Guest guest Posted April 14, 2006 Report Share Posted April 14, 2006 In a message dated 4/13/2006 8:38:04 PM Pacific Daylight Time, ADHHUB writes: > There's nothing at all 'integrated' about the average mind. It splits > continually and looks for ways to hide half the truth from itself. It wants > to be > free but it wants to be safe. It wants to be unattached as long as it > doesn't > have to let go of anything. It wants to be enlightened in spite of the fact > that everyone tells it this isn't possible. The mind is a disastrous > collection > of self created struggles, self deceptions and childish selfishness and > ultimately nothing can be done with it but to set it off to the side. The > problem is that a mind that believes it is " integrated " will never, never do > that. > > > L.E: So now you change from describing ego to describing mind, and the > average mind at that. How do you possibly know what the average mind is doing? > The average mind involves millions of people so how can you make this > evaluation? Certainly you can talk about your own mind, and perhaps make a comment about Len's mind or even mine, but the average mind? Anyhow, remember that most of what we call mind is hidden and not available for observation. And I'd assume most people just lead average lives in average ways, and do none of the complex tricks you attribute to mind. For those few who are involved in such complexities, perhaps we can title them with some negative description like obsessive, compulsive, paranoid or having some other qualities deserving of names indicating mental illness. Larry Epston Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 14, 2006 Report Share Posted April 14, 2006 Nisargadatta , epston wrote: > > In a message dated 4/13/2006 8:38:04 PM Pacific Daylight Time, ADHHUB > writes: > > > There's nothing at all 'integrated' about the average mind. It splits > > continually and looks for ways to hide half the truth from itself. It wants > > to be > > free but it wants to be safe. It wants to be unattached as long as it > > doesn't > > have to let go of anything. It wants to be enlightened in spite of the fact > > that everyone tells it this isn't possible. The mind is a disastrous > > collection > > of self created struggles, self deceptions and childish selfishness and > > ultimately nothing can be done with it but to set it off to the side. The > > problem is that a mind that believes it is " integrated " will never, never do > > that. > > > > > > L.E: So now you change from describing ego to describing mind, and the > > average mind at that. How do you possibly know what the average mind is doing? > > The average mind involves millions of people so how can you make this > > evaluation? > Certainly you can talk about your own mind, and perhaps make a comment about > Len's mind or even mine, but the average mind? > Anyhow, remember that most of what we call mind is hidden and not available > for observation. If you only knew Larry, how non hidden, how extremely naked and mercilessly available for observation your ego reactions are ;-) Len > And I'd assume most people just lead average lives in average > ways, and do none of the complex tricks you attribute to mind. For those few > who are involved in such complexities, perhaps we can title them with some > negative description like obsessive, compulsive, paranoid or having some other > qualities deserving of names indicating mental illness. > > Larry Epston > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 14, 2006 Report Share Posted April 14, 2006 Nisargadatta , epston wrote: > > In a message dated 4/13/2006 8:38:04 PM Pacific Daylight Time, ADHHUB > writes: > > > There's nothing at all 'integrated' about the average mind. It splits > > continually and looks for ways to hide half the truth from itself. It wants > > to be > > free but it wants to be safe. It wants to be unattached as long as it > > doesn't > > have to let go of anything. It wants to be enlightened in spite of the fact > > that everyone tells it this isn't possible. The mind is a disastrous > > collection > > of self created struggles, self deceptions and childish selfishness and > > ultimately nothing can be done with it but to set it off to the side. The > > problem is that a mind that believes it is " integrated " will never, never do > > that. > > > > > > L.E: So now you change from describing ego to describing mind, and the > > average mind at that. How do you possibly know what the average mind is doing? > > The average mind involves millions of people so how can you make this > > evaluation? > Certainly you can talk about your own mind, and perhaps make a comment about > Len's mind or even mine, but the average mind? > Anyhow, remember that most of what we call mind is hidden and not available > for observation. And I'd assume most people just lead average lives in average > ways, and do none of the complex tricks you attribute to mind. For those few > who are involved in such complexities, perhaps we can title them with some > negative description like obsessive, compulsive, paranoid or having some other > qualities deserving of names indicating mental illness. > > Larry Epston > > Quoth the mental giant here: " ....perhaps we can title them with some > negative description like obsessive, compulsive, paranoid or having some other > qualities deserving of names indicating mental illness. " ......... May I suggest 'Larry Epston' as a fitting name on that list? Thanks. .........bob > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 14, 2006 Report Share Posted April 14, 2006 In a message dated 4/14/2006 3:07:34 AM Pacific Daylight Time, lissbon2002 writes: > > If you only knew Larry, how non-hidden, and how extremely naked and > mercilessly available for observation your ego reactions are ;-) > > Len L.E: Perhaps we need others to reaveal the observations of our own minds and we cannot see these reactions for ourselves. As the eye cannot observe itself without a mirror or a friend. Of course what you or another has to say about me, as ego, as self is colored and biased by our own points of view probably, and probably only a few neutral observers can give really good responses. In that respect, I wouldn't choose either you or Phil as accurate observers because to have so much invested in your own opinions. But let me invite your observations about my ' " ego reactions " from your limited and biased point of view. Maybe you can teach me something about myself, and I'm open to that. Are you? Actually, I've already done that to some extent concerning your " ego reactions " but you don't seem very welcoming to my observations. In fact, you seem offended and deeply annoyed. That's the main observation I make about you and Phil and that is, that you are trying as yourself to see yourself and that can't be done, but you won't even budge concerning my observation. So, I tried, but you resist, even to then point of issuing a curse and insult. So you don't trust me as an external observer, and I don't trust you and Phil, so there we are at an impasse. For instance, to use the phrase, " if you only knew, " which means you know something about me that you are not revealing. So what good is that? There is also a hint of superiority that says, you know more about me than I know about myself, which may be true, but is still a kind of presumptuous way to put it. But then, being kind or supportive is not one of your major attributes is it? Rather, a hostile defensiveness is more characteristic. Larry Epston Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 14, 2006 Report Share Posted April 14, 2006 In a message dated 4/14/2006 2:48:11 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 05:39:19 EDT epston Mind As Enemy In a message dated 4/13/2006 8:38:04 PM Pacific Daylight Time, ADHHUB writes: > There's nothing at all 'integrated' about the average mind. It splits > continually and looks for ways to hide half the truth from itself. It wants > to be > free but it wants to be safe. It wants to be unattached as long as it > doesn't > have to let go of anything. It wants to be enlightened in spite of the fact > that everyone tells it this isn't possible. The mind is a disastrous > collection > of self created struggles, self deceptions and childish selfishness and > ultimately nothing can be done with it but to set it off to the side. The > problem is that a mind that believes it is " integrated " will never, never do > that. > > > L.E: So now you change from describing ego to describing mind, and the > average mind at that. How do you possibly know what the average mind is doing? > The average mind involves millions of people so how can you make this > evaluation? Certainly you can talk about your own mind, and perhaps make a comment about Len's mind or even mine, but the average mind? Anyhow, remember that most of what we call mind is hidden and not available for observation. And I'd assume most people just lead average lives in average ways, and do none of the complex tricks you attribute to mind. For those few who are involved in such complexities, perhaps we can title them with some negative description like obsessive, compulsive, paranoid or having some other qualities deserving of names indicating mental illness. Larry Epston The next step in the process of denial, after the rational arguments have failed, is to discredit by challenging the qualifications of the one telling us what we don't want to hear. This is sometimes followed by using rational sounding labels to attempt to discredit further and at the same time create the illusion of expertise as a compensation to support the argument. You, of course, have no idea any of that is being done because the process is occurring unconsciously and you've told yourself you don't need to notice any of that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 14, 2006 Report Share Posted April 14, 2006 In a message dated 4/14/2006 10:51:56 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 10:06:13 -0000 " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 Re: Mind As Enemy Nisargadatta , epston wrote: > > In a message dated 4/13/2006 8:38:04 PM Pacific Daylight Time, ADHHUB > writes: > > > There's nothing at all 'integrated' about the average mind. It splits > > continually and looks for ways to hide half the truth from itself. It wants > > to be > > free but it wants to be safe. It wants to be unattached as long as it > > doesn't > > have to let go of anything. It wants to be enlightened in spite of the fact > > that everyone tells it this isn't possible. The mind is a disastrous > > collection > > of self created struggles, self deceptions and childish selfishness and > > ultimately nothing can be done with it but to set it off to the side. The > > problem is that a mind that believes it is " integrated " will never, never do > > that. > > > > > > L.E: So now you change from describing ego to describing mind, and the > > average mind at that. How do you possibly know what the average mind