Guest guest Posted May 31, 2007 Report Share Posted May 31, 2007 Subjective time and subjective continuity are two sides of the same coin. Similarly timelessness and no-continuity are essentially the same. " Subjective continuity " obtains when something is " held to " . The contrary of subjective continuity is openness, whereby the newness/change that is actual in every moment is " allowed " (admitted into consciousness). When every moment is a new " refresh " then there is no continuity. Such no-continuity is complete openness... which is absence of any " holding on " . As newness/change is actual in every moment, the discontinuity of complete openness is What Is or Truth. It is subjective continuity that creates a sense of " story " in a continuous kind of " unfolding " and with that a sense of a " who " that is the protagonist in the story. In other words, the story is the *experience* of the *one* having the experience. The sense of a " someone " to whom the " experience " is happening is a by-product of subjective continuity. The story, the protagonist, and the experience are all illusory constructs that are created by " holding to " elements in consciousness. The basic story underlying all stories is the story: " This is my experience " . *Bondage* is craving, clinging, or attachment; all of which are forms of the " holding to " of elements in consciousness. *Freedom* is the end of attachment or such holding on and is the *end of the story*. While attachment is commonly indicated as the root of bondage, it is common to interpret " attachment " in the superficial sense of " attachment *by* the *one* having the experience " . However the root of bondage is in the process of subjective continuity that creates the story of an experiencer. Attempting to " eliminate all attachment " amounts to an attempt to create a particular kind of story. Such an attempt can only fail as the story goes on, with attachment in the deep sense of subjective continuity still in place. 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: > > > Subjective time and subjective continuity are two > sides of the same coin. Similarly timelessness > and no-continuity are essentially the same. > > " Subjective continuity " obtains when something is > " held to " . The contrary of subjective continuity > is openness, whereby the newness/change that is > actual in every moment is " allowed " (admitted > into consciousness). > > When every moment is a new " refresh " then there > is no continuity. Such no-continuity is complete > openness... which is absence of any " holding on " . > > As newness/change is actual in every moment, the > discontinuity of complete openness is What Is or > Truth. > > It is subjective continuity that creates a sense > of " story " in a continuous kind of " unfolding " > and with that a sense of a " who " that is the > protagonist in the story. In other words, the > story is the *experience* of the *one* having the > experience. The sense of a " someone " to whom the > " experience " is happening is a by-product of > subjective continuity. The story, the > protagonist, and the experience are all illusory > constructs that are created by " holding to " > elements in consciousness. The basic story > underlying all stories is the story: " This is my > experience " . > > *Bondage* is craving, clinging, or attachment; > all of which are forms of the " holding to " of > elements in consciousness. *Freedom* is the end > of attachment or such holding on and is the *end > of the story*. > > While attachment is commonly indicated as the > root of bondage, it is common to interpret > " attachment " in the superficial sense of > " attachment *by* the *one* having the > experience " . However the root of bondage is in > the process of subjective continuity that creates > the story of an experiencer. Attempting to > " eliminate all attachment " amounts to an attempt > to create a particular kind of story. Such an > attempt can only fail as the story goes on, with > attachment in the deep sense of subjective > continuity still in place. > > > Bill I agree. Which means that objectification taken as what reality is, is what is often called " bondage. " But truly, objectification is just a way of imaging, a contradictory way of imaging that dissolves when it dissolves. So, as there never was any objectified being to be in bondage, to call objectification " bondage " has some misimplications (of value, of morality, of judgment). Objectification is just a temporary phenomenon. I agree about " the attempt to eliminate all attachment " as an investment in a certain kind of story. Much of Eastern religion involves producing " evidence " that such a story has been accomplished, just as Western religions have other versions of the evidence they want to produce (perhaps of something like " permanent connection with, or nonseparation from God. " To try to produce an object (such as a teacher, a master, a guru, a savior) that reliably demonstrates the truth (the heart of the matter, love, being, wisdom, allness), is self-contradictory. No objectification is possible. To say these stories " fail " is to say they don't produce a reliable result. But should they, could they? If there is a collapse of all story-ing, that would include the story of the inadequacies of stories, as well ... ;-) -- 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: > > > > > > Subjective time and subjective continuity are two > > sides of the same coin. Similarly timelessness > > and no-continuity are essentially the same. > > > > " Subjective continuity " obtains when something is > > " held to " . The contrary of subjective continuity > > is openness, whereby the newness/change that is > > actual in every moment is " allowed " (admitted > > into consciousness). > > > > When every moment is a new " refresh " then there > > is no continuity. Such no-continuity is complete > > openness... which is absence of any " holding on " . > > > > As newness/change is actual in every moment, the > > discontinuity of complete openness is What Is or > > Truth. > > > > It is subjective continuity that creates a sense > > of " story " in a continuous kind of " unfolding " > > and with that a sense of a " who " that is the > > protagonist in the story. In other words, the > > story is the *experience* of the *one* having the > > experience. The sense of a " someone " to whom the > > " experience " is happening is a by-product of > > subjective continuity. The