Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969
|
Post by Enigma on Oct 18, 2020 22:06:48 GMT
Very nice. She gets right to the heart of it. I tried to 'explain' how there is no past or future to Marie one time. It was actually pretty humorous. video please! I recall waaaaay back on Pavlina, a link to an online radio show where you talked about Truth....as i recall, you also 'got right to the heart,' and had the most amazing 'radio voice'!!! Oh my, the Spiritually Incorrect radio show. I haven't thought about that in years. That was fun. One listener said I had a "bedroom voice". I had to ask Marie what that meant.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 19, 2020 2:51:23 GMT
video please! I recall waaaaay back on Pavlina, a link to an online radio show where you talked about Truth....as i recall, you also 'got right to the heart,' and had the most amazing 'radio voice'!!! Oh my, the Spiritually Incorrect radio show. I haven't thought about that in years. That was fun. One listener said I had a "bedroom voice". I had to ask Marie what that meant. Hehe....YUP! Much betterer term.
|
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Oct 19, 2020 6:14:11 GMT
Oh my...so clear! And her delivery is the epitome of simple....unconvoluted, unlike so many other nonduality messengers/teachers. (Some nice pointers here on the whole time deal too Laffy). I'll check her out on the couch with Roku at some point. Now, to be clear: refusing to deny time as an illusion is not to give "reality" to "past" or "future".
There is a dynamism to "the Present" .. and movement, motion, change, these are all the appearance of time, in various guises. But the only appearances that are illusions, are those appearances that have been misperceived for what they are not.
|
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969
|
Post by Enigma on Oct 19, 2020 12:19:09 GMT
Oh my, the Spiritually Incorrect radio show. I haven't thought about that in years. That was fun. One listener said I had a "bedroom voice". I had to ask Marie what that meant. Hehe....YUP! Much betterer term.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 20, 2020 2:37:54 GMT
Oh my...so clear! And her delivery is the epitome of simple....unconvoluted, unlike so many other nonduality messengers/teachers. (Some nice pointers here on the whole time deal too Laffy). I'll check her out on the couch with Roku at some point. Now, to be clear: refusing to deny time as an illusion is not to give "reality" to "past" or "future". There is a dynamism to "the Present" .. and movement, motion, change, these are all the appearance of time, in various guises. But the only appearances that are illusions, are those appearances that have been misperceived for what they are not. Seeing mistaken ideas as illusion does not involve 'denial.' Did you mean to imply that the assertion that time is an illusion = 'a denial' of the experience of time? In seeing the Oasis as a mirage, there is not a 'denial' of the oasis, but rather, a seeing of falsity. In terms of overall story/dream, There is indeed the experience of/sense of passage of time but there's not actually a present moment appearance of time itself. Time is not a substantive thing that could appear, but rather, an interpretation of mind. There is no 'denial' involved in realizing separation, and thus, no denial involved in realizing time, volition or causation, as illusion. All of those false ideas are indeed based upon the seeming unfolding nature of the dream/story, but there really is not actual appearance of time per se, because that would give credence to experience arising in some moment other than the present....for time to actually appear, would be the same as saying that separation actually appears. It doesn't, but nevertheless, the idea that there is separation can be very, very compelling.
|
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Oct 20, 2020 5:32:43 GMT
I'll check her out on the couch with Roku at some point. Now, to be clear: refusing to deny time as an illusion is not to give "reality" to "past" or "future". There is a dynamism to "the Present" .. and movement, motion, change, these are all the appearance of time, in various guises. But the only appearances that are illusions, are those appearances that have been misperceived for what they are not. Seeing mistaken ideas as illusion does not involve 'denial.' Did you mean to imply that the assertion that time is an illusion = 'a denial' of the experience of time? In seeing the Oasis as a mirage, there is not a 'denial' of the oasis, but rather, a seeing of falsity. In terms of overall story/dream, There is indeed the experience of/sense of passage of time but there's not actually a present moment appearance of time itself. Time is not a substantive thing that could appear, but rather, an interpretation of mind. There is no 'denial' involved in realizing separation, and thus, no denial involved in realizing time, volition or causation, as illusion. All of those false ideas are indeed based upon the seeming unfolding nature of the dream/story, but there really is not actual appearance of time per se, because that would give credence to experience arising in some moment other than the present....for time to actually appear, would be the same as saying that separation actually appears. It doesn't, but nevertheless, the idea that there is separation can be very, very compelling. First of all let's clear this up: I am the one refusing to say that time is an illusion. So, it appears that you take issue with my use of the word, denial. Sorry, but it's a dwad: to say that time is an illusion isn't substantively different from denying that it's happening.
