Guest guest Posted April 6, 2006 Report Share Posted April 6, 2006 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > 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 " . > > Wow. That makes so much sense. > Reminds me of the adage, " Don't feed the Trolls! " > > But that way of putting it could also lead someone > to think that they could " fix it " by starving > the " me " . So odd how things can always be twisted > around. Oh yes, everything can be twisted, and in this kind of subjects - is being twisted most of the time, because the mind translates it into an image, and more precisely into the image which fits the general image system of the person. > One of the things that has struck me is that when > someone really does have the kind of breakthrough > we have been talking about, suddenly they " understand " > so much that had been " seen through a glass darkly " . > The error so easily made, it seems, is to think one > can convey to others by communicating those new > understandings. It is like trying to tell someone > how to get to the mountain top by describing the > great view! And then the description of the view is memorised by the impressed listener and worshipped. And if the listener isn't able to see the difference between the actual, real view out of his own window and the memorised description of the view from the mountain top, he may end believing that the view from the mountain top is his own experience. > > L: > > 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. > > Are you saying that whenever there is a figure/ground > there is a " me " ? Whenever there is a psychological problem, there is a " me " . A figure of a car breakdown which must and can be fixed doesn´t require a psychological " me " , just adequate action. But from the moment you start to worry: Oh God, I´m going to lose my job if I´m late and if I lose my job I lose my house and my health insurance and I will die poor and lonely, oh God, what am I to do! – the psychological " me " is running, not only causing pain and tension but also thwarting the efficient dealing with a fact of the car breakdown. > I seem to be getting what you are saying here in a way I > hadn't before (we have gone over this ground more than > once). In the case I related of my feeling " annoyance " , > when it first appeared I recognized that it was " false " > because I had come to realize (by then) that any sense of > " separateness " in consciousness is false, that any sense > of " persistence " is false. So I did not " indulge " those > feelings -- from the very beginning. But they were still > banging around, nevertheless. So yes, there was a separateness > at that point. It was as if those feelings were something > I could " isolate " , sense as something separate. And oddly, > just now as I write this, I think, " Well, they were! " > Separation is illusion (that's the theory), seeing them > as separate then was illusion? Well, that is what presented. > > My response was the " stage three " of simply observing but > doing nothing about it. There was no action to " heal it " . > In that case the annoyance didn't vaporize immediately, > but banged around a bit before jostling its way out. > Kind of like some bad gas! > > So getting back to what you said, I am wondering if you > would say there was necessarily a " me " /centre when the > " annoyance " first appeared? Yes, because we always " need " two opposite elements: the subject and the object of annoyance. If nobody, no " me " is opposing something, pushing something away, there is no annoyance. Psychological conflict is always a split in what I am and what I am not. But I think this " me " is something so familiar, so evident, so present in every kind of psychological conflict that we hardly notice it. Maybe we can look at the " me " from a different angle: We often talk about somebody's personality, somebody's character. If you were to define what personality actually is, how would you do that? > And is that question similar to: > If one is simply " witnessing " , is that the Now, or > of time? Well, if the element of time, which is memory, which is " me " , is present, it is of time. We can be witnessing the battle of images (memory = me), which is of time, but at a certain point the images may collapse, and what is there is not of time. One thing is sure, when images collapse, when time isn´t there, one will notice it with no doubt. > And having posed that question the answer that comes to > me about it is that it depends on if there is a process > of becoming involved. So a " stage two " response *would* > entail a " me " . But if it is a stage three response, > then really there is not process of becoming and so no > " me " . There can be observation of a process of becoming to start with, and this process of becoming may end in the observation. > [Note: while writing the above a flash of insight that > there can't be persistence without separateness. Does > that make sense?] You mean continuity? That makes sense to me. > There is a subtle balance in good communication, > it seems, between unrelenting honesty and vulnerability, > a hardness and a tenderness that in union is beyond > both. Yes :-) > And I must say it is a great pleasure to me as well. > It's like I'm on this deserted island and I've been > throwing bottles with notes into the ocean for eons, > and then one day a bottle washes up on the shore with > a note that says, " Hey Bill! Got your note! " LOL! Communication, especially about this subject is difficult if not impossible when people hold to what they already know. And this is what usually happens. How can there be a questioning of the " me " if the " me " already knows all about it? ;-) > That reminds me of a funny statement a coworker made once > after a long meeting when I was a teacher. At the end of > a meeting where we had hashed through a ton of stuff and > in a sense had made some progress but where there was no > closure... he said, " We are are now confused at a higher > level and about more important things! " LOL! > > Did you have any resistance to the emotions involved? > > Interesting question. > What comes is that there was not resistance to the emotions > per se, but an *impedence* to " seeing the emotions " involved. > > I know that impedance and resistance are very similar in meaning, > but by impedance I mean not a psychological resistance, but > a " difficulty in seeing " because I had to expand my view quite > a bit to see it. At one point I noticed I was seeing him as > " sinister " , and when someone asked me about that I was brought > to stop, back up, and take a bigger view. I could then see > that the " sinister " bit was my own material brought into it. > When I saw that the " binding cycle " was broken. If by resistance > to the emotions you mean that some content was coming up that > I was averting, no. It was, rather, something wound back into > me in such a way that I simply was not seeing it. His behavior > had been *extremly bizarre* and he seemed mentally imbalanced. > The drama around it was great enough that I was distracted > from seeing my own material as part of it. There is an element in my own observation of conflict, which seems to be absent in yours, I´m not sure… I get the impression that from the moment you realize that what you project outside of you (sinister) is your own stuff, the cycle is broken and it´s finished. In my experience it often takes much more. It can happen that the whole dynamic of conflict is broken at once, in no time, but some other times it would take me some minutes, even hours. During this time the psychological " material " is observed and sensed, it can sometimes get very tough, because the body has to deal with many sensations which are initially experienced as very unpleasant. But when they finally come to an end, there is a feeling as if something was really ended, understood through and through. And the kind of conflict which has been observed in such a thorough way doesn´t ever come back again, as if I have dealt with it for good. I wonder whether you recognize it. > One this and other such lists it seems that a large portion > of the participants do not say much of anything about themselves, > their own experiences, etc. I get the impression that there > is a fear that if one were to do so then their " nondualness " > would be discredited. And that is why I admire those (such > as Patricia and Silver) that are willing/able to be vulnerable > about themselves. Actually, a ounce of vulnerability is worth > a pound of insight/understanding. Because vulnerability = > honesty. Vulnerability before others corresponds to vulnerability/ > honesty with oneself. They simply *have* to go together, in > my view. Very true. > PS: BTW, I've haven't felt the intrusion of " ego " stuff in > this dialog. When the ego does come in, the conversation > doesn't get beyond the foothills. Someone who *really* > understands doesn't have anything to lose. So a " plasticity " > comes into it with such a person. Such plasticity is needed > to overcome the impedance mismatch of different proclivities > in terms of " pet " ways of stating things etc. Yes, my experience is that no fruitful conversation is possible when the ego intrudes. In its constant effort to strengthen and confirm itself, it kills sensitivity and delicacy without which no inquiry is possible. Len Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 7, 2006 Report Share Posted April 7, 2006 Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> > wrote: > > > > > 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 " . > > > > Wow. That makes so much sense. > > Reminds me of the adage, " Don't feed the Trolls! " > > > > But that way of putting it could also lead someone > > to think that they could " fix it " by starving > > the " me " . So odd how things can always be twisted > > around. > > Oh yes, everything can be twisted, and in this kind of subjects - > is being twisted most of the time, because the mind translates it > into an image, and more precisely into the image which fits the > general image system of the person. > A self-fulfilling