false indentifications with the contents of experience

[Guest guest]

I must have some form of handicap, an exagerated

dyslexia, a useless left brain, and an over producing

right one, coupled with some strike of

unwillingness.....because I keep falling of my boat.

Patricia

>>>>>>>>>>

 

If you see the boat as who-you-are, i.e. if you

identify with what is happening with the boat,

then there will be vertigo, sea sickness, and

the like.

 

If you see what is happening in relation to the

boat as independent, if you sense an indifferent

observer witnessing it all, and that what happens

is just a drama passing by, then no vertigo.

 

It is odd and can seem like a contradiction,

but to witness whatever happens in of around to

that boat, to witness whatever happens whatsoever

with complete, utter attention... well, that would

seem to stir one " into it " all the more, to put

one all the more at mercy of the turbulence.

But in actuality it is the opposite. When there is

a witnessing moment by moment each arising moment,

be it thoughts, sensations, feelings... then

one is free of it because as *witnessing it*

one is inherently *not it*. The moment to moment

witnessing with utter attention breaks the

cycle of identification.

 

For example, if the content happens to be feelings

then when every minute detail of feeling is witnessed

then it becomes inherently clear that the feelings

*aren't you*!

 

So witnessing with absolute attention moment by

moment is inherently a liberation from the false

indentifications with the contents of experience.

 

 

Bill

[Guest guest]

Hi Bill,

 

I just saw you using the word " identification " . Can you tell what is

identification ?

 

And are there two selfs ? One is thinking, daydreaming or suffering

and the other self is identificating with that stuff ?

 

I think there is no such thing as identification. Strong thoughts,

impressions, sensation or feelings which leave a deeper mark we call

identified. Weak ones we don't see as identified.

 

Werner

 

 

Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@g...>

wrote:

>

> I must have some form of handicap, an exagerated

> dyslexia, a useless left brain, and an over producing

> right one, coupled with some strike of

> unwillingness.....because I keep falling of my boat.

> Patricia

> >>>>>>>>>>

>

> If you see the boat as who-you-are, i.e. if you

> identify with what is happening with the boat,

> then there will be vertigo, sea sickness, and

> the like.

>

> If you see what is happening in relation to the

> boat as independent, if you sense an indifferent

> observer witnessing it all, and that what happens

> is just a drama passing by, then no vertigo.

>

> It is odd and can seem like a contradiction,

> but to witness whatever happens in of around to

> that boat, to witness whatever happens whatsoever

> with complete, utter attention... well, that would

> seem to stir one " into it " all the more, to put

> one all the more at mercy of the turbulence.

> But in actuality it is the opposite. When there is

> a witnessing moment by moment each arising moment,

> be it thoughts, sensations, feelings... then

> one is free of it because as *witnessing it*

> one is inherently *not it*. The moment to moment

> witnessing with utter attention breaks the

> cycle of identification.

>

> For example, if the content happens to be feelings

> then when every minute detail of feeling is witnessed

> then it becomes inherently clear that the feelings

> *aren't you*!

>

> So witnessing with absolute attention moment by

> moment is inherently a liberation from the false

> indentifications with the contents of experience.

>

>

> Bill

>

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@g...>

wrote:

>

> I must have some form of handicap, an exagerated

> dyslexia, a useless left brain, and an over producing

> right one, coupled with some strike of

> unwillingness.....because I keep falling of my boat.

> Patricia

> >>>>>>>>>>

>

> If you see the boat as who-you-are, i.e. if you

> identify with what is happening with the boat,

> then there will be vertigo, sea sickness, and

> the like.

>

> If you see what is happening in relation to the

> boat as independent, if you sense an indifferent

> observer witnessing it all, and that what happens

> is just a drama passing by, then no vertigo.

>

> It is odd and can seem like a contradiction,

> but to witness whatever happens in of around to

> that boat, to witness whatever happens whatsoever

> with complete, utter attention... well, that would

> seem to stir one " into it " all the more, to put

> one all the more at mercy of the turbulence.

