"Now"

michael
Posts: 3816
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2003 12:13 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Post by michael » Thu Dec 20, 2007 10:46 pm

toombaru wrote:It takes a tenth of a second for the brain to assimilate incoming data.

Does that tell you anything?
joy wrote:Yes, it does tell me something: That everything that exists in this universe we walk around in has its counterpart in a higher heaven and earth that precedes it. That split second must come from something.
toombaru wrote:To me it means that what the conceptual entity calls now can never be experienced.

It is always a tenth of a second behind what's happening.
joy wrote:It tells me that matter is an image of The Image. What Image? God's own Self-Image. Split light, holographic universe, images within images, and fractals of Perfection....mirrors of Light (Light is information, and information is thinking, and on down to brain is image of Light).
toombaru wrote:Mind views reality through the prism of presumption.

When thought is saturated in religiosity....it perceives the world of gods and demons. (they come in pairs you know).

There are other......less burdensome ways to travel through the dream.
joy wrote:It tells me that there for sure and certain a perfect, unknowable Ineffable, uncreated One wherein there is no time or space, that there is This One pure Truth, absolute Fact.....It's Imange reflects on down, down, into this matter world by one split nth of a second and which Maple so wisely says, can't be really measured relatively.
toombaru wrote:Mind imagines that there is something that it cannot imagine and calls it god.

The only problem with that is the mind thinks that it has found an answer......when it has found nothing.

It sits back......in its own pseudo-explanation....and relaxes into the assumption that it has grasp reality.
joy wrote:It tells me Something precedes this world and that this world is image of Image. Matter is neither real nor unreal, but appears for good reason....confirmation through personal experience that ever thing and every thought arises out of The First Cause, The First Perfection and Isnesses's Good. It leads us to Self Discovery. This points directly to an Original Before time and space. It tells us not to deny this world, but to follow It and Listen to The Living Light of That which is Being All that is. Matter is after the Fact....The Divine What exists before the image we see. And though the human eyes are apparently incapable of perceiving the What directly.....The Heart of us can perceive It. ...Of this I know.
toombaru wrote:Thinking you know.......is not knowing.

If you think that it is the I that knows......that there is a knowing character "in there".......I have some bad news for you
joy wrote:There is a billionth of a billionth of second between the Real I am and the images I perceive with Awareness, including this one I call 'me'.

You asked....so that's my take on it.

Joy

P.S. Love the Anorexic Model joke, Leo! You’re good!
toombaru wrote:You are your take.

Take that.

Hey...................wanna coffee?
please don't disappoint me toombaru... 8)

please tell me that it is recognised that everything of which 'joy' is accused...

'toombaru' is guilty... 'he' is his 'take' too..

a belief in 'tenth of seconds'...

is just an idea... a concept...

though toombaru avows 'no belief' in scripture... 'his' words deny his denial...

for 'his' words express a strong belief in a certain interpretation of scripture...

but the apparent words themselves are meaningless... 'words' only have the meaning that is 'read into them'... (the 'interpretations' of 'toombaru' are not read into the words from the perspective of 'others' on this board... including joy)....

it also appears that there is the perception that 'science' is not a 'belief'...

that 'tenth of seconds' are 'real'... along with 'awareness being a function of electro-chemical activity in substantial-natural brains'... but these are all concepts...

as jeff pointed out... all language is conceptual... while it is given any 'meaning'...

yet there is another way language can be used... as a symbol for 'this'... 'pure consciousness...

this is not something that can be communicated...

fortunately... it does not need to be communicated... for there is no body to communicate it too... :D

only 'I' (no concept in mind) can recognise that which is being symbolised...

this 'recognition' is not 'conceptual'... it is 'direct'...

so the word 'seeing' is not read as any 'concept' that is explained in other words (other concepts)... but is simply recognised as 'this' (now seeing)...

the words of most scriptures (in amongst the stories) may also be 'read' in this way...

they tell of this glorious reality that only I am aware... awareness itself... that all else is an apparent dream... though it is not really a dream... for there is no sleeping... just this...

