Bill's Account of Inner Exploration

April 21, 2006

>--- billrishel <illusyn a écrit :

My mind was verbally silent. [Nothing unusual about

> that for me. I've long known that the quieting of

> inner dialog is no magical rite of passage to

>Nirvana.]

L.E: There are a couple of questions about this very personal and interesting

account. The first concerns the statemen above. Having the mind be verbally

silent is exceptional for many if not most. I'd guess it is your years of art

practice and immersion in the visual that allowed the quiet. And you may be

mistaken about this state not being the 'rite of passag to Nirvana, which you

are mildly ridiculing perhaps because of what you later experienced. Perhaps

you are to familiar with this quiet state to recognize its significance. Are

you?

Bill: I realized that what I was was not the feelings or the thoughts or

any of the seeds for such or even any source of the streams of seeds for such.

And my

identification with all that content dropped away that instant.

L.E In this statement you say what you are not, but not what you are. Now

perhaps your meaning is that after subtracting what you are not, what is left,

what remains is what you are, that within which, the experience of thought

occurs, and perhaps there are no words to explain it. Is that so?

So your experience of being not the thoughts or even the source of the

thoughts, but what is left you do not say, but is that state any different from

the

condition of quiet mind, verbally still, and does it make a difference? If

the ego is created from beyond the ego, that understanding still leaves the ego,

the self, as it is, and needs to be.

Is it correct to say, you realized you are not the thought and not the

thinker, but that life in which the thinker and the thought exists? If this is

so,

I can agree with you for I am the same. And then, we are the same, as is

everything else.

Your experience reminds me of the idea of a record player or even a tape or

CD.

You hear the music but you can't see the music on the tape or disk. The

music has been put into a different form or format. On the record it is actual

grooves in a plastic disk that make a needle vibrate and those vibrations are

again transformed into the music. The record is not the music, and the music is

not the record, but together, each in its own form, music occurs.

If music had intelligence, perhaps it could migrate back into the process and

feel the grooves and feel and experience the vibrating needle and even move

into the electronic of amplification as waves of electronic energy moving.

It seem that you, as awareness or self consciousness moved back into the

process of life, back from the ego, into the mind, into the nerves, into the

electonic bioelectrical process and realized that you as self, or as music are

coming from another very different dimension of form and structure. If music

was

intelligent, it might recognize, that music, itself, is originating from

grooves and a needle, and electricity and electrons and atoms, and you did

somthing similar when you recognized that thought, and the thinker are arising

for

another source, and you experienced for a moment, being that source. This is

how I am explaining your experience which many others will call just more

illusions, but what do you think about what I said?

Larry Epston

April 21, 2006

Nisargadatta , epston wrote:

>

> >--- billrishel <illusyn@> a écrit :

>

> My mind was verbally silent. [Nothing unusual about

> > that for me. I've long known that the quieting of

> > inner dialog is no magical rite of passage to

> >Nirvana.]

>

> L.E: There are a couple of questions about this very personal and

interesting

> account. The first concerns the statemen above. Having the mind be

verbally

> silent is exceptional for many if not most. I'd guess it is your

years of art

> practice and immersion in the visual that allowed the quiet. And

you may be

> mistaken about this state not being the 'rite of passag to Nirvana,

which you

> are mildly ridiculing perhaps because of what you later

experienced. Perhaps

> you are to familiar with this quiet state to recognize its

significance. Are

> you?

Actually, if I understand you, you are right on with what you say.

" Silent mind " *is* a kind of nirvana. With that comes a " knowing " ,

and with the knowing a peace that underlies whatever trials lie ahead.

In other words, there is a sense of a " fundamental reality " that is

unshakable, so that whatever confusions may come, there is nevertheless

that sense of ground that can help one through the challenges.

Before I began to experience silent mind, at least with any regularity,

I had expected it would be some kind of ultimacy. And certainly it is not.

