Guest guest Posted November 20, 2004 Report Share Posted November 20, 2004 There are a few things you must learn if you want to become a sage. 1. Have no fear. 2. Have fun. I'm not claiming to be a sage yet, but that is the state I want to reach as quickly as possibly. :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 20, 2004 Report Share Posted November 20, 2004 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > There are a few things you must learn if you want to become a sage. > > 1. Have no fear. > 2. Have fun. > > I'm not claiming to be a sage yet, but that is the state I want to > reach as quickly as possibly. :-) How? ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 20, 2004 Report Share Posted November 20, 2004 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > There are a few things you must learn if you want to become a sage. > > 1. Have no fear. > 2. Have fun. > > I'm not claiming to be a sage yet, but that is the state I want to > reach as quickly as possibly. :-) That's why you're not a sage. And having fun has nothing to do with truth. Although, of course, it has a lot to do with the marketability of certain self-proclaimed gurus. There's a difference between the clarity which is full enjoyment of being, and " having fun. " Full enjoyment of being is just as clear at the deepest lows as it is at the highest highs, is just as clear in the midst of the greatest confusion and fear, as it is in the midst of the most wonderful feelings of love. It has nothing to do with having fun. -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 20, 2004 Report Share Posted November 20, 2004 Friend, You are already a guru and a sage. Each of us has an unlimited access to some unique knowledge due to SPECIAL ANGLE of PERCEPTION. dan330033 <berkowd wrote: Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > There are a few things you must learn if you want to become a sage. > > 1. Have no fear. > 2. Have fun. > > I'm not claiming to be a sage yet, but that is the state I want to > reach as quickly as possibly. :-) That's why you're not a sage. And having fun has nothing to do with truth. Although, of course, it has a lot to do with the marketability of certain self-proclaimed gurus. There's a difference between the clarity which is full enjoyment of being, and " having fun. " Full enjoyment of being is just as clear at the deepest lows as it is at the highest highs, is just as clear in the midst of the greatest confusion and fear, as it is in the midst of the most wonderful feelings of love. It has nothing to do with having fun. -- Dan ** If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: /mygroups?edit=1 Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 20, 2004 Report Share Posted November 20, 2004 Hello Dan. You may be right, I dont know. But when I read Anders message and your reply... then I would say Anders is absolutely right... what we have to learn is: to have fun. Want to go beyond maya? Learn first to live in maya and develop courage. You will need it. You dont get courage with a sad face, believe me. Dont take everything so serious. In fact, it is NOT serious. Not at all. Good luck to both of you. S. Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <berkowd@u...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > There are a few things you must learn if you want to become a sage. > > > > 1. Have no fear. > > 2. Have fun. > > > > I'm not claiming to be a sage yet, but that is the state I want to > > reach as quickly as possibly. :-) > > That's why you're not a sage. > > And having fun has nothing to do with truth. > > Although, of course, it has a lot to do with > the marketability of certain self-proclaimed > gurus. > > There's a difference between the clarity which is > full enjoyment of being, and " having fun. " > > Full enjoyment of being is just as clear at the > deepest lows as it is at the highest highs, is > just as clear in the midst of the greatest confusion > and fear, as it is in the midst of the most wonderful > feelings of love. > > It has nothing to do with having fun. > > -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 20, 2004 Report Share Posted November 20, 2004 And for those who are able to laugh - if there is somebody here??? Hellooo???... For those who are able to laugh here is a small joke: A Scottish vedanta - freak left his home in Aberdeen to join a vedantic ashram in Bombay. After a week or two, his friend called to see how he was doing. " I'm fine, " he said. " But there are some really strange people living here. One guy is shouting all day long, another lies on the floor moaning, and there is a guy next door to me who bangs his head on the wall day and night. " " Well " says his friend, " I suggest you don't associate with people like that. " " Oh, " says the Scottsman, " I don't, man, I don't. No, I just stay inside my apartment all day and night, playing my bagpipes. " ....you can see, a Scotsman remains a Scotsman... even on his way to enlighenment :-) have a nice day Stefan Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@c...> wrote: > > Hello Dan. > > You may be right, I dont know. But when I read Anders message and your > reply... then I would say Anders is absolutely right... what we have > to learn is: to have fun. > > Want to go beyond maya? Learn first to live in maya and develop > courage. You will need it. You dont get courage with a sad face, > believe me. Dont take everything so serious. In fact, it is NOT > serious. Not at all. > > Good luck to both of you. > S. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 22, 2004 Report Share Posted November 22, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@c...