Guest guest Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 Geo - Thought doesn't make or manipulate images. Thoughts occur that assume images are being constructed and manipulated by thought. Thoughts occur trying to determine whether or not objects exist inside the thought or outside the thought. But whatever thought decides about these issues will only be as valid as that thought. At the point where one understands that the thinker doesn't exist outside of the thought, the attempt to gain a solution to the question " what is really going on here? " evaporates. The manipulator of objects, who uses thought, is itself a thought construct. The supposed benefit of the manipulation is a thought-dependent benefit. At the point where one understands that thought and its benefits are only ever validated by thought, seeking to validate thought realities ceases. To make this simple, one could say, thought decides to pick up the apple and eat it. The apple tastes good and one eats it. therefore there was benefit that didn't depend on thought. There was someone who used thought and manipulated the image of the apple to gain a meal. Yet, clearly, this entire scenario occurred through thought (which includes perception and memory - you can't have a thought you don't perceive, and you can't maintain an image without memory). The thought-memory complex validated itself by eating and enjoying the apple. But the instant one is clear that this is what happened, the entire sense of validity is transparently circular. One now has an open, thoughtless, timeless moment of no experience. And yet, thoughts/experiences are free to arise and dissolve. No problemo. -- Dan Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Monday, May 18, 2009 4:04 PM > Re: From Bill on GR > > > > > > 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 > > Bill - > > Good point. > > There is a paradox also to analysis, given what you are saying. > > Analysis takes time. > > That which is being analyzed takes time. > > Time is change. > > The thing being analyzed is changing as the analysis and analyzer is > changing. > > Therefore, any analysis can only arrive at a provisional conclusion, not a > definitive (final) conclusion. > > The assumptions involved in setting up an analysis require (for a perfect or > true analysis) that the one who is doing the analysis would be outside the > conditions being studied, and able to have an objective point of view to > arrive at conclusions. But the conditionality of time prevents this scenario > from ever being fully so, although typically analyzers take steps to try to > provide as objective an analysis as possible. > > geo> It is the self - just that. We are not talking of math. but the nature > of what is. > > I would suggest that thought assumes a static position from which to > observe, and a separation from the observed, and these assumptions are basic > to performing an analysis involving linear logic. Thought assumes the > ability to form and manipulate images of an object being studied from an > outside position. > > geo> Thought ACTUALLY DOES manipulate images - thinking they are not so. > > At the point that one is aware that thought is changing, there is no > separate position thought can take with respect to the thought, that the > image of the object being studied is a thought image that is part of the > thought ... analysis breaks down. > > So, all analysis involves a kind of " suspension of disbelief, " a suspension > of disbelief in the non-objective nature of thought, and the actual > inability of thought to have an image of an object that exists outside of > that thought. > > geo> Thought does have the ability to make an image. That is mostly what it > does. You seem to be regarding thought as something else then yourself. > An object outside of that thought? The same question again: - is an apple > different from the awareness of an apple? You say yes and no. > How yes? > > Which is funny when you consider that thought is the basis of what is taken > for reality, along with associated features such as language, sensory > perception and memory (all of which form a complex together, which I'm > referring to in shorthand as " thought. " ) > > -- Dan > > avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. > Virus Database (VPS): 090513-0, 13/05/2009 > Tested on: 18/5/2009 16:10:07 > avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 > > > > 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. > > I am disappointed in your reply toombaru. Disappointed? You expected something different? > On multiple counts. > > A) I took the trouble to point out to you your reasoning error in > previous post regarding " It is a misconception that.... " You don't > even address that here. I stated that since " things " don't exist........a hypothetical question about their changing is meaningless.I asked if anything persists in experience. Which equates to: does anything persist in consciousness. Since you have presumed the appearance of " things " you have missed the whole point.Why don't " things " exist?Because nothing persists in consciousness. It would be like asking what kind of disease caused Sleeping Beauty's slumber. This suggests I am wasting my time in > commenting on your posts. You have your very own time......and you can waste it? I would respectively suggest that the solution to your question lies deeper than any speculation that another dream character could concoct from there personal experience. That I raised a question does not mean I am seeking a solution. > > B) I