I often avoid talking about silent mind because I do know that it is

elusive for many, even those who have been in spiritual practice for

a long time. And then there are others that experience silent mind

regularly, are not engaged in any spiritual practice, and don't think

of it as anything special.

I think it is a mistake to make " silent mind " an objective.

From way back I followed Krishnamurti's advice: when thoughts appear

simply observe them. Be inquisitive. Experiment. Let yourself get

fascinated. That is more important than any possible guidelines.

I think that is what Nisargadatta means when he speaks of the

importance of intensity. As he says, if the investigation is

fully intense, it really doesn't matter how you go about it.

At any rate, the crucial thing is not the appearance of thoughts or

not, but attention. Attention to attention is a very powerful and deep

exploration.

As attention goes, so you go, so it is well worth paying attention to!

> Bill: I realized that what I was was not the feelings or the

thoughts or

> any of the seeds for such or even any source of the streams of seeds

for such.

> And my

> identification with all that content dropped away that instant.

>

> L.E In this statement you say what you are not, but not what you

are. Now

> perhaps your meaning is that after subtracting what you are not,

what is left,

> what remains is what you are, that within which, the experience of

thought

> occurs, and perhaps there are no words to explain it. Is that so?

Partially correct.

There is no sense of " I am ____ " , where ____ is whatever is left after

the subtraction. The subtraction takes away the need/impulse to say

" I am <anything> " .

In other words, after the subtraction, what remains is simply

__________

> So your experience of being not the thoughts or even the source of the

> thoughts, but what is left you do not say, but is that state any

different from the

> condition of quiet mind, verbally still, and does it make a

difference?

What I described wasn't a condition, really. I did not speak of being in

such-and-such a " state " . And not because I neglected to do so. There was

simply no sense of " this is what is for me now " .

The " recognition " (I am not the feelings, or the thoughts, etc.)

you could think of [perhaps metaphorically] as a release of " energy "

that had been trapped in/preoccupied with the thoughts, feelings etc.

It is not that preoccupation then moved to a " higher level " . Rather

that (psychic) energy was freed up. Perhaps that energy did not

subsequently re-bind with something else, but simply stayed " free " .

I do notice after a significant insight there is a kind of shift

and that energy does seem to be released and simply available.

Hence one might be simply sitting (as I am now) but brimming

with a bouyance, a vitality (as I am now).

> If

> the ego is created from beyond the ego, that understanding still

leaves the ego,

> the self, as it is, and needs to be.

> Is it correct to say, you realized you are not the thought and not the

> thinker, but that life in which the thinker and the thought exists?

If this is so,

> I can agree with you for I am the same. And then, we are the same,

as is

> everything else.

Yes, life with thought arising does continue. But no sense of any

" thinker " . The thoughts " just come " . Kinda like an email! Sometimes the

mind is utterly silent for extended periods. Sometimes the mind is very

active. If I am doing software design work then there is more " thinking "

going on. But there is *not* thinking of the form: " what should I do

to make

my life better. " The latter perhaps you could call ego.

Generally speaking, though, I do not relate to the term 'ego'.

Sorry... just never could relate to what people are talking about

with that term. Indeed, I have had people get *very indignant* that

I REFUSED TO ACKNOWLEDGE... etc etc

>

> Your experience reminds me of the idea of a record player or even a

tape or

> CD.

> You hear the music but you can't see the music on the tape or disk.

The

> music has been put into a different form or format. On the record

it is actual

> grooves in a plastic disk that make a needle vibrate and those

vibrations are

> again transformed into the music. The record is not the music, and

the music is

> not the record, but together, each in its own form, music occurs.

> If music had intelligence, perhaps it could migrate back into the

process and

> feel the grooves and feel and experience the vibrating needle and

even move

> into the electronic of amplification as waves of electronic energy

moving.

> It seem that you, as awareness or self consciousness moved back into

the

> process of life, back from the ego, into the mind, into the nerves,

into the

> electonic bioelectrical process and realized that you as self, or as

music are

> coming from another very different dimension of form and structure.

