Guest guest Posted April 5, 2006 Report Share Posted April 5, 2006 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > wrote: > Actually, I think we do understand each other. > Just not on how I put that. But it brings up a > a recurring point in nondual discussions, and I'd > like to go into it with you, if you are interested. > > I recently posted this from Krishnamurti: > > What... is memory? If you observe your own memory and how > you gather memory, you will notice that it is either > factual, technical, having to do with information, with > engineering, mathematics, physics, and all the rest of > it—or, it is the residue of an unfinished, uncompleted > experience, is it not? Watch your own memory and you will > see. When you finish an experience, complete it, there is > no memory of that experience in the sense of a > psychological residue. > > Notice the qualification he uses in saying *psychological* > residue. It is not that memory per se is the problem. > It is what he calls here " psychological residue " . > > But what does he *mean* by psychological residue? > I'm sure he doesn't mean memory of what one's home > address is. I don't believe he even means the information > on one's resume. I consider that he means memory around > a " figurative self " , what he often called the " image " . > > That distinction gets lost again and again, it seems > to me. > > When I said: It is not that there is a cessation in " doing " . > I meant that there is still eating, drinking, working, etc. > But I meant that it is eating, drinking etc. without a > sense of an " I am doing this " . It is stuff that just > happens, really not different than the raining outside > (which is *still* going on). That's the thing about > no inside/outside... it is as if everything is on the > same plane, except that there is no plane either! > > As I said: > > > The thing about doing is that it happens. > > > The confusion about doing is the assumption > > > that " I " do it. > > > Where there is doing, there is a doer. > At lot depends on what you mean by " doing " there. > > When you wrote: > The body moves through its > surroundings but without a " me " to worry about :-) > > I was using the term " doing " for that kind of thing. > But am guessing here by your comments that to you > the term " doing " presumes a subject. But I could > just as easily replace the term " doing " with > " activity " . > > And that would be better, actually: > > The thing about activity is that it happens. > The confusion about activity is the assumption > that " I " do it. Yes, of course. You were talking about strong emotions though, and the need to identify with them. This implies a " me " , and a " me " cannot " disidentify " , or rather it can, but this comes down to cutting a ball of thoughts in two - which is irrelevant and only creates an illusion of disenegagement. In the same way as detachment is attachment. " Me " IS emotion. > But then I might want to go back to make it > clearer to Patricia by saying: > > There is activity. There is -- appears to > be -- the activity of a body. It goes to > sleep, it wants to eat. And there is the > activity of the body of going through myriad > processes such as eating, working, etc. > > That there is a body engaged in activity > can Oh so easily! be interpreted as " What > 'I' am doing. " > > If we get angry we might think, " Ooop! There > all my 'nonduality' went out the window! " > > But no, it is that when the behavior is > especially intense the tendancy to identify > is much greater. > It is not that there is a cessation in " activity " . > It is that there is a cessation in *indentification* > with activity. This is the part I mean. There is an effort of the " me " to be " nondual " ;-) There is no such thing as a cessation of identification with an activity. There is either a " me " or there is not. > Now I can see that you will still disagree about > the " anger " part. And I am still pondering > that, as a matter of fact. So perhaps we can > get back to that. > > But it does seem to me that when there is a > *strong reaction* there is a *stronger* tendency > to identify. > > It has been quite a long time since I have > felt real anger... but I seem to recall times > when anger (or another similarly strong emotion) > arose where I was able to just observe it. > And somehow that defused it. Yes, anger can dissolve in observation, which doesn´t mean that the identification with the anger is gone. The whole thing is gone, the whole ball of thoughts: the anger, the " me " , everything. We cannot split this ball in two parts, only thought can pretend to do that, but it´s one entangled thing. The anger IS the one who is angry. But thought can fool itself through thinking that the one who is angry isn´t there while the anger is. Emotion IS its owner, the owner IS the emotion. > I remember an author saying how he discovered > with his new wife that when she would get very > angry and go into a tirade that if he would > not object to anything, simply listen, hear > her out, that eventually the storm would subside > and she would come out of it rather astonished. > She didn't expect no-opposition! Yes :-) This shows that anger in not " her´s " , there is just anger in relationship, and your response to it is a part of it. > I think it is the same or similar with anger > that arises with oneself. When there is no > opposition then the " cycle is broken " somehow. > And when the cycle is broken, ironically, > it doesn't need to be fixed! :-) > So a question to you: > If the " storm " is merely observed, not opposed, > is there necessarily a " me " involved? > > Bill Yes, the storm is " you " . Len Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.