Guest guest Posted May 31, 2007 Report Share Posted May 31, 2007 Notice that " holding on " is related to continuity, that when every moment is a new " refresh " then there is no continuity, that no-continuity is complete opennes... and the absence of any " holding on " . Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 31, 2007 Report Share Posted May 31, 2007 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > > Notice that " holding on " is related to > continuity, that when every moment is > a new " refresh " then there is no > continuity, that no-continuity is > complete opennes... and the absence of > any " holding on " . > > > Bill so why... " holding on " ....and tell this to appearing others?.... somebody who live this your described " absence of any holding on " ....i think.....don't " hold on " ...in here....to read this nice concepts Marc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 31, 2007 Report Share Posted May 31, 2007 Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > Notice that " holding on " is related to > > continuity, that when every moment is > > a new " refresh " then there is no > > continuity, that no-continuity is > > complete opennes... and the absence of > > any " holding on " . > > > > > > Bill > > > so why... " holding on " ....and tell this to appearing others?.... > > somebody who live this your described " absence of any holding > on " ....i think.....don't " hold on " ...in here....to read this nice > concepts > > > Marc ;-)) some folks are just too 'real' for their pants. and they NEVER stop telling you how and why. it's an illness. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 31, 2007 Report Share Posted May 31, 2007 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Notice that " holding on " is related to > > > continuity, that when every moment is > > > a new " refresh " then there is no > > > continuity, that no-continuity is > > > complete opennes... and the absence of > > > any " holding on " . > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > so why... " holding on " ....and tell this to appearing others?.... > > > > somebody who live this your described " absence of any holding > > on " ....i think.....don't " hold on " ...in here....to read this nice > > concepts > > > > > > Marc > > > > ;-)) > > > some folks are just too 'real' for their pants. > > and they NEVER stop telling you how and why. > > it's an illness. > > > .b b.b. yes.... > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 31, 2007 Report Share Posted May 31, 2007 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > > Notice that " holding on " is related to > continuity, that when every moment is > a new " refresh " then there is no > continuity, that no-continuity is > complete opennes... and the absence of > any " holding on " . > > > Bill > ......letting go entirely of one ideation.....before grabbing on the the next.......swinging through the fallingness.........falling..... toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 31, 2007 Report Share Posted May 31, 2007 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > > Notice that " holding on " is related to > continuity, that when every moment is > a new " refresh " then there is no > continuity, that no-continuity is > complete opennes... and the absence of > any " holding on " . > > > Bill True. And holding on is an aspect of objectification. It would require something that continues to be held onto, and an objectified self to do the holding on. There can be no " objection " to what is, as is, as there is no thing that continues (either as subject nor object). This is not a fusion of subject and object, nor an elimination of subject and object. -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 31, 2007 Report Share Posted May 31, 2007 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > Notice that " holding on " is related to > > continuity, that when every moment is > > a new " refresh " then there is no > > continuity, that no-continuity is > > complete opennes... and the absence of > > any " holding on " . > > > > > > Bill > > True. > > And holding on is an aspect of objectification. > > It would require something that continues to be held onto, and an > objectified self to do the holding on. > > There can be no " objection " to what is, as is, as there is no thing > that continues (either as subject nor object). > > This is not a fusion of subject and object, nor an elimination of > subject and object. > > -- Dan > .......there is just this......sobject thingy....... toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 31, 2007 Report Share Posted May 31, 2007 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > Notice that " holding on " is related to > > continuity, that when every moment is > > a new " refresh " then there is no > > continuity, that no-continuity is > > complete opennes... and the absence of > > any " holding on " . > > > > > > Bill > > True. > > And holding on is an aspect of objectification. Are you saying holding on is distinct from objectification? As I see it holding on is more fundamental than objectification. It is latent or incipient objectification, but not full-blown objectification in itself. > > It would require something that continues to be held onto, and an > objectified self to do the holding on. > > There can be no " objection " to what is, as is, as there is no thing > that continues (either as subject nor object). > > This is not a fusion of subject and object, nor an elimination of > subject and object. Great point Dan! Bill > > -- Dan > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 31, 2007 Report Share Posted May 31, 2007 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > > > And holding on is an aspect of objectification. > Are you saying holding on is distinct from > objectification? > > As I see it holding on is more fundamental than > objectification. It is latent or incipient > objectification, but not full-blown objectification > in itself. Bill - I see it as one inch equals a mile. So, one teeny