Guest guest Posted April 18, 2006 Report Share Posted April 18, 2006 In a message dated 4/18/2006 6:31:21 AM Pacific Daylight Time, lissbon2002 writes: > > I was observing it today. It seems to be the case with every > psychological conflict: there are two thought constructs fighting > each other. Realizing this and watching this movement takes a lot of > energy out of it. Fascinating. > > Len L.E: The details of mind and ego are endless. When you are ready to go beyond them, silence will help. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 18, 2006 Report Share Posted April 18, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/17/2006 1:23:01 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Mon, 17 Apr 2006 19:06:43 -0000 > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 > Re: Non-Existing Ego > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 4/16/2006 12:44:13 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > Illusion can only exist as long as the fact that it is a product > of > > image processes is not entirely conscious. Wouldn´t you agree? > > If you see clearly how an illusion is brought about, do you still > > buy it? And if you don´t, what is left of it? > > > > > > > > > > > > Phil: Very interesting area of discussion, Len. These are the > sort of > > questions I've been asking myself. I would say the process by > which we've been > > conditioned by experience is very different from the processes of > the > > unconscious. (For example, pretending not to judge and then > judging others for being > > judgmental) > > > > I wonder: aren´t the processes of the unconscious also conditioned > by experience? > If projection, pretence and judgment are something I see in my > environment, I´m very likely to take it over through experiencing > it. > P: Ultimately, everything in mind is conditioned by experience, but I don't > think we, for example, notice others projecting and then start doing that > ourselves. The reason is that the process of projection isn't clear to anybody > until they've seen themselves do it. I think the unconscious ego games are the > natural outcome of our conditioning, but is not itself conditioned. Conditioning/imitation takes place on all levels, whether we realize it or not. Unconscious processes are being taken over unconsciously. > > Phil: Where we find ourselves now is that all of our senses point > to the > > illusion as being the only reality there is, and the only tool we > have to > > explore this supposed reality is the mind, which is essentially an > illusion maker; > > it created it to begin with. And so I would say that the tool we > used to > > reveal our unconscious processes is not going to reveal that the > illusion is not > > real. True, the image creating process can be seen, and this has > value, but > > to me this process just looks like the process of perceiving an > objective > > reality. > > > > It is perception which reveals the image creating process. We just > need to realize that the content of an image is just that: a content > of an image. Thinking cannot realize that, only perception can make > it obvious. > P: What we've been calling 'direct perception', right? What I call > intuition. I'll spend some time 'looking' in that 'direction' and see what shows up. > Have you been able to notice this, Len? Yes. In some cases there is suddenly the perception of the entire process and the whole image collapses. At some other areas the direct perception is clearly missing, and intellectually " recognizing " something as an image doesn´t end the illusion. I´ve noticed, that the total perception of all available data (thought processes and complete body awareness) often destroys images. It is the intensity of resistance (fear) which makes the observation difficult. Reactions/images with little intensity of resistance collapse very easily. Strong reactions/powerful images can take hours of observation before they collapse. Some seem not- observable at all, due to the intensity of reactions. These images interest me the most. I would be interested to hear about your observations. > > Phil: It's very interesting that you would bring this up, cause > last night I > > was focussing intuitively on consciousness, noticing with more > clarity how > > consciousness is not really the witness of the experience, but > the experience > > itself. I started to feel nauseous, feverish and very > disconnected. I stopped > > and answered some emails and in about 20 min, I felt fine. > > > > > > Phil: The thing is, this has happened a couple of times before > and I just > > attributed it to an energy problem. (I had a kundalini release a > few years ago, > > and I've had many odd energy related things happen.) This time, I > realized > > that I was resisting in some way. It didn't feel like fear, but I > believe now > > that it was. The feeling of being disconnected from everything > was odd and > > extremely uncomfortable. I caught myself projecting into the > future what it > > would be like to feel that way all the time, and all I could > think about was how > > to stop it. > > > > So, thought created the image of you feeling that way all the time, > it attached a negative judgment to it and triggered an unpleasant > reaction of fear. Body was ready to fight or to run away, but there > was nothing to fight or to run away from, except of a thought. And > it was also a thought which wanted to fight or to run away. So > actually it was thought, split in two opposites, which was fighting > or running away from itself. > > > > > > P: Yup, that's what happens. I was observing it today. It seems to be the case with every psychological conflict: there are two thought constructs fighting each other. Realizing this and watching this movement takes a lot of energy out of it. Fascinating. Len Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 19, 2006 Report Share Posted April 19, 2006 In a message dated 4/18/2006 7:39:45 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 13:07:44 -0000 " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 Re: Non-Existing Ego > P: What we've been calling 'direct perception', right? What I call > intuition. I'll spend some time 'looking' in that 'direction' and see what shows up. > Have you been able to notice this, Len? Yes. In some cases there is suddenly the perception of the entire process and the whole image collapses. At some other areas the direct perception is clearly missing, and intellectually " recognizing " something as an image doesn´t end the illusion. I´ve noticed, that the total perception of all available data (thought processes and complete body awareness) often destroys images. It is the intensity of resistance (fear) which makes the observation difficult. Reactions/images with little intensity of resistance collapse very easily. Strong reactions/powerful images can take hours of observation before they collapse. Some seem not- observable at all, due to the intensity of reactions. These images interest me the most. I would be interested to hear about your observations. Phil: I want to make sure we're talking about the same thing. Can you give an example of an 'image' that collapsed? If the " whole image " has collapsed for you once, why must it occur again? I was observing it today. It seems to be the case with every psychological conflict: there are two thought constructs fighting each other. Realizing this and watching this movement takes a lot of energy out of it. Fascinating. Phil: Yes. The split mind. It remains split only by virtue of the tension (resistance) between the two. Since there really aren't two, the split requires this continual energy in order to maintain itself. The willingness to observe it, tends to dissolve the resistance, and therefore the split. This is surrender that dissolves the struggle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 19, 2006 Report Share Posted April 19, 2006 In a message dated 4/18/2006 7:39:45 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 09:35:45 EDT epston Re: Re: Non-Existing Ego In a message dated 4/18/2006 6:31:21 AM Pacific Daylight Time, lissbon2002 writes: > > I was observing it today. It seems to be the case with every > psychological conflict: there are two thought constructs fighting > each other. Realizing this and watching this movement takes a lot of > energy out of it. Fascinating. > > Len L.E: The details of mind and ego are endless. When you are ready to go beyond them, silence will help. I thought it was your understanding that there is nothing that can be examined in mind/ego. