Guest guest Posted April 5, 2006 Report Share Posted April 5, 2006 Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> > wrote: > > > > The thing about doing is that it happens. > > The confusion about doing is the assumption > > that " I " do it. > > > > 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 " doing " . > > It is that there is a cessation in *indentification* > > with doing. > > > Oh, no, no, no. > In this case we didn´t understand each other, when talking about > no " me " . > We´re coming back to our discussion. > Where there is doing, there is a doer. > They are one and the same and come and go together. > There is no anger without the one who´s angry. > These seem two separate things, but they are one and the same: > thoughts in a thought construct, responsible for emotional reactions. > There are no emotional reactions without a " me " . > You cannot disidentify from any reaction, either the " me " is there > or not. No " me " - no recation. > > len 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. 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. 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. 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! 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 > > Perhaps sitting in quietude, but eventually getting > > something to eat, doing work, interactions with > > others, all of it. > > > > Does that seem to contradict the statement, " There > > really is nothing I can do " ? > > > > If so, read it this way: " There is really no doing > > that I can identify with as 'me' doing it. " > > > > > > 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.