story, the > > protagonist, and the experience are all illusory > > constructs that are created by " holding to " > > elements in consciousness. The basic story > > underlying all stories is the story: " This is my > > experience " . > > > > *Bondage* is craving, clinging, or attachment; > > all of which are forms of the " holding to " of > > elements in consciousness. *Freedom* is the end > > of attachment or such holding on and is the *end > > of the story*. > > > > While attachment is commonly indicated as the > > root of bondage, it is common to interpret > > " attachment " in the superficial sense of > > " attachment *by* the *one* having the > > experience " . However the root of bondage is in > > the process of subjective continuity that creates > > the story of an experiencer. Attempting to > > " eliminate all attachment " amounts to an attempt > > to create a particular kind of story. Such an > > attempt can only fail as the story goes on, with > > attachment in the deep sense of subjective > > continuity still in place. > > > > > > Bill > > I agree. > > Which means that objectification taken as what reality is, is what is > often called " bondage. " > > But truly, objectification is just a way of imaging, a contradictory > way of imaging that dissolves when it dissolves. > > So, as there never was any objectified being to be in bondage, to call > objectification " bondage " has some misimplications (of value, of > morality, of judgment). > > Objectification is just a temporary phenomenon. > > I agree about " the attempt to eliminate all attachment " as an > investment in a certain kind of story. > > Much of Eastern religion involves producing " evidence " that such a > story has been accomplished, just as Western religions have other > versions of the evidence they want to produce (perhaps of something > like " permanent connection with, or nonseparation from God. " > > To try to produce an object (such as a teacher, a master, a guru, a > savior) that reliably demonstrates the truth (the heart of the matter, > love, being, wisdom, allness), is self-contradictory. No > objectification is possible. > > To say these stories " fail " is to say they don't produce a reliable > result. I said " the attempt can only fail " ... not the story per se. > > But should they, could they? > > If there is a collapse of all story-ing, that would include the story > of the inadequacies of stories, as well ... Yes, of course... but words about stories aren't necessarily stories in the sense used in the post. A story as used there is a narrative " about someone " . So, for example, a recipe for beef stew is not a story in that sense. 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: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Subjective time and subjective continuity are two > > > sides of the same coin. Similarly timelessness > > > and no-continuity are essentially the same. > > > > > > " Subjective continuity " obtains when something is > > > " held to " . The contrary of subjective continuity > > > is openness, whereby the newness/change that is > > > actual in every moment is " allowed " (admitted > > > into consciousness). > > > > > > When every moment is a new " refresh " then there > > > is no continuity. Such no-continuity is complete > > > openness... which is absence of any " holding on " . > > > > > > As newness/change is actual in every moment, the > > > discontinuity of complete openness is What Is or > > > Truth. > > > > > > It is subjective continuity that creates a sense > > > of " story " in a continuous kind of " unfolding " > > > and with that a sense of a " who " that is the > > > protagonist in the story. In other words, the > > > story is the *experience* of the *one* having the > > > experience. The sense of a " someone " to whom the > > > " experience " is happening is a by-product of > > > subjective continuity. The story, the > > > protagonist, and the experience are all illusory > > > constructs that are created by " holding to " > > > elements in consciousness. The basic story > > > underlying all stories is the story: " This is my > > > experience " . > > > > > > *Bondage* is craving, clinging, or attachment; > > > all of which are forms of the " holding to " of > > > elements in consciousness. *Freedom* is the end > > > of attachment or such holding on and is the *end > > > of the story*. > > > > > > While attachment is commonly indicated as the > > > root of bondage, it is common to interpret > > > " attachment " in the superficial sense of > > > " attachment *by* the *one* having the > > > experience " . However the root of bondage is in > > > the process of subjective continuity that creates > > > the story of an experiencer. Attempting to > > > " eliminate all attachment " amounts to an attempt > > > to create a particular kind of story. Such an > > > attempt can only fail as the story goes on, with > > > attachment in the deep sense of subjective > > > continuity still in place. > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > I agree. > > > > Which means that objectification taken as what reality is, is what is > > often called " bondage. " > > > > But truly, objectification is just a way of imaging, a contradictory > > way of imaging that dissolves when it dissolves. > > > > So, as there never was any objectified being to be in bondage, to call > > objectification " bondage " has some misimplications (of value, of > > morality, of judgment). > > > > Objectification is just a temporary phenomenon. > > > > I agree about " the attempt to eliminate all attachment " as an > > investment in a certain kind of story. > > > > Much of Eastern religion involves producing " evidence " that such a > > story has been accomplished, just as Western religions have other > > versions of the evidence they want to produce (perhaps of something > > like " permanent connection with, or nonseparation from God. " > > > > To try to produce an object (such as a teacher, a master, a guru, a > > savior) that reliably demonstrates the truth (the heart of the matter, > > love, being, wisdom, allness), is self-contradictory. No > > objectification is possible. > > > > To say these stories " fail " is to say they don't produce a reliable > > result. > > I said " the attempt can only fail " ... not the story per se. > > > > > But should they, could they? > > > > If there is a collapse of all story-ing, that would include the story > > of the inadequacies of stories, as well ... > > Yes, of