> But in actuality it is the opposite. When there is

> a witnessing moment by moment each arising moment,

> be it thoughts, sensations, feelings... then

> one is free of it because as *witnessing it*

> one is inherently *not it*. The moment to moment

> witnessing with utter attention breaks the

> cycle of identification.

>

> For example, if the content happens to be feelings

> then when every minute detail of feeling is witnessed

> then it becomes inherently clear that the feelings

> *aren't you*!

>

> So witnessing with absolute attention moment by

> moment is inherently a liberation from the false

> indentifications with the contents of experience.

>

>

> Bill

 

thank you for this words about witnessing.....

 

when all the endless tasks resulting from past actions are

fulfilled.....then there is a chance for witnessing.....

 

but if one " see " life as an endless fulfillment of

tasks.....resulting from endless ideas and concepts.....

then there is also no chance for witnessing....now, or in the future

 

few thoughts

 

Marc

>

[Guest guest]

Thank-you! I can read that for the rest of my confused

life. It is all there. Boy do I love that witness..

Patricia

 

 

 

Nisargadatta , " billrishel "

<illusyn@g...>

wrote:

>

> I must have some form of handicap, an exagerated

> dyslexia, a useless left brain, and an over

producing

> right one, coupled with some strike of

> unwillingness.....because I keep falling of my boat.

> Patricia

> >>>>>>>>>>

>

> If you see the boat as who-you-are, i.e. if you

> identify with what is happening with the boat,

> then there will be vertigo, sea sickness, and

> the like.

>

> If you see what is happening in relation to the

> boat as independent, if you sense an indifferent

> observer witnessing it all, and that what happens

> is just a drama passing by, then no vertigo.

>

> It is odd and can seem like a contradiction,

> but to witness whatever happens in of around to

> that boat, to witness whatever happens whatsoever

> with complete, utter attention... well, that would

> seem to stir one " into it " all the more, to put

> one all the more at mercy of the turbulence.

> But in actuality it is the opposite. When there is

> a witnessing moment by moment each arising moment,

> be it thoughts, sensations, feelings... then

> one is free of it because as *witnessing it*

> one is inherently *not it*. The moment to moment

> witnessing with utter attention breaks the

> cycle of identification.

>

> For example, if the content happens to be feelings

> then when every minute detail of feeling is

witnessed

> then it becomes inherently clear that the feelings

> *aren't you*!

>

> So witnessing with absolute attention moment by

> moment is inherently a liberation from the false

> indentifications with the contents of experience.

>

>

Bill

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

>

 

 

 

 

 

 

**

 

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.

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

I'm delighted to hear it made sense to you.

Doesn't surprise me though:)

Bill

 

>

> Thank-you! I can read that for the rest of my confused

> life. It is all there. Boy do I love that witness..

> Patricia

>

>

>

> Nisargadatta , " billrishel "

> <illusyn@g...>

> wrote:

> >

> > I must have some form of handicap, an exagerated

> > dyslexia, a useless left brain, and an over

> producing

> > right one, coupled with some strike of

> > unwillingness.....because I keep falling of my boat.

> > Patricia

> > >>>>>>>>>>

> >

> > If you see the boat as who-you-are, i.e. if you

> > identify with what is happening with the boat,

> > then there will be vertigo, sea sickness, and

> > the like.

> >

> > If you see what is happening in relation to the

> > boat as independent, if you sense an indifferent

> > observer witnessing it all, and that what happens

> > is just a drama passing by, then no vertigo.

> >

> > It is odd and can seem like a contradiction,

> > but to witness whatever happens in of around to

> > that boat, to witness whatever happens whatsoever

> > with complete, utter attention... well, that would

> > seem to stir one " into it " all the more, to put

> > one all the more at mercy of the turbulence.

> > But in actuality it is the opposite. When there is

> > a witnessing moment by moment each arising moment,

> > be it thoughts, sensations, feelings... then

> > one is free of it because as *witnessing it*

> > one is inherently *not it*. The moment to moment

> > witnessing with utter attention breaks the

> > cycle of identification.

> >

> > For example, if the content happens to be feelings

> > then when every minute detail of feeling is

> witnessed

> > then it becomes inherently clear that the feelings

> > *aren't you*!

