Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org

Just this/ Joe

Rate this topic


Guest guest

Recommended Posts

> Like the famous zen dude who yelled at his student:

>

> " Just this, just this!! "

>

> So, even if there is contraction and a sense of " me " here, that is

> fine too.

 

You can only say that something is fine " after the fact. "

 

And there is no " after the fact. "

 

> No need to be rid of that sense of " me " to try to get to

> some kind of state where there is no me. That's more of the same

> nonsense.

 

Indeed - trying to get rid of me, is the me activity.

 

There's no getting to a state where there is no me, but there

is recognition that the investment to be, and to be in

a desired state, is the me activity.

 

> The sense of separation is what is,

 

The s of s is trying to have what can't be, while

avoiding what is. It's trying to be in a place that you

don't get to have, but not wanting to know that you

don't get to have it.

 

The attempt isn't happening separately, but there is

the intent and conceptualization that it has an

existence to itself, of its own, and forms relationships

with others also having their own existence.

 

The instant you are clear on how that attempt is happening,

it can't happen. It depends on lack of clarity for its

ongoing try. It can't afford clarity of how it happens.

 

> and whatever else you

> want is just resistance and following that resistance will only

> create more tension/suffering.

 

You don't know what will happen next.

 

Thinking you know what resistance is, and that you won't

follow resistance -- is resistance.

 

-- Dan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033>

wrote:

> > Like the famous zen dude who yelled at his student:

> >

> > " Just this, just this!! "

> >

> > So, even if there is contraction and a sense of " me " here, that

is

> > fine too.

>

> You can only say that something is fine " after the fact. "

>

> And there is no " after the fact. "

 

True. I am pointing to seeing the movement of mind and allowing it to

what it's doing. If it's seeking something, then allow it to seek.

The way I see it, there is the allowing of it and there is the

wishing it were different. Both are a kind of commentary, after the

fact, but the allowing seems to steal the juice from the

tension/seeking.

 

In the allowing of it to move, it can be seen what it's up to.

 

>

> > No need to be rid of that sense of " me " to try to get to

> > some kind of state where there is no me. That's more of the same

> > nonsense.

>

> Indeed - trying to get rid of me, is the me activity.

>

> There's no getting to a state where there is no me, but there

> is recognition that the investment to be, and to be in

> a desired state, is the me activity.

>

> > The sense of separation is what is,

>

> The s of s is trying to have what can't be, while

> avoiding what is. It's trying to be in a place that you

> don't get to have, but not wanting to know that you

> don't get to have it.

>

> The attempt isn't happening separately, but there is

> the intent and conceptualization that it has an

> existence to itself, of its own, and forms relationships

> with others also having their own existence.

>

> The instant you are clear on how that attempt is happening,

> it can't happen. It depends on lack of clarity for its

> ongoing try. It can't afford clarity of how it happens.

 

Yes, that's the seeing I am referring to. It's like taking the gas

away from the engine; it just dies down.

 

>

> > and whatever else you

> > want is just resistance and following that resistance will only

> > create more tension/suffering.

>

> You don't know what will happen next.

>

> Thinking you know what resistance is, and that you won't

> follow resistance -- is resistance.

 

Right, because that's just thinking about it and saying to

yourself " I won't do this. " There's a big difference between that and

seeing/sensing the arising of it and just seeing it... it's like

exposing the dude behind the curtain, " Oh, it's just you again. Carry

on if you will. " Of course, at that point, he doesn't want to anymore.

 

Joe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...