Guest guest Posted January 9, 2006 Report Share Posted January 9, 2006 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illieusion@h...> wrote: > > > >> Does realization change the > > personality, conduct and behavior? > > Does realization cause advent of > > qualities like love, kindness and > > compassion? > > personality equals no-realization > > realization equals no-personality > I am looking for a man/person/poster/member with 'no-personality', on this list, Bill! Please let me know... if you know 'one'! .... But, if you don't know [or name] one, what does it mean... in your own words? .... [but, if there is one with 'no-personality'... please let me know... how do you make that determination?] regards, ac. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 10, 2006 Report Share Posted January 10, 2006 > I am very glad that you have found inner peace! > > I consider inner peace very important and I consider > it first priority of every human to find and 'live' inner peace! > > For me there is no other realization or enlightenment. >>>> Yes. Basically. But as I said, the real " turning point " is the end of " seeking " . By that I mean the end of any sense of mystification re " What's it all about? " . It is not that one has " all the answers " . Indeed, it could be said that one has *no* answers. *And* no questions. The peace is a result, it seems to me, of the end of seeking. I'm not disagreeing with you. Just clarifying. This discussion started with: ac: Does realization change the personality, conduct and behavior? Does realization cause advent of qualities like love, kindness and compassion? B: personality equals no-realization realization equals no-personality A comment of yours that applies here is: > Irrespective of what changes might > have taken place in you internally... > I find a somewhat 'consistent' 'personality' > in you that comes across in your messages... > now... as well as 1-2 years back! OK. Fair enough. So I have to dig in a bit to clarify what I was trying to say. Because your point is well-taken. I am thinking to write a piece about " sudden " vs " gradual " , because it seems to me that the one thing that is " sudden " is the end of the seeking. As for the gradual, the immersion in the present, from my view, is gradual. Even with the end of the seeking the old reaction patterns remain. They become cleared up relatively directly, but they do come up. And those reaction patterns do interfere with " immersion in the Now " . The Now is absolutely alive and vibrant. It " sparkles " . Nisargatta first drew my attention to this fact when he commented about the differece between the present and memories. I don't remember his exact term, but he pointed out that the present has an aliveness that memories do not have. Along the way there have been many realizations " after the fact " . By that I mean realizations of a fundamental change having taken place, but not remembering exactly *when* it had taken place. One of these was the realization that there were no longer any questions, no longer any wondering about the imponderables. This, in effect, was the realization that the seeking had come to an end. Another was the realization that there was no longer a sense of a " center " to subjective " space " . Another was the realization that there was no longer a sense of an inner vs. outer, that there was no longer a sense of *any* boundary. Another was the realization that when out in a situation with other people that there was no longer a sense of a focal point corresponding to particular people. At one time there had been a sense of a general " energy field " and some people at least would be seen as " nodes " in the field (for a " node " think here of the drawings of a gravitation field showing space curvature with the curvature going down as into a hole where a massive body such as a planet is positioned). And another was the realization that there were no longer " feelings " in the sense of a *particular* feeling that " one is having " . It is as if the vibrance of the present becomes so alive, so vital, that there is a " cloud " of sparkling aliveness through everything, as it were. There is no resting point. There are no felt or sensed " particulars " that pertain to a " me " . The sense of oneness is enormous because everything and everyone is included in this so- called " cloud " of sparkling vitality. [The term " cloud " is just a metaphor attempting to convey. Another way of putting the same thing is that there is a sparkling aliveness or *radiance* imbuing and suffusing every particle of space.] With this last realization mentioned (and do note I am using the term " realization " in an ordinary sense throughout here, not the sense of a spiritual realization such as used by Ramana Majarshi) there was recognition that things weren't *personal* any more. There was no hook to hang a personal hat upon. And in a sense, I can call that " impersonal " . There is no sense of person in the sense of identity. There is no sense of this-is-what-I-am- like. You say you have a sense of " my personality " as something consistent over time. But is that at all important? Do you *need* that in any way? Is that not possibly getting in the way of seeing what is right now? Is that " sense " possibly operating as a filter, such that *what you see* of what is expressed from here is limited to what " fits " ? In any case, your sense of a " personality " corresponding to " Bill " cannot, as I see it, be really useful. When I look at an ac post it does look " familiar " . But when I read one can't I read that as if it were the first ac post I'd ever read? Pete is a good example for me, because I know him pretty well. But how well do I really know him? Wouldn't I do well to forget whatever I know of " Pete " and see what he writes with utter freshness every time? So there I have, perhaps, clarified somewhat what I meant when I said: realization equals no personality Personality is not something I *have* even if it is something *you perceive*. That being said, the qualities of compassion *do* increase. When there is no " my agenda " the openness to others, the patience with others, is enormously increased. When everything is part of one " sparkling cloud " of aliveness all is experienced with a shared joy. But I would attribute none of that to " personality " . Whose personality could you mean? Certainly not *mine*. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 10, 2006 Report Share Posted January 10, 2006 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illieusion@h...