Guest guest Posted November 10, 2007 Report Share Posted November 10, 2007 Once we become aware how we are polluted through the importance that we give to the ideas of past and future... we naturally seek comfort in another idea: the idea of here and now, present awareness, this very moment. Admittedly this is a beautiful idea. But once we have come so far we should be able to move on and see that even " presence " itself is merely a function of past and future, of the concept of time and space. I was living with the idea of being " here/now " for almost all my life. It had become my religion. Yes, it was not only an idea, it was worse, because it became my ideal. Such ideals may serve us for a while. But when we make the ideal our idol, we may fall into the trap of another religion. Those ideals present the very chains we seek liberation off. They are the last obstacles. We are like slaves that want both: liberation and still keep the chains that have become so familiar over time. What is left when time is taken away? It cannot be " presence " ! This has to be understood. But this is so scary... because without presence there is nobody left who could be " present " . Stefan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 10, 2007 Report Share Posted November 10, 2007 The importance to the ideas of past and future is the importance i give to myself and my relationships, in other words the importance that i give to my whole life, past, present and future.Am i wiling to sacrifice that? is there somthing other than this worth investigating? The word awareness cannot be separated from what it is aware of, to say that there is only awareness! is something very dry and abstract, it cannot be livable. There has to be an awareness of something other than my petty self and its relationships. When Nisargarata speake of Consciousness, i never thought of it as this relational consciousness that i think it belongs to me to use as i wish and create all this sort of reltions and assigning importance. There is a Consciousness; an absolute Consciousness, an unlimited Consciousness free of the limitations i impose on it by myself and its relationships, this Unlimited, Uncreated Consciousness that Nisargadata is pointing at by his statment " He Who makes everything Possible " . This is worth looking for and investigating. To free our everyday consciousness from the limitations i impose on it, to find an everlasting blissful experience or the absolute Consciousness all Advita is expounding as well as Nisargadata, this is worth sacrifing my petty me and its relationships for. mourad In Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge wrote: > > Once we become aware how we are polluted > through the importance that we give > to the ideas of past and future... > we naturally seek comfort in another idea: > the idea of here and now, present awareness, > this very moment. > > Admittedly this is a beautiful idea. > But once we have come so far > we should be able to move on and see > that even " presence " itself is merely > a function of past and future, > of the concept of time and space. > > I was living with the idea of being " here/now " > for almost all my life. > It had become my religion. > Yes, it was not only an idea, > it was worse, because it became my ideal. > > Such ideals may serve us for a while. > But when we make the ideal our idol, > we may fall into the trap of another religion. > > Those ideals present > the very chains we seek liberation off. > They are the last obstacles. > We are like slaves that want both: > liberation and still keep the chains > that have become so familiar over time. > > What is left when time is taken away? > It cannot be " presence " ! > This has to be understood. > But this is so scary... because without presence > there is nobody left who could be " present " . > > Stefan > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 10, 2007 Report Share Posted November 10, 2007 > What is left when time is taken away? > It cannot be " presence " ! > This has to be understood. > But this is so scary... because without presence > there is nobody left who could be " present " . > > Stefan > Stefan: What is left when time is taken? Time being projection, time being the movie in front of the brilliant bulb.Is the answer that what is left is just the naked bulb? It is very hot this bulb and anything that touches it bursts into flame.It immediatle burns to ash every name you try to put on it. this is a nice meetaphor but it is flawed because a naked bulb still projects--it projects light and by that you can know something of the bulb. but this emptiness--shall we say Emptiness--keeps everything hidden.that is why they call it Nothing. Z Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 10, 2007 Report Share Posted November 10, 2007 Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen wrote: >What is left when time is taken? Time being projection, time >being the movie in front of the brilliant bulb.Is the answer that >what is left is just the naked bulb? It is very hot this bulb and >anything that touches it bursts into flame.It immediatle burns to ash >every name you try to put on it. this is a nice meetaphor but it is >flawed because a naked bulb still projects--it