eensey weensey bit of objectification is the same as full-blown objectification. It's not a matter of degrees. So, I would say the action, (holding on) and the state of affairs (full-blown objectification) are the same thing. The holder, the holding, and that being held are the same thing. Seeing this really clearly, ends it. That is, the holding on depends on ignore-ance, on cloudiness, on avoidance, in order that splitting, separation be experienced as actual. The cloudiness is the action (of holding on), and the action is the cloudiness (the ignore-ance). To hold on requires something to hold on to (e.g., a body-mind unit, a set of feelings, a history, a story, a goal), and that requires objectification. So, objectification's there from the beginning of the action. Does the action begin at some point in time? No - because the action has to be in place in order to orient toward time, or into time. This is why clear seeing of it, ends it. Because to see it clearly, is to see that it is acausal and not separable. -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 31, 2007 Report Share Posted May 31, 2007 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > And holding on is an aspect of objectification. > > > Are you saying holding on is distinct from > > objectification? > > > > As I see it holding on is more fundamental than > > objectification. It is latent or incipient > > objectification, but not full-blown objectification > > in itself. > > Bill - > > I see it as one inch equals a mile. > > So, one teeny eensey weensey bit of objectification is the same as > full-blown objectification. It's not a matter of degrees. > > So, I would say the action, (holding on) and the state of affairs > (full-blown objectification) are the same thing. > > The holder, the holding, and that being held are the same thing. > > Seeing this really clearly, ends it. > > That is, the holding on depends on ignore-ance, on cloudiness, on > avoidance, in order that splitting, separation be experienced as actual. > > The cloudiness is the action (of holding on), and the action is the > cloudiness (the ignore-ance). > > To hold on requires something to hold on to (e.g., a body-mind unit, a > set of feelings, a history, a story, a goal), and that requires > objectification. So, objectification's there from the beginning of > the action. > > Does the action begin at some point in time? > > No - because the action has to be in place in order to orient toward > time, or into time. > > This is why clear seeing of it, ends it. Because to see it clearly, > is to see that it is acausal and not separable. > > -- Dan so fellas...just how many angels are dancing on that pin's tip? ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 31, 2007 Report Share Posted May 31, 2007 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > And holding on is an aspect of objectification. > > > > > Are you saying holding on is distinct from > > > objectification? > > > > > > As I see it holding on is more fundamental than > > > objectification. It is latent or incipient > > > objectification, but not full-blown objectification > > > in itself. > > > > Bill - > > > > I see it as one inch equals a mile. > > > > So, one teeny eensey weensey bit of objectification is the same as > > full-blown objectification. It's not a matter of degrees. > > > > So, I would say the action, (holding on) and the state of affairs > > (full-blown objectification) are the same thing. > > > > The holder, the holding, and that being held are the same thing. > > > > Seeing this really clearly, ends it. > > > > That is, the holding on depends on ignore-ance, on cloudiness, on > > avoidance, in order that splitting, separation be experienced as actual. > > > > The cloudiness is the action (of holding on), and the action is the > > cloudiness (the ignore-ance). > > > > To hold on requires something to hold on to (e.g., a body-mind unit, a > > set of feelings, a history, a story, a goal), and that requires > > objectification. So, objectification's there from the beginning of > > the action. > > > > Does the action begin at some point in time? > > > > No - because the action has to be in place in order to orient toward > > time, or into time. > > > > This is why clear seeing of it, ends it. Because to see it clearly, > > is to see that it is acausal and not separable. > > > > -- Dan > > > > > > so fellas...just how many angels are dancing on that pin's tip? > > .b b.b. > There are three.......now be quiet....and try to understand what is happening here. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 31, 2007 Report Share Posted May 31, 2007 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > And holding on is an aspect of objectification. > > > > > > > Are you saying holding on is distinct from > > > > objectification? > > > > > > > > As I see it holding on is more fundamental than > > > > objectification. It is latent or incipient > > > > objectification, but not full-blown objectification > > > > in itself. > > > > > > Bill - > > > > > > I see it as one inch equals a mile. > > > > > > So, one teeny eensey weensey bit of objectification is the same as > > > full-blown objectification. It's not a matter of degrees. > > > > > > So, I would say the action, (holding on) and the state of affairs > > > (full-blown objectification) are the same thing. > > > > > > The holder, the holding, and that being held are the same thing. > > > > > > Seeing this really clearly, ends it. > > > > > > That is, the holding on depends on ignore-ance, on cloudiness, on > > > avoidance, in order that splitting, separation be experienced as > actual. > > > > > > The cloudiness is the action (of holding on), and the action is the > > > cloudiness (the ignore-ance). > > > > > > To hold on requires something to hold on to (e.g., a body-mind unit, a > > > set of feelings, a history, a story, a goal), and that requires > > > objectification. So, objectification's there from the beginning of > > > the action. > > > > > > Does the action begin at some point in time? > > > > > > No - because