Guest guest Posted April 4, 2006 Report Share Posted April 4, 2006 Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > > > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there is a flow of energy.... > > > > flowing through whole of body > > > > > > > > there is a flow of bodies.... > > > > flowing through wordls > > > > > > > > there is a flow of worlds... > > > > flowing through infinite spaces > > > > > > > > there is a flow of infinite spaces... > > > > flowing through mind > > > > > > > > there is the calmness of mind.... > > > > flowing through all of It > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > Ps: take pure attention to....It > > > then there is flow of.... " Now " ..... > > > > And then... > > *no movement* > > no flow > > > > just this Vibrant Now > > > > > > Bill > > > Are you serious, Bill? > > len > Yes. Used to be there was always a sense of " flow " . I mean like for 20 years or so. But now ownly occasionally. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 4, 2006 Report Share Posted April 4, 2006 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > > > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > > > > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there is a flow of energy.... > > > > > flowing through whole of body > > > > > > > > > > there is a flow of bodies.... > > > > > flowing through wordls > > > > > > > > > > there is a flow of worlds... > > > > > flowing through infinite spaces > > > > > > > > > > there is a flow of infinite spaces... > > > > > flowing through mind > > > > > > > > > > there is the calmness of mind.... > > > > > flowing through all of It > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > > > > Ps: take pure attention to....It > > > > then there is flow of.... " Now " ..... > > > > > > And then... > > > *no movement* > > > no flow > > > > > > just this Vibrant Now > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > Are you serious, Bill? > > > > len > > > > Yes. > Used to be there was always a sense of " flow " . > I mean like for 20 years or so. > > But now ownly occasionally. > > > Bill The reason I asked it, is, that to me Marc´s message sounds like cheap and hollow blabla. Not only this message but all of his messages actually. I have an aversion of pseudo-spiritual exaltation and this is what these messages come down to, in my perception. Also when I read something like " Vibrant Now " , I cannot deny my very strong scepticism about its genuineness. However I do get a feeling of seriousness from some of your messages. Pointing to something by words is one thing, but making this words into a kind of admirable object is another. Hmmmm.... Len Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 4, 2006 Report Share Posted April 4, 2006 > > > > > Ps: take pure attention to....It > > > > > then there is flow of.... " Now " ..... > > > > > > > > And then... > > > > *no movement* > > > > no flow > > > > > > > > just this Vibrant Now > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > Are you serious, Bill? > > > > > > len > > > > > > > Yes. > > Used to be there was always a sense of " flow " . > > I mean like for 20 years or so. > > > > But now ownly occasionally. > > > > > > Bill > > > The reason I asked it, is, that to me Marc´s message sounds like > cheap and hollow blabla. Not only this message but all of his > messages actually. I have an aversion of pseudo-spiritual exaltation > and this is what these messages come down to, in my perception. > Also when I read something like " Vibrant Now " , I cannot deny my very > strong scepticism about its genuineness. > However I do get a feeling of seriousness from some of your messages. > Pointing to something by words is one thing, but making this words > into a kind of admirable object is another. Hmmmm.... > > Len > Perhaps you can see through my many different expressions here that I'm trying to find ways to say something. " Vibrant Now " is a stab at that. *I don't need* those words... they have no use to me. One value to me in our exchanges is that you seem to understand quite a bit and are pretty clean/clear. So perhaps you will be able to help me to sort out the attempts to express that are really useful and those that just go spiraling off into space. Oddly, I seem unable to tell very well. Things that seem like they will be a very clear way of putting it seem to fall flat. Others seem to be understood, but I am often mystified as to why this and not that. Tell me this: do you understand what I mean when I say: " no flow " ? Does it makes sense to you when I say: Once there was just " flow " and I thought that was the Now, and in a way *relatively*, I suppose it was. But now there is no-flow, or flow only occasionally, and just a " vibrance " ... no sense of space, no sense of inner/outer, *just vibrance*. Does that make sense? Because if it does then perhaps you can see: a) why I might very much want to communicate about this. b) why it is so very *difficult* to do! Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 4, 2006 Report Share Posted April 4, 2006 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > > > > > > > Ps: take pure attention to....It > > > > > > then there is flow of.... " Now " ..... > > > > > > > > > > And then... > > > > > *no movement* > > > > > no flow > > > > > > > > > > just this Vibrant Now > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > Are you serious, Bill? > > > > > > > > len > > > > > > > > > > Yes. > > > Used to be there was always a sense of " flow " . > > > I mean like for 20 years or so. > > > > > > But now ownly occasionally. > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > The reason I asked it, is, that to me Marc´s message sounds like > > cheap and hollow blabla. Not only this message but all of his > > messages actually. I have an aversion of pseudo-spiritual exaltation > > and this is what these messages come down to, in my perception. > > Also when I read something like " Vibrant Now " , I cannot deny my very > > strong scepticism about its genuineness. > > However I do get a feeling of seriousness from some of your messages. > > Pointing to something by words is one thing, but making this words > > into a kind of admirable object is another. Hmmmm.... > > > > Len > > > > Perhaps you can see through my many different expressions here > that I'm trying to find ways to say something. " Vibrant Now " > is a stab at that. *I don't need* those words... they have > no use to me. > > One value to me in our exchanges is that you seem to understand > quite a bit and are pretty clean/clear. So perhaps you will be > able to help me to sort out the attempts to express that are > really useful and those that just go spiraling off into space. > > Oddly, I seem unable to tell very well. Things that seem like > they will be a very clear way of putting it seem to fall flat. > Others seem to be understood, but I am often mystified as to > why this and not that. > > Tell me this: do you understand what I mean when I say: " no flow " ? > > Does it makes sense to you when I say: Once there was just > " flow " and I thought that was the Now, and in a way *relatively*, > I suppose it was. But now there is no-flow, or flow only occasionally, > and just a " vibrance " ... no sense of space, no sense of inner/outer, > *just vibrance*. > > Does that make sense? > > Because if it does then perhaps you can see: > a) why I might very much want to communicate about this. > b) why it is so very *difficult* to do! > > Bill Yes, some areas are difficult to communicate about, possibly because they are always different. Even only for me they are each time different. A common words are: " new " and " alive " which may be actually the same as " vibrant " . I don´t recognize what you´re saying about no sense of space, because space is also one of those characteristic words: new - alive - space. I also don´t recognize " no inner/outer " , cause I´m aware of body/sensations and the world external to the body. But the idea of " me " is often missing. The body moves through its surroundings but without a " me " to worry about :-) Maybe we aren´t supposed to communicate about it, just to live it ;-) To be alone in your perception is a part of the process, I guess. Len Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 4, 2006 Report Share Posted April 4, 2006 Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Ps: take pure attention to....It > > > > > > > then there is flow of.... " Now " ..... > > > > > > > > > > > > And then... > > > > > > *no movement* > > > > > > no flow > > > > > > > > > > > > just this Vibrant Now > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Are you serious, Bill? > > > > > > > > > > len > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes. > > > > Used to be there was always a sense of " flow " . > > > > I mean like for 20 years or so. > > > > > > > > But now ownly occasionally. > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > The reason I asked it, is, that to me Marc´s message sounds like > > > cheap and hollow blabla. Not only this message but all of his > > > messages actually. I have an aversion of pseudo-spiritual > exaltation > > > and this is what these messages come down to, in my perception. > > > Also when I read something like " Vibrant Now " , I cannot deny my > very > > > strong scepticism about its genuineness. > > > However I do get a feeling of seriousness from some of your > messages. > > > Pointing to something by words is one thing, but making this > words > > > into a kind of admirable object is another. Hmmmm.... > > > > > > Len > > > > > > > Perhaps you can see through my many different expressions here > > that I'm trying to find ways to say something. " Vibrant Now " > > is a stab at that. *I don't need* those words... they have > > no use to me. > > > > One value to me in our exchanges is that you seem to understand > > quite a bit and are pretty clean/clear. So perhaps you will be > > able to help me to sort out the attempts to express that are > > really useful and