> >

> > So witnessing with absolute attention moment by

> > moment is inherently a liberation from the false

> > indentifications with the contents of experience.

> >

> >

> Bill

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>

> >

**

>

> 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.

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Werner, and thank you for your question.

I'm dead tired and won't be able to really

address this interesting question of yours

just now. But briefly for the moment, what

comes to mind is that indentification

(in the " existential " sense we seem to be

discussing it here) is a kind of *presumption*.

And on the heels of such presumption a lot

tends to follow.

 

But as I said, more on this later.

 

Bill

 

 

>

> Hi Bill,

>

> I just saw you using the word " identification " . Can you tell what is

> identification ?

>

> And are there two selfs ? One is thinking, daydreaming or suffering

> and the other self is identificating with that stuff ?

>

> I think there is no such thing as identification. Strong thoughts,

> impressions, sensation or feelings which leave a deeper mark we call

> identified. Weak ones we don't see as identified.

>

> Werner

>

>

> Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@g...>

> wrote:

> >

> > I must have some form of handicap, an exagerated

> > dyslexia, a useless left brain, and an over producing

> > right one, coupled with some strike of

> > unwillingness.....because I keep falling of my boat.

> > Patricia

> > >>>>>>>>>>

> >

> > If you see the boat as who-you-are, i.e. if you

> > identify with what is happening with the boat,

> > then there will be vertigo, sea sickness, and

> > the like.

> >

> > If you see what is happening in relation to the

> > boat as independent, if you sense an indifferent

> > observer witnessing it all, and that what happens

> > is just a drama passing by, then no vertigo.

> >

> > It is odd and can seem like a contradiction,

> > but to witness whatever happens in of around to

> > that boat, to witness whatever happens whatsoever

> > with complete, utter attention... well, that would

> > seem to stir one " into it " all the more, to put

> > one all the more at mercy of the turbulence.

> > But in actuality it is the opposite. When there is

> > a witnessing moment by moment each arising moment,

> > be it thoughts, sensations, feelings... then

> > one is free of it because as *witnessing it*

> > one is inherently *not it*. The moment to moment

> > witnessing with utter attention breaks the

> > cycle of identification.

> >

> > For example, if the content happens to be feelings

> > then when every minute detail of feeling is witnessed

> > then it becomes inherently clear that the feelings

> > *aren't you*!

> >

> > So witnessing with absolute attention moment by

> > moment is inherently a liberation from the false

> > indentifications with the contents of experience.

> >

> >

> > Bill

> >

>

[Guest guest]

> > Bill:

> > So witnessing with absolute attention moment by

> > moment is inherently a liberation from the false

> > indentifications with the contents of experience.

> >

> Marc:

>

> thank you for this words about witnessing.....

>

> when all the endless tasks resulting from past actions are

> fulfilled.....then there is a chance for witnessing.....

>

> but if one " see " life as an endless fulfillment of

> tasks.....resulting from endless ideas and concepts.....

