Guest guest Posted March 28, 2006 Report Share Posted March 28, 2006 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , epston@ wrote: > > > > When totally in > > the Now there is no *time* for " I am feeling > > pain " . > > > > > > L.E: I appreciate your good intensions but there is and can be pain > in the present, just no suffering. > > Pain is physical. Suffering is emotional. You cannot suffer and be > in the present so when there is an experience of emotional hurt you > suffer until it subsides enough to again have the possibility of > existing in or entering the present. IMHO. > > > > Larry Epston > > Read my words a little more carefully... > I said, " no *time* for 'I am feeling pain' " . > The *thought* " I am feeling pain " requires time. > I did not say there is no pain. > > But even pain is much different when there is complete > presence, complete acute awareness. It would seem > that would just make it worse. But the opposite is > the case. > > Bill True. 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 , epston@ wrote: > > > > > > > > Bill: When totally in the Now there is no *time* for " I am feeling > > pain " . > > > > > > > > > > > > L.E: I appreciate your good intensions but there is > > > and can be pain > > > in the present, just no suffering. > > > > Pain is physical. Suffering is emotional. You > > > cannot suffer and be > > > in the present so when there is an experience of > > > emotional hurt you > > > suffer until it subsides enough to again have the > > > possibility of > > > existing in or entering the present. IMHO. > > > > > > > > Larry Epston > > > > > > Read my words a little more carefully... > > > I said, " no *time* for 'I am feeling pain' " . > > > The *thought* " I am feeling pain " requires time. > > > I did not say there is no pain. > > > > > > But even pain is much different when there is complete > > > presence, complete acute awareness. It would seem > > > that would just make it worse. But the opposite is > > > the case. > > > > L.E: O.K. It's a grammar problem. I agree there is no I am problem > in the present, but that's also true in the not present, the > un-present. A human organism is not the verbal I am we use to refer to > ourselves, it just exists as intelligent life. But I suppose that in > the not present, the combination of pain and suffering together is > more intense than pain in the present without suffering. But is still > hurts bad sometimes so it's best to avoid pain if possible. It's a > good thing the I am that doesn't exist but thinks it does in the > not-present tries to keep the organism from damage, danger or harm. > Amazing how a not existing ego can protect itself from harm most of > the time or even to put itself in harms way some of the time as in > being a killer murderer soldier protecting our democracy and freedom > > > > > Larry Epston > > But is still hurts bad sometimes so it's best to avoid pain if possible. > ~~~~~~ > It is best to be very aware and very present. > That's it. > And that applies to mortal danger as well as > to " just being " with grace in the normal scheme > of things. > > Bill > *********** Just a side note to this discussion: my grandfather (G-d rest his soul), who fought in the second world war and saw many of his commerades die right in front of him, once told me that he welcomed or accepted the pain he had to endure for the rest of his life after he caught a bit of shrapnel in his hip during a very bloody battle where he almost lost his life. He told me that the pain reminded him that he was still alive rather than six feet under the dirt like those friends of his who were killed in battle. Pain has this sort of redeeming quality to it that someone like my grandfather can appreciate. In that sense, I don't think he suffered. " Silver " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 29, 2006 Report Share Posted March 29, 2006 Nisargadatta , epston wrote: > > When totally in > the Now there is no *time* for " I am feeling > pain " . > > > L.E: I appreciate your good intensions but there is and can be pain in the present, just no suffering. > Pain is physical. Suffering is emotional. You cannot suffer and be in the present so when there is an experience of emotional hurt you suffer until it subsides enough to again have the possibility of existing in or entering the present. IMHO. > > Larry Epston ********** When one is too busy reliving the past to experience the present, that is suffering in the Now. " Silver " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 29, 2006 Report Share Posted March 29, 2006 Nisargadatta , " s_i_l_v_e_r1069 " <silver- 1069 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , epston@ wrote: > > > > When totally in > > the Now there is no *time* for " I am feeling > > pain " . > > > > > > L.E: I appreciate your good intensions but there is and can be > pain in the present, just no suffering. > > Pain is physical. Suffering is emotional. You cannot suffer and > be in the present so when there is an experience of emotional hurt > you suffer until it subsides enough to again have the possibility of > existing in or entering the present. IMHO. > > > > Larry Epston Hello Larry, both pain and suffering are based on resistance, by the way also pleasure is like this. this resistance is what gives the sense of a separate ego, of an experiencer, a doer. when saying " you cannot suffer and be in the present " you are referring to some knowledge got in some book and not