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 19, 2006 Report Share Posted April 19, 2006 In a message dated 4/18/2006 9:18:02 PM Pacific Daylight Time, ADHHUB writes: > In a message dated 4/18/2006 7:39:45 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Tue, 18 Apr 2006 09:35:45 EDT > epston > Re: Re: Non-Existing Ego > > In a message dated 4/18/2006 6:31:21 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > lissbon2002 writes: > > > > >I was observing it today. It seems to be the case with every > >psychological conflict: there are two thought constructs fighting > >each other. Realizing this and watching this movement takes a lot of > >energy out of it. Fascinating. > > > > Len > > L.E: The details of mind and ego are endless. When you are ready to go > beyond them, silence will help. > > Phil: I thought it was your understanding that there is nothing that can be > > examined in mind/ego. > L.E: No no. You can spend the days of your life looking at the details of mind from the outside and ego from the inside, but you can also go beyond all of that and silence will help. Do you ever sit silently or are you always analyzing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 19, 2006 Report Share Posted April 19, 2006 In a message dated 4/19/2006 12:12:06 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 00:23:00 EDT epston Re: Non-Existing Ego In a message dated 4/18/2006 9:18:02 PM Pacific Daylight Time, ADHHUB writes: > In a message dated 4/18/2006 7:39:45 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Tue, 18 Apr 2006 09:35:45 EDT > epston > Re: Re: Non-Existing Ego > > In a message dated 4/18/2006 6:31:21 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > lissbon2002 writes: > > > > >I was observing it today. It seems to be the case with every > >psychological conflict: there are two thought constructs fighting > >each other. Realizing this and watching this movement takes a lot of > >energy out of it. Fascinating. > > > > Len > > L.E: The details of mind and ego are endless. When you are ready to go > beyond them, silence will help. > > Phil: I thought it was your understanding that there is nothing that can be > > examined in mind/ego. > L.E: No no. You can spend the days of your life looking at the details of mind from the outside and ego from the inside, but you can also go beyond all of that and silence will help. Do you ever sit silently or are you always analyzing? Ahh, so you know it's possible for mind to see itself, you just choose not to look. This wasn't what I heard you say before. In fact, aren't you the one who put this subject line in? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 19, 2006 Report Share Posted April 19, 2006 In a message dated 4/19/2006 12:50:09 AM Pacific Daylight Time, ADHHUB writes: > In a message dated 4/18/2006 6:31:21 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > > lissbon2002 writes: > > > >> > >>I was observing it today. It seems to be the case with every > > >psychological conflict: there are two thought constructs fighting > >>each other. Realizing this and watching this movement takes a lot of > >>energy out of it. Fascinating. > >> > >> Len > > > >L.E: The details of mind and ego are endless. When you are ready to go > >beyond them, silence will help. > > > >Phil: I thought it was your understanding that there is nothing that can > be examined in mind/ego. > > > L.E: No no. You can spend the days of your life looking at the details of > > mind from the outside and ego from the inside, but you can also go beyond > all of that and silence will help. Do you ever sit silently or are you > always > analyzing? > > Ahh, so you know it's possible for mind to see itself, you just choose not > to look. This wasn't what I heard you say before. In fact, aren't you the > one > who put this subject line in? L.E: I didn't write that. The mind cannot see itself, that's what you are trying and failing to do. The mind can only subside by not feeding it sensations and experiences. When it is calm and open and has no contents and the ego has also vanished a sense of bliss and embracing can occurr. Be quiet and try it. > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 19, 2006 Report Share Posted April 19, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/18/2006 7:39:45 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Tue, 18 Apr 2006 13:07:44 -0000 > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 > Re: Non-Existing Ego > > > > P: What we've been calling 'direct perception', right? What I > call > > intuition. I'll spend some time 'looking' in that 'direction' and > see what shows up. > > Have you been able to notice this, Len? > > > > > Yes. In some cases there is suddenly the perception of the entire > process and the whole image collapses. > At some other areas the direct perception is clearly missing, and > intellectually " recognizing " something as an image doesn´t end the > illusion. > I´ve noticed, that the total perception of all available data > (thought processes and complete body awareness) often destroys > images. It is the intensity of resistance (fear) which makes the > observation difficult. Reactions/images with little intensity of > resistance collapse very easily. Strong reactions/powerful images > can take hours of observation before they collapse. Some seem not- > observable at all, due to the intensity of reactions. These images > interest me the most. > I would be interested to hear about your observations. > > > Phil: I want to make sure we're talking about the same thing. Can you give > an example of an 'image' that collapsed? When something frustrating happens, for instance not being able to fullfill some strong wish, or dealing with a painful reaction of resistance to something which happened and cannot be changed. Which comes down to any reaction of fear or desire. When observed as a process, with all thoughts involved and all body perceptions, the entire flow of the energy through the body, at a certain moment it just stops, at once, and the absurdity of the whole imaginary process is seen, the image loses all its vitality and collapses, making place for something which I could call emptiness. It feels empty, because the ego suddenly stops its movement. Emotions, which few seconds ago were causing bodily discomfort, are recognized as reactions to images, thus - totally unnecessary and unreal. They vanish together with the images which triggered them. What´s left is hard to describe. It´s empty, light, alive, spacious, free and funny. > If the " whole image " has collapsed for you once, why must it occur again? I wish I knew :-) The images around some specific themes, which have been understood in observation, don´t arise anymore. And if they do, the reactions are weak and easily dissolved. New, more challenging reactions arise, though, asking for understanding. From time to time the whole movement stops for a while, and then it starts again. > I was observing it today. It seems to be the case with every > psychological conflict: there are two thought constructs fighting > each other. Realizing this and watching this movement takes a lot of > energy out of it. Fascinating. > > > > > Phil: Yes. The split mind. It remains split only by virtue of the tension > (resistance) between the two. Since there really aren't two, the split requires > this continual energy in order to maintain itself. The willingness to observe > it, tends to dissolve the resistance, and therefore the split. This is > surrender that dissolves the struggle. Yes. Surrender is when the splitting ego movement stops, which means that there is actually nothing left to surrender. That´s maybe why I rather use the word " collapse " . Len Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 19, 2006 Report Share Posted April 19, 2006 Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 w > What´s left is hard to describe. It´s empty, light, alive, spacious, > free and funny. The universe of " what can be described " is limited, and is limited by the describing self. All the proclamations of all the selves, realized and unrealized, amount to less than a hill of beans. To live truly, has no description, won't be found posted on any message board. But we are human, and so we communicate. To communicate is to describe. To describe is to circumscribe a world of perception around the describer, the described, and the other to whom a description is provided. -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 19, 2006 Report Share Posted April 19, 2006 In a message dated 4/19/2006 