Guest guest Posted January 22, 2007 Report Share Posted January 22, 2007 > > > 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. Yes, certainly... As we " use " the 'information of past' [memory] to 'predict' behaviour in the present! It works with matter like water, iron, coal as they pretty much behave same 'as in past'! To a very large extent, it works with animals and to some extent, it works with more " dynamic " entities like " people " too! But, I agree that in regard to people, it is subject to far more errors and does create quite a bit of unintended conswequences! > > > 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. Sure. I agree. > > > > > >>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. Sure, our " recollection " [and its later " usage " ] too is part of NOW that contains it! > > > 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. I agree. > > > > > >>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. I agree. > > > >>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. Sure... When there is " real " 'division', our entities are mostly 'conceptual'! But, that 'conceptual division' does serve a function to allow easier functioning of us as social animals. > > The learner and the learned are co-constructed out of memory and its > interaction (assumed) with the present. I agree. > > > >>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. I agree. > So, there is no static > awareness, nor experiences moving by it. I don't understand this part. To me, Awareness and NOW are not separate. I guess, that is what you mean too. Yet, I don't understand the above fragment! > > > There is nothing outside _What_Is_ and there is > > nothing outside _NOW_ and Now and _What_Is_ > > are NOT two different things! > > Yes. I agree. > > > " 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. Yet, it does get 'improved' when seen thru 'memory' in the flow of [conceptual] 'time' 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: AC - I snipped some pieces and left the parts I responded to. > > Sure, our " recollection " [and its later " usage " ] > too is part of NOW that contains it! Yes, nothing can have an existence outside of this now, the way we are using that term. So, the actual energy involved in thought is present, and the same with memory - although memory pictures images as if they could be closer to now or more distant from now. That is the illusion. > > > 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. I would say that not only does memory assist our survival, memory constructs the apparent entity that " must " survive. And here's a paradox: " now " needs to have no concern about surviving. Survival isn't an issue for " now. " And nothing exists outside of now. Yet, we have apparent entities seeming to use memory to survive. And the attempt to survive generates all kinds of tension, polarization (like between me and you, or my group and your group), and all kinds of schemes to aid me to survive better than you, etc. So, insight is into the truth of " no survival " and is a disconnect from the apparent entity trying to survive. At this moment of unsplit and undivided now, there is no survival issue, and no partitioned off entity that needs to survive. Yet, I am aware of the conditioned entity using memory and how that works, and how survival is an issue for it. And, it's not out of place -- nothing is occurring out of place (that is, outside of " now " ). That being that is trying to survive is illusory - and yet the illusion isn't to be gotten rid of. It can be enjoyed just as it is, as an illusion - like a tree reflected in a bubble. The bubble will burst and the tree will disappear -- but its appearance and disappearance is not a problem, and didn't create something that had its own real existence which had to be preserved. > But, that 'conceptual division' > does serve a function to allow > easier functioning of us as > social animals. Yes, very true. Just as it is true that memory assists us to survive. And genetic memory allows us to be constructed, as well. > > > So, there is no static > > awareness, nor experiences moving by it. > > I don't understand this part. What I mean is that my sense of existing as a being going through experiences that move from present to past, dissolves. That sense of existing as a static awareness that remains the same (call it the " me-center " perhaps) as experiences that are not-me pass by (I encounter you now, but later encounter something else, and you are now in my memory only) -- that isn't what is taking place. That is illusory. Actually, the now that is, is not separable from me, the observer is the observed. I can't move past myself, and can't access myself from memory. Who I am is undivided, and you and are are not separable " here " (not until memory is employed to make the differentiation). > > To me, > Awareness and NOW are not separate. Yes, agreed. > I guess, > that is what you mean too. Yet, I don't > understand the above fragment! I tried to explain it. > > > " 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. > > Yet, it does get 'improved' when seen thru > 'memory' in the flow of [conceptual] 'time' Yes. And that is what I am referring to as illusion. And I'm not wanting to get rid of the illusion. But I'm appreciating the illusion, as an illusion. What is actual, is the undivided now we can't separate from, nor separate anything from. Nor can we enter into it, as it already is always so -- never becomes more " now " than it is right now. -- 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.