Guest guest Posted April 7, 2006 Report Share Posted April 7, 2006 Nisargadatta , " Bob N. " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > > wrote: > > > > Allowing the storm to 'be', calms the storm because the storm > is > > > nothing > > > > more than the resistance to the storm. > > > > > > > > Phil > > > Allowing the storm to be calms the storm as much as a war calms > > fear > > > and hatred. > > > > > > Len > > How in the world is " allowing the storm.. " (for whatever > reason), equal or equatable to war? That just doesn't make any sense > at all Len. Fear and hatred equal war..that's a given. But permission > of, or allowing to be, to anything or anyone, is not the same thing > at all. > ..............bob The storm means the psychological conflict, for instance: fear, anger, hatred... Allowing this to be means that the anger, fear and hatred can express themselves. This is what war is: an expression of emotional conflict and fear. So allowing it doesn´t end it. Suppressing it doesn´t end it either, cause sooner or later it will explode in another war. Something else is needed to end conflict: understanding of its whole structure. Len Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 7, 2006 Report Share Posted April 7, 2006 Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Bob N. " <Roberibus111@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " > <lissbon2002@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Allowing the storm to 'be', calms the storm because the > storm > > is > > > > nothing > > > > > more than the resistance to the storm. > > > > > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > Allowing the storm to be calms the storm as much as a war > calms > > > fear > > > > and hatred. > > > > > > > > Len > > > > > > How in the world is " allowing the storm.. " (for whatever > > reason), equal or equatable to war? That just doesn't make any > sense > > at all Len. Fear and hatred equal war..that's a given. But > permission > > of, or allowing to be, to anything or anyone, is not the same > thing > > at all. > > ..............bob > > > > The storm means the psychological conflict, for instance: > fear, anger, hatred... > Allowing this to be means that the anger, fear and hatred can > express themselves. This is what war is: an expression of emotional > conflict and fear. > So allowing it doesn´t end it. > Suppressing it doesn´t end it either, cause sooner or later it will > explode in another war. > Something else is needed to end conflict: understanding of its whole > structure. > > Len > I am not trying to be dense here Len, but I don't get your position at all.If I'm to understand I think we agree on this: fear, anger, hatred (the storm) = war. yes? But to say that allowing = suppression, or allowing necessitates action/reaction/expression does not in my belief hold. If we allow war but do not participate..how does that fit your equation? I'm not sure of your age but if you are of an age that permits you to recall Viet Nam, there was a poster around at the time that made the only sense to me. That wasn't the Peace Now stuff either..that only incited more violence in one form or another. It merely stated " What if there was a war and nobody came? " . Not that it turns out to be practical in this world, but it does make sense. Therefore when Phil is saying to allow the storm, in my opinion he is giving a rephrasing to those words. And in simple point of fact, for those who did not participate, there was no war. Maybe prison, and maybe violence was done upon them by others who disagreed and came from a different personal space..but for the ones who refused to join the game, the ones who allowed with non violent disposition..there was no warring.Period. And for those who issued violent acts upon them, there was no victory. I'm not talking now regarding the Government and it's non-war War fiasco in Nam, I mean the ones that kicked and shot those who refused to participate. Absolutely they could defile those and imprison them and savage their bodies and end their lives but all of their violence and imprisonments and lectures and labours..came to nought. The ones who allowed were not conquered.They were resisted but did not resist. No one changed their minds or positions or allowances. Those were the ones that won. .....bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 7, 2006 Report Share Posted April 7, 2006 Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Bob N. " <Roberibus111@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " > <lissbon2002@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Allowing the storm to 'be', calms the storm because the > storm > > is > > > > nothing > > > > > more than the resistance to the storm. > > > > > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > Allowing the storm to be calms the storm as much as a war > calms > > > fear > > > > and hatred. > > > > > > > > Len > > > > > > How in the world is " allowing the storm.. " (for whatever > > reason), equal or equatable to war? That just doesn't make any > sense > > at all Len. Fear and hatred equal war..that's a given. But > permission > > of, or allowing to be, to anything or anyone, is not the same > thing > > at all. > > ..............bob > > > > The storm means the psychological conflict, for instance: > fear, anger, hatred... > Allowing this to be means that the anger, fear and hatred can > express themselves. This is what war is: an expression of emotional > conflict and fear. > So allowing it doesn´t end it. > Suppressing it doesn´t end it either, cause sooner or later it will > explode in another war. > Something else is needed to end conflict: understanding of its whole > structure. > > Len > It seems you are referring to really witnessing the roots as opposed to merely " riding " it. If someone is feeling furious and simply vents I suppose they could call that " allowing it to be " . Clearly there is no growth in that. I expect that by " understanding its structure " you simply mean how the " me " is wrapped around into it, i.e. realizing that the hate/anger is not really about something " out there " at all. It seems to me that what is really required to transform it is to witness it in a nonjudgemental, unconditional way. Nothing needs to be *done*. And it is nothing to be anxious about, alarmed about, any of that. And as we have been saying, it is not difficult, but can be *very* arduous (especially in relation to extreme emotions like hate). Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 7, 2006 Report Share Posted April 7, 2006 In a message dated 4/7/2006 2:55:32 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Fri, 07 Apr 2006 07:25:13 -0000 " billrishel " <illusyn Re: Leaving no residue/unconditional attention <snip> > > I was thinking... Few day´s ago I observed some conflict, and I > was > > aware that I didn´t feel like really ending it in myself. > > So I asked myself about the cause, and indeed, it wasn´t fear, > but > > rather a kind of stubbornness, pride. I wasn´t affraid to face > it, > > I just wouldn´t do it. When I realized it, I did have a look at > it. > > It was like... nothing really, no significant resistance, no > fear, > > it was so easy to watch. I asked myself why I kept avoiding this > > point for so long. Just because of pride. > > So, yes, it doesn´t always have to be fear. > > > > len > > > > What is pride but the attachment to one's positive image? What is > attachment > > but the fear of losing that which one wants? Conflict is > resistance. Not > > feeling like ending a conflict is resistance. Resistance is > always from fear. > > Why would one resist something that is not feared? > > I see what you mean, Phil, this was also my reasoning first, but in > this case it was interesting to notice a subtle, interesting > difference between not facing some feeling because the sensation of > it is just too scary, and not facing something which isn´t difficult > to face at all, and where the only obstacle is stubbornness. > > Len > > > > Yes, that caught my attention, too, then I got distracted. > It's quite common for some so called 'negative' feelings to be strangely > embraced. This often occurs in the case of 'lost love'. Is it possible it wasn't > really stubbornness at all? > > Phil And is it possible you are stubbornly resisting considering that it could be? It was just a suggestion to Len from my perspective, Bill. No stubborn resisting going on here. ~ Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 7, 2006 Report Share Posted April 7, 2006 Nisargadatta , " Bob N. " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Bob N. " <Roberibus111@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " > > <lissbon2002@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Allowing the storm to 'be', calms the storm because the > > storm > > > is > > > > > nothing > > > > > > more than the resistance to the storm. > > > > > > > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > > > > Allowing the storm to be calms the storm as much as a war > > calms > > > > fear > > > > > and hatred. > > > > > > > > > > Len > > > > > > > > > > How in the world is " allowing the storm.. " (for whatever > > > reason), equal