> wrote: > > > I am very glad that you have found inner peace! > > > > I consider inner peace very important and I consider > > it first priority of every human to find and 'live' inner peace! > > > > For me there is no other realization or enlightenment. > >>>> > Yes. Basically. > > But as I said, the real " turning point " is the > end of " seeking " . By that I mean the end of any > sense of mystification re " What's it all about? > " . It is not that one has " all the answers " . > Indeed, it could be said that one has *no* > answers. *And* no questions. > > The peace is a result, it seems to me, of the end > of seeking. What do you mean by 'seeking', Bill? Kind of seeking [searching for spiritual answers] you seem to describe below is naturally absent in many individuals! > > I'm not disagreeing with you. Just clarifying. > > This discussion started with: > ac: Does realization change the personality, > conduct and behavior? Does realization cause > advent of qualities like love, kindness and > compassion? > > B: > personality equals no-realization > realization equals no-personality > > > A comment of yours that applies here is: > > Irrespective of what changes might > > have taken place in you internally... > > I find a somewhat 'consistent' 'personality' > > in you that comes across in your messages... > > now... as well as 1-2 years back! > > OK. Fair enough. So I have to dig in a bit to > clarify what I was trying to say. Because your > point is well-taken. > > I am thinking to write a piece about " sudden " vs > " gradual " , because it seems to me that the one > thing that is " sudden " is the end of the seeking. > > As for the gradual, the immersion in the present, > from my view, is gradual. Even with the end of > the seeking the old reaction patterns remain. > They become cleared up relatively directly, but > they do come up. And those reaction patterns do > interfere with " immersion in the Now " . > > The Now is absolutely alive and vibrant. It > " sparkles " . Nisargatta first drew my attention to > this fact when he commented about the differece > between the present and memories. I don't > remember his exact term, but he pointed out that > the present has an aliveness that memories do not > have. > > Along the way there have been many realizations > " after the fact " . By that I mean realizations of > a fundamental change having taken place, but not > remembering exactly *when* it had taken place. > > One of these was the realization that there were > no longer any questions, no longer any wondering > about the imponderables. This, in effect, was the > realization that the seeking had come to an end. > > Another was the realization that there was no > longer a sense of a " center " to subjective > " space " . > > Another was the realization that there was no > longer a sense of an inner vs. outer, that there > was no longer a sense of *any* boundary. > > Another was the realization that when out in a > situation with other people that there was no > longer a sense of a focal point corresponding to > particular people. At one time there had been a > sense of a general " energy field " and some people > at least would be seen as " nodes " in the field > (for a " node " think here of the drawings of a > gravitation field showing space curvature with > the curvature going down as into a hole where a > massive body such as a planet is positioned). > > And another was the realization that there were > no longer " feelings " in the sense of a > *particular* feeling that " one is having " . It is > as if the vibrance of the present becomes so > alive, so vital, that there is a " cloud " of > sparkling aliveness through everything, as it > were. There is no resting point. There are no > felt or sensed " particulars " that pertain to a > " me " . The sense of oneness is enormous because > everything and everyone is included in this so- > called " cloud " of sparkling vitality. [The term > " cloud " is just a metaphor attempting to convey. > Another way of putting the same thing is that > there is a sparkling aliveness or *radiance* > imbuing and suffusing every particle of space.] > > With this last realization mentioned (and do note > I am using the term " realization " in an ordinary > sense throughout here, not the sense of a > spiritual realization such as used by Ramana > Majarshi) there was recognition that things > weren't *personal* any more. There was no hook to > hang a personal hat upon. > > And in a sense, I can call that " impersonal " . > There is no sense of person in the sense of > identity. There is no sense of this-is-what-I-am- > like. > > You say you have a sense of " my personality " as > something consistent over time. But is that at > all important? Do you *need* that in any way? Is > that not possibly getting in the way of seeing > what is right now? Seeing personality too is part of seeing... 'what is right now'! > Is that " sense " possibly > operating as a filter, such that *what you see* > of what is expressed from here is limited to what > " fits " ? Not necessarily... Read Ramana... After you have read and understood him enough, anytime you read new passage from him... it might strike as 'familiar' is 'style', 'delivery', promptness, directedness, simplicity as well as 'substance'... and, none of it requires a 'set' 'expectation'. Ramana has a consistent expression style, that's all and here is nothing wrong with it! > > In any case, your sense of a " personality " > corresponding to " Bill " cannot, as I see it, be > really useful. It is nothing something that you [or I] have to do on purpose. It doesn't happen as 'pre' reading exercise, it mostly happens after reading and it is mostly like 'visiting' a 'similar' place again! Or like tasting a new 'unknown' wine and instantly finding its taste somewhat similar to... one you had in Italy! .... Reading Papaji might often remind you of Ramana! And, it is not just because, you 'go in' expecting that to happen! > > When I look at an ac post it does look > " familiar " . But when I read one can't I read that > as if it were the first ac post I'd ever read? Or, you can simply " remove " the name of the author [mentally] and read it! > Pete is a good example for me, because I know him > pretty well. But how well do I really know him? > Wouldn't I do well to forget whatever I know of > " Pete " and see what he writes with utter > freshness every time? > > So there I have, perhaps, clarified somewhat what > I meant when I said: > > realization equals no personality > > Personality is not something I *have* even if it > is something *you perceive*. > > That being said, the qualities of compassion > *do* increase. When there is no " my agenda " > the openness to others, the patience with others, > is enormously increased. When everything is > part of one " sparkling cloud " of aliveness all > is experienced with a shared joy. > > But I would attribute none of that to " personality " . Whose personality > could you mean? > Certainly not *mine*. I have no problem with... *mine*! *mine* too is... Mine! but, it is NOT the Only Thing! and, it is Not the Most Important Thing! > > Bill > regards, ac. 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.