'I' am in no need of scripture... or any practice... or sudden insight... to 'be'... or 'be aware'... or to 'recognise the truth'...

it is all 'play'...

the words of science describe the majesty of the dream... they show how the 'forms' of the world are inter-connected... the wonder full complexity arising from simplicity in 'number'...

science can never explain 'consciousness' itself... for it is the knowing that knows the concepts of science... which itself can never be understood...

science cannot explain 'what' 'number' 'is'... or 'form'... or how it is 'known'... or 'what' this 'knowing' 'is'

the words of science can tell nothing of 'meaning'... they cannot... and never will... explain 'grandfather' or 'grandchild'... or the love between them... or any other sensation and how it is sensed...

only 'I' am aware of this 'meaning'... and the 'feelings' of love that are felt one for the other...

only I see how it is all inter-connected... each thing: 'grandchild'... defining the other... 'grandfather'...

though the person who loves... and the person loved... are both pure conceptions... made apparent through sensation...

yet each 'lives'... as 'I' alone experience their apparent lives...

in a very real sense... 'they' live... for 'I' live as them...

as a man who dreams at night (though there is no man)... so it may appear 'I am this body' (in the dream)... meeting other people who (like his own 'dream body') are mere phantoms...

and then on the next night dreaming the same dream from the perspectve of another person in the dream... so when it seems one person speaks to another... the person being spoken to actually hears... though it is not 'their hearing'... but the 'hearing of the one dreaming'...

in the case of a 'man' dreaming it appears these two dreams are separated in 'time'...

in 'reality' (no concept in mind) there is no time... as one appearance 'follows' the other... no time passes... all is ever unchanged...

it all happens now and now and now...

as 'I' experience life from each perspective... what I seem to do to another... I really do to myself... the love I express... I receive... the hate I hold... I endure...

and isn't this too a conception...

how can I 'know' for certian that "I alone experience each life"... if that is not now apparent...

to 'know' this I only have to 'know myself'... not 'conceptually'...

simply knowing that all things are already known... hidden from 'awareness' until imaged...

as 'michael' is conceived... so is toombaru... and leo... and all else..

each 'thing' defined by reference to everything else... ever unchanging...

it is known without doubt that in 'one thing'... all things are known...

though not all things are made apparent in any moment...

through 'awareness' (sensing/sensations and recalling number/form/meaning) the inexhaustible depths of the known are explored and experienced from the pespective of each person in the (conceptual world)... without end... except instantly... as the senses are stilled...

without its 'sensory image'... this knowing known remains as it is... ever hidden in consciousness... with which it is one...

to see that 'I am toombaru'... I only have to see the 'I am michael'... it is all the same... only the appearance and the concepts associated with the appearance differ... and such 'difference' is apparent only...

so the appearance at one apparent moment is "I am michael sitting at his desk" and the appearance at another 'apparent moment' is "I am toombaru playing with my grandchild"...

but it is all appearance... sensations sensed and number form and meaning known...

the known is the invisible image of invisible God (no concept in mind)... one with the knowing of it...

'god' (as conceived) only appears as 'creatures' appear... for such 'god' is defined by reference to 'his creation'... such 'god' is a pure conception...

though all names are mine (including God)... in and of myself I am without name...

for I cannot conceive 'who' I am...

'I' do not know what 'knowing' and 'number/form/meaning'... 'is'... 'in essence'... or 'what'... 'seeing colour'... 'is' ... or 'what' any other 'aspect' of this 'conscious wholeness that I am'... 'is'... including this 'intelligent power' that instantly recalls number form and meaning... and which patterns these sensations in accord with it... to manifest this apparent play...

nor do I know how I came to be... for there is no time in which I was not... nor any time passing in which I will no longer be...

beginningless... endless...

this 'I' is the same 'I' that sees life from the perspective of 'toombaru' and 'joy' and 'michael' and 'leo'... from every perspective...

it is recognised in the words of 'toombaru'... and it is recognised in the words of 'joy'... not in their 'meaning'... but in their symbolism...

as all concepts are dropped... 'you' are not...

yet here I am...

the one reading these words... who alone 'is' (no concept in mind)

wonder full...

Love
Last edited by michael on Thu Dec 20, 2007 10:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
From Source to Source: an Endless Spring
awakening
Site Admin
Posts: 2277
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2005 7:10 pm

Post by awakening » Thu Dec 20, 2007 10:52 pm

annaruiz wrote:Hey, did you all forget something?

In the vast no-thing-ness of the universe, contains the seed of everything
to be known and experienced, relatively speaking that is. :lol:

Love!

Anna
Of course Anna...
Only relatively speaking
- from an assumed reference point 'within' -
can the universe be seen as vast...

and it can also fit in space
smaller than the head of a pin... :D

annaruiz
Posts: 385
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 9:18 pm
Location: Ohio

Post by annaruiz » Thu Dec 20, 2007 11:15 pm

smaller than the <<dot>> above an i ?

Love to All,
All to Love,
In Love,
Anna
toombaru
Posts: 5189
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 9:02 pm
Location: There are no locations

Post by toombaru » Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:02 am

Anorexic Model joke, Leo! You’re good!
toombaru wrote:You are your take.