or equatable to war? That just doesn't make any > > sense > > > at all Len. Fear and hatred equal war..that's a given. But > > permission > > > of, or allowing to be, to anything or anyone, is not the same > > thing > > > at all. > > > ..............bob > > > > > > > > The storm means the psychological conflict, for instance: > > fear, anger, hatred... > > Allowing this to be means that the anger, fear and hatred can > > express themselves. This is what war is: an expression of emotional > > conflict and fear. > > So allowing it doesn´t end it. > > Suppressing it doesn´t end it either, cause sooner or later it will > > explode in another war. > > Something else is needed to end conflict: understanding of its > whole > > structure. > > > > Len > > > I am not trying to be dense here Len, but I don't get your > position at all.If I'm to understand I think we agree on this: fear, > anger, hatred (the storm) = war. yes? But to say that allowing = > suppression, or allowing necessitates action/reaction/expression does > not in my belief hold. If we allow war but do not participate..how > does that fit your equation? I'm not sure of your age but if you are > of an age that permits you to recall Viet Nam, there was a poster > around at the time that made the only sense to me. That wasn't the > Peace Now stuff either..that only incited more violence in one form > or another. It merely stated " What if there was a war and nobody > came? " . Not that it turns out to be practical in this world, but it > does make sense. Therefore when Phil is saying to allow the storm, in > my opinion he is giving a rephrasing to those words. And in simple > point of fact, for those who did not participate, there was no war. > Maybe prison, and maybe violence was done upon them by others who > disagreed and came from a different personal space..but for the ones > who refused to join the game, the ones who allowed with non violent > disposition..there was no warring.Period. And for those who issued > violent acts upon them, there was no victory. I'm not talking now > regarding the Government and it's non-war War fiasco in Nam, I mean > the ones that kicked and shot those who refused to participate. > Absolutely they could defile those and imprison them and savage their > bodies and end their lives but all of their violence and > imprisonments and lectures and labours..came to nought. The ones who > allowed were not conquered.They were resisted but did not resist. No > one changed their minds or positions or allowances. Those were the > ones that won. > .....bob > Well, we don´t understand each other. I try to put more clearly what I mean. If I am full of anger, what does it mean to allow this anger to be? To me it means to give this anger all space to be and to express itself. This doesn´t end anger, the expression of anger will bring some temporary relief, but the seed of anger will still be in me, and so the anger will reoccur again and again. Not allowing the anger to be is not a solution, either, because suppressed anger will find another, indirect way of expresing itself, which may be even more destructive. So, what does end anger? In my perception only the understanding of its cause ends it. What is the cause of anger? Isn´t anger a defensive reaction when something which I cling to and which I want to protect is beeing threatened? I may need anger to fight back when somebody is attacking me physically, it seems natural to me to protect my body. But what if somebody is attacking my self image, my beliefs, in other words the psychological wall I have built around myself? Do I really need to protect it? Is there anything worth protecting there at all? What is this wall made from? What happens when I don´t act on anger and watch its movement? What happens when somebody attacks my self-image and I don´t defend myself at all? These are all interesting questions to explore. Len Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 7, 2006 Report Share Posted April 7, 2006 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > wrote: > > The storm means the psychological conflict, for instance: > > fear, anger, hatred... > > Allowing this to be means that the anger, fear and hatred can > > express themselves. This is what war is: an expression of emotional > > conflict and fear. > > So allowing it doesn´t end it. > > Suppressing it doesn´t end it either, cause sooner or later it will > > explode in another war. > > Something else is needed to end conflict: understanding of its whole > > structure. > > > > Len > It seems you are referring to really witnessing the roots > as opposed to merely " riding " it. Yes. > If someone is feeling furious and simply vents I suppose > they could call that " allowing it to be " . Clearly there > is no growth in that. > > I expect that by " understanding its structure " you simply > mean how the " me " is wrapped around into it, i.e. realizing > that the hate/anger is not really about something " out there " > at all. Yes. > It seems to me that what is really required to transform > it is to witness it in a nonjudgemental, unconditional > way. Nothing needs to be *done*. And it is nothing to be > anxious about, alarmed about, any of that. > > And as we have been saying, it is not difficult, but can > be *very* arduous (especially in relation to extreme > emotions like hate). Yes, anger is one of the most difficult emotions to witness, because the body is full of adrenaline and is screaming for action. The smaller it is, the easier it is to observe. The difficulty was in my case to contain it. The energy was so big, that it was spouting out of my head like an erupting volcano. Once I could contain it all, the observation became much easier, and I could watch it like any other emotion. Len Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 7, 2006 Report Share Posted April 7, 2006 Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > > wrote: > > > > The storm means the psychological conflict, for instance: > > > fear, anger, hatred... > > > Allowing this to be means that the anger, fear and hatred can > > > express themselves. This is what war is: an expression of > emotional > > > conflict and fear. > > > So allowing it doesn´t end it. > > > Suppressing it doesn´t end it either, cause sooner or later it > will > > > explode in another war. > > > Something else is needed to end conflict: understanding of its > whole > > > structure. > > > > > > Len > > > > > It seems you are referring to really witnessing the roots > > as opposed to merely " riding " it. > > > Yes. > > > > If someone is feeling furious and simply vents I suppose > > they could call that " allowing it to be " . Clearly there > > is no growth in that. > > > > I expect that by " understanding its structure " you simply > > mean how the " me " is wrapped around into it, i.e. realizing > > that the hate/anger is not really about something " out there " > > at all. > > > Yes. > > > > It seems to me that what is really required to transform > > it is to witness it in a nonjudgemental, unconditional > > way. Nothing needs to be *done*. And it is nothing to be > > anxious about, alarmed about, any of that. > > > > And as we have been saying, it is not difficult, but can > > be *very* arduous (especially in relation to extreme > > emotions like hate). > > > > Yes, anger is one of the most difficult emotions to witness, because > the body is full of adrenaline and is screaming for action. > The smaller it is, the easier it is to observe. > The difficulty was in my case to contain it. The energy was so big, > that it was spouting out of my head like an erupting volcano. Once I > could contain it all, the observation became much easier, and I > could watch it like any other emotion. > > Len > So Bob, reading my comments and Len's responses do you see where Len is coming from better? Because at first what he was saying didn't click with me either, but because of my exchages with Len I was able to sort out what he actually meant. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 7, 2006 Report Share Posted April 7, 2006 In a message dated 4/7/2006 9:33:59 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Fri, 07 Apr 2006 16:31:42 -0000 " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 Re: Leaving no residue/unconditional attention Nisargadatta , " Bob N. " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > > wrote: > > > > Allowing the storm to 'be', calms the storm because the storm > is > > > nothing > > > > more than the resistance to the storm. > > > > > > > > Phil > > > Allowing the storm to be calms the storm as much as a war calms > > fear > > > and hatred. > > > > > > Len > > How in the world is " allowing the storm.. " (for whatever > reason), equal or equatable to war? That just doesn't make any sense > at all Len. Fear and hatred equal war..that's a given. But permission > of, or allowing to be, to anything or anyone, is not the same thing > at all. > ..............bob The storm means the psychological conflict, for instance: fear, anger, hatred... Allowing this to be means that the anger, fear and hatred can express themselves. This is what war is: an expression of emotional conflict and fear. So allowing it doesn´t end it. Suppressing it doesn´t end it either, cause sooner or later it will explode in another war. Something else is needed to end conflict: understanding of its whole structure. Len This isn't an intellectual/philosophical point, Len. It's necessary to slow the mentation down a bit and simply 'look' in order to understand. What you see is the feeling and the expression of the feeling. You think that to allow the feeling is to allow the expression. We're not talking about expression. We're just talking about the " storm " . If the feeling of fear, for example, is allowed to be felt, it quickly dissipates. No expression is required. What locks the feeling in place is the resistance to feeling it. Once the resistance is released, something remarkable is noticed: there is nothing behind the resistance. There is no fear waiting to be felt behind the resistance to the fear. This is because the fear, itself, is nothing more than resistance. Invite the storm, and there is no more storm. Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 7, 2006 Report Share Posted April 7, 2006 Nisargadatta , OConnor Patricia <gdtige wrote: > > > > > > > > The storm means the psychological conflict, for > instance: > > > > fear, anger, hatred... > > > > Allowing this to be means that the anger, fear > and hatred can > > > > express themselves. This is what war is: an > expression of > > emotional > > > > conflict and fear. > > > > So allowing it doesn´t end it. > > > > Suppressing it doesn´t end it either, cause > sooner or later it > > will > > > > explode in another war. > > > > Something else is needed to end conflict: > understanding of its > > whole > > > > structure. > > > > > > > > Len > > > > > > > > > It seems you are referring to really witnessing > the roots > > > as opposed to merely " riding " it. > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > > If someone is feeling furious and simply vents I > suppose > > > they could call that " allowing it to be " . Clearly > there > > > is no growth in that. > > > > > > I expect that by " understanding its structure " you > simply > > > mean how the " me " is wrapped around into it, i.e. > realizing > > > that the hate/anger is not really about something > " out there " > > > at all. > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > > It seems to me that what is really required to > transform > > > it is to witness it in a nonjudgemental, > unconditional > > > way. Nothing needs to be *done*. And it is nothing > to be > > > anxious about, alarmed about, any of that. > > > > > > And as we have been saying, it is not difficult, > but can > > > be *very* arduous (especially in relation to > extreme > > > emotions like hate). > > > > > > > > Yes, anger is one of the most difficult emotions to > witness, because > > the body is full of adrenaline and is screaming for > action. > > The smaller it is, the easier it is to observe. > > The difficulty was in my case to contain it. The > energy was so big, > > that it was spouting out of my head like an erupting > volcano. Once I > > could contain it all, the observation became much > easier, and I > > could watch it like any other emotion. > > > > Len > > > .................................................... > > > it seems that sometimes anger is the only way to get > something across. But it has to be contained otherwise > it is devastating and useless. I do <play> with that > emotion, let it be triggered and use it effectivily w/ > my 15 years old and my stubborn mustang when they try > to boss me around. > And they try me! > Patricia Yes, anger can be useful sometimes. Len Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 7, 2006 Report Share Posted April 7, 2006 In a message dated 4/7/2006 12:23:40 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Fri, 07 Apr 2006 17:03:26 -0000 " Bob N. " <Roberibus111 Re: Leaving no residue/unconditional attention Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Bob N. " <Roberibus111@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " > <lissbon2002@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Allowing the storm to 'be', calms the storm because the > storm > > is > > > > nothing > > > > > more than the resistance to the storm. > > > > > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > Allowing the storm to be calms the storm as much as a war > calms > > > fear > > > > and hatred. > > > > > > > > Len > > > > > > How in the world is " allowing the storm.. " (for whatever > > reason), equal or equatable to war? That just doesn't make any > sense > > at all Len. Fear and hatred equal war..that's a given. But > permission > > of, or allowing to be, to anything or anyone, is not the same > thing > > at all. > > ..............bob > > > > The storm means the psychological conflict, for instance: > fear, anger, hatred... > Allowing this to be means that the anger, fear and hatred can > express themselves. This is what war is: an expression of emotional > conflict and fear. > So allowing it doesn´t end it. > Suppressing it doesn´t end it either, cause sooner or later it will > explode in another war. > Something else is needed to end conflict: understanding of its whole > structure. > > Len > I am not trying to be dense here Len, but I don't get your position at all.If I'm to understand I think we agree on this: fear, anger, hatred (the storm) = war. yes? But to say that allowing = suppression, or allowing necessitates action/reaction/expression does not in my belief hold. If we allow war but do not participate..how does that fit your equation? I'm not sure of your age but if you are of an age that permits you to recall Viet Nam, there was a poster around at the time that made the only sense to me. That wasn't the Peace Now stuff either..that only incited more violence in one form or another. It merely stated " What if there was a war and nobody came? " . Not that it turns out to be practical in this world, but it does make sense. Therefore when Phil is saying to allow the storm, in my opinion he is giving a rephrasing to those words. And in simple point of fact, for those who did not participate, there was no war. Maybe prison, and maybe violence was done upon them by others who disagreed and came from a different personal space..but for the ones who refused to join the game, the ones who allowed with non violent disposition..there was no warring.Period. And for those who issued violent acts upon them, there was no victory. I'm not talking now regarding the Government and it's non-war War fiasco in Nam, I mean the ones that kicked and shot those who refused to participate. Absolutely they could defile those and imprison them and savage their bodies and end their lives but all of their violence and imprisonments and lectures and labours..came to nought. The ones who allowed were not conquered.They were resisted but did not resist. No one changed their minds or positions or allowances. Those were the ones that won. ......bob I was actually referring to internal resistance, but acceptance applies to external situations as well, as you say, Bob. Perception and creation are actually the same, since everything is actually 'occurring' in consciousness. To struggle with an external situation simply creates more situations of struggle. Mother Theresa understood this, which is why she would not participate in antiwar demonstrations, but she would march for peace. To some this seems like the same thing, but to those who understand how our experiences are created, it makes all the difference in the world. Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 8, 2006 Report Share Posted April 8, 2006 Nisargadatta , OConnor Patricia <gdtige wrote: > > > > > > > > The storm means the psychological conflict, for > instance: > > > > fear, anger, hatred... > > > > Allowing this to be means that the anger, fear > and hatred can > > > > express themselves. This is what war is: an > expression of > > emotional > > > > conflict and fear. > > > > So allowing it doesn´t end it. > > > > Suppressing it doesn´t end it either, cause > sooner or later it > > will > > > > explode in another war. > > > > Something else is needed to end conflict: > understanding of its > > whole > > > > structure. > > > > > > > > Len > > > > > > > > > It seems you are referring to really witnessing > the roots > > > as opposed to merely " riding " it. > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > > If someone is feeling furious and simply vents I > suppose > > > they could call that " allowing it to be " . Clearly > there > > > is no growth in that. > > > > > > I expect that by " understanding its structure " you > simply > > > mean how the " me " is wrapped around into it, i.e. > realizing > > > that the hate/anger is not really about something > " out there " > > > at all. > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > > It seems to me that what is really required to > transform > > > it is to witness it in a nonjudgemental, > unconditional > > > way. Nothing needs to be *done*. And it is nothing > to be > > > anxious about, alarmed about, any of that. > > > > > > And as we have been saying, it is not difficult, > but can > > > be *very* arduous (especially in relation to > extreme > > > emotions