Guest guest Posted March 10, 2006 Report Share Posted March 10, 2006 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Arvind " <adithya_comming@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> > > wrote: > > > > > > You bring up problems. > > > You bring up questions. > > > Your problems, your questions. > > > > > > If you wish to engage in dialog, > > > engage in dialog. > > > > > > Rhetorical questions do not so engage. > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > Feel free to only answer > > what is complimentary > > > > or, that which *fulfills* your version > > of *self image*, Bill! > > > > Now you are being snide, ac. > It does not become you. > > As toombaru suggested recently: > can we abstain from ad hominem? > > Perhaps you are frustrated that > I don't take your rhetorical questions > seriously? > > You shouldn't be. Rhetorical questions > are a form of trash-talk and not suitable > for dignified discussion. Calling them *Rhetorical questions* is *trash-talk*, Bill! But, perhaps... that is just a defense mechanism and not a 'non becoming' of you! In reality, [at least in my opinion... and, my opinion is the only one I mostly speak of] these are the Most Fundamental and Basic questions! Without answering them all else is futile and just a self-looping circle! So, please go back and try answering them. --- And, again Bill: Why are you so *fascinated* by losing the *sense of me*? Is *sense of me* hurting you? Is *sense of me* your " reall " problem, Bill? > > > Bill > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 10, 2006 Report Share Posted March 10, 2006 > So, please go back and try answering them. Alright... Going back to your original post: Nisargadatta , " Arvind " <adithya_comming wrote: > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 3/8/2006 8:10:10 PM Pacific Standard Time, > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > Thu, 09 Mar 2006 03:14:01 -0000 > > " billrishel " <illusyn@> > > Re: The sense of " me " > > > > > Why so much insistence on the disappearance > > > of *sense of me*, Bill? > > > > I am saying that if there *is* a sense of " me " , > > then it is unreal. > > > Is 'unreal' a problem for you? No. Not for me. But then I don't have a sense of " me " . Looking back I see there was a time I did have a sense of " me " , even though it seemed to me at the time I was very much " in the Now " . Perhaps if someone had pointed out to me at that time some of the things I am saying now with my " sense of 'me' " post I would have let go more quickly those limitations. > > > > > I am saying that simply a sense of " within " is > > unreal. > > Is that a problem? > I am saying it is a fact. I have not been talking about " problem " , you have. " Problem " is your issue, not mine. > > > > I don't think those points are generally understood. > > Why these 'points' need be 'understood'? > > There are so many things that we don't fully > undersatnd: > > - birth > > - death > > - brain > > - consciousness > > - memory > > - atom > > - quanam physics > > - gravity > > - dark matter > > - white energy > > > Why 'understanding' the so-caled 'unreality' > of *sense of me* is so important? > You pick the things that you call important to discuss. I pick the things I call important to discuss. I find your question here absurd, and frankly ill mannered. You're saying " *so* important " ... how do I read that as other than sarcasm? I have said that the *sense of " me " * is unreal. What I have said is very simple and straightforward. The character of your questions is more that of and attack than a well-mannered discussion, it seems to me. Perhaps that is not what you intend. I am telling you the impression on me however. OK, so I have answered your questions. Now may I ask you a few? Do you have a sense of " what you feel " as apart from what is going on around you? If you close your eyes as if to meditate is there a sense of " center " , a sense of " here " which corresponds to where it feels " you are " ? Is there a sense of an " inner psychological space " ? If so, is there a sense of " location " within that space? Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 10, 2006 Report Share Posted March 10, 2006 Fri, 10 Mar 2006 20:14:21 -0000 " Arvind " <_adithya_comming_ (adithya_comming) > Re: This is Real / Bill. > > OK, so I have answered your questions. > Now may I ask you a few? > > Do you have a sense of " what you feel " as apart > from what is going on around you? No. Not... usually. Does that mean anything significant or important? > > If you close your eyes as if to meditate is there > a sense of " center " , a sense of " here " which > corresponds to where it feels " you are " ? No. Not... usually. Does that mean I have no sense of me? > > Is there a sense of an " inner psychological space " ? No. Not... usually. > If so, is there a sense of " location " within that space? No. Not... usually. > > Bill Bill: I'm guessing that all of us would answer these questions a bit differently depending on exactly how strong that internal sense of self is. I, myself, can identify a bit with the first two, but not the second two. In any case, it seems to me that the questions, themselves, imply a deep familiarity with this inner sense of self. Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 10, 2006 Report Share Posted March 10, 2006 [...] > > > > Why so much insistence on the disappearance > > > > of *sense of me*, Bill? > > > > > > I am saying that if there *is* a sense of " me " , > > > then it is unreal. > > > > > > Is 'unreal' a problem for you? > > No. Not for me. > But then I don't have a sense of " me " . [i think] that is Not Possible [or advisable]! There is no " sense " without a having a sense of " me " ! Unless by sense of me you mean... 'I am body' thought! > > Looking back I see there was a time I did have > a sense of " me " , You mean, you had... 'I am body' thought? > even though it seemed to me at > the time I was very much " in the Now " . Perhaps > if someone had pointed out to me at that time > some of the things I am saying now with my > " sense of 'me' " post I would have let go more > quickly those limitations. So... are you doing it to help " others " ? > > > > > > > > > > I am saying that simply a sense of " within " is > > > unreal. > > > > Is that a problem? > > > > I am saying it is a fact. > > I have not been talking about " problem " , you have. > " Problem " is your issue, not mine. I am curious about your fascination with it. [i think] your emphasis on it is quite large. Thus, I was trying to understand why it is so important to you. There is a very Common and Famous saying: " don't trouble... trouble unless trouble troubles you! " Humans are generally driven by the desire to escape pain or gain pleasure! Desire to escape pain often translates to movement to escape, kill, 'make disappear', eliminate That which is seen as causing pain! Desire to gain pleasure often translates to movement to gain things that are expected to give pleasure! Since, I see your insistence on *losing* sense of me and since, I think you [too] are a normal human being I guessed perhaps, *sense of me* was creating a problem [pain] for you! This is *why* people are known to try to *get rid of* something, Bill! > > > > > > > I don't think those points are generally understood. > > > > Why these 'points' need be 'understood'? > > > > There are so many things that we don't fully > > undersatnd: > > > > - birth > > > > - death > > ..... > > > > Why 'understanding' the so-caled 'unreality' > > of *sense of me* is so important? > > > > You pick the things that you call important > to discuss. I pick the things I call important > to discuss. > > I find your question here absurd, and frankly > ill mannered. Sure Bill... I became curious because I thought you were repeating them over and over! > > You're saying " *so* important " ... how do I read > that as other than sarcasm? You can read it not as sarcasm because I think it is somewhat a natural question based on your often repeated emphasis on the disappearance of sense of me. It can easily gives impression that perhaps, *sense of me* and its disappearance is Very important to you. > > I have said that the *sense of " me " * is unreal. > What I have said is very simple and straightforward. > The character of your questions is more that of > and attack than a well-mannered discussion, That is not my intention... Though, I do mean to ask directly, straightforward and clearly! >it seems > to me. Perhaps that is not what you intend. I am > telling you the impression on me however. Sure... > > OK, so I have answered your questions. > Now may I ask you a few? > > Do you have a sense of " what you feel " as apart > from what is going on around you? No. Not... usually. Does that mean anything significant or important? > > If you close your eyes as if to meditate is there > a sense of " center " , a sense of " here " which > corresponds to where it feels " you are " ? No. Not... usually. Does that mean I have no sense of me? > > Is there a sense of an " inner psychological space " ? No. Not... usually. > If so, is there a sense of " location " within that space? No. Not... usually. > > Bill > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 10, 2006 Report Share Posted March 10, 2006 --- ADHHUB a écrit : Fri, 10 Mar 2006 20:14:21 -0000 " Arvind " <_adithya_comming_ (adithya_comming) > Re: This is Real / Bill. > > OK, so I have answered your questions. > Now may I ask you a few? > > Do you have a sense of " what you feel " as apart > from what is going on around you? No. Not... usually. Does that mean anything significant or important? > > If you close your eyes as if to meditate is there > a sense of " center " , a sense of " here " which > corresponds to where it feels " you are " ? No. Not... usually. Does that mean I have no sense of me? > > Is there a sense of an " inner psychological space " ? No. Not... usually. > If so, is there a sense of " location " within that space? No. Not... usually. > > Bill Bill: I'm guessing that all of us would answer these questions a bit differently depending on exactly how strong that internal sense of self is. I, myself, can identify a bit with the first two, but not the second two. In any case, it seems to me that the questions, themselves, imply a deep familiarity with this inner sense of self. Phil I don`t feel a sense of individual space either, when closing my lids but their is definitely a pin-point of something deep in my heart. Falling into that, there is a huge sense of Space that is a little scary but more and more welcomed. And then...hard to describe...because the sense of scale is all reversed. Patricia 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.