Guest guest Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 " Does anything in experience ever stay the same, even for one second? Pay attention and see. " Bill What's a second? :-0 toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > > > > > " Does anything in experience ever stay the same, > even for one second? > > Pay attention and see. " > > > > Bill What's a second? > > > :-0 > > > > toombaru > Can the experiencer experience experiencing? toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 - toombaru2006 Nisargadatta Sunday, May 17, 2009 3:16 PM Re: From Bill on GR Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > > > > > " Does anything in experience ever stay the same, > even for one second? > > Pay attention and see. " > > > > Bill What's a second? > > > :-0 > > > > toombaru > Can the experiencer experience experiencing? toombaru Can the experiencer experience the experiencer? -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > toombaru2006 > Nisargadatta > Sunday, May 17, 2009 3:16 PM > Re: From Bill on GR > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > " Does anything in experience ever stay the same, > > even for one second? > > > > Pay attention and see. " > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What's a second? > > > > > > :-0 > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > Can the experiencer experience experiencing? > > toombaru > > Can the experiencer experience the experiencer? > -geo- only in experiential way. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 - roberibus111 Nisargadatta Sunday, May 17, 2009 4:45 PM Re: From Bill on GR Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > toombaru2006 > Nisargadatta > Sunday, May 17, 2009 3:16 PM > Re: From Bill on GR > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > " Does anything in experience ever stay the same, > > even for one second? > > > > Pay attention and see. " > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What's a second? > > > > > > :-0 > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > Can the experiencer experience experiencing? > > toombaru > > Can the experiencer experience the experiencer? > -geo- only in experiential way. ..b b.b. No experience -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > roberibus111 > Nisargadatta > Sunday, May 17, 2009 4:45 PM > Re: From Bill on GR > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > toombaru2006 > > Nisargadatta > > Sunday, May 17, 2009 3:16 PM > > Re: From Bill on GR > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " Does anything in experience ever stay the same, > > > even for one second? > > > > > > Pay attention and see. " > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What's a second? > > > > > > > > > :-0 > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > Can the experiencer experience experiencing? > > > > toombaru > > > > Can the experiencer experience the experiencer? > > -geo- > > only in experiential way. > > .b b.b. > > No experience > -geo- you have Japanese Theater experience? ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 - roberibus111 Nisargadatta Sunday, May 17, 2009 7:27 PM Re: From Bill on GR Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > roberibus111 > Nisargadatta > Sunday, May 17, 2009 4:45 PM > Re: From Bill on GR > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > toombaru2006 > > Nisargadatta > > Sunday, May 17, 2009 3:16 PM > > Re: From Bill on GR > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " Does anything in experience ever stay the same, > > > even for one second? > > > > > > Pay attention and see. " > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What's a second? > > > > > > > > > :-0 > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > Can the experiencer experience experiencing? > > > > toombaru > > > > Can the experiencer experience the experiencer? > > -geo- > > only in experiential way. > > .b b.b. > > No experience > -geo- you have Japanese Theater experience? ..b b.b. Not me. No separate experiencer of it. Japanese Theater and the experience of Japanese Theater is the same. Just as the awareness of a chair and the chair are the same. Of course there is the limitation of words...they start as two...to end up as one. -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > > > > > " Does anything in experience ever stay the same, > even for one second? > > Pay attention and see. " > > > > Bill What's a second? > > > :-0 > > > > toombaru use any period of time that you like. what's a period of time? when there is a *then*. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " lastrain@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > " Does anything in experience ever stay the same, > > even for one second? > > > > Pay attention and see. " > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What's a second? > > > > > > :-0 > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > Can the experiencer experience experiencing? > > > > > toombaru I use the term " in experience " and from that you invent full-blown and experiencer experiencing an experience? No... whatever is " in experience " does not refer to " an experience " . Very different things. What is " in experience " refers only to what presents in consciousness... No experiencer implied. Instead of arguing about words perhaps conduct the experiment and report on that. These arguments about words I find tiresome. Here's another version of the experiment... Does anything persist in consciousness? I'm not interested in theory, just your report on the experiment. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " lastrain@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " Does anything in experience ever stay the same, > > > even for one second? > > > > > > Pay attention and see. " > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What's a second? > > > > > > > > > :-0 > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > Can the experiencer experience experiencing? > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > I use the term " in experience " and from that > you invent full-blown and experiencer experiencing an experience? The description of an event as an " experience " implies that it is separated from an experiencing entity. Can what has been labeled experience be separated from the mechanism that experiences it? I am merely saying that within the syntax of conceptual language that the label " experience " is meaningless without an " experiencer " : and that the recommendation that this hypothetical entity could have objective access to that which it supposedly experiences is a proposition that only exacerbates the delusional stance that IS the sense of separation. > > No... whatever is " in experience " does not refer to " an experience " . > Very different things. > > What is " in experience " refers only to what presents in consciousness... A disembodied consciousness? > > No experiencer implied. Of course there is. There can be no experience without a center in which it could be housed. > > Instead of arguing about words perhaps conduct the experiment and > report on that. These arguments about words I find tiresome. There can be no such experiment. Consciousness is not a thing. It can observe anything......but itself. It is what is observing. > > Here's another version of the experiment... > Does anything persist in consciousness? > I'm not interested in theory, just your report on the experiment. > > > Bill > The content of consciousness and the duration of that content is not separate from consciousness itself. Consciousness cannot evaluate its content....It IS its own content. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > " Does anything in experience ever stay the same, > > even for one second? > > > > Pay attention and see. " > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What's a second? > > > > > > :-0 > > > > > > > > toombaru > > use any period of time that you like. > > what's a period of time? > > when there is a *then*. > > Bill > It is a misconception that that which has arisen in time can be cognitively isolated and analyzed in time. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " Does anything in experience ever stay the same, > > > even for one second? > > > > > > Pay attention and see. " > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What's a second? > > > > > > > > > :-0 > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > use any period of time that you like. > > > > what's a period of time? > > > > when there is a *then*. > > > > Bill > > > > > It is a misconception that that which has arisen in time can be cognitively isolated and analyzed in time. > > > > > toombaru Dear Toombaru, again a nice example for Russell's paradox. Perhaps not many people know Russell's paradox or are able to understand it and apprehend it's reach. But it exists since decades, and delineates the limits of logic reasoning. Christians use the term eternity to avoid polemics. Only god has, and we after death can supposedly gain entrance into eternity. For practical purposes, however, also advaitans tend to use watches. They can experience thus time, fractioned in different units. One of this units is the second. An individual can, for example, arrive a second to late and miss a flight. " Deadlines " - nice term - exist. The crinkles in your face can tell you too a story of time. You are not longer a baby. You are grandfather, if I remember well. Most people celebrate their birthdays, I guess you too. You might be involved in some " didactic issue " with Bill, but I think you are driving it too far. I guess Bill is approximately of your age... I had a question question yesterday. This question, sent to all here in the board, was: what is a pattern? Isn't the believe in " One " not a pattern, too? Isn't it the most logical shortcut, when discussing conscience. Isn't " One " , i.e. the experiencer is the experienced and viceversa, a term matchable with " Eternity " . What was first " One " or " Nil " ? If you believe in " One " consequently " null, zero, nil, nothing " has to exist, too! It otherwise would make no sense to speak about " One " . Do you see duality here? Whatever concept we use, we fall into the same trap. We use, you too, concepts to communicate with each other. Time is a concept, nothing else. Is an antibiotic a concept? I would say yes! Has it arisen in time? I would say yes? If you would have an infection in your leg, and the doctor would ask you, what do you prefer: there are two ways to treat this infection, we can amputate the leg or administer antibiotics and heal heal it without amputating. What would you prefer? You cognitively isolate antibiotic from