Mind, in the most general sense of the word, is responsible for the perception of time, yes. But, like space, it is not the individuated mind that creates time, and any description of any sensation, requires time. Time is a pattern as to the way that appearances appear.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 20, 2020 16:12:40 GMT
Seeing mistaken ideas as illusion does not involve 'denial.' Did you mean to imply that the assertion that time is an illusion = 'a denial' of the experience of time? In seeing the Oasis as a mirage, there is not a 'denial' of the oasis, but rather, a seeing of falsity. In terms of overall story/dream, There is indeed the experience of/sense of passage of time but there's not actually a present moment appearance of time itself. Time is not a substantive thing that could appear, but rather, an interpretation of mind. There is no 'denial' involved in realizing separation, and thus, no denial involved in realizing time, volition or causation, as illusion. All of those false ideas are indeed based upon the seeming unfolding nature of the dream/story, but there really is not actual appearance of time per se, because that would give credence to experience arising in some moment other than the present....for time to actually appear, would be the same as saying that separation actually appears. It doesn't, but nevertheless, the idea that there is separation can be very, very compelling. First of all let's clear this up: I am the one refusing to say that time is an illusion. So, it appears that you take issue with my use of the word, denial. Sorry, but it's a dwad: to say that time is an illusion isn't substantively different from denying that it's happening.
Mind, in the most general sense of the word, is responsible for the perception of time, yes. But, like space, it is not the individuated mind that creates time, and any description of any sensation, requires time. Time is a pattern as to the way that appearances appear.
When you say that an appearing sensation 'requires time,' that sounds to me as though you are asserting some kind of fundamental existence to 'time.' "Time and space are imagined, ways of thinking, modes of perception. Only timeless reality is, and it is here and now." Nisargadatta I'm guessing Niz's assertion that time/space are imagined...mere 'ways' of thinking....'modes' of thinking, doesn't exactly resonate with you? For me, he's nailed it; Time is not appearing in the same way that a sensation appears, or that a sense appears, rather, it's imagined into the equation...an overlay of mind, and so long as it's clearly realized/seen as such, then it isn't reified as an an actual arising appearance, but rather, is more just a way of thinking about 'the dream' itself.
|
|
|
Post by someNothing on Oct 21, 2020 20:18:17 GMT
video please! I recall waaaaay back on Pavlina, a link to an online radio show where you talked about Truth....as i recall, you also 'got right to the heart,' and had the most amazing 'radio voice'!!! Oh my, the Spiritually Incorrect radio show. I haven't thought about that in years. That was fun. One listener said I had a "bedroom voice". I had to ask Marie what that meant. Is there a link to these? I'd be interested in hearing them. I know I've listened to 1-2-3 of them many years ago, and found them very cool. There was a guest who seemed to laugh a lot and maybe enjoy challenging spiritually correct mindsets.
Also, I'd be interested to hear the topic that you brought up years back about how there almost seems to be an orderly unfolding of all that is. Not so much orderly to a closed mind per se, but appears suprasensical in hindsight if one is willing to broaden their perspective. Perhaps, for someone, it will jiggle some low-hanging fruit by putting things into perspective. I'd be curious....
|
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Oct 22, 2020 13:35:41 GMT
First of all let's clear this up: I am the one refusing to say that time is an illusion. So, it appears that you take issue with my use of the word, denial. Sorry, but it's a dwad: to say that time is an illusion isn't substantively different from denying that it's happening.