to your own experience. That knowledge may sound good but it is not all, and carrying along it will prevent you to see the complete unfolding of the phenomenon. there is NO you coming in and out of the present moment. if it appears to be the case it is just because something that is not permanent is desired to be permanent. cheers, waaba 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 , OConnor Patricia <gdtige@> > wrote: > > > > > those sensations can also be understood as pure > > > energy. > > > when the mind labels them as " hurt " it resists it. > > > Patricia > > > > > > > let's look at that... > > > > " pure energy " is a label as well, is it not? > > > > so... to-label is to-categorize is to-think-about-what-to-do... > > > > that is how it is seeming to me... > > > > that the *very labeling* -- nevermind " what kind of " label -- > > is a mode of processing that inherently seeks to control. > > > > do I witness a flower more purely if I see it as " energy " > > or if I have no thought about the flower? > > > > or to see it another way: does not applying a label, > > even one such as " pure energy " , does not that in itself > > create a separation, an illusion of this-here-labeling, > > that-there-labeled? > > > > I am actually asking. > > > > Bill > > > > If it is a label you cling to, it does. > If it is a word/label used in the dialogue to point to what it is > without label, it doesn´t. > To me the word energy sound OK. It is energy. > > Len > yeah, I came around to seeing the use of the word " energy " there differently. you got it right away. 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 , " s_i_l_v_e_r1069 " <silver- 1069 wrote: > > When one is too busy reliving the past to experience the present, > that is suffering in the Now. > > " Silver " Yes. 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: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " > <lissbon2002@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For forty-five years, the Buddha said, over and over > again, " I > > > teach > > > > > > only suffering and the transformation of suffering. " When > we > > > > > recognize > > > > > > and acknowledge our own suffering, the Buddha - which > means the > > > > > Buddha > > > > > > in us - will look at it, discover what has brought it > about, and > > > > > > prescribe a course of action that can transform it into > peace, > > > joy, > > > > > > and liberation. Suffering is the means the Buddha used to > > > liberate > > > > > > himself, and it is also the means by which we can become > free. > > > > > > > > > > > > ~ Thich Nhat Hanh > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.katinkahesselink.net/tibet/suffering.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Conscious suffering brings the suffering to an end, through > > > revealing > > > > > its unreal nature. > > > > > Not that suffering is unreal, because it is damn real when > it > > > hurts, > > > > > but it´s causes are unreal: images. > > > > > > > > > > len > > > > > > > > > The " hurt " is unreal as well. > > > > Anything seen/felt as " mine " is unreal. > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > Hurt in the meaning of the pain felt in the body is real. > > > A house is real, whether I call it mine or not, it's still there. > > > > > > Len > > > > > > You are talking an ordinary language sense of > > the term real. I am talking in nondual terms. > > > > > What I say is not related to any theory, it´s just perception. > What I imagine, what only exists as an image, a thought, a fantasy, > I call unreal. Every kid can understand that. > What I really see, I call real. This is a matter of word use. > > > > > > > What about *feelings*? Are feelings " real " ? > > You could argue so, of course. That would > > be an ordinary way to speak. > > > > > Feelings are real, in the meaning that when you feel sad you may > cry, when you feel angry, the adrenaline is running through your > body. There is a factuality to a feeling: the state of the body, the > tears, the adrenaline, and also the consequences of a feeling > (passionate murder) are very real. Someone is really dead, his kids > have really lost their father, it is not imagination, it is not a > thriller on TV. > The causes of feelings are unreal though, for they are images. > Imagination causes real feelings, real hurt, real pain, however when > the imagination ceaes, the feelings, the hurt, the pain also cease. > > > > > But I am saying that any feelings one > > " has " as " one's own " are unreal. > > > > Feelings are only there when they are owned. > There are no feelings that one " has " as not one´s own. > If they aren´t owned, there are no feelings. The ownership is a > thought, cause the owner is a thought. The thought of owning or > losing whatever triggers feelings. When the ownership isn´t there, > there are no feelings. > But again, feelings are real physiological reactions, which even can > be mesured, which even can lead to stress, agression, illness, dead. > So images (unreal) lead to real stuff: pain, killing, suicide... > > > > > > They > > are illusion. If the " hurt " is a feeling > > one has, then for that ownership process > > to occur there has to be time. Actually, > > without time there is no possibility of > > even labeling as " hurt " or as " my hurt " . > > > > Yes. Without time/thinking this hurt simply wouldn´t be . > > > > > Try it when you are in the dentist chair > > next time. Try being so present