amputation. Since every phenomenon arises in time and only grandiloquent " concepts " like One or Eternity try to bypass temporality, you have to adhere to some ideology to pronounce the postulate the above sentence of yours. If you adhere to an ideology you can't be free. You have to, you feel the urge to defend, to advocate, to stick up for this ideology, for your way to see things. Isn't there a " beyond " supreme reality, too? Were they wrong, Niz, Ramana, Buddha, Jesus and so on? I would say yes! Kip Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " kipalmazy " <kipalmazy wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " Does anything in experience ever stay the same, > > > > even for one second? > > > > > > > > Pay attention and see. " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What's a second? > > > > > > > > > > > > :-0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > use any period of time that you like. > > > > > > what's a period of time? > > > > > > when there is a *then*. > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > It is a misconception that that which has arisen in time can be cognitively isolated and analyzed in time. > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > Dear Toombaru, > > again a nice example for Russell's paradox. Perhaps not many people know Russell's paradox or are able to understand it and apprehend it's reach. But it exists since decades, and delineates the limits of logic reasoning. > > Christians use the term eternity to avoid polemics. Only god has, and we after death can supposedly gain entrance into eternity. > > For practical purposes, however, also advaitans tend to use watches. They can experience thus time, fractioned in different units. One of this units is the second. An individual can, for example, arrive a second to late and miss a flight. " Deadlines " - nice term - exist. > > The crinkles in your face can tell you too a story of time. You are not longer a baby. You are grandfather, if I remember well. Most people celebrate their birthdays, I guess you too. > > You might be involved in some " didactic issue " with Bill, but I think you are driving it too far. I guess Bill is approximately of your age... > > I had a question question yesterday. This question, sent to all here in the board, was: what is a pattern? > > Isn't the believe in " One " not a pattern, too? Isn't it the most logical shortcut, when discussing conscience. Isn't " One " , i.e. the experiencer is the experienced and viceversa, a term matchable with " Eternity " . What was first " One " or " Nil " ? If you believe in " One " consequently " null, zero, nil, nothing " has to exist, too! It otherwise would make no sense to speak about " One " . Do you see duality here? > > Whatever concept we use, we fall into the same trap. > > We use, you too, concepts to communicate with each other. Time is a concept, nothing else. > > Is an antibiotic a concept? I would say yes! Has it arisen in time? I would say yes? If you would have an infection in your leg, and the doctor would ask you, what do you prefer: there are two ways to treat this infection, we can amputate the leg or administer antibiotics and heal heal it without amputating. What would you prefer? You cognitively isolate antibiotic from amputation. Since every phenomenon arises in time and only grandiloquent " concepts " like One or Eternity try to bypass temporality, you have to adhere to some ideology to pronounce the postulate the above sentence of yours. If you adhere to an ideology you can't be free. You have to, you feel the urge to defend, to advocate, to stick up for this ideology, for your way to see things. > > Isn't there a " beyond " supreme reality, too? > > Were they wrong, Niz, Ramana, Buddha, Jesus and so on? > > I would say yes! > > > Kip P.D. I don't believe in enlightenment! However, I like to read your mails! Sometimes I think you can get a tad " schoolmasterly " ....the same applies to Pete and some others. This is a ridiculous stance. You can't expect from others to assimilate completely your " idiosyn-crazy! " . The same applies also to me, but I do not expect it, because I am not enlightened, no spiritual teacher and have no particular spiritual message to spread. It is interesting to see how religions (re-ligare) try to sweat the split they themselves have caused. Therefore I say Niz, Ramana, Buddha, Jesus, etc are wrong.... There is nothing in need of " re-ligare " , there is nothing in need of making a " One " out of it but these concepts themselves, e.g. Eternity and One. Tetralemma, nevertheless, seems to be a reasonable stance. Stop making sense, so to speak! Have to get a flight to Berlin! Bye! Kip Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " illusyn@ wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " Does anything in experience ever stay the same, > > > even for one second? > > > > > > Pay attention and see. " > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What's a second? > > > > > > > > > :-0 > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > use any period of time that you like. > > > > what's a period of time? > > > > when there is a *then*. > > > > Bill > > > > > It is a misconception that that which has arisen in time can be cognitively isolated and analyzed in time. > toombaru Your statement is no different from: " It is a misconception that that which has arisen in time can be analyzed. " ['cognitively' and 'in time' are both redundant with respect to time] Analysis inherently involves time. This is because analysis is a process. But since analysis inherently involves time, analysis inherently pertains to what has arisen in time. Therefore, you are effectively asserting that analysis is a defunct concept. I doubt that is what you meant, but that is what you said. Getting back to the original question, forget the time aspect. I'll rephrase: Does anything in experience ever stay the same? Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 Kip: > > It is a misconception that that which has arisen in time can be cognitively isolated and analyzed in time. > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > Dear Toombaru, > > again a nice example for Russell's paradox. Perhaps not many people know > Russell's paradox or are able to understand it and apprehend it's reach. > But it exists since decades, and delineates the limits of logic reasoning. Russell's Paradox arises from the assumption that a class can be meaningfully defined from any well-defined property p(x), i.e. we can define the set R = { x such that p(x) is true } If p(x) = x does not belong to x, we get Russell's Paradox. As I indicate in my reply to toombaru's post, his statement above resolves to: " It is a misconception that that which has arisen in time can be analyzed. " But only that which has arisen in time can be analyzed, as analysis is inherently after the fact. Hence, it can be safely said that there exists x such that x has arisen in time and x can be analyzed. Hence, toombaru's assertion is: A) false B) Russell's Paradox does not arise from toombaru's assertion. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " illusyn@ wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " Does anything in experience ever stay the same, > > > > even for one second? > > > > > > > > Pay attention and see. " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What's a second? > > > > > > > > > > > > :-0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > use any period of time that you like. > > > > > > what's a period of time? > > > > > > when there is a *then*. > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > It is a misconception that that which has arisen in time can be > cognitively isolated and analyzed in time. > > toombaru > > Your statement is no different from: > " It is a misconception that that which has arisen in time can be > analyzed. " > ['cognitively' and 'in time' are both redundant with respect to time] > > Analysis inherently involves time. This is because analysis is a > process. > > But since analysis inherently involves time, analysis inherently > pertains to what has arisen in time. > > Therefore, you are effectively asserting that analysis is a defunct > concept. > > I doubt that is what you meant, but that is what you said. > > Getting back to the original question, forget the time aspect. I'll > rephrase: > Does anything in experience ever stay the same? > > Bill it would seem that infernal and persistent questioning does. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > Kip: > > > It is a misconception that that which has arisen in time can be cognitively > isolated and analyzed in time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > Dear Toombaru, > > > > again a nice example for Russell's paradox. Perhaps not many people know > > Russell's paradox or are able to understand it and apprehend it's reach. > > But it exists since decades, and delineates the limits of logic reasoning. > > Russell's Paradox arises from the assumption that a class can > be meaningfully defined from any well-defined property p(x), > i.e. we can define the set R = { x such that p(x) is true } > > If p(x) = x does not belong to x, we get Russell's Paradox. > > As I indicate in my reply to toombaru's post, his statement above > resolves to: > " It is a misconception that that which has arisen in time can be > analyzed. " > > But only that which has arisen in time can be analyzed, as analysis > is inherently after the fact. Hence, it can be safely said that there > exists x such that x has arisen in time and x can be analyzed. > > Hence, toombaru's assertion is: > A) false > B) Russell's Paradox does not arise from toombaru's assertion. > > Bill C) this is not important stuff. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " kipalmazy " <kipalmazy wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " kipalmazy " <kipalmazy@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " Does anything in experience ever stay the same, > > > > > even for one second? > > > > > > > > > > Pay attention and see. " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What's a second? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :-0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > use any period of time that you like. > > > > > > > > what's a period of time? > > > > > > > > when there is a *then*. > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is a misconception that that which has arisen in time can be cognitively isolated and analyzed in time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > Dear Toombaru, > > > > again a nice example for Russell's paradox. Perhaps not many people know Russell's paradox or are able to understand it and apprehend it's reach. But it exists since decades, and delineates the limits of logic reasoning. > > > > Christians use the term eternity to avoid polemics. Only god has, and we after death can supposedly gain entrance into eternity. > > > > For practical purposes, however, also advaitans tend to use watches. They can experience thus time, fractioned in different units. One of this units is the second. An individual can, for example, arrive a second to late and miss a flight. " Deadlines " - nice term - exist. > > > > The crinkles in your face can tell you too a story of time. You are not longer a baby. You are grandfather, if I remember well. Most people celebrate their birthdays, I guess you too. > > > > You might be involved in some " didactic issue " with Bill, but I think you are driving it too far. I guess Bill is approximately of your age... > > > > I had a question question yesterday. This question, sent to all here in the board, was: what is a pattern? > > > > Isn't the believe in " One " not a pattern, too? Isn't it the most logical shortcut, when discussing conscience. Isn't " One " , i.e. the experiencer is the experienced and viceversa, a term matchable with " Eternity " . What was first " One " or " Nil " ? If you believe in " One " consequently " null, zero, nil, nothing " has to exist, too! It otherwise would make no sense to speak about " One " . Do you see duality here? > > > > Whatever concept we use, we fall into the same trap. > > > > We use, you too, concepts to communicate with each other. Time is a concept, nothing else. > > > > Is an antibiotic a concept? I would say yes! Has it arisen in time? I would say yes? If you would have an infection in your leg, and the doctor would ask you, what do you prefer: there are two ways to treat this infection, we can amputate the leg or administer antibiotics and heal heal it without amputating. What would you prefer? You cognitively isolate antibiotic from amputation. Since every phenomenon arises in time and only grandiloquent " concepts " like One or Eternity try to bypass temporality, you have to adhere to some ideology to pronounce the postulate the above sentence of yours. If you adhere to an ideology you can't be free. You have to, you feel the urge to defend, to advocate, to stick up for this ideology, for your way to see things. > > > > Isn't there a " beyond " supreme reality, too? > > > > Were they wrong, Niz, Ramana, Buddha, Jesus and so on? > > > > I would say yes! > > > > > > Kip > > > P.D. I don't believe in enlightenment! However, I like to read your mails! Sometimes I think you can get a tad " schoolmasterly " ....the same applies to Pete and some others. This is a ridiculous stance. You can't expect from others to assimilate completely your " idiosyn-crazy! " . The same applies also to me, but I do not expect it, because I am not enlightened, no spiritual teacher and have no particular spiritual message to spread. > > It is interesting to see how religions (re-ligare) try to sweat the split they themselves have caused. Therefore I say Niz, Ramana, Buddha, Jesus, etc are wrong.... > > There is nothing in need of " re-ligare " , there is nothing in need of making a " One " out of it but these concepts themselves, e.g. Eternity and One. > > Tetralemma, nevertheless, seems to be a reasonable stance. > > Stop making sense, so to speak! > > Have to get a flight to Berlin! > > Bye! > > Kip did you ever " make " sense? to whom? for what reason? what reasoning allowed you to surmise that this made sense. stop the flight and get off. jump. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 - kipalmazy Nisargadatta Monday, May 18, 2009 3:29 AM Re: From Bill on GR Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " Does anything in experience ever stay the same, > > > even for one second? > > > > > > Pay attention and see. " > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What's a second? > > > > > > > > > :-0 > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > use any period of time that you like. > > > > what's a period of time? > > > > when there is a *then*. > > > > Bill > > > > > It is a misconception that that which has arisen in time can be > cognitively isolated and analyzed in time. > > > > > toombaru Dear Toombaru, again a nice example for Russell's paradox. Perhaps not many people know Russell's paradox or are able to understand it and apprehend it's reach. But it exists since decades, and delineates the limits of logic reasoning. Christians use the term eternity to avoid polemics. Only god has, and we after death can supposedly gain entrance into eternity. For practical purposes, however, also advaitans tend to use watches. They can experience thus time, fractioned in different units. One of this units is the second. An individual can, for example, arrive a second to late and miss a flight. " Deadlines " - nice term - exist. The crinkles in your face can tell you too a story of time. You are not longer a baby. You are grandfather, if I remember well. Most people celebrate their birthdays, I guess you too. geo> The me of yesterday is not the same me of today, kip. Even the cels of the body are not the same after some time. You might be involved in some " didactic issue " with Bill, but I think you are driving it too far. I guess Bill is approximately of your age... I had a question question yesterday. This