Guest guest Posted April 1, 2006 Report Share Posted April 1, 2006 [...] > I don´t think there is a way to communicate between us. Based on our many prior conversations [which have included many agreements ass well as disagreements], I find your *thinking* in the above statement... false! However, it can understand if this communication didn't go the way you expected, wanted, guessed or intended to go. In general, I try to share what I have found true [or false] in my own experience, Len and I express it even when it might be in disagreement with the 'popularly' held 'spiritual' beliefs. And, in general, I try to do it honestly and truthfully. I have tried many *things* that are taught in spiritual realms and have experienced many of them. Some of them I have found to be valid, true and useful and some I have found... false, bogus, impractical or harmful! When someone says something *new*, in general, I tend to openly consider it unless I have found other similar ideas fail in past. But, when someone says something that I have already tried and find it to 'not work', I generally, express my disagreement. Talking specifically about our last conversation, I have in fact, tried the mentioned approach of 'just letting the attack be and not resist it' several times! But, I have find to terribly fail in many situations! Further, I have also observed that many to most people who *preach* this approach *vehemently* themselves don't practice it with any consistency! [Perhaps, they too, in spite of their saying the *contrary* know that it doesn't always work! Because of these factors, I don't consider the above approach a *magic bullet* solutions! In fact, overall, I don't even consider it the *BEST* solution!* But, given that you seem to talk about it quite a lot, I am very eager to know your own personal experience with it! To what extent, how much and in what context, you practice this 'let the attack be and don't resist' strategy and what results you have derived from it? > Your system is unpenetrable. > > Len > *And, if one pays some attention to the history of world, humanity, animal kingdom and rest of the nature, one might data that 'let the attack be and don't resist' hasn't really been the best *winning* strategy in the real life! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 2, 2006 Report Share Posted April 2, 2006 Nisargadatta , " Arvind " <adithya_comming wrote: > > [...] > > > I don´t think there is a way to > communicate between us. > > Based on our many prior conversations > [which have included many agreements > ass well as disagreements], I find your > *thinking* in the above statement... false! > > However, it can understand if this > communication didn't go the way you > expected, wanted, guessed or intended > to go. > > In general, I try to share what I have > found true [or false] in my own > experience, Len and I express it even > when it might be in disagreement with > the 'popularly' held 'spiritual' beliefs. > > And, in general, I try to do it > honestly and truthfully. > > > I have tried many *things* that are > taught in spiritual realms and have > experienced many of them. Some of them > I have found to be valid, true and > useful and some I have found... false, > bogus, impractical or harmful! > > When someone says something *new*, in > general, I tend to openly consider it > unless I have found other similar ideas > fail in past. But, when someone says > something that I have already tried and > find it to 'not work', I generally, > express my disagreement. > > Talking specifically about our last > conversation, I have in fact, tried the > mentioned approach of 'just letting the > attack be and not resist it' several > times! But, I have find to terribly > fail in many situations! > > Further, I have also observed that > many to most people who *preach* this > approach *vehemently* themselves don't > practice it with any consistency! > [Perhaps, they too, in spite of their > saying the *contrary* know that it > doesn't always work! > > Because of these factors, I don't > consider the above approach a *magic > bullet* solutions! > > In fact, overall, I don't even > consider it the *BEST* solution!* > > But, given that you seem to talk about > it quite a lot, I am very eager to know > your own personal experience with it! > To what extent, how much and in what > context, you practice this 'let the > attack be and don't resist' strategy > and what results you have derived from > it? > > > > Your system is unpenetrable. > > > > Len > > > > > > *And, if one pays some attention to > the history of world, humanity, animal > kingdom and rest of the nature, one > might data that 'let the attack be and > don't resist' hasn't really been the > best *winning* strategy in the real life! Let me repeat it. It's clear to me that what you're talking about is only suppressing and therefore strengthening conflict. You seem convinced that it will lead you to some good place, though. I'm positive it won't, but it isn't my intention to make you see that, even if it was possible, which, I think, isn't at this moment. You just must go your way and see what happens. Len Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 2, 2006 Report Share Posted April 2, 2006 [...] > > Let me repeat it. > It's clear to me that what you're talking about is only suppressing I don't see [and haven't seen] me talking about 'suppressing', Len! I don't know how you 'interpret' it this way! [...] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 2, 2006 Report Share Posted April 2, 2006 Nisargadatta , " Arvind " <adithya_comming wrote: > > [...] > > > > > Let me repeat it. > > It's clear to me that what you're talking about is only suppressing > > I don't see [and haven't seen] me talking > about 'suppressing', Len! > > I don't know how you 'interpret' it this > way! This is what you wrote: So " samadhi " means total self-centredness to you? > > Yes and by Self I mean as in Ramana's > and traditional Vedic literature as well > as in common non-dual dialogue! > > It is the absence of all else! The absence of all else means exclusion. Exclusion means suppression. On top of it you talk about streghtening the mind, which is stenghtening the ego - separation. I don´t see how it can make anybody any wiser. Len Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 3, 2006 Report Share Posted April 3, 2006 Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Arvind " <adithya_comming@> > wrote: > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > Let me repeat it. > > > It's clear to me that what you're talking about is only > suppressing > > > > I don't see [and haven't seen] me talking > > about 'suppressing', Len! > > > > I don't know how you 'interpret' it this > > way! > > > > This is what you wrote: > > So " samadhi " means total self-centredness to you? > > > > Yes and by Self I mean as in Ramana's > > and traditional Vedic literature as well > > as in common non-dual dialogue! > > > > It is the absence of all else! > > > The absence of all else means exclusion. > Exclusion means suppression. That is not correct, Len! Lovers say: when I am with my beloved, I forget all else! It doesn't necessarily has to mean that they 'suppress' the thoughts of all else... it might simply mean that they are so single mindedly focused on the beauty of their beloved that all else simply disappears! When I say, when I play with my kid... I forget all else! However, I don't need to 'suppress' anything in order to do that... just by the simple complete attention all else gets excluded [out of mind]! .... Similarly, they [i, we] see that in Deep sleep... there is nothing else! It doesn't mean that someone has 'suppressed' something. It simply means that the mind is absorbed in Self [or Silence if you prefer that word]. Simply defined, Samadahi is 'Deep Sleep' *like* state while remaining physically awake! Again it doesn't have to mean any 'suppression' and when focus is FULLY within... all else automatically disappears [gets out of mind]! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 3, 2006 Report Share Posted April 3, 2006 Nisargadatta , " Arvind " <adithya_comming wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > wrote: > > The absence of all else means exclusion. > > Exclusion means suppression. > That is not correct, Len! > > Lovers say: > > when I am with my beloved, I forget all else! ....for a while ;-) Being in love is an eye sickness, but it doesn´t last for ever. Sooner or later you wake up and start noticing the environment again. It happened to me more then once, so I know what I´m talking about :-) > It doesn't necessarily has to mean that they > 'suppress' the thoughts of all else... > > it might simply mean that they are so single > mindedly focused on the beauty of their > beloved that all else simply disappears! Yes, they are temporarily blind. > When I say, when I play with my kid... > I forget all else! > > However, I don't need to 'suppress' anything > in order to do that... > > just by the simple complete attention all > else gets excluded [out of mind]! You cannot possibly keep focusing your attention on your child for ever. You have to do your job, to drive a car, to work in the garden, and so, other parts of the world ask for your attention. You cannot stay focused on one thing for ever. If you do that, you become blind. > Similarly, they [i, we] see that in Deep sleep... > there is nothing else! But you don´t deep-sleep for ever. From time to time you´re awake, this is at least my assumption ;-) Imagine a human who´s permanently in deep sleep, what does he know about the world of human relationships in which you and me are living? > It doesn't mean that someone has 'suppressed' > something. It simply means that the mind is > absorbed in Self [or Silence if you prefer that > word]. To focus permanently on one single thing is unnatural, suppressive, and last but not least - impossible on longer term. You will eventually " suffocate " if you don´t allow your attention to move freely, which is its natural behaviour. > Simply defined, Samadahi is 'Deep Sleep' *like* > state while remaining physically awake! And not being aware of anything around you? Is this your goal? Len > Again it doesn't have to mean any 'suppression' > and when focus is FULLY within... > > all else automatically disappears [gets out of > mind]! > 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.