5:42:34 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 08:40:53 EDT epston Re: Non-Existing Ego In a message dated 4/19/2006 12:50:09 AM Pacific Daylight Time, ADHHUB writes: > In a message dated 4/18/2006 6:31:21 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > > lissbon2002 writes: > > > >> > >>I was observing it today. It seems to be the case with every > > >psychological conflict: there are two thought constructs fighting > >>each other. Realizing this and watching this movement takes a lot of > >>energy out of it. Fascinating. > >> > >> Len > > > >L.E: The details of mind and ego are endless. When you are ready to go > >beyond them, silence will help. > > > >Phil: I thought it was your understanding that there is nothing that can > be examined in mind/ego. > > > L.E: No no. You can spend the days of your life looking at the details of > > mind from the outside and ego from the inside, but you can also go beyond > all of that and silence will help. Do you ever sit silently or are you > always > analyzing? > > Ahh, so you know it's possible for mind to see itself, you just choose not > to look. This wasn't what I heard you say before. In fact, aren't you the > one > who put this subject line in? L.E: I didn't write that. The mind cannot see itself, that's what you are trying and failing to do. The mind can only subside by not feeding it sensations and experiences. When it is calm and open and has no contents and the ego has also vanished a sense of bliss and embracing can occurr. Be quiet and try it. Just on the off chance that it might save you repeating it over and over, I've been meditating for 20 years and I've had much the same experiences everybody else here has had. As I just mentioned to Marc, I don't generally talk about them because it's not easy to find the words, and it would be mostly ego stroking anyway, so feel free to end your campaign to get me to try being quiet. Been there, done that for a very long time now. Sometimes folks notice that one's life outside of meditation doesn't appreciably change through such practices. This is why such experiences are clung to so tenaciously. When you can meditate 24/7, then maybe something has been accomplished. You're free to stop attending to the huge task of feeding ego for the time being, but ego does not vanish. There's a hodgepodge of concepts about looking at mind that can't be seen which clearly stops even though it's entirely unconscious, a part of which is ego which doesn't exist but obviously vanishes cause 'I' can see that it's gone. The conceptual nonsense is also designed to hold ego in place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 20, 2006 Report Share Posted April 20, 2006 In a message dated 4/19/2006 11:08:33 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 13:47:20 -0000 " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 Re: Non-Existing Ego Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/18/2006 7:39:45 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Tue, 18 Apr 2006 13:07:44 -0000 > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 > Re: Non-Existing Ego > > > > P: What we've been calling 'direct perception', right? What I > call > > intuition. I'll spend some time 'looking' in that 'direction' and > see what shows up. > > Have you been able to notice this, Len? > > > > > Yes. In some cases there is suddenly the perception of the entire > process and the whole image collapses. > At some other areas the direct perception is clearly missing, and > intellectually " recognizing " something as an image doesn´t end the > illusion. > I´ve noticed, that the total perception of all available data > (thought processes and complete body awareness) often destroys > images. It is the intensity of resistance (fear) which makes the > observation difficult. Reactions/images with little intensity of > resistance collapse very easily. Strong reactions/powerful images > can take hours of observation before they collapse. Some seem not- > observable at all, due to the intensity of reactions. These images > interest me the most. > I would be interested to hear about your observations. > > > Phil: I want to make sure we're talking about the same thing. Can you give > an example of an 'image' that collapsed? When something frustrating happens, for instance not being able to fullfill some strong wish, or dealing with a painful reaction of resistance to something which happened and cannot be changed. Which comes down to any reaction of fear or desire. When observed as a process, with all thoughts involved and all body perceptions, the entire flow of the energy through the body, at a certain moment it just stops, at once, and the absurdity of the whole imaginary process is seen, the image loses all its vitality and collapses, making place for something which I could call emptiness. It feels empty, because the ego suddenly stops its movement. Emotions, which few seconds ago were causing bodily discomfort, are recognized as reactions to images, thus - totally unnecessary and unreal. They vanish together with the images which triggered them. What´s left is hard to describe. It´s empty, light, alive, spacious, free and funny. Phil: Okay, sure. The willingness to see the process going on along with the willingness to be present with the feeling, dissolves the resistance that led to the feeling in the first place. It's also possible that secondary conflicts can arise. For example, noticing that defensiveness results from a belief that there's some truth to the attack means that this self judgment must be released too. Phil: However, maybe I'm not understanding, but I still differentiate those hidden egoic images from the perceptual images of illusion, and I think you're saying that we can see through this perceptual illusion of reality too. I've not been able to do this with direct perception. BTW, I just read in Tolle's new book that this revealing of illusion can be 'done' also, so I'm not resisting the idea. > If the " whole image " has collapsed for you once, why must it occur again? I wish I knew :-) The images around some specific themes, which have been understood in observation, don´t arise anymore. And if they do, the reactions are weak and easily dissolved. New, more challenging reactions arise, though, asking for understanding. From time to time the whole movement stops for a while, and then it starts again. Phil: So, are you talking about the ending of psychological struggles or the knowing of perception to be illusion? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 20, 2006 Report Share Posted April 20, 2006 In a message dated 4/19/2006 4:57:55 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 19:18:47 EDT epston Phil: Non-Existing Ego In a message dated 4/19/2006 3:55:40 PM Pacific Daylight Time, ADHHUB writes: > Just on the off chance that it might save you repeating it over and over, > I've been meditating for 20 years and I've had much the same experiences > everybody else here has had. As I just mentioned to Marc, I don't generally > talk > about them because it's not easy to find the words, and it would be mostly > ego > stroking anyway, so feel free to end your campaign to get me to try being > quiet. Been there, done that for a very long time now. Sometimes folks > notice > that one's life outside of meditation doesn't appreciably change through > such > practices. This is why such experiences are clung to so tenaciously. When > you > can meditate 24/7, then maybe something has been accomplished. > > You're free to stop attending to the huge task of feeding ego for the time > being, but ego does not vanish. There's a hodgepodge of concepts about > looking > at mind that can't be seen which clearly stops even though it's entirely > unconscious, a part of which is ego which doesn't exist but obviously > vanishes > cause 'I' can see that it's gone. The conceptual nonsense is also designed > to > hold ego in place. > > L.E: Thank you for the information. I appreciate knowing a bit about your spiritual practise, but no need to feel offended. Just asking. Don't worry about ego stroking, that's no problem, just relax and be yourself, as ego is a natural part of that. I don't expect meditation to change anything outside, it's within ourselves that counts. Or rather, as ourselves. (I don't see there is actually an " in ourselves " ); Didn't really mean the ego would permanently vanish, though it may in a few of us, but that it can subside, diminish, be reabsorbed into the mind for the meditation period. I have no idea about what you mean when you