Guest guest Posted March 28, 2006 Report Share Posted March 28, 2006 Everyone who is free of suffering and [mental] pain... please raise your hand! Everyone who has NEVER had ANY suffering or [mental] pain in last two years... please raise your Hand! Everyone who has NEVER had ANY anger, frustration, boredom, unease, resentment, fear, greed, lust in last two years... please raise your Hand! Without that, just discussing the reality or unreality of it and what Biddha, Niz or X, Y, Z said about it... is pretty much Poitless... and, just another EGO Game to be " seen " as... 'wise', 'enlightened', 'liberated', 'done', 'mukta', X, Y, Z... [NNB] Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , OConnor Patricia <gdtige@> > wrote: > > > > > > --- billrishel <illusyn@> a écrit : > > > > > > > > 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 about *feelings*? Are feelings " real " ? > > You could argue so, of course. That would > > be an ordinary way to speak. > > > > But I am saying that any feelings one > > " has " as " one's own " are unreal. 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 " . > > 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 > > > > those sensations can also be understood as pure > > energy. > > when the mind labels them as " hurt " it resists it. > > Patricia > > > Yes, exactly. And resistance melts when hurt is observed as a > sensation, unlabelled. > > Len > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 29, 2006 Report Share Posted March 29, 2006 Good Arvind. My hand remains down. Even right now, never mind two years! Lol. " Silver " Nisargadatta , " Arvind " <adithya_comming wrote: > > Everyone who is free of suffering and > [mental] pain... please raise your hand! > > Everyone who has NEVER had ANY suffering > or [mental] pain in last two years... > please raise your Hand! > > > Everyone who has NEVER had ANY anger, > frustration, boredom, unease, resentment, > fear, greed, lust in last two years... > please raise your Hand! > > > > > Without that, just discussing the > reality or unreality of it and > what Biddha, Niz or X, Y, Z > said about it... is pretty much > Poitless... and, just another EGO Game > to be " seen " as... 'wise', 'enlightened', > 'liberated', 'done', 'mukta', > X, Y, Z... > > > [NNB] > > > > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , OConnor Patricia <gdtige@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > --- billrishel <illusyn@> a écrit : > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 about *feelings*? Are feelings " real " ? > > > You could argue so, of course. That would > > > be an ordinary way to speak. > > > > > > But I am saying that any feelings one > > > " has " as " one's own " are unreal. 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 " . > > > 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 > > > > > > > those sensations can also be understood as pure > > > energy. > > > when the mind labels them as " hurt " it resists it. > > > Patricia > > > > > > Yes, exactly. And resistance melts when hurt is observed as a > > sensation, unlabelled. > > > > Len > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 29, 2006 Report Share Posted March 29, 2006 NOT the only real question... but will say this: feelings that are as " one's own " can seem to utterly disappear. does that mean never to appear again? that is uncertain... similarly for emotions and " mental pain " ... at some point the realization comes that the " sense of 'me' " is no more, and with it has gone the many baggages... the emotions, the personal feelings, the self-doubts, the uncertainties and senses of confusion... " angst " is the ever present shadow of the sense of a " personal self " and the sense of a personal self *can* evaporate when it is gone there is a clarity a clarity unpolluted by any particular things can still come up such as a " feeling of annoyance " as mentioned earlier if attention is very clear and open to that which arises, again it evaporates and so on, again and again and this is something that anyone can " practice " whatever *arises* complete attention to what arises one need not attain some " state " first the only practice is attention to whatever arises and then at times, perhaps only occasionally, *nothing* arises and then, as attention to whatever arises persists, " arisings " become ever more rare and *nothing* arising ever more common Bill Nisargadatta , " Arvind " <adithya_comming wrote: > > Everyone who is free of suffering and > [mental] pain... please raise your hand! > > Everyone who has NEVER had ANY suffering > or [mental] pain in last two years... > please raise your Hand! > > > Everyone who has NEVER had ANY anger, > frustration, boredom, unease, resentment, > fear, greed, lust in last two years... > please raise your Hand! > > > > > Without that, just discussing the > reality or unreality of it and > what Biddha, Niz or X, Y, Z > said about it... is pretty much > Poitless... and, just another EGO Game > to be " seen " as... 