Guest guest Posted March 30, 2006 Report Share Posted March 30, 2006 > > > Could you give me an example of what you ´see as unreal? > > B: > > 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. > > > L: > 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. There is nothing of which I would say, " That (or this) is real. " When something is considered as separated out from the whole, then as separate is it unreal. Theoretically, I suppose, when there is no separation then there is only What Is, and What Is is real . But there is never a need to say that, there is never a point in saying that. It is simply neti-neti that I am talking about here. If it is anything you can " identify " , then not-that. Neti-neti is all no's, and no yes's. > > > > > > 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? Not through thinking. And not through a " how " either. Doubt simply happens. Doubt is not a process. It may unleash a process, but doubt itself is sudden and unexplainable. > > > > > 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. It is quite clear to me that what persists is of time. The only " theory " is that: * all is illusion except Now * Now is not of time If you want to call that a theoretical head-trip, go ahead. To me it is eminently practical. > Thinking trying to dismiss something, because it´s annoying. > This label of " unreal " , coming from memory prevents direct > observation. You misinterpret what I have said, substituting your own notions. I said nothing about thinking, nor about trying to dismiss. When something persists that to me is a " flag " . It is a kind of stop sign. When that happens I just stop and observe. Nothing more needs to be done. I keep saying *there is no process involved*. > > 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. You say " merely calling it unreal " . That's not what I am saying though. Like I say above: If there is persistence then STOP and observe. If there is persistence then there is conditioning running a program. It is coming out of memory. That is the only way there can be persistence. I am using the term " unreal " because we are using words as a means of communication. In actual practice the word is not important. I could say " illusory " instead of " unreal " . I could say " a program is running " instead of " unreal " . But none of those terms are important. There is no magic in words. What *is* important is to STOP when persistence is noticed, STOP and observe, be very very aware. What you say above seems to amount to much the same. > > > 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 ;-) I don't write from memory of what other's have written. I write from what I know directly. Sometimes I will cite someone such as N or K if they have put it exceptionally well. Going back to Krishnamurti of late I have been amazed at how something I have been discussing he says so much more clearly that I have been. I respect those guys and owe both of them a lot. But I have also gone my own path, and speak my own words. There is NOTHING I consider to be true because so-an-so said it. 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: > > > > > Could you give me an example of what you ´see as unreal? > > > B: > > > 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. > > > > > > L: > > 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. > > There is nothing of which I would say, " That (or this) is real. " > > When something is considered as separated out from the whole, > then as separate is it unreal. > > Theoretically, I suppose, when there is no separation then > there is only What Is, and What Is is real . > > But there is never a need to say that, there is never a > point in saying that. > > It is simply neti-neti that I am talking about here. > If it is anything you can " identify " , then not-that. > > Neti-neti is all no's, and no yes's. The rain which is raining, is raining, right? The rain which stopped raing, doesn´t exist anymore except as a memory, as a thought. It is important to be aware of this basic difference, because if you lose this awareness, you won´t be able to see what´s really going on and what you are imagining, believing. 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: > > > > > > > Could you give me an example of what you ´see as unreal? > > > > B: > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > L: > > > 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. > > > > There is nothing of which I would say, " That (or this) is real. " > > > > When something is considered as separated out from the whole, > > then as separate is it unreal. > > > > Theoretically, I suppose, when there is no separation then > > there is only What Is, and What Is is real . > > > > But there is never a need to say that, there is never a > > point in saying that. > > > > It is simply neti-neti that I am talking about here. > > If it is anything you can " identify " , then not-that. > > > > Neti-neti is all no's, and no yes's. > > > The rain which is raining, is raining, right? > The rain which stopped raing, doesn´t exist anymore except as a > memory, as a thought. > It is important to be aware of this basic difference, because if you > lose this awareness, you won´t be able to see what´s really going on > and what you are imagining, believing. > > Len > hi Len, when there is a " you " , everything is imagination. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 30, 2006 Report Share Posted March 30, 2006 Nisargadatta , " bigwaaba " <bigwaaba wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Could you give me an example of what you ´see as unreal? > > > > > B: > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > L: > > > > 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. > > > > > > There is nothing of which I would say, " That (or this) is real. " > > > > > > When something is considered as separated out from the whole, > > > then as separate is it unreal. > > > > > > Theoretically, I suppose, when there is no separation then > > > there is only What Is, and What Is is real . > > > > > > But there is never a need to say that, there is never a > > > point in saying that. > > > > > > It is simply neti-neti that I am talking about here. > > > If it is anything you can " identify " , then not-that. > > > > > > Neti-neti is all no's, and no yes's. > > > > > > The rain which is raining, is raining, right? > > The rain which stopped raing, doesn´t exist anymore except as a > > memory, as a thought. > > It is important to be aware of this basic difference, because if > you > > lose this awareness, you won´t be able to see what´s really going > on > > and what you are imagining, believing. > > > > Len > > > > hi Len, > > when there is a " you " , everything is imagination. Yes, even the above statement. 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 , " bigwaaba " <bigwaaba@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Could you give me an example of what you ´see as unreal? > > > > > > B: > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > L: > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > There is nothing of which I would say, " That (or this) is > real. " > > > > > > > > When something is considered as separated out from the whole, > > > > then as separate is it unreal. > > > > > > > > Theoretically, I suppose, when there is no separation then > > > > there is only What Is, and What Is is real . > > > > > > > > But there is never a need to say that, there is never a > > > > point in saying that. > > > > > > > > It is simply neti-neti that I am talking about here. > > > > If it is anything you can " identify " , then not-that. > > > > > > > > Neti-neti is all no's, and no yes's. > > > > > > > > > The rain which is raining, is raining, right? > > > The rain which stopped raing, doesn´t exist anymore except as a > > > memory, as a thought. > > > It is important to be aware of this basic difference, because if > > you > > > lose this awareness, you won´t be able to see what´s really > going > > on > > > and what you are imagining, believing. > > > > > > Len > > > > > > > hi Len, > > > > when there is a " you " , everything is imagination. > > > Yes, even the above statement. > > Len > ********** Ha-ha!!!! Now THAT'S funny! LOL. " Silver " 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.