resistance to thought (((IPercpetion Without Thinkin

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/8/2006 8:10:10 PM Pacific Standard Time,

Nisargadatta writes:

 

Thu, 09 Mar 2006 04:09:38 -0000

" billrishel " <illusyn

resistance to thought (((Re: IPercpetion Without Thinkin

 

Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote:

>

>

> In a message dated 3/8/2006 7:43:33 AM Pacific Standard Time,

> Nisargadatta writes:

>

> Wed, 08 Mar 2006 13:45:31 -0000

> " billrishel " <illusyn

> resistance to thought (((Re: IPercpetion Without Thinkin

>

> <<<

> P: " Silent mind " is your concept, not mine. There is no

> such thing as a silent mind. There is a state of no

> thoughts arising to conscious attention. However, if you

> look deeper, you'll find the seeds out of which those

> potentially conscious thoughts can arise. There is always

> movement in the mind.

> >>>

> OK. This is getting interesting.

>

> Certainly there is no such " thing " as *a* silent mind.

> Nevertheless there is silent-mind.

>

> Here, there are just words coming out on a screen.

> There is nothing to " look deeper " into anything.

> There is no anything to " look in *to* " !

> Just complete Void and words-on-screen.

> Nothing more.

>

> When there is no sense-of-self, no sense of any " me " ,

> when there is no sense of *within*, the kind of " looking

> deeper " you speak of has no sense.

>

> Bill

>

>

>

> That would be true, but in this case it's not so, Bill.

> You would have me refrain from using 'you' in formulating my post,

but this

> is only because you prefer to not be challenged in your perceptions.

The

> problem is that I see you ignoring your sense of self; pretending

it's not present

> with you in the moment, and I see you formulating the thoughts that

showed

> up in your post. Behind it is the purpose of self deception. All of

this comes

> 'attached' to your post. The sense of self is not a problem. The

thought

> occurs too much from the individual mind and this shows up as too much

> dissection, discrimination, definition, analysis. The real

difficulty, however, is the

> self deception that none of this is happening and nothing at all

needs to be

> looked at.

>

> Sorry bout the 'you' thang. It just showed up. 'I' had nothing to

with it.

> Hehe.

>

> Phil

>

 

What you are essentially saying is that for there

to be no sense of " within " is incomprehensible to

you.

 

Therefore you assume I am bullshiting you.

 

Bill

 

 

 

A sense of oneness, with no separation between the self and everyone and

everything? Of course it's " comprehensible " . You're not deceiving me. You're

deceiving yourself. It's a wonderful experience you have, bill. Use it as a

tool, and if it leads to bliss or divine love or unspeakable peace, use those as

tools too, but the truth in all things must always be your master.

 

Phil

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote:

>

>

> In a message dated 3/8/2006 7:43:33 AM Pacific Standard Time,

> Nisargadatta writes:

>

> Wed, 08 Mar 2006 13:45:31 -0000

> " billrishel " <illusyn

> resistance to thought (((Re: IPercpetion Without Thinkin

>

> <<<

> P: " Silent mind " is your concept, not mine. There is no

> such thing as a silent mind. There is a state of no

> thoughts arising to conscious attention. However, if you

> look deeper, you'll find the seeds out of which those

> potentially conscious thoughts can arise. There is always

> movement in the mind.

> >>>

> OK. This is getting interesting.

>

> Certainly there is no such " thing " as *a* silent mind.

> Nevertheless there is silent-mind.

>

> Here, there are just words coming out on a screen.

> There is nothing to " look deeper " into anything.

> There is no anything to " look in *to* " !

> Just complete Void and words-on-screen.

> Nothing more.

>

> When there is no sense-of-self, no sense of any " me " ,

> when there is no sense of *within*, the kind of " looking

> deeper " you speak of has no sense.

>

> Bill

>

>

>

> That would be true, but in this case it's not so, Bill.

> You would have me refrain from using 'you' in formulating my post,

but this

> is only because you prefer to not be challenged in your perceptions.

The

> problem is that I see you ignoring your sense of self; pretending

it's not present

> with you in the moment, and I see you formulating the thoughts that

showed

> up in your post. Behind it is the purpose of self deception. All of

this comes

> 'attached' to your post. The sense of self is not a problem. The

thought

> occurs too much from the individual mind and this shows up as too much

> dissection, discrimination, definition, analysis. The real

difficulty, however, is the

> self deception that none of this is happening and nothing at all

needs to be

> looked at.

>

> Sorry bout the 'you' thang. It just showed up. 'I' had nothing to

with it.

> Hehe.

>

> Phil

>

 

What you are essentially saying is that for there

to be no sense of " within " is incomprehensible to

you.

 

Therefore you assume I am bullshiting you.

 

Bill