Mind, in the most general sense of the word, is responsible for the perception of time, yes. But, like space, it is not the individuated mind that creates time, and any description of any sensation, requires time. Time is a pattern as to the way that appearances appear.
When you say that an appearing sensation 'requires time,' that sounds to me as though you are asserting some kind of fundamental existence to 'time.' "Time and space are imagined, ways of thinking, modes of perception. Only timeless reality is, and it is here and now." Nisargadatta I'm guessing Niz's assertion that time/space are imagined...mere 'ways' of thinking....'modes' of thinking, doesn't exactly resonate with you? For me, he's nailed it; Time is not appearing in the same way that a sensation appears, or that a sense appears, rather, it's imagined into the equation...an overlay of mind, and so long as it's clearly realized/seen as such, then it isn't reified as an an actual arising appearance, but rather, is more just a way of thinking about 'the dream' itself. You've lost some precision in your paraphrase. What I wrote is that "any description of any sensation, requires time". It's not unimportant. Niz is stating a pointer, and I think another one of his pointer's is that "you must be extreme to reach the supreme". Tolle, by contrast, made a more precise distinction between "clock time", and "psychological time". There is an element of time that is completely created in subjective terms by the individuated mind, yes. We can even wonk-out to some science to see that this even has implications relative to a physical world view. But no, I don't take time as extant, but rather, as I've said, it's a specific kind of appearance: a pattern in the way that appearances appear. Time is no more extant than any other appearance.
If I were to say that Tolle's "clock time" is "actual", I'd be saying what you're reading into what I'm saying, but I'm not. I'm saying that Tolle's "clock time", is a pattern in the way appearances appear. It relates to the way Niz points via the duck/bunny .. .. : psychological time is created by the individuated mind, "clock time" is "created" by what Niz calls "Consciousness" (upper-case "C" is significant), which is the same as saying: "perception, is creation". Most of the dialogs with Raj about creation are about the mechanics of form, relative to Tolle's "clock time", but for me, this is an element of not-knowing that doesn't end. The entirety of eternity and all of creation conspire to the most seemingly insignificant sensation, and there is no "how" or "why" of this, that is effable. This is why I don't join those dialogs. Any "physical world view" has practical applications, but is existentially benighted.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 26, 2020 18:09:35 GMT
You've lost some precision in your paraphrase. What I wrote is that "any description of any sensation, requires time". It's not unimportant. Okay, yeah, that is different, but my answer is still the same as the experience of offering a description, while it may 'seem to' require a moment that moves to even register as an experience, is not an actual unfolding, movement, a 'passage of' time. There IS only NOW. Time is an illusion. It's the same with 'causation,' and I think we had a similar argument, where for you, it is NOT 'an illusion.'
Stuff appears 'sequentially' comprising an ongoing story/dream, but at no point is 'the experience of time' ever anything more than an illusion. Similarly, within the dream, there's an experiential sense of this action 'causing' that, but when we step back to look in clarity, it's clear that nothing in the dream is actually causing anything else to appear in the dream. The seeing of time as an illusion is both a pointer and a seeing of WIBIGO 'in' the dream. The realization of no separation is not required to see that there is no past/no future, beyond mind's present imagining of such....that it's always NOW.
But to see the story in it's entirety is one singular appearance, and that the 'movement' that even has us calling it a story is not actual, is what the pointer/realization that time is an illusion, hinges upon. In short, no separation takes care of 'the experience of', time, revealing it as illusion...Similarly for causation. Both psychological time and clock time are 'in the dream'...talk of such, of either, is mere psychology, not Truth. In terms of 'being conscious about what's happening in the dream,' important indeed, but in terms of seeing what is not actually so, what is Truth, not so much.
|
|