didn't " factor in " any " self " whatsoever. It is you doing that > all on your own, as usual. Anything downstream from " I " is factoring in the assumption of self. Which " I " is toombaru's assumption (almost always... sometimes ahhh!some light gets through) > > C) If you had understood the original question (as geo has) you > wouldn't even venture with your comments about " separate things " , > as if nothing persists then there can be no " things " except as > mere appearance. > > Here is geo's reply for reference: > <<< > > > " Does anything in experience ever stay the same, > > > even for one second? > > geo> No. Everything and anything in consciousness is moving. > >>> > > What can I conclude from A-C? > > Here are some possibilities: > 1) You are so bent on impressing and playing games with words, > where you pick a word out of a sentence and run around holding > that word high over-head yelling, " Illusion! Illusion! " all the while > never having read the word in context or paying any attention > to what was actually said. [ " finding diamonds in a dream mountain " > quite a piece of schlock] > > 2) You actually don't see what geo sees, that everything and > anything in consciousness is moving. From the perspective of conceptual consciousness....that is the way it appears.No. From the perspective of awareness. If there are no separate things....(and there aren't)....how could they be moving and or changing? How can one speculate about the nature of the imaginary? > > Please don't expect the courtesy of a thoughtful reply if I > continue to read such impertinent responses as you have > dolloped up in this last. You expect courtesy in matters such as these?Here I make my main reply to you:What is clearly evident here is a carelessness in reading onyour part. I wrote of " the courtesy of a (thoughtful) reply " , but you have read that as about " replying courteously " . Hence your commentabout " being nice " below is way off the mark.It is pointless to attempt to be clear to you when you don't readwhat is said with clarity in any case. Bill That may apply to normal human interaction......but in this arena.... .....in this place where dreams are broken.......one should not hide behind convention. This is no time to be nice. " Your " " time " is running out. The Golden Ring may never pass through your private dream again. > > Finally, while I am sorry to be having such sharp works for you > my friend, they seem to be necessary. Please wake up! > > Bill > I love who ever it is you think you are. But if there still exists the belief structure that there is an entity here that can " wake up " ......you are still floundering in the consensus dream. 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: > > No discussion can go beyond that. > > > > > toombaru A discussion only circularly goes through its course of discussing. 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 , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > " Does anything in experience ever stay the same, > > > > > > > even for one second? > > > > > > > > > > geo> No. Everything and anything in consciousness is moving. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Finally, someone actually answered the question! > > > > > > > > And anyone really paying attention will come to the same > > > > conclusion that geo did... > > > > > > > > Thank you geo. > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > If nothing stays the same.......nothing exists. > > > > > > toombaru > > > > of course > > > > Bill > > Then how does one answer a question about the nature things? > toombaru > It is not in any " answer " per se. It is in realization of the fundamental emptiness of all things. [ " All dharma's are empty. " ] This cannot be put into words except as pointers. Each " one " is on his/her own here. 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 , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Geo - > > Thought doesn't make or manipulate images. > > Thoughts occur that assume images are being constructed and manipulated by thought. > > Thoughts occur trying to determine whether or not objects exist inside the thought or outside the thought. > > But whatever thought decides about these issues will only be as valid as that thought. > > At the point where one understands that the thinker doesn't exist outside of the thought, the attempt to gain a solution to the question " what is really going on here? " evaporates. > > The manipulator of objects, who uses thought, is itself a thought construct. The supposed benefit of the manipulation is a thought-dependent benefit. > > At the point where one understands that thought and its benefits are only ever validated by thought, seeking to validate thought realities ceases. > > To make this simple, one could say, thought decides to pick up the apple and eat it. The apple tastes good and one eats it. therefore there was benefit that didn't depend on thought. There was someone who used thought and manipulated the image of the apple to gain a meal. > > Yet, clearly, this entire scenario occurred through thought (which includes perception and memory - you can't have a thought you don't perceive, and you can't maintain an image without memory). > > The thought-memory complex validated itself by eating and enjoying the apple. But the instant one is clear that this is what happened, the entire sense of validity is transparently circular. > > One now has an open, thoughtless, timeless moment of no experience. > > And yet, thoughts/experiences are free to arise and dissolve. > > No problemo. > > > > -- Dan > > > > > nnniiiiiice. 