thoughts - experience - background - ? [was: The Shift

[Guest guest]

Dan:

<snp>

> Thoughts can't really interpret experience, thoughts are aspects of

> experience.

 

good one!

Of course the operative term is *really*...

 

 

> The thought that one is alive or will be dead, is just an aspect of

> experience. Experience arising now, departing now.

 

or to rephrase what said above: thoughts are not (really)

*about* experience, even if " presented " as-if...

[illusion in a nutshell?]

 

>

> Is experience arising life? Is experience departing death?

>

> What is the background against which it arises and departs?

 

At what point is there no background?

Is not foreground/background an *organization* of experience?

 

Or going deeper, at what point is there no " experience " as

such, even no " arising " as such? At what point is there no

tacit subject?

 

<snp>

 

 

Bill

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote:

>

> Dan:

> <snp>

> > Thoughts can't really interpret experience, thoughts are aspects of

> > experience.

>

> good one!

> Of course the operative term is *really*...

>

>

> > The thought that one is alive or will be dead, is just an aspect of

> > experience. Experience arising now, departing now.

>

> or to rephrase what said above: thoughts are not (really)

> *about* experience, even if " presented " as-if...

> [illusion in a nutshell?]

>

> >

> > Is experience arising life? Is experience departing death?

> >

> > What is the background against which it arises and departs?

>

> At what point is there no background?

> Is not foreground/background an *organization* of experience?

>

> Or going deeper, at what point is there no " experience " as

> such, even no " arising " as such? At what point is there no

> tacit subject?

>

> <snp>

>

>

> Bill

>

 

 

 

There never was a tacit subject.

 

 

 

toombaru

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote:

> >

> > Dan:

> > <snp>

> > > Thoughts can't really interpret experience, thoughts are aspects of

> > > experience.

> >

> > good one!

> > Of course the operative term is *really*...

> >

> >

> > > The thought that one is alive or will be dead, is just an aspect of

> > > experience. Experience arising now, departing now.

> >

> > or to rephrase what said above: thoughts are not (really)

> > *about* experience, even if " presented " as-if...

> > [illusion in a nutshell?]

> >

> > >

> > > Is experience arising life? Is experience departing death?

> > >

> > > What is the background against which it arises and departs?

> >

> > At what point is there no background?

> > Is not foreground/background an *organization* of experience?

> >

> > Or going deeper, at what point is there no " experience " as

> > such, even no " arising " as such? At what point is there no

> > tacit subject?

> >

> > <snp>

> >

> >

> > Bill

> >

>

>

>

> There never was a tacit subject.

>

>

>

> toombaru

>

 

How is that different from saying that

" tacit subject " is a meaningless phrase

in the English language?

 

 

Bill

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote:

>

> Dan:

> <snp>

> > Thoughts can't really interpret experience, thoughts are aspects of

> > experience.

>

> good one!

> Of course the operative term is *really*...

>

>

> > The thought that one is alive or will be dead, is just an aspect of

> > experience. Experience arising now, departing now.

>

> or to rephrase what said above: thoughts are not (really)

> *about* experience, even if " presented " as-if...

> [illusion in a nutshell?]

>

> >

> > Is experience arising life? Is experience departing death?

> >

> > What is the background against which it arises and departs?

>

> At what point is there no background?

> Is not foreground/background an *organization* of experience?

>

> Or going deeper, at what point is there no " experience " as

> such, even no " arising " as such? At what point is there no

> tacit subject?

 

Yes.

 

Thought provides no clue to this.

 

If thought is understood/absorbed as experience, what is experience

understood/absorbed as/into?

 

*This* doesn't arise and depart.

 

Experience arises and departs.

 

Arising and departing are aspects of experiencing.

 

*This* which doesn't arise or depart could be called the " now-ness " of

any experience, while not being in any way changed or affected by the

content of the experience.

 

*This* would have to be understood as " now-ness " that is not of time,

neither past, present, or future.

 

*This* now-ness is not in any way apart from the content of the

experience. It has no reality of its own, no quality, no way to be

apprehended.

 

It is where death and life are one, and there is neither death nor life.

 

It is were awareness and experience are one, and there is neither

awareness nor an experience.

 

Yet, as alluded to above, the apparent content of an experience, the

quality of it, is not changed, diluted, or negated in any way.

 

And, the quality of the experience has no quality, it doesn't register.

 

That is, " now-ness " doesn't register.

 

It's not there, in memory, or sensory apprehensions.

 

This is like a detective solving a mystery by finding out that the

obvious resolution is so totally in plain sight that it can't be

seen/understood/experienced/known.

 

-- Dan

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote:

> >

> > Dan:

> > <snp>

> > > Thoughts can't really interpret experience, thoughts are aspects of

> > > experience.

> >

> > good one!

> > Of course the operative term is *really*...

> >

> >

> > > The thought that one is alive or will be dead, is just an aspect of

> > > experience. Experience arising now, departing now.