question, sent to all here in the board, was: what is a pattern? geo> Kip, the " moment " when manifestation begun, patterning begun. These patterns happen in aa multilayered dimensional space. All patterns are empty of some separate entity. Answers your question? Isn't the believe in " One " not a pattern, too? Isn't it the most logical shortcut, when discussing conscience. Isn't " One " , i.e. the experiencer is the experienced and viceversa, a term matchable with " Eternity " . What was first " One " or " Nil " ? If you believe in " One " consequently " null, zero, nil, nothing " has to exist, too! It otherwise would make no sense to speak about " One " . Do you see duality here? geo> Any belief is a pattern of thought. Believe in " One " is also a pattern derived from the belef on some independent inner separate entity. The " one-ness " is obviously - and in this you are correct - is not expressable, Nonetheless it is so, right? Whatever concept we use, we fall into the same trap. We use, you too, concepts to communicate with each other. Time is a concept, nothing else. Is an antibiotic a concept? I would say yes! Has it arisen in time? I would say yes? If you would have an infection in your leg, and the doctor would ask you, what do you prefer: there are two ways to treat this infection, we can amputate the leg or administer antibiotics and heal heal it without amputating. What would you prefer? You cognitively isolate antibiotic from amputation. Since every phenomenon arises in time and only grandiloquent " concepts " like One or Eternity try to bypass temporality, you have to adhere to some ideology to pronounce the postulate the above sentence of yours. If you adhere to an ideology you can't be free. You have to, you feel the urge to defend, to advocate, to stick up for this ideology, for your way to see things. Isn't there a " beyond " supreme reality, too? Were they wrong, Niz, Ramana, Buddha, Jesus and so on? I would say yes! Kip geo> None of those said there is some separate beyond. " Me and the father as one " . Just like atoms of an ashtray are not separte from the ashtray. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 > > " Does anything in experience ever stay the same, > > even for one second? geo> No. Everything and anything in consciousness is moving. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 Bill> But since analysis inherently involves time, analysis inherentlypertains to what has arisen in time. geo> Yes, you can analyse til its bottom falls off, but if what analyses is changing in time, and so does the analysed, the result of such analysis ... also. Obvious. Conclusion: analysis inherently pertains ONLY to what has arisen in time, and the result of such analysis depends on the analyser that usually is not the same today as it was yesterday. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " illusyn@ wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " Does anything in experience ever stay the same, > > > > even for one second? > > > > > > > > Pay attention and see. " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What's a second? > > > > > > > > > > > > :-0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > use any period of time that you like. > > > > > > what's a period of time? > > > > > > when there is a *then*. > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > It is a misconception that that which has arisen in time can be > cognitively isolated and analyzed in time. > > toombaru > > Your statement is no different from: > " It is a misconception that that which has arisen in time can be > analyzed. " > ['cognitively' and 'in time' are both redundant with respect to time] > > Analysis inherently involves time. This is because analysis is a > process. > > But since analysis inherently involves time, analysis inherently > pertains to what has arisen in time. > > Therefore, you are effectively asserting that analysis is a defunct > concept. > > I doubt that is what you meant, but that is what you said. > > Getting back to the original question, forget the time aspect. I'll > rephrase: > Does anything in experience ever stay the same? > > Bill > The analysis of the inter-reactional relationship between things material can be accomplished to a certain, limited extent. However, in this exercise, you factor in the non-existent self and then ask it to isolate its impressions of its own " actions " . It would be like trying to find diamonds in a dream mountain. In regard to your inquiry above: The question is meaningless simply because there are no separate things......and no separate, cogative entity to observe them. These exercises are all ultimately meaningless because they are addressed to an entity that simply has no existential reality. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " illusyn@ wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " Does anything in experience ever stay the same, > > > > > even for one second? > > > > > > > > > > Pay attention and see. " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What's a second? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :-0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > use any period of time that you like. > > > > > > > > what's a period of time? > > > > > > > > when there is a *then*. > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is a misconception that that which has arisen in time can be > > cognitively isolated and analyzed in time. > > > toombaru > > > > Your statement is no different from: > > " It is a misconception that that which has arisen in time can be > > analyzed. " > > ['cognitively' and 'in time' are both redundant with respect to time] > > > > Analysis inherently involves time. This is because analysis is a > > process. > > > > But since analysis inherently involves time, analysis inherently > > pertains to what has arisen in time. > > > > Therefore, you are effectively asserting that analysis is a defunct > > concept. > > > > I doubt that is what you meant, but that is what you said. > > > > Getting back to the original question, forget the time aspect. I'll > > rephrase: > > Does anything in experience ever stay the same? > > > > Bill > > > > > > > The analysis of the inter-reactional relationship between things material can be accomplished to a certain, limited extent. > > However, in this exercise, you factor in the non-existent self and then ask it to isolate its impressions of its own " actions " . > > It would be like trying to find diamonds in a dream mountain. > > > > In regard to your inquiry above: > > The question is meaningless simply because there are no separate things......and no separate, cogative entity to observe them. > > These exercises are all ultimately meaningless because they are addressed to an entity that simply has no existential reality. > toombaru > Such explorations can, however,......if extended to their logical conclusion........lead to the ultimate collapse of the conceptual overlay and its imaginary personality. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > No experience > -geo- Yes. And no " no " the negation of negation is neither positive nor negative, nor both, nor something else that is neither positive nor negative Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " kipalmazy " <kipalmazy wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " Does anything in experience ever stay the same, > > > > even for one second? > > > > > > > > Pay attention and see. " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What's a second? > > > > > > > > > > > > :-0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > use any period of time that you like. > > > > > > what's a period of time? > > > > > > when there is a *then*. > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > It is a misconception that that which has arisen in time can be cognitively isolated and analyzed in time. > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > Dear Toombaru, > > again a nice example for Russell's paradox. Perhaps not many people know Russell's paradox or are able to understand it and apprehend it's reach. But it exists since decades, and delineates the limits of logic reasoning. > > Christians use the term eternity to avoid polemics. Only god has, and we after death can supposedly gain entrance into eternity. > > For practical purposes, however, also advaitans tend to use watches. They can experience thus time, fractioned in different units. One of this units is the second. An individual can, for example, arrive a second to late and miss a flight. " Deadlines " - nice term - exist. > > The crinkles in your face can tell you too a story of time. You are not longer a baby. You are grandfather, if I remember well. Most people celebrate their birthdays, I guess you too. > > You might be involved in some " didactic issue " with Bill, but I think you are driving it too far. I guess Bill is approximately of your age... > > I had a question question yesterday. This question, sent to all here in the board, was: what is a pattern? > > Isn't the believe in " One " not a pattern, too? Isn't it the most logical shortcut, when discussing conscience. Isn't " One " , i.e. the experiencer is the experienced and viceversa, a term matchable with " Eternity " . What was first " One " or " Nil " ? If you believe in " One " consequently " null, zero, nil, nothing " has to exist, too! It otherwise would make no sense to speak about " One " . Do you see duality here? > > Whatever concept we use, we fall into the same trap. > > We use, you too, concepts to communicate with each other. Time is a concept, nothing else. > > Is an antibiotic a concept? I would say yes! Has it arisen in time? I would say yes? If you would have an infection in your leg, and the doctor would ask you, what do you prefer: there are two ways to treat this infection, we can amputate the leg or administer antibiotics and heal heal it without amputating. What would you prefer? You cognitively isolate antibiotic from amputation. Since every phenomenon arises in time and only grandiloquent " concepts " like One or Eternity try to bypass temporality, you have to adhere to some ideology to pronounce the postulate the above sentence of yours. If you adhere to an ideology you can't be free. You have to, you feel the urge to defend, to advocate, to stick up for this ideology, for your way to see things. > > Isn't there a " beyond " supreme reality, too? > > Were they wrong, Niz, Ramana, Buddha, Jesus and so on? > > I would say yes! > > > Kip They spoke in time, to an audience that appeared in time. What they said was right, at the time! For that audience! All gone now! And yet, here! Laughing, 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.