those that just go spiraling off into space. > > > > Oddly, I seem unable to tell very well. Things that seem like > > they will be a very clear way of putting it seem to fall flat. > > Others seem to be understood, but I am often mystified as to > > why this and not that. > > > > Tell me this: do you understand what I mean when I say: " no flow " ? > > > > Does it makes sense to you when I say: Once there was just > > " flow " and I thought that was the Now, and in a way *relatively*, > > I suppose it was. But now there is no-flow, or flow only > occasionally, > > and just a " vibrance " ... no sense of space, no sense of > inner/outer, > > *just vibrance*. > > > > Does that make sense? > > > > Because if it does then perhaps you can see: > > a) why I might very much want to communicate about this. > > b) why it is so very *difficult* to do! > > > > Bill > > > > Yes, some areas are difficult to communicate about, possibly because > they are always different. Even only for me they are each time > different. A common words are: " new " and " alive " which may be > actually the same as " vibrant " . > I don´t recognize what you´re saying about no sense of space, > because space is also one of those characteristic words: new - > alive - space. I also don´t recognize " no inner/outer " , cause I´m > aware of body/sensations and the world external to the body. But the > idea of " me " is often missing. The body moves through its > surroundings but without a " me " to worry about :-) > Maybe we aren´t supposed to communicate about it, just to live it ;-) > To be alone in your perception is a part of the process, I guess. > > Len > The body moves through its surroundings but without a " me " to worry about :-) >>> that fits! Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 5, 2006 Report Share Posted April 5, 2006 Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > > > > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > > > > > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there is a flow of energy.... > > > > > > flowing through whole of body > > > > > > > > > > > > there is a flow of bodies.... > > > > > > flowing through wordls > > > > > > > > > > > > there is a flow of worlds... > > > > > > flowing through infinite spaces > > > > > > > > > > > > there is a flow of infinite spaces... > > > > > > flowing through mind > > > > > > > > > > > > there is the calmness of mind.... > > > > > > flowing through all of It > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ps: take pure attention to....It > > > > > then there is flow of.... " Now " ..... > > > > > > > > And then... > > > > *no movement* > > > > no flow > > > > > > > > just this Vibrant Now > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > Are you serious, Bill? > > > > > > len > > > > > > > Yes. > > Used to be there was always a sense of " flow " . > > I mean like for 20 years or so. > > > > But now ownly occasionally. > > > > > > Bill > > > The reason I asked it, is, that to me Marc´s message sounds like > cheap and hollow blabla. Not only this message but all of his > messages actually. I have an aversion of pseudo-spiritual exaltation > and this is what these messages come down to, in my perception. > Also when I read something like " Vibrant Now " , I cannot deny my very > strong scepticism about its genuineness. > However I do get a feeling of seriousness from some of your messages. > Pointing to something by words is one thing, but making this words > into a kind of admirable object is another. Hmmmm.... > > Len thanks for your nice words..... .....i'm not wondering how an intelligent " ego " .... " who " pretent to be " spiritual " or.....however " spiritual evaluated " has no answers to what is behind his " head " ....of brilliant intellect " Vibrant " ....and " the Now " .......remain " unknown " for such ignorance..... but there are hopes still....that you will, one day....get over this your intellectual wall....... Marc > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 5, 2006 Report Share Posted April 5, 2006 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ps: take pure attention to....It > > > > > > > > then there is flow of.... " Now " ..... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And then... > > > > > > > *no movement* > > > > > > > no flow > > > > > > > > > > > > > > just this Vibrant Now > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Are you serious, Bill? > > > > > > > > > > > > len > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > Used to be there was always a sense of " flow " . > > > > > I mean like for 20 years or so. > > > > > > > > > > But now ownly occasionally. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > The reason I asked it, is, that to me Marc´s message sounds like > > > > cheap and hollow blabla. Not only this message but all of his > > > > messages actually. I have an aversion of pseudo-spiritual > > exaltation > > > > and this is what these messages come down to, in my perception. > > > > Also when I read something like " Vibrant Now " , I cannot deny my > > very > > > > strong scepticism about its genuineness. > > > > However I do get a feeling of seriousness from some of your > > messages. > > > > Pointing to something by words is one thing, but making this > > words > > > > into a kind of admirable object is another. Hmmmm.... > > > > > > > > Len > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps you can see through my many different expressions here > > > that I'm trying to find ways to say something. " Vibrant Now " > > > is a stab at that. *I don't need* those words... they have > > > no use to me. > > > > > > One value to me in our exchanges is that you seem to understand > > > quite a bit and are pretty clean/clear. So perhaps you will be > > > able to help me to sort out the attempts to express that are > > > really useful and those that just go spiraling off into space. > > > > > > Oddly, I seem unable to tell very well. Things that seem like > > > they will be a very clear way of putting it seem to fall flat. > > > Others seem to be understood, but I am often mystified as to > > > why this and not that. > > > > > > Tell me this: do you understand what I mean when I say: " no flow " ? > > > > > > Does it makes sense to you when I say: Once there was just > > > " flow " and I thought that was the Now, and in a way *relatively*, > > > I suppose it was. But now there is no-flow, or flow only > > occasionally, > > > and just a " vibrance " ... no sense of space, no sense of > > inner/outer, > > > *just vibrance*. > > > > > > Does that make sense? > > > > > > Because if it does then perhaps you can see: > > > a) why I might very much want to communicate about this. > > > b) why it is so very *difficult* to do! > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > Yes, some areas are difficult to communicate about, possibly because > > they are always different. Even only for me they are each time > > different. A common words are: " new " and " alive " which may be > > actually the same as " vibrant " . > > I don´t recognize what you´re saying about no sense of space, > > because space is also one of those characteristic words: new - > > alive - space. I also don´t recognize " no inner/outer " , cause I´m > > aware of body/sensations and the world external to the body. But the > > idea of " me " is often missing. The body moves through its > > surroundings but without a " me " to worry about :-) > > Maybe we aren´t supposed to communicate about it, just to live it ;-) > > To be alone in your perception is a part of the process, I guess. > > > > Len > > > > The body moves through its > surroundings but without a " me " to worry about :-) > > >>> > > that fits! > > Bill Really? I mean nothing left of it, not a slightest ego-reaction, no feelings whatsoever, empty, beautiful and funny. Len Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 5, 2006 Report Share Posted April 5, 2006 Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ps: take pure attention to....It > > > > > > > > > then there is flow of.... " Now " ..... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And then... > > > > > > > > *no movement* > > > > > > > > no flow > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > just this Vibrant Now > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Are you serious, Bill? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > len > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > Used to be there was always a sense of " flow " . > > > > > > I mean like for 20 years or so. > > > > > > > > > > > > But now ownly occasionally. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The reason I asked it, is, that to me Marc´s message sounds > like > > > > > cheap and hollow blabla. Not only this message but all of > his > > > > > messages actually. I have an aversion of pseudo-spiritual > > > exaltation > > > > > and this is what these messages come down to, in my > perception. > > > > > Also when I read something like " Vibrant Now " , I cannot deny > my > > > very > > > > > strong scepticism about its genuineness. > > > > > However I do get a feeling of seriousness from some of your > > > messages. > > > > > Pointing to something by words is one thing, but making this > > > words > > > > > into a kind of admirable object is another. Hmmmm.... > > > > > > > > > > Len > > > > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps you can see through my many different expressions here > > > > that I'm trying to find ways to say something. " Vibrant Now " > > > > is a stab at that. *I don't need* those words... they have > > > > no use to me. > > > > > > > > One value to me in our exchanges is that you seem to understand > > > > quite a bit and are pretty clean/clear. So perhaps you will be > > > > able to help me to sort out the attempts to express that are > > > > really useful and those that just go spiraling off into space. > > > > > > > > Oddly, I seem unable to tell very well. Things that seem like > > > > they will be a very clear way