Guest guest Posted March 27, 2006 Report Share Posted March 27, 2006 Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> > wrote: > > > > Isn´t calling the unreal " unreal " , when it seems very real, > opposing > > it, through putting it into word construct? > > What about not calling it anything and dealing with it instead, > > because - real or not, when it´s there it´s there, and no words can > > change anything about it? > > > > Len > > > > > What is important is not " calling it " anything, but recognizing > > it as unreal. Whatever words arise is besides the point. > > > When you " recognize it as unreal " , it´s gone. > If it isn´t gone you didn´t recognize it as unreal. > True? > > len > You know Len, sometimes you come up with a real sharp statement! This is one of those times. yeah, true Once it is seen as unreal it is no longer an " it " . It really *never* was an " it " (i.e. a distinct something). And a curious irony strikes me here about this: If something " comes up " that is a so-called *issue*, and if I am willing to recognize that as bullshit then I can see through it and it is gone. So in an odd kind of way, if I am willing to " own it " , then I am free of it. Make sense? Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 27, 2006 Report Share Posted March 27, 2006 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Isn´t calling the unreal " unreal " , when it seems very real, > > opposing > > > it, through putting it into word construct? > > > What about not calling it anything and dealing with it instead, > > > because - real or not, when it´s there it´s there, and no words can > > > change anything about it? > > > > > > Len > > > > > > > > > What is important is not " calling it " anything, but recognizing > > > it as unreal. Whatever words arise is besides the point. > > > > > > When you " recognize it as unreal " , it´s gone. > > If it isn´t gone you didn´t recognize it as unreal. > > True? > > > > len > > > > You know Len, sometimes you come up with a real > sharp statement! This is one of those times. > > yeah, true > > Once it is seen as unreal it is no longer an " it " . > It really *never* was an " it " (i.e. a distinct > something). > > And a curious irony strikes me here about this: > > If something " comes up " that is a so-called *issue*, > and if I am willing to recognize that as bullshit > then I can see through it and it is gone. > > So in an odd kind of way, if I am willing to " own > it " , then I am free of it. > > Make sense? > > > Bill > ********** Makes sense to me.... :-) " Silver " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 27, 2006 Report Share Posted March 27, 2006 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > And a curious irony strikes me here about this: > > If something " comes up " that is a so-called *issue*, > and if I am willing to recognize that as bullshit > then I can see through it and it is gone. What do you mean by " willing to recognize it as bullshit " ? Len > So in an odd kind of way, if I am willing to " own > it " , then I am free of it. > > Make sense? > > > Bill > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 27, 2006 Report Share Posted March 27, 2006 Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> > wrote: > > > > And a curious irony strikes me here about this: > > > > If something " comes up " that is a so-called *issue*, > > and if I am willing to recognize that as bullshit > > then I can see through it and it is gone. > > > What do you mean by " willing to recognize it as bullshit " ? > > Len If I feel annoyed at someone, for example, that to me is obviously not crystal clarity. If that happens then I've got " somethin' goin' on " that needs to be cleared out. And it is just the recognition that is needed. So if I " own " it, then it is gone (no longer " mine " ). Anything that seems to be " mine " falls in this category, as far as I am concerned. Any kind of subjective persistence is automatically suspect as " false " , as distortion. A false sense of self (is there any other kind) is made up of little " ownerships " that have no value and fog the atmosphere. Bill > > > So in an odd kind of way, if I am willing to " own > > it " , then I am free of it. > > > > Make sense? > > > > > > Bill > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 28, 2006 Report Share Posted March 28, 2006 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > And a curious irony strikes me here about this: > > > > > > If something " comes up " that is a so-called *issue*, > > > and if I am willing to recognize that as bullshit > > > then I can see through it and it is gone. > > > > > > What do you mean by " willing to recognize it as bullshit " ? > > > > Len > > If I feel annoyed at someone, for example, that > to me is obviously not crystal clarity. If that happens > then I've got " somethin' goin' on " that needs to > be cleared out. And it is just the recognition that > is needed. So if I " own " it, then it is gone (no > longer " mine " ). Anything that seems to be " mine " > falls in this category, as far as I am