Now: What Does It Mean?

[Gary]

All thought/action is in the "Now". "Now" is by definition
infinitesimally small and without length. I can not conceive of this,
but action must be series of "Now" moments. Series infers time, but
there is only "Now", a seeming manifestation without causality/time.
These statements seem self evident to this mind, but your sense of
things may differ. If "Now" is without time, then who is it that has
a thought? I can't find anyone. Your sense may differ. If there is
only now and mind is a manifestation and not a primary/independent
manifesting intelligence, then there must be pre-destination. I mean
this in the sense that there is no individual "I" of an independent
nature which can be attributed with manifesting thought/action?

Where is my sense of things in error? How can there be free will ..
other than being a limited/misguided perspective?

[Rodger]

There never was a time when there was no time,and now is the only
time,in truth.

Kiss...now is now.So...now...take the time to just let it go,let it be
what it is.

'I can't see anyone'.

I can't see anytwo.Wherever,whenever I look,all I see is me
looking.I...see...me...without separation...looking.And,when I see me
looking,I'm always seen looking now.

Now is never without time...time is always within now.

Mind is the instrument of seeing.
Mind is consciousness,conditioned.
Seeing is conditioned,will is conditioned.
Being conditioned is being limited.
Being limited is being not open,not free, regardless expansion.

Who is it that has a thought? Who is it that has that thought? No one
can be found having that thought because there is no other...only
you,the consciousness that you are.Who is it that might have the
thought,'not so'? Only I can have that thought,whether that I be you
or me.Is this dancing with words?Only I can think so,for who is there
other than I to think so?Only I can have that thought,and I will or
won't have that thought according to conditions...conditioning.In
other words,it's all you.And,now...if...if...I can realize that,I
realize I am that.And,I am realized...as that.

I am myself...now.For there is no other to be,no other to be
independent of/from,and no other time to be, other than now.

There really is no such thing as open mind,no matter how open your
mind may be.And,consciousness is never really unlimited,always being
limited to that which it is.Consciousness can never 'step outside
itself' and be something it is not,mind can never get beyond
itself...it's conditions/conditioning.Unless conditioned to.More word
dancing?Only according to conditions will it be seen as that,or not.

In short,'you' are being lived.You are the living you of the
(conditioned) consciousness you are.You are free to live as you
will,according to the conditions of your will.

Life is a re-flection of itself.And,cannot reflect any other.This is
the ultimate condition.What can I say?Life has it's limits.

Have I stayed on subject,or not? I forgot.

[Ram]

Nice Rodger. Just life dancing, with and without words. Who said it
takes two to dance.

What is now without the concept of now? Only what is, either way with
or without. It can be conceived of as now, but what's the point in
that?

> > other than being a limited/misguided perspective?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[MarkJ]

Hi Gary -

I like how you expressed your thoughts.

Disclaimer: I doubt that you are in error in your seeing of this
living experience but the expression, like everyone's, is still born
once it is expressed and can be found in error/disagreement regardless
of your mastery of symbolism and logic. Since I can only translate
what you are transmitting I will only be able to say that ‘I like how
you said that’ and will be recreating your expression in mind with the
knowledge here and that will most definitely be a misrepresentation.

From here, ‘Now’ in mind is the memory of ‘Now’. To use pointers, to
me ‘Now’ appears to be the ever constant everywhere radiance of
consciousness awareness from nothingness nowhere. By radiance, I only
mean experientially as to me it is everywhere and doesn’t originate or
emanate ‘from’ anywhere. To me, it is just on constantly and I sample
or copy it through the use of mind and thought which is also an aspect
of this. There isn’t anyone there until ‘I’ appear to stand in the
midst of ‘Now’. When I am not there, there is neither ‘Now’ nor the
sampling / copying / memory of ‘Now’. To me, there is no ‘Now’ really
since there really isn’t a ‘Not Now’. ‘Not Now’ is the same memory
used by mind to experience ‘Now’. How else would experience be
possible with out distance from what is being experienced? I can not
see my hand if it is covering my eyes.

I can not fathom the scope of potential expressed as the multiplicity
of appearances, changes, movements and reactions. To attempt to trace
a single experience back to potential would be futile and frustrating
to me. I see ‘Free will’ as the experience of a choice in mind with
amnesia. To me it is a neurosis as every ‘choice’ can be traced back
through the multiplicity of appearances, changes, movements and
reactions to potentiality. Pre-destiny implies a plan to me. I don’t
see a plan. I see the multiplicity of appearances, changes, movements
and reactions as that is all that can be experienced in mind. Mind
holds the idea of plan or destiny or good event or bad event or
evolution or degradation. To me, there is no experience as
potential. To experience, there must be distance. I can not see my
hand if it is covering my eyes.

I experience free will and pre-destiny yet don’t see either as real.

Mark

[Sandeep-Kuber Technologies]

Gary wrote:

All thought/action is in the "Now".

Are they?

  "Now" is by definition
infinitesimally small and without length. 

Infinitesimally small and length-less is still a dimension.

Now is not the thought of now.

 I can not conceive of this,
but action must be series of "Now" moments.  Series infers time, but
there is only "Now", a seeming manifestation without causality/time.
These statements seem self evident to this mind, but your sense of
things may differ.  If "Now" is without time, then who is it that has
a thought? 

Indeed.

And in the absence of the thinker, has there been every any thought........thought?

There has never been a creation in the first place, for a destruction to ever be possible.... prattled the dude in the diaper next to the Arunachala heap of soil.

 

 I can't find anyone.

For whom is this non-finding?

  Your sense may differ.  If there is
only now and mind is a manifestation and not a primary/independent
manifesting intelligence, then there must be pre-destination.  I mean
this in the sense that there is no individual "I" of an independent
nature which can be attributed with manifesting thought/action?
  

In the absence of this "individual I of an independent nature to which can be attributed something/anything".....

....neither does free will hold any meaning......nor does pre-destination .

Where is my sense of things in error? 

No error at all.

Just let it reach the source of it's trend.

 How can there be free will ..
other than being a limited/misguided perspective?
  

The issue of free will or pre-destination arises only on the premise of the existence of an individuated discrete entity.

In the absence of  the latter, both the perspectives.........are what they are.

Mere notions............to thicken the plot.

[Rodger]

'There isn't anyone there until 'I' appear to stand in the midst of
'Now'.'

No one here...until now.
Now here,is the thought of someone there.
But,who could ever be there when I am always here,now?

