Guest guest Posted March 11, 2006 Report Share Posted March 11, 2006 Arvind, You seem quite interested in counseling me and rectifying me, all of it coming out of some pretty wrapped up emotions. That is my impression. I'm am not going to go into a detailed discussion with you about this because I am not interested to do so. You words here strike me as full of projection and as being really about you. My comments have not been about any particular person. The comments I make anyone can take or leave as they see fit. Your comments here, however, are not of that nature. I am not interested in " your stuff " , nor am I interested in your diagnosis as to what you consider to be " my stuff " . As I see it this is a smorgasboard discussion forum. I may take and leave as I choose, just as any other person here. You seem bent on foisting your opinions upon me. I choose not to care about your expressed opinions about me. So I regard this matter as settled and closed as far as I am concerned. To me this is not personal, none of it is personal. And that is my point. Bill Nisargadatta , " Arvind " <adithya_comming wrote: > > [...] > > > > > > 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...
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.