with whatever > > sensations that the sensations are experienced > > instant by instant. The body might straighten, > > the abdomen might tighten. But if totally in > > the Now it is a blur of sensation. Not > > exactly pleasant, but just a chaos of > > sensation, nevertheless. When totally in > > the Now there is no *time* for " I am feeling > > pain " . > > > > So when I say " real " I mean when there is > > only Now, when there is no time, *that* > > I am saying, is real. > > > > Bill > > > > You mean, there is no owner without thinking/time. True. > I don´t like calling things unreal in theory, though. > I mean that feelings are only there if the owner/time is there. > If the owner is there, there is no use in calling feelings unreal, > because this is theory. It is the " owner " who calls them unreal ;-) > What is really seen as unreal, is no more. If it is there, you might > THINK it is unreal, you might want to BELIEVE it is unreal, because > it suits you, because you don´t want to deal with it. But you don´t > really see that it´s unreal, because in the case you see that, > nothing is there left to be called unreal. > Believing that something is unreal is itself unreal. > When no illusion is there, is there a need to call anything unreal? > No. It is the illusion which wants to call the illusion unreal, > creating another illusion on top of the first illusion :-) > > Len > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " > <lissbon2002@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For forty-five years, the Buddha said, over and over > again, " I > > > teach > > > > > > only suffering and the transformation of suffering. " When > we > > > > > recognize > > > > > > and acknowledge our own suffering, the Buddha - which > means the > > > > > Buddha > > > > > > in us - will look at it, discover what has brought it > about, and > > > > > > prescribe a course of action that can transform it into > peace, > > > joy, > > > > > > and liberation. Suffering is the means the Buddha used to > > > liberate > > > > > > himself, and it is also the means by which we can become > free. > > > > > > > > > > > > ~ Thich Nhat Hanh > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.katinkahesselink.net/tibet/suffering.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Conscious suffering brings the suffering to an end, through > > > revealing > > > > > its unreal nature. > > > > > Not that suffering is unreal, because it is damn real when > it > > > hurts, > > > > > but it´s causes are unreal: images. > > > > > > > > > > len > > > > > > > > > The " hurt " is unreal as well. > > > > Anything seen/felt as " mine " is unreal. > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > Hurt in the meaning of the pain felt in the body is real. > > > A house is real, whether I call it mine or not, it's still there. > > > > > > Len > > > > > > You are talking an ordinary language sense of > > the term real. I am talking in nondual terms. > > > > > What I say is not related to any theory, it´s just perception. > What I imagine, what only exists as an image, a thought, a fantasy, > I call unreal. Every kid can understand that. > What I really see, I call real. This is a matter of word use. > > > > > > > What about *feelings*? Are feelings " real " ? > > You could argue so, of course. That would > > be an ordinary way to speak. > > > > > Feelings are real, in the meaning that when you feel sad you may > cry, when you feel angry, the adrenaline is running through your > body. There is a factuality to a feeling: the state of the body, the > tears, the adrenaline, and also the consequences of a feeling > (passionate murder) are very real. Someone is really dead, his kids > have really lost their father, it is not imagination, it is not a > thriller on TV. > The causes of feelings are unreal though, for they are images. > Imagination causes real feelings, real hurt, real pain, however when > the imagination ceaes, the feelings, the hurt, the pain also cease. > > > > > But I am saying that any feelings one > > " has " as " one's own " are unreal. > > > > Feelings are only there when they are owned. > There are no feelings that one " has " as not one´s own. > If they aren´t owned, there are no feelings. The ownership is a > thought, cause the owner is a thought. The thought of owning or > losing whatever triggers feelings. When the ownership isn´t there, > there are no feelings. > But again, feelings are real physiological reactions, which even can > be mesured, which even can lead to stress, agression, illness, dead. > So images (unreal) lead to real stuff: pain, killing, suicide... > > > > > > They > > are illusion. If the " hurt " is a feeling > > one has, then for that ownership process > > to occur there has to be time. Actually, > > without time there is no possibility of > > even labeling as " hurt " or as " my hurt " . > > > > Yes. Without time/thinking this hurt simply wouldn´t be . > > > > > Try it when you are in the dentist chair > > next time. Try being so present with whatever > > sensations that the sensations are experienced > > instant by instant. The body might straighten, > > the abdomen might tighten. But if totally in > > the Now it is a blur of sensation. Not > > exactly pleasant, but just a chaos of > > sensation, nevertheless. When totally in > > the Now there is no *time* for " I am feeling > > pain " . > > > > So when I say " real " I mean when there is > > only Now, when there is no time, *that* > > I