filter system. I see X as an enemy, so what X does is easily interpreted as threatening, or at least " suspicious " . My actions toward X take on a cold, defensive air. X picks this up and responds accordingly. Soon we have a hostile relationship, all self-fulfilled by my filtering system. > > One of the things that has struck me is that when > > someone really does have the kind of breakthrough > > we have been talking about, suddenly they " understand " > > so much that had been " seen through a glass darkly " . > > The error so easily made, it seems, is to think one > > can convey to others by communicating those new > > understandings. It is like trying to tell someone > > how to get to the mountain top by describing the > > great view! > > And then the description of the view is memorised by the impressed > listener and worshipped. And if the listener isn't able to see the > difference between the actual, real view out of his own window and > the memorised description of the view from the mountain top, he may > end believing that the view from the mountain top is his own > experience. > Or if the listener is not so positively predisposed, then what is said is rejected as not fitting the perceived reality of the listener. If a particular listener is committed to a particular image system then that listener is committed to *having an image* system in general, so the alternatives are to: a) hear a confirmation of his image system b) hear and accept an embellishment, extension of his image system c) reject what is heard as not conforming to his image system (i.e. it does not fit with " reality " ) d) accept as a whole a new image system as induced by an overwhelming enthrallment with the presenter/presentation (a " religious conversion " so to speak) Those are pretty much the possibilities within the limits of experience as mediated by an image system (nice term, btw!). Thinking about that term just now, it strikes me that " image " in the sense you have been using that term inherently implies the " system " quality. Such an image is memory, locking into memory, round and round (is this what karma means?). > > > L: > > > 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. > > > > Are you saying that whenever there is a figure/ground > > there is a " me " ? > > Whenever there is a psychological problem, there is a " me " . > A figure of a car breakdown which must and can be fixed doesn´t > require a psychological " me " , just adequate action. > But from the moment you start to worry: Oh God, I´m going to lose my > job if I´m late and if I lose my job I lose my house and my health > insurance and I will die poor and lonely, oh God, what am I to do! – > the psychological " me " is running, not only causing pain and tension > but also thwarting the efficient dealing with a fact of the car > breakdown. OK. So that is the case where the " offered program " has been embraced and run with. > > I seem to be getting what you are saying here in a way I > > hadn't before (we have gone over this ground more than > > once). In the case I related of my feeling " annoyance " , > > when it first appeared I recognized that it was " false " > > because I had come to realize (by then) that any sense of > > " separateness " in consciousness is false, that any sense > > of " persistence " is false. So I did not " indulge " those > > feelings -- from the very beginning. But they were still > > banging around, nevertheless. So yes, there was a separateness > > at that point. It was as if those feelings were something > > I could " isolate " , sense as something separate. And oddly, > > just now as I write this, I think, " Well, they were! " > > Separation is illusion (that's the theory), seeing them > > as separate then was illusion? Well, that is what presented. > > > > My response was the " stage three " of simply observing but > > doing nothing about it. There was no action to " heal it " . > > In that case the annoyance didn't vaporize immediately, > > but banged around a bit before jostling its way out. > > Kind of like some bad gas! > > > > So getting back to what you said, I am wondering if you > > would say there was necessarily a " me " /centre when the > > " annoyance " first appeared? > > Yes, because we always " need " two opposite elements: the subject and > the object of annoyance. > If nobody, no " me " is opposing something, pushing something away, > there is no annoyance. Psychological conflict is always a split in > what I am and what I am not. Ahh... I see now. The mere sense of annoyance is psychological conflict. Each time we go over this part I see something more. > But I think this " me " is something so familiar, so evident, so > present in every kind of psychological conflict that we hardly > notice it. > Maybe we can look at the " me " from a different angle: > We often talk about somebody's personality, somebody's character. > If you were to define what personality actually is, how would you do > that? Interesting question. I don't think of the notion " personality " as a significant one, actually. Speaking to how it seems to me the term is generally used, it is a " container " idea, a kind of conceptual box that represents the collection of different *types* of behavior observed with respect to a particualar individual. Character, on the other hand, I *do* find to be significant notion. To me that is a much deeper notion than that of personality. Personality I think of as referring to surface, while character refers to depth. The character will express in the " personality " to a degree. If the person is " shallow " the character will not be much evident in the personality. A person that is " true to his/herself " will express the character a great deal. Perhaps this is a place to bring in something that just cropped up in my mind tonight, and that is the matter of " content " . Nondual topics tend toward the abstract. They tend to distill away all but the universal, that which is true for everyone. Character, however, pertains to content, to distinct " qualities " of an individual. I think it is a mistake to sweep aside all matters of content under the spell of a vision of nondualism that seems to discount all individual differences. Also: When the " true character " manifests, it is not self-conscious, there is no affectation. It simply is. > And is that question similar to: > > If one is simply " witnessing " , is that the Now, or > > of time? > > Well, if the element of time, which is memory, which is " me " , is > present, it is of time. > We can be witnessing the battle of images (memory = me), which is of > time, but at a certain point the images may collapse, and what is > there is not of time. > One thing is sure, when images collapse, when time isn´t there, one > will notice it with no doubt. There is something I have been trying to get at in this particular portion of our discussion. Above I wrote: " ...that is the case where the 'offered program' has been embraced and run with. " There is also the possible case where the 'offered program' is simply observed, *not* embraced, *not* run. It seems that was the case with my annoyance example. The annoyance was felt, but the old programs associated were not invoked. The " stuff was up " but the *usual catastrope* did not occur. It is a kind of middle ground. There is time, because the annoyance was noticed as " false " in the first place because of the " persistence " quality. But the loop of behavior of the running program did not occur, which is time in another sense it seems, a *more false* sense if you will. I consider that to be an important distinction. We can safely assume that " stuff " will come up into the forseeable future. What is significant, then, is not *whether* stuff comes up, but what happens (err.. *doesn't* happen when it does. Looking at how the notion of " me " applies in the two different cases, when the annoyance arises but is not acted on, then as I see it there is not a becoming process engaged in. The " me " is there as a " potential " ; it is " present " in the sense that the consciousness is divided with the distinction of " this my annoyance " , but there is not a " me " process going on, only the potential for one. If the program should engage, however, the the " me " construct becomes an organizer of behavior in a becoming process. Perhaps a distillation of that would be: In the one case the " me " is present and an " organizer of perception " in the contemplation of the annoyance, but only if the program is engaged is the " me " fully operative as the " actor " . Make sense? > > And having posed that question the answer that comes to > > me about it is that it depends on if there is a process > > of becoming involved. So a " stage two " response *would* > > entail a " me " . But if it is a stage three response, > > then really there is not process of becoming and so no > > " me " . > > There can be observation of a process of becoming to start with, and > this process of becoming may end in the observation. > OK. That can be the case, surely. But, if I may press a bit futher on this point, and again referring to my example of annoyance... is it not possible that the annoyance could arise, but noticed immediately, without a " becoming program " ever kicking into gear? In my example it seems that was the case. I was fortunate enough to notice the feeling right away, and so did not act on that. Another time a similar annoyance arose and I did contemplate action that I might take. In that case I would say the becoming *was* an engaged process. But in the case I was telling you about it was as if the annoyance was just an irritation in the background, subconscious really, and when it came to consciousnes it was recognized right away as " invalid " even as it was being felt, so contemplation of anything to do in response to it did not occur. > > > [Note: while writing the above a flash of insight that > > there can't be persistence without separateness. Does > > that make sense?] > > You mean continuity? > That makes sense to me. > Yes (albeit only *apparent* continuity, of course). The insight was that continuity cannot