concerned. > Any kind of subjective persistence is automatically > suspect as " false " , as distortion. > > A false sense of self (is there any other kind) is > made up of little " ownerships " that have no value > and fog the atmosphere. > > Bill So are you saying that if you´re annoyed at someone, and you see that it´s your issue, something going on in you, and you recognize it and " own " it, the whole thing is gone? Len Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 28, 2006 Report Share Posted March 28, 2006 Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > And a curious irony strikes me here about this: > > > > > > > > If something " comes up " that is a so-called *issue*, > > > > and if I am willing to recognize that as bullshit > > > > then I can see through it and it is gone. > > > > > > > > > What do you mean by " willing to recognize it as bullshit " ? > > > > > > Len > > > > If I feel annoyed at someone, for example, that > > to me is obviously not crystal clarity. If that happens > > then I've got " somethin' goin' on " that needs to > > be cleared out. And it is just the recognition that > > is needed. So if I " own " it, then it is gone (no > > longer " mine " ). Anything that seems to be " mine " > > falls in this category, as far as I am concerned. > > Any kind of subjective persistence is automatically > > suspect as " false " , as distortion. > > > > A false sense of self (is there any other kind) is > > made up of little " ownerships " that have no value > > and fog the atmosphere. > > > > Bill > > > So are you saying that if you´re annoyed at someone, and you see > that it´s your issue, something going on in you, and you recognize > it and " own " it, the whole thing is gone? > > Len > yeah... maybe it was just a mild case? But Krishnamurti talks about stuff like that, how when you " see " there is a sudden transformation. In fact, here's a quote very much in line with what I am saying: Truth comes in a flash Truth or understanding comes in a flash, and that flash has no continuity; it is not within the field of time. Do see this for yourself. Understanding is fresh, instantaneous; it is not the continuity of something that has been. What has been cannot bring you understanding. As long as one is seeking a continuity—wanting permanency in relationship, in love, longing to find peace everlasting, and all the rest of it—one is pursuing something which is within the field of time and therefore does not belong to the timeless. -- The Book of Life Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 28, 2006 Report Share Posted March 28, 2006 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > wrote: So are you saying that when you see > > that it´s your issue, something going on in you, and you recognize > > it and " own " it, the whole thing is gone? > > > > Len > > > yeah... > maybe it was just a mild case? > > I think so :-) It usually takes more then that. What it takes is full attention, you also just wrote something about it, I think. Unlabelled observation of the annoyance as energy, sensation, however you call it (without labelling it ;-) seems to make an end to the issue. But it´s true that sometimes, very sometimes, it can be just enough to notice the absurdity, the unnecessity of it. > But Krishnamurti talks about stuff like that, how when > you " see " there is a sudden transformation. And do you see it yourself? Len > In fact, here's a quote very much in line with what > I am saying: > > Truth comes in a flash > > Truth or understanding comes in a flash, and that flash has no > continuity; it is not within the field of time. Do see this for > yourself. Understanding is fresh, instantaneous; it is not the > continuity of something that has been. What has been cannot bring you > understanding. As long as one is seeking a continuity—wanting > permanency in relationship, in love, longing to find peace > everlasting, and all the rest of it—one is pursuing something which is > within the field of time and therefore does not belong to the timeless. > -- The Book of Life > > Bill > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 29, 2006 Report Share Posted March 29, 2006 Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > > wrote: > > So are you saying that when you see > > > that it´s your issue, something going on in you, and you > recognize > > > it and " own " it, the whole thing is gone? > > > > > > Len > > > > > yeah... > > maybe it was just a mild case? > > > > > > > > I think so :-) > It usually takes more then that. > What it takes is full attention, you also just wrote something about > it, I think. Unlabelled observation of the annoyance as energy, > sensation, however you call it (without labelling it ;-) seems to > make an end to the issue. > But it´s true that sometimes, very sometimes, it can be just enough > to notice the absurdity, the unnecessity of it. > > > > > > > But Krishnamurti talks about stuff like that, how when > > you " see " there is a sudden transformation. > > > And do you see it yourself? absolutely. once really seen it simply " drops " . if there is a struggle, a " waging against " , then there has not been a true seeing. there is nothing to be " done " . it is only evermore actute, crystal clear attention as if attention begets attention someone may feel some persistent animosity, for example. OK, even if they " own " that, it doesn't just go away perhaps. I understand that. but that is because it is a very " deep " animosity, perhaps an accumulation of many layers... so the elements of that must be " seen " one by one... it can take time but as each element arises, it *can* be seen through when attention is complete in the Now there is only *this particular that is arising* to face... and in facing that there is freedom from that one is never " done " anyway so in each moment dealing completely, profoundly, thoroughly with the challenge that presents itself is already completely in the Now notice that? that the very *facing of* whatever arises is already completely in Now whether it simply " dissolves " or not is besides the point Bill > Len > > > > > In fact, here's a quote very much in line with what > > I am saying: > > > > Truth comes in a flash > > > > Truth or understanding comes in a flash, and that flash has no > > continuity; it is not within the field of time. Do see this for > > yourself. Understanding is fresh, instantaneous; it is not the > > continuity of something that has been. What has been cannot bring > you > > understanding. As long as one is seeking a continuity—wanting > > permanency in relationship, in love, longing to find peace > > everlasting, and all the rest of it—one is pursuing something > which is > > within the field of time and therefore does not belong to the > timeless. > > -- The Book of Life > > > > Bill > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 29, 2006 Report Share Posted March 29, 2006 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > once really seen it simply " drops " . > > if there is a struggle, a " waging against " , > then there has not been a true seeing. > > there is nothing to be " done " . > it is only evermore actute, crystal clear > attention > as if attention begets attention > > someone may feel some persistent animosity, > for example. OK, even if they " own " that, > it doesn't just go away perhaps. I understand > that. > > but that is because it is a very " deep " > animosity, perhaps an accumulation of > many layers... > so the elements of that must be " seen " > one by one... it can take time Yes. Can I ask you: what are the layers made off? Have you observed them? > but as each element arises, it *can* be seen > through when attention is complete > > in the Now there is only *this particular > that is arising* to face... and in facing > that there is freedom from that > > one is never " done " anyway > > so in each moment > dealing completely, profoundly, thoroughly > with the challenge that presents itself > is already completely in the Now > > notice that? > that the very *facing of* whatever arises > is already completely in Now > > whether it simply " dissolves " or not is > besides the point If it doesn´t dissolve, it´s not in " now " as you say. The memories are still blurring perception. Len Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 29, 2006 Report Share Posted March 29, 2006 Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> > wrote: > > > > once really seen it simply " drops " . > > > > if there is a struggle, a " waging against " , > > then there has not been a true seeing. > > > > there is nothing to be " done " . > > it is only evermore actute, crystal clear > > attention > > as if attention begets attention > > > > someone may feel some persistent animosity, > > for example. OK, even if they " own " that, > > it doesn't just go away perhaps. I understand > > that. > > > > but that is because it is a very " deep " > > animosity, perhaps an accumulation of > > many layers... > > so the elements of that must be " seen " > > one by one... it can take time > > > Yes. Can I ask you: what are the layers made off? > Have you observed them? No. Which is why I said " perhaps " . Was speaking metaphorically. And as I went on to say, it doesn't matter if there is an " accumulation " (be it layers or whatever) or not. What is significant is what is " up " right now. What is significant is facing that or not. I remember being struck by Krishnamurti saying that the moment presents a *challenge*. The challenge is to be really present in the face of the moment. > > > > but as each element arises, it *can* be seen > > through when attention is complete > > > > in the Now there is only *this particular > > that is arising* to face... and in facing > > that there is freedom from that > > > > one is never " done " anyway > > > > so in each moment > > dealing completely, profoundly, thoroughly > > with the challenge that presents itself > > is already completely in the Now > > > > notice that? > > that the very *facing of* whatever arises > > is already completely in Now > > > > whether it simply " dissolves " or not is > > besides the point > > > If it doesn´t