Guest guest Posted January 5, 2005 Report Share Posted January 5, 2005 Hi Anders, Whom were you addressing with your reply ? For me it seems it was yourself. Just see this simple sentence you started with: > When content is cleansed of emotional attachment, then there will > pehaps be clarity. Question: Who is the cleanser ? Who will do that cleansing job ? An who is attached ? Or is there just attachment and no one who is attached ? If you would have gone more deeply into this questions yourself before you were posting your reply, I believe your reply maybe would have been different. Werner Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > > > > Hi friends, > > > > When reading posts of a list, or having a direct talk with someone, > > all reactions one feels are just in one's head - nowhere else. > > Hi Werner, > > Pardon me, but aren't feelings felt inside the entire energy field of > the body and not just in the head? > > > > > The problem is the interpretation of a stimulus and not the stimus > > itself. > > > > Here is some text I found on a Douglas Harding list and in my eyes it > > also fits well here to this Niz list. Maybe one has to read it once > > more to grasp it because D.H. has his own way to express his views. > > > > Werner > > > > ------------------- > > > > Emptiness becoming things > > Is never seeing true. > > Abandon all opinion > > To get a proper view. > > > > Seng T'san (The thírd patriarch) > > > > > > " But also, where as I thought clarity would be served - I called it > > Space, or more precisely, Space for that scene to happen in. An > > unhappy phrase for it seemed to say that I had found above the Bottom > > Line the world's content, and below it the World's container, and > > that they were thus separable. The merest glance should have shown me > > that all the world in one piece - container and content undivided > > belongs above the line, and that there it's never served up short of > > room for itself. Happily, the mistake did not lie in the basic > > experience but in my interpretation of it. The lie belonged to the > > meaning of what I saw and not to the Seeing itself. In time, I > > learned that there exists no bolt hole or bunker below the line, that > > my life is lived above ground willy nilly, and that if I'm to be free > > of the world and its troubles it is by being them. I have ceased to > > be any kind of container at all, but instead am content with my > > content. " > > > > Douglas Harding (The Headless Way) > > When content is cleansed of emotional attachment, then there will > pehaps be clarity. We might think that removing emotions from content > will turn us into mechanical robots without feelings, but the truth > could be that emotions are what make us into mechanical robots without > true feelings. (Emotion = feeling related to particular content, True > feeling = feeling without relation to particular content) > > /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 5, 2005 Report Share Posted January 5, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > > Hi Anders, > > Whom were you addressing with your reply ? For me it seems it was > yourself. > > Just see this simple sentence you started with: > > > When content is cleansed of emotional attachment, then there will > > pehaps be clarity. > > Question: Who is the cleanser ? Who will do that cleansing job ? An > who is attached ? Or is there just attachment and no one who is > attached ? > > If you would have gone more deeply into this questions yourself > before you were posting your reply, I believe your reply maybe would > have been different. > > Werner Hi Werner, Cleaning of attachments will happen when understanding is there. Liberation from attachments is not rejection of attachments. Attachment to content must be complete and not fragmented. Liberation is complete attachment to content; it comes when all content is seen as one. (I am really not liberated from attachment myself, so what I have written here may be bullshit /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 5, 2005 Report Share Posted January 5, 2005 Ok Anders, The whole thing is much more simple: There is nothing you can do ! Werner Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > > > > Hi Anders, > > > > Whom were you addressing with your reply ? For me it seems it was > > yourself. > > > > Just see this simple sentence you started with: > > > > > When content is cleansed of emotional attachment, then there will > > > pehaps be clarity. > > > > Question: Who is the cleanser ? Who will do that cleansing job ? An > > who is attached ? Or is there just attachment and no one who is > > attached ? > > > > If you would have gone more deeply into this questions yourself > > before you were posting your reply, I believe your reply maybe would > > have been different. > > > > Werner > > Hi Werner, > > Cleaning of attachments will happen when understanding is there. > Liberation from attachments is not rejection of attachments. > Attachment to content must be complete and not fragmented. Liberation > is complete attachment to content; it comes when all content is seen > as one. (I am really not liberated from attachment myself, so what I > have written here may be bullshit > > /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 5, 2005 Report Share Posted January 5, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > > Ok Anders, > > The whole thing is much more simple: > > There is nothing you can do ! > > Werner > When " I do " and " the world does " become one and the same unified action, then there is doing without a separate individual as a doer. Then the statement " I cannot do anything " becomes meaningless, or at least redundant. When we think.... " I do this " .....and..... " I do that " .......then there is an unnecessary extra agent " I " involved. Of course in a practical sense we can still think " I do this and that " but with the total realization that what really is going on is " I do this and that " , but not as a separate I. Then " I am " becomes " I am That " . /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 5, 2005 Report Share Posted January 5, 2005 And now ? What will you do ? Werner Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > > > > Ok Anders, > > > > The whole thing is much more simple: > > > > There is nothing you can do ! > > > > Werner > > > > When " I do " and " the world does " become one and the same unified > action, then there is doing without a separate individual as a doer. > Then the statement " I cannot do anything " becomes meaningless, or at > least redundant. > > When we think.... " I do this " .....and..... " I do that " .......then there > is an unnecessary extra agent " I " involved. Of course in a practical > sense we can still think " I do this and that " but with the total > realization that what really is going on is " I do this and that " , but > not as a separate I. Then " I am " becomes " I am That " . > > /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 5, 2005 Report Share Posted January 5, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > > And now ? What will you do ? > > Werner LOL! I will write this reply. :-) Anders 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.