of putting it seem to fall flat. > > > > Others seem to be understood, but I am often mystified as to > > > > why this and not that. > > > > > > > > Tell me this: do you understand what I mean when I say: " no > flow " ? > > > > > > > > Does it makes sense to you when I say: Once there was just > > > > " flow " and I thought that was the Now, and in a way > *relatively*, > > > > I suppose it was. But now there is no-flow, or flow only > > > occasionally, > > > > and just a " vibrance " ... no sense of space, no sense of > > > inner/outer, > > > > *just vibrance*. > > > > > > > > Does that make sense? > > > > > > > > Because if it does then perhaps you can see: > > > > a) why I might very much want to communicate about this. > > > > b) why it is so very *difficult* to do! > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, some areas are difficult to communicate about, possibly > because > > > they are always different. Even only for me they are each time > > > different. A common words are: " new " and " alive " which may be > > > actually the same as " vibrant " . > > > I don´t recognize what you´re saying about no sense of space, > > > because space is also one of those characteristic words: new - > > > alive - space. I also don´t recognize " no inner/outer " , cause > I´m > > > aware of body/sensations and the world external to the body. But > the > > > idea of " me " is often missing. The body moves through its > > > surroundings but without a " me " to worry about :-) > > > Maybe we aren´t supposed to communicate about it, just to live > it ;-) > > > To be alone in your perception is a part of the process, I guess. > > > > > > Len > > > > > > > The body moves through its > > surroundings but without a " me " to worry about :-) > > > > >>> > > > > that fits! > > > > Bill > > > Really? I mean nothing left of it, not a slightest ego-reaction, no > feelings whatsoever, empty, beautiful and funny. > > Len > Well then, it fits even more! I have been noticing the thing about " no feelings " ... how odd that seems at times when I notice... and how that will seem to some like: a) perposterous, no way!, or b) how tragic! But actually both are far wrong. The ability for compassion, for really *seeing* another is greatly enhanced. Feelings, as it turns out, are rather barriers to perception. Can I see the other truly through *my* feelings? What about empathy? some might ask. How can you understand another without a sense of what *they feel*? And how can there be a sense of how they feel without feelings of your own? But the other is not " their feelings " either. There is always something going on that is so much more alive, more real than the feelings. Perhaps it is that when people interact with me they tend to move out of their absorption in feelings. I'm not sure. I notice that some of the messages here exhibit outbursts of strong feeling. I tend to see that stuff in a pretty detached way. A number of days ago some feelings came up for the first time in quite a while, touched off by a minor thing. I just observed them as they came up for the succeeding couple of days, and they then seemed to vanish, as if not an issue anymore. Much to learn here, of course. But interesting what you say about " no feelings " . Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 5, 2006 Report Share Posted April 5, 2006 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > Well then, it fits even more! > > I have been noticing the thing about " no feelings " ... > how odd that seems at times when I notice... > and how that will seem to some like: > a) perposterous, no way!, or > b) how tragic! > > But actually both are far wrong. > > The ability for compassion, for really *seeing* > another is greatly enhanced. Feelings, as it turns > out, are rather barriers to perception. Yes. > Can I see > the other truly through *my* feelings? > > What about empathy? some might ask. How can you > understand another without a sense of what *they > feel*? And how can there be a sense of how they > feel without feelings of your own? > > But the other is not " their feelings " either. > There is always something going on that is so much > more alive, more real than the feelings. > > Perhaps it is that when people interact with me > they tend to move out of their absorption in > feelings. I'm not sure. I notice that some of the > messages here exhibit outbursts of strong feeling. > I tend to see that stuff in a pretty detached way. > > A number of days ago some feelings came up for the > first time in quite a while, touched off by a minor > thing. I just observed them as they came up for the > succeeding couple of days, and they then seemed to > vanish, as if not an issue anymore. > > Much to learn here, of course. > > But interesting what you say about " no feelings " . > > > Bill I do have feelings, but not always. They often disappear after I had a good look at them. That´s why my attitude towards them is kind of strange. I do take them seriously, because I realize that whatever appears