say, " I " can see that it's gone. The " I " is the ego, and when it subsides there is no one to see it or so it seems to me. As far as " conceptual nonsense " I have no idea what you mean. Concepts them selves aren't nonsense they are varous kinds of patterns produced by the brain, or experience or other whatever. Standard religions are " conceptual nonsense. " Is that what you mean? And there's lots of fake teaching that is " conceptual nonsense. " is that what you mean? And just for the record, I'm not trying to annoy you on purpose although it may happen on its own, spontaneously. Larry Epston Well, what I was suggesting is that some of your ideas about what mind is and isn't, what ego is and isn't, and how these may or may not be observed, seem to not be integrated together well or consistent, and further, that this lack of integration may reflect the same phenomena in ego. Was not " offended " by your comment to try being quiet. It's just that you've repeated it several times to me so I thought some clarification would be helpful. That's all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 20, 2006 Report Share Posted April 20, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: L: > When something frustrating happens, for instance not being able to > fullfill some strong wish, or dealing with a painful reaction of > resistance to something which happened and cannot be changed. Which > comes down to any reaction of fear or desire. > When observed as a process, with all thoughts involved and all body > perceptions, the entire flow of the energy through the body, at a > certain moment it just stops, at once, and the absurdity of the > whole imaginary process is seen, the image loses all its vitality > and collapses, making place for something which I could call > emptiness. It feels empty, because the ego suddenly stops its > movement. Emotions, which few seconds ago were causing bodily > discomfort, are recognized as reactions to images, thus - totally > unnecessary and unreal. They vanish together with the images which > triggered them. > What´s left is hard to describe. It´s empty, light, alive, spacious, > free and funny. > > > > Phil: Okay, sure. The willingness to see the process going on along with the > willingness to be present with the feeling, dissolves the resistance that > led to the feeling in the first place. It's also possible that secondary > conflicts can arise. For example, noticing that defensiveness results from a belief > that there's some truth to the attack means that this self judgment must be > released too. > > Phil: However, maybe I'm not understanding, but I still differentiate those > hidden egoic images from the perceptual images of illusion, and I think you're > saying that we can see through this perceptual illusion of reality too. I've > not been able to do this with direct perception. > BTW, I just read in Tolle's new book that this revealing of illusion can be > 'done' also, so I'm not resisting the idea. In the observation of psychological conflict, which is the movement of ego, the image which triggered the conflict can collapse. It seems that the destruction of this particular image can sometimes affect the whole ego movement, which stops spinning round, until the movement restores itself. This is usually the case when the resistance in the observed conflict was very strong. Lot of energy is required to observe something which we resist very strongly, maybe it´s because of this amount of energy that the whole movement stops. That´s why the observation of such strong conflicts is very interesting. Some other times the movement just stops spontaneously. > > If the " whole image " has collapsed for you once, why must it > occur again? > > > > I wish I knew :-) > The images around some specific themes, which have been understood > in observation, don´t arise anymore. And if they do, the reactions > are weak and easily dissolved. New, more challenging reactions > arise, though, asking for understanding. > From time to time the whole movement stops for a while, and then it > starts again. > > > Phil: So, are you talking about the ending of psychological struggles or the > knowing of perception to be illusion? I´m talking about the end of " me " , the psychological centre. All the rest: perceptions necessary for the body to function in daily life is still in place, but the actions of the body/mind are to the point, intelligent, without a trace of conflict/emotion/reaction. Psychological reactions of other people are perceived as absurd and therefore - funny :-) So you could say that the psychological reality in which most people are involved is seen as unreal, a dream. Sometimes there is also a perception of something else, new, alive but impossible to describe. Len Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 20, 2006 Report Share Posted April 20, 2006 In a message dated 4/20/2006 7:16:51 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 12:31:16 -0000 " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 Re: Non-Existing Ego Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: L: > When something frustrating happens, for instance not being able to > fullfill some strong wish, or dealing with a painful reaction of > resistance to something which happened and cannot be changed. Which > comes down to any reaction of fear or desire. > When observed as a process, with all thoughts involved and all body > perceptions, the entire flow of the energy through the body, at a > certain moment it just stops, at once, and the absurdity of the > whole imaginary process is seen, the image loses all its vitality > and collapses, making place for something which I could call > emptiness. It feels empty, because the ego suddenly stops its > movement. Emotions, which few seconds ago were causing bodily > discomfort, are recognized as reactions to images, thus - totally > unnecessary and unreal. They vanish together with the images which > triggered them. > What´s left is hard to describe. It´s empty, light, alive, spacious, > free and funny. > > > > Phil: Okay, sure. The willingness to see the process going on along with the > willingness to be present with the feeling, dissolves the resistance that > led to the feeling in the first place. It's also possible that secondary > conflicts can arise. For example, noticing that defensiveness results from a belief > that there's some truth to the attack means that this self judgment must be > released too. > > Phil: However, maybe I'm not understanding, but I still differentiate those > hidden egoic images from the perceptual images of illusion, and I think you're > saying that we can see through this perceptual illusion of reality too. I've > not been able to do this with direct perception. > BTW, I just read in Tolle's new book that this revealing of illusion can be > 'done' also, so I'm not resisting the idea. In the observation of psychological conflict, which is the movement of ego, the image which triggered the conflict can collapse. It seems that the destruction of this particular image can sometimes affect the whole ego movement, which stops spinning round, until the movement restores itself. This is usually the case when the resistance in the observed conflict was very strong. Lot of energy is required to observe something which we resist very strongly, maybe it´s because of this amount of energy that the whole movement stops. That´s why the observation of such strong conflicts is very interesting. Some other times the movement just stops spontaneously. Interesting. Okay, so, the experiencing of this " psychological conflict " is fairly rare for me, and such powerful resistances don't occur at all, so is there a direct perception focus that might be used to notice what you're talking about? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 21, 2006 Report Share Posted April 21, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/20/2006 7:16:51 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Thu, 20 Apr 2006 12:31:16 -0000 > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 > Re: Non-Existing Ego > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > L: > When something frustrating happens, for instance not being > able to > > fullfill some strong wish, or dealing with a painful reaction of > > resistance to something which happened and cannot be changed. > Which > > comes down to any reaction of fear or desire. > > When observed as a process, with all thoughts involved and all > body > > perceptions, the entire flow of the energy through the body, at a > > certain moment it just stops, at once, and the absurdity of the > > whole imaginary process is seen, the image loses all its vitality > > and collapses, making place for something which I could call > > emptiness. It feels empty, because the ego suddenly stops its > > movement. Emotions, which few seconds ago were causing bodily > > discomfort, are recognized as reactions to images, thus - > totally > > unnecessary and unreal. They vanish together with the images > which > > triggered them. > > What´s left is hard to describe. It´s empty, light, alive, > spacious, > > free and funny. > > > > > > > > Phil: Okay, sure. The willingness to see the process going on > along with the > > willingness to be present with the feeling, dissolves the > resistance that > > led to the feeling in the first place. It's also possible that > secondary > > conflicts can arise. For example, noticing that defensiveness > results from a belief > > that there's some truth to the attack means that this self > judgment must be > > released too. > > > > Phil: However, maybe I'm not understanding, but I still > differentiate those > > hidden egoic images from the perceptual images of illusion, and I > think you're > > saying that we can see through this perceptual illusion of > reality too. I've > > not been able to do this with direct perception. > > BTW, I just read in Tolle's new book that this revealing of > illusion can be > > 'done' also, so I'm not resisting the idea. > > > > In the observation of psychological conflict, which is the movement > of ego, the image which triggered the conflict can collapse. > It seems that the destruction of this particular image can sometimes > affect the whole ego movement, which stops spinning round, until the > movement restores itself. This is usually the case when the > resistance in the observed conflict was very strong. Lot of energy > is required to observe something which we resist very strongly, > maybe it´s because of this amount of energy that the whole movement > stops. That´s why the observation of such strong conflicts is very > interesting. > Some other times the movement just stops spontaneously. > > > > > Interesting. Okay, so, the experiencing of this " psychological conflict " is > fairly rare for me, This sounds a tiny little bit suspicious to me ;-) It is possible that you just don´t notice it. Don´t forget that Larry, for instance, is not aware of his defences. Still they are there, obvious to those who can watch carefully. I never met anybody in my life who´s defensive startegies/neuroses wouldn´t become obvious after few days. But maybe you are an exception, who knows ;-) > and such powerful resistances don't occur at all, so is > there a direct perception focus that might be used to notice what you're > talking about? You can only observe what you´ve got. So, why not observe the thought movement with its images for as long as it takes for understanding to occur? Len Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 21, 2006 Report Share Posted April 21, 2006 In a message dated 4/21/2006 8:25:24 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 12:39:06 -0000 " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 Re: Non-Existing Ego Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/20/2006 7:16:51 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Thu, 20 Apr 2006 12:31:16 -0000 > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 > Re: Non-Existing Ego > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > L: > When something frustrating happens, for instance not being > able to > > fullfill some strong wish, or dealing with a painful reaction of > > resistance to something which happened and cannot be changed. > Which > > comes down to any reaction of fear or desire. > > When observed as a process, with all thoughts involved and all > body > > perceptions, the entire flow of the energy through the body, at a > > certain moment it just stops, at once, and the absurdity of the > > whole imaginary process is seen, the image loses all its vitality > > and collapses, making place for something which I could call > > emptiness. It feels empty, because the ego suddenly stops its > > movement. Emotions, which few seconds ago were causing bodily > > discomfort, are recognized as reactions to images, thus - > totally > > unnecessary and unreal. They vanish together with the images > which > > triggered them. > > What´s left is hard to describe. It´s empty, light, alive, > spacious, > > free and funny. > > > > > > > > Phil: Okay, sure. The willingness to see the process going on > along with the > > willingness to be present with the feeling, dissolves the > resistance that > > led to the feeling in the first place. It's also possible that > secondary > > conflicts can arise. For example, noticing that defensiveness > results from a belief > > that there's some truth to the attack means that this self > judgment must be > > released too. > > > > Phil: However, maybe I'm not understanding, but I still > differentiate those > > hidden egoic images from the perceptual images of illusion, and I > think you're > > saying that we can see through this perceptual illusion of > reality too. I've > > not been able to do this with direct perception. > > BTW, I just read in Tolle's new book that this revealing of > illusion can be > > 'done' also, so I'm not resisting the idea. > > > > In the observation of psychological conflict, which is the movement > of ego, the image which triggered the conflict can collapse. > It seems that the destruction of this particular image can sometimes > affect the whole ego movement, which stops spinning round, until the > movement restores itself. This is usually the case when the > resistance in the observed conflict was very strong. Lot of energy > is required to observe something which we resist very strongly, > maybe it´s because of this amount of energy that the whole movement > stops. That´s why the observation of such strong conflicts is very > interesting. > Some other times the movement just stops spontaneously. > > > > > Interesting. Okay, so, the experiencing of this " psychological conflict " is > fairly rare for me, This sounds a tiny little bit suspicious to me ;-) It is possible that you just don´t notice it. Don´t forget that Larry, for instance, is not aware of his defences. Still they are there, obvious to those who can watch carefully. I never met anybody in my life who´s defensive startegies/neuroses wouldn´t become obvious after few days. But maybe you are an exception, who knows ;-) P: Well, clearly I'm 'closer to God' than you are. Hehe. (Okay, I'm in trouble with somebody for that.) Resistance occurs on infinite 'levels' and so I don't mean to say there is no resistance. If this were so, I'd be cooked and we wouldn't be here talking about how this can occur. Yesterday, I picked up a hot glass and said " ouch! " , I had an uncomfortable burning in the heart area from an energy build up (Kundalini related). There was no struggle with anything on the forum or Larry's latest belligerent emails or on my trip into town, so what I'm suggesting is that the explorations of unconscious processes that lead to struggle are rare. When struggle does occur, it usually doesn't warrant an exploration cause I understand the ego fear that triggered it and just note it. P: I've been doing these explorations since I studied psychology in my 20's (30 years ago) and so, no, I'm not concerned about any major hidden ego processes. > and such powerful resistances don't occur at all, so is > there a direct perception focus that might be used to notice what you're > talking about? You can only observe what you´ve got. So, why not observe the thought movement with its images for as long as it takes for understanding to occur? Len P: Okey dokey. That's actually what I've started doing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 21, 2006 Report Share Posted April 21, 2006 Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 wrote: Phil: > > and such powerful resistances don't occur at all, so is > > there a direct perception focus that might be used to notice what > you're > > talking about? > > > > You can only observe what you´ve got. So, why not observe the > thought movement with its images for as long as it takes for > understanding to occur? > > Len However, I think that observation limited to thought movement is not enough. Body speaks a totally different language, beyond words. Maybe this observation of bodily facts breaks the seeming continuity of the ego process, moving the attention to factual perception. Len Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 21, 2006 Report Share Posted April 21, 2006 In a message dated 4/21/2006 9:35:02 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 15:47:58 -0000 " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 Re: Non-Existing Ego Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 wrote: Phil: > > and such powerful resistances don't occur at all, so is > > there a direct perception focus that might be used to notice what > you're > > talking about? > > > > You can only observe what you´ve got. So, why not observe the > thought movement with its images for as long as it takes for > understanding to occur? > > Len However, I think that observation limited to thought movement is not enough. Body speaks a totally different language, beyond words. Maybe this observation of bodily facts breaks the seeming continuity of the ego process, moving the attention to factual perception. Len Right now, I don't believe observing thought movement can expose illusion. The thought that is the observation of thought IS the illusion. I don't understand what is meant by " bodily facts " . Could you explain? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 22, 2006 Report Share Posted April 22, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/21/2006 8:25:24 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Fri, 21 Apr 2006 12:39:06 -0000 > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 > Re: Non-Existing Ego > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 4/20/2006 7:16:51 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > Thu, 20 Apr 2006 12:31:16 -0000 > > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > > Re: Non-Existing Ego > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > > > L: > When something frustrating happens, for instance not being > > able to > > > fullfill some strong wish, or dealing with a painful reaction > of > > > resistance to something which happened and cannot be changed. > > Which > > > comes down to any reaction of fear or desire. > > > When observed as a process, with all thoughts involved and all > > body > > > perceptions, the entire flow of the energy through the body, at > a > > > certain moment it just stops, at once, and the absurdity of the > > > whole imaginary process is seen, the image loses all its > vitality > > > and collapses, making place for something which I could call > > > emptiness. It feels empty, because the ego suddenly stops its > > > movement. Emotions, which few seconds ago were causing bodily > > > discomfort, are recognized as reactions to images, thus - > > totally > > > unnecessary and unreal. They vanish together with the images > > which > > > triggered them. > > > What´s left is hard to describe. It´s empty, light, alive, > > spacious, > > > free and funny. > > > > > > > > > > > > Phil: Okay, sure. The willingness to see the process going on > > along with the > > > willingness to be present with the feeling, dissolves the > > resistance that > > > led to the feeling in the first place. It's also possible that > > secondary > > > conflicts can arise. For example, noticing that defensiveness > > results from a belief > > > that there's some truth to the attack means that this self > > judgment must be > > > released too. > > > > > > Phil: However, maybe I'm not understanding, but I still > > differentiate those > > > hidden egoic images from the perceptual images of illusion, and > I > > think you're > > > saying that we can see through this perceptual illusion of > > reality too. I've > > > not been able to do this with direct perception. > > > BTW, I just read in Tolle's new book that this revealing of > > illusion can be > > > 'done' also, so I'm not resisting the idea. > > > > > > > > In the observation of psychological conflict, which is the > movement > > of ego, the image which triggered the conflict can collapse. > > It seems that the destruction of this particular image can > sometimes > > affect the whole ego movement, which stops spinning round, until > the > > movement restores itself. This is usually the case when the > > resistance in the observed conflict was very strong. Lot of > energy > > is required to observe something which we resist very strongly, > > maybe it´s because of this amount of energy that the whole > movement > > stops. That´s why the observation of such strong conflicts is > very > > interesting. > > Some other times the movement just stops spontaneously. > > > > > > > > > > Interesting. Okay, so, the experiencing of this " psychological > conflict " is > > fairly rare for me, > > > > This sounds a tiny little bit suspicious to me ;-) > It is possible that you just don´t notice it. > Don´t forget that Larry, for instance, is not aware of his defences. > Still they are there, obvious to those who can watch carefully. > I never met anybody in my life who´s defensive startegies/neuroses > wouldn´t become obvious after few days. But maybe you are an > exception, who knows ;-) > > > > > > P: Well, clearly I'm 'closer to God' than you are. Hehe. (Okay, I'm in > trouble with somebody for that.) > Resistance occurs on infinite 'levels' and so I don't mean to say there is > no resistance. If this were so, I'd be cooked and we wouldn't be here talking > about how this can occur. Yesterday, I picked up a hot glass and said > " ouch! " , I had an uncomfortable burning in the heart area from an energy build up > (Kundalini related). There was no struggle with anything on the forum or > Larry's latest belligerent emails or on my trip into town, so what I'm suggesting > is that the explorations of unconscious processes that lead to struggle are > rare. When struggle does occur, it usually doesn't warrant an exploration cause > I understand the ego fear that triggered it and just note it. > > P: I've been doing these explorations since I studied psychology in my 20's > (30 years ago) and so, no, I'm not concerned about any major hidden ego > processes. The fact that you are not concerned doesn´t mean that they aren´t there. Most people aren´t concerned about them. The fact that you aren´aware of them says just nothing. Maybe it could be interesting to explore struggles when they do occur? I mean, this is not of my bussiness, but it´s you who spoke about the importance of this exploration, so it´s somehow surprizing that you don´t notice anything worth exploring. Len > > and such powerful resistances don't occur at all, so is > > there a direct perception focus that might be used to notice what > you're > > talking about? > > > > You can only observe what you´ve got. So, why not observe the > thought movement with its images for as long as it takes for > understanding to occur? > > Len > > > > > P: Okey dokey. That's actually what I've started doing. > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 22, 2006 Report Share Posted April 22, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/21/2006 9:35:02 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Fri, 21 Apr 2006 15:47:58 -0000 > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 > Re: Non-Existing Ego > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > wrote: > > > Phil: > > > and such powerful resistances don't occur at all, so is > > > there a direct perception focus that might be used to notice > what > > you're > > > talking about? > > > > > > > > You can only observe what you´ve got. So, why not observe the > > thought movement with its images for as long as it takes for > > understanding to occur? > > > > Len > > > However, I think that observation limited to thought movement is not > enough. > Body speaks a totally different language, beyond words. Maybe this > observation of bodily facts breaks the seeming continuity of the > ego process, moving the attention to factual perception. > > Len > > > > > Right now, I don't believe observing thought movement can expose illusion. > The thought that is the observation of thought IS the illusion. I don't > understand what is meant by " bodily facts " . Could you explain? It is not thought observing. Thought is very quick and immediately comments on what is seen. But it is not thought seeing, thought is seen, like any other object. It can happen, because it does happen to me, that in the observation, thought is suddenly recognized as just that - thought. Which means that there is the realization that the image which this thought creates is not reality. There is a difference between knowing this, intellectualy, and the immediate perception of this fact. In this immediate