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 , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > No discussion can go beyond that. > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > A discussion only circularly goes through its course of discussing. > Circle jerks within circle jerks. :-) 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: > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " illusyn@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " illusyn@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " Does anything in experience ever stay the same, > > > > > > > > even for one second? > > > > > > > > > > > > geo> No. Everything and anything in consciousness is moving. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Finally, someone actually answered the question! > > > > > > > > > > And anyone really paying attention will come to the same > > > > > conclusion that geo did... > > > > > > > > > > Thank you geo. > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > If nothing stays the same.......nothing exists. > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > of course > > > > > > Bill > > > > Then how does one answer a question about the nature things? > > > toombaru > > > > It is not in any " answer " per se. > It is in realization of the fundamental emptiness of all things. > [ " All dharma's are empty. " ] > This cannot be put into words except as pointers. > Each " one " is on his/her own here. > > Bill > Only when the realization of the fundamental emptiness of all things is internalized by the holder-of-things.....does the entire conceptual overlay collapse. Until that occurs.........you have (albeit a pretty savvy) zombie stumbling through its very own personal dream of separation.) 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 , Bill Rishel <illusyn wrote: > > > > > > 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. > > > > I am disappointed in your reply toombaru. > > Disappointed? > > You expected something different? > > > > On multiple counts. > > > > A) I took the trouble to point out to you your reasoning error in > > previous post regarding " It is a misconception that.... " You don't > > even address that here. > > I stated that since " things " don't exist........a hypothetical question > about their changing is meaningless. > > I asked if anything persists in experience. Which equates to: does anything > persist in consciousness. > Since you have presumed the appearance of " things " you have missed the whole > point. > *Why *don't " things " exist? > Because nothing persists in consciousness. > > It would be like asking what kind of disease caused Sleeping Beauty's > slumber. > > > This suggests I am wasting my time in > > commenting on your posts. > > You have your very own time......and you can waste it? > > I would respectively suggest that the solution to your question lies deeper > than any speculation that another dream character could concoct from there > personal experience. > > That I raised a question does not mean I am seeking a solution. > > > > > B) I didn't " factor in " any " self " whatsoever. It is you doing that > > all on your own, as usual. > > Anything downstream from " I " is factoring in the assumption of self. > > Which " I " is toombaru's assumption (almost always... sometimes ahhh! > some light gets through) > > > > C) If you had understood the original question (as geo has) you > > wouldn't even venture with your comments about " separate things " , > > as if nothing persists then there can be no " things " except as > > mere appearance. > > > > Here is geo's reply for reference: > > <<< > > > > " Does anything in experience ever stay the same, > > > > even for one second? > > > > geo> No. Everything and anything in consciousness is moving. > > >>> > > > > What can I conclude from A-C? > > > > Here are some possibilities: > > 1) You are so bent on impressing and playing games with words, > > where you pick a word out of a sentence and run around holding > > that word high over-head yelling, " Illusion! Illusion! " all the while > > never having read the word in context or paying any attention > > to what was actually said. [ " finding diamonds in a dream mountain " > > quite a piece of schlock] > > > > 2) You actually don't see what geo sees, that everything and > > anything in consciousness is moving. > > From the perspective of conceptual consciousness....that is the way it > appears. > > No. From the perspective of awareness. > > If there are no separate things....(and there aren't)....how could they be > moving and or > changing? > > How can one speculate about the nature of the imaginary? > > > > > > Please don't expect the courtesy of a thoughtful reply if I > > continue to read such impertinent responses as you have > > dolloped up in this last. > > You expect courtesy in matters such as these? > > Here I make my main reply to you: > What is clearly evident here is a carelessness in reading on > your part. I wrote of " the courtesy of a (thoughtful) reply " , but you have > read that as about " replying courteously " . Hence your comment > about " being nice " below is way off the mark. > > It is pointless to attempt to be clear to you when you don't read > what is said with clarity in any case. > > Bill > > > That may apply to normal human interaction......but in this arena.... > ....in this place where dreams are broken.......one should not hide behind > convention. > > This is no time to be nice. > > " Your " " time " is running out. > > The Golden Ring may never pass through your private dream again. > > > > > > Finally, while I am sorry to be having such sharp works for you > > my friend, they seem to be necessary. Please wake up! > > > > Bill > > > > I love who ever it is you think you are. > > But if there still exists the belief structure that there is an entity here > that can " wake up " ......you are still floundering in the consensus dream. > > toombaru goddman this is gettin' interestin'. ..