Take that.

Hey...................wanna coffee?
please don't disappoint me toombaru... 8)

please tell me that it is recognised that everything of which 'joy' is accused...

'toombaru' is guilty... 'he' is his 'take' too..[/quote]







Of course,

Toombaru is nothing other than "his take on"things'".

That is the Understanding that breaks the spell.










a belief in 'tenth of seconds'...

is just an idea... a concept...

though toombaru avows 'no belief' in scripture... 'his' words deny his denial...

for 'his' words express a strong belief in a certain interpretation of scripture...








All scripture is speculation relative to a pseudo-identity....any interpretation only magnifies the original confusion.







but the apparent words themselves are meaningless... 'words' only have the meaning that is 'read into them'... (the 'interpretations' of 'toombaru' are not read into the words from the perspective of 'others' on this board... including joy)....



Within the Land of Selfs.......there is no agreement......on anything.

How could there be?



it also appears that there is the perception that 'science' is not a 'belief'...

that 'tenth of seconds' are 'real'... along with 'awareness being a function of electro-chemical activity in substantial-natural brains'... but these are all concepts...











Concepts that can be repeated and verified upon which a consensus is possible.

There is nothing of substance in any religious speculation.



as jeff pointed out... all language is conceptual... while it is given any 'meaning'...



Concepts can point to something substantial and concepts can point to something imaginary.

When mind confuses the two.....confusion and fear are the result.




yet there is another way language can be used... as a symbol for 'this'... 'pure consciousness...



The conceptual mind comes up with something like "pure consciousness" and assumes that there is such a thing.

That is thinking......thinking...that it is doing the thinking.





this is not something that can be communicated...



If it can't be thought about.......it is never accessable to the mind.



fortunately... it does not need to be communicated... for there is no body to communicate it too... :D




(Laughing face)







only 'I' (no concept in mind) can recognize that which is being symbolised...





"I" is the mother of all concepts.




this 'recognition' is not 'conceptual'... it is 'direct'...

so the word 'seeing' is not read as any 'concept' that is explained in other words (other concepts)... but is simply recognized as 'this' (now seeing)...




That's all good and well.......until the phantom latches on and tries to make that understanding its own.











the words of most scriptures (in amongst the stories) may also be 'read' in this way...

they tell of this glorious reality that only I am aware... awareness itself... that all else is an apparent dream... though it is not really a dream... for there is no sleeping... just this...





Looking in scripture for the ultimate understanding is like searching shadows for something to eat........It might accidently stumble on something eatable......but it won't sustain life for long.









'I' am in no need of scripture... or any practice... or sudden insight... to 'be'... or 'be aware'... or to 'recognize the truth'...



As long as you believe there is an I that is not in need......you are lost.













it is all 'play'...

the words of science describe the majesty of the dream... they show how the 'forms' of the world are inter-connected... the wonder full complexity arising from simplicity in 'number'...

science can never explain 'consciousness' itself... for it is the knowing that knows the concepts of science... which itself can never be understood...

science cannot explain 'what' 'number' 'is'... or 'form'... or how it is 'known'... or 'what' this 'knowing' 'is'


Science, unlike religion, claims no ultimate answers and always subject to peer review.

Religion is content to say, "That's the way God did it". and relax into lethargy.











the words of science can tell nothing of 'meaning'... they cannot... and never will... explain 'grandfather' or 'grandchild'... or the love between them... or any other sensation and how it is sensed...

only 'I' am aware of this 'meaning'... and the 'feelings' of love that are felt one for the other...






Science has a lot of research on "love'.

Check it out.

What does religion have to say about "love"?









only I see how it is all inter-connected... each thing: 'grandchild'... defining the other... 'grandfather'...

though the person who loves... and the person loved... are both pure conceptions... made apparent through sensation...

yet each 'lives'... as 'I' alone experience their apparent lives...

in a very real sense... 'they' live... for 'I' live as them...





Agreed.




as a man who dreams at night (though there is no man)... so it may appear 'I am this body' (in the dream)... meeting other people who (like his own 'dream body') are mere phantoms...

and then on the next night dreaming the same dream from the perspective of another person in the dream... so when it seems one person speaks to another... the person being spoken to actually hears... though it is not 'their hearing'... but the 'hearing of the one dreaming'...

in the case of a 'man' dreaming it appears these two dreams are separated in 'time'...

in 'reality' (no concept in mind) there is no time... as one appearance 'follows' the other... no time passes... all is ever unchanged...

it all happens now and now and now...

as 'I' experience life from each perspective... what I seem to do to another... I really do to myself... the love I express... I receive... the hate I hold... I endure...