perception the whole " me " system can be recognized as unreal, which stops its process. But not for good, of course, it restores itself, at least in my case. In some, more tough cases, when the emotional reaction to thought is disturbing and unpleasant, I simply watch this reaction. This is what I mean by bodily facts: the reaction can be perceived as body sensation. Observing the body, which is - being the body, with full attention for every observed sensation, seems to dissolve the resistance. When the resistance is gone, the recognition of the thought as illusory is evident, so the whole thing just vanishes. Also in this observation the image system of " me " sometimes just stops running. Of course it makes no sense to try to stop it on purpose, but it´s a fact for me, which I´ve observed for hundreds of times, that this kind of observation often has this effect. But even if it doesn´t, it´s still more interesting then to simply act on the impulse of thought and emotional reaction. Len Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 22, 2006 Report Share Posted April 22, 2006 In a message dated 4/22/2006 7:13:12 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Sat, 22 Apr 2006 11:47:15 -0000 " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 Re: Non-Existing Ego > P: Well, clearly I'm 'closer to God' than you are. Hehe. (Okay, I'm in > trouble with somebody for that.) > Resistance occurs on infinite 'levels' and so I don't mean to say there is > no resistance. If this were so, I'd be cooked and we wouldn't be here talking > about how this can occur. Yesterday, I picked up a hot glass and said > " ouch! " , I had an uncomfortable burning in the heart area from an energy build up > (Kundalini related). There was no struggle with anything on the forum or > Larry's latest belligerent emails or on my trip into town, so what I'm suggesting > is that the explorations of unconscious processes that lead to struggle are > rare. When struggle does occur, it usually doesn't warrant an exploration cause > I understand the ego fear that triggered it and just note it. > > P: I've been doing these explorations since I studied psychology in my 20's > (30 years ago) and so, no, I'm not concerned about any major hidden ego > processes. The fact that you are not concerned doesn´t mean that they aren´t there. Most people aren´t concerned about them. The fact that you aren´aware of them says just nothing. Maybe it could be interesting to explore struggles when they do occur? I mean, this is not of my bussiness, but it´s you who spoke about the importance of this exploration, so it´s somehow surprizing that you don´t notice anything worth exploring. Len Either I'm not making myself clear or you're motivated to insure that I don't have less struggles than you. Once again, when struggle occurs, it is looked at and understood. There is nothing more to be done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 22, 2006 Report Share Posted April 22, 2006 In a message dated 4/22/2006 7:13:12 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Sat, 22 Apr 2006 12:33:31 -0000 " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 Re: Non-Existing Ego Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/21/2006 9:35:02 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Fri, 21 Apr 2006 15:47:58 -0000 > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 > Re: Non-Existing Ego > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > wrote: > > > Phil: > > > and such powerful resistances don't occur at all, so is > > > there a direct perception focus that might be used to notice > what > > you're > > > talking about? > > > > > > > > You can only observe what you´ve got. So, why not observe the > > thought movement with its images for as long as it takes for > > understanding to occur? > > > > Len > > > However, I think that observation limited to thought movement is not > enough. > Body speaks a totally different language, beyond words. Maybe this > observation of bodily facts breaks the seeming continuity of the > ego process, moving the attention to factual perception. > > Len > > > > > Right now, I don't believe observing thought movement can expose illusion. > The thought that is the observation of thought IS the illusion. I don't > understand what is meant by " bodily facts " . Could you explain? It is not thought observing. Thought is very quick and immediately comments on what is seen. But it is not thought seeing, thought is seen, like any other object. It can happen, because it does happen to me, that in the observation, thought is suddenly recognized as just that - thought. Which means that there is the realization that the image which this thought creates is not reality. There is a difference between knowing this, intellectualy, and the immediate perception of this fact. In this immediate perception the whole " me " system can be recognized as unreal, which stops its process. But not for good, of course, it restores itself, at least in my case. In some, more tough cases, when the emotional reaction to thought is disturbing and unpleasant, I simply watch this reaction. This is what I mean by bodily facts: the reaction can be perceived as body sensation. Observing the body, which is - being the body, with full attention for every observed sensation, seems to dissolve the resistance. When the resistance is gone, the recognition of the thought as illusory is evident, so the whole thing just vanishes. Also in this observation the image system of " me " sometimes just stops running. Of course it makes no sense to try to stop it on purpose, but it´s a fact for me, which I´ve observed for hundreds of times, that this kind of observation often has this effect. But even if it doesn´t, it´s still more interesting then to simply act on the impulse of thought and emotional reaction. Len Yes, interesting, and it's difficult for me to tell if I've experienced what you're talking about or not. I suspect not. Yes, observing bodily sensations is often the first clue, to me, of resistance. In fact, I've done some work in which feeling is allowed to arise without a thought attached. The objective is to release the feeling without attaching a thought at all, which is actually more effective than releasing both thought and feeling. In that case, since there is no conscious thought of conflict, the body tends to get extremely uncomfortable for no particular reason. There's the possibility of surrender of feeling occurring at that point. I have not experienced " though being seen " except by another thought. Observing thoughts is a simple matter, but there is actually a time shift occurring, since that which observes thought is the same thinker which had the thought being observed. If the thought is being observed without thought, how do you know this occurred? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 23, 2006 Report Share Posted April 23, 2006 Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 4/21/2006 9:35:02 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > Fri, 21 Apr 2006 15:47:58 -0000 > > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > > Re: Non-Existing Ego > > > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " > <lissbon2002@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Phil: > > > > and such powerful resistances don't occur at all, so is > > > > there a direct perception focus that might be used to notice > > what > > > you're > > > > talking about? > > > > > > > > > > > > You can only observe what you´ve got. So, why not observe the > > > thought movement with its images for as long as it takes for > > > understanding to occur? > > > > > > Len > > > > > > However, I think that observation limited to thought movement is > not > > enough. > > Body speaks a totally different language, beyond words. Maybe > this > > observation of bodily facts breaks the seeming continuity of the > > ego process, moving the attention to factual perception. > > > > Len > > > > > > > > > > Right now, I don't believe observing thought movement can expose > illusion. > > The thought that is the observation of thought IS the illusion. I > don't > > understand what is meant by " bodily facts " . Could you explain? > > > > It is not thought observing. Thought is very quick and immediately > comments on what is seen. But it is not thought seeing, thought is > seen, like any other object. It can happen, because it does happen > to me, that in the observation, thought is suddenly recognized as > just that - thought. Which means that there is the realization that > the