> then there is also no chance for witnessing....now, or in the future

>

> few thoughts

~~~~~~~~~~~~

Yes, if one is " busy " then there is no space

for witnessing with absolute attention. Witnessing

with absolute attention is in a sense " stopping "

as far as the " usual routine " is concerned.

[Carlos Castaneda's Don Juan would speak of

" stopping the world " , an apt phrase here.]

 

I read your post just after reading the following

passage from Krishnamurti that a friend just sent

me by email. I think you will find it interesting:

 

So what gives right understanding is not the

residue of many experiences. You cannot meet

new experiences wholly when the remainder of

past experiences is burdening your mind. Yet

that is how you are continually meeting them.

That is, your mind has learned to be careful,

to be cunning, to act as a signal, to give a

warning; therefore, you cannot meet any

incident fully. To free your mind of memory, to

free it from this burden of experience, you

must meet life fully; in that action your past

memories come into activity, and in the flame

of awareness they are dissolved. Try it and you

will see.

 

Krishnamurti

 

 

Bill

[Guest guest]

> >B:

> >So witnessing with absolute attention moment by

> > moment is inherently a liberation from the false

> > indentifications with the contents of experience.

 

> W:

> I just saw you using the word " identification " . Can you tell what is

> identification ?

>

> And are there two selfs ? One is thinking, daydreaming or suffering

> and the other self is identificating with that stuff ?

>

> I think there is no such thing as identification. Strong thoughts,

> impressions, sensation or feelings which leave a deeper mark we call

> identified. Weak ones we don't see as identified.

 

Very interesting comment Werner.

I agree there is no such thing as identification, really.

Identification is inherently false.

 

Notice, though, that we are speaking here of identification

in a special way. If I use a credit card in a store they

may ask me to identify my self. If I am in a group and someone

calls out my name I will respond. That is a different kind

of identification than what we are talking about above.

 

How would you characterize the difference between the kind

of identification we are talking about and " ordinary

identification " ?

 

Bill

 

 

 

Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@g...> wrote:

>

> Hi Werner, and thank you for your question.

> I'm dead tired and won't be able to really

> address this interesting question of yours

> just now. But briefly for the moment, what

> comes to mind is that indentification

> (in the " existential " sense we seem to be

> discussing it here) is a kind of *presumption*.

> And on the heels of such presumption a lot

> tends to follow.

>

> But as I said, more on this later.

>

> Bill

>

>

> >

> > Hi Bill,

> >

> > I just saw you using the word " identification " . Can you tell what is

> > identification ?

> >

> > And are there two selfs ? One is thinking, daydreaming or suffering

> > and the other self is identificating with that stuff ?

> >

> > I think there is no such thing as identification. Strong thoughts,

> > impressions, sensation or feelings which leave a deeper mark we call

> > identified. Weak ones we don't see as identified.

> >

> > Werner

> >

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@g...>

> > wrote:

> > >

> > > I must have some form of handicap, an exagerated

> > > dyslexia, a useless left brain, and an over producing

> > > right one, coupled with some strike of

> > > unwillingness.....because I keep falling of my boat.

> > > Patricia

> > > >>>>>>>>>>

> > >

> > > If you see the boat as who-you-are, i.e. if you

> > > identify with what is happening with the boat,

> > > then there will be vertigo, sea sickness, and

> > > the like.

> > >

> > > If you see what is happening in relation to the

> > > boat as independent, if you sense an indifferent

> > > observer witnessing it all, and that what happens

> > > is just a drama passing by, then no vertigo.

> > >

> > > It is odd and can seem like a contradiction,

> > > but to witness whatever happens in of around to

> > > that boat, to witness whatever happens whatsoever

> > > with complete, utter attention... well, that would

> > > seem to stir one " into it " all the more, to put

> > > one all the more at mercy of the turbulence.

> > > But in actuality it is the opposite. When there is

> > > a witnessing moment by moment each arising moment,

> > > be it thoughts, sensations, feelings... then

> > > one is free of it because as *witnessing it*

> > > one is inherently *not it*. The moment to moment

> > > witnessing with utter attention breaks the

> > > cycle of identification.

> > >

> > > For example, if the content happens to be feelings

> > > then when every minute detail of feeling is witnessed

> > > then it becomes inherently clear that the feelings

> > > *aren't you*!

> > >

> > > So witnessing with absolute attention moment by

> > > moment is inherently a liberation from the false