the action has to be in place in order to orient toward > > > time, or into time. > > > > > > This is why clear seeing of it, ends it. Because to see it clearly, > > > is to see that it is acausal and not separable. > > > > > > -- Dan > > > > > > > > > > > > so fellas...just how many angels are dancing on that pin's tip? > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > There are three.......now be quiet....and try to understand what is > happening here. > > > > toombaru thanks for the tip on the tip mr. tracy. psst....dick...there ain't nothing going on here. maybe that's why you have such an interest the proceedings. so..i'll just let you kids fart around with your shiny things. and as soon as you all finish pretending to be somebodies in the nobody business... you can all quit trying to impress one another with such nonsense and try some of the Real Deal. now don't get all scared toom. it's one journey no one can... and does....refuse. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 31, 2007 Report Share Posted May 31, 2007 > > > > > > so fellas...just how many angels are dancing on that pin's tip? > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are three.......now be quiet....and try to understand what is > > happening here. > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > thanks for the tip on the tip mr. tracy. > > psst....dick...there ain't nothing going on here. > > maybe that's why you have such an interest the proceedings. > > so..i'll just let you kids fart around with your shiny things. > > and as soon as you all finish pretending to be somebodies in the > nobody business... you can all quit trying to impress one another with > such nonsense and try some of the Real Deal. > > now don't get all scared toom. > > it's one journey no one can... and does....refuse. > > .b b.b. > You seem to be thinking that something is going on....... Could it be that you also flounder in the dream? toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 31, 2007 Report Share Posted May 31, 2007 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > > > > > > > > > so fellas...just how many angels are dancing on that pin's tip? > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are three.......now be quiet....and try to understand what is > > > happening here. > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > thanks for the tip on the tip mr. tracy. > > > > psst....dick...there ain't nothing going on here. > > > > maybe that's why you have such an interest the proceedings. > > > > so..i'll just let you kids fart around with your shiny things. > > > > and as soon as you all finish pretending to be somebodies in the > > nobody business... you can all quit trying to impress one another with > > such nonsense and try some of the Real Deal. > > > > now don't get all scared toom. > > > > it's one journey no one can... and does....refuse. > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > You seem to be thinking that something is going on....... > > > Could it be that you also flounder in the dream? > > > > > toombaru do you read what's posted? or just get geared up to reply? if i may repeat: " psst....dick...there ain't nothing going on here. " how does that translate into my thinking that 'something' IS going on? are you dreaming of flounder fish..or just floundering. sorry..i don't swim the murky depths of dreams with you and the gang. i do however offer Light from the 'above' you only speculate about. it's wonderful here i assure you. rest peacefully while you can. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 31, 2007 Report Share Posted May 31, 2007 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > so fellas...just how many angels are dancing on that pin's tip? > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are three.......now be quiet....and try to understand what is > > > > happening here. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > thanks for the tip on the tip mr. tracy. > > > > > > psst....dick...there ain't nothing going on here. > > > > > > maybe that's why you have such an interest the proceedings. > > > > > > so..i'll just let you kids fart around with your shiny things. > > > > > > and as soon as you all finish pretending to be somebodies in the > > > nobody business... you can all quit trying to impress one another with > > > such nonsense and try some of the Real Deal. > > > > > > now don't get all scared toom. > > > > > > it's one journey no one can... and does....refuse. > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > You seem to be thinking that something is going on....... > > > > > > Could it be that you also flounder in the dream? > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > do you read what's posted? > > or just get geared up to reply? > > if i may repeat: > > " psst....dick...there ain't nothing going on here. " > > how does that translate into my thinking that 'something' IS going on? > > are you dreaming of flounder fish..or just floundering. > > sorry..i don't swim the murky depths of dreams with you and the gang. > > i do however offer Light from the 'above' you only speculate about. > > it's wonderful here i assure you. > > rest peacefully while you can. > > .b b.b. > If you are trying to convince us of your advanced state........You are us.......floundering. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 31, 2007 Report Share Posted May 31, 2007 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > so fellas...just how many angels are dancing on that pin's tip? > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are three.......now be quiet....and try to understand > what is > > > > > happening here. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > thanks for the tip on the tip mr. tracy. > > > > > > > > psst....dick...there ain't nothing going on here. > > > > > > > > maybe that's why you have such an interest the proceedings. > > > > > > > > so..i'll just let you kids fart around with your shiny things. > > > > > > > > and as soon as you all finish pretending to be somebodies in the > > > > nobody business... you can all quit trying to impress one > another with > > > > such nonsense and try some of the Real Deal. > > > > > > > > now don't get all scared toom. > > > > > > > > it's one journey no one can... and does....refuse. > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > You seem to be thinking that something is going on....... > > > > > > > > > Could it be that you also flounder in the dream? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > do you read what's posted? > > > > or just get geared up to reply? > > > > if i may repeat: > > > > " psst....dick...there ain't nothing going on here. " > > > > how does that translate into my thinking that 'something' IS going on? > > > > are you dreaming of flounder fish..or just floundering. > > > > sorry..i don't swim the murky depths of dreams with you and the gang. > > > > i do however offer Light from the 'above' you only speculate about. > > > > it's wonderful here i assure you. > > > > rest peacefully while you can. > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > If you are trying to convince us of your advanced state........You are > us.......floundering. > > > > toombaru there is no one to convince. there is no other state'..advanced or otherwise, 'us'? c'mon! from THAT statement there is no question however. flounder 'you' do. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 31, 2007 Report Share Posted May 31, 2007 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > so fellas...just how many angels are dancing on that pin's > tip? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are three.......now be quiet....and try to understand > > what is > > > > > > happening here. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thanks for the tip on the tip mr. tracy. > > > > > > > > > > psst....dick...there ain't nothing going on here. > > > > > > > > > > maybe that's why you have such an interest the proceedings. > > > > > > > > > > so..i'll just let you kids fart around with your shiny things. > > > > > > > > > > and as soon as you all finish pretending to be somebodies in the > > > > > nobody business... you can all quit trying to impress one > > another with > > > > > such nonsense and try some of the Real Deal. > > > > > > > > > > now don't get all scared toom. > > > > > > > > > > it's one journey no one can... and does....refuse. > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You seem to be thinking that something is going on....... > > > > > > > > > > > > Could it be that you also flounder in the dream? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > do you read what's posted? > > > > > > or just get geared up to reply? > > > > > > if i may repeat: > > > > > > " psst....dick...there ain't nothing going on here. " > > > > > > how does that translate into my thinking that 'something' IS going on? > > > > > > are you dreaming of flounder fish..or just floundering. > > > > > > sorry..i don't swim the murky depths of dreams with you and the gang. > > > > > > i do however offer Light from the 'above' you only speculate about. > > > > > > it's wonderful here i assure you. > > > > > > rest peacefully while you can. > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > If you are trying to convince us of your advanced state........You are > > us.......floundering. > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > there is no one to convince. > > there is no other state'..advanced or otherwise, > > 'us'? > > c'mon! > > from THAT statement there is no question however. > > flounder 'you' do. > > .b b.b. > ........but I am part of you........ toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 1, 2007 Report Share Posted June 1, 2007 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > so fellas...just how many angels are dancing on that pin's > > tip? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are three.......now be quiet....and try to understand > > > what is > > > > > > > happening here. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thanks for the tip on the tip mr. tracy. > > > > > > > > > > > > psst....dick...there ain't nothing going on here. > > > > > > > > > > > > maybe that's why you have such an interest the proceedings. > > > > > > > > > > > > so..i'll just let you kids fart around with your shiny things. > > > > > > > > > > > > and as soon as you all finish pretending to be somebodies in the > > > > > > nobody business... you can all quit trying to impress one > > > another with > > > > > > such nonsense and try some of the Real Deal. > > > > > > > > > > > > now don't get all scared toom. > > > > > > > > > > > > it's one journey no one can... and does....refuse. > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You seem to be thinking that something is going on....... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could it be that you also flounder in the dream? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > do you read what's posted? > > > > > > > > or just get geared up to reply? > > > > > > > > if i may repeat: > > > > > > > > " psst....dick...there ain't nothing going on here. " > > > > > > > > how does that translate into my thinking that 'something' IS > going on? > > > > > > > > are you dreaming of flounder fish..or just floundering. > > > > > > > > sorry..i don't swim the murky depths of dreams with you and the > gang. > > > > > > > > i do however offer Light from the 'above' you only speculate about. > > > > > > > > it's wonderful here i assure you. > > > > > > > > rest peacefully while you can. > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you are trying to convince us of your advanced state........You are > > > us.......floundering. > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > there is no one to convince. > > > > there is no other state'..advanced or otherwise, > > > > 'us'? > > > > c'mon! > > > > from THAT statement there is no question however. > > > > flounder 'you' do. > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > .......but I am part of you........ > > > > toombaru you are the floundering 'part'. it amuses 'me'. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 1, 2007 Report Share Posted June 1, 2007 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > And holding on is an aspect of objectification. > > > Are you saying holding on is distinct from > > objectification? > > > > As I see it holding on is more fundamental than > > objectification. It is latent or incipient > > objectification, but not full-blown objectification > > in itself. > > Bill - > > I see it as one inch equals a mile. > > So, one teeny eensey weensey bit of objectification is the same as > full-blown objectification. It's not a matter of degrees. > > So, I would say the action, (holding on) and the state of affairs > (full-blown objectification) are the same thing. > > The holder, the holding, and that being held are the same thing. > > Seeing this really clearly, ends it. > > That is, the holding on depends on ignore-ance, on cloudiness, on > avoidance, in order that splitting, separation be experienced as actual. > > The cloudiness is the action (of holding on), and the action is the > cloudiness (the ignore-ance). > > To hold on requires something to hold on to (e.g., a body-mind unit, a > set of feelings, a history, a story, a goal), and that requires > objectification. So, objectification's there from the beginning of > the action. > > Does the action begin at some point in time? > > No - because the action has to be in place in order to orient toward > time, or into time. > > This is why clear seeing of it, ends it. Because to see it clearly, > is to see that it is acausal and not separable. > > -- Dan > The two key terms here are " holding on " and " objectification " , the former my term, the latter yours. I can't be sure what you mean by objectification, but have a pretty good hunch that what I mean by holding on hasn't really been made clear. Consider what we have been calling discontinuity. From my perspective discontinuity is more fundamental than continuity. In coarse terms there is a new " refresh " of what is being painted in consciousness every moment [by coarse I mean it is a gross generalization since the actuality is a much richer than a moment-by-moment update of consciousness, and because the notion of moment itself is only a convenient abstraction]. When those " refreshes " are linked that is what I am calling continuity. But the refreshes are not linked after the fact. Rather a kind of " attachment " to a given refresh -- what I am calling holding on -- predisposes the next refresh to be taken as " next in sequence " from the previous refresh. Refresh after refresh this continues, so that rather than apprehending " what is " -- each refresh as standing on its own -- there is already a predisposition to " take " the new refresh as a kind of transform of the prior one, so that a sequentialization of perception sets in, which is the root of experience of time. In what I describe above the " holding on " is just the bias to " hold to " a particular refresh, or a building sequence of refreshes. There are no objects yet. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 1, 2007 Report Share Posted June 1, 2007 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > And holding on is an aspect of objectification. > > > > > Are you saying holding on is distinct from > > > objectification? > > > > > > As I see it holding on is more fundamental than > > > objectification. It is latent or incipient > > > objectification, but not full-blown objectification > > > in itself. > > > > Bill - > > > > I see it as one inch equals a mile. > > > > So, one teeny eensey weensey bit of objectification is the same as > > full-blown objectification. It's not a matter of degrees. > > > > So, I would say the action, (holding on) and the state of affairs > > (full-blown objectification) are the same thing. > > > > The holder, the holding, and that being held are the same thing. > > > > Seeing this really clearly, ends it. > > > > That is, the holding on depends on ignore-ance, on cloudiness, on > > avoidance, in order that splitting, separation be experienced as > actual. > > > > The cloudiness is the action (of holding on), and the action is the > > cloudiness (the ignore-ance). > > > > To hold on requires something to hold on to (e.g., a body-mind > unit, a > > set of feelings, a history, a story, a goal), and that requires > > objectification. So, objectification's there from the beginning of > > the action. > > > > Does the action begin at some point in time? > > > > No - because the action has to be in place in order to orient toward > > time, or into time. > > > > This is why clear seeing of it, ends it. Because to see it clearly, > > is to see that it is acausal and not separable. > > > > -- Dan > > > > The two key terms here are " holding on " and " objectification " , > the former my term, the latter yours. I can't be sure what you > mean by objectification, but have a pretty good hunch that what > I mean by holding on hasn't really been made clear. > > Consider what we have been calling discontinuity. From my > perspective discontinuity is more fundamental than continuity. > In coarse terms there is a new " refresh " of what is being painted > in consciousness every moment [by coarse I mean it is a gross > generalization since the actuality is a much richer than a > moment-by-moment update of consciousness, and because the notion > of moment itself is only a convenient abstraction]. When those > " refreshes " are linked that is what I am calling continuity. > But the refreshes are not linked after the fact. Rather a kind > of " attachment " to a given refresh -- what I am calling holding > on -- predisposes the next refresh to be taken as " next in > sequence " from the previous refresh. Refresh after refresh this > continues, so that rather than apprehending " what is " -- each > refresh as standing on its own -- there is already a predisposition > to " take " the new refresh as a kind of transform of the prior > one, so that a sequentialization of perception sets in, which > is the root of experience of time. > > In what I describe above the " holding on " is just the bias to > " hold to " a particular refresh, or a building sequence of > refreshes. There are no objects yet. > > Bill > ....letting of the branch entirely....free-falling into the branchless...not encumbered by the mnemonic debris of a lifetime......living in the artesian everfresh...... toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 1, 2007 Report Share Posted June 1, 2007 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > And holding on is an aspect of objectification. > > > > > Are you saying holding on is distinct from > > > objectification? > > > > > > As I see it holding on is more fundamental than > > > objectification. It is latent or incipient > > > objectification, but not full-blown objectification > > > in itself. > > > > Bill - > > > > I see it as one inch equals a mile. > > > > So, one teeny eensey weensey bit of objectification is the same as > > full-blown objectification. It's not a matter of degrees. > > > > So, I would say the action, (holding on) and the state of affairs > > (full-blown objectification) are the same thing. > > > > The holder, the holding, and that being held are the same thing. > > > > Seeing this really clearly, ends it. > > > > That is, the holding on depends on ignore-ance, on cloudiness, on > > avoidance, in order that splitting, separation be experienced as > actual. > > > > The cloudiness is the action (of holding on), and the action is the > > cloudiness (the ignore-ance). > > > > To hold on requires something to hold on to (e.g., a body-mind > unit, a > > set of feelings, a history, a story, a goal), and that requires > > objectification. So, objectification's there from the beginning of > > the action. > > > > Does the action begin at some point in time? > > > > No - because the action has to be in place in order to orient toward > > time, or into time. > > > > This is why clear seeing of it, ends it. Because to see it clearly, > > is to see that it is acausal and not separable. > > > > -- Dan > > > > The two key terms here are " holding on " and " objectification " , > the former my term, the latter yours. I can't be sure what you > mean by objectification, but have a pretty good hunch that what > I mean by holding on hasn't really been made clear. > > Consider what we have been calling discontinuity. From my > perspective discontinuity is more fundamental than continuity. > In coarse terms there is a new " refresh " of what is being painted > in consciousness every moment [by coarse I mean it is a gross > generalization since the actuality is a much richer than a > moment-by-moment update of consciousness, and because the notion > of moment itself is only a convenient abstraction]. When those > " refreshes " are linked that is what I am calling continuity. > But the refreshes are not linked after the fact. Rather a kind > of " attachment " to a given refresh -- what I am calling holding > on -- predisposes the next refresh to be taken as " next in > sequence " from the previous refresh. Refresh after refresh this > continues, so that rather than apprehending " what is " -- each > refresh as standing on its own -- there is already a predisposition > to " take " the new refresh as a kind of transform of the prior > one, so that a sequentialization of perception sets in, which > is the root of experience of time. > > In what I describe above the " holding on " is just the bias to > " hold to " a particular refresh, or a building sequence of > refreshes. There are no objects yet. > > Bill yet?? so..no objects..BUT..we have Time? hmmm? ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 1, 2007 Report Share Posted June 1, 2007 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > The two key terms here are " holding on " and " objectification " , > the former my term, the latter yours. I can't be sure what you > mean by objectification, formation. formulation. relationship. but have a pretty good hunch that what > I mean by holding on hasn't really been made clear. > > Consider what we have been calling discontinuity. From my > perspective discontinuity is more fundamental than continuity. continuity depends on something having been formulated, that could be continued. discontinuity is awareness that nothing ever was formulated. it's not a matter of fundamental and less fundamental. the continuity is itself discontinuous, all along. > In coarse terms there is a new " refresh " of what is being painted > in consciousness every moment [by coarse I mean it is a gross > generalization since the actuality is a much richer than a > moment-by-moment update of consciousness, and because the notion > of moment itself is only a convenient abstraction]. if there's a refresh, there's a new perception. a new perception is a formulation. hence, an objectification. > When those > " refreshes " are linked that is what I am calling continuity. even one unlinked refresh is a formulation. it is automatically linked, because nothing forms in isolation. look at how formation occurs! there's no such thing (actually) as a first formulation, although people like to invent such things (like a " self " or an " I " ). > But the refreshes are not linked after the fact. Rather a kind > of " attachment " to a given refresh -- what I am calling holding > on -- predisposes the next refresh to be taken as " next in > sequence " from the previous refresh. if you have a refresh and a next refresh, you already have objectification. even one refresh is time, is formulation. you can't just have one refresh in isolation. Refresh after refresh this > continues, so that rather than apprehending " what is " -- each > refresh as standing on its own -- there is already a predisposition > to " take " the new refresh as a kind of transform of the prior > one, so that a sequentialization of perception sets in, which > is the root of experience of time. a refresh standing on its own is an imaginary object. > In what I describe above the " holding on " is just the bias to > " hold to " a particular refresh, or a building sequence of > refreshes. There are no objects yet. yes, there are, would be my point. Good talkin' with ya! -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 1, 2007 Report Share Posted June 1, 2007 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > The two key terms here are " holding on " and " objectification " , > > the former my term, the latter yours. I can't be sure what you > > mean by objectification, > > formation. > > formulation. > > relationship. > > but have a pretty good hunch that what > > I mean by holding on hasn't really been made clear. > > > > Consider what we have been calling discontinuity. From my > > perspective discontinuity is more fundamental than continuity. > > continuity depends on something having been formulated, that could be > continued. > > discontinuity is awareness that nothing ever was formulated. > > it's not a matter of fundamental and less fundamental. > > the continuity is itself discontinuous, all along. > > > > In coarse terms there is a new " refresh " of what is being painted > > in consciousness every moment [by coarse I mean it is a gross > > generalization since the actuality is a much richer than a > > moment-by-moment update of consciousness, and because the notion > > of moment itself is only a convenient abstraction]. > > if there's a refresh, there's a new perception. > > a new perception is a formulation. > > hence, an objectification. > > > When those > > " refreshes " are linked that is what I am calling continuity. > > even one unlinked refresh is a formulation. > > it is automatically linked, because nothing forms in isolation. > > look at how formation occurs! > > there's no such thing (actually) as a first formulation, although > people like to invent such things (like a " self " or an " I " ). > > > But the refreshes are not linked after the fact. Rather a kind > > of " attachment " to a given refresh -- what I am calling holding > > on -- predisposes the next refresh to be taken as " next in > > sequence " from the previous refresh. > > if you have a refresh and a next refresh, you already have > objectification. > > even one refresh is time, is formulation. > > you can't just have one refresh in isolation. > > Refresh after refresh this > > continues, so that rather than apprehending " what is " -- each > > refresh as standing on its own -- there is already a predisposition > > to " take " the new refresh as a kind of transform of the prior > > one, so that a sequentialization of perception sets in, which > > is the root of experience of time. > > a refresh standing on its own is an imaginary object. > > > In what I describe above the " holding on " is just the bias to > > " hold to " a particular refresh, or a building sequence of > > refreshes. There are no objects yet. > > yes, there are, would be my point. > > > Good talkin' with ya! > > -- Dan this whole thing would make a great sitcom guys! ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 5, 2007 Report Share Posted June 5, 2007 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > The two key terms here are " holding on " and " objectification " , > > the former my term, the latter yours. I can't be sure what you > > mean by objectification, > > formation. > > formulation. > > relationship. > > but have a pretty good hunch that what > > I mean by holding on hasn't really been made clear. > > > > Consider what we have been calling discontinuity. From my > > perspective discontinuity is more fundamental than continuity. > > continuity depends on something having been formulated, that could be > continued. > > discontinuity is awareness that nothing ever was formulated. why the qualification? " discontinuity is awareness " says it, seems to me. > > it's not a matter of fundamental and less fundamental. > > the continuity is itself discontinuous, all along. continuity is not actuality, but propensity. > > > In coarse terms there is a new " refresh " of what is being painted > > in consciousness every moment [by coarse I mean it is a gross > > generalization since the actuality is a much richer than a > > moment-by-moment update of consciousness, and because the notion > > of moment itself is only a convenient abstraction]. > > if there's a refresh, there's a new perception. the term " refresh " is proving to be misleading. Let's not reify it as an " a " ... there is not " a refresh " . there is rather just a continual refreshing and it is not all-at-once, but rather as tiny " patches " that are dispersed throughout the " perceptual field " (not an actuality, actually). It is, in a sense, impressionistic. The " sparkle " of Now is due to this continual updating. And with that clarification it is hopefully clear that as there is no distinct " refresh " there is no distinct perception corresponding to it. > a new perception is a formulation. > > hence, an objectification. > > > When those > > " refreshes " are linked that is what I am calling continuity. This is where what I was trying to say really bogs down. The notion of " linked " there is weak, and not really descriptive of what I wanted to say. Using your term " formulation " ... once there is a formulation then continuity has established. But formulation doesn't have to be an idea/concept. It can be subconscious, a kind of " accumulation " , a kind of " clumping " of sensation. This, however, may not correspond to your notion of formulation. The problem is that what I am trying to get at doesn't have ready-made words to describe. What I am talking about is a kind of pre-object, but there is no such notion in our language that I can see. The notion of " plasma " does somewhat correspond.... > even one unlinked refresh is a formulation. > > it is automatically linked, because nothing forms in isolation. > > look at how formation occurs! > > there's no such thing (actually) as a first formulation, although > people like to invent such things (like a " self " or an " I " ). > > > But the refreshes are not linked after the fact. Rather a kind > > of " attachment " to a given