words and ideas. Here's a metaphor, probably pretty inadequate to what I'm trying to say: A fish looks up and sees a bubble and sees a reflection of a tree in the bubble, and thinks the tree is underwater. But the tree is reflected in the bubble, and actually exists in quite a different way than the fish thinks. The fish isn't able to conceive of " above ground " and " trees that get sunlight and have roots in the ground, " because it has no memory to draw on to support that view. So, the tree seen in the bubble is an illusion. It's not really there the way the fish thinks (I know that fish don't really think like this, most likely -- just using it to illustrate a point). But to say this is illusion doesn't mean that nothing at all is there, that what is is just a blank. To see the actuality of the situation, you'd have to encompass above and below water simultaneously, see the fish, the bubble, and the tree. In this way, what is usually construed as real is illusory. Not that nothing is, and it is all really a blank. But that it is misinterpreted, understood as if reality had divisions separating past, present, and future. It's not that our brains are wrong to organize perceptions this way, and use information from memory for language and survival. It's that seeing through the illusion, one is free in a different way than one could conceive of, when thinking of one's existence as a being in time who interacts with other beings in time, in a present that is becoming past, but can be recalled. That's the best I can do to explain what I'm trying to say, I guess. ;-) -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 22, 2007 Report Share Posted January 22, 2007 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " > <adithya_comming@> wrote: > > Hi AC - > > I'm snipping much of what you wrote, Ok, I will excuse you, this one time > although I read it. I'm just > going to use this comment below as a springboard for my response: I will return to doing some [office] work now and will try to return to this " discussion " later. Regards, ac [ NNB ] > > > > > > This same dynamic > > > occurs with forming relationships, organizing your home, etc. > > > > Sure... > > > > and, the active entities do that not some > > inert piece of information by itself; > > don't you think? > > I think the interaction with " live, active entities " is illusory. > > The " totality-now " or " unnameable all " or whatever we might term it, > isn't fragmented into past, present, future, living and nonliving > entities, and so on. It isn't using information as a means to > manifest -- although conceptually, for human beings, information gets > processed. > > I'm not saying that it's illusory in the sense that one should > disregard living beings, or disregard information. > > I'm saying it's illusory in the sense that understanding (the way I am > using that term in this dialogue) reveals that no such interaction occurs. > > There aren't separable living beings, and a past that is gone and > stored in memory, and a present that is currently being translated > into memory, and information that is exchanged between one mind and > another. > > Admittedly, this is very difficult to convey in words, is subject to > all kinds of possible misinterpretations, and is revealed, not through > words, but as direct understanding. And by understanding, in this > context, I mean awareness that is unsplit, not intellectual knowledge > through words and ideas. > > Here's a metaphor, probably pretty inadequate to what I'm trying to > say: A fish looks up and sees a bubble and sees a reflection of a > tree in the bubble, and thinks the tree is underwater. But the tree > is reflected in the bubble, and actually exists in quite a different > way than the fish thinks. The fish isn't able to conceive of " above > ground " and " trees that get sunlight and have roots in the ground, " > because it has no memory to draw on to support that view. > > So, the tree seen in the bubble is an illusion. It's not really there > the way the fish thinks (I know that fish don't really think like > this, most likely -- just using it to illustrate a point). But to say > this is illusion doesn't mean that nothing at all is there, that what > is is just a blank. To see the actuality of the situation, you'd have > to encompass above and below water simultaneously, see the fish, the > bubble, and the tree. > > In this way, what is usually construed as real is illusory. Not that > nothing is, and it is all really a blank. But that it is > misinterpreted, understood as if reality had divisions separating > past, present, and future. > > It's not that our brains are wrong to organize perceptions this way, > and use information from memory for language and survival. > > It's that seeing through the illusion, one is free in a different way > than one could conceive of, when thinking of one's existence as a > being in time who interacts with other beings in time, in a present > that is becoming past, but can be recalled. > > That's the best I can do to explain what I'm trying to say, I guess. > > ;-) > > > > -- 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.