course... but words about stories aren't necessarily > stories in the sense used in the post. A story as used there > is a narrative " about someone " . So, for example, a recipe for > beef stew is not a story in that sense. > > > Bill There's always an implied speaker and hearer involved in any story. The recipe for stew implies the someone who makes and eats the stew. It is a story of that person, and what he or she puts energy into preparing and eating. The story about the inadequacy of stories assumes someone who hears what is said. It is a story for that person (reader of the list). It also is a story about Bill, the person who posted the story. It tells of someone who has found an undoing of a previously held sense (story) of having experiences, of continuing. I like the story you tell. Even one word is a story. One word implies many words. One word implies time and meaning. One word implies communicators. It's amazing what is involved in a word. Let's tell a story of the first word. In the beginning was the (first) word. With that word was made all that was made. Good story! -- 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: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Subjective time and subjective continuity are two > > > > sides of the same coin. Similarly timelessness > > > > and no-continuity are essentially the same. > > > > > > > > " Subjective continuity " obtains when something is > > > > " held to " . The contrary of subjective continuity > > > > is openness, whereby the newness/change that is > > > > actual in every moment is " allowed " (admitted > > > > into consciousness). > > > > > > > > When every moment is a new " refresh " then there > > > > is no continuity. Such no-continuity is complete > > > > openness... which is absence of any " holding on " . > > > > > > > > As newness/change is actual in every moment, the > > > > discontinuity of complete openness is What Is or > > > > Truth. > > > > > > > > It is subjective continuity that creates a sense > > > > of " story " in a continuous kind of " unfolding " > > > > and with that a sense of a " who " that is the > > > > protagonist in the story. In other words, the > > > > story is the *experience* of the *one* having the > > > > experience. The sense of a " someone " to whom the > > > > " experience " is happening is a by-product of > > > > subjective continuity. The story, the > > > > protagonist, and the experience are all illusory > > > > constructs that are created by " holding to " > > > > elements in consciousness. The basic story > > > > underlying all stories is the story: " This is my > > > > experience " . > > > > > > > > *Bondage* is craving, clinging, or attachment; > > > > all of which are forms of the " holding to " of > > > > elements in consciousness. *Freedom* is the end > > > > of attachment or such holding on and is the *end > > > > of the story*. > > > > > > > > While attachment is commonly indicated as the > > > > root of bondage, it is common to interpret > > > > " attachment " in the superficial sense of > > > > " attachment *by* the *one* having the > > > > experience " . However the root of bondage is in > > > > the process of subjective continuity that creates > > > > the story of an experiencer. Attempting to > > > > " eliminate all attachment " amounts to an attempt > > > > to create a particular kind of story. Such an > > > > attempt can only fail as the story goes on, with > > > > attachment in the deep sense of subjective > > > > continuity still in place. > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > I agree. > > > > > > Which means that objectification taken as what reality is, is what is > > > often called " bondage. " > > > > > > But truly, objectification is just a way of imaging, a contradictory > > > way of imaging that dissolves when it dissolves. > > > > > > So, as there never was any objectified being to be in bondage, to call > > > objectification " bondage " has some misimplications (of value, of > > > morality, of judgment). > > > > > > Objectification is just a temporary phenomenon. > > > > > > I agree about " the attempt to eliminate all attachment " as an > > > investment in a certain kind of story. > > > > > > Much of Eastern religion involves producing " evidence " that such a > > > story has been accomplished, just as Western religions have other > > > versions of the evidence they want to produce (perhaps of something > > > like " permanent connection with, or nonseparation from God. " > > > > > > To try to produce an object (such as a teacher, a master, a guru, a > > > savior) that reliably demonstrates the truth (the heart of the matter, > > > love, being, wisdom, allness), is self-contradictory. No > > > objectification is possible. > > > > > > To say these stories " fail " is to say they don't produce a reliable > > > result. > > > > I said " the attempt can only fail " ... not the story per se. > > > > > > > > But should they, could they? > > > > > > If there is a collapse of all story-ing, that would include the story > > > of the inadequacies of stories, as well ... > > > > Yes, of course... but words about stories aren't necessarily > > stories in the sense used in the post. A story as used there > > is a narrative " about someone " . So, for example, a recipe for > > beef stew is not a story in that sense. > > > > > > Bill > > There's always an implied speaker and hearer involved in any story. > > The recipe for stew implies the someone who makes and eats the stew. > > It is a story of that person, and what he or she puts energy into > preparing and eating. > > The story about the inadequacy of stories assumes someone who hears > what is said. It is a story for that person (reader of the list). > > It also is a story about Bill, the person who posted the story. > > It tells of someone who has found an undoing of a previously held > sense (story) of having experiences, of continuing. > > I like the story you tell. > > Even one word is a story. > > One word implies many words. One word implies time and meaning. One > word implies communicators. > > It's amazing what is involved in a word. > > Let's tell a story of the first word. > > In the beginning was the (first) word. > > With that word was made all that was made. > > Good story! > > -- Dan > I'll have to let the this little tapestry or words woven into a crescendoing Ta-Taa! simmer a bit but for now enough to say what a gas! Bill 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.