Hi Marsha, I am still a little confused about what is being pointed to with the word pattern. What is presented just doesn't make sense to me. Most of our days are not patterned experience, as far as I can tell. We pattern things by forming an image in our heads for what appears outside. We certainly do not do that for over 99% of our experience. We certainly speak in patterns, but we are not talking all the time. And even when talking, that is only a small part of what is happening right then. When one approaches each moment in a mindful manner it is easier to see how the mind is constantly jumping, second to second. Most of that is not patterned. Perhaps I don't understand patterned. Perhaps I am tired of reading that word. Perhaps I am an ornery old man.
Nonduality is not some intellectual achievement. Most of our day is not dual, this is easy to see if one pays attention. There is no subject or object when one is dancing. What is the object of dancing? When we choose to talk about it, then it becomes dual because we must resort to agreed on methods. If we care to share something we pattern it. Otherwise we don't. This as I have suggested is the societal level impinging on the personal level. Naming is a tool used for communication, nothing else. We don't have to know that a tree is called a tree, unless we want to share it. Let's say that I am continually changing. The fact that I use the pronoun "I" means that I believe I exist. I believe you, Marsha, also use the word "I" sometimes. We can say that we believe certain things, but it becomes obvious from the rhetoric used that we really don't. Many who are enlightened such as some Christians or Buddhist refer to themselves as "this body". I think that is kind of silly if you ask me (yeah, I know, nobody ever does). The fact that I change and cannot be pinpointed does not mean that I don't exist. If that were true then a tornado would not exist. My daughter, who is in school in North Carolina, would say that's silly. "Dad, are you talking about that weird stuff again?" When you state that there is a fundamental unity, I think I know what you are pointing at. However, fundamental unity has no reference, so it could be everything or nothing both at the same time. We could say that water has fundamental unity. But such a statement is comparing it to something that doesn't. If everything is the same thing, then we could easily say that by that logic, everything is different too. Saying that everything has fundamental unity is good rhetoric, but is, in the end, a meaningless statement. People are using "Not this, not that" in ways it was never intended to be used. It has lost all meaning. As if "not this, not that" actually presents an argument of something. This is absurd, if I may say so (forgot to ask permission). Like: "What is it?" "Well, it IS not this, not that". What is that all about? IS it something or isn't it? If it isn't then what is all the fuss about? If it is something, well. by golly, then let's talk about it. I guess it depends on what the meaning of "is" is. Cheers as always, Mark On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 10:58 PM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hello John, > > An unpatterned experience IS possible. We do not share every experience, > so as you claim no such experience is possible because you've never > experienced it, I will continue to state that it is possible because I have > had such experiences. I didn't experience it as chaos, but then the > experiences were not more than a few minutes. I was present and felt > no panic. Actually I felt elated. > > I offered the wiki-quote only to validate that it is a documented experience. > I found it named in the Nonduality book, and as silly as it seems I was very > relieved to see it named. What is it about naming that makes experience > more real? Anyway, the wiki-quote was not the experience but some kind > explanation. I will not even try to collaborate what Conze said. I'd > describe > it as seeing without something seen, without differentiation, without > concepts. > > I'm not sure where the comparison with "not this, not that" came from, but > for me 'not this, not that' is a reminder that below the patterns there is a > fundamental unity. > > In your post to Mark, you wrote: > > "One has to care to see a pattern, in order to see it. You have to > try. You have to use concepts such as order and symetry and repetition over > time, in order to call something a pattern, and once you see it that way, > you are attached to your interpretation." > > One does not have to heed those pattern threads. One can see without > the pattern (habit) recognition. > > I am not going to say anymore because there really nothing to be said. > BUT, such experiences are possible, even for nobody special. > > [Mark] Ahhh, there is so much to be said, and so little time. > > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org/md/archives.html > Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