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 , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " illusyn@ wrote: > > > > > This entire issue has an interesting correlation to Einstein's Theory of > > Relativity, > > which asserts that the assumption of an independent observer with > > respect to time > > is false, although this discussion goes beyond that. > > > > Bill > > That is interesting. > > The formulation of time and experience is indeed interesting, fascinating, captivating. > > I'm very interested, because it's how we manage to be talking to each other! > > Perhaps it is my interest/fascination that allows all this to happen, although that certainly doesn't mean I control my interest. > > I'm helplessly interested. Captivated, you might say. > > I am captivated by the time that constructs me as I construct it. Interesting loop there, huh Dan.... The child's delight of it... so missed by many... .... an endless " buzz " induced by the inherent non-linearity of conscious experience. Try to told onto anything and you get slammed to a wall. But flying loose and free... as Nisargadatta said... perpetual astonishment. Bill > > > -- Dan > 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: > > > - > billrishel > Nisargadatta > Monday, May 18, 2009 4:44 PM > Re: From Bill on GR > > > > > > > geo> I am mot following this thread... but perhaps will help to > consider > > that time is a measure of movement. NOthing else. > > ----------- > that's good, and I almost agree. > > Note that movement itself is due to measurements. > > So more precisely, I suggest, movement and time > both are measurements. > > Any metaphysical notion of time is a confusion IMO. > > Bill > > geo> matter, manifestation, measurment, movement ....time. > which is why the absolute present is the sole escape from all that. 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 , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " illusyn@ wrote: > > > > > > > > This entire issue has an interesting correlation to Einstein's > Theory of > > > Relativity, > > > which asserts that the assumption of an independent observer with > > > respect to time > > > is false, although this discussion goes beyond that. > > > > > > Bill > > > > That is interesting. > > > > The formulation of time and experience is indeed interesting, > fascinating, captivating. > > > > I'm very interested, because it's how we manage to be talking to each > other! > > > > Perhaps it is my interest/fascination that allows all this to happen, > although that certainly doesn't mean I control my interest. > > > > I'm helplessly interested. Captivated, you might say. > > > > I am captivated by the time that constructs me as I construct it. > > Interesting loop there, huh Dan.... > > The child's delight of it... so missed by many... > > ... an endless " buzz " induced by the inherent > non-linearity of conscious experience. > > Try to told onto anything and you get slammed > to a wall. > > But flying loose and free... as Nisargadatta said... > perpetual astonishment. > > > Bill > > > > > > > -- Dan > > > Yeah............but.....why did you have to bring out the big letters? :-0 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: > > Only when the realization of the fundamental emptiness of all things > is internalized by the holder-of-things.....does the entire > conceptual overlay collapse. > > > Until that occurs.........you have (albeit a pretty savvy) zombie > stumbling through its very own personal dream of separation.) Well-stated. One could say that the conceptual overlay is " supported " by an emotional underlay. In other words, it ain't reading math textbooks or phonebooks that keeps the " conceptual overlay " going, and those aren't generally its interests. 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: > > which is why the absolute present is the sole escape from > all that. > > Bill I agree... in fact, " staying in the present " (in a radical sense) is a quite easy road to 'awakening', if it doesn't occur half-assedly. For some period of time, one just remains one-pointedly 'now'. An amazingly powerful thing... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " illusyn@ wrote: > > > > which is why the absolute present is the sole escape from > > all that. > > > > Bill > > I agree... in fact, " staying in the present " (in a radical sense) is a quite easy road to 'awakening', if it doesn't occur half-assedly. For some period of time, one just remains one-pointedly 'now'. > An amazingly powerful thing... The Philosopher's Stone. 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 , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > Only when the realization of the fundamental emptiness of all things > is internalized by the holder-of-things.....does the entire > > conceptual overlay collapse. > > > > > > Until that occurs.........you have (albeit a pretty savvy) zombie > > stumbling through its very own personal dream of separation.) > > Well-stated. > > One could say that the conceptual overlay is " supported " by an emotional underlay. In other words, it ain't reading math textbooks or phonebooks that keeps the " conceptual overlay " going, and those aren't generally its interests. > It likes things that make it feel good. 