be an attribute of " the whole " . Hard to explain that. But does that make sense to you as well? And if continuity cannot pertain to the whole, then any perceived continuity pertains to a part, hence inherently there must be separateness. Actually " the whole " can't have *any* attribute, except those attributes which are essentially synonyms. So the whole can have a quality of peace, for example, but then I should say it as Peace, not peace, because it is not a feeling in the sense of peace, it is just the stately integrity of What Is. And the above is why referring to What Is as the Unconditioned makes sense to me. Or to put it in a different way: What Is can never be described in terms of " existential " conditions, that it was " this way " at that time. Now with that I get into a perplexity, but it goes off course to discuss now, so consider this a " bookmark " > > There is a subtle balance in good communication, > > it seems, between unrelenting honesty and vulnerability, > > a hardness and a tenderness that in union is beyond > > both. > > Yes :-) > > > And I must say it is a great pleasure to me as well. > > It's like I'm on this deserted island and I've been > > throwing bottles with notes into the ocean for eons, > > and then one day a bottle washes up on the shore with > > a note that says, " Hey Bill! Got your note! " > > LOL! > Communication, especially about this subject is difficult if not > impossible when people hold to what they already know. And this is > what usually happens. > How can there be a questioning of the " me " if the " me " already > knows all about it? ;-) > When I first posted the " Sense of 'me' " message (perhaps you recall) a member got quite agitated, asking me why that was so important, and challenging my very saying of it ( " are you trying to teach here? " etc. etc.). I was both amused and quite struck by how his exaggerated reaction must be a reflection of how the post threatened him. What is more dire, afterall, than to have what is so precious, one's heavily invested " me " put on the block? > > > That reminds me of a funny statement a coworker made once > > after a long meeting when I was a teacher. At the end of > > a meeting where we had hashed through a ton of stuff and > > in a sense had made some progress but where there was no > > closure... he said, " We are are now confused at a higher > > level and about more important things! " > > LOL! > And does that describe us Len? LOL > > > Did you have any resistance to the emotions involved? > > > > Interesting question. > > What comes is that there was not resistance to the emotions > > per se, but an *impedence* to " seeing the emotions " involved. > > > > I know that impedance and resistance are very similar in meaning, > > but by impedance I mean not a psychological resistance, but > > a " difficulty in seeing " because I had to expand my view quite > > a bit to see it. At one point I noticed I was seeing him as > > " sinister " , and when someone asked me about that I was brought > > to stop, back up, and take a bigger view. I could then see > > that the " sinister " bit was my own material brought into it. > > When I saw that the " binding cycle " was broken. If by resistance > > to the emotions you mean that some content was coming up that > > I was averting, no. It was, rather, something wound back into > > me in such a way that I simply was not seeing it. His behavior > > had been *extremly bizarre* and he seemed mentally imbalanced. > > The drama around it was great enough that I was distracted > > from seeing my own material as part of it. > > There is an element in my own observation of conflict, which seems > to be absent in yours, I´m not sure… > I get the impression that from the moment you realize that what you > project outside of you (sinister) is your own stuff, the cycle is > broken and it´s finished. In the example I gave yes, and in the annoyance example as well. But there have been other cases that have not been like that I can assure you! > In my experience it often takes much more. It can happen that the > whole dynamic of conflict is broken at once, in no time, but some > other times it would take me some minutes, even hours. During this > time the psychological " material " is observed and sensed, it can > sometimes get very tough, because the body has to deal with many > sensations which are initially experienced as very unpleasant. But > when they finally come to an end, there is a feeling as if something > was really ended, understood through and through. And the kind of > conflict which has been observed in such a thorough way doesn´t ever > come back again, as if I have dealt with it for good. I wonder > whether you recognize it. Not sure what you mean by " it " in your question. Sometimes in the past regarding deeply painful material it would sometimes be resolved in a kind of a " spiral process " meaning that it would be cleared somewhat, but then would come up again some time later (months or years) as less intense, but still strong, and so on until it was nothing. What you describe seems like perhaps a more intense engaging with the material in the first place. No way of knowing for sure, of course. What you describe sounds " cathartic " ... almost as if some very deep bruise is tenderly brought to the surface and in contact with light is seen through and through and resolved. The times that come to mind of something being " dealt with for good " in my case seem to have more the nature of " insight " ... suddenly I saw and... it was ended. There was a time when I saw how I had been " mythologizing " certain of my relationships, a pattern that had spanned my entire adult life. And when I saw it I saw it, I saw in such a complete, thorough-going way that the pattern abruptly ended. There was no experience of catharsis involved. All of that was simply over and done with. Getting back to your example, what you describes sounds like a very deep and powerful process. Dealing with feelings has historically been an area of considerable challenge for me, so perhaps I ended up going the " spiral " route rather than going straight through it as you seem to have done in your example. > > > One this and other such lists it seems that a large portion > > of the participants do not say much of anything about themselves, > > their own experiences, etc. I get the impression that there > > is a fear that if one were to do so then their " nondualness " > > would be discredited. And that is why I admire those (such > > as Patricia and Silver) that are willing/able to be vulnerable > > about themselves. Actually, a ounce of vulnerability is worth > > a pound of insight/understanding. Because vulnerability = > > honesty. Vulnerability before others corresponds to vulnerability/ > > honesty with oneself. They simply *have* to go together, in > > my view. > > Very true. > > > PS: BTW, I've haven't felt the intrusion of " ego " stuff in > > this dialog. When the ego does come in, the conversation > > doesn't get beyond the foothills. Someone who *really* > > understands doesn't have anything to lose. So a " plasticity " > > comes into it with such a person. Such plasticity is needed > > to overcome the impedance mismatch of different proclivities > > in terms of " pet " ways of stating things etc. > > > > Yes, my experience is that no fruitful conversation is possible when > the ego intrudes. > In its constant effort to strengthen and confirm itself, it kills > sensitivity and delicacy without which no inquiry is possible. > > Len > That being said, talking about ego never alleviates ego. In fact, ego seems to love to talk about ego, analyze about ego, etcetera. It struck me once that yes, of course, what does ego love more that to talk about *itself*! Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 7, 2006 Report Share Posted April 7, 2006 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > wrote: > A self-fulfilling filter system. > I see X as an enemy, so what X does is easily interpreted > as threatening, or at least " suspicious " . My actions toward > X take on a cold, defensive air. X picks this up and responds > accordingly. Soon we have a hostile relationship, all > self-fulfilled by my filtering system. Yes, this is how projections work. > > And then the description of the view is memorised by the impressed > > listener and worshipped. And if the listener isn't able to see the > > difference between the actual, real view out of his own window and > > the memorised description of the view from the mountain top, he may > > end believing that the view from the mountain top is his own > > experience. > > > Or if the listener is not so positively predisposed, then what is said > is rejected as not fitting the perceived reality of the listener. > > If a particular listener is committed to a particular image > system then that listener is committed to *having an image* > system in general, so the alternatives are to: > a) hear a confirmation of his image system > b) hear and accept an embellishment, extension of his image system > c) reject what is heard as not conforming to his image system > (i.e. it does not fit with " reality " ) > d) accept as a whole a new image system as induced by an overwhelming > enthrallment with the presenter/presentation (a " religious > conversion " so to speak) > > Those are pretty much the possibilities within the limits > of experience as mediated by an image system (nice term, btw!). Precisely. > Thinking about that term just now, it strikes me that > " image " in the sense you have been using that term > inherently implies the " system " quality. Such an image > is memory, locking into memory, round and round (is this > what karma means?). It is certainly a system which strongly influences our life experiences. Karma is usually linked to the idea of reincarnation, and I cannot say anything about it, positive nor negative. > > But I think this " me " is something so familiar, so evident, so > > present in every kind of psychological conflict that we hardly > > notice it. > > Maybe we can look at the " me " from a different angle: > > We often talk about somebody's