Guest guest Posted April 5, 2006 Report Share Posted April 5, 2006 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > 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*. Yes. > 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. Very well put. In the last stage there is no food for the " me " who wants to fix the problem. That´s why in this stage it may happen that the activity of the " me " stops. I just understood that, now, while writing these words. Funny, I knew that it worked, now I suddenly see why: no food for the " me " , for the " reactor " , for the " fixer " . > 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. I mean: a thought about " me " which is believed to be separate from what is troubling this " me " , the so called " problem " and to which " me " has an emotional reaction. This " me " thought may be not obvious but it is always there in the background when there is a " problem " . If " me " thought wasn't there, separating itself from the " problem " thought, there wouldn't be a " problem " , but just facts one can directly deal with. It is only because of this unreal division in " me " and the " problem " that any emotional conflict arises. " I " sees something, " I " has a negative image of it ( " problem " ) and " I " starts reacting against this image. But both " I " and the image of the problem are thoughts, opposing each other in a virtual fight. " I " cannot stand " that " , and therefore " that " must change. At this stage emotions arise: anger, sadness, hopelessness etc… > 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. I think that every case is slightly different. I recognize what you say, it happens to me when I have been through some kind of stuff before, so when something similar happens, I somehow don´t buy it anymore, it doesn´t get a chance to make roots. > Talking about this stuff means I'm looking at things so much > more deeply because of this dialog. I love it! It´s a pleasure to talk to you, Bill. There is honesty in the way you communicate, no holding back. It makes the communication very interesting, new and fragile. > 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. Yes. That´s possibly why Krishnamurti refused to talk about " real self " , it only creates confusion. Because when one mistakes the images of himself for what he is, the definition of a " real self " will be just added to the rest of the collection and considered as something divine ;-) So at the end it creates even more confusion then before. > 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 " . Yes. " I " is very active and produces many thoughts about how to fix it. > 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. You say: isolation. What is the problem isolated from? From that which doesn´t want the problem, from the fixer: " me " . As long as the fixer " me " is active, as long as all energy is put in producing imaginary solutions, the fact that the activity of the " fixer " is the only problem, cannot be noticed. You need larger perspective to notice it. The awareness of the whole movement gives this perspective. When the futility of the thought activity of the " fixer " is seen, it stops, and when this activity stops, the problem stops, because this dividing activity was the only problem. > 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. Yes, I think so. I´m going into details, now, in order to precisely understand the mechanism, but in practice the understanding happens spontaneously, often without knowing what really happened, just noticing that it happened. Did you have any resistance to the emotions involved? > It seemed that I managed to return to wholeness upon seeing > my own lack of wholeness in how I was considering it. Yes. > 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. This makes me realize that I didn´t give any examples, I hope you don´t mind :-) Brilliant dialogue, Bill, Thanks, 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.