'wise', 'enlightened', > 'liberated', 'done', 'mukta', > X, Y, Z... > > > [NNB] > > > > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , OConnor Patricia <gdtige@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > --- billrishel <illusyn@> a écrit : > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 about *feelings*? Are feelings " real " ? > > > You could argue so, of course. That would > > > be an ordinary way to speak. > > > > > > But I am saying that any feelings one > > > " has " as " one's own " are unreal. 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 " . > > > 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 > > > > > > > those sensations can also be understood as pure > > > energy. > > > when the mind labels them as " hurt " it resists it. > > > Patricia > > > > > > Yes, exactly. And resistance melts when hurt is observed as a > > sensation, unlabelled. > > > > 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 , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > NOT the only real question... > > but will say this: > feelings that are as " one's own " can seem to utterly disappear. > does that mean never to appear again? > that is uncertain... > > similarly for emotions and " mental pain " ... > > at some point the realization comes that the " sense of 'me' " > is no more, and with it has gone the many baggages... > the emotions, the personal feelings, the self-doubts, > the uncertainties and senses of confusion... > > " angst " is the ever present shadow of the sense of a > " personal self " > > and the sense of a personal self *can* evaporate > > when it is gone there is a clarity > a clarity unpolluted > by any particular > > things can still come up > such as a " feeling of annoyance " as mentioned earlier Feeling of annoyance when the self is not? Don´t think so. Why be annoyed if there is nothing to defend? 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: > > > > NOT the only real question... > > > > but will say this: > > feelings that are as " one's own " can seem to utterly disappear. > > does that mean never to appear again? > > that is uncertain... > > > > similarly for emotions and " mental pain " ... > > > > at some point the realization comes that the " sense of 'me' " > > is no more, and with it has gone the many baggages... > > the emotions, the personal feelings, the self-doubts, > > the uncertainties and senses of confusion... > > > > " angst " is the ever present shadow of the sense of a > > " personal self " > > > > and the sense of a personal self *can* evaporate > > > > when it is gone there is a clarity > > a clarity unpolluted > > by any particular > > > > things can still come up > > such as a " feeling of annoyance " as mentioned earlier > > > > Feeling of annoyance when the self is not? > Don´t think so. > Why be annoyed if there is nothing to defend? > > Len > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> > wrote: > > > > NOT the only real question... > > > > but will say this: > > feelings that are as " one's own " can seem to utterly disappear. > > does that mean never to appear again? > > that is uncertain... > > > > similarly for emotions and " mental pain " ... > > > > at some point the realization comes that the " sense of 'me' " > > is no more, and with it has gone the many baggages... > > the emotions, the personal feelings, the self-doubts, > > the uncertainties and senses of confusion... > > > > " angst " is the ever present shadow of the sense of a > > " personal self " > > > > and the sense of a personal self *can* evaporate > > > > when it is gone there is a clarity > > a clarity unpolluted > > by any particular > > > > things can still come up > > such as a " feeling of annoyance " as mentioned earlier > > > > Feeling of annoyance when the self is not? > Don´t think so. > Why be annoyed if there is nothing to defend? > > Len there is never a (valid) *reason* for feeling annoyed, but such a feeling may arise, nevertheless " feeling of annoyance " is programming... is conditioning ... if such arising patterns are seen as they arise and met in the Now... they evaporate as they arise and that is the whole, is it not? it is not about " attaining some *state* " ... it is about meeting the challenge of each moment, as it arises. 