Guest guest Posted August 8, 2009 Report Share Posted August 8, 2009 - Tim G. Nisargadatta Saturday, August 08, 2009 4:52 PM Re: In Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Saturday, August 08, 2009 2:18 PM > Re: In Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " > <dan330033@> wrote: > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > The past is not in a relationship with " what is. " > > > > > > " What is " is not divided into portions or segments. > > > > > > The person that is of the past, the mode of experiencing that is of > > > the past, cannot touch the actual living present that is who one > > > truly is. > > > > > > - Dan > > > > This past-based 'mode of experiencing' is, of course, not continuous. > > > > For example, one may " get into " a piece of music and forget about time > > altogether. > > Yes. > > With " full absorption " there is no sense of being absorbed, no starting or > ending point of it. It is primordial non-division. > > One is the music, one is the hearing of it, and that which hears is the > music. > > In this sense, nothing is happening, nothing was heard. > > -- D -- > > No. In this kind of absortion there is a temporary " absent-mindness " , but > then all comes back and the imagined center is there again. > -geo- What are you saying " no " to, above? All I said was that the imaginary center isn't continuous, and Dan agreed. And you then said " no " , and agreed with us as well (?). = Sorry..sorry...sorry...sorry..sorry. You are right. -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Saturday, August 08, 2009 2:18 PM > Re: In Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " > <dan330033@> wrote: > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > The past is not in a relationship with " what is. " > > > > > > " What is " is not divided into portions or segments. > > > > > > The person that is of the past, the mode of experiencing that is of > > > the past, cannot touch the actual living present that is who one > > > truly is. > > > > > > - Dan > > > > This past-based 'mode of experiencing' is, of course, not continuous. > > > > For example, one may " get into " a piece of music and forget about time > > altogether. > > Yes. > > With " full absorption " there is no sense of being absorbed, no starting or > ending point of it. It is primordial non-division. > > One is the music, one is the hearing of it, and that which hears is the > music. > > In this sense, nothing is happening, nothing was heard. > > -- D -- > > No. In this kind of absortion there is a temporary " absent-mindness " , but > then all comes back and the imagined center is there again. > -geo- Then it's not " full absorption " is it? - D - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > Tim G. > Nisargadatta > Saturday, August 08, 2009 2:55 PM > Re: In Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " > <dan330033@> wrote: > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > The past is not in a relationship with " what is. " > > > > > > > > " What is " is not divided into portions or segments. > > > > > > > > The person that is of the past, the mode of experiencing that is of > > > > the past, cannot touch the actual living present that is who one > > > > truly is. > > > > > > > > - Dan > > > > > > This past-based 'mode of experiencing' is, of course, not continuous. > > > > > > For example, one may " get into " a piece of music and forget about time > > > altogether. > > > > Yes. > > > > With " full absorption " there is no sense of being absorbed, no starting or > > ending point of it. It is primordial non-division. > > > > One is the music, one is the hearing of it, and that which hears is the > > music. > > > > In this sense, nothing is happening, nothing was heard. > > > > > > -- D -- > > Well said... I like the example of music as well, as it tends to have a > flowing quality that 'creates absorption' through its obvious non-staticity > (in contrast to an objectified 'me' or 'you'). > > == > For some time the senses are fulfilled, the self forgoten....one is in > company of the predilect toy. Some minutes later the imagined observer is > there s if never had left. That is just an experience. > -geo- Geo - I used " music " as a metaphor. Tim responded to it as a metaphor. You are treating " music " differently, as a concrete experience that a separate being listens to, gets absorbed to some extent for a while, then disengages from. But what is full absorption? Not with an experience temporarily. But with this moment, as it is, atemporally? - Dan - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Sunday, August 09, 2009 7:23 AM Re: In Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > Tim G. > Nisargadatta > Saturday, August 08, 2009 2:55 PM > Re: In Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " > <dan330033@> wrote: > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > The past is not in a relationship with " what is. " > > > > > > > > " What is " is not divided into portions or segments. > > > > > > > > The person that is of the past, the mode of experiencing that is of > > > > the past, cannot touch the actual living present that is who one > > > > truly is. > > > > > > > > - Dan > > > > > > This past-based 'mode of experiencing' is, of course, not continuous. > > > > > > For example, one may " get into " a piece of music and forget