Guest guest Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 edg:...Let me say that I think I get Advaita conceptually -- can get an A+ on the test -- but awareness of THAT which is beyond awareness itself is not an all time reality yet (says the twit, ego,) geo> I will help with your question....LOL "is not an all time reality yet". So that is your question. Maybe a need to have a deep insight into the nature of time. (???) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 > edg:...Let me say that I think I get Advaita conceptually -- can get an A+ on the test -- but awareness of THAT which is beyond awareness itself is not an all time reality yet (says the twit, ego,) " geo " <inandor wrote: > geo> I will help with your question....LOL > " is not an all time reality yet " . So that is your question. Maybe a need to have a deep insight into the nature of time. (???) Geo -- are you suggesting that I need to dwell upon the mantra " time? " Or shall I do samyama as Patanjali teaches in order to grok time? Or, are you trying to point me to a question and say, " this seems to be a desire only you can fulfill, and we're not here to service desires but to scrunch them like sheets of paper to be tossed into the circular file? " This morning's flurry of blurbs about time hasn't gotten me much along the way towards answering your question. Not that anyone " owes " me the newbie, ahem, the time of day. Discussing the nature of time is fraught with framing errors. Are we talking about the definition that a " meat robot that's pretending it's sentient " will ordinarily give? What would time be to HAL 9000? Or, shall we handcuff the discourse by framing the issue as Plato did with eternal ideals? Perhaps the concept of the Sephirot ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sephirot ) will be a cache of conceptual triggerings that we'd all find to be neutral territory? I'm already exhausted considering all the ways to approach the grasping of time. But, exhausted as I am, I'll slog the keyboard. Sigh. " Time " is such a deeply hardwired dynamic -- for a brain to dump all it's past chemical record " about " " time " is a task that makes Hercules' cleaning of the Augean stables seem trivial. The intellect can easily be overwhelmed with all the dotting of i's and crossing of t's -- that vastness -- gawd -- think of all the exactitude " starting to think about a concept 'from scratch' " would require. How to escape the past that lays upon the use of every word like a wet blanket? To me, any thought about time is a messy glop of processing by a meat brain percolating blood burbles. That makes it a candidate for being a metaphor for us, but, do we want to " go there? " Are we saying that a process that entails the myriad operations of -- let's spell it out -- BILLIONS of chemical interactions -- is an easily grasped " thing " or is it more likely that there's really no way to handily wield such an immensity? Spit in the palm of your hand -- there -- bam -- you've got your audience of, say, a few thousand microbes that you the landlord just evicted from your mouth. Ask them what time is. Ask 50,000 French men if they're available. Hee hee. When I mentally entertain the sound " time " I noticed that I blinked a couple times -- please tell me if that processing was importantly impacted by the blinking dynamic. Or, if I see a ball bouncing -- does it matter what color it is when I talk about the bouncingness of it? Time can only be a set of all possible chemical constructs from which every robot can be expected to pick one out of that hat and glom onto it as THE way a robot should process in order to have that operation be a suitable symbol for " time. " See? Good lord, how can we compare our vastnesses? Edg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 - Edg Nisargadatta Wednesday, July 08, 2009 11:23 AM Re: A question from a new member > edg:...Let me say that I think I get Advaita conceptually -- can get an A+ > on the test -- but awareness of THAT which is beyond awareness itself is > not an all time reality yet (says the twit, ego,) " geo " <inandor wrote: > geo> I will help with your question....LOL > " is not an all time reality yet " . So that is your question. Maybe a need > to have a deep insight into the nature of time. (???) Geo -- are you suggesting that I need to dwell upon the mantra " time? " Or shall I do samyama as Patanjali teaches in order to grok time? Or... -edg- No, no mantras...I just want to make clear the nature of your question....if any. As I said I have several question at different times. Do you have any? Or perhaps you dont know? -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 But, exhausted as I am, I'll slog the keyboard. Sigh. -edg- The whole " thing " is extremly simple. Why do you need todo this? If you are exhausted then make it short...much much shorter. -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > But, exhausted as I am, I'll slog the keyboard. Sigh. > -edg- > > The whole " thing " is extremly simple. Why do you need todo this? If you are > exhausted then make it short...much much shorter. > -geo- > Writing is an addiction that I am loath to give up. Once the fingers start tippy tapping, I'm owned. Do you have a problem with prolixity in general or has my version of it struck a nerve? Hee hee? As for shorter being better, yeah, it gets stuff into few words and then the onus to define terms moves to front burner. Is that your discourse strategy? What do you mean by " the whole 'thing?' " And how can anything be extremely simply when there's the concept of infinite correlation dive bombing the conversation? Edg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > Edg > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, July 08, 2009 11:23 AM > Re: A question from a new member > edg:...Let me say that I think I get Advaita conceptually -- can get an A+ > > on the test -- but awareness of THAT which is beyond awareness itself is > > not an all time reality yet (says the