am saying, is real. > > > > Bill > > > > You mean, there is no owner without thinking/time. True. > I don´t like calling things unreal in theory, though. > I mean that feelings are only there if the owner/time is there. > If the owner is there, there is no use in calling feelings unreal, > because this is theory. It is the " owner " who calls them unreal ;-) > What is really seen as unreal, is no more. If it is there, you might > THINK it is unreal, you might want to BELIEVE it is unreal, because > it suits you, because you don´t want to deal with it. But you don´t > really see that it´s unreal, because in the case you see that, > nothing is there left to be called unreal. > Believing that something is unreal is itself unreal. > When no illusion is there, is there a need to call anything unreal? > No. It is the illusion which wants to call the illusion unreal, > creating another illusion on top of the first illusion :-) > > Len Very clear! The notion of " time " *is* a construct that appears (to me) to be effective in getting across that whatever takes time is not in Now, and what is not in Now is not real. Even if what people are experiencing seems very real, it seems that they *can* see that it is occuring in time, and they (on this list anyway) do realize that what is in time is not Now. The best I can hope for in most cases is to plant a seed of doubt, to help them get unstuck on the *actuality* of what they are experiencing. In a sense it is an inviting the reader to " go another level " , to " reframe " the actuality of the suffering. In the case of the annoyance that I felt, that is what happened. I saw that I was feeling annoyance, I was able to see that entailed a " persistence " which was enough for me to see the unrealness of it. And with that poof! it evaporated. > Believing that something is unreal is itself unreal. > When no illusion is there, is there a need to call anything unreal? > No. It is the illusion which wants to call the illusion unreal, > creating another illusion on top of the first illusion :-) It is not a matter of belief. Belief, again, is in time. I was able to *see* that the annoyance was unreal because of its *persistence*. I can see a point in what you are saying in that calling what is " felt " unreal can in effect become a kind of " dismissal " , a no-facing, rather than really bringing clear attention to it. So I will just keep an open mind about this. It seems to me we are talking about " skill in means " here. Perhaps you are familiar with that buddhist term? 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: > > Very clear! > > The notion of " time " *is* a construct that > appears (to me) to be effective in getting > across that whatever takes time is not in Now, > and what is not in Now is not real. Even if > what people are experiencing seems very real, > it seems that they *can* see that it is > occuring in time, and they (on this list > anyway) do realize that what is in time is not > Now. Could you give me an example of what you ´see as unreal? > The best I can hope for in most cases is to > plant a seed of doubt, to help them get unstuck > on the *actuality* of what they are > experiencing. In a sense it is an inviting the > reader to " go another level " , to " reframe " the > actuality of the suffering. The danger is, that when you call something unreal, but it isn´t perceived as such, by somebody else, it becomes just another belief, if accepted. This is the danger of describing things to other pople before they had a chance to see it themselves. This is what many guru´s are doing. The result seems not to be doubt but either belief or disbelief. Which is understandable, when there is no perception of what is been pointed at, all that can be " seen " is image. > It is not a matter of belief. Belief, again, > is in time. I was able to *see* that the > annoyance was unreal because of its *persistence*. OK. This is possible. But what happens then? Do you draw a conclusion that every feeling is unreal, even if it doesn´t feel like that at the moment? What you saw in one moment you might be blind to in another. Or the feeling might be of such intensity, build of so many layers that it still persists. If you´re free of beliefs you start every time from scratch. > I can see a point in what you are saying in > that calling what is " felt " unreal can in effect > become a kind of " dismissal " , a no-facing, > rather than really bringing clear attention > to it. So I will just keep an open mind about > this. > > It seems to me we are talking about " skill in means " > here. Perhaps you are familiar with that buddhist > term? > > > Bill No, I´m a do-it-yourselfer ;-) But please tell me about it, if you feel like. 