Agreed.








and isn't this too a conception...






Of course it is.....there is nothing else available to the "mind".





how can I 'know' for certain that "I alone experience each life"... if that is not now apparent...

to 'know' this I only have to 'know myself'... not 'conceptually'...

simply knowing that all things are already known... hidden from 'awareness' until imaged...

as 'michael' is conceived... so is toombaru... and leo... and all else..

each 'thing' defined by reference to everything else... ever unchanging...

it is known without doubt that in 'one thing'... all things are known...

though not all things are made apparent in any moment...














That all may be true.........but who are you going to talk to about it?













through 'awareness' (sensing/sensations and recalling number/form/meaning) the inexhaustible depths of the known are explored and experienced from the pespective of each person in the (conceptual world)... without end... except instantly... as the senses are stilled...

without its 'sensory image'... this knowing known remains as it is... ever hidden in consciousness... with which it is one...

to see that 'I am toombaru'... I only have to see the 'I am michael'... it is all the same... only the appearance and the concepts associated with the appearance differ... and such 'difference' is apparent only...

so the appearance at one apparent moment is "I am michael sitting at his desk" and the appearance at another 'apparent moment' is "I am toombaru playing with my grandchild"...

but it is all appearance... sensations sensed and number form and meaning known...

the known is the invisible image of invisible God (no concept in mind)... one with the knowing of it...

'god' (as conceived) only appears as 'creatures' appear... for such 'god' is defined by reference to 'his creation'... such 'god' is a pure conception...

though all names are mine (including God)... in and of myself I am without name...

for I cannot conceive 'who' I am...

'I' do not know what 'knowing' and 'number/form/meaning'... 'is'... 'in essence'... or 'what'... 'seeing colour'... 'is' ... or 'what' any other 'aspect' of this 'conscious wholeness that I am'... 'is'... including this 'intelligent power' that instantly recalls number form and meaning... and which patterns these sensations in accord with it... to manifest this apparent play...

nor do I know how I came to be... for there is no time in which I was not... nor any time passing in which I will no longer be...

beginningless... endless...

this 'I' is the same 'I' that sees life from the perspective of 'toombaru' and 'joy' and 'michael' and 'leo'... from every perspective...

it is recognised in the words of 'toombaru'... and it is recognised in the words of 'joy'... not in their 'meaning'... but in their symbolism...

as all concepts are dropped... 'you' are not...

yet here I am...

the one reading these words... who alone 'is' (no concept in mind)

wonder full...

Love[/quote] :roll:









So............................Coffee?






toombaru
Last edited by toombaru on Fri Dec 21, 2007 3:27 am, edited 1 time in total.
maple3
Posts: 1065
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2004 4:25 am
Location: St. Louis, Missouri, USA

Re: "Now"

Post by maple3 » Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:39 am

awakening wrote:
maple3 wrote:
awakening wrote:
maple3 wrote: But here's another question (perhaps rhetorical?) ...
Does the tube worm (known as toombaru) KNOW that he knows that the other tube worms don't KNOW? :-k

And a couple more questions (rhetorical?)...
Does the tube worm (known as toombaru) KNOW that he's totally making up that bit about "a tenth of a second." And finally, if he KNOWs that he doesn't know, how does he KNOW that? :?
No, the tube worm does not know
it is part of the known....

:wink:
But Leo, haven't you (or someone?) often said that the knowing, the known and the knower, are all one and the same? :-k


Love
Perhaps Maple... although at this moment I'd prefer to say that there is 'knowing' which aparently is 'made up' by its two components 'the knower' and 'the known.'
When I wrote "knower" I probably had something else in mind... but not an actual "knower,"(just like there is no actual "doer" of the "deed")… but whatever I thought I was pointing at... oh well, it’s gone now. :roll:
awakening wrote:But whatever I say, when using words I'm stuck with apparently cutting it up in this duality or trinity...
Gosh, I happen to like the way you slice and dice, so have at it... [ok]
awakening wrote:To talk about oneness appears already as a contradiction...as there is nothing outside ones to talk about IT or to contradict IT...yet here i am..taking the bait once again...or so it seems. :wink:
And while I will admit to ocassionally "baiting" you... (because I do especially like the way you bite and write :D), "contradictions" are much less often my motivation these days. ;)


Love
awakening
Site Admin
Posts: 2277
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2005 7:10 pm

Post by awakening » Fri Dec 21, 2007 8:27 am

annaruiz wrote:smaller than the <<dot>> above an i ?

