Re : Leaving no residue/unconditional attention

[Guest guest]

<snip>

 

> > 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

 

L:

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.

 

Something came up a number of days ago, a very minor thing,

but brought up some feelings of sadness, of hurt, etc. The

kind of feelings were old familiar ones. I immediately saw

what was happening. I was able to simply observe from the

beginning. One thing that clued me in quickly was the

" persistence flag " ... if there is something that " hangs

around " that's a *flag*, and reminds me to slow down and

pay attention. The feelings would fade out and the show

up again for about two days. When they would show up I would

notice them, but I never " sat down and went into them " .

Rather it was more like, they'd show up and it was all so

transparent, as if each time I would be saying, " No, I'm

not buying it, " (not that there was any such thought).

I did allow myself to feel the feelings in a complete way,

so it is not that I was dismissing them.

 

Finally they stopped showing up.

 

Perhaps an important point is that while there *was* a

reaction (the feelings) to an event, there wasn't a

*reaction to the reaction*.

 

The totally naive stage:

I have a reaction to X and I'm upset about it and

I'm gonna do so-and-so because it just ain't right

etc. etc.

 

The " somewhat emancipated " stage:

I have a reaction to X, but I realize it's " my stuff "

so I gotta work this out, I need to *heal* myself,

etc.

 

I say " somewhat " emancipated because there is still

anxiety about the " stuff coming up " .

 

Then the stage where there is not a reaction to the

reaction, just observation. The " reaction " is not taken

as a " problem " , unlike the " somewhat emancipated " stage

where it is.

 

L:

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.

 

I can't say I really understand you when you talk about a

" me " there. Other than that, makes complete sense. I

especially like the part about not calling it a surrender.

 

L:

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 don't know who those folks are... but an account of

Balsekar (sp?) recently posted to this list might fit that.

He was discounting his own moral meanderings with comments

about it is not real, just illusion, or some such.

 

L:

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.

 

I'm not sure about the " structure is fully understood "

part. In the example I gave above I don't know that I

" fully understood " anything. It seemed that I actually

understood from the beginning, it was all so transparent.

It was as if a pattern (read: program) that at one time

would have got me didn't now because there has been so

much change. The program tried to start a bunch of times.

But the engine could never turn over. Maybe it is a special

case where instead of the cycle being broken (finally)

it never got really started in the first place.

 

Talking about this stuff means I'm looking at things so much

more deeply because of this dialog. I love it!

 

L:

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.

 

I don't know if you are familiar with Ramana Majarshi...

but he talks about " I " in two ways. An " I " that is the

" false I " and the " I " that is the " Self " . Seems to me

that people get pretty confused by that.

 

So yes, I understand what you are saying.

 

L:

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 ;-)

 

The " desperately " is stage two above! The anxiety about

" fixing my stuff " .

 

L:

But

the storm IS " me " . It is exactly this division in " me " and

" not me " which causes the storm and which must be understood.

 

Yes, the isolation of " the storm " as something apart, as a

" problem " is what keeps the storm brewing.

 

But can't say I'm with you on the " must be understood " part.

 

I had another experience about two months ago where I had

the insight that while another person was conducting himself

in an extraordinarily bizarre way with me, it was nevertheless

not about him, it was really about me. I never got especially

*upset*, but I felt I had a problem to deal with (he's my

boss) and so was going through various strategies etc.

 

Finally I was able to see it as really about me (not his

behavior, but my feeling that there was a problem). Anyway,

once I came to that shift in how I was considering the

matter it all seemed to clear up, including *with him*!

I was able to make an " olive branch " phone call to him and

the whole matter cleared up.

 

Now, I don't know if that is an example of what you mean

by understanding the structure, the cause etc. or not.

 

It seemed that I managed to return to wholeness upon seeing

my own lack of wholeness in how I was considering it.

 

 

BTW, notice how communication about these things seems to

flow so much better when we give examples? I think that is

partly due to the vulnerability inherent in doing so.

 

Bill