> > > indentifications with the contents of experience.

> > >

> > >

> > > Bill

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@g...>

wrote:

>

> > > Bill:

> > > So witnessing with absolute attention moment by

> > > moment is inherently a liberation from the false

> > > indentifications with the contents of experience.

> > >

> > Marc:

> >

> > thank you for this words about witnessing.....

> >

> > when all the endless tasks resulting from past actions are

> > fulfilled.....then there is a chance for witnessing.....

> >

> > but if one " see " life as an endless fulfillment of

> > tasks.....resulting from endless ideas and concepts.....

> > then there is also no chance for witnessing....now, or in the

future

> >

> > few thoughts

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~

> Yes, if one is " busy " then there is no space

> for witnessing with absolute attention. Witnessing

> with absolute attention is in a sense " stopping "

> as far as the " usual routine " is concerned.

> [Carlos Castaneda's Don Juan would speak of

> " stopping the world " , an apt phrase here.]

>

> I read your post just after reading the following

> passage from Krishnamurti that a friend just sent

> me by email. I think you will find it interesting:

>

> So what gives right understanding is not the

> residue of many experiences. You cannot meet

> new experiences wholly when the remainder of

> past experiences is burdening your mind. Yet

> that is how you are continually meeting them.

> That is, your mind has learned to be careful,

> to be cunning, to act as a signal, to give a

> warning; therefore, you cannot meet any

> incident fully. To free your mind of memory, to

> free it from this burden of experience, you

> must meet life fully; in that action your past

> memories come into activity, and in the flame

> of awareness they are dissolved. Try it and you

> will see.

>

> Krishnamurti

>

>

> Bill

 

Hi Bill,

 

thanks for this nice words of Krishnamurti....reflecting the meaning

of " witnessing "

 

i believe that witnessing of the (movie) world....is only possible

when there is not....at same time.......a need for a role play in

there......(by some great plans, ideas, concepts, attachments, little

happiness, some love....)

 

therefore....witnessing is exactly like the words of Krishnamurti

describe It........with all the wonderful " silence " going with It....

 

" stopping the world " (Carlos Castaneda)is an interesting point.....

 

will try to " understand " this in detail.....

 

therefore.....i don't waste time.....with worlds....

 

Marc

[Guest guest]

Hi Bill,

 

Hmm, I won't characterize any longer these two different

identifications because in your post you already sufficiently did.

There is nothing more to say.

 

Thanks Bill

 

Werner

 

 

Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@g...>

wrote:

>

> > >B:

> > >So witnessing with absolute attention moment by

> > > moment is inherently a liberation from the false

> > > indentifications with the contents of experience.

>

> > W:

> > I just saw you using the word " identification " . Can you tell what

is

> > identification ?

> >

> > And are there two selfs ? One is thinking, daydreaming or

suffering

> > and the other self is identificating with that stuff ?

> >

> > I think there is no such thing as identification. Strong

thoughts,

> > impressions, sensation or feelings which leave a deeper mark we

call

> > identified. Weak ones we don't see as identified.

>

> Very interesting comment Werner.

> I agree there is no such thing as identification, really.

> Identification is inherently false.

>

> Notice, though, that we are speaking here of identification

> in a special way. If I use a credit card in a store they

> may ask me to identify my self. If I am in a group and someone

> calls out my name I will respond. That is a different kind

> of identification than what we are talking about above.

>

> How would you characterize the difference between the kind

> of identification we are talking about and " ordinary

> identification " ?

>

> Bill

>

>

>

> Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@g...>

wrote:

> >

> > Hi Werner, and thank you for your question.

> > I'm dead tired and won't be able to really

> > address this interesting question of yours

> > just now. But briefly for the moment, what

> > comes to mind is that indentification

> > (in the " existential " sense we seem to be

> > discussing it here) is a kind of *presumption*.

> > And on the heels of such presumption a lot

> > tends to follow.

> >

> > But as I said, more on this later.

> >

> > Bill

> >

> >

> > >

> > > Hi Bill,

> > >

> > > I just saw you using the word " identification " . Can you tell

what is

> > > identification ?

> > >

> > > And are there two selfs ? One is thinking, daydreaming or

suffering

> > > and the other self is identificating with that stuff ?

> > >

> > > I think there is no such thing as identification. Strong

thoughts,

> > > impressions, sensation or feelings which leave a deeper mark we

call

> > > identified. Weak ones we don't see as identified.

