Guest guest Posted April 5, 2006 Report Share Posted April 5, 2006 Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 wrote: > > 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 > Alright. It seems that the " me " you mean is a " theoretical " me. What I mean is that there needn't be a " sense of 'me' " in such a case. But I can basically agree that as long as the " witnessing " is going on there is separation. To me it seems quite possible to experience that in a very impersonal way, and the way you use " you " there has a very personal connotation to me. But this is minor details on terms, as I see it. But let me ask you another question: If the " storm " is merely observed, not opposed, is there, or at least can there be, a wholeness in that? I mean once there is surrender to simply be with whatever is in that, even though the chemicals of anger are still coursing through the body. Bill 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.