When am I never not there?
Always.
For,I am always here,now.

'To experience,there must be distance'.

Distance is not real in that distance is not independent of
experience.Distance is experience,or an experience.And,the experience
is here,now.So,to experience there must only be
experience...here,now.To live there must only be life.Life re-flects
itself,creating a seeming distance between itself and it's living.Life
living itself,as Ram says.(So,just move the hand a little further away
from the eyes and you should be fine.I admit,there does...now...appear
to be a distance,but that is just an appearance...the experience.They
come and go.Maybe it's like Richard said...don't believe everything
you think.)

And,that's the plan.Each seed produces after it's own kind.Appearances
come and go.What is born dies.The beat goes on.Or,as Ram might want to
say,the dance continues...whether it is the twist or break dancing.

[MarkJ]

I am here now because I am here.
When I am not here now, I am no where.
Now is here when I am here.
Nothing stands in the place of me here when I am not here.
I don't know where I am when I'm not here now.

distance is just another way to say separation for me.
neither are real but as you say 'distance is experience'
I can not say I without not I.
not I is not real but synonymous with experience.

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Rodger]

Within I is said,not I.
Not I can not be said without I.

When am I ever not here?
Even there,I am here.
And,whether there or here I am always now.

I am...not because,for what cause could be,whether there or here,for I
to be?

So,nothing stands in my place,for only I am standing there and there
is always here,where I stand.

Yes,now is here when I am here.And,now,I am here in every
there,leaving where no place to stand beyond the here that is now.

So,no question about where I am.Or,when I am.Or,why I am.Or,how I am.

But,I was wondering about what's for dinner tonight.

Another now,bro,

Rodger :)

[MarkJ]

When am I ever not here? Never, only in knowing I am here am I here to
me.

When I don't know I am here I am still here, I just don't know it.
Who knows it? Me myself and I.

Definitely no question about where, when, why or how I am.

Dinner is still a potentiality here now.

Mark

[godszen]

free will or no free will is merely perspective

am I not typing these words? (an individual action)

but I'm not seperate from the universe (a universal action)

On Aug 25, 11:04 pm, Gary <contaxg...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Ram]

Free Willy? Who that thing out? Tuck it back in where it belongs.

Reminds me of the two guys taking a pee off the Golden Gate Bridge.
The first guy says "OOh, that water's cold!"
The second guy says "Yeah, and deep too!"

But that was then, and This is now, if you say it is.

:O)

[empty2]

Good godzen!

Some thoughts on now –

Intellectual examination shows that in the perception of objects,
whether material or abstract, no such thing as now can be found, since
there is just an ever-changing flow from one thing to another that
doesn’t stop for even a nano-second. In other words, there is no such
thing as now. The assumption of a now implies the existence of
changelessness for at least a moment of time, – and so we assume the
existence of an unchanging witness by which all else may be perceived
and further assume that the status of now may be proved by means of a
kind of photo-shot of an instant in the passage of things between
future and past, or between a continuously changing manifestation and
the memory of it, which supposedly freezes the momentum so that it may
be called now. Can this be done? I think not. So we are left with the
witness that, without clinging to any of the passing forms before it,
remains empty of form in itself, unchanging, and the only possibility
of now.

Then how can this witness be so easily assumed to exist at all? Only
by assuming some connection to the passing show, - some relevance or
meaning, - which of course creates an identity, and which again has
to be included amongst the objects of perception as a seer, taster,
hearer, toucher and understander etc. Thus the ‘nowness’ which is the
attribute of the witness alone, is obscured in a ding-dong between
subject and object which continue to reflect and change in tandem with
each other, - in perpetual motion.

To use the illustration of a mirror……as the witness it remains itself,
unmoving and forever ‘now’, regardless of whether anything is
apparently reflected in it or not. Reflections may come and go, -
indeed they may never cease, they are never the mirror itself - and
yet somehow the reflection takes upon itself the role of its own
observer, saying ‘Hey, look at me! I am all and I am ever moving.’
Then, looking for now, it will say, ‘Hey, I am myself the unchanging
mirror that is always empty but can only be defined in terms of the
reflections within it, thus I am all and nothing and this is all there
is’………but is ‘I’ the mirror or just another reflection talking? Only
reflections talk!

Like all things, now only has relevance and meaning in relation to its
absence, and thus, like everything else, is just a ridiculous game.

[Rodger]

and merely perspective is merely perspective...a view with
limitations...not independent of conditions or conditioning.

independent action or universal action? merely perspective?

'but i'm not separate from the universe'. a universal perspective,or
an individual one?

if i am not separate from the universe then,where is the
universe...where is it from? what is your perspective,and how was it
determined?

[Rodger]

Thanks,Ram.

What is now without the concept of now? Now is now.And,anyone now
knowing knows what now is.No concept is really needed since now is not
a concept.Now is the word we use to point to or point out the fact
that now is what is.Another word could have been used,of course.But...

Who said it takes two to dance? The image maker,I suppose.

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[MarkJ]

I don't experience 'now'. I experience the remembering of some
immediate ever changing light that I just can't seem to catch. It's
just on the tip of my tongue but I can't quite say it. To merge with
it would be the end of 'me'. 'now' is just a word to me and I don't
know that any other would do better.

Just thought I'd butt in and start trouble. =)

Mark

[Rodger]

Well,if you don't experience now,when do you experience?

[MarkJ]

I experience once the knowledge about what is happening is processed.

Memory is referenced and names are given to the stimulus.

Without that, nothing is happening now.

[Rodger]

I experience.
Without that...

where is process of knowledge?

As I experience,names are given and knowledge is born.Yet no knowledge
available as to 'as I experience'...no memory to reference.Even
so,everything is happening...happening now.

The memory that is referenced is of the knowledge that was born when
names were given to me.I believed,and as I believed,it was so.

[Gary]

There is only "Now"
Memory is experienced "Now"
All is processed "Now"
My mind can't grasp how "Now" appears in time, but it is my mind that
apparently strings many "Now" moments together and calls it time/
process.
Others refer to this process/time/mind as illusion.

This thread seems best with the more poetic posts.

[MarkJ]

I could not say, 'something is touching me' without the knowledge of
touch, me and something. It would be nothing to me.

Yes, as I experience I name and then use that name as reference and
believe that name to be true.

[empty2]

Rodger wrote:

>I believed,and as I believed,it was so.

Yes, I believe belief is the basis of all experience, of 'I', and
being here now.

Like a dream.