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: > > NOT the only real question... > > but will say this: > feelings that are as " one's own " can seem to utterly disappear. > does that mean never to appear again? > that is uncertain... > > similarly for emotions and " mental pain " ... > > at some point the realization comes that the " sense of 'me' " > is no more, and with it has gone the many baggages... > the emotions, the personal feelings, the self-doubts, > the uncertainties and senses of confusion... > > " angst " is the ever present shadow of the sense of a > " personal self " > > and the sense of a personal self *can* evaporate > > when it is gone there is a clarity > a clarity unpolluted > by any particular > > things can still come up > such as a " feeling of annoyance " as mentioned earlier > > if attention is very clear and open to that which > arises, again it evaporates > > and so on, again and again > > and this is something that anyone can " practice " > whatever *arises* > complete attention to what arises > > one need not attain some " state " first > the only practice > is attention to whatever arises > > and then at times, perhaps only occasionally, > *nothing* arises > > and then, as attention to whatever arises persists, > " arisings " become ever more rare > > and *nothing* arising ever more common > > > Bill ********* Thanks Bill. I get small glimpses or tastes of this state now and then. But it doesn't happen by itself spontaneously. It only occurs if I sit back and make the effort to go like, " Okay. Now Robby, you're taking life way too seriously right now and that's why you're feeling *angst*. Is the matter really all that important? Eventually you're going to die and nothing like this will have meant anything, so CHILL OUT! " And after this type of self-talk, I repeat to myself the words of Nizargadatta, " I am not this or that (_________fill in the blank) and sometimes I get the sensation of peace from this. It's a good state to be in; it just seems to take alot of work to get there and I can't seem to stay there because I get so caught up in my daily activities. I love life and all its ups and downs and immerse myself fully in it but BOY! now and then I need a break from it, you know what I mean? So thanks for expressing for me what it is that I think happens to me when I'm just aware that the sense of 'me' is evaporated for a bit of time. I wish it would stay gone but I need it to engage in the game of Life at the moment. Or don't I??? " Silver " > > > > Nisargadatta , " Arvind " <adithya_comming@> wrote: > > > > Everyone who is free of suffering and > > [mental] pain... please raise your hand! > > > > Everyone who has NEVER had ANY suffering > > or [mental] pain in last two years... > > please raise your Hand! > > > > > > Everyone who has NEVER had ANY anger, > > frustration, boredom, unease, resentment, > > fear, greed, lust in last two years... > > please raise your Hand! > > > > > > > > > > Without that, just discussing the > > reality or unreality of it and > > what Biddha, Niz or X, Y, Z > > said about it... is pretty much > > Poitless... and, just another EGO Game > > to be " seen " as... 'wise', 'enlightened', > > 'liberated', 'done', 'mukta', > > X, Y, Z... > > > > > > [NNB] > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , OConnor Patricia <gdtige@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- billrishel <illusyn@> a écrit : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 about *feelings*? Are feelings " real " ? > > > > You could argue so, of course. That would > > > > be an ordinary way to speak. > > > > > > > > But I am saying that any feelings one > > > > " has " as " one's own " are unreal. 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 " . > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > those sensations can also be understood as pure > > > > energy. > > > > when the mind labels them as " hurt " it resists it. > > > > Patricia > > > > > > > > > Yes, exactly. And resistance melts when hurt is observed as a > > > sensation, unlabelled. > > > > > > 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: > > > > NOT the only real question... > > > > but will say this: > > feelings that are as " one's own " can seem to utterly disappear. > > does that mean never to appear again? > > that is uncertain... > > > > similarly for emotions and " mental pain " ... > > > > at some point the realization comes that the " sense of 'me' " > > is no more, and with it has gone the many baggages... > > the emotions, the personal feelings, the self-doubts, > > the uncertainties and senses of confusion... > > > > " angst " is the ever present shadow of the sense of a > > " personal self " > > > > and the sense of a personal self *can* evaporate > > > > when it is gone there is a clarity > > a clarity unpolluted > > by any particular > > > > things can still come up > > such as a " feeling of annoyance " as mentioned earlier > > > > Feeling of annoyance when the self is not? > Don´t think so. > Why be annoyed if there is nothing to defend? > > Len ********** Yeah. I didn't pick up on that. In a state of