about time > > > altogether. > > > > Yes. > > > > With " full absorption " there is no sense of being absorbed, no starting > > or > > ending point of it. It is primordial non-division. > > > > One is the music, one is the hearing of it, and that which hears is the > > music. > > > > In this sense, nothing is happening, nothing was heard. > > > > > > -- D -- > > Well said... I like the example of music as well, as it tends to have a > flowing quality that 'creates absorption' through its obvious > non-staticity > (in contrast to an objectified 'me' or 'you'). > > == > For some time the senses are fulfilled, the self forgoten....one is in > company of the predilect toy. Some minutes later the imagined observer is > there s if never had left. That is just an experience. > -geo- Geo - I used " music " as a metaphor. Tim responded to it as a metaphor. You are treating " music " differently, as a concrete experience that a separate being listens to, gets absorbed to some extent for a while, then disengages from. But what is full absorption? Not with an experience temporarily. But with this moment, as it is, atemporally? - Dan - I dont understand the metaphor quite well...anyway...if some " kind " of music listening could open the door for the atemporal ground then all one had to do is find some great enjoyment, something very atractive to play with and nothing else. I am sure you dont mean that. -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " <douglasmitch1963@> wrote: > > > > > Doug - > > > > > > > > Thanks, that's good to hear. I appreciate it. > > > > > > > > And I appreciate your self-disclosure, too. > > > > > > > > The truth that we discuss here is intimately involved with death and dying. > > > > > > > > And the truth we discuss is intimately involved with one's own direct experience/awareness. > > > > > > > > The body that we truly are is a movement. > > > > > > > > The body that others identify us as, is an object. > > > > > > > > The movement we are didn't begin when our parents conceived us. > > > > > > > > What do I know directly, as this movement? > > > > > > > > It isn't moving from the past to the future. > > > > > > > > It is a nondivided movement opening up from and as the present moment. > > > > > > > > > > >Isn't the present moment always experienced after it has happened due to the lag time from input to Awareness? In which case the present moment is also really the past? > > Hi Doug - > > Conceptualization of any experience involves an imagined time lag. > > The time lag is " built in " because the process of conceptualization requires an imagined distance between observer and observed. > > The actual present is not the conceptualized present. > > The conceptualized present is an imaginary point between past and future. > > The actual present is not divided into segments, such as past, present, and future. > >Dan, how does one " experience " the undivided present moment as opposed to the conceptualized present moment? Doug > So, yes, the conceptualized present is the past. > > Concept (memory and thought) only refers to the past. > > The past is not in a relationship with " what is. " > > " What is " is not divided into portions or segments. > > The person that is of the past, the mode of experiencing that is of the past, cannot touch the actual living present that is who one truly is. > > - Dan > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " <douglasmitch1963 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " <douglasmitch1963@> wrote: > > > > > > > Doug - > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, that's good to hear. I appreciate it. > > > > > > > > > > And I appreciate your self-disclosure, too. > > > > > > > > > > The truth that we discuss here is intimately involved with death and dying. > > > > > > > > > > And the truth we discuss is intimately involved with one's own direct experience/awareness. > > > > > > > > > > The body that we truly are is a movement. > > > > > > > > > > The body that others identify us as, is an object. > > > > > > > > > > The movement we are didn't begin when our parents conceived us. > > > > > > > > > > What do I know directly, as this movement? > > > > > > > > > > It isn't moving from the past to the future. > > > > > > > > > > It is a nondivided movement opening up from and as the present moment. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Isn't the present moment always experienced after it has happened due to the lag time from input to Awareness? In which case the present moment is also really the past? > > > > Hi Doug - > > > > Conceptualization of any experience involves an imagined time lag. > > > > The time lag is " built in " because the process of conceptualization requires an imagined distance between observer and observed. > > > > The actual present is not the conceptualized present. > > > > The conceptualized present is an imaginary point between past and future. > > > > The actual present is not divided into segments, such as past, present, and future. > > > > > >Dan, how does one " experience " the undivided present moment as opposed to the conceptualized present moment? Doug > Meditation watches the rising and disolving of thoughts/concepts in the apparent present moment. Is this the undivided present moment? Or is it " getting lost in the music " as Tim mentioned? Doug > > > > > So, yes, the conceptualized