like hate). > > > > > > > > Yes, anger is one of the most difficult emotions to > witness, because > > the body is full of adrenaline and is screaming for > action. > > The smaller it is, the easier it is to observe. > > The difficulty was in my case to contain it. The > energy was so big, > > that it was spouting out of my head like an erupting > volcano. Once I > > could contain it all, the observation became much > easier, and I > > could watch it like any other emotion. > > > > Len > > > .................................................... > > > it seems that sometimes anger is the only way to get > something across. But it has to be contained otherwise > it is devastating and useless. I do <play> with that > emotion, let it be triggered and use it effectivily w/ > my 15 years old and my stubborn mustang when they try > to boss me around. > And they try me! > Patricia > > About a year ago, when I was working with emotionally disturbed children (residential setting) a few times when they were really acting out I put on a big show of being quite furious with them. I was loud and intense. Their eyes widened, and it was all the more effective because they were used to me being always very mellow, friendly etc. They settled right down (and went to bed like they were supposed to). Immediately afterwards I noticed I was completely calm, and went back to what I had been doing as if nothing had happened. So I had *displayed* anger, but not actually felt it. And so there was no " residue " -- when it was over it was over. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 8, 2006 Report Share Posted April 8, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/7/2006 9:33:59 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Fri, 07 Apr 2006 16:31:42 -0000 > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 > Re: Leaving no residue/unconditional attention > > Nisargadatta , " Bob N. " <Roberibus111@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " > <lissbon2002@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Allowing the storm to 'be', calms the storm because the > storm > > is > > > > nothing > > > > > more than the resistance to the storm. > > > > > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > Allowing the storm to be calms the storm as much as a war > calms > > > fear > > > > and hatred. > > > > > > > > Len > > > > > > How in the world is " allowing the storm.. " (for whatever > > reason), equal or equatable to war? That just doesn't make any > sense > > at all Len. Fear and hatred equal war..that's a given. But > permission > > of, or allowing to be, to anything or anyone, is not the same > thing > > at all. > > ..............bob > > > > The storm means the psychological conflict, for instance: > fear, anger, hatred... > Allowing this to be means that the anger, fear and hatred can > express themselves. This is what war is: an expression of emotional > conflict and fear. > So allowing it doesn´t end it. > Suppressing it doesn´t end it either, cause sooner or later it will > explode in another war. > Something else is needed to end conflict: understanding of its whole > structure. > > Len > > > > This isn't an intellectual/philosophical point, Len. It's necessary to slow > the mentation down a bit and simply 'look' in order to understand. > > What you see is the feeling and the expression of the feeling. You think > that to allow the feeling is to allow the expression. We're not talking about > expression. We're just talking about the " storm " . If the feeling of fear, for > example, is allowed to be felt, it quickly dissipates. No expression is > required. What locks the feeling in place is the resistance to feeling it. Once the > resistance is released, something remarkable is noticed: there is nothing > behind the resistance. There is no fear waiting to be felt behind the resistance > to the fear. This is because the fear, itself, is nothing more than > resistance. > > Invite the storm, and there is no more storm. > > Phil If allowing a storm to be means to you - observing the feeling with all attention and without acting on it, I´m with you. To me allowing something sounds more like what everybody is doing with feelings, letting them find their way, without any interest in understanding them (the other possibility is suppression). I assure you that simply allowing anger to be, doesn´t end it. So to me what you say sounds simplistic. In some cases simply admitting something to exist may be the end of conflict (this is the case when only suppression of some impuls creates a conflict), most of the time it is´t a case though. It takes a lot of attention and courage even, to face some emotions. Let´s not generalize, the same thing happened with our discussion about physical pain. It´s not that some physical pain isn´t experienced as negative when observed, that it counts for all physical pain. Len Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 8, 2006 Report Share Posted April 8, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/7/2006 9:33:59 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Fri, 07 Apr 2006 14:34:10 -0000 > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 > Re: Leaving no residue/unconditional attention > > > > > I see what you mean, Phil, this was also my reasoning first, > but > > in > > > this case it was interesting to notice a subtle, interesting > > > difference between not facing some feeling because the > sensation > > of > > > it is just too scary, and not facing something which isn´t > > difficult > > > to face at all, and where the only obstacle is stubbornness. > > > > > > Len > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, that caught my attention, too, then I got distracted. > > > It's quite common for some so called 'negative' feelings to be > > strangely > > > embraced. This often occurs in the case of 'lost love'. Is it > > possible it wasn't > > > really stubbornness at all? > > > > > > Phil > > > > It´s not clear to mme what you mean? > > Len > > > > I'm suggesting the possibility that there was no perceived difficulty in > facing the feeling because the feeling was rather enjoyed to begin with. > Instead, there was the choice to not explore the feeling for a time so as to prolong > the feeling. > > Have you ever had the experience of noticing that you choose to keep your > anger or sadness or longing or grief, even though there is the option to let it > go? There are sometimes unrecognized benefits and the benefits can only > continue as long as the real reason for retaining the feeling remain hidden. > > Phil OK, now I understand you. But this is different from my example. There was a feeling/conflict which I kept avoiding. I didn´t want to face it, so one could think that there was fear involved in facing it. However, when I decided to face it anyway, there was practically no fear involved, the sensation which I kept avoiding appeared to be very easy to observe, there was hardly any resistance to the sensations. The only resistance was a kind of stubbornness, a tendency to stick to my usual behaviour pattern, and this behaviour pattern seemed to be related to the habit of protection of self-image - pride. Len Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 8, 2006 Report Share Posted April 8, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/7/2006 12:23:40 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Fri, 07 Apr 2006 17:03:26 -0000 > " Bob N. " <Roberibus111 > Re: Leaving no residue/unconditional attention > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Bob N. " <Roberibus111@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " > > <lissbon2002@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Allowing the storm to 'be', calms the storm because the > > storm > > > is > > > > > nothing > > > > > > more than the resistance to the storm. > > > > > > > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > > > > Allowing the storm to be calms the storm as much as a war > > calms > > > > fear > > > > > and hatred. > > > > > > > > > > Len > > > > > > > > > > How in the world is " allowing the storm.. " (for whatever > > > reason), equal or equatable to war? That just doesn't make any > > sense > > > at all Len. Fear and hatred equal war..that's a given. But > > permission > > > of, or allowing to be, to anything or anyone, is not the same > > thing > > > at all. > > > ..............bob > > > > > > > > The storm means the psychological conflict, for instance: > > fear, anger, hatred... > > Allowing this to be means that the anger, fear and hatred can > > express themselves. This is what war is: an expression of emotional > > conflict and fear. > > So allowing it doesn´t end it. > > Suppressing it doesn´t end it either, cause sooner or later it will > > explode in another war. > > Something else is needed to end conflict: understanding of its > whole > > structure. > > > > Len > > > I am not trying to be dense here Len, but I don't get your > position at all.If I'm to understand I think we agree on this: fear, > anger, hatred (the storm) = war. yes? But to say that allowing = > suppression, or allowing necessitates action/reaction/expression does > not in my belief hold. If we allow war