image which this thought creates is not reality. There is a > difference between knowing this, intellectualy, and the immediate > perception of this fact. In this immediate perception the whole " me " > system can be recognized as unreal, which stops its process. But not > for good, of course, it restores itself, at least in my case. > In some, more tough cases, when the emotional reaction to thought is > disturbing and unpleasant, I simply watch this reaction. This is > what I mean by bodily facts: the reaction can be perceived as body > sensation. Observing the body, which is - being the body, with full > attention for every observed sensation, seems to dissolve the > resistance. When the resistance is gone, the recognition of the > thought as illusory is evident, so the whole thing just vanishes. > Also in this observation the image system of " me " sometimes just > stops running. Of course it makes no sense to try to stop it on > purpose, but it´s a fact for me, which I´ve observed for hundreds of > times, that this kind of observation often has this effect. > But even if it doesn´t, it´s still more interesting then to simply > act on the impulse of thought and emotional reaction. > > Len To observe one's perceptual processes, one must imagine a split between the subjective awareness as observing self, and the object being observed, " my perceptual processes. " -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 23, 2006 Report Share Posted April 23, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/22/2006 7:13:12 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Sat, 22 Apr 2006 11:47:15 -0000 > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 > Re: Non-Existing Ego > > > P: Well, clearly I'm 'closer to God' than you are. Hehe. (Okay, > I'm in > > trouble with somebody for that.) > > Resistance occurs on infinite 'levels' and so I don't mean to say > there is > > no resistance. If this were so, I'd be cooked and we wouldn't be > here talking > > about how this can occur. Yesterday, I picked up a hot glass and > said > > " ouch! " , I had an uncomfortable burning in the heart area from an > energy build up > > (Kundalini related). There was no struggle with anything on the > forum or > > Larry's latest belligerent emails or on my trip into town, so what > I'm suggesting > > is that the explorations of unconscious processes that lead to > struggle are > > rare. When struggle does occur, it usually doesn't warrant an > exploration cause > > I understand the ego fear that triggered it and just note it. > > > > P: I've been doing these explorations since I studied psychology > in my 20's > > (30 years ago) and so, no, I'm not concerned about any major > hidden ego > > processes. > > > > The fact that you are not concerned doesn´t mean that they aren´t > there. Most people aren´t concerned about them. > The fact that you aren´aware of them says just nothing. > Maybe it could be interesting to explore struggles when they do > occur? I mean, this is not of my bussiness, but it´s you who spoke > about the importance of this exploration, so it´s somehow surprizing > that you don´t notice anything worth exploring. > > Len > > > > Either I'm not making myself clear or you're motivated to insure that I > don't have less struggles than you. Once again, when struggle occurs, it is > looked at and understood. There is nothing more to be done. Are you sure? Because if the struggle is entirely understood, the " me " ends, and this is a complete different state of being. That´s why I think there are unconscious layers. Len Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 23, 2006 Report Share Posted April 23, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/22/2006 7:13:12 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Sat, 22 Apr 2006 12:33:31 -0000 > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 > Re: Non-Existing Ego > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 4/21/2006 9:35:02 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > Fri, 21 Apr 2006 15:47:58 -0000 > > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > > Re: Non-Existing Ego > > > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " > <lissbon2002@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Phil: > > > > and such powerful resistances don't occur at all, so is > > > > there a direct perception focus that might be used to notice > > what > > > you're > > > > talking about? > > > > > > > > > > > > You can only observe what you´ve got. So, why not observe the > > > thought movement with its images for as long as it takes for > > > understanding to occur? > > > > > > Len > > > > > > However, I think that observation limited to thought movement is > not > > enough. > > Body speaks a totally different language, beyond words. Maybe > this > > observation of bodily facts breaks the seeming continuity of the > > ego process, moving the attention to factual perception. > > > > Len > > > > > > > > > > Right now, I don't believe observing thought movement can expose > illusion. > > The thought that is the observation of thought IS the illusion. I > don't > > understand what is meant by " bodily facts " . Could you explain? > > > > It is not thought observing. Thought is very quick and immediately > comments on what is seen. But it is not thought seeing, thought is > seen, like any other object. It can happen, because it does happen > to me, that in the observation, thought is suddenly recognized as > just that - thought. Which means that there is the realization that > the image which this thought creates is not reality. There is a > difference between knowing this, intellectualy, and the immediate > perception of this fact. In this immediate perception the whole " me " > system can be recognized as unreal, which stops its process. But not > for good, of course, it restores itself, at least in my case. > In some, more tough cases, when the emotional reaction to thought is > disturbing and unpleasant, I simply watch this reaction. This is > what I mean by bodily facts: the reaction can be perceived as body > sensation. Observing the body, which is - being the body, with full > attention for every observed sensation, seems to dissolve the > resistance. When the resistance is gone, the recognition of the > thought as illusory is evident, so the whole thing just vanishes. > Also in this observation the image system of " me " sometimes just > stops running. Of course it makes no sense to try to stop it on > purpose, but it´s a fact for me, which I´ve observed for hundreds of > times, that this kind of observation often has this effect. > But even if it doesn´t, it´s still more interesting then to simply > act on the impulse of thought and emotional reaction. > > Len > > > > Yes, interesting, and it's difficult for me to tell if I've experienced what > you're talking about or not. I suspect not. > Yes, observing bodily sensations is often the first clue, to me, of > resistance. In fact, I've done some work in which feeling is allowed to arise without > a thought attached. The objective is to release the feeling without > attaching a thought at all, which is actually more effective than releasing both > thought and feeling. In that case, since there is no conscious thought of > conflict, the body tends to get extremely uncomfortable for no particular reason. > There's the possibility of surrender of feeling occurring at that point. > > I have not experienced " though being seen " except by another thought. Of course you have, everybody does. Thought is not capable of seeing. It only seems that it´s thought looking because of the fastness of its comment/reaction. If you wacht carefully, you see thoughts arising, and every new comment/thought arising is being seen as soon as it arises. The other cause is identification with thought, you think, believe that you are thought, and therefore believe that it is thought seeing. Observe thoughts arising and don´t go into their content, into their story, just watch them as a process of thoughts arising. > Observing thoughts is a simple matter, but there is actually a time shift > occurring, since that which observes thought is the same thinker which had the thought > being observed. This is just another thought, recognize it as such. > If the thought is being observed without thought, how do you > know this occurred? Thought is the observed, as any other object. You know it occures because you see it occuring. Afterwards, thought/memory comments about it. Seeing is immediate. 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.