is doing? > > The average mind involves millions of people so how can you make this > > evaluation? > Certainly you can talk about your own mind, and perhaps make a comment about > Len's mind or even mine, but the average mind? > Anyhow, remember that most of what we call mind is hidden and not available > for observation. If you only knew Larry, how non hidden, how extremely naked and mercilessly available for observation your ego reactions are ;-) Len Zackly. And there's a parallel here, at least from my limited vantage point. The truth about our so called hidden ego fears and motivations and processes and self deception is right in front of us. No real searching is required in order to reveal what we hide from ourselves. Rather, a lot of effort is being expended to keep ourselves from noticing what's right in front of us. I see the same process going on in relation to Absolute Truth. An enormous effort is expended to hide from the only thing that really exists. We have to constantly reinforce an illusory image of reality or it falls apart. This falling apart sometimes happens in meditation and during times of struggle that lead to deep surrender, and this is where all the concepts of not thinking come from. The only thing required in order to see Truth is the same thing that's required in order to see our self created ego truth; just the willingness to stop resisting it and see it. I say there will never be this willingness to see Absolute Truth as long as we continue to hide from our own self created ego truth because these self deceptions lock our attachments, fears and needs in place, and these are the things that have to be surrendered before we can notice the Truth of our being beyond this illusion we're struggling with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 14, 2006 Report Share Posted April 14, 2006 In a message dated 4/14/2006 10:51:56 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 13:40:03 EDT epston Re: Re: Mind As Enemy In a message dated 4/14/2006 3:07:34 AM Pacific Daylight Time, lissbon2002 writes: > > If you only knew Larry, how non-hidden, and how extremely naked and > mercilessly available for observation your ego reactions are ;-) > > Len L.E: Perhaps we need others to reaveal the observations of our own minds and we cannot see these reactions for ourselves. As the eye cannot observe itself without a mirror or a friend. Of course what you or another has to say about me, as ego, as self is colored and biased by our own points of view probably, and probably only a few neutral observers can give really good responses. In that respect, I wouldn't choose either you or Phil as accurate observers because to have so much invested in your own opinions. But let me invite your observations about my ' " ego reactions " from your limited and biased point of view. Maybe you can teach me something about myself, and I'm open to that. Are you? Actually, I've already done that to some extent concerning your " ego reactions " but you don't seem very welcoming to my observations. In fact, you seem offended and deeply annoyed. That's the main observation I make about you and Phil and that is, that you are trying as yourself to see yourself and that can't be done, but you won't even budge concerning my observation. So, I tried, but you resist, even to then point of issuing a curse and insult. So you don't trust me as an external observer, and I don't trust you and Phil, so there we are at an impasse. For instance, to use the phrase, " if you only knew, " which means you know something about me that you are not revealing. So what good is that? There is also a hint of superiority that says, you know more about me than I know about myself, which may be true, but is still a kind of presumptuous way to put it. But then, being kind or supportive is not one of your major attributes is it? Rather, a hostile defensiveness is more characteristic. Larry Epston One massive ball of projection and self deception. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 15, 2006 Report Share Posted April 15, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > Zackly. And there's a parallel here, at least from my limited vantage point. > The truth about our so called hidden ego fears and motivations and processes > and self deception is right in front of us. No real searching is required in > order to reveal what we hide from ourselves. Rather, a lot of effort is > being expended to keep ourselves from noticing what's right in front of us. Yes. > I see the same process going on in relation to Absolute Truth. An enormous > effort is expended to hide from the only thing that really exists. We have to > constantly reinforce an illusory image of reality or it falls apart. This > falling apart sometimes happens in meditation and during times of struggle that > lead to deep surrender, and this is where all the concepts of not thinking > come from. > > The only thing required in order to see Truth is the same thing that's > required in order to see our self created ego truth; just the willingness to stop > resisting it and see it. I say there will never be this willingness to see > Absolute Truth as long as we continue to hide from our own self created ego > truth because these self deceptions lock our attachments, fears and needs in > place, and these are the things that have to be surrendered before we can notice > the Truth of our being beyond this illusion we're struggling with. Yes. 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.