between you and you

[Guest guest]

ok, taking wayne dyer off the temporary assassination list, his words: it was

never between you and me, it was always between you and God.

-

ADHHUB

Nisargadatta

Thursday, March 09, 2006 1:20 AM

Re: Silly ego game #3 (((Re: IPercpetion Without

Thinking

 

 

 

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