If music was

> intelligent, it might recognize, that music, itself, is originating

from

> grooves and a needle, and electricity and electrons and atoms, and

you did

> somthing similar when you recognized that thought, and the thinker

are arising for

> another source, and you experienced for a moment, being that source.

This is

> how I am explaining your experience which many others will call just

more

> illusions, but what do you think about what I said?

>

> Larry Epston

Your metaphor of the " intelligent music " is intriguing.

Totally bizarre, yet makes sense

Yes, in a sense it seems I am eternally wending my way

" back upstream " ... melting ever-deeper into the core.

There is no end. Some seem to think that what Nisargadatta et. al.

are talking about is a binary 0/1 thing. Either you " get it "

or you don't. Quite simply, they are wrong.

But it *is* quite possible, it seems, to get so far along

the path -- to silent mind most of the time, say -- and then

become self-satisfied and stagnate there.

Very interesting post, Larry.

I've enjoyed it.

Bill

April 21, 2006

In a message dated 4/21/2006 9:35:02 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

Nisargadatta writes:

Fri, 21 Apr 2006 16:32:23 -0000

" billrishel " <illusyn

Re: Bill's Account of Inner Exploration

B: There is no end. Some seem to think that what Nisargadatta et. al.

are talking about is a binary 0/1 thing. Either you " get it "

or you don't. Quite simply, they are wrong.

But it *is* quite possible, it seems, to get so far along

the path -- to silent mind most of the time, say -- and then

become self-satisfied and stagnate there.

P: Yes, I believe that happens very often.

There are no pieces parts to Truth. Truth is Wholeness. No such thing as a

little Truth, then a little more. There are however, cool experiences, and then

even cooler experiences. Maybe continuing on til the 0 becomes a 1 is

always a good idea.

April 21, 2006

Bill: There is no end. Some seem to think that what Nisargadatta et. al. are

talking about is a binary 0/1 thing. Either you " get it " or you don't. Quite

simply, they are wrong.

But it *is* quite possible, it seems, to get so far alongthe path -- to

silent mind most of the time, say -- and thenbecome self-satisfied and stagnate

there.

P: Yes, I believe that happens very often.

There are no pieces parts to Truth. Truth is Wholeness. No such thing as a

little Truth, then a little more. There are however, cool experiences, and

then

even cooler experiences. Maybe continuing on til the 0 becomes a 1 is

always a good idea.

L.E: Everything changes. Nothing stays the same except perhaps, nothing out

of which everything arises. Staying in one place is simply resting,

recupperating, restoring, re-energizing, and living fully in the process. All

things

are happening as they can and are with nothing to worry about. Phil says: "

There are no pieces parts to Truth. Truth is Wholeness. No such thing as a

little Truth, then a little more. " He is not aware that he is now disagreeing

with

what Bill has said. Phil is insisting that it either is or isn't where Bill

is saying that's not how it is, yet Phil thinks he is agreeing with Bill. How

very odd. Phil is saying that truth IS an on or off thing and Bill says that

is not true.

Communication problem? Reading problem? Is it me that is in error here?

Larry Epston

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 16:32:23 -0000

> " billrishel " <illusyn

> Re: Bill's Account of Inner Exploration

B: There is no end. Some seem to think that what Nisargadatta et. al.

> are talking about is a binary 0/1 thing. Either you " get it "

> or you don't. Quite simply, they are wrong.

>

> But it *is* quite possible, it seems, to get so far along

> the path -- to silent mind most of the time, say -- and then

> become self-satisfied and stagnate there.

>

> P: Yes, I believe that happens very often.

> There are no pieces parts to Truth. Truth is Wholeness. No such

thing as a

> little Truth, then a little more. There are however, cool

experiences, and then

> even cooler experiences. Maybe continuing on til the 0 becomes a 1 is

> always a good idea.