> > >

> > > Werner

> > >

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel "

<illusyn@g...>

> > > wrote:

> > > >

> > > > I must have some form of handicap, an exagerated

> > > > dyslexia, a useless left brain, and an over producing

> > > > right one, coupled with some strike of

> > > > unwillingness.....because I keep falling of my boat.

> > > > Patricia

> > > > >>>>>>>>>>

> > > >

> > > > If you see the boat as who-you-are, i.e. if you

> > > > identify with what is happening with the boat,

> > > > then there will be vertigo, sea sickness, and

> > > > the like.

> > > >

> > > > If you see what is happening in relation to the

> > > > boat as independent, if you sense an indifferent

> > > > observer witnessing it all, and that what happens

> > > > is just a drama passing by, then no vertigo.

> > > >

> > > > It is odd and can seem like a contradiction,

> > > > but to witness whatever happens in of around to

> > > > that boat, to witness whatever happens whatsoever

> > > > with complete, utter attention... well, that would

> > > > seem to stir one " into it " all the more, to put

> > > > one all the more at mercy of the turbulence.

> > > > But in actuality it is the opposite. When there is

> > > > a witnessing moment by moment each arising moment,

> > > > be it thoughts, sensations, feelings... then

> > > > one is free of it because as *witnessing it*

> > > > one is inherently *not it*. The moment to moment

> > > > witnessing with utter attention breaks the

> > > > cycle of identification.

> > > >

> > > > For example, if the content happens to be feelings

> > > > then when every minute detail of feeling is witnessed

> > > > then it becomes inherently clear that the feelings

> > > > *aren't you*!

> > > >

> > > > So witnessing with absolute attention moment by

> > > > moment is inherently a liberation from the false

> > > > indentifications with the contents of experience.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Bill

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

> Marc:

> i believe that witnessing of the (movie) world....is only possible

> when there is not....at same time.......a need for a role play in

> there......(by some great plans, ideas, concepts, attachments, little

> happiness, some love....)

 

How is a need for a role play different from any other need?

 

And why not simply witness the need for a role play to arise,

witness the acting out of the role play, witness the whole

thing!

 

We don't stop the role playing by deciding to stop role playing.

The role playing ends only when we see to its roots its nature,

how it arises, how it " kicks in " and so on... We can't know

in advance, so the only way is to really see, to really feel,

to utterly and completely witness *all* of it.

 

Witnessing that is just used here and there isn't really

witnessing. Real witnessing is take-no-prisoners, no holds barred

complete

 

> therefore....witnessing is exactly like the words of Krishnamurti

> describe It........with all the wonderful " silence " going with It....

>

> " stopping the world " (Carlos Castaneda)is an interesting point.....

>

> will try to " understand " this in detail.....

>

> therefore.....i don't waste time.....with worlds....

 

Now that is funny!

 

 

Bill

[Guest guest]

Hi Werner,

 

Actually, I was hoping for your perspective.

My inclination is to call the kind of identification

the *we were* talking about " existential identification " .

It is a very personal kind of identifcation, perhaps

totally private. It's like when someone puts every thing

they own on a number at the roulette wheel. The existential

kind of identification is one where we have put " everything

on it " .

 

Could you kick in your view on that?

 

My question is that I feel calling it " existential identification " ,

while meaningful to me, is perhaps a bit opaque to a lot of

people. But it is such an *mportant*notion I would like to

come up with something better.

 

Bill

 

> Hi Bill,

>

> Hmm, I won't characterize any longer these two different

> identifications because in your post you already sufficiently did.

> There is nothing more to say.

>

> Thanks Bill

>

> Werner

>

>

> Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@g...>

> wrote:

> >

> > > >B:

> > > >So witnessing with absolute attention moment by

> > > > moment is inherently a liberation from the false

> > > > indentifications with the contents of experience.

> >

> > > W:

> > > I just saw you using the word " identification " . Can you tell

what

> is

> > > identification ?

> > >

> > > And are there two selfs ? One is thinking, daydreaming or

> suffering

> > > and the other self is identificating with that stuff ?

> > >

> > > I think there is no such thing as identification. Strong

> thoughts,

> > > impressions, sensation or feelings which leave a deeper mark we

> call

> > > identified. Weak ones we don't see as identified.

> >

> > Very interesting comment Werner.

> > I agree there is no such thing as identification, really.

> > Identification is inherently false.

> >