Love to All,
All to Love,
In Love,
Anna
:lol: :lol: :lol:
awakening
Site Admin
Posts: 2277
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2005 7:10 pm

Re: "Now"

Post by awakening » Fri Dec 21, 2007 8:32 am

maple3 wrote: And while I will admit to ocassionally "baiting" you... (because I do especially like the way you bite and write :D), "contradictions" are much less often my motivation these days. ;)


Love
With the transition
from apparent serious seeking
to an often humorous clarity
you'd almost have me admit
to the realness of the passing of time Maple... :D


Lydian
Posts: 390
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 1:12 pm
Location: UK

Post by Lydian » Fri Dec 21, 2007 9:50 am

Lydian wrote:NOW (meaning THIS as opposed to a fragment of time) is all there is!

The conceptual “conceptual entity” arises in/as THIS along with ideas about linear time, tenths of seconds etc....

But it’s all appearance..... arising NOW (THIS).....

Rendering........

To me it means that what the conceptual entity calls now can never be experienced.

It is always a tenth of a second behind what's happening
.”

..........meaningless!
There seems to be a mixing up of 'perspectives' in many your recent posts - sometimes known as Advaita shuffle.

In consensual everyday expression we afford the past a certain reality, this being practical for apparent interaction between separate entities existing in time. So, 'tenths of seconds' and other such theories are quite acceptable and plausible within this story.

On the other hand, if the separate entity is 'seen through'..... if separation is 'seen through'.... then reality is 'seen' to be without parts...... no two-ness, just THIS arising as it is.....

No experiecERS can be found - only experiENCE...... which arises NOW (THIS).

The 'tenth of a second' theory is only meaningful within the story of separate entities.

.
michael
Posts: 3816
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2003 12:13 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Post by michael » Fri Dec 21, 2007 9:56 am

Lydian wrote:
Lydian wrote:NOW (meaning THIS as opposed to a fragment of time) is all there is!

The conceptual “conceptual entity” arises in/as THIS along with ideas about linear time, tenths of seconds etc....

But it’s all appearance..... arising NOW (THIS).....

Rendering........

To me it means that what the conceptual entity calls now can never be experienced.

It is always a tenth of a second behind what's happening
.”

..........meaningless!
There seems to be a mixing up of 'perspectives' in many your recent posts - sometimes known as Advaita shuffle.

In consensual everyday expression we afford the past a certain reality, this being practical for apparent interaction between separate entities existing in time. So, 'tenths of seconds' and other such theories are quite acceptable and plausible within this story.

On the other hand, if the separate entity is 'seen through'..... if separation is 'seen through'.... then reality is 'seen' to be without parts...... no two-ness, just THIS arising as it is.....

No experiecERS can be found - only experiENCE...... which arises NOW (THIS).

The 'tenth of a second' theory is only meaningful within the story of separate entities.

.
:D
From Source to Source: an Endless Spring
michael
Posts: 3816
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2003 12:13 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Post by michael » Fri Dec 21, 2007 11:41 am

michael wrote:please don't disappoint me toombaru... 8)

please tell me that it is recognised that everything of which 'joy' is accused...

'toombaru' is guilty... 'he' is his 'take' too..
toombaru wrote:Of course,

Toombaru is nothing other than "his take on"things'".

That is the Understanding that breaks the spell.
so far so good... :D
michael wrote:a belief in 'tenth of seconds'...

is just an idea... a concept...

though toombaru avows 'no belief' in scripture... 'his' words deny his denial...

for 'his' words express a strong belief in a certain interpretation of scripture...
toombaru wrote:All scripture is speculation relative to a pseudo-identity....any interpretation only magnifies the original confusion.
and yet from the perspective of toombaru it appears it is being interpreted as referring to a 'separate god'... :roll: 'magnifying the confusion no doubt :wink:
michael wrote:but the apparent words themselves are meaningless... 'words' only have the meaning that is 'read into them'... (the 'interpretations' of 'toombaru' are not read into the words from the perspective of 'others' on this board... including joy)....
toombaru wrote:within the Land of Selfs.......there is no agreement......on anything.