but do not participate..how > does that fit your equation? I'm not sure of your age but if you are > of an age that permits you to recall Viet Nam, there was a poster > around at the time that made the only sense to me. That wasn't the > Peace Now stuff either..that only incited more violence in one form > or another. It merely stated " What if there was a war and nobody > came? " . Not that it turns out to be practical in this world, but it > does make sense. Therefore when Phil is saying to allow the storm, in > my opinion he is giving a rephrasing to those words. And in simple > point of fact, for those who did not participate, there was no war. > Maybe prison, and maybe violence was done upon them by others who > disagreed and came from a different personal space..but for the ones > who refused to join the game, the ones who allowed with non violent > disposition..there was no warring.Period. And for those who issued > violent acts upon them, there was no victory. I'm not talking now > regarding the Government and it's non-war War fiasco in Nam, I mean > the ones that kicked and shot those who refused to participate. > Absolutely they could defile those and imprison them and savage their > bodies and end their lives but all of their violence and > imprisonments and lectures and labours..came to nought. The ones who > allowed were not conquered.They were resisted but did not resist. No > one changed their minds or positions or allowances. Those were the > ones that won. > .....bob > > > > I was actually referring to internal resistance, but acceptance applies to > external situations as well, as you say, Bob. Perception and creation are > actually the same, since everything is actually 'occurring' in consciousness. To > struggle with an external situation simply creates more situations of > struggle. Mother Theresa understood this, which is why she would not participate in > antiwar demonstrations, but she would march for peace. To some this seems like > the same thing, but to those who understand how our experiences are created, > it makes all the difference in the world. > > Phil > > That's got my vote Phil. Mother Theresa is a hero of mine. Toombaru said somewhere that she lied...I don't know what he meant by that, but I don't really know a lot about a lot of people or things..and that's fine...so fine. I like it like that..not understanding everything and everybody or even myself. But I do understand a few things and this right here that you give voice to..I understand that. .........bob > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 8, 2006 Report Share Posted April 8, 2006 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , OConnor Patricia <gdtige@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > The storm means the psychological conflict, for > > instance: > > > > > fear, anger, hatred... > > > > > Allowing this to be means that the anger, fear > > and hatred can > > > > > express themselves. This is what war is: an > > expression of > > > emotional > > > > > conflict and fear. > > > > > So allowing it doesn´t end it. > > > > > Suppressing it doesn´t end it either, cause > > sooner or later it > > > will > > > > > explode in another war. > > > > > Something else is needed to end conflict: > > understanding of its > > > whole > > > > > structure. > > > > > > > > > > Len > > > > > > > > > > > > > It seems you are referring to really witnessing > > the roots > > > > as opposed to merely " riding " it. > > > > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > > > > > If someone is feeling furious and simply vents I > > suppose > > > > they could call that " allowing it to be " . Clearly > > there > > > > is no growth in that. > > > > > > > > I expect that by " understanding its structure " you > > simply > > > > mean how the " me " is wrapped around into it, i.e. > > realizing > > > > that the hate/anger is not really about something > > " out there " > > > > at all. > > > > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > > > > > It seems to me that what is really required to > > transform > > > > it is to witness it in a nonjudgemental, > > unconditional > > > > way. Nothing needs to be *done*. And it is nothing > > to be > > > > anxious about, alarmed about, any of that. > > > > > > > > And as we have been saying, it is not difficult, > > but can > > > > be *very* arduous (especially in relation to > > extreme > > > > emotions like hate). > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, anger is one of the most difficult emotions to > > witness, because > > > the body is full of adrenaline and is screaming for > > action. > > > The smaller it is, the easier it is to observe. > > > The difficulty was in my case to contain it. The > > energy was so big, > > > that it was spouting out of my head like an erupting > > volcano. Once I > > > could contain it all, the observation became much > > easier, and I > > > could watch it like any other emotion. > > > > > > Len > > > > > .................................................... > > > > > > it seems that sometimes anger is the only way to get > > something across. But it has to be contained otherwise > > it is devastating and useless. I do <play> with that > > emotion, let it be triggered and use it effectivily w/ > > my 15 years old and my stubborn mustang when they try > > to boss me around. > > And they try me! > > Patricia > > > > > > About a year ago, when I was working with emotionally > disturbed children (residential setting) a few times > when they were really acting out I put on a big show > of being quite furious with them. I was loud and intense. > Their eyes widened, and it was all the more effective > because they were used to me being always very mellow, > friendly etc. They settled right down (and went to bed > like they were supposed to). Immediately afterwards I > noticed I was completely calm, and went back to what > I had been doing as if nothing had happened. So I had > *displayed* anger, but not actually felt it. And so there > was no " residue " -- when it was over it was over. > > > Bill > Good Morning Bill...I like this a lot. This is a neat trick when certain types of transactions occur with seemingly sane,wholesome and emotionally stable adults as well. It's sometimes the ONLY survival tactic. Nice move friend. .......bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 8, 2006 Report Share Posted April 8, 2006 In a message dated 4/8/2006 4:37:15 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Sat, 08 Apr 2006 11:02:38 -0000 " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 Re: Leaving no residue/unconditional attention Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/7/2006 9:33:59 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Fri, 07 Apr 2006 16:31:42 -0000 > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 > Re: Leaving no residue/unconditional attention > > Nisargadatta , " Bob N. " <Roberibus111@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " > <lissbon2002@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Allowing the storm to 'be', calms the storm because the > storm > > is > > > > nothing > > > > > more than the resistance to the storm. > > > > > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > Allowing the storm to be calms the storm as much as a war > calms > > > fear > > > > and hatred. > > > > > > > > Len > > > > > > How in the world is " allowing the storm.. " (for whatever > > reason), equal or equatable to war? That just doesn't make any > sense > > at all Len. Fear and hatred equal war..that's a given. But > permission > > of, or allowing to be, to anything or anyone, is not the same > thing > > at all. > > ..............bob > > > > The storm means the psychological conflict, for instance: > fear, anger, hatred... > Allowing this to be means that the anger, fear and hatred can > express themselves. This is what war is: an expression of emotional > conflict and fear. > So allowing it doesn´t end it. > Suppressing it doesn´t end it either, cause sooner or later it will > explode in another war. > Something else is needed to end conflict: understanding of its whole > structure. > > Len > > > > This isn't an intellectual/philosophical point, Len. It's necessary to slow > the mentation down a bit and simply 'look' in order to understand. > > What you see is the feeling and the expression of the feeling. You think > that to allow the feeling is to allow the expression. We're not talking about > expression. We're just talking about the " storm " . If the feeling of fear, for > example, is allowed to be felt, it quickly dissipates. No expression is > required. What locks the feeling in place is the resistance to feeling it. Once the > resistance is released, something remarkable is noticed: there is nothing > behind the resistance. There is no fear waiting to be felt behind the resistance > to the fear. This is because the fear, itself, is nothing more than > resistance. > > Invite the storm, and there is no more storm. > > Phil If allowing a storm to be means to you - observing the feeling with all attention and without acting on it, I´m with you. To me allowing something sounds more like what everybody is doing with feelings, letting them