personality, somebody's character. > > If you were to define what personality actually is, how would you > do > > that? > > Interesting question. I don't think of the notion " personality " > as a significant one, actually. Speaking to how it seems to me > the term is generally used, it is a " container " idea, a kind > of conceptual box that represents the collection of different > *types* of behavior observed with respect to a particualar > individual. > > Character, on the other hand, I *do* find to be significant notion. > To me that is a much deeper notion than that of personality. > Personality I think of as referring to surface, while character > refers to depth. The character will express in the " personality " > to a degree. If the person is " shallow " the character will not be > much evident in the personality. A person that is " true to > his/herself " > will express the character a great deal. OK. If you were asked to describe, let´s say, your boss, or a good friend, how would you do that? > Perhaps this is a place to bring in something that just cropped up > in my mind tonight, and that is the matter of " content " . > > Nondual topics tend toward the abstract. They tend to distill away > all but the universal, that which is true for everyone. > > Character, however, pertains to content, to distinct " qualities " of > an individual. > > I think it is a mistake to sweep aside all matters of content > under the spell of a vision of nondualism that seems to discount > all individual differences. > > Also: When the " true character " manifests, it is not > self-conscious, there is no affectation. It simply is. What is it that manifests? Can you put it in words? > There is something I have been trying to get at in this particular > portion of our discussion. > > Above I wrote: " ...that is the case where the 'offered program' has > been embraced and run with. " > > There is also the possible case where the 'offered program' is > simply observed, *not* embraced, *not* run. > > It seems that was the case with my annoyance example. The annoyance > was felt, but the old programs associated were not invoked. The > " stuff was up " but the *usual catastrope* did not occur. > > It is a kind of middle ground. There is time, because the annoyance > was noticed as " false " in the first place because of the " persistence " > quality. But the loop of behavior of the running program did not > occur, which is time in another sense it seems, a *more false* sense > if you will. > > I consider that to be an important distinction. We can safely assume > that " stuff " will come up into the forseeable future. What is > significant, then, is not *whether* stuff comes up, but what > happens (err.. *doesn't* happen when it does. > > Looking at how the notion of " me " applies in the two different > cases, when the annoyance arises but is not acted on, then > as I see it there is not a becoming process engaged in. But this annoyance is becoming. You don´t act on it, OK, but the process of becoming is running. Annoyance is conflict, is becoming. What you do with it is another thing, and of course it makes a big difference whether you act on it or just watch it. But the conflict is there already. Now, there is a possibility to act on it and the possibility to just stay with it. In the latter case the whole structure of conflict can be understood and really end. > The > " me " is there as a " potential " ; it is " present " in the sense > that the consciousness is divided with the distinction of > " this my annoyance " , but there is not a " me " process going > on, only the potential for one. If the program should engage, > however, the the " me " construct becomes an organizer of > behavior in a becoming process. > > Perhaps a distillation of that would be: > In the one case the " me " is present and an " organizer of > perception " in the contemplation of the annoyance, > but only if the program is engaged is the " me " fully > operative as the " actor " . > > Make sense? You can put it this way, but to me this difference is not so important, the " me " is there already. What I´m interested in is whether the " me " does come to an end in the process of observation. So that there is nothing left of it. > But, if I may press a bit futher on this point, and again > referring to my example of annoyance... is it not possible > that the annoyance could arise, but noticed immediately, > without a " becoming program " ever kicking into gear? > > In my example it seems that was the case. I was fortunate > enough to notice the feeling right away, and so did not > act on that. Another time a similar annoyance arose and > I did contemplate action that I might take. In that case > I would say the becoming *was* an engaged process. But in > the case I was telling you about it was as if the annoyance > was just an irritation in the background, subconscious > really, and when it came to consciousnes it was recognized > right away as " invalid " even as it was being felt, so > contemplation of anything to do in response to it did not > occur. But did the annoyance really end, the root of annoyance, the " me " ? > > > That reminds me of a funny statement a coworker made once > > > after a long meeting when I was a teacher. At the end of > > > a meeting where we had hashed through a ton of stuff and > > > in a sense had made some progress but where there was no > > > closure... he said, " We are are now confused at a higher > > > level and about more important things! " > > > > LOL! > > > And does that describe us Len? > LOL You mean this discussion? I hope not, we´ll see. > > There is an element in my own observation of conflict, which seems > > to be absent in yours, I´m not sure… > > I get the impression that from the moment you realize that what you > > project outside of you (sinister) is your own stuff, the cycle is > > broken and it´s finished. > > In the example I gave yes, and in the annoyance example as well. > But there have been other cases that have not been like that > I can assure you! > > > In my experience it often takes much more. It can happen that the > > whole dynamic of conflict is broken at once, in no time, but some > > other times it would take me some minutes, even hours. During this > > time the psychological " material " is observed and sensed, it can > > sometimes get very tough, because the body has to deal with many > > sensations which are initially experienced as very unpleasant. But > > when they finally come to an end, there is a feeling as if > something > > was really ended, understood through and through. And the kind of > > conflict which has been observed in such a thorough way doesn´t > ever > > come back again, as if I have dealt with it for good. I wonder > > whether you recognize it. > > Not sure what you mean by " it " in your question. I mean the kind of conflict, which has been observed doesn´t arise anymore. To give an example: I may react strongly to somebody, which makes me aware of the fact that I don´t react to him really, but to my past. Then, the feeling triggered in the contact with the person is observed, until it ends. When it really ends, it doesn´t come back, and the relationship with the person either changes or the person just disappears from my life. It´s finished. Dealing with unfinished businesses from the past, changes the actual circumstances of my life. So, again, my life circumstances are a direct result from a sum of my beliefs/conflicts. > Sometimes in the past regarding deeply painful material > it would sometimes be resolved in a kind of a " spiral > process " meaning that it would be cleared somewhat, but > then would come up again some time later (months or years) > as less intense, but still strong, and so on until it > was nothing. What you describe seems like perhaps a more > intense engaging with the material in the first place. > No way of knowing for sure, of course. > > What you describe sounds " cathartic " ... almost as if some > very deep bruise is tenderly brought to the surface and > in contact with light is seen through and through and > resolved. The times that come to mind of something being > " dealt with for good " in my case seem to have more the nature > of " insight " ... suddenly I saw and... it was ended. > There was a time when I saw how I had been " mythologizing " > certain of my relationships, a pattern that had spanned > my entire adult life. And when I saw it I saw it, I saw in > such a complete, thorough-going way that the pattern abruptly > ended. There was no experience of catharsis involved. > All of that was simply over and done with. Yes, I recognize it. > Getting back to your example, what you describes sounds > like a very deep and powerful process. Dealing with > feelings has historically been an area of considerable > challenge for me, so perhaps I ended up going the " spiral " > route rather than going straight through it as you > seem to have done in your example. Could be. I recognize your experiences of going the spiral route, but few times the intensity of what happened was such, that I just didn´t have a choice, and afterwards I´m glad I didn´t, because to see such an awful lot of confusion to disappear at once is amazing. > That being said, talking about ego never alleviates ego. > In fact, ego seems to love to talk about ego, analyze about > ego, etcetera. It struck me once that yes, of course, what > does ego love more that to talk about *itself*! It depends on how you talk about it. If you just go into the stuff and discuss its content, it indeed only perpetuates it. But if you have a look at the whole structure of it, at once, it´s something different. Len Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 8, 2006 Report Share Posted April 8, 2006 Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > > wrote: > > > > A self-fulfilling filter system. > > I see X as an enemy, so what X does is easily interpreted > > as threatening, or at least " suspicious " . My actions toward > > X take on a cold, defensive air. X picks this up and responds > > accordingly. Soon we have a hostile relationship, all > > self-fulfilled by