Am I waking up or falling asleep?

[Rodger]

'It would be nothing to me'.

Not true.
It would be something...only unnamed something.

'Something is touching me' are words...names...given you.They touched
you.Because you were here to be touched.The experience was not
given,only the names.'Mark' was also given you.You were touched by
that,and accepted it.Now...here...you are.And,now here,you are Mark.

Mark! You're here! Yippee!

Yeah,but...I mean,where was I when I wasn't here?

Oh,you were never not here.It's just that,before now,you had no
name.But you were never not nothing.

[Rodger]

Is belief the basis of experience,or is experience the basis of
belief?

I experienced being called Rodger...my parents told me that is who I
am (among other things).I accepted (believed) that,and...now...that's
who I am.And,now that I believe that,that's the experience.

[empty2]

Can what is believed be un-believed?

Are you/I named or nameless?

[Rodger]

Perspective may shift.

Nameless is another name for that which names.

[MarkJ]

Thought is saying that this interaction or relationship between two
apparent objects is 'something happening'. In reality, it is unified
movement.

I am nothing until I am. No experience is possible unitl I appears.
Nothing is me.

I is the thought of me experiencing. Without that thought of I there
is nothing happening.

I is inception of experience. Before that is nothing.

What are you experiencing in deep sleep? Noise is still registering
to the brain. What is there saying it is an experience?

[Anandanand]

I would tend to agree with empty. 'Now' is an assumption to explain
various processes. imo 'Now' is in thought & action not the other way
round.

> There is only "Now"
imo There is only thought and action, which casting in the mold is
'Now'

> Memory is experienced "Now"
cast thought and action.

> All is processed "Now"
> My mind can't grasp how "Now" appears in time, but it is my mind that
> apparently strings many "Now" moments together and calls it time/
> process.
> Others refer to this process/time/mind as illusion.

Who knows, you may be able to recast the past, only in a different
dimension.

[Gary]

No thought = No time = No Now = No Memory = No I

So, what is awareness?

Is there awareness without thought, or is awareness simply
unstructured / undirected thought energy?

[Anandanand]

Hi Gary,

On Aug 28, 10:28 am, Gary <contaxg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> No thought = No time = No Now = No Memory = No I

I don't think there is any thing as no action. So memory is always
there, though I can't remember my last 100 heartbeats or I can't
remember deep sleep. The moment I perform action on thought, sense of
'I' awakens.

> So, what is awareness?
If you mean in the sense 'I am aware of the surroundings', as long as
the clock in the body is ticking there is awareness. If you mean
'awareness of what makes the clock work', I don't know.

IMO when we say 'No thought' it generally means 'No reactive thought'.
My mind (comprising of brain processing power, memory, sensory inputs,
and ego) is always busy thinking on a reactive basis, with a set of
desires and wants that condition all thoughts.

[godszen]

Rodger wrote:
> 'but i'm not separate from the universe'.  a universal perspective,or
> an individual one?

both, even if I achieve universal consciousness, when this
particular
body/mind dies, will the universe cease to exist?

> if i am not separate from the universe then,where is the
> universe...where is it from? what is your perspective,and how was it
> determined?

this particular body/mind/consciousness is obviously a product of
evolution, which is obviously the universe in action

a part, yet a part of the whole

[godszen]

now, is, what is

time, is the changing, of what is

[Gary]

Anandanand:

There are many moments of no thought and nothing taking hold of the
mind. I find it curious that this is recognized at all, but it has a
different flavor than all other thoughts. It also seems to be present
along with thought. It is as if thought is a bubble within the water
(awareness). Attention previously was dominated by the sense of
bubble to the exclusion of the sense that the bubble appeared within
the water, but once the water is recognized, silence seems to be all
pervasive. The strange thing is that this sense of no-thought seems
to be experienced prior to thought..ie.:"ohh..there is no thought".
It seems to be just experience without anything to experience, or
thoughtless thought. I suggested previously that it was simply a
memory(thought), but the actual sense of it is that is is experienced
without comment and has the same sense of "Now" (the Now illusion/
thought). Again, I don't understand any of this.

My mind is not always busy thinking and I doubt that your mind differs
from mine. My expression is wanting, but perhaps the sense of the
thing will ring true in your experience.

[Rodger]

'I am nothing until I am'.

By the time you can say,'I am nothing',you am. :)

The first two words of that sentence affirms this as so.

The only time you can say I am nothing is now.The only time you can
say anything is now.The only place it can be said from is here.

Thought may be saying all this,but what are you if not the thoughts
speaking?As you say,reality...truth...is movement,unified...without
separation.The reality or truth of now/here is clear.Now is here,and
here is now...the only truth/reality.

There never was a time when there was no time...now is the only time
in truth.Or,reality,if you prefer.

Nothing is beyond now/here...outside the moment...this moment of
awareness which is present,or here and here now.

The nothing that you say is 'before',in reality or truth,is 'with' the
present moment of awareness.As you say,it is
movement,unified...without separation.

Deep sleep? What is there saying it is an experience?

What is there saying it is a non-experience? What is there saying
there is deep sleep? What is there saying noise is still registering
to the brain? What is there is here,and is here now.

[Rodger]

Does now appear in time? Or,in truth,is now the only time?

Since there never was a time when there was no time,was there ever a
time when there was no now?

Again,kiss.

Every one now knowing knows what now is.And,they know it in the only
possible time in which to know it...now.Now,it is known what now
is.Unless one wants to conceptualize and try to make now something
other than now.But,now is now,no matter how it is sliced and diced.

There is nothing beyond i.e. outside this present moment of awareness
which is present and aware now,the only possible time in which
awareness could be present.

Is it necessary to 'grasped' presence-awareness in order to be aware
of being aware...presently,or now?

Illusion refers to separation...the idea of.

[empty2]

Gary wrote

>Is there awareness without thought, or is awareness simply
unstructured / undirected thought energy?

When there's no-one to know and knothing to be known..........who's to
know?

> > dimension.- Hide quoted text -

[Rodger]

Now cannot be assumed.For already it it upon us.

Now are the assumptions of that which is upon us.
Now are the thoughts about (in) thought.
Now thought is thinking about thought.

The recasting of the past in another dimension could only occur now.

[Rodger]

Awareness is present with or without the thought of awareness.Without
awareness present,no thought of awareness present.

Unstructured/undirected thought energy are structured/directed
thoughts aimed at and born of awareness,present.

It is awareness knowing,and knowing as 'someone'.