find their way, without any interest in understanding them (the other possibility is suppression). I assure you that simply allowing anger to be, doesn´t end it. So to me what you say sounds simplistic. In some cases simply admitting something to exist may be the end of conflict (this is the case when only suppression of some impuls creates a conflict), most of the time it is´t a case though. It takes a lot of attention and courage even, to face some emotions. Let´s not generalize, the same thing happened with our discussion about physical pain. It´s not that some physical pain isn´t experienced as negative when observed, that it counts for all physical pain. Len Yes, we might understand each other. Not sure. If you pay close attention to your anger, you'll notice that you use your thoughts to feed it. The only way it can survive while you are watching it is if you continue to feed it. Stop the thoughts and just be with the anger; allow it to simply be present. The allowing, itself, will dissipate the anger, since all that held it in place was the resistance to feeling it or the resistance to letting it go, both of which are an attempt to keep it. In the end, it consists of resistance only. Don't understand your comments re: pain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 8, 2006 Report Share Posted April 8, 2006 In a message dated 4/8/2006 4:37:15 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Sat, 08 Apr 2006 11:23:00 -0000 " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 Re: Leaving no residue/unconditional attention Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/7/2006 9:33:59 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Fri, 07 Apr 2006 14:34:10 -0000 > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 > Re: Leaving no residue/unconditional attention > > > > > I see what you mean, Phil, this was also my reasoning first, > but > > in > > > this case it was interesting to notice a subtle, interesting > > > difference between not facing some feeling because the > sensation > > of > > > it is just too scary, and not facing something which isn´t > > difficult > > > to face at all, and where the only obstacle is stubbornness. > > > > > > Len > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, that caught my attention, too, then I got distracted. > > > It's quite common for some so called 'negative' feelings to be > > strangely > > > embraced. This often occurs in the case of 'lost love'. Is it > > possible it wasn't > > > really stubbornness at all? > > > > > > Phil > > > > It´s not clear to mme what you mean? > > Len > > > > I'm suggesting the possibility that there was no perceived difficulty in > facing the feeling because the feeling was rather enjoyed to begin with. > Instead, there was the choice to not explore the feeling for a time so as to prolong > the feeling. > > Have you ever had the experience of noticing that you choose to keep your > anger or sadness or longing or grief, even though there is the option to let it > go? There are sometimes unrecognized benefits and the benefits can only > continue as long as the real reason for retaining the feeling remain hidden. > > Phil OK, now I understand you. But this is different from my example. There was a feeling/conflict which I kept avoiding. I didn´t want to face it, so one could think that there was fear involved in facing it. However, when I decided to face it anyway, there was practically no fear involved, the sensation which I kept avoiding appeared to be very easy to observe, there was hardly any resistance to the sensations. The only resistance was a kind of stubbornness, a tendency to stick to my usual behaviour pattern, and this behaviour pattern seemed to be related to the habit of protection of self-image - pride. Len Oh, okay. My assumption was that this " facing " was known to be the process by which such things were dissolved, and so to face it would essentially be the same as to let it go. My mistake. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 9, 2006 Report Share Posted April 9, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/8/2006 4:37:15 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Sat, 08 Apr 2006 11:02:38 -0000 > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 > Re: Leaving no residue/unconditional attention > > If allowing a storm to be means to you - observing the feeling with > all attention and without acting on it, I´m with you. > To me allowing something sounds more like what everybody is doing > with feelings, letting them find their way, without any interest in > understanding them (the other possibility is suppression). > I assure you that simply allowing anger to be, doesn´t end it. > So to me what you say sounds simplistic. > In some cases simply admitting something to exist may be the end of > conflict (this is the case when only suppression of some impuls > creates a conflict), most of the time it is´t a case though. It > takes a lot of attention and courage even, to face some emotions. > Let´s not generalize, the same thing happened with our discussion > about physical pain. It´s not that some physical pain isn´t > experienced as negative when observed, that it counts for all > physical pain. > > Len > > > > > Yes, we might understand each other. Not sure. > If you pay close attention to your anger, you'll notice that you use your > thoughts to feed it. The only way it can survive while you are watching it is if > you continue to feed it. Stop the thoughts and just be with the anger; allow > it to simply be present. The allowing, itself, will dissipate the anger, > since all that held it in place was the resistance to feeling it or the > resistance to letting it go, both of which are an attempt to keep it. In the end, it > consists of resistance only. > > Don't understand your comments re: pain. The structure of anger is actually very interesting. Anger is a pretty complex emotion. Anger is a reaction of resistance against something. If you can contain and observe anger for long enough, its intensity may diminish. But this is not the end of observation. Next interesting step is, to ask yourself what is it that you resist. Then you can see that what you resist is an image of something, some situation which you don´t want to be confronted with. Let´s say that you´re angry because somebody told you that that you are incompetent. You react to it with anger because you don´t want to be found incompetent. You don´t want to FEEL incompetent. Then you can ask yourself how it would be to feel incompetent. Simply allowing the image of you being incompetent will trigger the emotional reaction. If you enter this reaction, you will feel how it is to admit such an idea as being incompetent. If you stay with this sensation until it dissolves, you are free from fear of being incompetent and from anger as a reaction to this idea. This is how a little piece of self-image dissolves. If you do it every time when some defensive reaction like anger and irritation arise, you will learn about the unreality of the self-image and self- defence. Len Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 9, 2006 Report Share Posted April 9, 2006 Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 4/7/2006 9:33:59 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > Fri, 07 Apr 2006 14:34:10 -0000 > > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > > Re: Leaving no residue/unconditional attention > > > > > > > > I see what you mean, Phil, this was also my reasoning first, > > but > > > in > > > > this case it was interesting to notice a subtle, interesting > > > > difference between not facing some feeling because the > > sensation > > > of > > > > it is just too scary, and not facing something which isn´t > > > difficult > > > > to face at all, and where the only obstacle is stubbornness. > > > > > > > > Len > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, that caught my attention, too, then I got distracted. > > > > It's quite common for some so called 'negative' feelings to > be > > > strangely > > > > embraced. This often occurs in the case of 'lost love'. Is it > > > possible it wasn't > > > > really stubbornness at all? > > > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > > > It´s not clear to mme what you mean? > > > > Len > > > > > > > > I'm suggesting the possibility that there was no perceived > difficulty in > > facing the feeling because the feeling was rather enjoyed to begin > with. > > Instead, there was the choice to not explore the feeling for a > time so as to prolong > > the feeling. > > > > Have you ever had the experience of noticing that you choose to > keep your > > anger or sadness or longing or grief, even though there is the > option to let it > > go? There are sometimes unrecognized benefits and the benefits can > only > > continue as long as the real reason for retaining the feeling > remain hidden. > > > > Phil > > > > OK, now I understand you. > But this is different from my example. > There was a feeling/conflict which I kept avoiding. > I didn´t want to face it, so one could think that there was fear > involved in facing it. However, when I decided to face it anyway, > there was practically no fear involved, the