> > Notice, though, that we are speaking here of identification

> > in a special way. If I use a credit card in a store they

> > may ask me to identify my self. If I am in a group and someone

> > calls out my name I will respond. That is a different kind

> > of identification than what we are talking about above.

> >

> > How would you characterize the difference between the kind

> > of identification we are talking about and " ordinary

> > identification " ?

> >

> > Bill

> >

> >

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@g...>

> wrote:

> > >

> > > Hi Werner, and thank you for your question.

> > > I'm dead tired and won't be able to really

> > > address this interesting question of yours

> > > just now. But briefly for the moment, what

> > > comes to mind is that indentification

> > > (in the " existential " sense we seem to be

> > > discussing it here) is a kind of *presumption*.

> > > And on the heels of such presumption a lot

> > > tends to follow.

> > >

> > > But as I said, more on this later.

> > >

> > > Bill

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > > > Hi Bill,

> > > >

> > > > I just saw you using the word " identification " . Can you tell

> what is

> > > > identification ?

> > > >

> > > > And are there two selfs ? One is thinking, daydreaming or

> suffering

> > > > and the other self is identificating with that stuff ?

> > > >

> > > > I think there is no such thing as identification. Strong

> thoughts,

> > > > impressions, sensation or feelings which leave a deeper mark

we

> call

> > > > identified. Weak ones we don't see as identified.

> > > >

> > > > Werner

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel "

> <illusyn@g...>

> > > > wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > I must have some form of handicap, an exagerated

> > > > > dyslexia, a useless left brain, and an over producing

> > > > > right one, coupled with some strike of

> > > > > unwillingness.....because I keep falling of my boat.

> > > > > Patricia

> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>

> > > > >

> > > > > If you see the boat as who-you-are, i.e. if you

> > > > > identify with what is happening with the boat,

> > > > > then there will be vertigo, sea sickness, and

> > > > > the like.

> > > > >

> > > > > If you see what is happening in relation to the

> > > > > boat as independent, if you sense an indifferent

> > > > > observer witnessing it all, and that what happens

> > > > > is just a drama passing by, then no vertigo.

> > > > >

> > > > > It is odd and can seem like a contradiction,

> > > > > but to witness whatever happens in of around to

> > > > > that boat, to witness whatever happens whatsoever

> > > > > with complete, utter attention... well, that would

> > > > > seem to stir one " into it " all the more, to put

> > > > > one all the more at mercy of the turbulence.

> > > > > But in actuality it is the opposite. When there is

> > > > > a witnessing moment by moment each arising moment,

> > > > > be it thoughts, sensations, feelings... then

> > > > > one is free of it because as *witnessing it*

> > > > > one is inherently *not it*. The moment to moment

> > > > > witnessing with utter attention breaks the

> > > > > cycle of identification.

> > > > >

> > > > > For example, if the content happens to be feelings

> > > > > then when every minute detail of feeling is witnessed

> > > > > then it becomes inherently clear that the feelings

> > > > > *aren't you*!

> > > > >

> > > > > So witnessing with absolute attention moment by

> > > > > moment is inherently a liberation from the false

> > > > > indentifications with the contents of experience.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Bill

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@g...>

wrote:

>

Hi Bill,

 

 

> How is a need for a role play different from any other need?

 

-there is no difference, yes

 

> And why not simply witness the need for a role play to arise,

> witness the acting out of the role play, witness the whole

> thing!

 

-to witness the whole thing in this context....is to play little with

the breathe....we get.....as a gift.......to enjoy life

 

> We don't stop the role playing by deciding to stop role playing.

> The role playing ends only when we see to its roots its nature,

> how it arises, how it " kicks in " and so on... We can't know

> in advance, so the only way is to really see, to really feel,

> to utterly and completely witness *all* of it.

 

-yes, one can't decide to stop role playing.....there is no choice to

act....or not to act.....in a role play

but one can " step out " of the whole role-play-game.....by witness

this your " *all* " ....i agree

 

>

> Witnessing that is just used here and there isn't really

> witnessing. Real witnessing is take-no-prisoners, no holds barred

> complete

 

-so there are few kind of " witnessing " ...?

i believe that however is " seen " this " witnessing " ....it only is

possible by detachments.....by detachments to whatever role....

means....to be free....to leave the role-play.....whenever one like to

 

Marc

>

>