Guest guest Posted February 28, 2006 Report Share Posted February 28, 2006 It seems to me that " acceptance " is impossible to do. Now what do I mean by that? Simply that whatever " it " is that " I " want to or should " accept " (for whatever reason such as reduce stress, think it's a 'holy thing' to do, will make me enlightened, etc) is something attempted AFTER, or as a reaction to, what ALREADY is the case. In other words, *I " and *it* are not-two. There's only the " fact " of " what is " . Then an imagined splitting/differentiation takes places which posits the believed in assumption that there is a *me* separate from and over and again an *other* or an *it* that this *me* ( " I " ) needs to or should accept in order to eliminate the stress, become enlightened, etc. This effort or battle is about as effective as yelling at an echo to go away! To put it another way, when resistance is no more, when contraction melts, so-called *acceptance* is, but then there is no *accepted* or *acceptor* either. There is simply openness or space. Michael Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 1, 2006 Report Share Posted March 1, 2006 Nisargadatta , " Adamson " <adamson wrote: > > > > It seems to me that " acceptance " is impossible to do. Now what do I mean by that? Simply that whatever " it " is that " I " want > to or should " accept " (for whatever reason such as reduce stress, think it's a 'holy thing' to do, will make me enlightened, > etc) is something attempted AFTER, or as a reaction to, what ALREADY is the case. In other words, *I " and *it* are not-two. > There's only the " fact " of " what is " . Then an imagined splitting/differentiation takes places which posits the believed in > assumption that there is a *me* separate from and over and again an *other* or an *it* that this *me* ( " I " ) needs to or > should accept in order to eliminate the stress, become enlightened, etc. This effort or battle is about as effective as > yelling at an echo to go away! > > To put it another way, when resistance is no more, when contraction melts, so-called *acceptance* is, but then there is no > *accepted* or *acceptor* either. There is simply openness or space. > > Michael > Acceptance is violence. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 1, 2006 Report Share Posted March 1, 2006 Nisargadatta , " Adamson " <adamson wrote: > > > >> > To put it another way, when resistance is no more, when contraction melts, so-called *acceptance* is, but then there is no > *accepted* or *acceptor* either. There is simply openness or space. > > Michael Hi Michael, thanks....nice words Marc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 1, 2006 Report Share Posted March 1, 2006 Nisargadatta , " Adamson " <adamson wrote: > > > > It seems to me that " acceptance " is impossible to do. Now what do I mean by that? Simply that whatever " it " is that " I " want > to or should " accept " (for whatever reason such as reduce stress, think it's a 'holy thing' to do, will make me enlightened, > etc) is something attempted AFTER, or as a reaction to, what ALREADY is the case. In other words, *I " and *it* are not-two. > There's only the " fact " of " what is " . Then an imagined splitting/differentiation takes places which posits the believed in > assumption that there is a *me* separate from and over and again an *other* or an *it* that this *me* ( " I " ) needs to or > should accept in order to eliminate the stress, become enlightened, etc. This effort or battle is about as effective as > yelling at an echo to go away! > > To put it another way, when resistance is no more, when contraction melts, so-called *acceptance* is, but then there is no > *accepted* or *acceptor* either. There is simply openness or space. > > Michael > Yes, acceptance isn't *done*. Acceptance is unconditional surrender to What Is. And yes, acceptance means no-resistance. When immersion in the Now is complete acceptance is not an issue, cannot be an issue. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 2, 2006 Report Share Posted March 2, 2006 In a message dated 2/28/2006 9:07:22 PM Pacific Standard Time, Nisargadatta writes: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 10:05:43 -0800 " Adamson " <adamson Another view of acceptance It seems to me that " acceptance " is impossible to do. Now what do I mean by that? Simply that whatever " it " is that " I " want to or should " accept " (for whatever reason such as reduce stress, think it's a 'holy thing' to do, will make me enlightened, etc) is something attempted AFTER, or as a reaction to, what ALREADY is the case. In other words, *I " and *it* are not-two. There's only the " fact " of " what is " . Then an imagined splitting/differentiation