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 , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > billrishel > > Nisargadatta > > Monday, May 18, 2009 4:44 PM > > Re: From Bill on GR > > > > > > > > > > > > > geo> I am mot following this thread... but perhaps will help to > > consider > > > that time is a measure of movement. NOthing else. > > > > ----------- > > that's good, and I almost agree. > > > > Note that movement itself is due to measurements. > > > > So more precisely, I suggest, movement and time > > both are measurements. > > > > Any metaphysical notion of time is a confusion IMO. > > > > Bill > > > > geo> matter, manifestation, measurment, movement ....time. > > > > which is why the absolute present is the sole escape from > all that. > > Bill there is no escape. there is no reason for one. ..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 , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > billrishel > > > Nisargadatta > > > Monday, May 18, 2009 4:44 PM > > > Re: From Bill on GR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > geo> I am mot following this thread... but perhaps will help to > > > consider > > > > that time is a measure of movement. NOthing else. > > > > > > ----------- > > > that's good, and I almost agree. > > > > > > Note that movement itself is due to measurements. > > > > > > So more precisely, I suggest, movement and time > > > both are measurements. > > > > > > Any metaphysical notion of time is a confusion IMO. > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > geo> matter, manifestation, measurment, movement ....time. > > > > > > > which is why the absolute present is the sole escape from > > all that. > > > > Bill > > > there is no escape. > > there is no reason for one. > > .b b.b. > There is a perspective in which the entire prison also loses its supports and begins to fall through space and time. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 19, 2009 Report Share Posted May 19, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Monday, May 18, 2009 4:37 PM > Re: From Bill on GR > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > billrishel > > Nisargadatta > > Monday, May 18, 2009 3:55 PM > > Re: From Bill on GR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > I am disappointed in your reply toombaru. > > On multiple counts. > > > > A) I took the trouble to point out to you your reas oning error in > > previous post regarding " It is a misconception that.... " You don't > > even address that here. This suggests I am wasting my time in > > commenting on your posts. > > > > B) I didn't " factor in " any " self " whatsoever. It is you doing that > > all on your own, as usual. > > > > C) If you had understood the original question (as geo has) you > > wouldn't even venture with your comments about " separate things " , > > as if nothing persists then there can be no " things " except as > > mere appearance. > > > > Here is geo's reply for reference: > > <<< > > > > " Does anything in experience ever stay the same, > > > > even for one second? > > > > geo> No. Everything and anything in consciousness is moving. > > >>> > > > > What can I conclude from A-C? > > > > Here are some possibilities: > > 1) You are so bent on impressing and playing games with words, > > where you pick a word out of a sentence and run around holding > > that word high over-he ad yelling, " Illusion! Illusion! " all the while > > never having read the word in context or paying any attention > > to what was actually said. [ " finding diamonds in a dream mountain " > > quite a piece of schlock] > > > > 2) You actually don't see what geo sees, that everything and > > anything in consciousness is moving. > > > > Please don't expect the courtesy of a thoughtful reply if I > > continue to read such impertinent responses as you have > > dolloped up in this last. > > > > Finally, while I am sorry to be having such sharp works for you > > my friend, they seem to be necessary. Please wake up! > > > > Bill > > > > geo> I am mot following this thread... but perhaps will help to consider > > that time is a measure of movement. NOthing else. > > the measure of movement infers a way to record, to register the previous > aspects of the movement. > > so time as a measure of movement infers registration in memory, and > comparison of stimuli by thought. > > so, time is not just a measure of movement. > > time is the application of memory through thought. > > unless you suppose a way to measure movement without memory being involved. > > geo> No, memory is invoved for sure. > What you are not considering is that memory is matter. So thought is matter > in movement: time. you wouldn't be able to bring in a concept of matter unless your memory were operational. a rock is matter, and a rock wouldn't have this conversation with me. so, saying that memory is matter is not a sufficient explanation of memory and its role in constructing time. similarly, it is thought that is defining matter in movement as time. a rock rolling down a hill isn't defining matter in movement as time. a human being that uses a brain to think is using thought and memory to define time as matter in motion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 19, 2009 Report Share Posted May 19, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > > > That is interesting. > > > > The formulation of time and