How could there be?
if the 'Land of Selfs' refers to 'separate selfs'... of course there can be no agreement... for none such 'Selfs' exist.... except as concepts
michael wrote:it also appears that there is the perception that 'science' is not a 'belief'...

that 'tenth of seconds' are 'real'... along with 'awareness being a function of electro-chemical activity in substantial-natural brains'... but these are all concepts...
toombaru wrote:Concepts that can be repeated and verified upon which a consensus is possible.
'consensus'... now there is a concept of duality if ever there was one! :shock:
toombaru wrote:There is nothing of substance in any religious speculation.
just as toombaru appears to write 'from his persepctive' of this wondrous insight... so it has ever been recorded in words... from the perspective of others...

in words that speak from 'the heart' to 'the heart'... words that cannot be understood conceptually...

and yet... as the viewpoint of a 'creature'... or a 'separate awareness' is 'let go'...

what they symbolise is so plain...

within the apparent world... it appears that 'many/most' people interpret the scriptures 'conceptually'... 'literally'... 'apparently magnifying the apparent confusion...

but there are no 'separate people'...

just as there is no 'toombaru'...

just 'thoughts' and 'words' experienced in awareness 'from toombaru's perspective'... where the words (of scripture) are apparently given meaning (interpreted in a way)... that was not in awareness when the words were first apparently spoken or written (from the perspective of the 'person' whose insight they are said to express)...

"seeming to magnify the confusion"... from the perspective of toombaru... 8)

a bit like reading 'toombaru's words' from another perspective and interpreting them in a way that is not in mind as they are written...

which is why I spent some time exploring 'toombaru's viewpoint'... to get at the nub of 'his words'...

if it appears there is any 'mis-interpretation'... I'm sure you'll let me know... :D
michael wrote:as jeff pointed out... all language is conceptual... while it is given any 'meaning'...
toombaru wrote:Concepts can point to something substantial and concepts can point to something imaginary.
all concepts are 'imaginary'...

it is as 'easy' to experience 'fairies at the bottom of the garden'... as it is to measure the spin of a quark.

your 'nightly dreams' should tell you this!

it is only within this story that the one appears 'unreal'... and the other 'real'...

science deals only with the story... 'relations between apparent things in the dream'... it can never say anything at all about 'what' it is... or 'how' it is... or the nature of awareness... seeing/colour... or any of the other senses/sensations... or this knowing/known...
toombaru wrote:When mind confuses the two.....confusion and fear are the result.
when it appears that science is confused with 'reality'... it seems confusion and fear are the result...
michael wrote:yet there is another way language can be used... as a symbol for 'this'... 'pure consciousness...
toombaru wrote:The conceptual mind comes up with something like "pure consciousness" and assumes that there is such a thing.
yes... but the only 'place' that concept is... is in awareness... so drop it... :D
toombaru wrote:That is thinking......thinking...that it is doing the thinking.
so stop thinking... though of course 'toombaru' cannot... for 'he' is 'his thoughts'... :roll:
michael wrote:this is not something that can be communicated...
toombaru wrote:If it can't be thought about.......it is never accessable to the mind.
exactly... so stop trying to interpret the words of scripture conceptually... though you can't of course...
michael wrote:fortunately... it does not need to be communicated... for there is no body to communicate it too... :D
toombaru wrote:(Laughing face)
thank heavens for that! :D
michael wrote:only 'I' (no concept in mind) can recognize that which is being symbolised...
toombaru wrote:"I" is the mother of all concepts.
there is no belief that any 'person' holds such a concept...

so drop it...

stop reading concepts into 'symbols' that are given no conceptual meaning as the words are apparenty written...

this is not addressed to 'toombaru' of course... :D

but to this one reading the words... as toombaru...

this same awareness that experiences the writing of these words...

the same... not different...
michael wrote:this 'recognition' is not 'conceptual'... it is 'direct'...

so the word 'seeing' is not read as any 'concept' that is explained in other words (other concepts)... but is simply recognized as 'this' (now seeing)...
toombaru wrote:That's all good and well.......until the phantom latches on and tries to make that understanding its own.
the phantom can do nothing... it is only your own thoughts that make it appear to be in control...
michael wrote:the words of most scriptures (in amongst the stories) may also be 'read' in this way...

they tell of this glorious reality that only I am aware... awareness itself... that all else is an apparent dream... though it is not really a dream... for there is no sleeping... just this...
toombaru wrote:Looking in scripture for the ultimate understanding is like searching shadows for something to eat........It might accidently stumble on something eatable......but it won't sustain life for long.
the point of scripture is not to find anything... it is simply read from this perspective as a joyous account of this same insight that is ever present...

there are no words or practices or any other devices that can bring this insight...

it is ever present...

it only appears to be covered over as the 'appearance' is taken for reality...

but this is only an appearance... for these sensations are never mistaken for anything other than the sensations they are... nor is any concept recalled... mistaken for another concept... it is known perfectly in the moment it is imaged... telling the story... to perfection...

and yet... as if by magic... the phantom appears...