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: > > > > > Very clear! > > > > The notion of " time " *is* a construct that > > appears (to me) to be effective in getting > > across that whatever takes time is not in Now, > > and what is not in Now is not real. Even if > > what people are experiencing seems very real, > > it seems that they *can* see that it is > > occuring in time, and they (on this list > > anyway) do realize that what is in time is not > > Now. > > > Could you give me an example of what you ´see as unreal? The " feeling of annoyance " I described was an example. Such are by nature ephemera... they appear to be real only in-so-much as they persist. > > The best I can hope for in most cases is to > > plant a seed of doubt, to help them get unstuck > > on the *actuality* of what they are > > experiencing. In a sense it is an inviting the > > reader to " go another level " , to " reframe " the > > actuality of the suffering. > > > > The danger is, that when you call something unreal, but it isn´t > perceived as such, by somebody else, it becomes just another belief, > if accepted. > This is the danger of describing things to other pople before they > had a chance to see it themselves. This is what many guru´s are > doing. > The result seems not to be doubt but either belief or disbelief. > Which is understandable, when there is no perception of what is been > pointed at, all that can be " seen " is image. I'm not really *describing* it in saying it is unreal. I'm saying, " Question that! " > > It is not a matter of belief. Belief, again, > > is in time. I was able to *see* that the > > annoyance was unreal because of its *persistence*. > > OK. This is possible. But what happens then? > Do you draw a conclusion that every feeling is unreal, even if it > doesn´t feel like that at the moment? What you saw in one moment you > might be blind to in another. Or the feeling might be of such > intensity, build of so many layers that it still persists. > If you´re free of beliefs you start every time from scratch. If something persists as a " feeling within " then I question that. I know it is not truly real if it persists, that it is simply memory *creating something*. When very immersed in Now there is a shimmering vibrance everywhere. There are no feelings, really, in that. So when what-persists is " eliminated " the matter of feelings doesn't come up. " Eliminated " meaning not forever, things can come up again. But that does not matter. What matters is meeting whatever *does* come up immediately, now. I see three possibilities: * something " coming up " and not facing it * something " coming up " and completely facing it * nothing " coming up " In any given moment one of the three. The latter two are both in the Now. One of the latter two are always available. So being in the Now is not a " accomplishment " . It is when nothing " comes up " that there is vibrance in everything and the natural background state of Joy is evident. But the " nothing coming up " is not what is important. It is being absolutely present with-whatever that is important. It is being indifferent to whether anything " comes up " or not. > > > I can see a point in what you are saying in > > that calling what is " felt " unreal can in effect > > become a kind of " dismissal " , a no-facing, > > rather than really bringing clear attention > > to it. So I will just keep an open mind about > > this. > > > > It seems to me we are talking about " skill in means " > > here. Perhaps you are familiar with that buddhist > > term? > > > > > > Bill > > > No, I´m a do-it-yourselfer ;-) > But please tell me about it, if you feel like. Well, I'm a do-it-yourselfer too. But I have come across some notions that seem useful. " Skill-in-means " is basically what we are talking about here. Not what is the case, but *how to talk about* that. 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: > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Very clear! > > > > > > The notion of " time " *is* a construct that > > > appears (to me) to be effective in getting > > > across that whatever takes time is not in Now, > > > and what is not in Now is not real. Even if > > > what people are experiencing seems very real, > > > it seems that they *can* see that it is > > > occuring in time, and they (on this list > > > anyway) do realize that what is in time is not > > > Now. > > > > > > Could you give me an example of what you ´see as unreal? > > The " feeling of annoyance " I described was an example. > Such are by nature ephemera... they appear to be real > only in-so-much as they persist. > > > > The best I can hope for in most cases is to > > > plant a seed of doubt, to help them get unstuck > > > on the *actuality* of what they are > > > experiencing. In a sense it is an inviting the > > > reader to " go another level " , to " reframe " the > > > actuality of the suffering. > > > > > > > > The danger is, that when you call something unreal, but it isn´t > > perceived as such, by somebody else, it becomes just another belief, > > if accepted. > > This is the danger of describing things to other pople before they > > had a chance to see it themselves. This is what many guru´s are > > doing. > > The result seems not to be doubt but either belief or disbelief. > > Which is understandable, when there is no perception of what is been > > pointed at, all that can be " seen " is image. > > I'm not really *describing* it in saying it is unreal. > I'm saying, " Question that! " > > > > It is not a matter of belief. Belief, again, > > > is in time. I was able to *see* that the > > > annoyance was unreal because of its *persistence*. > > > > OK. This is possible. But what happens then? > > Do you draw a conclusion that every feeling is unreal, even if it > > doesn´t feel like that at the moment? What you saw in one moment you > > might be blind to in another. Or the feeling might be of such > > intensity, build of so many layers that it still persists. > > If you´re free of beliefs you start every time from scratch. > > If something persists as a " feeling within " then I > question that. I know it is not truly real if it > persists, that it is simply memory *creating something*. > > When very