my filtering system. > > > Yes, this is how projections work. > > > > > > And then the description of the view is memorised by the > impressed > > > listener and worshipped. And if the listener isn't able to see > the > > > difference between the actual, real view out of his own window > and > > > the memorised description of the view from the mountain top, he > may > > > end believing that the view from the mountain top is his own > > > experience. > > > > > Or if the listener is not so positively predisposed, then what is > said > > is rejected as not fitting the perceived reality of the listener. > > > > If a particular listener is committed to a particular image > > system then that listener is committed to *having an image* > > system in general, so the alternatives are to: > > a) hear a confirmation of his image system > > b) hear and accept an embellishment, extension of his image system > > c) reject what is heard as not conforming to his image system > > (i.e. it does not fit with " reality " ) > > d) accept as a whole a new image system as induced by an > overwhelming > > enthrallment with the presenter/presentation (a " religious > > conversion " so to speak) > > > > Those are pretty much the possibilities within the limits > > of experience as mediated by an image system (nice term, btw!). > > > Precisely. > > > > > > > Thinking about that term just now, it strikes me that > > " image " in the sense you have been using that term > > inherently implies the " system " quality. Such an image > > is memory, locking into memory, round and round (is this > > what karma means?). > > > > It is certainly a system which strongly influences our life > experiences. > Karma is usually linked to the idea of reincarnation, and I cannot > say anything about it, positive nor negative. > > > > > > > But I think this " me " is something so familiar, so evident, so > > > present in every kind of psychological conflict that we hardly > > > notice it. > > > Maybe we can look at the " me " from a different angle: > > > We often talk about somebody's personality, somebody's character. > > > If you were to define what personality actually is, how would > you > > do > > > that? > > > > Interesting question. I don't think of the notion " personality " > > as a significant one, actually. Speaking to how it seems to me > > the term is generally used, it is a " container " idea, a kind > > of conceptual box that represents the collection of different > > *types* of behavior observed with respect to a particualar > > individual. > > > > Character, on the other hand, I *do* find to be significant notion. > > To me that is a much deeper notion than that of personality. > > Personality I think of as referring to surface, while character > > refers to depth. The character will express in the " personality " > > to a degree. If the person is " shallow " the character will not be > > much evident in the personality. A person that is " true to > > his/herself " > > will express the character a great deal. > > OK. If you were asked to describe, let´s say, your boss, or a good > friend, how would you do that? > It would depend on the context and purpose of the description. For example, if I were asked if the person would be a suitable candidate for a certain job I would describe in terms of the criteria for that job. If I were describing for the purpose of describing a certain incident, I would describe the relevant characteristics. I can't imagine an abstract " this is the essence of that person " type of characterization. I think it is important to be humble about just how much we can " see " in others. Some are certainly more opaque to me than others, but even for the ones what I can " read " more clearly, I try not to assume too much. Same with myself. Definitions of " what I am like " or " what that person is like " are to me traps of confinement, a form of bondage. What is " unconditioned attention " afterall, if not having no pre-judgements of what is the case. Speaking of this topic, I am often amazed at how some will seem to believe they have " nailed " exactly what a person is and is about just from reading a few messages, sometimes from a single sentence! I am oriented toward open-endedness. I prefer Vast Vistas of the Unknown to confined corrals of certainty. > > Perhaps this is a place to bring in something that just cropped up > > in my mind tonight, and that is the matter of " content " . > > > > Nondual topics tend toward the abstract. They tend to distill away > > all but the universal, that which is true for everyone. > > > > Character, however, pertains to content, to distinct " qualities " of > > an individual. > > > > I think it is a mistake to sweep aside all matters of content > > under the spell of a vision of nondualism that seems to discount > > all individual differences. > > > > Also: When the " true character " manifests, it is not > > self-conscious, there is no affectation. It simply is. > > What is it that manifests? > Can you put it in words? > What manifests when true character manifests? Depends on the person. But whatever it is, it is genuine. There is no hesitation. It is deeply authenticy... what emerges emerges with unquestionable authority. In writing, for example, some really show their character. They are not afraid to come forth with who they are. Others, while possibly very skilled, are more cagey in their writing, full of indirection, aiming to please, etcetera. I'm sure you know what I mean. So while you can't define what " true character " is, you know it when you see it. It may take some exposure to become sure, but when you know you know. That's my view anyway. I LOVE a good question. And a good question is one that gives me pause... such as this one. > > There is something I have been trying to get at in this particular > > portion of our discussion. > > > > Above I wrote: " ...that is the case where the 'offered program' > has > > been embraced and run with. " > > > > There is also the possible case where the 'offered program' is > > simply observed, *not* embraced, *not* run. > > > > It seems that was the case with my annoyance example. The > annoyance > > was felt, but the old programs associated were not invoked. The > > " stuff was up " but the *usual catastrope* did not occur. > > > > It is a kind of middle ground. There is time, because the annoyance > > was noticed as " false " in the first place because of > the " persistence " > > quality. But the loop of behavior of the running program did not > > occur, which is time in another sense it seems, a *more false* > sense > > if you will. > > > > I consider that to be an important distinction. We can safely > assume > > that " stuff " will come up into the forseeable future. What is > > significant, then, is not *whether* stuff comes up, but what > > happens (err.. *doesn't* happen when it does. > > > > Looking at how the notion of " me " applies in the two different > > cases, when the annoyance arises but is not acted on, then > > as I see it there is not a becoming process engaged in. > > But this annoyance is becoming. > You don´t act on it, OK, but the process of becoming is running. > Annoyance is conflict, is becoming. Perhaps it is true that even in the first evidence of annoyance a ball is already rolling... but it hasn't really gotten underway yet, rolling perhaps very slowly... And I can see also the annoyance is inherently a kind of conflict. But from those I don't necssarily see a becoming process. You seem to equate conflict with becoming. Is that so? If so, how so? Again, I see it in terms of a program... first the program is proffered... the proffer is tendered... then engaged or not. I see the engaging of the program as the becoming. Notice though, that we are working from different models. You seem to be working more from a psychological model. I, on the other hand, am working more from an informations systems and dynamic systems model. So at the interstices of the correlation of our two models there can be a fuzzy mismatch, simply because the models don't completely correlate. It is akin to the problem with carrying an analogy too far. Eventually it breaks down. Because we are working from different models we will tend to say different things, particularly at what in programming (and mathematics) we call " limit cases " . We are discussing here the oftentimes fractional moment from recognition of " stuff coming up " (say annoyance) to the response to that, which I see as a limit case. In other words it is a very fine point. Fundamentally our views on this correlate remarkably. It just is coming down to whether we *say* there is " becoming " at this point or only at that. It can be argued that the distinction is neither here nor there. In software the phrase " religious discussion " is used to refer to debates over pet models and such. And the adage there is: be wary of religious debates. They generate a lot of heat and very little light. > What you do with it is another thing, and of course it makes a big > difference whether you act on it or just watch it. But the conflict > is there already. > Now, there is a possibility to act on it and the possibility to just > stay with it. > In the latter case the whole structure of conflict can be understood > and really end. yes, absolutely > > > The > > " me " is there as a " potential " ; it is " present " in the sense > > that the consciousness is divided with the distinction of > > " this my annoyance " , but there is not a " me " process going > > on, only the potential for one. If the program should engage, > > however, the the " me " construct becomes an organizer of > > behavior in a becoming process. > > > > Perhaps a distillation of that would be: > > In the one case the " me " is present and an " organizer of > > perception " in the contemplation of the annoyance, > > but only if the program is engaged is the " me " fully > > operative as the " actor " . > > > > Make sense? > > You can put it this way, but to me this difference is not so > important, the " me " is there already. > What I´m interested in is whether the " me " does come to an end in > the process of