sensation which I kept > avoiding appeared to be very easy to observe, there was hardly any > resistance to the sensations. The only resistance was a kind of > stubbornness, a tendency to stick to my usual behaviour pattern, and > this behaviour pattern seemed to be related to the habit of > protection of self-image - pride. > > Len > pride = protection of self-image nice equation Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 9, 2006 Report Share Posted April 9, 2006 In a message dated 4/9/2006 2:56:11 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Sun, 09 Apr 2006 08:49:36 -0000 " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 Re: Leaving no residue/unconditional attention Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/8/2006 4:37:15 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Sat, 08 Apr 2006 11:02:38 -0000 > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 > Re: Leaving no residue/unconditional attention > > If allowing a storm to be means to you - observing the feeling with > all attention and without acting on it, I´m with you. > To me allowing something sounds more like what everybody is doing > with feelings, letting them find their way, without any interest in > understanding them (the other possibility is suppression). > I assure you that simply allowing anger to be, doesn´t end it. > So to me what you say sounds simplistic. > In some cases simply admitting something to exist may be the end of > conflict (this is the case when only suppression of some impuls > creates a conflict), most of the time it is´t a case though. It > takes a lot of attention and courage even, to face some emotions. > Let´s not generalize, the same thing happened with our discussion > about physical pain. It´s not that some physical pain isn´t > experienced as negative when observed, that it counts for all > physical pain. > > Len > > > > > Yes, we might understand each other. Not sure. > If you pay close attention to your anger, you'll notice that you use your > thoughts to feed it. The only way it can survive while you are watching it is if > you continue to feed it. Stop the thoughts and just be with the anger; allow > it to simply be present. The allowing, itself, will dissipate the anger, > since all that held it in place was the resistance to feeling it or the > resistance to letting it go, both of which are an attempt to keep it. In the end, it > consists of resistance only. > > Don't understand your comments re: pain. The structure of anger is actually very interesting. Anger is a pretty complex emotion. Anger is a reaction of resistance against something. If you can contain and observe anger for long enough, its intensity may diminish. But this is not the end of observation. Next interesting step is, to ask yourself what is it that you resist. Then you can see that what you resist is an image of something, some situation which you don´t want to be confronted with. Let´s say that you´re angry because somebody told you that that you are incompetent. You react to it with anger because you don´t want to be found incompetent. You don´t want to FEEL incompetent. Then you can ask yourself how it would be to feel incompetent. Simply allowing the image of you being incompetent will trigger the emotional reaction. If you enter this reaction, you will feel how it is to admit such an idea as being incompetent. If you stay with this sensation until it dissolves, you are free from fear of being incompetent and from anger as a reaction to this idea. This is how a little piece of self-image dissolves. If you do it every time when some defensive reaction like anger and irritation arise, you will learn about the unreality of the self-image and self- defence. Len Yes. Agree and well said. What I believe actually occurs in your example is the acceptance of the idea of incompetence followed by the surrender of the judgment. It becomes a conclusion of 'who cares', with the understanding that it really has no significance in contrast to what is actually desired: the release of anger, fear and the acceptance of self as it is found. Sorry to sound like a broken record, but it has always seemed to all surround surender/acceptance to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 10, 2006 Report Share Posted April 10, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/9/2006 2:56:11 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Sun, 09 Apr 2006 08:49:36 -0000 > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 > Re: Leaving no residue/unconditional attention > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 4/8/2006 4:37:15 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > Sat, 08 Apr 2006 11:02:38 -0000 > > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > > Re: Leaving no residue/unconditional attention > > > > If allowing a storm to be means to you - observing the feeling > with > > all attention and without acting on it, I´m with you. > > To me allowing something sounds more like what everybody is doing > > with feelings, letting them find their way, without any interest > in > > understanding them (the other possibility is suppression). > > I assure you that simply allowing anger to be, doesn´t end it. > > So to me what you say sounds simplistic. > > In some cases simply admitting something to exist may be the end > of > > conflict (this is the case when only suppression of some impuls > > creates a conflict), most of the time it is´t a case though. It > > takes a lot of attention and courage even, to face some emotions. > > Let´s not generalize, the same thing happened with our discussion > > about physical pain. It´s not that some physical pain isn´t > > experienced as negative when observed, that it counts for all > > physical pain. > > > > Len > > > > > > > > > > Yes, we might understand each other. Not sure. > > If you pay close attention to your anger, you'll notice that you > use your > > thoughts to feed it. The only way it can survive while you are > watching it is if > > you continue to feed it. Stop the thoughts and just be with the > anger; allow > > it to simply be present. The allowing, itself, will dissipate the > anger, > > since all that held it in place was the resistance to feeling it > or the > > resistance to letting it go, both of which are an attempt to keep > it. In the end, it > > consists of resistance only. > > > > Don't understand your comments re: pain. > > > > > The structure of anger is actually very interesting. > Anger is a pretty complex emotion. > Anger is a reaction of resistance against something. > If you can contain and observe anger for long enough, its intensity > may diminish. But this is not the end of observation. Next > interesting step is, to ask yourself what is it that you resist. > Then you can see that what you resist is an image of something, > some situation which you don´t want to be confronted with. > Let´s say that you´re angry because somebody told you that that you > are incompetent. You react to it with anger because you don´t want > to be found incompetent. You don´t want to FEEL incompetent. Then > you can ask yourself how it would be to feel incompetent. Simply > allowing the image of you being incompetent will trigger the > emotional reaction. If you enter this reaction, you will feel how it > is to admit such an idea as being incompetent. If you stay with this > sensation until it dissolves, you are free from fear of being > incompetent and from anger as a reaction to this idea. > This is how a little piece of self-image dissolves. If you do it > every time when some defensive reaction like anger and irritation > arise, you will learn about the unreality of the self-image and self- > defence. > > Len > > > > Yes. Agree and well said. What I believe actually occurs in your example is > the acceptance of the idea of incompetence followed by the surrender of the > judgment. It becomes a conclusion of 'who cares', with the understanding that > it really has no significance in contrast to what is actually desired: the > release of anger, fear and the acceptance of self as it is found. Sorry to sound > like a broken record, but it has always seemed to all surround > surender/acceptance to me. Yes, no reaction, simply perception of what is there. The whole image-system of " me " is one huge compulsion to protect itself. Ones identification with this system breaks when its elements are recognized as imaginary. Len Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 10, 2006 Report Share Posted April 10, 2006 In a message dated 4/10/2006 3:47:32 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 15:53:58 -0000 " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 Re: Leaving no residue/unconditional attention Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/9/2006 2:56:11 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Sun, 09 Apr 2006 08:49:36 -0000 > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 > Re: Leaving no residue/unconditional attention > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 4/8/2006 4:37:15 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > Sat, 08 Apr 2006 11:02:38 -0000 > > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > > Re: Leaving no residue/unconditional