immersed in Now there is a shimmering vibrance > everywhere. There are no feelings, really, in that. > > So when what-persists is " eliminated " the matter of feelings > doesn't come up. > > " Eliminated " meaning not forever, things can come up again. > But that does not matter. > What matters is meeting whatever *does* come up immediately, > now. > > I see three possibilities: > * something " coming up " and not facing it > * something " coming up " and completely facing it > * nothing " coming up " > > In any given moment one of the three. > The latter two are both in the Now. > One of the latter two are always available. > So being in the Now is not a " accomplishment " . > > It is when nothing " comes up " that there is vibrance in > everything and the natural background state of Joy is > evident. > > But the " nothing coming up " is not what is important. > It is being absolutely present with-whatever that is > important. It is being indifferent to whether anything > " comes up " or not. > > > > > > > I can see a point in what you are saying in > > > that calling what is " felt " unreal can in effect > > > become a kind of " dismissal " , a no-facing, > > > rather than really bringing clear attention > > > to it. So I will just keep an open mind about > > > this. > > > > > > It seems to me we are talking about " skill in means " > > > here. Perhaps you are familiar with that buddhist > > > term? > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > No, I´m a do-it-yourselfer ;-) > > But please tell me about it, if you feel like. > > > Well, I'm a do-it-yourselfer too. > But I have come across some notions that seem useful. > " Skill-in-means " is basically what we are talking about > here. Not what is the case, but *how to talk about* > that. > > Bill > Ok guys...how does a noself do itselfer? Oh wait..thats myself doing yourself right? Like I'M a do it YOUR self er? Well er.. I can't understand this either way. I guess I'm a Pepper, your a Pepper would't you like to be a Pepper too?...I'll drink to that. ..........bob 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: > > Could you give me an example of what you ´see as unreal? > > The " feeling of annoyance " I described was an example. > Such are by nature ephemera... they appear to be real > only in-so-much as they persist. Everything is real only as it persists. The rain which stopped raining is no more real. The feeling of annoyance ceases to be real when it disappears. Before, it is really present in your body, so we cannot call it unreal, unless through the conclusion of the memory of previous annoyance which disappeared before. Buit this is thinking, and maybe hope, not real observation. > > The danger is, that when you call something unreal, but it isn´t > > perceived as such, by somebody else, it becomes just another belief, > > if accepted. > > This is the danger of describing things to other pople before they > > had a chance to see it themselves. This is what many guru´s are > > doing. > > The result seems not to be doubt but either belief or disbelief. > > Which is understandable, when there is no perception of what is been > > pointed at, all that can be " seen " is image. > > I'm not really *describing* it in saying it is unreal. > I'm saying, " Question that! " Yes. But how to question? How do you question it? Through thinking? > > > It is not a matter of belief. Belief, again, > > > is in time. I was able to *see* that the > > > annoyance was unreal because of its *persistence*. > > > > OK. This is possible. But what happens then? > > Do you draw a conclusion that every feeling is unreal, even if it > > doesn´t feel like that at the moment? What you saw in one moment you > > might be blind to in another. Or the feeling might be of such > > intensity, build of so many layers that it still persists. > > If you´re free of beliefs you start every time from scratch. > > If something persists as a " feeling within " then I > question that. I know it is not truly real if it > persists, that it is simply memory *creating something*. This is theory, not observation. Thinking trying to dismiss something, because it´s annoying. This label of " unreal " , coming from memory prevents direct observation. > When very immersed in Now there is a shimmering vibrance > everywhere. There are no feelings, really, in that. > > So when what-persists is " eliminated " the matter of feelings > doesn't come up. > > " Eliminated " meaning not forever, things can come up again. > But that does not matter. > What matters is meeting whatever *does* come up immediately, > now. If it´s really gone, it´s great. But if it persists, it isn´t gone and cannot be " eliminated " through calling it unreal. Here you need to observe it unlabelled, as energy, as sensation. > I see three possibilities: > * something " coming up " and not facing it > * something " coming up " and completely facing it > * nothing " coming up " > > In any given moment one of the three. > The latter two are both in the Now. > One of the latter two are always available. > So being in the Now is not a " accomplishment " . > > It is when nothing " comes up " that there is vibrance in > everything and the natural background state of Joy is > evident. Is it you own observation? I hope it´s not K´s ;-) > But the " nothing coming up " is not what is important. > It is being absolutely present with-whatever that is > important. Well said. Len 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.