resistance to thought (((IPercpetion Without Thinkin

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote:

>

>

> 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

>

> 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

>

>

>

> Call it arrogance if you like, Bill. There was no sarcasm. My

apologies if I

> offended.

>

>

> Phil

>

 

No problem.

And it is good to feel heard.

 

 

Bill