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Rodger]

universal consciousness is already achieved...as a part of.

a whole part may cease but the whole never ceases except as that
part.the whole will always have it's parts and never the twain shall
part.

the body/mind/consciousness is a partial of the universal.

the evolution of the partial is the evolution of the universal.

[Rodger]

'Now is not the thought of now'.

If now is not the thought of now,when is the thought of now?
If the thought,'now',is not of now,what is the thought of?
Can the thought of now be later?
Later than what?

'In the absence of the thinker,has there been ever any
thought...thought'.

For whom is the thought,'absence of thinker',thought?

As of now,and beyond the thought,'I am the thinker',I can't find
anyone.




On Aug 26, 12:03 pm, Sandeep-Kuber Technologies
<kubertechnolog...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Gary wrote:
> > All thought/action is in the "Now".
>

> Are they?

>
> >   "Now" is by definition
> > infinitesimally small and without length.
>

> Infinitesimally small and length-less is still a dimension.
>
> Now is not the thought of now.

>
> >  I can not conceive of this,
> > but action must be series of "Now" moments.  Series infers time, but
> > there is only "Now", a seeming manifestation without causality/time.
> > These statements seem self evident to this mind, but your sense of
> > things may differ.  If "Now" is without time, then who is it that has
> > a thought?
>

> Indeed.
>
> And in the absence of the thinker, has there been every any
> thought........thought?
>
> There has never been a creation in the first place, for a destruction to
> ever be possible.... prattled the dude in the diaper next to the
> Arunachala heap of soil.

>
> >  I can't find anyone.
>

> For whom is this non-finding?

>
> >   Your sense may differ.  If there is
> > only now and mind is a manifestation and not a primary/independent
> > manifesting intelligence, then there must be pre-destination.  I mean
> > this in the sense that there is no individual "I" of an independent
> > nature which can be attributed with manifesting thought/action?
>

> In the absence of this "individual I of an independent nature to which
> can be attributed something/anything".....
>
> ....neither does free will hold any meaning......nor does pre-destination .

>
> > Where is my sense of things in error?
>

> No error at all.
>
> Just let it reach the source of it's trend.

>
> >  How can there be free will ..
> > other than being a limited/misguided perspective?
>

> The issue of free will or pre-destination arises only on the premise of
> the existence of an individuated discrete entity.
>
> In the absence of  the latter, both the perspectives.........are what
> they are.
>
> Mere notions............to thicken the plot.

[MarkJ]

-- Nothing is beyond now/here...outside the moment...this moment of
awareness which is present,or here and here now.--

I don't see any 'beyond' either. I only see a light turning on and
off. When the light is on, the thought of I and all these ideas about
I's experience are there. When the light is off, there isn't an I
think about these ideas or experience anything.

-- What is there saying it is a non-experience? What is there saying

there is deep sleep? What is there saying noise is still registering

to the brain? What is there is here,and is here now.--

Yes, what is here, is here now and always.

What is there saying it is a non-experience? -- I am saying it is a
non-experience 'now' as I have no way of knowing what happened
during. As the tree fell in the woods, action continues all around
but I am not directly aware and thought is not making I appear here.
I can only experience when I am here now and that experience is
through thought. When no thought is there I can only speculate later
when I am here now. I can't speak about an awareness that is
experiencing everything all the time. Something is happening in
Dallas right now that is being experienced by a grand universal
conciousness and an I. I see through my eyes but my eye can not see
itself so to say. If no reflection in the mirror, no image of I is
there but the mirror remains.

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -...
>
> read more »

[Rodger]

'I can't speak about an awareness that is experiencing everything all
the time'.

But,didn't you just do that?

The awareness speaking can only speak of everything...everything is
all the awareness can speak on.And,since now is the only time,it's all
the time.

How do you know something is happening in Dallas?Where is Dallas,and
what's happening there...right now?Whatever is happening in Dallas is
it being experienced by a grand universal consciousness and an I,or a
universal consciousness as an I? Is there a whole and it's parts,or is
the whole just parts?

If you can see a light turning on and off,does that mean you are
always on? The light turning on and off...is that the reflection in
the mirror? Don't know,just asking.

If you can't see a reflection in the mirror,maybe you are
invisible.Or,maybe,the hand still covers the eyes. :)

I can't see my eyes either.Except in reflection,of course.But,I do see
that I see.See?

> > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 26, 1:04 am, Gary <contaxg...@gmail.com>- Hide quoted text -

[MarkJ]

> But,didn't you just do that? - only in that I used a name I made up to point to something. I can not describe it further.


How do you know something is happening in Dallas? - I don't know
something is happening in Dallas. I have to assume because I was told
there is a place called Dallas and once visited a place that I was
told was called Dallas. I am assuming that there is a sum with many
parts and some of those parts are experiencing in this place I was
told is called Dallas.

The light is always on but I am not there to see it. When I am there
to see it 'now' is here too. Nothing is there and then I am there in
the light but it seems like the light is allways there and I just show
up.

I was told it is called seeing. I use that word to describe what I
assume everyone else is talking about when they say 'I see'. I don't
know what else to call it.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > realize I am- Hide quoted text -

[Rodger]

So,you're just making stuff up?
Well,why not?It's all just stuff anyway.

I was in Dallas once.Lot's of stuff happening in Dallas.I think Dallas
is a good place to be from.As far from as possible.And,I'm not just
making that up,although it is only my point of view.

You don't know what else to call it? Shoot,man...call it as you see
it.After all,it's just made up stuff made up of the same stuff.Right?

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > looking,I'm always- Hide quoted text -

[MarkJ]

I put already established words together to describe something. It's
all just stuff and it's all made up.
Who chose 'see' for what's happening when protons stimulate nerves in
the eye? They made it up.

We are only agreeing to call it that as a culture otherwise it might
be a grunting sound while pointing at the eye. That would be hard to
communicate over the phone.

Who chose 'now' to mean a completely ambiguous reality that only
exists in thought?

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > What is now without the concept of now? Only what is, either way with- Hide quoted text -

[empty2]

>-- Nothing is beyond now/here...outside the moment...this moment of
awareness which is present,or here and here now.--

Yes, the no-time nowness of the awareness of the witness witnessing
the movement of (everything else in) time.

Only that which can be reflected can see a reflection.

Does the eye have any interest in what it sees?

Does the mirror have any interest in (or consciousness of)
reflections?

> > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 26, 1:04 am, Gary <contaxg...@gmail.com>- Hide quoted text -

[Rodger]

Who chose 'see'? Beats me.I ain't much on that shit.Who chose 'protons
stimulate nerves in the eye'?

They made it up? Who is they,and what did they make up?

I would have never chosen 'ambiguous' because I don't even know what
ambiguous means.And,I'm too lazy to look it up.Who chose lazy?

Who ever chose now,now was chosen to mean exactly what now
means.And,you know what now means unless or until you think about
it,and then it gets all fucked up.And,as it gets all fucked up,it
ain't all fucked up before or later,it's all fucked up now.

Everyone now knowing knows what now is regardless of any word chosen
to indicate.

See?

No?

No problem.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 27, 6:06 am, Rodger <rodge...@hotmail.com> wrote:- Hide quoted text -

[Rodger]

The 'no-time' nowness? Here, and here now is for all time.When is now
ever not here...when is here ever not now?There never was a time when
there was no time.Time has always been...been here...been now.

Only that which reflects can see reflection.The only possible
reflection to be seen is of that which reflects.

Does the eye have any interest in what it sees? Do you have any
interest in yourself?

> > > > > > > > > > > > > itself' and be something it is- Hide quoted text -

[MarkJ]

They eye is a mechanism. It detects without care.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > itself' and be something it is- Hide quoted text -

[MarkJ]

I see.

> > > > > > > > > > > > Memory is referenced and- Hide quoted text -

[Sandeep-Kuber Technologies]

Rodger wrote:

'Now is not the thought of now'.

If now is not the thought of now,when is the thought of now?
  

It can only be in the now.

And simultaneously the thought of now........is not the now.

A shadow can only be of a shape, yet the shadow is not the shape.

The last night sleep dream drama existed in you, .....was you ....
...you manifested as the various components making up that drama.

And yet nothing of that drama, including the particular manifested you within that drama....

....was you.

 

If the thought,'now',is not of now,what is the thought of?
  

The thought is thought of the now(as a concept).

As is the case for any other thought no matter what the content of thought.

Can the thought of now be later?
Later than what?

'In the absence of the thinker,has there been ever any
thought...thought'.

For whom is the thought,'absence of thinker',thought?
  

The apperception of the absence of the thinker(and thus the apperception that there has
never been a thought...ever)......

.....is not a thought out conclusion or an arrived at-realization or a worked-out-understanding.

Or an experience.


Thus there is none to take delivery of.

Hence the question "for whom...." is moot.

That is why the term "apperception" is used which connotes a perceiving without a perceiver thereof.

[godszen]

Rodger wrote:
> universal consciousness is already achieved...as a part of.

no, that is individual consciousness

universal consciousness comes about when awareness is "outside" the
body/mind

> a whole part may cease but the whole never ceases except as that
> part.the whole will always have it's parts and never the twain shall
> part.
>
> the body/mind/consciousness is a partial of the universal.
>
> the evolution of the partial is the evolution of the universal.

yes, this is self evident

[Rodger]

Which eye?

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am myself...now.For there is no other to be,no other to be- Hide quoted text -

[Rodger]

if there were no parts there would be no whole.

if universal consciousness isn't there isn't individual consciousness.

every part is a whole part.

inside/outside...parts of the whole.

nothing outside.everything inside.

[empty2]

>There never was a time when

> there was no time.Time has always been...been here...been now.

While I'm frazzled from work, I might as well continue this ding-dong
for a while 'til better sense prevails.....

Where is 'time' in awareness if it is always now?
What are you referring to as 'here' - awareness or awareness of ever-
moving time?

>Only that which reflects can see reflection

Really? The mirror sees?

>Do you have any interest in yourself?

Hard to say, seeing this self is always changing except the part
watching without any interest.
- Oh, of course, 'you are all', in which case there's even less
interest when it's all the same shit (including the sense of 'I').

If it's details that fascinate you (like a hall of mirrors), start a
group 'MeandtheWorldandaThousandMillionThingsNow'.

Sorry if that sounds harsh, Rodger (ya know we all love ya!) but you
do seem to have a lot to say by, with, in, of, as and about nothing
these days!

Now what? Are you suggesting that pure unchanging awareness is limited
by a concept called now - which has relevance only to change?

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > other than I to think so?Only I can have that thought,and I will or- Hide quoted text -

[Rodger]

Right,now is now.

The shadow may have a shape which may appear different than the shape
the shadow is of,but regardless the appearance of difference,has a
separation occured?In what way is the shadow not the shape?

In observing the shadow's shape but not the shape the shadow is of,do
we conclude that the shape the shadow is of is not?

In the apperception of the absence of the thinker do we conclude that
thought is not? If we conclude that thought is not,is not this
conclusion,this thought,in...of...the thinker whether or not the the
thinker can be found?

In whom is the apperception of the absence of the thinker? Or,in what?

If last nights dream drama was me,then is not this moments dream drama
me,dreaming it is not me?






On Aug 28, 10:36 pm, Sandeep-Kuber Technologies

[empty2]

> They eye is a mechanism. It detects without care.

More thinking......

The eye's unconsciousness of its emptiness allows for perception and
thus appears to be full....as with all the organs of sense and the
mind viz. thinking. They don't choose what they see or sense nor have
any preference for being closed or open. Preference and choice etc.
lie with the bundle of ephemeral changing reactions to the senses,
thoughts, memories and identities called 'I', entertained (reflected)
without choice, preference, consequence or meaning - in awareness,
which thus, temporarily (from L. temporarius, from tempus, tempor-
‘time’) unconscious of its emptiness, appears as full.

The concept of now is simply the apparent reflection of the
unchangingness of this emptiness - as the ever-present yet unaffected
basis and ground of magical ever-changing show, - a base and ground
(and therefore, a show).....as empty as ever!

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am myself...now.For there is no other to be,no other to be- Hide quoted text -

[Rodger]

'till better sense prevails'. LOL! Right on,bro.

Where is time in awareness if it is always now?

Time = now.And,now is always the time,and now is always here.If you
are not aware of this...if this is not in,of,as,(your)awareness...

What am I referring to as 'here'? I am referring to 'here' as
here...no where else.If you are not aware of being here...if this is
not in,of,as,(your) awareness,regardless of wherever else you are...

The mirror sees? Yes. The mirror of mind...mind's eye.This is what I
was referring to,not the physical eye.Mind's eye takes an interest in
what physical eye detects.No?