utter " clarity unpolluted by any particular " it would seem contradictory to say that within that state one can feel any particular thing, since being within that state entails the evaporation of the sense of 'me'. No? It's like saying that after the mist evaporates the process reverses itself and the mist returns again. Seems more like a cycle to me than a permanent state one can attain (a destination?). Maybe this state of clarity comes and goes, arises and subsides, maybe it operates in a cycle like so many other natural events. Maybe the state of peace isn't a permanent one but oscillates between degrees of peace and angst? Around the Full Moon I feel more anxious than at other times of the month. Today is a New Moon and I feel more peace than at other times. It's a Cycle in my experience. " 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 , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > wrote: > > Feeling of annoyance when the self is not? > > Don´t think so. > > Why be annoyed if there is nothing to defend? > > > > Len > > there is never a (valid) *reason* for feeling annoyed, > but such a feeling may arise, nevertheless > > " feeling of annoyance " is programming... is > conditioning ... No conditioning without the owner. The owner is conditioning. Len > if such arising patterns are seen as they arise > and met in the Now... > they evaporate as they arise > > and that is the whole, is it not? > it is not about " attaining some *state* " ... > it is about meeting the challenge of each > moment, as it arises. > > > 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: > > > > Feeling of annoyance when the self is not? > > > Don´t think so. > > > Why be annoyed if there is nothing to defend? > > > > > > Len > > > > there is never a (valid) *reason* for feeling annoyed, > > but such a feeling may arise, nevertheless > > > > " feeling of annoyance " is programming... is > > conditioning ... > > > > No conditioning without the owner. > The owner is conditioning. > > Len I see it quite differently: The " owner " is only appearance, an appearance due to conditioning. Bill > > > > if such arising patterns are seen as they arise > > and met in the Now... > > they evaporate as they arise > > > > and that is the whole, is it not? > > it is not about " attaining some *state* " ... > > it is about meeting the challenge of each > > moment, as it arises. > > > > > > Bill > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 30, 2006 Report Share Posted March 30, 2006 Bob wrote: I will beware henceforth......it is an asylum in here sometimes...Bill...Bill...who'd you say you worked with? ~~~~~ As I said I work with mentally ill adults. It takes a special kind of person to work with these people. A very " straight " person couldn't do it. Which is one reason I *can* do it, because not only do I fit the not-straight qualification (I have LOTS of curliques) but I can tolerate the people I work with because, as I observed shortly after I started: " The clients are mentally ill, while the staff are just plain crazy! " Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 30, 2006 Report Share Posted March 30, 2006 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > wrote: > > No conditioning without the owner. > > The owner is conditioning. > > > > Len > > I see it quite differently: > The " owner " is only appearance, > an appearance due to conditioning. > > Bill Conditioning needs a centre, the idea of the one who is conditioned. It is this idea which is being protected by conditioned reactions, like annoyance, for instance. All conditioned reaction is meant to protect the idea of the centre. When the idea of the centre is gone, the absurdity of protection, of reacting to whatsoever, (except of natural body protection) is obvious. There is no defence when there is nothing to defend, and defence is conditioning. If you want to protect your house from burglars, you will put a fence to keep them away. If there is no house, will you put a fence around this empty place? If you observe annoyance when the owner " isn´t there " , you can be sure he is still there, you only think he isn´t. That´s why I keep poiting out how important it is not to believe in the unreality of whatsoever. Belief makes you see what you want to see in order to keep that belief intact. And this is again a self defensive movement, meant to protect the owner. 