needs to be seen and understood. On another hand I don´t take them seriously, because I don´t take myself (my " self " ) seriously. It´s a game, but I´m trying to play this game in all honesty. Yet, from a certain perspective, all feelings, all hurt is just laughable, it´s nothing at all. Compassion for instance, has everything to do with the absence of feelings. Len Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 5, 2006 Report Share Posted April 5, 2006 Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> > wrote: > > > > Well then, it fits even more! > > > > I have been noticing the thing about " no feelings " ... > > how odd that seems at times when I notice... > > and how that will seem to some like: > > a) perposterous, no way!, or > > b) how tragic! > > > > But actually both are far wrong. > > > > The ability for compassion, for really *seeing* > > another is greatly enhanced. Feelings, as it turns > > out, are rather barriers to perception. > > > Yes. > > > > > Can I see > > the other truly through *my* feelings? > > > > What about empathy? some might ask. How can you > > understand another without a sense of what *they > > feel*? And how can there be a sense of how they > > feel without feelings of your own? > > > > But the other is not " their feelings " either. > > There is always something going on that is so much > > more alive, more real than the feelings. > > > > Perhaps it is that when people interact with me > > they tend to move out of their absorption in > > feelings. I'm not sure. I notice that some of the > > messages here exhibit outbursts of strong feeling. > > I tend to see that stuff in a pretty detached way. > > > > A number of days ago some feelings came up for the > > first time in quite a while, touched off by a minor > > thing. I just observed them as they came up for the > > succeeding couple of days, and they then seemed to > > vanish, as if not an issue anymore. > > > > Much to learn here, of course. > > > > But interesting what you say about " no feelings " . > > > > > > Bill > I do have feelings, but not always. They often disappear after I had a good look at them. That´s why my attitude towards them is kind of strange. I do take them seriously, because I realize that whatever appears needs to be seen and understood. On another hand I don´t take them seriously, because I don´t take myself (my " self " ) seriously. It´s a game, but I´m trying to play this game in all honesty. Yet, from a certain perspective, all feelings, all hurt is just laughable, it´s nothing at all. Compassion for instance, has everything to do with the absence of feelings. Len ~~~~~~~~~~ That description fits me almost perfectly. The notion of " game " is not one I would apply, but when you say " play this game in all honesty " it think, yes... very close. I think what you are expressing with that is a " detached earnestness " , which is how I might put what seems the same thing. Real detachment is not an attitude. Again, " detachment " is descriptive, not prescriptive. To try to " attain detachment " by " being detached " is like trying to make your car go faster by turning the arrow on the speedometer up. But with real detachmenet there is a casualness, a naturalness, really, even a child-lke innocence. re: Compassion for instance, has everything to do with the absence of feelings. I love it. And am sure that line will consternate some to no end! Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 5, 2006 Report Share Posted April 5, 2006 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > I do have feelings, but not always. > They often disappear after I had a good look at them. > That´s why my attitude towards them is kind of strange. > I do take them seriously, because I realize that whatever appears > needs to be seen and understood. On another hand I don´t take them > seriously, because I don´t take myself (my " self " ) seriously. > It´s a game, but I´m trying to play this game in all honesty. > Yet, from a certain perspective, all feelings, all hurt is just > laughable, it´s nothing at all. > Compassion for instance, has everything to do with the absence of > feelings. > > Len > > ~~~~~~~~~~ > > That description fits me almost perfectly. > The notion of " game " is not one I would apply, > but when you say " play this game in all honesty " > it think, yes... very close. I think what you are > expressing with that is a " detached earnestness " , > which is how I might put what seems the same thing. > > Real detachment is not an attitude. Again, " detachment " > is descriptive, not prescriptive. To try to " attain > detachment " by " being detached " is like trying to > make your car go faster by turning the arrow on > the speedometer up. But with real detachmenet there > is a casualness, a naturalness, really, even > a child-lke innocence. I don´t like the word detachment so much, because to me it means the opposite of attachment, so it is just another side of the coin. It´s the absence of " me " , of the imaginary centre which we tend