> wrote: > > Hello Dan. > > You may be right, I dont know. But when I read Anders message and your > reply... then I would say Anders is absolutely right... what we have > to learn is: to have fun. > > Want to go beyond maya? Learn first to live in maya and develop > courage. You will need it. You dont get courage with a sad face, > believe me. Dont take everything so serious. In fact, it is NOT > serious. Not at all. > > Good luck to both of you. > S. What you think is right makes no difference to me one way or another, S. As long as you're satisfied with yourself having fun, that's what you'll be stuck with: yourself and its attempts to be having fun. Good luck to both of you, your self and its attempts. D. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 22, 2004 Report Share Posted November 22, 2004 Nisargadatta , leo rozumenko <leorozum> wrote: > > > Friend, You are already a guru and a sage. > > Each of us has an unlimited access to some unique knowledge > > due to SPECIAL ANGLE of PERCEPTION. You've made the common mistake of equating being full of crap with being a sage. Being a sage has nothing to do with having unique knowledge and a special angle of perception. It has to do with having no concern whatsoever with being a sage and whatever that project might or might not involve. And a whole lot less than that. -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 23, 2004 Report Share Posted November 23, 2004 You could be aware of every moment or to be beyond the time and it is only your choice where you are and what do you want to deliver dan330033 <berkowd wrote: Nisargadatta , leo rozumenko <leorozum> wrote: > > > Friend, You are already a guru and a sage. > > Each of us has an unlimited access to some unique knowledge > > due to SPECIAL ANGLE of PERCEPTION. You've made the common mistake of equating being full of crap with being a sage. Being a sage has nothing to do with having unique knowledge and a special angle of perception. It has to do with having no concern whatsoever with being a sage and whatever that project might or might not involve. And a whole lot less than that. -- Dan ** If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: /mygroups?edit=1 Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 23, 2004 Report Share Posted November 23, 2004 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <berkowd@u...> wrote: >What you think is right makes no difference to me >one way or another, S. You could notice by re-reading my posting that I was not saying that anything is right as opposed to wrong... so you can see, it was not meant to make any difference to you! - :-) >As long as you're satisfied with yourself having >fun, that's what you'll be stuck with: yourself >and its attempts to be having fun. neither did I say anything about satisfaction ...and I used the word " fun " certainly in a very special context. Nevertheless, thank you for the reminder. But I would suggest: humor sharpens intelligence, helps to understand more intuitively and enables to read between the lines. Those are a few things that can (not need to) be helpful for someone who tries to communicate in a email group. >Good luck to both of you, your self and its attempts. A brilliant formulation, but I mostly laugh without any attempt. It just comes up. How does it go with your defensiveness? Best wishes and good luck for whatever you wish (and if you dont wish anything - good luck for nothingness). Stefan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 27, 2004 Report Share Posted November 27, 2004 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > There are a few things you must learn if you want to become a sage. > > > > 1. Have no fear. > > 2. Have fun. > > > > I'm not claiming to be a sage yet, but that is the state I want to > > reach as quickly as possibly. :-) > > How? ) The first recognition is to see that the now is vaster than your personal problems. That's a fact. I may be worrying about paying my bills (as I am :-), but this moment, this clear now, the presence of total being is much, much bigger than my personal problems. I may have fears, yes, but this moment right now is vaster than any of my fears, even the fear of dying. So, this first step will not get you free from fear, but will create space around all your personal ideas about who you are. This first step is not the end, it is a beginning of realizing something bigger. /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 27, 2004 Report Share Posted November 27, 2004 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <berkowd@u...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > There are a few things you must learn if you want to become a sage. > > > > 1. Have no fear. > > 2. Have fun. > > > > I'm not claiming to be a sage yet, but that is the state I want to > > reach as quickly as possibly. :-) > > That's why you're not a sage. > > And having fun has nothing to do with truth. > > Although, of course, it has a lot to do with > the marketability of certain self-proclaimed > gurus. > > There's a difference between the clarity which is > full enjoyment of being, and " having fun. " > > Full enjoyment of being is just as clear at the > deepest lows as it is at the highest highs, is > just as clear in the midst of the greatest confusion > and fear, as it is in the midst of the most wonderful > feelings of love. > > It has nothing to do with having fun. > > -- Dan True peace is first needed, and then the fun will be there automatically. For true peace a state of no fear is needed. /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 27, 2004 Report Share Posted November 27, 2004 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > There are a few things you must learn if you want to become a > sage. > > > > > > 1. Have no fear. > > > 2. Have fun. > > > > > > I'm not claiming to be a sage yet, but that is the state I want to > > > reach as quickly as possibly. :-) > > > > How? ) > > The first recognition is to see that the now is vaster than your > personal problems. That's a fact. I may be worrying about paying my > bills (as I am :-), but this moment, this clear now, the presence of > total being is much, much bigger than my personal problems. I may P: If this were a direct perception rather than a thought, a sense of 'I' wouldn't be there to claim any problems. The bills would still be there to be paid, but that would be another thing to be done, no different than having lunch. So the question again, is... How to perceive directly? Can the mind be silent and just watch? Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 27, 2004 Report Share Posted November 27, 2004 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > There are a few things you must learn if you want to become a > > sage. > > > > > > > > 1. Have no fear. > > > > 2. Have fun. > > > > > > > > I'm not claiming to be a sage yet, but that is the state I want > to > > > > reach as quickly as possibly. :-) > > > > > > How? ) > > > > The first recognition is to see that the now is vaster than your > > personal problems. That's a fact. I may be worrying about paying my > > bills (as I am :-), but this moment, this clear now, the presence > of > > total being is much, much bigger than my personal problems. I may > > P: If this were a direct perception rather than a thought, a sense > of 'I' wouldn't be there to claim any problems. The bills would > still be there to be paid, but that would be another thing to be > done, no different than having lunch. So the question again, is... > How to perceive directly? Can the mind be silent and just watch? > > Pete The " me " is a though/emotion as a part of what a person perceives. Maybe the mind can eventually find out for itself that, as you say, that the " me " is just ideas about what to be done and what has been done. The human mind is good at fooling itself. For example, by using logic, the human intellect can believe the future is much vaster than the now, but that is a total misconception. The future is a thought/emotion construct in the human mind which is a tiny fracture of the present moment. So, in reality, the present moment, the now, is vaster than any human thought, including _all_ future, which is only a tiny aspect of now. Similarly, my problems are just thoughts about things to be done, which, again, is the future, and the future is the past extrapolated in the human mind. When the human intellect understands that it itself cannot hold the truth, but is always only an aspect of the truth, the perhaps it can become silent and just watch. Eckhart Tolle talks about a state above thinking where the mind is silent and where thoughts only appear when needed. And in that state thought is much clearer and effective. Tolle talks about the ordinary human mind as " noisy " , and the new state of consciousness as noiseless and more intelligent. /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 27, 2004 Report Share Posted November 27, 2004 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > There are a few things you must learn if you want to become a > > > sage. > > > > > > > > > > 1. Have no fear. > > > > > 2. Have fun. > > > > > > > > > > I'm not claiming to be a sage yet, but that is the state I > want > > to > > > > > reach as quickly as possibly. :-) > > > > > > > > How? ) > > > > > > The first recognition is to see that the now is vaster than your > > > personal problems. That's a fact. I may be worrying about paying > my > > > bills (as I am :-), but this moment, this clear now, the presence > > of > > > total being is much, much bigger than my personal problems. I may > > > > P: If this were a direct perception rather than a thought, a sense > > of 'I' wouldn't be there to claim any problems. The bills would > > still be there to be paid, but that would be another thing to be > > done, no different than having lunch. So the question again, is... > > How to perceive directly? Can the mind be silent and just watch? > > > > Pete > > The " me " is a though/emotion as a part of what a person perceives. > Maybe the mind can eventually find out for itself that, as you say, > that the " me " is just ideas about what to be done and what has been > done. The human mind is good at fooling itself. For example, by using > logic, the human intellect can believe the future is much vaster than > the now, but that is a total misconception. The future is a > thought/emotion construct in the human mind which is a tiny fracture > of the present moment. So, in reality, the present moment, the now, is > vaster than any human thought, including _all_ future, which is only a > tiny aspect of now. Similarly, my problems are just thoughts about > things to be done, which, again, is the future, and the future is the > past extrapolated in the human mind. > > When the human intellect understands that it itself cannot hold the > truth, but is always only an aspect of the truth, the perhaps it can > become silent and just watch. Eckhart Tolle talks about a state above > thinking where the mind is silent and where thoughts only appear when > needed. And in that state thought is much clearer and effective. Tolle > talks about the ordinary human mind as " noisy " , and the new state of > consciousness as noiseless and more intelligent. > > /AL So has this understanding made your mind more silent and watchful? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 28, 2004 Report Share Posted November 28, 2004 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > The " me " is a though/emotion as a part of what a person perceives. > Maybe the mind can eventually find out for itself that, as you say, > that the " me " is just ideas about what to be done and what has been > done. The human mind is good at fooling itself. For example, by using > logic, the human intellect can believe the future is much vaster than > the now, but that is a total misconception. The future is a > thought/emotion construct in the human mind which is a tiny fracture > of the present moment. So, in reality, the present moment, the now, is > vaster than any human thought, including _all_ future, which is only a > tiny aspect of now. Similarly, my problems are just thoughts about > things to be done, which, again, is the future, and the future is the > past extrapolated in the human mind. > > When the human intellect understands that it itself cannot hold the > truth, but is always only an aspect of the truth, the perhaps it can > become silent and just watch. Can something which cannot hold the truth - understand that fact? To really understand that, means to hold/be this truth, doesn't it. The intellect can intellectually " understand " that his activity is noise, but this very understanding seems to be a part of noise. > Eckhart Tolle talks about a state above > thinking where the mind is silent and where thoughts only appear when > needed. And in that state thought is much clearer and effective. Tolle > talks about the ordinary human mind as " noisy " , and the new state of > consciousness as noiseless and more intelligent. > > /AL When you talk about a state somebody else is talking about, you talk about a construct, which is again a part of noise. Len Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 28, 2004 Report Share Posted November 28, 2004 _____ lissbon2002 [lissbon2002] Saturday, November 27, 2004 7:11 PM Nisargadatta Re: To be a sage Can something which cannot hold the truth - understand that fact? Maybe. To really understand that, means to hold/be this truth, doesn't it. Yes. The intellect can intellectually " understand " that his activity is noise, but this very understanding seems to be a part of noise. True. The understanding could be a bridge between noise and silence since it is made of both noise and silence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 28, 2004 Report Share Posted November 28, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Harsha " wrote: > The understanding could be a bridge between noise and silence since it is > made of both noise and silence. But - is there really a bridge between noise and silence? Or is the bridge just more noise, and the silence it leads to, just another image? Len Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 28, 2004 Report Share Posted November 28, 2004 _____ lissbon2002 [lissbon2002] Sunday, November 28, 2004 7:07 AM Nisargadatta Re: To be a sage Nisargadatta , " Harsha " wrote: > The understanding could be a bridge between noise and silence since it is > made of both noise and silence. But - is there really a bridge between noise and silence? Or is the bridge just more noise, and the silence it leads to, just another image? Len ************** Yes, that is another way of looking at it. Sorry, I came late in the discussion. What were we discussing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 28, 2004 Report Share Posted November 28, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Harsha " wrote: > _____ > > lissbon2002 [lissbon2002] > Sunday, November 28, 2004 7:07 AM > Nisargadatta > Re: To be a sage > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Harsha " wrote: > > > > The understanding could be a bridge between noise and silence since > it is > > made of both noise and silence. > > > But - is there really a bridge between noise and silence? > Or is the bridge just more noise, and the silence it leads to, just > another image? > > Len > ************** > > Yes, that is another way of looking at it. Sorry, I came late in the > discussion. What were we discussing? Does it matter? ;-) Why are we discussing? Do we want to get somewhere? Len Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 28, 2004 Report Share Posted November 28, 2004 _____ lissbon2002 [lissbon2002] Sunday, November 28, 2004 12:50 PM Nisargadatta Re: To be a sage * But - is there really a bridge between noise and silence? > Or is the bridge just more noise, and the silence it leads to, just > another image? > > Len > ************** > > Yes, that is another way of looking at it. Sorry, I came late in the > discussion. What were we discussing? Does it matter? ;-) Why are we discussing? Do we want to get somewhere? Len *************** * OK Len. Good questions! Harsha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 29, 2004 Report Share Posted November 29, 2004 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: .... > > When the human intellect understands that it itself cannot hold the > > truth, but is always only an aspect of the truth, the perhaps it > can > > become silent and just watch. Eckhart Tolle talks about a state > above > > thinking where the mind is silent and where thoughts only appear > when > > needed. And in that state thought is much clearer and effective. > Tolle > > talks about the ordinary human mind as " noisy " , and the new state > of > > consciousness as noiseless and more intelligent. > > > > /AL > > So has this understanding made your mind more silent and watchful? A: The horror is that for me fear has increased instead of becoming less. But I do feel a bit of more spaciousness around my fear. In that way, something new has opened up. A few years ago I went through what can be called " the dark night of the soul " , or a kind of severe depression to use a more ordinary explanation. I have never gone back to that deep nightmare again, but fear in me has increased on other levels. There seems to be no end to my " angst " , but I do nowadays often feel an opening up that is a deepening into the present moment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 29, 2004 Report Share Posted November 29, 2004 Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > The " me " is a though/emotion as a part of what a person perceives. > > Maybe the mind can eventually find out for itself that, as you say, > > that the " me " is just ideas about what to be done and what has been > > done. The human mind is good at fooling itself. For