how wonder full
michael wrote:'I' am in no need of scripture... or any practice... or sudden insight... to 'be'... or 'be aware'... or to 'recognize the truth'...
toombaru wrote:As long as you believe there is an I that is not in need......you are lost.
there is no 'person' to be lost... the word 'I' carries no conceptual content... it is a 'placeholder'... a 'symbol'... in a sentence that has no meaning... unless it is given meaning in awareness...

and whtaever meaning that is... is not the meaning that 'someone else intended'... there are no 'someone elses'... :shock:

but only as the story requires is the idea dropped that the word refers to a concept...

so conceive on dear One... :D
michael wrote:it is all 'play'...

the words of science describe the majesty of the dream... they show how the 'forms' of the world are inter-connected... the wonder full complexity arising from simplicity in 'number'...

science can never explain 'consciousness' itself... for it is the knowing that knows the concepts of science... which itself can never be understood...

science cannot explain 'what' 'number' 'is'... or 'form'... or how it is 'known'... or 'what' this 'knowing' 'is'
toombaru wrote:Science, unlike religion, claims no ultimate answers and always subject to peer review.
STOP... seeing the world from the perspective of the 'creature'... you are not 'toombaru'... there is no 'toombaru' and there are no 'peers'... except as imagined
toombaru wrote:Religion is content to say, "That's the way God did it". and relax into lethargy.
that is only how it appears... when the words are read from the perspective of the creature... though where this 'lethargy' idea came from (especially given the 'protestant work ethic' 8) )... heaven only knows :D

or perhaps this 'lethargy' is about 'giving up the search'... hmmm

there are no 'others' to 'relax into lethargy'... all others are a part of the apparent dream of 'duality'...

this forum is not about 'duality'... it is simply a 'place' in awareness... where the recognition of awareness is celebrated... no 'others' are invited... :D
michael wrote:the words of science can tell nothing of 'meaning'... they cannot... and never will... explain 'grandfather' or 'grandchild'... or the love between them... or any other sensation and how it is sensed...

only 'I' am aware of this 'meaning'... and the 'feelings' of love that are felt one for the other...
toombaru wrote:Science has a lot of research on "love'.

Check it out.
not worth the effort... even apparent effort 8) ... whatever science appears to say about 'love' is purely conceptual...
michael wrote:What does religion have to say about "love"?
it says I am Love... (no concept in mind)
michael wrote:only I see how it is all inter-connected... each thing: 'grandchild'... defining the other... 'grandfather'...

though the person who loves... and the person loved... are both pure conceptions... made apparent through sensation...

yet each 'lives'... as 'I' alone experience their apparent lives...

in a very real sense... 'they' live... for 'I' live as them...
toombaru wrote:Agreed.
thank heavens for that... I was beginning to think there may have been two of us in here... :wink:
michael wrote:as a man who dreams at night (though there is no man)... so it may appear 'I am this body' (in the dream)... meeting other people who (like his own 'dream body') are mere phantoms...

and then on the next night dreaming the same dream from the perspective of another person in the dream... so when it seems one person speaks to another... the person being spoken to actually hears... though it is not 'their hearing'... but the 'hearing of the one dreaming'...

in the case of a 'man' dreaming it appears these two dreams are separated in 'time'...

in 'reality' (no concept in mind) there is no time... as one appearance 'follows' the other... no time passes... all is ever unchanged...

it all happens now and now and now...

as 'I' experience life from each perspective... what I seem to do to another... I really do to myself... the love I express... I receive... the hate I hold... I endure...
toombaru wrote:Agreed.
michael wrote:and isn't this too a conception...
toombaru wrote:of course it is.....there is nothing else available to the "mind".
michael wrote:how can I 'know' for certain that "I alone experience each life"... if that is not now apparent...

to 'know' this I only have to 'know myself'... not 'conceptually'...

simply knowing that all things are already known... hidden from 'awareness' until imaged...

as 'michael' is conceived... so is toombaru... and leo... and all else..

each 'thing' defined by reference to everything else... ever unchanging...

it is known without doubt that in 'one thing'... all things are known...

though not all things are made apparent in any moment...
toombaru wrote:That all may be true.........but who are you going to talk to about it?
no 'others' of course...

and yet... as it appears I am experiencing life as michael... here I am talking as michael to toombaru

and as it appears I am experiencing life as toombaru... here I am talking as toombaru to michael...

the words seen from both perspectives... though not at the same time...

and so it appears I am having a conversation with 'another'... though it is appearance only... a wonder full play... that appears... and ends... in an instant
michael wrote:through 'awareness' (sensing/sensations and recalling number/form/meaning) the inexhaustible depths of the known are explored and experienced from the pespective of each person in the (conceptual world)... without end... except instantly... as the senses are stilled...

without its 'sensory image'... this knowing known remains as it is... ever hidden in consciousness... with which it is one...

to see that 'I am toombaru'... I only have to see the 'I am michael'... it is all the same... only the appearance and the concepts associated with the appearance differ... and such 'difference' is apparent only...

so the appearance at one apparent moment is "I am michael sitting at his desk" and the appearance at another 'apparent moment' is "I am toombaru playing with my grandchild"...

but it is all appearance... sensations sensed and number form and meaning known...

the known is the invisible image of invisible God (no concept in mind)... one with the knowing of it...