Starting a group has been mentioned to me before.As before,that
doesn't interest me.Gary does a super job.I couldn't do
better.And,couldn't do better in,as,of a part of this group...and
Advaita-Zen.I'm not making that up,it's a true point of view.

Did you sound harsh?No,Just stupid.And,I could care less whether ya'll
love me or not.And,I've always had a lot to say,not just 'these
days'.If to you it's all about nothing,that's your business,not mine.

Now is not a concept.And,awareness...pure or otherwise...unchanging or
otherwise...is limited to,in,as,of...now.

Now is now.So,get your head out of your ass,where only nothing
is...nothing but the smell of your own shit.Which apparently,you take
a great interest in.

Yeah...love ya'll,too.Till better sense prevails.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > time,in truth.- Hide quoted text -

[MarkJ]

> The concept of now is simply the apparent reflection of the
> unchangingness of this emptiness - as the ever-present yet unaffected
> basis and ground of magical ever-changing show, - a base and ground
> (and therefore, a show).....as empty as ever!

Yes.

The reflection is only apparent when 'I' is there to experience this
concept. The emptyness is allways there unaffected.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now is never without time...time is always within now.- Hide quoted text -

[MarkJ]

I am the seeing.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > other than I to think so?Only I can have that thought,and I will or- Hide quoted text -

[Rodger]

'I am the seeing'.

Yes you are.And,the concept is simply your reflection.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 26, 7:50 pm, Rodger- Hide quoted text -

[empty2]

Better sense means not replying to posts like this, but in for a
penny, in for a pound........

Whose head up whose ass? It's all you......remember?

> > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't experience 'now'.  I experience the remembering of- Hide quoted text -

[MarkJ]

Can I take my hand from my eyes now?

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 26, 10:11 am, Ram <ram.samar...@gmail.com> wrote:- Hide quoted text -

[Rodger]

:) Sure.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > knowing knows what now is.No concept is really needed since now is not- Hide quoted text -

[Rodger]

Ok,so you're in for a pound of pennies.

Of course I remember 'it's all you'.
That means it's not me,whose.

Ya knows I loves ya.

:)

> > > > > > > > > > > > I experience once the knowledge about what is- Hide quoted text -

[Ram]

LMAO

'til better sense prevails.....

Strange indeed is the world where a pound of pennies is worth more
than the currency itself.

Appearances don't know themselves. They are known by the knower. From
one vantage point knower and known are only both Knowledge (Vidya),
and truly indistinguishable.

Not knowing this is the vantage point of Ignorance (Avidya) or duality/
the illusion of objectivity.

"I Am - the seer," the original or "Primal Illusion" - Knowledge.

From the still silent attributeless Space, a movement stirred,and the
wind arose as an inspiration, the most subtle concept in the form of
"I" or "I Am." From there the entire manifest universal appearance
spread out every-where.

From another vantage point, both Knowledge and Ignorance are
Ignorance. Thus the saying "Knowledge is the greatest Ignorance." From
This vantage point, both Knowledge and Ignorance have no place. In
this eternal still silence, even the concept of non-conceptual
"Ultimate Knowledge" (Vidynana/Vijnana)has no place and is less
significant than a speck of dust in the cosmos.

This is "I," the Absolute, (the only thing here) which has no concept
of "I-ness" or of being Knowledge, or any sense of being
"Knowledgeable." It is adorned with Knowledge, and while being mixed
with it, it is never tainted by it.

The words are spoken through speech in Illusion, but the meaning is
not contained in the words and is not of the Illusion. It is realized
through subtle observation and investigation combined with the
Knowledge imparted by a true master.

"Take it for granted that what I say is not true. It's what I speak of
that's true."
- Shri Ranjit Maharaj

http://www.dasbodh.org/Chapters/dbc0704.html


~*~


Jai Raghuveer Samartha! Jai Sadguru Parabrahman!

[Rodger]

well,begorrah! it's about now you showed up.

what's LMAO?

[MarkJ]

Thanks Ram.

That was nice to read.

[Sandeep-Kuber Technologies]

Rodger,

What is being alluded is not an end result of a thought-out conclusion.

Thought can never reach that which expresses thought.........which in expressing as so...

...is one more thought-expressing.



Some comments in-between, as below.

Rodger wrote:

Right,now is now.

The shadow may have a shape which may appear different than the shape
the shadow is of,but regardless the appearance of difference,has a
separation occured?

Where is it being alluded that separation occurs?

There is no separation between the shadow and the object.

Yet the shadow is not the object.

Now thought can never "get" this.

Yes thought can cease to appear.

However the cessation of thought, as soon as so conceptualized is another thought.

So while there is none to give up...........give up trying to figure it out, Rodger. :-)

In what way is the shadow not the shape?
  

Just like the dreamed up character popularly known as "Rodger" in the last night sleep dream drama....while no doubt being an objective manifestation of you......


....the dreamt up character is not you..........you the one sound asleep in a cot.

 

In observing the shadow's shape but not the shape the shadow is of,do
we conclude that the shape the shadow is of is not?
  

LOL

The syntaxtual effort is splendid.

Conceptualized..........all that is happening is dancing shadows.

Including that there is a "we" to conclude, (whatever be the content of that conclusion)

Including the statement that "Conceptualized..........all that is happening is dancing shadows."


Now this alluding will produce either a total collapse of the "figuring-out structure".

Or apperception will be missed and more questions/comments/conceptualization arise.

 

In the apperception of the absence of the thinker do we conclude that
thought is not?

In apperception........there is no "we' left, ......let alone anything to be concluded.

Which does not connote that there was apriori a "we" which is now ....not.

Apperception, while merely being another term that is being used.......

...... is not an event in time.

And this is why it is not a conclusion, not a realization, not an experience, not an understanding.......
....even though these terms have been used to indicate.

It is not even a  "it" which can be referred to.

Thus the absence of the presence of a reference, any reference...........AND........the absence of the absence of the presence of a reference, any reference.

 If we conclude that thought is not,is not this
conclusion,this thought,in...of...the thinker whether or not the the
thinker can be found?
  

Indeed.

And that is why it is not an end-product of thought concluding as so and so.

It is when there is a negation of the negator..........that the apperception that there is no relevance of a "when".

 

In whom is the apperception of the absence of the thinker? Or,in what?
  

:-)

It is only for the sense of a self/mind/thought........... that for an event .........there has to be a "in whom" ........that there has to be "in what".

If last nights dream drama was me,then is not this moments dream drama
me,dreaming it is not me?

  

Indeed.