Assuming it is always a 0, and that doesn't matter, because

whatever is, just being with that... always a good idea.

And if this is a " cool experience " , then definitely a zero

anyway.

Peace is when it *really doesn't matter*.

Bill

April 22, 2006

> In a message dated 4/21/2006 9:35:02 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

> Nisargadatta writes:

>

> Fri, 21 Apr 2006 16:32:23 -0000

> " billrishel " <illusyn

> Re: Bill's Account of Inner Exploration

B: There is no end. Some seem to think that what Nisargadatta et.

al.

> are talking about is a binary 0/1 thing. Either you " get it "

> or you don't. Quite simply, they are wrong.

>

> But it *is* quite possible, it seems, to get so far along

> the path -- to silent mind most of the time, say -- and then

> become self-satisfied and stagnate there.

It is because silenting the mind is becoming.

Len

April 22, 2006

Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002

wrote:

>

> > In a message dated 4/21/2006 9:35:02 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

> > Nisargadatta writes:

> >

> > Fri, 21 Apr 2006 16:32:23 -0000

> > " billrishel " <illusyn@>

> > Re: Bill's Account of Inner Exploration

> >

> > B: There is no end. Some seem to think that what Nisargadatta

et.

> al.

> > are talking about is a binary 0/1 thing. Either you " get it "

> > or you don't. Quite simply, they are wrong.

> >

> > But it *is* quite possible, it seems, to get so far along

> > the path -- to silent mind most of the time, say -- and then

> > become self-satisfied and stagnate there.

>

> It is because silenting the mind is becoming.

>

> Len

>

Doesn't have to be that at all.

I said in one of my replies on this thread that

making " silent mind " an objective is a serious

danger, and is one reason I tend to avoid talking

about it.

That silent mind has come about certain doesn't have

to be the result of an endeavor to attain that.

Indeed, *with* such an endeavor it is far less likely.

You are tacitly equating description with prescription.

If of a woman it is said, " She moves with a fluid grace, "

it does not mean that she *pracitices* moving in such

a way.

Bill

April 22, 2006

Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn

wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@>

> wrote:

> >

> > > In a message dated 4/21/2006 9:35:02 AM Pacific Daylight

Time,

> > > Nisargadatta writes:

> > >

> > > Fri, 21 Apr 2006 16:32:23 -0000

> > > " billrishel " <illusyn@>

> > > Re: Bill's Account of Inner Exploration

> > >

> > > B: There is no end. Some seem to think that what Nisargadatta

> et.

> > al.

> > > are talking about is a binary 0/1 thing. Either you " get it "

> > > or you don't. Quite simply, they are wrong.

> > >

> > > But it *is* quite possible, it seems, to get so far along

> > > the path -- to silent mind most of the time, say -- and then

> > > become self-satisfied and stagnate there.

> >

> > It is because silenting the mind is becoming.

> >

> > Len

> >

>

> Doesn't have to be that at all.

> I said in one of my replies on this thread that

> making " silent mind " an objective is a serious

> danger, and is one reason I tend to avoid talking

> about it.

>

> That silent mind has come about certain doesn't have

> to be the result of an endeavor to attain that.

> Indeed, *with* such an endeavor it is far less likely.

>

> You are tacitly equating description with prescription.

>

> If of a woman it is said, " She moves with a fluid grace, "

> it does not mean that she *pracitices* moving in such

> a way.

>

> Bill

" ...to get so far along

the path -- to silent mind most of the time... "

sounds like becoming.

Silent mind seems a goal with a path leading towards it.

Len

April 22, 2006

Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002

wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@>

> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 "

<lissbon2002@>

> > wrote:

> > >

> > > > In a message dated 4/21/2006 9:35:02 AM Pacific Daylight

> Time,

> > > > Nisargadatta writes:

> > > >

> > > > Fri, 21 Apr 2006 16:32:23 -0000

> > > > " billrishel " <illusyn@>

> > > > Re: Bill's Account of Inner Exploration

> > > >

> > > > B: There is no end. Some seem to think that what

Nisargadatta

> > et.

