Guest guest Posted April 5, 2006 Report Share Posted April 5, 2006 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > 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 In my case - no. I don´t know how long precisely it takes for the chemicals to be broken down in the body. This is someting else though, something " technical " . But once really understood - the storm stops. There is a stage though, when I observe, while the storm goes on. This takes time, sometimes a second, sometimes half a day, during this period the storm goes on, while being observed. So there is a " me " , there is what " me " doesn´t want to be there, which is another part of the " me " , there are emotional reactions to it, and all of that, all this movement is being observed. But I don´t call it surrender, cause the opposition of thoughts, the fight, the virtual division, is still there. This is a big difference with what many Advaitins seem to be saying: you are a calm centre and observe while the storm is going on. I say: " I " IS the storm, the observation of this process can take place, and both: the " I " and the storm cease when their structure is fully understood. What´s left has no name. I can call it myself, no problem, but there is a danger of misunderstanding. People confuse the " I " with that which has no name. So when somebody tells them: you are the calm centre of the storm, a virtual division in " me " and the storm is being created and perpetuated. And then the " me " desperately tries to be calm and observe the storm ;-) But the storm IS " me " . It is exactly this division in " me " and " not me " which causes the storm and which must be understood. 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.