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 , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > Bob wrote: > I will beware henceforth......it is an asylum in here > sometimes...Bill...Bill...who'd you say you worked with? > ~~~~~ > > As I said I work with mentally ill adults. > It takes a special kind of person to work with > these people. A very " straight " person couldn't > do it. Which is one reason I *can* do it, because > not only do I fit the not-straight qualification > (I have LOTS of curliques) but I can tolerate the > people I work with because, as I observed shortly > after I started: " The clients are mentally ill, > while the staff are just plain crazy! " > > > Bill > LOL.........bob 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: > > > > No conditioning without the owner. > > > The owner is conditioning. > > > > > > Len > > > > I see it quite differently: > > The " owner " is only appearance, > > an appearance due to conditioning. > > > > Bill > > > > Conditioning needs a centre, the idea of the one who is conditioned. You make an assertion here. What is the basis for your assertion? It can't be just because you say it, okay? > It is this idea which is being protected by conditioned reactions, > like annoyance, for instance. All conditioned reaction is meant to > protect the idea of the centre. You were the one talking about theory! Again, what is the basis for your statement: " All conditioned reaction is meant to protect the idea of the centre. " That is not something that could be a direct " observable " . Now don't get me wrong, as I am basically with you on the notion of " center " . I consider the false sense of self to stem from a false sense of " center " . But please, let's get this ironed out a bit better. > When the idea of the centre is gone, > the absurdity of protection, of reacting to whatsoever, (except of > natural body protection) is obvious. Agreed. No (sense of) center, no sense of " me " , and so nothing for the " stuff " to hang onto. But note that I speak of a " sense of center " . I don't concur if you wish to affirm there *really is* a center. I think of it in terms of a " strange attractor " . In other words, it is " virtual " . Perhaps that actually coincides with your meaning, but I consider that an important distinction. Dragging any kind of " ontology " into it is highly dubious in my view, which is that all phenomena are " virtual " . The rest of what you say below is just elaboration on the above as I see it, so I will pause for your reply to my comments above. Bill > There is no defence when there > is nothing to defend, and defence is conditioning. > If you want to protect your house from burglars, you will put a > fence to keep them away. If there is no house, will you put a fence > around this empty place? > If you observe annoyance when the owner " isn´t there " , you can be > sure he is still there, you only think he isn´t. That´s why I keep > poiting out how important it is not to believe in the unreality of > whatsoever. Belief makes you see what you want to see in order to > keep that belief intact. And this is again a self defensive > movement, meant to protect the owner. > > 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 , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > Conditioning needs a centre, the idea of the one who is conditioned. > > You make an assertion here. What is the basis for your assertion? Observation. > It can't be just because you say it, okay? Rain isn´t raining because I say it. Check it. > > It is this idea which is being protected by conditioned reactions, > > like annoyance, for instance. All conditioned reaction is meant to > > protect the idea of the centre. > > You were the one talking about theory! > Again, what is the basis for your statement: " All conditioned reaction > is meant to protect the idea of the centre. " Observation. > That is not something that could be a direct " observable " . Of course it is. If something is not observable, nothing at all can be said about it. > Now don't get me wrong, as I am basically with you on the notion > of " center " . I consider the false sense of self to stem from a > false sense of " center " . > > But please, let's get this ironed out a bit better. " Me " is an idea, right? Does this idea exist in the void? Or is it surrounded by other idea´s, which are expressing the qualities, the convictions, the memories of the " me " . This can be easily seen. We have a central idea of " me " to which all imaginary qualities and beliefs are attached. Without the central point " me " , to which some quality is attributed, does any quality exist? Look at the statement: I am important. What´s left of the statement when the I is not? Important? What is important? Nothing, right? There is nothing left to be important, there´s nothing left of the quality if the object to which then quality is pointing isn´t there. > > When the idea of the centre is gone, > > the absurdity of protection, of reacting to whatsoever, (except of > > natural body protection) is obvious. > Agreed. No (sense of) center, no sense of " me " , and so nothing > for the " stuff " to hang onto. Exactly. > But note that I speak of a " sense of