> > > al.

> > > > are talking about is a binary 0/1 thing. Either you " get it "

> > > > or you don't. Quite simply, they are wrong.

> > > >

> > > > But it *is* quite possible, it seems, to get so far along

> > > > the path -- to silent mind most of the time, say -- and then

> > > > become self-satisfied and stagnate there.

> > >

> > > It is because silenting the mind is becoming.

> > >

> > > Len

> > >

> >

> > Doesn't have to be that at all.

> > I said in one of my replies on this thread that

> > making " silent mind " an objective is a serious

> > danger, and is one reason I tend to avoid talking

> > about it.

> >

> > That silent mind has come about certain doesn't have

> > to be the result of an endeavor to attain that.

> > Indeed, *with* such an endeavor it is far less likely.

> >

> > You are tacitly equating description with prescription.

> >

> > If of a woman it is said, " She moves with a fluid grace, "

> > it does not mean that she *pracitices* moving in such

> > a way.

> >

> > Bill

>

> " ...to get so far along

> the path -- to silent mind most of the time... "

> sounds like becoming.

> Silent mind seems a goal with a path leading towards it.

>

> Len

There is indeed a big difference between a woman moving with grace,

and a woman practicing moving with grace. The latter doesn´t move

with grace ;-)

Len

April 22, 2006

Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002

wrote:

>

> > In a message dated 4/21/2006 9:35:02 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

> > Nisargadatta writes:

> >

> > Fri, 21 Apr 2006 16:32:23 -0000

> > " billrishel " <illusyn@>

> > Re: Bill's Account of Inner Exploration

> >

> > B: There is no end. Some seem to think that what Nisargadatta et.

> al.

> > are talking about is a binary 0/1 thing. Either you " get it "

> > or you don't. Quite simply, they are wrong.

> >

> > But it *is* quite possible, it seems, to get so far along

> > the path -- to silent mind most of the time, say -- and then

> > become self-satisfied and stagnate there.

>

> It is because silenting the mind is becoming.

>

> Len

>

A silent mind is like a still wind.

toombaru

April 22, 2006

Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002

wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@>

> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@>

> > wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 "

> <lissbon2002@>

> > > wrote:

> > > >

> > > > > In a message dated 4/21/2006 9:35:02 AM Pacific Daylight

> > Time,

> > > > > Nisargadatta writes:

> > > > >

> > > > > Fri, 21 Apr 2006 16:32:23 -0000

> > > > > " billrishel " <illusyn@>

> > > > > Re: Bill's Account of Inner Exploration

> > > > >

> > > > > B: There is no end. Some seem to think that what

> Nisargadatta

> > > et.

> > > > al.

> > > > > are talking about is a binary 0/1 thing. Either you " get it "

> > > > > or you don't. Quite simply, they are wrong.

> > > > >

> > > > > But it *is* quite possible, it seems, to get so far along

> > > > > the path -- to silent mind most of the time, say -- and then

> > > > > become self-satisfied and stagnate there.

> > > >

> > > > It is because silenting the mind is becoming.

> > > >

> > > > Len

> > > >

> > >

> > > Doesn't have to be that at all.

> > > I said in one of my replies on this thread that

> > > making " silent mind " an objective is a serious

> > > danger, and is one reason I tend to avoid talking

> > > about it.

> > >

> > > That silent mind has come about certain doesn't have

> > > to be the result of an endeavor to attain that.

> > > Indeed, *with* such an endeavor it is far less likely.

> > >

> > > You are tacitly equating description with prescription.

> > >

> > > If of a woman it is said, " She moves with a fluid grace, "

> > > it does not mean that she *pracitices* moving in such

> > > a way.

> > >

> > > Bill

> >

> > " ...to get so far along

> > the path -- to silent mind most of the time... "

> > sounds like becoming.