observation. > So that there is nothing left of it. > In my view the notion of " me " is not so crucial. If there is " stuff up " then slow down, pay real attention. That's it. I prefer to deal with it in a totally non-verbal way. I just " sense what it is " ... to its roots as it were. What I *call it* is of no interest to me. My attention is more complete if I don't say to myself " this is an X " , but rather just " merge with it " , experience it so fully, so deeply, that the sense of separation from " it " is dissolved. Hadn't put this in words before, or even thought about it, but that is the process: go into it deep deep, merging, digesting, dissolving... to where there is no " it " anymore... the " salt doll is melted back into the sea " . > > > But, if I may press a bit futher on this point, and again > > referring to my example of annoyance... is it not possible > > that the annoyance could arise, but noticed immediately, > > without a " becoming program " ever kicking into gear? > > > > In my example it seems that was the case. I was fortunate > > enough to notice the feeling right away, and so did not > > act on that. Another time a similar annoyance arose and > > I did contemplate action that I might take. In that case > > I would say the becoming *was* an engaged process. But in > > the case I was telling you about it was as if the annoyance > > was just an irritation in the background, subconscious > > really, and when it came to consciousnes it was recognized > > right away as " invalid " even as it was being felt, so > > contemplation of anything to do in response to it did not > > occur. > > But did the annoyance really end, the root of annoyance, the " me " ? There was insight and transformation. Which is not to say there will never be annoyance again. > > > > That reminds me of a funny statement a coworker made once > > > > after a long meeting when I was a teacher. At the end of > > > > a meeting where we had hashed through a ton of stuff and > > > > in a sense had made some progress but where there was no > > > > closure... he said, " We are are now confused at a higher > > > > level and about more important things! " > > > > > > LOL! > > > > > And does that describe us Len? > > LOL > > You mean this discussion? > I hope not, we´ll see. > Humility... think of it as prophylaxis > > > > There is an element in my own observation of conflict, which > seems > > > to be absent in yours, I´m not sure… > > > I get the impression that from the moment you realize that what > you > > > project outside of you (sinister) is your own stuff, the cycle > is > > > broken and it´s finished. > > > > In the example I gave yes, and in the annoyance example as well. > > But there have been other cases that have not been like that > > I can assure you! > > > > > In my experience it often takes much more. It can happen that > the > > > whole dynamic of conflict is broken at once, in no time, but > some > > > other times it would take me some minutes, even hours. During > this > > > time the psychological " material " is observed and sensed, it can > > > sometimes get very tough, because the body has to deal with many > > > sensations which are initially experienced as very unpleasant. > But > > > when they finally come to an end, there is a feeling as if > > something > > > was really ended, understood through and through. And the kind > of > > > conflict which has been observed in such a thorough way doesn´t > > ever > > > come back again, as if I have dealt with it for good. I wonder > > > whether you recognize it. > > > > Not sure what you mean by " it " in your question. > > I mean the kind of conflict, which has been observed doesn´t arise > anymore. > To give an example: I may react strongly to somebody, which makes me > aware of the fact that I don´t react to him really, but to my past. > Then, the feeling triggered in the contact with the person is > observed, until it ends. When it really ends, it doesn´t come back, > and the relationship with the person either changes or the person > just disappears from my life. > It´s finished. Yes. In the example involving my boss, not only did seeing that transform completely that particular dynamic in my relationship with him, but I am also now surely more alert to seeing that kind of dyanmic should it crop up in the future. It doesn't mean there will never be that particular type of challenge again, but it does mean the I am likely to " catch it " more readily next time. > Dealing with unfinished businesses from the past, changes the actual > circumstances of my life. > So, again, my life circumstances are a direct result from a sum of > my beliefs/conflicts. yes... and I will add, for my view, that the less beliefs the less conflicts > > Sometimes in the past regarding deeply painful material > > it would sometimes be resolved in a kind of a " spiral > > process " meaning that it would be cleared somewhat, but > > then would come up again some time later (months or years) > > as less intense, but still strong, and so on until it > > was nothing. What you describe seems like perhaps a more > > intense engaging with the material in the first place. > > No way of knowing for sure, of course. > > > > What you describe sounds " cathartic " ... almost as if some > > very deep bruise is tenderly brought to the surface and > > in contact with light is seen through and through and > > resolved. The times that come to mind of something being > > " dealt with for good " in my case seem to have more the nature > > of " insight " ... suddenly I saw and... it was ended. > > > There was a time when I saw how I had been " mythologizing " > > certain of my relationships, a pattern that had spanned > > my entire adult life. And when I saw it I saw it, I saw in > > such a complete, thorough-going way that the pattern abruptly > > ended. There was no experience of catharsis involved. > > All of that was simply over and done with. > > Yes, I recognize it. > > > Getting back to your example, what you describes sounds > > like a very deep and powerful process. Dealing with > > feelings has historically been an area of considerable > > challenge for me, so perhaps I ended up going the " spiral " > > route rather than going straight through it as you > > seem to have done in your example. > > Could be. > I recognize your experiences of going the spiral route, but few > times the intensity of what happened was such, that I just didn´t > have a choice, and afterwards I´m glad I didn´t, because to see such > an awful lot of confusion to disappear at once is amazing. > > > That being said, talking about ego never alleviates ego. > > In fact, ego seems to love to talk about ego, analyze about > > ego, etcetera. It struck me once that yes, of course, what > > does ego love more that to talk about *itself*! > > It depends on how you talk about it. > If you just go into the stuff and discuss its content, it indeed > only perpetuates it. > But if you have a look at the whole structure of it, at once, it´s > something different. > > Len > And the structure always seems to be a " loop back " ... a way in which we are actually being our own puppeteer without realizing it. Which is why the maxim: " it's not about the other person, it's about you " is such a reliable guide. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 8, 2006 Report Share Posted April 8, 2006 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > wrote: > > OK. If you were asked to describe, let´s say, your boss, or a good > > friend, how would you do that? > > > It would depend on the context and purpose of the description. > For example, if I were asked if the person would be a suitable > candidate for a certain job I would describe in terms of the > criteria for that job. OK. Can you describe yourself in terms of the criteria for your boss´s job ? (Maybe you will need it soon, who knows? ;-)) > What manifests when true character manifests? > > Depends on the person. But whatever it is, it is genuine. > There is no hesitation. It is deeply authenticy... what > emerges emerges with unquestionable authority. > > In writing, for example, some really show their character. > They are not afraid to come forth with who they are. And who are they? > > But this annoyance is becoming. > > You don´t act on it, OK, but the process of becoming is running. > > Annoyance is conflict, is becoming. > > Perhaps it is true that even in the first evidence of > annoyance a ball is already rolling... but it hasn't really gotten > underway yet, rolling perhaps very slowly... > > And I can see also the annoyance is inherently a kind of conflict. > > But from those I don't necssarily see a becoming process. > You seem to equate conflict with becoming. Is that so? > If so, how so? Yes. Conflict is there when there is a thought that something should be different from how it is. This thought is becoming. > Again, I see it in terms of a program... first the program is > proffered... the proffer is tendered... then engaged or not. > I see the engaging of the program as the becoming. > > Notice though, that we are working from different models. > You seem to be working more from a psychological model. > I, on the other hand, am working more from an informations > systems and dynamic systems model. So at the interstices of > the correlation of our two models there can be a fuzzy > mismatch, simply because the models don't completely > correlate. It is akin to the problem with carrying an > analogy too far. Eventually it breaks down. > > Because we are working from different models we will tend to > say different things, particularly at what in programming > (and mathematics) we call " limit cases " . We are discussing > here the oftentimes fractional moment from recognition of > " stuff coming up " (say annoyance) to the response to that, > which I see as a limit case. In other words it is a very fine > point. Fundamentally our views on this correlate remarkably. > It just is coming down to whether we *say* there is " becoming " > at this point or only at that. It can be argued that the > distinction is neither here nor there. > > In software the phrase " religious