There is not a whit difference between the drama of the sleep-dream or the awake-dream(the latter in which most negations occur).
 
Waking up(so to say) is the waking up from all states of drama.


And since the content of this email is but a component of some drama......

.....nothing of what is being said, alluded, commented, answered.....

....is anything more than more conceptual prattlings.




Some prattlings however create the arrest of thought(which is not the thought that now thought has been arrested)....


.. enable the arising of a vacuum, in which there is not even the thought of a vacuum.......


....and the apperception.......... that apperception was never not the case.


 

[empty2]

A pound used to be 240 pennies, but now it's 100.

It used to be worth a couple of dollars, but now?

And to think we think we enjoy such nonsense,

Changing faces every day......

K-nowing nothing......that we are.

[Rodger]

Where is it being alluded that Rodger is trying to figure it out?Gary
expressed a preference for the more poetic,and few are more poetic
than Sandeep...now or otherwise.

...thought can never reach that which expresses thought.Now or ever.

And ever remains forever now.

There never was a time when there was no now,and never a now when
'that' wasn't the time.




On Aug 29, 10:59 pm, Sandeep-Kuber Technologies

[Anandanand]

For common people consciousness is probably not sensed without the 'I'
factor. Like you have to give special odor to odorless gases. The not-
so-common people might be able to sense consciousness without the 'I',
and probably has a special flavor.

On Aug 28, 11:58 am, Gary <contaxg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Anandanand:
>
> There are many moments of no thought and nothing taking hold of the
> mind.  I find it curious that this is recognized at all, but it has a
> different flavor than all other thoughts.  It also seems to be present
> along with thought.  It is as if thought is a bubble within the water
> (awareness).  Attention previously was dominated by the sense of
> bubble to the exclusion of the sense that the bubble appeared within
> the water, but once the water is recognized, silence seems to be all
> pervasive.  The strange thing is that this sense of no-thought seems
> to be experienced prior to thought..ie.:"ohh..there is no thought".
> It seems to be just experience without anything to experience, or
> thoughtless thought.  I suggested previously that it was simply a
> memory(thought), but the actual sense of it is that is is experienced
> without comment and has the same sense of "Now" (the Now illusion/
> thought).  Again, I don't understand any of this.
>
> My mind is not always busy thinking and I doubt that your mind differs
> from mine.  My expression is wanting, but perhaps the sense of the
> thing will ring true in your experience.
>
> On Aug 27, 11:03 pm, Anandanand <hgdin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi Gary,
>
> > On Aug 28, 10:28 am, Gary <contaxg...@gmail.com> wrote:> No thought = No time = No Now = No Memory = No I
>
> > I don't think there is any thing as no action. So memory is always
> > there, though I can't remember my last 100 heartbeats or I can't
> > remember deep sleep. The moment I perform action on thought, sense of
> > 'I' awakens.
>
> > > So, what is awareness?
>
> > If you mean in the sense 'I am aware of the surroundings', as long as
> > the clock in the body is ticking there is awareness. If you mean
> > 'awareness of what makes the clock work', I don't know.
>
> > IMO when we say 'No thought' it generally means 'No reactive thought'.
> > My mind (comprising of brain processing power, memory, sensory inputs,
> > and ego) is always busy thinking on a reactive basis, with a set of
> > desires and wants that condition all thoughts.
>
>

[MarkJ]

Hi Anandanand

What do you see as the significance of this difference you've pointed
out?

Do you sense conciousness with or without the 'I'?

Mark

> > > desires and wants that condition all thoughts.- Hide quoted text -

[Anandanand]

On Aug 31, 11:21 pm, MarkJ <mark_jordan2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hi MarkJ,

> What do you see as the significance of this difference you've pointed
> out?

It was in response to what Gary stated "There are many moments of no

thought and nothing taking hold of the
mind".

Not that I don't see any significance, but as one can see from on-
going Roger-Empty dialog, it will be like one deaf talking to another.
(not with any disrespect to Roger or Empty)

> Do you sense conciousness with or without the 'I'?

If you mean, whether I am 'Common' or 'Not-so-common', what if I AM
and what if I am not.
IMO this sense of I (ego) may not be the illusion/ unwanted thing as
is generally believed, when with respect to spirituality. There is no
sensing without a sensor (as pointed out by Rodger), so if one is
aware, then there is something of which something else is aware.

[empty2]

Being prompted to have another look at Alan Watts, I just jumped to
the conclusion....literally....of 'The Book on the Taboo Against
Knowing Who You Are'........which ends with these words:

"To come on like IT - to play at being God - is to play the Self as a
role, which is just what it isn't. When IT plays, it plays at being
everything else."

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Mahakali]

Now: what does it mean?

It means: whatever I've done ..I did ..and there cannot be any regret,
thinking over or aftermath afterwords and it cannot be changed.

Kali

On Aug 26, 11:04 am, Gary <contaxg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> All thought/action is in the "Now".  "Now" is by definition
> infinitesimally small and without length.  I can not conceive of this,
> but action must be series of "Now" moments.  Series infers time, but
> there is only "Now", a seeming manifestation without causality/time.
> These statements seem self evident to this mind, but your sense of
> things may differ.  If "Now" is without time, then who is it that has
> a thought?  I can't find anyone.  Your sense may differ.  If there is
> only now and mind is a manifestation and not a primary/independent
> manifesting intelligence, then there must be pre-destination.  I mean
> this in the sense that there is no individual "I" of an independent
> nature which can be attributed with manifesting thought/action?
>
> Where is my sense of things in error?  How can there be free will ..
> other than being a limited/misguided perspective?

[Rodger]

Hi,Kali!

Whatever was,is?

Whatever will be,is?

Is is whatever was/will be?

Whatever.

:)

> > other than being a limited/misguided perspective?- Hide quoted text -

[Rodger]

as it plays,it plays as if everything else?

[Rodger]

the play is in it? of it? as it?
or,it is...as if...the play is in it,of it,as it?

which is is it?

it is what?

it is what it is.
what is what it is.

it is it and what is what and now is now and now it plays and now is
playing.

playing what?

no,playing now.as what...what it is.

oh...i t.there is no it beyond this me playing as if it is playing as
if me.

oh,i feel sooo empty.

not to worry.you're really sooo very very full of it.

[empty2]

that's right.......keep going, let it all out....

don't stop until you're completely empty!

[empty2]

you could try this mantra -

-E
-M
-PTY

-E
-M
-PTY

-E
-M
-PTY

...could sing it like a football chant...