twit, ego,) > > " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > geo> I will help with your question....LOL > > " is not an all time reality yet " . So that is your question. Maybe a need > > to have a deep insight into the nature of time. (???) > > Geo -- are you suggesting that I need to dwell upon the mantra " time? " Or > shall I do samyama as Patanjali teaches in order to grok time? Or... > -edg- > > No, no mantras...I just want to make clear the nature of your question....if > any. As I said I have several question at different times. Do you have any? > Or perhaps you dont know? > -geo- > Hee hee. Did I miss something? Seems you're on record here opining that the word " you " is without a referent. How can that " you " be a questioner? Is a question properly seen as solely an artifact of the processing of a meat robot or are we to frame it as a stealth bombing from the Absolute via the Cosmic Ego? I don't even know if having a question indicates that I am in need of any answers. I feel like a dummy on a ventriloquist's lap when I ask a question. The dummy is not sentient, can't hear the answer, knows not that it is part of an illusion of sentience created by another illusion of sentience. Gordian Knot time. Edg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 - duveyoung Nisargadatta Wednesday, July 08, 2009 12:58 PM Re: A question from a new member Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > But, exhausted as I am, I'll slog the keyboard. Sigh. > -edg- > > The whole " thing " is extremly simple. Why do you need todo this? If you > are > exhausted then make it short...much much shorter. > -geo- > Writing is an addiction that I am loath to give up. Once the fingers start tippy tapping, I'm owned. Do you have a problem with prolixity in general or has my version of it struck a nerve? Hee hee? As for shorter being better, yeah, it gets stuff into few words and then the onus to define terms moves to front burner. Is that your discourse strategy? What do you mean by " the whole 'thing?' " And how can anything be extremely simply when there's the concept of infinite correlation dive bombing the conversation? Edg I think one must be short to deal with " IT " . Simply: the localized mind of man deals with concepts, memory. The seeing of this complex process IS simplicity. In fact is the most simple thing there is: nothing to do...just see-ing. -geo- avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 090526-0, 26/05/2009 Tested on: 8/7/2009 13:02:34 avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 " geo " <inandor wrote: > I think one must be short to deal with " IT " . > Simply: the localized mind of man deals with concepts, memory. The seeing of > this complex process IS simplicity. In fact is the most simple thing there > is: nothing to do...just see-ing. > -geo- Not sure why you hyphenated " see-ing. " Yeah, it all can be boiled down to " Absolute + Relative. " Is that your main point here/now? Still, it's not simple even then, cuz the intellect is able to always see yet more subtle nuances to include in any act of defining -- endless fractaling, ya see? Just to ask, " Is the Absolute 'the witness' or is amness/soul/small-self the witness? " is a stupifying challenge, methinks. I hold that the witness and the Absolute are the same concept if one is considering " what is the nature of the observer of God's mind? " But if we're talking only about relative values, then I would hold that, in the relative, it's a convenience to speak as if a soul is sentient, an observer. That's useful to accept as a temporary point of view in order to get some clarity about the differences between soul and ego. Yes? Tell me, do you use the word " consciousness " as a synonym for " the witness? " I don't. I think the witness observes consciousness and is beyond consciousness. Edg > > > avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. > Virus Database (VPS): 090526-0, 26/05/2009 > Tested on: 8/7/2009 13:02:34 > avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 - duveyoung Nisargadatta Wednesday, July 08, 2009 1:26 PM Re: A question from a new member " geo " <inandor wrote: > I think one must be short to deal with " IT " . > Simply: the localized mind of man deals with concepts, memory. The seeing > of > this complex process IS simplicity. In fact is the most simple thing there > is: nothing to do...just see-ing. > -geo- Not sure why you hyphenated " see-ing. " Yeah, it all can be boiled down to " Absolute + Relative. " Is that your main point here/now? Still, it's not simple even then, cuz the intellect is able to always see yet more subtle nuances to include in any act of defining -- endless fractaling, ya see? Just to ask, " Is the Absolute 'the witness' or is amness/soul/small-self the witness? " is a stupifying challenge, methinks. I hold that the witness and the Absolute are the same concept if one is considering " what is the nature of the observer of God's mind? " But if we're talking only about relative values, then I would hold that, in the relative, it's a convenience to speak as if a soul is sentient, an observer. That's useful to accept as a temporary point of view in order to get some clarity about the differences between soul and ego. Yes? Tell me, do you use the word " consciousness " as a synonym for " the witness? " I don't. I think the witness observes consciousness and is beyond consciousness. Edg See-ing...ing as in an ongoing act. The intellect can do whatever it wants, but it is just a mechanical process. See-ing is not form the intellect. The fractaling is just seemingly endless...either we are in the hall of mirrors or not. Complex or simple. Illusion or see-ing. Light or darkness. Yea....consciousness can be defined in several manners. I use two: 1- As per Krishnamurti: consciousness is the aspect of the mind that is responsible for the sense of inner separate observer and the periphery it creates. 2- As per Nisargadatta: consciousness is all that is not the ultimate. -geo- 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.