'god' (as conceived) only appears as 'creatures' appear... for such 'god' is defined by reference to 'his creation'... such 'god' is a pure conception...

though all names are mine (including God)... in and of myself I am without name...

for I cannot conceive 'who' I am...

'I' do not know what 'knowing' and 'number/form/meaning'... 'is'... 'in essence'... or 'what'... 'seeing colour'... 'is' ... or 'what' any other 'aspect' of this 'conscious wholeness that I am'... 'is'... including this 'intelligent power' that instantly recalls number form and meaning... and which patterns these sensations in accord with it... to manifest this apparent play...

nor do I know how I came to be... for there is no time in which I was not... nor any time passing in which I will no longer be...

beginningless... endless...

this 'I' is the same 'I' that sees life from the perspective of 'toombaru' and 'joy' and 'michael' and 'leo'... from every perspective...

it is recognised in the words of 'toombaru'... and it is recognised in the words of 'joy'... not in their 'meaning'... but in their symbolism...

as all concepts are dropped... 'you' are not...

yet here I am...

the one reading these words... who alone 'is' (no concept in mind)

wonder full...

Love
toombaru wrote::roll: So............................Coffee?
you keep offering... but I don't see any move to make me a cup... :D

but don't worry... I've got One here

we share it... :D

Love
From Source to Source: an Endless Spring
toombaru
Posts: 5189
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 9:02 pm
Location: There are no locations

Post by toombaru » Fri Dec 21, 2007 5:34 pm

Lydian wrote:
Lydian wrote:NOW (meaning THIS as opposed to a fragment of time) is all there is!

The conceptual “conceptual entity” arises in/as THIS along with ideas about linear time, tenths of seconds etc....

But it’s all appearance..... arising NOW (THIS).....

Rendering........

To me it means that what the conceptual entity calls now can never be experienced.

It is always a tenth of a second behind what's happening
.”

..........meaningless!
There seems to be a mixing up of 'perspectives' in many your recent posts - sometimes known as Advaita shuffle.

In consensual everyday expression we afford the past a certain reality, this being practical for apparent interaction between separate entities existing in time. So, 'tenths of seconds' and other such theories are quite acceptable and plausible within this story.

On the other hand, if the separate entity is 'seen through'..... if separation is 'seen through'.... then reality is 'seen' to be without parts...... no two-ness, just THIS arising as it is.....

No experiecERS can be found - only experiENCE...... which arises NOW (THIS).

The 'tenth of a second' theory is only meaningful within the story of separate entities.

.

a bow



toombaru
michael
Posts: 3816
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2003 12:13 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Post by michael » Sat Dec 22, 2007 12:32 am

toombaru wrote:
Lydian wrote:
Lydian wrote:NOW (meaning THIS as opposed to a fragment of time) is all there is!

The conceptual “conceptual entity” arises in/as THIS along with ideas about linear time, tenths of seconds etc....

But it’s all appearance..... arising NOW (THIS).....

Rendering........

To me it means that what the conceptual entity calls now can never be experienced.

It is always a tenth of a second behind what's happening
.”

..........meaningless!
There seems to be a mixing up of 'perspectives' in many your recent posts - sometimes known as Advaita shuffle.

In consensual everyday expression we afford the past a certain reality, this being practical for apparent interaction between separate entities existing in time. So, 'tenths of seconds' and other such theories are quite acceptable and plausible within this story.

On the other hand, if the separate entity is 'seen through'..... if separation is 'seen through'.... then reality is 'seen' to be without parts...... no two-ness, just THIS arising as it is.....

No experiecERS can be found - only experiENCE...... which arises NOW (THIS).

The 'tenth of a second' theory is only meaningful within the story of separate entities.

.

a bow



toombaru
of course the reason only 'experiencing' is 'found'... is that 'experiencing' is formed of sensations that are sensed and concepts that are known...

it is only the appearance that appears...

while sensing and knowing cannot be found anywhere... cause it cannot be sensed or known... 8)

and yet... so plain :D

Love
From Source to Source: an Endless Spring
Post Reply