> >

> > or to rephrase what said above: thoughts are not (really)

> > *about* experience, even if " presented " as-if...

> > [illusion in a nutshell?]

> >

> > >

> > > Is experience arising life? Is experience departing death?

> > >

> > > What is the background against which it arises and departs?

> >

> > At what point is there no background?

> > Is not foreground/background an *organization* of experience?

> >

> > Or going deeper, at what point is there no " experience " as

> > such, even no " arising " as such? At what point is there no

> > tacit subject?

>

> Yes.

>

> Thought provides no clue to this.

>

> If thought is understood/absorbed as experience, what is experience

> understood/absorbed as/into?

>

> *This* doesn't arise and depart.

>

> Experience arises and departs.

>

> Arising and departing are aspects of experiencing.

>

> *This* which doesn't arise or depart could be called the " now-ness " of

> any experience, while not being in any way changed or affected by the

> content of the experience.

>

> *This* would have to be understood as " now-ness " that is not of time,

> neither past, present, or future.

>

> *This* now-ness is not in any way apart from the content of the

> experience. It has no reality of its own, no quality, no way to be

> apprehended.

>

> It is where death and life are one, and there is neither death nor life.

>

> It is were awareness and experience are one, and there is neither

> awareness nor an experience.

>

> Yet, as alluded to above, the apparent content of an experience, the

> quality of it, is not changed, diluted, or negated in any way.

>

> And, the quality of the experience has no quality, it doesn't register.

>

> That is, " now-ness " doesn't register.

>

> It's not there, in memory, or sensory apprehensions.

>

> This is like a detective solving a mystery by finding out that the

> obvious resolution is so totally in plain sight that it can't be

> seen/understood/experienced/known.

>

> -- Dan

>

 

Stunningly coherent, and thorough, speaking

to the unspeakable with astonishing clarity.

 

 

*This* cannot be known.

 

How then can such word arise?

 

 

As if in the death of thought,

subtle articulations arise...

words not " about " but rather as

cloud-chamber manifestations of

arisingness itself...

and in the tracings of such

the electric-ionic-charged

acrid bite of the unspeakable

leaves a saliency on the tongue.

 

 

Bill

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dan:

> > > <snp>

> > > > Thoughts can't really interpret experience, thoughts are

aspects of

> > > > experience.

> > >

> > > good one!

> > > Of course the operative term is *really*...

> > >

> > >

> > > > The thought that one is alive or will be dead, is just an

aspect of

> > > > experience. Experience arising now, departing now.

> > >

> > > or to rephrase what said above: thoughts are not (really)

> > > *about* experience, even if " presented " as-if...

> > > [illusion in a nutshell?]

> > >

> > > >

> > > > Is experience arising life? Is experience departing death?

> > > >

> > > > What is the background against which it arises and departs?

> > >

> > > At what point is there no background?

> > > Is not foreground/background an *organization* of experience?

> > >

> > > Or going deeper, at what point is there no " experience " as

> > > such, even no " arising " as such? At what point is there no

> > > tacit subject?

> > >

> > > <snp>

> > >

> > >

> > > Bill

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > There never was a tacit subject.

> >

> >

> >

> > toombaru

> >

>

> How is that different from saying that

> " tacit subject " is a meaningless phrase

> in the English language?

>

>

> Bill

 

 

 

 

 

here's how:

 

it's not as meaningless.

 

 

..b b.b.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote:

 

>

> Stunningly coherent, and thorough, speaking

> to the unspeakable with astonishing clarity.

>

>

> *This* cannot be known.

>

> How then can such word arise?

>

>

> As if in the death of thought,

> subtle articulations arise...

> words not " about " but rather as

> cloud-chamber manifestations of

> arisingness itself...

> and in the tracings of such

> the electric-ionic-charged

> acrid bite of the unspeakable

> leaves a saliency on the tongue.

>

>

> Bill

 

 

Yes!

 

Excellent!

 

Traces self-dissolve, no traces now to be found.

 

The " self-liberation " of all traces - lol!

 

-- Dan

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote:

>

> >

> > Stunningly coherent, and thorough, speaking

> > to the unspeakable with astonishing clarity.

> >

> >

> > *This* cannot be known.

> >

> > How then can such word arise?

> >

> >

> > As if in the death of thought,

> > subtle articulations arise...

> > words not " about " but rather as

> > cloud-chamber manifestations of

> > arisingness itself...

> > and in the tracings of such

> > the electric-ionic-charged

> > acrid bite of the unspeakable

> > leaves a saliency on the tongue.

> >

> >

> > Bill

>

>

> Yes!

>

> Excellent!

>

> Traces self-dissolve, no traces now to be found.

>

> The " self-liberation " of all traces - lol!

>

> -- Dan

>

 

yeah... )

 

so much better when death is up-front with

no fanfare...

nothing persists

 

like snow on a hot sidewalk.

 

 

Bill