dissolve, it´s not in " now " as you say. The memories > are still blurring perception. > > Len > yeah... I am seeing that talking about " dissolving " or not is getting away from the important point of actually facing whatever is " up " . To talk about dissolving can suggest a process of " becoming " , a desire to " dissolve " and be free rather than actually being-with-whatever. That was the point I was getting at when I said: > > that the very *facing of* whatever arises > > is already completely in Now Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 29, 2006 Report Share Posted March 29, 2006 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > wrote: > >Can I ask you: what are the layers made off? > > Have you observed them? > > No. Which is why I said " perhaps " . Was speaking > metaphorically. I did observe them, but maybe I better don´t talk about my observations then. You could try it. And then we can talk about it. > And as I went on to say, it doesn't matter if > there is an " accumulation " (be it layers or > whatever) or not. What is significant is what > is " up " right now. What is significant is facing > that or not. I remember being struck by Krishnamurti > saying that the moment presents a *challenge*. > The challenge is to be really present in the > face of the moment. Sure. But if the present moment is a moment of being out of joint or confused by feelings, then this is it. This is what we have to stay with. This observation is now, but it doesn´t mean that there are no past memories involved. Which doesn´t matter, during the observation, as long as we don´t believe that we are " in the now " or " free " or whatever. Len Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 29, 2006 Report Share Posted March 29, 2006 Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > > wrote: > > >Can I ask you: what are the layers made off? > > > Have you observed them? > > > > No. Which is why I said " perhaps " . Was speaking > > metaphorically. > > > I did observe them, but maybe I better don´t talk about my > observations then. > You could try it. And then we can talk about it. Funny. I used the term " layers " and now I want to say it is a meaningless term! Perhaps something about that will come up at some point. If so I will mention it. > > > And as I went on to say, it doesn't matter if > > there is an " accumulation " (be it layers or > > whatever) or not. What is significant is what > > is " up " right now. What is significant is facing > > that or not. I remember being struck by Krishnamurti > > saying that the moment presents a *challenge*. > > The challenge is to be really present in the > > face of the moment. > > > Sure. But if the present moment is a moment of being out of joint or > confused by feelings, then this is it. This is what we have to stay > with. This observation is now, but it doesn´t mean that there are no > past memories involved. Which doesn´t matter, during the > observation, as long as we don´t believe that we are " in the now " > or " free " or whatever. > > Len > Yes. And I like that way you put: But if the present moment is a moment of being out of joint or confused by feelings, then this is it. This is what we have to stay with. Actually, what belief is needed? What belief should not be abandoned? Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 29, 2006 Report Share Posted March 29, 2006 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > Actually, what belief is needed? > What belief should not be abandoned? > > Bill None. Reasonable assumptions, like that the earthquacke isn´t going to destroy your house tonight, and that the food from the supermarket isn´t poisonous, make life easier though ;-) Len Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 30, 2006 Report Share Posted March 30, 2006 Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > Actually, what belief is needed? > > What belief should not be abandoned? > > > > Bill > > > None. > Reasonable assumptions, like that the earthquacke isn´t going to > destroy your house tonight, and that the food from the supermarket > isn´t poisonous, make life easier though ;-) > > Len > Yes, but that's not the kind of belief we are talking about, is it? The same occurred to me when I wrote the above. So it is interesting that you make that comment. Hence a question: What is the distinction between the kinds of belief we *are* talking about and the " reasonable assumptions " such as you mention? Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 31, 2006 Report Share Posted March 31, 2006 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > Actually, what belief is needed? > > > What belief should not be abandoned? > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > None. > > Reasonable assumptions, like that the earthquacke isn´t going to > > destroy your house tonight, and that the food from the supermarket > > isn´t poisonous, make life easier though ;-) > > > > Len > > > > Yes, but that's not the kind of belief we are talking about, > is it? > > The same occurred to me when I wrote the above. So it is > interesting that you make that comment. Hence a question: > What is the distinction between the kinds of belief we > *are* talking about and the " reasonable assumptions " such > as you mention? > > Bill Good question. Maybe... a belief is an abstract construct of which we are sure that it is true. My God is true God. There is no other possibility. However, I´ve never seen my God, I just read some books about him. This is out of touch with reality. Reasonable assumption is something based on previous perceptions, which does admit other possibilities, but for practical reasons those possibilities are not taken into account. There is 99,999 % chance that my house will not collapse tonight, and I need to sleep somewhere, so the decision of spending the night in my own bed seems reasonable. Of course, the daily routine makes us forget that the house may collapse anyway, so we tend to forget that there is no material security and we live as if we had a future: making plans, paying off the morgage. It´s a reasonable assumption that we do have a future when we are 30, but it´s not absolutely sure. We tend to forget about the latter, so it does become a kind of routine, a kind of belief. And when it collapses due to some disaster or illness, we are initially in shock. So there may be a kind of dullness in it, on another hand I wonder whether the body can function properly if it doesn´t feel safe and relaxed, at least from time to time. The body seems to need this illusion of safety, and worrying about possible dangers makes no sense anyway. In each case the belief in the solidity of my house will not make me kill other people in name of it. The belief in the only true God - might. Len Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 31, 2006 Report Share Posted March 31, 2006 Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Actually, what belief is needed? > > > > What belief should not be abandoned? > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > None. > > > Reasonable assumptions, like that the earthquacke isn´t going to > > > destroy your house tonight, and that the food from the > supermarket > > > isn´t poisonous, make life easier though ;-) > > > > > > Len > > > > > > > Yes, but that's not the kind of belief we are talking about, > > is it? > > > > The same occurred to me when I wrote the above. So it is > > interesting that you make that comment. Hence a question: > > What is the distinction between the kinds of belief we > > *are* talking about and the " reasonable assumptions " such > > as you mention? > > > > Bill > > > > Good question. > Maybe... a belief is an abstract construct of which we are sure that > it is true. My God is true God. There is no other possibility. > However, I´ve never seen my God, I just read some books about him. > This is out of touch with reality. > Reasonable assumption is something based on previous perceptions, > which does admit other possibilities, but for practical reasons > those possibilities are not taken into account. There is 99,999 % > chance that my house will not collapse tonight, and I need to sleep > somewhere, so the decision of spending the night in my own bed seems > reasonable. Of course, the daily routine makes us forget that the > house may collapse anyway, so we tend to forget that there is no > material security and we live as if we had a future: making plans, > paying off the morgage. It´s a reasonable assumption that we do have > a future when we are 30, but it´s not absolutely sure. We tend to > forget about the latter, so it does become a kind of routine, a kind > of belief. And when it collapses due to some disaster or illness, we > are initially in shock. > So there may be a kind of dullness in it, on another hand I wonder > whether the body can function properly if it doesn´t feel safe and > relaxed, at least from time to time. The body seems to need this > illusion of safety, and worrying about possible dangers makes no > sense anyway. > In each case the belief in the solidity of my house will not make me > kill other people in name of it. > The belief in the only true God - might. > > Len > Good thought. The belief in the only true Alfred E. Neuman is also mighty. bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 31, 2006 Report Share Posted March 31, 2006 Nisargadatta , " Bob N. " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Actually, what belief is needed? > > > > > What belief should not be abandoned? > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > None. > > > > Reasonable assumptions, like that the earthquacke isn´t going > to > > > > destroy your house tonight, and that the food from the > > supermarket > > > > isn´t poisonous, make life easier though ;-) > > > > > > > > Len > > > > > > > > > > Yes, but that's not the kind of belief we are talking about, > > > is it? > > > > > > The same occurred to me when I wrote the above. So it is > > > interesting that you make that comment. Hence a question: > > > What is the distinction between the kinds of belief we > > > *are* talking about and the " reasonable