center " . I don't concur if you > wish to affirm there *really is* a center. I´m saying that there is a thought of a centre, which one takes for reality. This misunderstanding creates self-defence, through idelogies, beliefs, opinions... When it´s obvious that the centre is no more than an idea, the defence becomes absurd. And therefore there are no emotional reactions when the centre is not there. Len Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 31, 2006 Report Share Posted March 31, 2006 But please, let's get this ironed out a bit better. But does it require a steam roller?? (Sorry, Bill. Just a joke Phil In a message dated 3/30/2006 10:21:18 AM Pacific Standard Time, Nisargadatta writes: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 17:01:58 -0000 " billrishel " <illusyn Re: The ONLY Real question !!! > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > > wrote: > > > > No conditioning without the owner. > > > The owner is conditioning. > > > > > > Len > > > > I see it quite differently: > > The " owner " is only appearance, > > an appearance due to conditioning. > > > > Bill > > > > Conditioning needs a centre, the idea of the one who is conditioned. You make an assertion here. What is the basis for your assertion? It can't be just because you say it, okay? > It is this idea which is being protected by conditioned reactions, > like annoyance, for instance. All conditioned reaction is meant to > protect the idea of the centre. You were the one talking about theory! Again, what is the basis for your statement: " All conditioned reaction is meant to protect the idea of the centre. " That is not something that could be a direct " observable " . Now don't get me wrong, as I am basically with you on the notion of " center " . I consider the false sense of self to stem from a false sense of " center " . But please, let's get this ironed out a bit better. > When the idea of the centre is gone, > the absurdity of protection, of reacting to whatsoever, (except of > natural body protection) is obvious. Agreed. No (sense of) center, no sense of " me " , and so nothing for the " stuff " to hang onto. But note that I speak of a " sense of center " . I don't concur if you wish to affirm there *really is* a center. I think of it in terms of a " strange attractor " . In other words, it is " virtual " . Perhaps that actually coincides with your meaning, but I consider that an important distinction. Dragging any kind of " ontology " into it is highly dubious in my view, which is that all phenomena are " virtual " . The rest of what you say below is just elaboration on the above as I see it, so I will pause for your reply to my comments above. Bill > There is no defence when there > is nothing to defend, and defence is conditioning. > If you want to protect your house from burglars, you will put a > fence to keep them away. If there is no house, will you put a fence > around this empty place? > If you observe annoyance when the owner " isn´t there " , you can be > sure he is still there, you only think he isn´t. That´s why I keep > poiting out how important it is not to believe in the unreality of > whatsoever. Belief makes you see what you want to see in order to > keep that belief intact. And this is again a self defensive > movement, meant to protect the owner. > > Len > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 31, 2006 Report Share Posted March 31, 2006 In a message dated 3/30/2006 3:52:55 PM Pacific Standard Time, Nisargadatta writes: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 21:11:39 -0000 " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 Re: The ONLY Real question !!! Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > Conditioning needs a centre, the idea of the one who is conditioned. > > You make an assertion here. What is the basis for your assertion? Observation. > It can't be just because you say it, okay? Rain isn´t raining because I say it. Check it. > > It is this idea which is being protected by conditioned reactions, > > like annoyance, for instance. All conditioned reaction is meant to > > protect the idea of the centre. > > You were the one talking about theory! > Again, what is the basis for your statement: " All conditioned reaction > is meant to protect the idea of the centre. " Observation. > That is not something that could be a direct " observable " . Of course it is. If something is not observable, nothing at all can be said about it. > Now don't get me wrong, as I am basically with you on the notion > of " center " . I consider the false sense of self to stem from a > false sense of " center " . > > But please, let's get this ironed out a bit better. " Me " is an idea, right? Does this idea exist in the void? Or is it surrounded by other idea´s, which are expressing the qualities, the