discussion " is used to > refer to debates over pet models and such. And the adage > there is: be wary of religious debates. They generate a lot > of heat and very little light. Yes, but this is not going to happen, we are much too wise for that ;-) I am interested in the SEED of becoming. If the seed of becoming can be destroyed, this means the end of becoming. The seed of becoming is the " me " . We must understand the " me " . > > But did the annoyance really end, the root of annoyance, the " me " ? > > There was insight and transformation. > Which is not to say there will never be annoyance again. But the " me " , did it stop, at least for a while? > > Dealing with unfinished businesses from the past, changes the > actual > > circumstances of my life. > > So, again, my life circumstances are a direct result from a sum of > > my beliefs/conflicts. > > yes... and I will add, for my view, that the less beliefs the > less conflicts Belief is conflict is becoming. > And the structure always seems to be a " loop back " ... > a way in which we are actually being our own puppeteer > without realizing it. > > Which is why the maxim: > " it's not about the other person, it's about you " > is such a reliable guide. True. Len Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 9, 2006 Report Share Posted April 9, 2006 Len, The notion of " becoming " appears a lot in this discussion and I would like to get some clarification about our respective interpretations of that term. I have been assuming that you mean " becoming " in a sense consistent with the way Krishnamurti has so often used it, as in: ...The idea of becoming arises only when there is a sense of insecurity..., the inward void. If you are aware of that process of thought and feeling, you will see that there is a constant battle going on, an effort to change, to modify, to alter what is. This is the effort to become, and becoming is a direct avoidance of what is. Through self-knowledge, through constant awareness, you will find that strife, battle, the conflict of becoming, leads to pain, to sorrow and ignorance. It is only if you are aware of inward insufficiency and live with it without escape, accepting it wholly, that you will discover an extraordinary tranquillity, a tranquillity which is not put together, made up, but a tranquillity which comes with understanding of what is. Only in that state of tranquillity is there creative being..... Is that consistent with what you mean? > > > > OK. If you were asked to describe, let´s say, your boss, or a > good > > > friend, how would you do that? > > > > > It would depend on the context and purpose of the description. > > For example, if I were asked if the person would be a suitable > > candidate for a certain job I would describe in terms of the > > criteria for that job. > > OK. Can you describe yourself in terms of the criteria for your > boss´s job ? > (Maybe you will need it soon, who knows? ;-)) Suppose I could, but it would just be a fiction... I don't have a sense of myself as a set of attributes. To say " I am this, I am that " ... that is inherently fiction, and goes against the grain. I don't need an idea of " what I am " ... That is because this is just awareness writing. Awareness doesn't *need* stuff. Doesn't even need a purpose. The sense of " self as person " is antique... of no use. May I ask, where are you trying to go with those questions? > > What manifests when true character manifests? > > > > Depends on the person. But whatever it is, it is genuine. > > There is no hesitation. It is deeply authenticy... what > > emerges emerges with unquestionable authority. > > > > In writing, for example, some really show their character. > > They are not afraid to come forth with who they are. > > And who are they? You want names? If you know what I mean then surely you can see for yourself. But it was you asking about those distinctions. I might notice that a particular person speaks " authentically " , and that another not so much, but it is not something I really think about. And anyone is capable of an abrupt change. Nothing is final. > > > But this annoyance is becoming. > > > You don´t act on it, OK, but the process of becoming is running. > > > Annoyance is conflict, is becoming. > > > > Perhaps it is true that even in the first evidence of > > annoyance a ball is already rolling... but it hasn't really gotten > > underway yet, rolling perhaps very slowly... > > > > And I can see also the annoyance is inherently a kind of conflict. > > > > But from those I don't necssarily see a becoming process. > > You seem to equate conflict with becoming. Is that so? > > If so, how so? > > Yes. Conflict is there when there is a thought that something should > be different from how it is. > This thought is becoming. " Annoyance " is inherently not totally accepting of what is. So in that sense annoyance is a resistance. But I don't think of an *immediate sense* of annoyance as a " thought that something should be different. " Let's reframe this a bit: If one is studying at home and suddenly a jackhammer outside where they are working in the street starts creating a racket. The noise is annoying, distracting. Suppose then one gets up and closes the window to reduce the noise, and then returns to the studying. Or: one is at home and starts feeling uncomforable because the clothing worn is too warm and one starts feeling hot. So one changes clothing and is comfortable. I suppose one could call those examples of " becoming " , but I would not call them that. To me becoming is involved when there is a process over time to " change oneself " , where there is a *goal* to become different as a person or whatever. So to me if there is not a thought of the form: I am X and I *should be* Y, so I will begin to transform myself from X to Y... if there is no such or similar process involved then it is not becoming in a sense such as what, in my view, Krishnamurti talked about that. So when you say: " Conflict is there when there is a thought that something should be different from how it is, " that needs to be qualified in my view. That the noise from the street is disturbing one's studies is not conflict in a meaningful psychological sense, as I see it. For example, one may get up and close the window, but the noise is still too loud for studying. So one then simply discontinues studying for a time, accepting the inconvenience. No conflict. Again, to me " becoming " in this context of discussion is about *oneself* as imagined in a process of becoming, not just " something should be different " . I see the table is dirty and decide that it *should be cleaned*. No becoming involved. > > Again, I see it in terms of a program... first the program is > > proffered... the proffer is tendered... then engaged or not. > > I see the engaging of the program as the becoming. > > > > Notice though, that we are working from different models. > > You seem to be working more from a psychological model. > > I, on the other hand, am working more from an informations > > systems and dynamic systems model. So at the interstices of > > the correlation of our two models there can be a fuzzy > > mismatch, simply because the models don't completely > > correlate. It is akin to the problem with carrying an > > analogy too far. Eventually it breaks down. > > > > Because we are working from different models we will tend to > > say different things, particularly at what in programming > > (and mathematics) we call " limit cases " . We are discussing > > here the oftentimes fractional moment from recognition of > > " stuff coming up " (say annoyance) to the response to that, > > which I see as a limit case. In other words it is a very fine > > point. Fundamentally our views on this correlate remarkably. > > It just is coming down to whether we *say* there is " becoming " > > at this point or only at that. It can be argued that the > > distinction is neither here nor there. > > > > In software the phrase " religious discussion " is used to > > refer to debates over pet models and such. And the adage > > there is: be wary of religious debates. They generate a lot > > of heat and very little light. > > Yes, but this is not going to happen, we are much too wise for > that ;-) > I am interested in the SEED of becoming. > If the seed of becoming can be destroyed, this means the end of > becoming. > The seed of becoming is the " me " . > We must understand the " me " . OK, good, so let's go into *that*... as it sounds like a good focus. That means we must investigate what this matter of the " me " is about. Note at the outset, however, that I am not interested in " theoretical " concepts. If it cannot be recognized directly in the present then it is not really valuable. And *that* means that labels cannot be essential. It seems to me that: If there is a " centre " , if there is an " in here " vis-a-vis a world " out there " , that is a " me " polarization. I like how you put: " The seed of becoming is the me. " That I can agree with. The arising of a " me " sense does not, in my view, inherently constitute a " becoming process " . But " me " as a seed for that, yes that does make good sense. But what is the seed of the " me " ? I am inclined to say: non-acceptance resistance to What Is Krishnamurti, from the quote above: " ...The idea of becoming arises only when there is a sense of insecurity..., the inward void. " Is non-acceptance due to a sense of insecurity? Makes sense to me. Is a sense of insecurity due to non-acceptance? No so clear. So maybe Krishnamurti's notion is more fundamental. Once again, I think it important to distinguish between description and prescription. In my view all we are talking about here is description. And *any* prescription is inherently an inducement to enter into a becoming process. > > > But did the annoyance really end, the root of annoyance, > the " me " ? > > > > There was insight and transformation. > > Which is not to say there will never be annoyance again. > > > > But the " me " , did it stop, at least for a while? There wasn't really a " sense of 'me' " in it. If there was a " me " it was only momentary. In the