assumptions " such > > > as you mention? > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > Good question. > > Maybe... a belief is an abstract construct of which we are sure > that > > it is true. My God is true God. There is no other possibility. > > However, I´ve never seen my God, I just read some books about him. > > This is out of touch with reality. > > Reasonable assumption is something based on previous perceptions, > > which does admit other possibilities, but for practical reasons > > those possibilities are not taken into account. There is 99,999 % > > chance that my house will not collapse tonight, and I need to sleep > > somewhere, so the decision of spending the night in my own bed > seems > > reasonable. Of course, the daily routine makes us forget that the > > house may collapse anyway, so we tend to forget that there is no > > material security and we live as if we had a future: making plans, > > paying off the morgage. It´s a reasonable assumption that we do > have > > a future when we are 30, but it´s not absolutely sure. We tend to > > forget about the latter, so it does become a kind of routine, a > kind > > of belief. And when it collapses due to some disaster or illness, > we > > are initially in shock. > > So there may be a kind of dullness in it, on another hand I wonder > > whether the body can function properly if it doesn´t feel safe and > > relaxed, at least from time to time. The body seems to need this > > illusion of safety, and worrying about possible dangers makes no > > sense anyway. > > In each case the belief in the solidity of my house will not make > me > > kill other people in name of it. > > The belief in the only true God - might. > > > > Len > > > Good thought. > The belief in the only true Alfred E. Neuman is also mighty. > bob " The only advantage to living in the past is that the rents are much cheaper! " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 31, 2006 Report Share Posted March 31, 2006 Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Bob N. " <Roberibus111@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " > <lissbon2002@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Actually, what belief is needed? > > > > > > What belief should not be abandoned? > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > None. > > > > > Reasonable assumptions, like that the earthquacke isn´t > going > > to > > > > > destroy your house tonight, and that the food from the > > > supermarket > > > > > isn´t poisonous, make life easier though ;-) > > > > > > > > > > Len > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, but that's not the kind of belief we are talking about, > > > > is it? > > > > > > > > The same occurred to me when I wrote the above. So it is > > > > interesting that you make that comment. Hence a question: > > > > What is the distinction between the kinds of belief we > > > > *are* talking about and the " reasonable assumptions " such > > > > as you mention? > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > Good question. > > > Maybe... a belief is an abstract construct of which we are sure > > that > > > it is true. My God is true God. There is no other possibility. > > > However, I´ve never seen my God, I just read some books about > him. > > > This is out of touch with reality. > > > Reasonable assumption is something based on previous > perceptions, > > > which does admit other possibilities, but for practical reasons > > > those possibilities are not taken into account. There is 99,999 > % > > > chance that my house will not collapse tonight, and I need to > sleep > > > somewhere, so the decision of spending the night in my own bed > > seems > > > reasonable. Of course, the daily routine makes us forget that > the > > > house may collapse anyway, so we tend to forget that there is no > > > material security and we live as if we had a future: making > plans, > > > paying off the morgage. It´s a reasonable assumption that we do > > have > > > a future when we are 30, but it´s not absolutely sure. We tend > to > > > forget about the latter, so it does become a kind of routine, a > > kind > > > of belief. And when it collapses due to some disaster or > illness, > > we > > > are initially in shock. > > > So there may be a kind of dullness in it, on another hand I > wonder > > > whether the body can function properly if it doesn´t feel safe > and > > > relaxed, at least from time to time. The body seems to need this > > > illusion of safety, and worrying about possible dangers makes no > > > sense anyway. > > > In each case the belief in the solidity of my house will not > make > > me > > > kill other people in name of it. > > > The belief in the only true God - might. > > > > > > Len > > > > > Good thought. > > The belief in the only true Alfred E. Neuman is also mighty. > > bob > > > > " The only advantage to living in the past is that the rents are much > cheaper! " > Well too ..it's usually a nicer neighborhood there. And much more of a future there as well.....bob 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.