attention > > > > If allowing a storm to be means to you - observing the feeling > with > > all attention and without acting on it, I´m with you. > > To me allowing something sounds more like what everybody is doing > > with feelings, letting them find their way, without any interest > in > > understanding them (the other possibility is suppression). > > I assure you that simply allowing anger to be, doesn´t end it. > > So to me what you say sounds simplistic. > > In some cases simply admitting something to exist may be the end > of > > conflict (this is the case when only suppression of some impuls > > creates a conflict), most of the time it is´t a case though. It > > takes a lot of attention and courage even, to face some emotions. > > Let´s not generalize, the same thing happened with our discussion > > about physical pain. It´s not that some physical pain isn´t > > experienced as negative when observed, that it counts for all > > physical pain. > > > > Len > > > > > > > > > > Yes, we might understand each other. Not sure. > > If you pay close attention to your anger, you'll notice that you > use your > > thoughts to feed it. The only way it can survive while you are > watching it is if > > you continue to feed it. Stop the thoughts and just be with the > anger; allow > > it to simply be present. The allowing, itself, will dissipate the > anger, > > since all that held it in place was the resistance to feeling it > or the > > resistance to letting it go, both of which are an attempt to keep > it. In the end, it > > consists of resistance only. > > > > Don't understand your comments re: pain. > > > > > The structure of anger is actually very interesting. > Anger is a pretty complex emotion. > Anger is a reaction of resistance against something. > If you can contain and observe anger for long enough, its intensity > may diminish. But this is not the end of observation. Next > interesting step is, to ask yourself what is it that you resist. > Then you can see that what you resist is an image of something, > some situation which you don´t want to be confronted with. > Let´s say that you´re angry because somebody told you that that you > are incompetent. You react to it with anger because you don´t want > to be found incompetent. You don´t want to FEEL incompetent. Then > you can ask yourself how it would be to feel incompetent. Simply > allowing the image of you being incompetent will trigger the > emotional reaction. If you enter this reaction, you will feel how it > is to admit such an idea as being incompetent. If you stay with this > sensation until it dissolves, you are free from fear of being > incompetent and from anger as a reaction to this idea. > This is how a little piece of self-image dissolves. If you do it > every time when some defensive reaction like anger and irritation > arise, you will learn about the unreality of the self-image and self- > defence. > > Len > > > > Yes. Agree and well said. What I believe actually occurs in your example is > the acceptance of the idea of incompetence followed by the surrender of the > judgment. It becomes a conclusion of 'who cares', with the understanding that > it really has no significance in contrast to what is actually desired: the > release of anger, fear and the acceptance of self as it is found. Sorry to sound > like a broken record, but it has always seemed to all surround > surender/acceptance to me. Yes, no reaction, simply perception of what is there. The whole image-system of " me " is one huge compulsion to protect itself. Ones identification with this system breaks when its elements are recognized as imaginary. Len Yup. I posted this on another list a little while ago: " Ego is truly a helpless creature. The full recognition of this truth may bring true humility and silence.......and then it brings something else, and this 'something else' may bring God tears. It's this 'something else' which you and I seek. " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 11, 2006 Report Share Posted April 11, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/10/2006 3:47:32 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Mon, 10 Apr 2006 15:53:58 -0000 > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 > Re: Leaving no residue/unconditional attention > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 4/9/2006 2:56:11 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > Sun, 09 Apr 2006 08:49:36 -0000 > > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > > Re: Leaving no residue/unconditional attention > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 4/8/2006 4:37:15 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > > > Sat, 08 Apr 2006 11:02:38 -0000 > > > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > > > Re: Leaving no residue/unconditional attention > > > > > > If allowing a storm to be means to you - observing the feeling > > with > > > all attention and without acting on it, I´m with you. > > > To me allowing something sounds more like what everybody is > doing > > > with feelings, letting them find their way, without any > interest > > in > > > understanding them (the other possibility is suppression). > > > I assure you that simply allowing anger to be, doesn´t end it. > > > So to me what you say sounds simplistic. > > > In some cases simply admitting something to exist may be the > end > > of > > > conflict (this is the case when only suppression of some > impuls > > > creates a conflict), most of the time it is´t a case though. > It > > > takes a lot of attention and courage even, to face some > emotions. > > > Let´s not generalize, the same thing happened with our > discussion > > > about physical pain. It´s not that some physical pain isn´t > > > experienced as negative when observed, that it counts for all > > > physical pain. > > > > > > Len > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, we might understand each other. Not sure. > > > If you pay close attention to your anger, you'll notice that > you > > use your > > > thoughts to feed it. The only way it can survive while you are > > watching it is if > > > you continue to feed it. Stop the thoughts and just be with > the > > anger; allow > > > it to simply be present. The allowing, itself, will dissipate > the > > anger, > > > since all that held it in place was the resistance to feeling > it > > or the > > > resistance to letting it go, both of which are an attempt to > keep > > it. In the end, it > > > consists of resistance only. > > > > > > Don't understand your comments re: pain. > > > > > > > > > > The structure of anger is actually very interesting. > > Anger is a pretty complex emotion. > > Anger is a reaction of resistance against something. > > If you can contain and observe anger for long enough, its > intensity > > may diminish. But this is not the end of observation. Next > > interesting step is, to ask yourself what is it that you resist. > > Then you can see that what you resist is an image of something, > > some situation which you don´t want to be confronted with. > > Let´s say that you´re angry because somebody told you that that > you > > are incompetent. You react to it with anger because you don´t > want > > to be found incompetent. You don´t want to FEEL incompetent. Then > > you can ask yourself how it would be to feel incompetent. Simply > > allowing the image of you being incompetent will trigger the > > emotional reaction. If you enter this reaction, you will feel how > it > > is to admit such an idea as being incompetent. If you stay with > this > > sensation until it dissolves, you are free from fear of being > > incompetent and from anger as a reaction to this idea. > > This is how a little piece of self-image dissolves. If you do it > > every time when some defensive reaction like anger and irritation > > arise, you will learn about the unreality of the self-image and > self- > > defence. > > > > Len > > > > > > > > Yes. Agree and well said. What I believe actually occurs in your > example is > > the acceptance of the idea of incompetence followed by the > surrender of the > > judgment. It becomes a conclusion of 'who cares', with the > understanding that > > it really has no significance in contrast to what is actually > desired: the > > release of anger, fear and the acceptance of self as it is found. > Sorry to sound > > like a broken record, but it has always seemed to all surround > > surender/acceptance to me. > > > > Yes, no reaction, simply perception of what is there. > The whole image-system of " me " is one huge compulsion to protect > itself. > Ones identification with this system breaks when its elements are > recognized as imaginary. > > > Len > > > > Yup. I posted this on another list a little while ago: > > " Ego is truly a helpless creature. The full recognition of this truth may > bring true humility and silence.......and then it brings something else, and > this 'something else' may bring God tears. It's this 'something else' which you > and I seek. " > > This post..it's something else man! It may even bring me to tears! " Seek not what the Kingdom may do for you, Seek what you may do for the Kingdom. " .... ........JFbob > 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.