convictions, the memories of the " me " . This can be easily seen. We have a central idea of " me " to which all imaginary qualities and beliefs are attached. Without the central point " me " , to which some quality is attributed, does any quality exist? Look at the statement: I am important. What´s left of the statement when the I is not? Important? What is important? Nothing, right? There is nothing left to be important, there´s nothing left of the quality if the object to which then quality is pointing isn´t there. > > When the idea of the centre is gone, > > the absurdity of protection, of reacting to whatsoever, (except of > > natural body protection) is obvious. > Agreed. No (sense of) center, no sense of " me " , and so nothing > for the " stuff " to hang onto. Exactly. > But note that I speak of a " sense of center " . I don't concur if you > wish to affirm there *really is* a center. I´m saying that there is a thought of a centre, which one takes for reality. This misunderstanding creates self-defence, through idelogies, beliefs, opinions... When it´s obvious that the centre is no more than an idea, the defence becomes absurd. And therefore there are no emotional reactions when the centre is not there. Len But you see, Len, Bill is in denial that he experiences this 'center' and so to him it is not obvious that it can be observed. The center which is the focus of conditioning has been conditioned to believe there is no center. Fascinating, no? Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 31, 2006 Report Share Posted March 31, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 3/30/2006 3:52:55 PM Pacific Standard Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Thu, 30 Mar 2006 21:11:39 -0000 > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 > Re: The ONLY Real question !!! > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> > wrote: > > > > > > Conditioning needs a centre, the idea of the one who is > conditioned. > > > > You make an assertion here. What is the basis for your assertion? > > > Observation. > > > > > It can't be just because you say it, okay? > > > Rain isn´t raining because I say it. > Check it. > > > > > > It is this idea which is being protected by conditioned > reactions, > > > like annoyance, for instance. All conditioned reaction is meant > to > > > protect the idea of the centre. > > > > You were the one talking about theory! > > Again, what is the basis for your statement: " All conditioned > reaction > > is meant to protect the idea of the centre. " > > > > Observation. > > > > > That is not something that could be a direct " observable " . > > > > > Of course it is. If something is not observable, nothing at all can > be said about it. > > > > > Now don't get me wrong, as I am basically with you on the notion > > of " center " . I consider the false sense of self to stem from a > > false sense of " center " . > > > > But please, let's get this ironed out a bit better. > > > > > " Me " is an idea, right? > Does this idea exist in the void? > Or is it surrounded by other idea´s, which are expressing the > qualities, the convictions, the memories of the " me " . > This can be easily seen. > We have a central idea of " me " to which all imaginary qualities and > beliefs are attached. > Without the central point " me " , to which some quality is attributed, > does any quality exist? > Look at the statement: > I am important. > What´s left of the statement when the I is not? > Important? What is important? Nothing, right? There is nothing left > to be important, there´s nothing left of the quality if the object > to which then quality is pointing isn´t there. > > > > > > > > When the idea of the centre is gone, > > > the absurdity of protection, of reacting to whatsoever, (except > of > > > natural body protection) is obvious. > > Agreed. No (sense of) center, no sense of " me " , and so nothing > > for the " stuff " to hang onto. > > > Exactly. > > > > > But note that I speak of a " sense of center " . I don't concur if you > > wish to affirm there *really is* a center. > > > > I´m saying that there is a thought of a centre, which one takes for > reality. This misunderstanding creates self-defence, through > idelogies, beliefs, opinions... > When it´s obvious that the centre is no more than an idea, the > defence becomes absurd. > And therefore there are no emotional reactions when the centre is > not there. > > Len > > > > > But you see, Len, Bill is in denial that he experiences this 'center' and so > to him it is not obvious that it can be observed. The center which is the > focus of conditioning has been conditioned to believe there is no center. > Fascinating, no? > > Phil Yes. The centre is very clever is finding ways to survive :-) 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.