example I gave of the " annoyance " presenting there was not resistance to it, there was just a witnessing. I don't consider that a " becoming " process. You seem to want to call the mere " sense of annoyance " a resistance and conflict. I don't. There was *not* conflict because there was not resistance. To me what counts is what occurs in *consciousness*. There was not conflict, in my view, because there was not resistence in consciousness. It is only when what presents is not accepted in consiousness that there is the resistence to What Is. That's my view. > > > Dealing with unfinished businesses from the past, changes the > > actual > > > circumstances of my life. > > > So, again, my life circumstances are a direct result from a sum > of > > > my beliefs/conflicts. > > > > yes... and I will add, for my view, that the less beliefs the > > less conflicts > > > > Belief is conflict is becoming. I like that statement a lot! Though what I really like is the first part: Belief is conflict. Now that is one powerful statement! I see it as true because belief (as I am interpreting that term) is inherently a non-acceptance of What Is. What if someone were to say that they believe the best way to live is to simply accept What Is, to be vitally awake, aware in the Now... But if one is really engaged in the present in an open accepting way one does not need a belief in that. This can get very technical though, and more than I care to go into. I will say this: The common notion of belief seems to constitute a " prescription " , a prescription how to be. If a " belief " is not a prescription but merely a description, then belief does not inherently entail conflict. The other part, " conflict is becoming " seems not so solid a statement. What does conflict mean there? I can think of three or more different interpretations, with different signifcance for the statement. For example, " conflict " can mean an ongoing process of some kind of strife. Per that interpretation the statement seems reasonable. But if conflict is something sensed in the moment, as perhaps a kind of tension, that in itself does not entail a becoming process, as becoming is an unfolding over time, is not instantaneous. As I see it " becoming " is meaningful only as a process occurring over time and entailing the consciously engaged efforts of some imagined " someone " . BUT... if by " belief " we mean a *prescription*, then belief is a commitment to a becoming process. So it does make sense to me to say, " Belief is a seed of becoming. " Bill > > And the structure always seems to be a " loop back " ... > > a way in which we are actually being our own puppeteer > > without realizing it. > > > > Which is why the maxim: > > " it's not about the other person, it's about you " > > is such a reliable guide. > > > True. > > Len > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 9, 2006 Report Share Posted April 9, 2006 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > Len, > > The notion of " becoming " appears a lot in this discussion > and I would like to get some clarification about our > respective interpretations of that term. I have been assuming > that you mean " becoming " in a sense consistent with the way > Krishnamurti has so often used it, as in: > > ...The idea of becoming arises only when there is a sense of > insecurity..., the inward void. If you are aware of that > process of thought and feeling, you will see that there is a > constant battle going on, an effort to change, to modify, to > alter what is. This is the effort to become, and becoming is a > direct avoidance of what is. Through self-knowledge, through > constant awareness, you will find that strife, battle, the > conflict of becoming, leads to pain, to sorrow and ignorance. > It is only if you are aware of inward insufficiency and live > with it without escape, accepting it wholly, that you will > discover an extraordinary tranquillity, a tranquillity which is > not put together, made up, but a tranquillity which comes with > understanding of what is. Only in that state of tranquillity is > there creative being..... > > Is that consistent with what you mean? Exactly. > I don't need an idea of " what I am " ... > > That is because this is just awareness writing. > Awareness doesn't *need* stuff. > Doesn't even need a purpose. > The sense of " self as person " is antique... > of no use. OK. So you define yourself as awareness instead of as a person, right? > May I ask, where are you trying to go with those questions? I wanted to look at the structure of " me " but I´m not sure whether you want to do that ;-) You seem convinced that you don´t believe in this structure, which means that the belief in it is not conscious. It cannot be examined, in this case. > " Annoyance " is inherently not totally accepting of what is. > So in that sense annoyance is a resistance. But I don't > think of an *immediate sense* of annoyance as a " thought that > something should be different. " > > Let's reframe this a bit: > If one is studying at home and suddenly a jackhammer outside > where they are working in the street starts creating a racket. > The noise is annoying, distracting. Suppose then one gets up > and closes the window to reduce the noise, and then returns > to the studying. > > Or: one is at home and starts feeling uncomforable because > the clothing worn is too warm and one starts feeling hot. > So one changes clothing and is comfortable. This is, of course something else, I don´t mean that. > I suppose one could call those examples of " becoming " , but > I would not call them that. This is taking care of bodily comfort which is necessary. > To me becoming is involved when > there is a process over time to " change oneself " , where > there is a *goal* to become different as a person or whatever. > > So to me if there is not a thought of the form: I am X and > I *should be* Y, so I will begin to transform myself from > X to Y... > if there is no such or similar process involved then it is > not becoming in a sense such as what, in my view, Krishnamurti > talked about that. He says: " …If you are aware of that process of thought and feeling, you will see that there is a constant battle going on, an effort to change, to modify, to alter what is. " This is also how I mean it. It mustn't be necessarily yourself whom you want to be different, anything which you want to be different from how it is now, is becoming. Of course, we aren´t talking about obvious needs of the body: to eat when you are hungry or to take your jumper off when it´s hot or to build a house for yourself, is not becoming. When there is a fight against what´s there, because what is there cannot be acknowledged, understood, without escaping it, there is becoming. When you react defensively to somebody who is saying something which you rather don´t hear, there is becoming. > > I am interested in the SEED of becoming. > > If the seed of becoming can be destroyed, this means the end of > > becoming. > > The seed of becoming is the " me " . > > We must understand the " me " . > > OK, good, so let's go into *that*... as it sounds like > a good focus. > > That means we must investigate what this matter of the > " me " is about. > > Note at the outset, however, that I am not interested in > " theoretical " concepts. If it cannot be recognized directly > in the present then it is not really valuable. And *that* > means that labels cannot be essential. > > It seems to me that: > If there is a " centre " , if there is an " in here " vis-a-vis > a world " out there " , that is a " me " polarization. > > I like how you put: " The seed of becoming is the me. " > That I can agree with. The arising of a " me " sense does > not, in my view, inherently constitute a " becoming process " . > But " me " as a seed for that, yes that does make good sense. > > But what is the seed of the " me " ? > > I am inclined to say: > > non-acceptance > resistance to What Is The seed of " me " is the " me " thought. And then – we have a whole structure of images around it with which the " me " thought identifies. > Krishnamurti, from the quote above: > " ...The idea of becoming arises only when there is a sense of > insecurity..., the inward void. " > > Is non-acceptance due to a sense of insecurity? > Makes sense to me. I would say: non acceptance is a consequence of identification with the image system which is supposed to provide one with security, and which, paradoxically, creates insecurity. Thought searching security in a set of images which it identifies with, creates insecurity, because images are invariable and reality is constantly changing. > Is a sense of insecurity due to non-acceptance? Sense of insecurity is due to clinging to security which simply does not exist. > > But the " me " , did it stop, at least for a while? > > There wasn't really a " sense of 'me' " in it. > If there was a " me " it was only momentary. This is a difficult point to examine. The sense of " me " is constant, one is so identified with it, it is so familiar that one even doesn´t notice it. You only realize that the sense of " me " was always there, when it stops. This is a paradox: to watch it, one must be aware of it. But it is so familiar that one only realizes its presence (and unreality) when its gone. That´s why I asked you to talk about your perception of people's and your own personality. This is the structure of " me " and the only reason for beliefs, misconceptions, self-defence and all reactive emotions. Without this structure no emotions can arise. If you don´t see that you use it all the time, you want be able to examine it. That´s a bad thing with religious theories; one wants to fit the beautiful descriptions and starts believing in them so much that the contact with reality is lost. In your case you started believing in being awareness and don´t notice that this is just another image which " me " clings to. This structure must be recognized as an image, and all defensive reactions of the ego who wants to stick to this definition must be felt and dissolved. So, we have arrived at the tough part :-) 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.