> > Silent mind seems a goal with a path leading towards it.

> >

> > Len

>

> There is indeed a big difference between a woman moving with grace,

> and a woman practicing moving with grace. The latter doesn´t move

> with grace ;-)

>

> Len

>

It is grace that moves them both.

toombaru

April 22, 2006

In a message dated 4/22/2006 1:50:46 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta@y

ahoogroups.com writes:

Fri, 21 Apr 2006 20:52:37 EDT

epston

Re: Bill's Account of Inner Exploration

Bill: There is no end. Some seem to think that what Nisargadatta et. al.

are

talking about is a binary 0/1 thing. Either you " get it " or you don't.

Quite

simply, they are wrong.

But it *is* quite possible, it seems, to get so far alongthe path -- to

silent mind most of the time, say -- and thenbecome self-satisfied and

stagnate

there.

P: Yes, I believe that happens very often.

There are no pieces parts to Truth. Truth is Wholeness. No such thing as a

little Truth, then a little more. There are however, cool experiences, and

then

even cooler experiences. Maybe continuing on til the 0 becomes a 1 is

always a good idea.

L.E: Everything changes. Nothing stays the same except perhaps, nothing out

of which everything arises. Staying in one place is simply resting,

recupperating, restoring, re-energizing, and living fully in the process.

All things

are happening as they can and are with nothing to worry about. Phil says: "

There are no pieces parts to Truth. Truth is Wholeness. No such thing as a

little Truth, then a little more. " He is not aware that he is now

disagreeing with

what Bill has said. Phil is insisting that it either is or isn't where Bill

is saying that's not how it is, yet Phil thinks he is agreeing with Bill.

How

very odd. Phil is saying that truth IS an on or off thing and Bill says

that

is not true.

Communication problem? Reading problem? Is it me that is in error here?

Larry Epston

You misunderstood, Larry. I was agreeing with the idea of self-satisfied

stagnation. Bill is becoming aware that this is what he has been doing, which is

why it occurred to him to write about it, and I was offering my perspective

that letting go of the idea that he's partially enlightened might be the

motivation he needs to get himself unstuck.

April 22, 2006

In a message dated 4/22/2006 1:50:46 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

Nisargadatta writes:

Sat, 22 Apr 2006 03:15:16 -0000

" billrishel " <illusyn

Re: Bill's Account of Inner Exploration

Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote:

>

> In a message dated 4/21/2006 9:35:02 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

> Nisargadatta writes:

>

> Fri, 21 Apr 2006 16:32:23 -0000

> " billrishel " <illusyn

> Re: Bill's Account of Inner Exploration

B: There is no end. Some seem to think that what Nisargadatta et. al.

> are talking about is a binary 0/1 thing. Either you " get it "

> or you don't. Quite simply, they are wrong.

>

> But it *is* quite possible, it seems, to get so far along

> the path -- to silent mind most of the time, say -- and then

> become self-satisfied and stagnate there.

>

> P: Yes, I believe that happens very often.

> There are no pieces parts to Truth. Truth is Wholeness. No such

thing as a

> little Truth, then a little more. There are however, cool

experiences, and then

> even cooler experiences. Maybe continuing on til the 0 becomes a 1 is

> always a good idea.

Assuming it is always a 0, and that doesn't matter, because

whatever is, just being with that... always a good idea.

And if this is a " cool experience " , then definitely a zero

anyway.

Peace is when it *really doesn't matter*.

Bill

Yup, and maybe if it really, truly doesn't matter, the 0 becomes a 1. That

damn well better be the case or I'll really be mad! Hehe.

April 23, 2006

Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote:

>

> In a message dated 4/22/2006 1:50:46 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

> Nisargadatta writes:

>

> Sat, 22 Apr 2006 03:15:16 -0000

> " billrishel " <illusyn

> Re: Bill's Account of Inner Exploration

> ...Peace is when it *really doesn't matter*.