to take for who we are. > re: > Compassion for instance, has everything to do with > the absence of feelings. > > I love it. And am sure that line will consternate > some to no end! Oh yes, it´s such a fun to see that happening ;-) Len ps: Actually you are the first person who seems to get it. Nice to meet you :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 5, 2006 Report Share Posted April 5, 2006 Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> > wrote: > > > I do have feelings, but not always. > > They often disappear after I had a good look at them. > > That´s why my attitude towards them is kind of strange. > > I do take them seriously, because I realize that whatever appears > > needs to be seen and understood. On another hand I don´t take them > > seriously, because I don´t take myself (my " self " ) seriously. > > It´s a game, but I´m trying to play this game in all honesty. > > Yet, from a certain perspective, all feelings, all hurt is just > > laughable, it´s nothing at all. > > Compassion for instance, has everything to do with the absence of > > feelings. > > > > Len > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > That description fits me almost perfectly. > > The notion of " game " is not one I would apply, > > but when you say " play this game in all honesty " > > it think, yes... very close. I think what you are > > expressing with that is a " detached earnestness " , > > which is how I might put what seems the same thing. > > > > Real detachment is not an attitude. Again, " detachment " > > is descriptive, not prescriptive. To try to " attain > > detachment " by " being detached " is like trying to > > make your car go faster by turning the arrow on > > the speedometer up. But with real detachmenet there > > is a casualness, a naturalness, really, even > > a child-lke innocence. > > > > > I don´t like the word detachment so much, because to me it means the > opposite of attachment, so it is just another side of the coin. > It´s the absence of " me " , of the imaginary centre which we tend to > take for who we are. Detachment is not a word that I usually use. But detachment, indifference, casualness... all those can be read a *wrong way*. And that is because they can be read as designating an *attitude*. But that is not how they necessarily are used. All those words could describe to some extent what I read in your passage, but I didn't see them as about any attitude on your part. Really, what you described could only be the case if there were an *absence of attitude*. That problem seems to arise whenever there is an attempt to say what *was/is the case* as opposed to what wasn't/isn't. To say there were *not* feelings is not so problematic. To say there *was* detachment is. I think in what you described there is evident detachment, but you weren't *being* detached. A big difference. > > > > re: > > Compassion for instance, has everything to do with > > the absence of feelings. > > > > I love it. And am sure that line will consternate > > some to no end! > > > > Oh yes, it´s such a fun to see that happening ;-) OK, I need to soak up some of those good humor fumes. Thanks. > Len > ps: Actually you are the first person who seems to get it. > Nice to meet you :-) > Kind of a shock, isn't it? Pay attention to Pete, though. He's irrascible, and snarly, and so on... hard to get a good glimpse, especially on this list. I'm glad to meet you as well. Especially as you are interested enough to sort things out a bit. Most of those I've come across (the very few that seem to " understand " ) don't have the patience for that. But it is important to me because I *am* investigating how to talk about this stuff. Someone might ask, " Why? " There doesn't have to be an answer to that question! I don't have an agenda. But I am interested in the idiosyncrasies of language as they crop up around talking about self, awareness, consciousness, etcetera. I think of the conversations between Bohm and Krishnamurti. Those are, to me, some of the most interesting Krishnamurti books. And I love the way they " burrow in " together. In his talks to groups Krishnamurti would *try* to make it a " going into it together " kind of thing. I can sense his frustration with that process in many cases, because the audience wasn't really up to it. [Which, come to think of it, why the " Conversations on Living " series is so good: there is just one other person, and so there really is dialog.] With Bohm, Krishnamurti had someone to engage with that could help bring the material forth in new and interesting ways. You see K saying stuff in his dialogs with Bohm that you don't see anywhere else. I find that " understanding " or " getting it " is an ongoing process. If it isn't ongoing, it never was in the first place. I enjoy the richness of insights that come up day after day, in exchanges with you and the others on the few nondual lists I belong to. When we are truly open, truly attentive, well... Who Knows? Bill 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.