projects light and by >that you can know something of the bulb. but this emptiness--shall we >say Emptiness--keeps everything hidden.that is why they call it >Nothing. Yes, the metaphor is flawed. There is no bulb, no projection, no projected and no projector. For me it is very simple and I will try to describe it: I sit and look at " time " ... means I look at " I am " , as I am in time. I cannot grasp time. When I try to catch it, it slips away. And when it disappears... " I " disappear. Greetings Stefan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 10, 2007 Report Share Posted November 10, 2007 Nisargadatta , " mourad_shamel " <mourad_shamel wrote: >To free our >everyday consciousness from the limitations i impose on it, to find >an everlasting blissful experience or the absolute Consciousness all >Advita is expounding as well as Nisargadata, this is worth >sacrifing my petty me and its relationships for. Hi Mourad, yes, it is worth the sacrificing, especially as there is nothing there that could be sacrificed. Only the idea, that something needs to be sacrificed. And this idea disappears when one clearly sees that there is only one thing left: " He who makes everything possible " . Stefan Nisargadatta , " mourad_shamel " <mourad_shamel wrote: > > The importance to the ideas of past and future is the importance i > give to myself and my relationships, in other words the importance > that i give to my whole life, past, present and future.Am i wiling > to sacrifice that? is there somthing other than this worth > investigating? The word awareness cannot be separated from what it > is aware of, to say that there is only awareness! is something very > dry and abstract, it cannot be livable. There has to be an awareness > of something other than my petty self and its relationships. When > Nisargarata speake of Consciousness, i never thought of it as this > relational consciousness that i think it belongs to me to use as i > wish and create all this sort of reltions and assigning importance. > > There is a Consciousness; an absolute Consciousness, an unlimited > Consciousness free of the limitations i impose on it by myself and > its relationships, this Unlimited, Uncreated Consciousness that > Nisargadata is pointing at by his statment " He Who makes everything > Possible " . This is worth looking for and investigating. To free our > everyday consciousness from the limitations i impose on it, to find > an everlasting blissful experience or the absolute Consciousness all > Advita is expounding as well as Nisargadata, this is worth > sacrifing my petty me and its relationships for. > > mourad Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 10, 2007 Report Share Posted November 10, 2007 > Yes, the metaphor is flawed. There is no bulb, > no projection, no projected and no projector. > For me it is very simple > and I will try to describe it: > > I sit and look at " time " ... > means I look at " I am " , > as I am in time. > I cannot grasp time. > When I try to catch it, it slips away. > And when it disappears... " I " disappear. > > Greetings > Stefan > Stephan: What is left when " you " disappear? Z Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 10, 2007 Report Share Posted November 10, 2007 Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge wrote: > > Once we become aware how we are polluted > through the importance that we give > to the ideas of past and future... > we naturally seek comfort in another idea: > the idea of here and now, present awareness, > this very moment. > > Admittedly this is a beautiful idea. > But once we have come so far > we should be able to move on and see > that even " presence " itself is merely > a function of past and future, > of the concept of time and space. > > I was living with the idea of being " here/now " > for almost all my life. > It had become my religion. > Yes, it was not only an idea, > it was worse, because it became my ideal. > > Such ideals may serve us for a while. > But when we make the ideal our idol, > we may fall into the trap of another religion. > > Those ideals present > the very chains we seek liberation off. > They are the last obstacles. > We are like slaves that want both: > liberation and still keep the chains > that have become so familiar over time. > > What is left when time is taken away? > It cannot be " presence " ! > This has to be understood. > But this is so scary... because without presence > there is nobody left who could be " present " . > > Stefan > Namaste, Yes dumping saguna for nirguna...Tony Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 10, 2007 Report Share Posted November 10, 2007 Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen wrote: >Stephan: What is left when " you " disappear? Z everything Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 10, 2007 Report Share Posted November 10, 2007 --- > >Stephan: What is left when " you " disappear? Z > > everything > Stephan: Pretty neat.This is obviously true.As soon as the I loses its' coherence--or seeming coherence--and is seen to be a bundle of stuff that is experienced rather than a unity that experiences, what can happen but that everything else comes to the fore. Z 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.