resistance to thought (((IPercpetion Without Thinkin

March 10, 2006

Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote:

>

> 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

When you descend to sarcasm the conversation with me ends.

Bill

March 10, 2006

In a message dated 3/9/2006 5:37:01 PM Pacific Standard Time,

Nisargadatta writes:

Fri, 10 Mar 2006 00:11:25 -0000

" billrishel " <illusyn

resistance to thought (((Re: IPercpetion Without Thinkin