present is the past. > > > > Concept (memory and thought) only refers to the past. > > > > The past is not in a relationship with " what is. " > > > > " What is " is not divided into portions or segments. > > > > The person that is of the past, the mode of experiencing that is of the past, cannot touch the actual living present that is who one truly is. > > > > - Dan > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 10, 2009 Report Share Posted August 10, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Sunday, August 09, 2009 7:23 AM > Re: In Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " > <dan330033@> wrote: > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > Tim G. > > Nisargadatta > > Saturday, August 08, 2009 2:55 PM > > Re: In Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " > > <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > The past is not in a relationship with " what is. " > > > > > > > > > > " What is " is not divided into portions or segments. > > > > > > > > > > The person that is of the past, the mode of experiencing that is of > > > > > the past, cannot touch the actual living present that is who one > > > > > truly is. > > > > > > > > > > - Dan > > > > > > > > This past-based 'mode of experiencing' is, of course, not continuous. > > > > > > > > For example, one may " get into " a piece of music and forget about time > > > > altogether. > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > With " full absorption " there is no sense of being absorbed, no starting > > > or > > > ending point of it. It is primordial non-division. > > > > > > One is the music, one is the hearing of it, and that which hears is the > > > music. > > > > > > In this sense, nothing is happening, nothing was heard. > > > > > > > > > -- D -- > > > > Well said... I like the example of music as well, as it tends to have a > > flowing quality that 'creates absorption' through its obvious > > non-staticity > > (in contrast to an objectified 'me' or 'you'). > > > > == > > For some time the senses are fulfilled, the self forgoten....one is in > > company of the predilect toy. Some minutes later the imagined observer is > > there s if never had left. That is just an experience. > > -geo- > > Geo - > > I used " music " as a metaphor. > > Tim responded to it as a metaphor. > > You are treating " music " differently, as a concrete experience that a > separate being listens to, gets absorbed to some extent for a while, then > disengages from. > > But what is full absorption? > > Not with an experience temporarily. > > But with this moment, as it is, atemporally? > > - Dan - > > I dont understand the metaphor quite well...anyway...if some " kind " of music > listening could open the door for the atemporal ground then all one had to > do is find some great enjoyment, something very atractive to play with and > nothing else. I am sure you dont mean that. > -geo- Hi Geo - You're right, I don't mean having a certain attitude involved in listening. The listening and the hearing and what is heard are occurring at once, are the same experiential moment. How long does this moment last? It's impossible to say. One could call this " full absorption. " You actually already are fully absorbed. That is why it is not recognized. Listening to music is being used as a metaphor for the sensory now-moment of experience. One is fully absorbed from before the beginning of the trance-like unfolding of the story of a life. To be awake from the trance, understand that one is fully absorbed, from before it ever started (that is, antecedent to time). One can't help being fully absorbed. That is why one's life seems real to oneself. And, it is why it never happened. -- Dan -- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 10, 2009 Report Share Posted August 10, 2009 Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " <douglasmitch1963 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " <douglasmitch1963@> wrote: > > > > > > > Doug - > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, that's good to hear. I appreciate it. > > > > > > > > > > And I appreciate your self-disclosure, too. > > > > > > > > > > The truth that we discuss here is intimately involved with death and dying. > > > > > > > > > > And the truth we discuss is intimately involved with one's own direct experience/awareness. > > > > > > > > > > The body that we truly are is a movement. > > > > > > > > > > The body that others identify us as, is an object. > > > > > > > > > > The movement we are didn't begin when our parents conceived us. > > > > > > > > > > What do I know directly, as this movement? > > > > > > > > > > It isn't moving from the past to the future. > > > > > > > > > > It is a nondivided movement opening up from and as the present moment. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Isn't the present moment always experienced after it has happened due to the lag time from input to Awareness? In which case the present moment is also really the past? > > > > Hi Doug - > > > > Conceptualization of any experience involves an imagined time lag. > > > > The time lag is " built in " because the process of conceptualization requires an imagined distance between observer and observed. > > > > The actual present is not the conceptualized present. > > > > The conceptualized present is an imaginary point between past and future. > > > > The actual present is not divided into segments, such as past, present, and future. > > > > > >Dan, how does one " experience " the undivided present moment as opposed to the conceptualized present moment? Doug Hi Doug - One is experiencing the undivided present moment, because that is what one is. There isn't any experiencer separate from, or other than, this present experiential moment. Can you find one anywhere? One is not experiencing the conceptualized present moment. (If one understands this, it is clear, and there is no need for any further elaboration. However, as I tend to be wordy, I'll elaborate for the heck of it - feel free to skip the rest of this post :-) The conceptualized self and its reality is an image that appears to attempt to draw a sense of reality to itself. It is a rip-off artist. It is what is referred to in the Old Testament as " missing the mark, " or " sin. " It is " taking a graven image as God. " In the New Testament it is referred to as " Satan, " as " the deceiver. " It is referred to as " Mara " in Buddhism, as " Maya " in Hinduism. It is what is referred to as " duality " by many nondual teachers. It is the operation of one's own mind. So, all these teachings are saying, " notice the self-deception, notice the tendency to impart a sense of reality to an image, to the past. " The energy falsely becoming invested in what never is (in an image involving time and self), is the energy of the actual present, the undivided experiential present moment. Understanding within one's own experience, one's own present awareness, is the only " demonstration " of this truth that matters. Not all the holy books or teachers or suggestions make one whit of difference, except to whatever extent they might catalyze this moment of acute awareness. One is never not the undivided present awareness, the experiential now-moment as it is. One has no choice in this. No volition is involved. Hence, any attempt to try to be more present than one is, is the apparent activity of a conceptual center, a being that is not really here. Because it is not here, it can't really do anything. That is why it is simply a matter of being aware. One can't choose this or make it happen, because it already always is so. Trying to make something happen is a form of self-deceit. And even that apparent self-deceit turns out to be an aspect of the present experiential moment. The instant one is clear on this, it is fully clear. Nothing is left out. It is all-inclusive of one's present experience exactly as it is. There is no center to get rid of. There is no image having its own independent existence to draw energy out of the present into a divided reality. - D - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 10, 2009 Report Share Posted August 10, 2009 Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " <douglasmitch1963 wrote: > > > > > > Hi Doug - > > > > > > Conceptualization of any experience involves an imagined time lag. > > > > > > The time lag is " built in " because the process of conceptualization requires an imagined distance between observer and observed. > > > > > > The actual present is not the conceptualized present. > > > > > > The conceptualized present is an imaginary point between past and future. > > > > > > The actual present is not divided into segments, such as past, present, and future. > > > > > > > > > >Dan, how does one " experience " the undivided present moment as opposed to the conceptualized present moment? Doug > > Meditation watches the rising and disolving of thoughts/concepts in the apparent present moment. Is this the undivided present moment? Or is it " getting lost in the music " as Tim mentioned? Doug Hi Doug - There is only one undivided present moment - and this is it. It's not " either this or something else, or maybe this way like someone said, or maybe this other way like someone else said. " It's just as it is. It's already here. It's always now. What is here, now, as this experiential present moment? Unquestionably, it's this now-moment of one's experiencing. One can't not be experiencing what one now is experiencing. One can't not be aware of what one now is aware-ing. - Dan - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 10, 2009 Report Share Posted August 10, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > The conceptualized self and its reality is an image that appears to attempt to draw a sense of reality to itself. > > It is a rip-off artist. > > It is what is referred to in the Old Testament as " missing the mark, " or " sin. " It is " taking a graven image as God. " > > In the New Testament it is referred to as " Satan, " as " the deceiver. " > > It is referred to as " Mara " in Buddhism, as " Maya " in Hinduism. > > It is what is referred to as " duality " by many nondual teachers. There are about ten trillion ways to describe this 'deceiver', as there are ten trillion 'mental deceptions'. In the earlier days here, it became clear that the name of this deceiver is " YOU " . The tendency to believe in something outside awareness, in 'other selves', in 'you's'. Notice the divisiveness around where this word " YOU " is used often. > It is the operation of one's own mind. Exactly. And, as we've talked about, 'the mind' is the configuration of awareness when " other " is involved. 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.