takes places which posits the believed in assumption that there is a *me* separate from and over and again an *other* or an *it* that this *me* ( " I " ) needs to or should accept in order to eliminate the stress, become enlightened, etc. This effort or battle is about as effective as yelling at an echo to go away! To put it another way, when resistance is no more, when contraction melts, so-called *acceptance* is, but then there is no *accepted* or *acceptor* either. There is simply openness or space. Michael An interesting perspective and I agree. Basically, you're making the argument that there is no volitional 'doer' present to change what is, and even if there were, what is, is one's own creation. In another context, I like to say that acceptance is not a choice because it sets up a split in the mind. Whatever is not being accepted, is not being accepted because it is found unacceptable. To overlay a desire to accept onto that dynamic is only to create conflict, and does not cause acceptance to occur. The mind must change it's conclusion that something is unacceptable, and this requires an evolution of awareness. Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 2, 2006 Report Share Posted March 2, 2006 In a message dated 2/28/2006 9:07:22 PM Pacific Standard Time, Nisargadatta writes: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 05:05:55 -0000 " toombaru2006 " <lastrain Re: Another view of acceptance Nisargadatta , " Adamson " <adamson wrote: > > > > It seems to me that " acceptance " is impossible to do. Now what do I mean by that? Simply that whatever " it " is that " I " want > to or should " accept " (for whatever reason such as reduce stress, think it's a 'holy thing' to do, will make me enlightened, > etc) is something attempted AFTER, or as a reaction to, what ALREADY is the case. In other words, *I " and *it* are not-two. > There's only the " fact " of " what is " . Then an imagined splitting/differentiation takes places which posits the believed in > assumption that there is a *me* separate from and over and again an *other* or an *it* that this *me* ( " I " ) needs to or > should accept in order to eliminate the stress, become enlightened, etc. This effort or battle is about as effective as > yelling at an echo to go away! > > To put it another way, when resistance is no more, when contraction melts, so-called *acceptance* is, but then there is no > *accepted* or *acceptor* either. There is simply openness or space. > > Michael > Acceptance is violence. toombaru PhilA: What are you doing? PhilB: I'm gonna ask Toom a question. PhilA: What for? PhilB: I wanna know what he means by that. PhilA: And you expect a reasonable answer? PhilB: Well.......Okay, let's just say I'm curious. PhilA: Curiosity killed the cat, ya know. PhilB: I'm okay. He sells scones in a shop in northern California. It's not like he's a hit man or sumthin. PhilA: Okay, but don't say I didn't warn ya. PhilB: Deal.......Hey Toom!.......What the hell? PhilA/B Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 3, 2006 Report Share Posted March 3, 2006 --- ADHHUB a écrit : In a message dated 2/28/2006 9:07:22 PM Pacific Standard Time, Nisargadatta writes: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 05:05:55 -0000 " toombaru2006 " <lastrain Re: Another view of acceptance Nisargadatta , " Adamson " <adamson wrote: > > > > It seems to me that " acceptance " is impossible to do. Now what do I mean by that? Simply that whatever " it " is that " I " want > to or should " accept " (for whatever reason such as reduce stress, think it's a 'holy thing' to do, will make me enlightened, > etc) is something attempted AFTER, or as a reaction to, what ALREADY is the case. In other words, *I " and *it* are not-two. > There's only the " fact " of " what is " . Then an imagined splitting/differentiation takes places which posits the believed in > assumption that there is a *me* separate from and over and again an *other* or an *it* that this *me* ( " I " ) needs to or > should accept in order to eliminate the stress, become enlightened, etc. This effort or battle is about as effective as > yelling at an echo to go away! > > To put it another way, when resistance is no more, when contraction melts, so-called *acceptance* is, but then there is no > *accepted* or *acceptor* either. There is simply openness or space. > > Michael > Acceptance is violence. toombaru PhilA: What are you doing? PhilB: I'm gonna ask Toom a question. PhilA: What for? PhilB: I wanna know what he means by that. PhilA: And you expect a reasonable answer? PhilB: Well.......Okay, let's just say I'm curious. PhilA: Curiosity killed the cat, ya know. PhilB: I'm okay. He sells scones in a shop in