Who knows, your disgust could turn to love, you know, just like that
Hermann Hesse story.

[Rodger]

The thinking was we were beyond whatever it was we were not beyond in
previous posts.So,it was just playing...having fun(again).No disgust
involved here...now.Nor was there is previous nows,here.

Again,it is just having a little fun here.Apparently,it is not
there.So,ok...I will leave you alone if you prefer that...if disgust
is all you can find in you regarding in me.But,you did ask,'can we be
friends now'?I like to have fun with my friends.What are friends for?
To find disgust in them?

I kinda like that mantra.But,I don't really do mantras.I mostly do
silliness,sometimes with an underlying seriousness,but any seriousness
is not held for too long if,when,I beging to think no one is,as
Jonothan mentioned,asking what does or could he mean by that...besides
silliness.That's just the way It is,here.

Anyway...ok...I'll do my best to pretend you're not there.But,I do
forget shit easily.

No,we cannot be friends if you will not allow for
that.That,however,will not make you my enemy although you may consider
me as your enemy.I have no real enemies,but some do consider me as
theirs.It is just that way.

Take care,
Rodger

[MarkJ]

Thank you Anandanand.

I would have to agree that some sensor or local 'i' would be necessary
to experience now.

I am not my eyeballs only but I definitely need them to sense light.

Mark

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Rodger]

but,is now an experience,or is an experience of now?

is the local i the sensor or the sensed?

either way,can sensing be anything other than as of now?

[Jerry Miller]

I'd just like to pop in here for one minute to agree with Mark that there may be more to the "I" than generally accepted. My "I" is a tool, and that is how I use it. Wanted or unwanted does not come into my equation. It is there, I use it. What could be simpler?

[MarkJ]

now is the same as not-now but the essence of this is that thing which
i can't describe

the local i is both sensor and sensed as the eye is sensor and sensed

sensing is only the measuring/detecting of 'now' and experience the
reading of this measurment/detection

they are not separate nor detached but are part of this whole unified
movement

the thing that is not moving and not changing i can't describe but is
the heart of now

[Gary]

MarkJ:

You say:

"the thing that is not moving and not changing i can't describe but is
the heart of now"

So, how do you know that there is a not changing that you "can't
describe"?

[Rodger]

Now is the same as not-now since not-now can never be but now.on the
other hand,but-now can never be except now......

Let's just say,now is now.As Jerry asked,what could be simpler?

But,about the essence of this being that thing which you can't
describe...perhaps that which cannot be described is this which is
describing?

'sensing is only the measuring/detecting of 'now'.

'Of' now...which cannot be measured or detected.
As Sandeep mentioned in a most recent post,'thought cannot reach that
which expresses thought'.

Odd is this thing not moving and not changing...at the heart of every
now,every movement....moment to moment to moment...beat to beat to
beat to beat...and the beat goes on...a unified movement thought not
to move.

Every moment,every movement,every beat is a unified
moment,movement,beat...of unification.

What is not-moving...not-changing...if not the same as
moving...changing?

The essence of which is now,which cannot be described but is
describing?

[MarkJ]

it's been here the whole time

the same present awareness that looked out at what was happening when
this body was first making memories is the same now.

I don't 'know' it, I am it. I just can't turn towards it and tell you
what it looks like (in a manner of speaking).

[Rodger]

More,as they say,is less.

What 'my' I?

You place brackets around I.You mean something else?Like,mind or
ego,for instance?Something else?

The brackets I placed around my are there to point out that my and I
are without division.

Division is symbolized by the figure 2.
But,do not be deceived by the two figures.
For division is illusion,
and the only deception is Self-deception.

mind is a tool...an intrument.It is the instrument of seeing.

ego is a tool...the instrument of expression.

> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[MarkJ]

---But,about the essence of this being that thing which you can't

describe...perhaps that which cannot be described is this which is

describing?---

Exactly

--'thought cannot reach that
which expresses thought'.--

Yes

--The essence of which is now,which cannot be described but is
describing?--

I can not smell what smelling smells like as I am the smelling.

[Rodger]

there's no looking back.
but,if you know you am it,then you know it since you am it.
every time you look into a mirror,whether a mirror on your wall or the
mirror of mind,you look towards it and it looks toward you.for there
is no division between those two figures.

the more things change the more they stay the same.

[MarkJ]

of course.

by knowledge I'm speaking less of realizing who I am and more of the
accumulation of 'facts'

I can not 'know' myself in that way but yet I know who I am.

[Rodger]

'I can not smell what smelling smells like as I am the smelling'.

yeah...I mean,for all we know smelling smells like a rose...but,maybe
a fart.

:)

[MarkJ]

my farts don't stink to me.

Mark

[Rodger]

lucky you.

[MarkJ]

luck, good fortune, good karma?

design, chance, predestiny?

adaptation.

[empty2]

Well there we are.......a cultural misunderstanding.

There we were, each thinking the other's fun was shit.

Glad you liked the mantra.......and there I was thinking you didn't
like the e-word (maybe disgust was too strong an assumption)

So, dear friend, you take care too now,

Empty2

[Rodger]

actually,i thought your shit was fun.which is why i threw my shit
back.

nothing wrong with the e-word.nothing necessarily right with it.i
mean,where is the proper place for right and wrong in emptiness?if
there is such a thing as 'proper place' might that not depend upon the
condition of this emptiness?

i still think your shit is fun.and,i have fun with my shit,too.the
funnest part about shit is,once we've taken a good one,the bowels are
left...

EM
PTY

EM
PTY.

[Mahakali]

For thoughts, actions or time to exist, there has to be 'Now'. Out of
the Now, time arises. With time, I start counting the years...

And, in deep sleep: what is to be found in deep sleep? Is there a doer
or a discussion about pre-destination or anyone exercising any free
will or having any thoughts?

Your sensing of things in error means exercising your free will...and
making the correct choices.

Kali

[Rodger]

Hi,Kali!

Welcome back.I hope your trip was enjoyable.

Which do you suppose comes first...the thought of now,or now?

Is there a doer of now,or is now simply done?

Do you count the years with time,or as time?

For thoughts,there has to be Thought.
For actions,there has to be Action.
For time,there has to be Now.
Now is the time of thought.
Now is the time of action.
As of now is the time of all thoughts and actions.

About making correct choices: might that not depend upon the bottle
you buzz around in i.e.,the conditions?

> > other than being a limited/misguided perspective?- Hide quoted text -