experience is indeed interesting, fascinating, captivating. > > > > I'm very interested, because it's how we manage to be talking to each other! > > > > Perhaps it is my interest/fascination that allows all this to happen, although that certainly doesn't mean I control my interest. > > > > I'm helplessly interested. Captivated, you might say. > > > > I am captivated by the time that constructs me as I construct it. > > > > > > -- Dan > > > > > > > Consciousness is in the world. > The world is in consciousness. > > > > LOL > > > > > toombaru Yowsa! Lol, M.C. Escher Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 19, 2009 Report Share Posted May 19, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > a human being that uses a brain to think is using thought and memory > to define time as matter in motion. Thought and memory are also used to define (oneself or others) as a human being that uses a brain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 19, 2009 Report Share Posted May 19, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > a human being that uses a brain to think is using thought and memory > to define time as matter in motion. > > Thought and memory are also used to define (oneself or others) as a human being that uses a brain. > The brain uses thought and memory to................... Hey...............wait a minute! Who's on first? :-0 toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 19, 2009 Report Share Posted May 19, 2009 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " illusyn@ wrote: > > > > > > > > This entire issue has an interesting correlation to Einstein's > Theory of > > > Relativity, > > > which asserts that the assumption of an independent observer with > > > respect to time > > > is false, although this discussion goes beyond that. > > > > > > Bill > > > > That is interesting. > > > > The formulation of time and experience is indeed interesting, > fascinating, captivating. > > > > I'm very interested, because it's how we manage to be talking to each > other! > > > > Perhaps it is my interest/fascination that allows all this to happen, > although that certainly doesn't mean I control my interest. > > > > I'm helplessly interested. Captivated, you might say. > > > > I am captivated by the time that constructs me as I construct it. > > Interesting loop there, huh Dan.... > > The child's delight of it... so missed by many... > > ... an endless " buzz " induced by the inherent > non-linearity of conscious experience. > > Try to told onto anything and you get slammed > to a wall. > > But flying loose and free... as Nisargadatta said... > perpetual astonishment. > > > Bill True. Flying free. Wonder. Laughter in the face of death. " Death where is thy sting? " The laughing one is Kali, as she dances the dance that draws all in to herself that never was not herself. Or is it Jesus? Kalijesus? What's in a name? A black whole by any other name would have the same vortex. -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 19, 2009 Report Share Posted May 19, 2009 - billrishel Nisargadatta Monday, May 18, 2009 5:53 PM Re: From Bill on GR Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > billrishel > Nisargadatta > Monday, May 18, 2009 4:44 PM > Re: From Bill on GR > > > > > > > geo> I am mot following this thread... but perhaps will help to > consider > > that time is a measure of movement. NOthing else. > > ----------- > that's good, and I almost agree. > > Note that movement itself is due to measurements. > > So more precisely, I suggest, movement and time > both are measurements. > > Any metaphysical notion of time is a confusion IMO. > > Bill > > geo> matter, manifestation, measurment, movement ....time. > which is why the absolute present is the sole escape from all that. Bill Freedom from time is better IMO. -geo- avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 090513-0, 13/05/2009 Tested on: 18/5/2009 19:41:53 avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 19, 2009 Report Share Posted May 19, 2009 - Tim G. Nisargadatta Monday, May 18, 2009 6:00 PM Re: From Bill on GR Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > which is why the absolute present is the sole escape from > all that. > > Bill I agree... in fact, " staying in the present " (in a radical sense) is a quite easy road to 'awakening', if it doesn't occur half-assedly. For some period of time, one just remains one-pointedly 'now'. An amazingly powerful thing... geo> Ongoing understanding/perception of the falacy of psichologycal time. avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 090513-0, 13/05/2009 Tested on: 18/5/2009 19:41:54 avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 19, 2009 Report Share Posted May 19, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > which is why the absolute present is the sole escape from > > all that. > > > > Bill > > I agree... in fact, " staying in the present " (in a radical sense) is a quite > easy road to 'awakening', if it doesn't occur half-assedly. For some period > of time, one just remains one-pointedly 'now'. An amazingly powerful > thing... > > geo> Ongoing understanding/perception of the falacy of > psichologycal time. No 'mental' understanding is necessary, but the surrender of mental understanding. That is true understanding. Psychological time is the desire to be somewhere else. Understanding it is as easy as watching a good movie and noticing " I don't know where the time went " . Did you not surrender it upon sitting in the theater seat? 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.