Guest guest Posted March 9, 2006 Report Share Posted March 9, 2006 In a message dated 3/8/2006 8:10:10 PM Pacific Standard Time, Nisargadatta writes: Thu, 09 Mar 2006 04:04:58 -0000 " billrishel " <illusyn Silly ego game #3 (((Re: IPercpetion Without Thinking Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 3/8/2006 7:43:33 AM Pacific Standard Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Wed, 08 Mar 2006 13:36:41 -0000 > " billrishel " <illusyn > Silly ego game #3 (((Re: IPercpetion Without Thinking > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 3/7/2006 5:32:52 PM Pacific Standard Time, > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > Tue, 07 Mar 2006 23:31:48 -0000 > > " billrishel " <illusyn@> > > Silly ego game #3 (((Re: IPercpetion Without Thinking > > > > 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. > > > > ~~~~~ > > B: > > A couple of questions, Phil: > > Do you consider the " ego " to actually exist, or to only > > " appear " to exist? > > > > > > > > P: Thoughts. Do you imply that it can therefore be ignored? > > B: > > What needs to be *attended to* if everything happens > of its own nature? When immersed in the Now there is > no " problem " . > > A sign of " immersed in the Now " is *sparkle*/life. > > > > P: When " immersed in the Now " , is this the same as knowing who you ARE? > > > > P: But " noticing " as something that is a " self-observation " > is not in the Now (my view) as it requires time to occur. > P: It doesn't require time to notice. Noticing occurs in the timeless moment of now, because it doesn't require thought. It occurs as a flash of awareness. What requires time is the getting the hell out of the way so that this can occur. Phil >>>>>>>>>>>> Noticing isn't noticing without a *recognition* of what is noticed. That's more than one step right there, therefore time. Bill Stop that, Bill! Hehe. Lets see, there's the noticing, then there's the recognition of the noticing, then there's the acknowledgment of the recognition of the noticing, then there's the knowing of the acknowledging of the recognition of the noticing. ~ This is just more mental dissection and analysis. There is the noticing of the truth. Whatever sort of menturbation you want to do with it after that is your affair. Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 9, 2006 Report Share Posted March 9, 2006 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > 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. It was a misunderstanding.................. " It' never was. toombaru > 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.