northern California. It's not like he's a hit man or sumthin. PhilA: Okay, but don't say I didn't warn ya. PhilB: Deal.......Hey Toom!.......What the hell? PhilA/B You got it all wrong Phil, he doesn`t sell scones he offers them. Be careful..very careful... Hey, I wonder if Phil A is as hungry as Phil B?? Patricia Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 3, 2006 Report Share Posted March 3, 2006 In a message dated 3/2/2006 11:52:32 PM Pacific Standard Time, Nisargadatta writes: Fri, 3 Mar 2006 00:16:42 +0100 (CET) OConnor Patricia <gdtige Re: Another view of acceptance --- ADHHUB a écrit : In a message dated 2/28/2006 9:07:22 PM Pacific Standard Time, Nisargadatta writes: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 05:05:55 -0000 " toombaru2006 " <lastrain Re: Another view of acceptance Nisargadatta , " Adamson " <adamson wrote: > > > > It seems to me that " acceptance " is impossible to do. Now what do I mean by that? Simply that whatever " it " is that " I " want > to or should " accept " (for whatever reason such as reduce stress, think it's a 'holy thing' to do, will make me enlightened, > etc) is something attempted AFTER, or as a reaction to, what ALREADY is the case. In other words, *I " and *it* are not-two. > There's only the " fact " of " what is " . Then an imagined splitting/differentiation takes places which posits the believed in > assumption that there is a *me* separate from and over and again an *other* or an *it* that this *me* ( " I " ) needs to or > should accept in order to eliminate the stress, become enlightened, etc. This effort or battle is about as effective as > yelling at an echo to go away! > > To put it another way, when resistance is no more, when contraction melts, so-called *acceptance* is, but then there is no > *accepted* or *acceptor* either. There is simply openness or space. > > Michael > Acceptance is violence. toombaru PhilA: What are you doing? PhilB: I'm gonna ask Toom a question. PhilA: What for? PhilB: I wanna know what he means by that. PhilA: And you expect a reasonable answer? PhilB: Well.......Okay, let's just say I'm curious. PhilA: Curiosity killed the cat, ya know. PhilB: I'm okay. He sells scones in a shop in northern California. It's not like he's a hit man or sumthin. PhilA: Okay, but don't say I didn't warn ya. PhilB: Deal.......Hey Toom!.......What the hell? PhilA/B You got it all wrong Phil, he doesn`t sell scones he offers them. Be careful..very careful... Hey, I wonder if Phil A is as hungry as Phil B?? Patricia Phil A is the one with the negative attitude. I can't take him anywhere! Phil B Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 3, 2006 Report Share Posted March 3, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 2/28/2006 9:07:22 PM Pacific Standard Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Wed, 01 Mar 2006 05:05:55 -0000 > " toombaru2006 " <lastrain > Re: Another view of acceptance > > Nisargadatta , " Adamson " <adamson@> wrote: > > > > > > > > It seems to me that " acceptance " is impossible to do. Now what do I mean > by that? > Simply that whatever " it " is that " I " want > > to or should " accept " (for whatever reason such as reduce stress, think > it's a 'holy thing' > to do, will make me enlightened, > > etc) is something attempted AFTER, or as a reaction to, what ALREADY is > the case. In > other words, *I " and *it* are not-two. > > There's only the " fact " of " what is " . Then an imagined > splitting/differentiation takes > places which posits the believed in > > assumption that there is a *me* separate from and over and again an > *other* or an *it* > that this *me* ( " I " ) needs to or > > should accept in order to eliminate the stress, become enlightened, etc. > This effort or > battle is about as effective as > > yelling at an echo to go away! > > > > To put it another way, when resistance is no more, when contraction melts, > so-called > *acceptance* is, but then there is no > > *accepted* or *acceptor* either. There is simply openness or space. > > > > Michael > > > > > > Acceptance is violence. > > > toombaru > > > > PhilA: What are you doing? > PhilB: I'm gonna ask Toom a question. > PhilA: What for? > PhilB: I wanna know what he means by that. > PhilA: And you expect a reasonable answer? > PhilB: Well.......Okay, let's just say I'm curious. > PhilA: Curiosity killed the cat, ya know. *But*, as the saying goes, *satisfaction* brought it back. Bill > PhilB: I'm okay. He sells scones in a shop in northern California. It's not > like he's a hit man or sumthin. > PhilA: Okay, but don't say I didn't warn ya. > PhilB: Deal.......Hey Toom!.......What the hell? > > PhilA/B > > > > 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.