refresh -- what I am calling holding > > on -- predisposes the next refresh to be taken as " next in > > sequence " from the previous refresh. > > if you have a refresh and a next refresh, you already have > objectification. > > even one refresh is time, is formulation. > > you can't just have one refresh in isolation. yes, as indicated above. > > Refresh after refresh this > > continues, so that rather than apprehending " what is " -- each > > refresh as standing on its own -- there is already a predisposition > > to " take " the new refresh as a kind of transform of the prior > > one, so that a sequentialization of perception sets in, which > > is the root of experience of time. > > a refresh standing on its own is an imaginary object. > > > In what I describe above the " holding on " is just the bias to > > " hold to " a particular refresh, or a building sequence of > > refreshes. There are no objects yet. > > yes, there are, would be my point. See what I say above about " clumping of sensation " . It needn't be an object in any conscious sense, as anything nameable, or anything distinctly delineable. Typically those qualities do apply to what we call an object. What I am talking about is a kind of nebulous density in sensation... Bill > > Good talkin' with ya! > > -- Dan > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 5, 2007 Report Share Posted June 5, 2007 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > The two key terms here are " holding on " and " objectification " , > > > the former my term, the latter yours. I can't be sure what you > > > mean by objectification, > > > > formation. > > > > formulation. > > > > relationship. > > > > but have a pretty good hunch that what > > > I mean by holding on hasn't really been made clear. > > > > > > Consider what we have been calling discontinuity. From my > > > perspective discontinuity is more fundamental than continuity. > > > > continuity depends on something having been formulated, that could be > > continued. > > > > discontinuity is awareness that nothing ever was formulated. > > why the qualification? > " discontinuity is awareness " says it, seems to me. > > > > > it's not a matter of fundamental and less fundamental. > > > > the continuity is itself discontinuous, all along. > continuity is not actuality, but propensity. > > > > > > In coarse terms there is a new " refresh " of what is being painted > > > in consciousness every moment [by coarse I mean it is a gross > > > generalization since the actuality is a much richer than a > > > moment-by-moment update of consciousness, and because the notion > > > of moment itself is only a convenient abstraction]. > > > > if there's a refresh, there's a new perception. > the term " refresh " is proving to be misleading. Let's not > reify it as an " a " ... there is not " a refresh " . > > there is rather just a continual refreshing and it is not > all-at-once, but rather as tiny " patches " that are dispersed > throughout the " perceptual field " (not an actuality, actually). > It is, in a sense, impressionistic. The " sparkle " of Now is > due to this continual updating. > > And with that clarification it is hopefully clear that as there is > no distinct " refresh " there is no distinct perception corresponding > to it. > > > a new perception is a formulation. > > > > hence, an objectification. > > > > > When those > > > " refreshes " are linked that is what I am calling continuity. > > This is where what I was trying to say really bogs down. > The notion of " linked " there is weak, and not really > descriptive of what I wanted to say. > > Using your term " formulation " ... once there is a formulation > then continuity has established. But formulation doesn't have > to be an idea/concept. It can be subconscious, a kind of > " accumulation " , a kind of " clumping " of sensation. This, > however, may not correspond to your notion of formulation. > > The problem is that what I am trying to get at doesn't have > ready-made words to describe. What I am talking about is a > kind of pre-object, but there is no such notion in our > language that I can see. The notion of " plasma " does somewhat > correspond.... > > > > even one unlinked refresh is a formulation. > > > > it is automatically linked, because nothing forms in isolation. > > > > look at how formation occurs! > > > > there's no such thing (actually) as a first formulation, although > > people like to invent such things (like a " self " or an " I " ). > > > > > But the refreshes are not linked after the fact. Rather a kind > > > of " attachment " to a given refresh -- what I am calling holding > > > on -- predisposes the next refresh to be taken as " next in > > > sequence " from the previous refresh. > > > > if you have a refresh and a next refresh, you already have > > objectification. > > > > even one refresh is time, is formulation. > > > > you can't just have one refresh in isolation. > yes, as indicated above. > > > > > Refresh after refresh this > > > continues, so that rather than apprehending " what is " -- each > > > refresh as standing on its own -- there is already a predisposition > > > to " take " the new refresh as a kind of transform of the prior > > > one, so that a sequentialization of perception sets in, which > > > is the root of experience of time. > > > > a refresh standing on its own is an imaginary object. > > > > > In what I describe above the " holding on " is just the bias to > > > " hold to " a particular refresh, or a building sequence of > > > refreshes. There are no objects yet. > > > > yes, there are, would be my point. > > See what I say above about " clumping of sensation " . It needn't > be an object in any conscious sense, as anything nameable, > or anything distinctly delineable. Typically those qualities > do apply to what we call an object. > > What I am talking about is a kind of nebulous density in > sensation... > > > Bill i'm seeing a lot of L. Ron Hubbard here. zoom zoom zoom. ..b b.b. > > Good talkin' with ya! > > > > -- 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.