example, by > using > > logic, the human intellect can believe the future is much vaster > than > > the now, but that is a total misconception. The future is a > > thought/emotion construct in the human mind which is a tiny > fracture > > of the present moment. So, in reality, the present moment, the now, > is > > vaster than any human thought, including _all_ future, which is > only a > > tiny aspect of now. Similarly, my problems are just thoughts about > > things to be done, which, again, is the future, and the future is > the > > past extrapolated in the human mind. > > > > When the human intellect understands that it itself cannot hold the > > truth, but is always only an aspect of the truth, the perhaps it > can > > become silent and just watch. > > > > Can something which cannot hold the truth - understand that fact? > To really understand that, means to hold/be this truth, doesn't it. > The intellect can intellectually " understand " that his activity is > noise, but this very understanding seems to be a part of noise. No, it can't. Not by itself. If we are trapped in intellectual thinking, then we are blind, so to speak. The intellect can see that it _probably_ is limited, but it will remain in that state until an opening up happens. Some deeper intelligence cuts through the heavy layers of thought structures and opens up a deeper present moment, which previously was hidden. > > > > > > Eckhart Tolle talks about a state above > > thinking where the mind is silent and where thoughts only appear > when > > needed. And in that state thought is much clearer and effective. > Tolle > > talks about the ordinary human mind as " noisy " , and the new state > of > > consciousness as noiseless and more intelligent. > > > > /AL > > > When you talk about a state somebody else is talking about, you talk > about a construct, which is again a part of noise. > > Len A: That's true. But by understanding intellectually and then actually experience that the present moment is deeper and more vast than the intellect, then the words from a spiritual teacher becomes a reality instead of just second-hand words. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 29, 2004 Report Share Posted November 29, 2004 THE FOLLOWING RESPONSSE IS AIMED AT CLARIFYING THE SENDER'S RESPONSE AND HOPEFULLY GENERATE INTEREST FROM ANYONE TO PURSUE ENLIGHTENING DISCUSSIONS: is it correct to say of the following message by the sender that--- that when one understands the limitation of the human intellect (i.e. the human intellect can only hold an aspect of truth) can there be silence. also, in allowing the thought to surface only when needed gives rise to silence and making thought more effective? if these were so.. how can a state of above thinking be attained when the mind allows itself to generate thoughts? which or who is silent and watchful? what is effective thought? how is it distinct from the ordinary thought the mind creates? anders_lindman <anders_lindman wrote: Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: .... > > When the human intellect understands that it itself cannot hold the > > truth, but is always only an aspect of the truth, the perhaps it > can > > become silent and just watch. Eckhart Tolle talks about a state > above > > thinking where the mind is silent and where thoughts only appear > when > > needed. And in that state thought is much clearer and effective. > Tolle > > talks about the ordinary human mind as " noisy " , and the new state > of > > consciousness as noiseless and more intelligent. > > > > /AL > > So has this understanding made your mind more silent and watchful? A: The horror is that for me fear has increased instead of becoming less. But I do feel a bit of more spaciousness around my fear. In that way, something new has opened up. A few years ago I went through what can be called " the dark night of the soul " , or a kind of severe depression to use a more ordinary explanation. I have never gone back to that deep nightmare again, but fear in me has increased on other levels. There seems to be no end to my " angst " , but I do nowadays often feel an opening up that is a deepening into the present moment. ** If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: /mygroups?edit=1 Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 29, 2004 Report Share Posted November 29, 2004 > > > > So has this understanding made your mind more silent and watchful? > > A: The horror is that for me fear has increased instead of becoming > less. But I do feel a bit of more spaciousness around my fear. In that > way, something new has opened up. A few years ago I went through what > can be called " the dark night of the soul " , or a kind of severe > depression to use a more ordinary explanation. I have never gone back > to that deep nightmare again, but fear in me has increased on other > levels. There seems to be no end to my " angst " , but I do nowadays > often feel an opening up that is a deepening into the present moment. P: OK, I can relate to that, since I went thru the 'night' for 5 long years. The spaciousness is a good sign. There are two things you can do now: 1) Look into the posibility that fear could be controlled by medication. See a Doctor about it. 2) Understand thinking won't get rid of fear, or bring more spaciousness. Only moving away from compulsive thinking and to a silent watchful mind will do it. It's not that you should try not to think at all, or make thinking into a tabu, but that you clearly understand: a) You are not thought or any other mental or physical activity. b) Thought is not clarity, and no formulation no matter how clever would increase the spaciousnes, the silence, and the peace. c) only mindfulness, watchfulness, attention will do it, and being in that state daily as often, and for as long as possible should be your daily practice. Best to you, Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.