Guest guest Posted March 9, 2006 Report Share Posted March 9, 2006 You only know that something was an illusion when it is gone... >>>> Good point. And really, that is by definition. Because if it is not " gone " then it is still deluding and therefore not known as such. And I wonder about knowing something as illusion after it is gone, too. Perhaps as a vague memory, but when it is gone, it's gone. Talking about illusion gets strange. Bill Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > Silly ego game #3 is where we learn to consistently bring > > ourselves to a > > > > state of peace in meditation, and then believe that we've > accomplished > > > > something > > > > almost no human has ever been able to do before. Hehe. Since > this > > has no > > > > relationship to noticing the truth of our ego dynamics, those > dynamics > > > > continue > > > > all during our non-meditating time. In order to pretend that > this > > > > isn't so, we > > > > elevate ourselves above others and project our thinkingness > and > > > struggle > > > > onto them, all the while hiding behind the obscurity of our > own words > > > > so that > > > > nobody can be clear enough about what we're saying to really > be > > able to > > > > challenge us. > > > > > > > > ~~~~~ > > > > > > > > A couple of questions, Phil: > > > > Do you consider the " ego " to actually exist, or to only > > > > " appear " to exist? > > > > > > > > You speak of " noticing the truth of our ego dynamics... " , > > > > But noticing " one's own ego dynamics " is inherently > > > > problematic. The biggest ego trap there is is the one > > > > about stamping out ego. " Noticing ego dynamics " is inherently > > > > not in the Now. And anything that is not in the Now is > > > > illusory. See what I mean? > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > There is nothing which is not inherently in the now, Bill. > > > > > > Len > > > > > > > Doh.... > > > > Sure, " noticing ego dynamics " is inherently in the now, > > if there is no *stopping*. The moment there is a sense > > of something as distinct, as something existing as real, > > then there is illusion. It is not real. But considered- > > as-such it is illusion. In reality there is never anything > > that is not Now. And yet there is a great deal of Ignorance, > > confusion arising from the spinning of mind processes > > along implied paths that stem from an " appearance of " > > something being fixed, as being a distinct something > > that exists. > > > > If you want to say there is no Ignorance, there is > > no confusion, that everyone (the non-existent ones) > > is always totally immerse in Now, go for it. But is > > that really what you want to say? > > > > Buddha saw that all the suffering beings in the world > > were unreal, just as the world is unreal. Nevertheless > > he undertook to speak his message. Why? > > > > Bill > > > > Hi Bill, > > Convictions, opinions, thought-images all together with emotional > responses triggered by them, create an imaginary world, which could > be called illusory, although it causes a lot of real suffering, > conflicts, wars. > As long as you suffer because of it, calling it an illusion is > simply another illusory escape. As long as the ego dynamic operates, > calling it an illusion is a lie. Really seeing that it´s an ilusion, > is the end of the ego. > Ego, trying to escape suffering has found many ways, among which a > ways of belief that it isn´t real. This belief makes for a double > illusion. The activity of the ego takes place now and can be > observed now. Don´t call it real, don´t call it unreal, simply watch > it. If you deny and ignore it, it will remain underneath covered by > a belief in it´s illusory nature. > You only know that something was an illusion when it is gone, never > before. If you think you know it before, it´s simply the expression > of a belief which you cling to in order not to deal with the > discomfort which it brings. > Here´s something from K, whom you like I think: > > > " > The Cultivation of Detachment > > There is only attachment; there is no such thing as detachment. The > mind invents detachment as a reaction to the pain of attachment. > When you react to attachment by becoming " detached, " you are > attached to something else. So that whole process is one of > attachment. You are attached to your wife or your husband, to your > children, to ideas, to tradition, to authority, and so on; and your > reaction to that attachment is detachment. The cultivation of > detachment is the outcome of sorrow, pain. You want to escape from > the pain of attachment, and your escape is to find something to > which you think you can be attached. So there is only attachment, > and it is a stupid mind that cultivates detachment. All the books > say, " Be detached, " but what is the truth of the matter? If you > observe your own mind, you will see an extraordinary thing—that > through cultivating detachment, your mind is becoming attached to > something else. " > > The Book of Life - March 8 > > Greetings, > > Len > 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.