>

> Bill

>

> Yup, and maybe if it really, truly doesn't matter, the 0 becomes a

1. That

> damn well better be the case or I'll really be mad! Hehe.

If it really, truly doesn´t matter, then the understanding doesn´t

matter. I don´t think there is such a thing as " doesn´t matter " ,

this is just another goal ego sets to avoid suffering.

Suffering does matter, understanding does matter, freedom from

illusions does matter, goodness does matter.

It´s just that suffering cannot end through escape, through a fight

against it, so we have no other choice then going through pain. But

pretending that pain doesn´t matter makes us insensitive and not

capable of understanding. It is not fun, we cannot make ourselves

indifferent, we can only pretend to be indifferent, which will make

us dumb, insensitive.

If we are interested in understanding, it is exactly because it does

matter, more then anything. Understanding is the purpose of life.

Len

April 23, 2006

In a message dated 4/22/2006 6:36:27 PM Pacific Daylight Time,

Nisargadatta writes:

Sat, 22 Apr 2006 22:36:31 -0000

" lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002

Re: Bill's Account of Inner Exploration

Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote:

>

> In a message dated 4/22/2006 1:50:46 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

> Nisargadatta writes:

>

> Sat, 22 Apr 2006 03:15:16 -0000

> " billrishel " <illusyn

> Re: Bill's Account of Inner Exploration

> ...Peace is when it *really doesn't matter*.

>

> Bill

>

> Yup, and maybe if it really, truly doesn't matter, the 0 becomes a

1. That

> damn well better be the case or I'll really be mad! Hehe.

If it really, truly doesn´t matter, then the understanding doesn´t

matter. I don´t think there is such a thing as " doesn´t matter " ,

this is just another goal ego sets to avoid suffering.

Suffering does matter, understanding does matter, freedom from

illusions does matter, goodness does matter.

It´s just that suffering cannot end through escape, through a fight

against it, so we have no other choice then going through pain. But

pretending that pain doesn´t matter makes us insensitive and not

capable of understanding. It is not fun, we cannot make ourselves

indifferent, we can only pretend to be indifferent, which will make

us dumb, insensitive.

If we are interested in understanding, it is exactly because it does

matter, more then anything. Understanding is the purpose of life.

Len

I agree with you, Len, at least in that context. The idea that various

things are to be made not meaningful has always disturbed me, not because I

necessarily want them to mean something, but because I don't believe 'we' can

awaken to something meaningful by making what we experience now meaningless.

In a slightly different context, " doesn't matter " does not mean insensitive

and numb, it just means accepting and unattached to outcome. Where there is

acceptance of self, there is love sourced from within. Where there is

acceptance of whatever shows up in one's experience, there is peace, which is

also

found to be sourced from within. Where there is love and peace, there will be

joy, since there is no longer anything to hide it's presence.

Insensitivity is not the end result of detachment, but rather the result of

the perception of unfulfilled desires that disallows the possibility of

genuine depth of feeling because the risk is simply too high. Insensitivity is

the

struggle against the wind. Peace is the yielding to the wind; the serenity

within the storm.

April 23, 2006

In a message dated 4/22/2006 8:44:23 PM Pacific Daylight Time, ADHHUB

writes:

> In a slightly different context, " doesn't matter " does not mean insensitive

>

> and numb, it just means accepting and unattached to outcome. Where there is

>

> acceptance of self, there is love sourced from within. Where there is

> acceptance of whatever shows up in one's experience, there is peace, which

> is also

> found to be sourced from within. Where there is love and peace, there will

> be

> joy, since there is no longer anything to hide it's presence.

>

> Insensitivity is not the end result of detachment, but rather the result of

>

> the perception of unfulfilled desires that disallows the possibility of

> genuine depth of feeling because the risk is simply too high. Insensitivity

> is the

> struggle against the wind. Peace is the yielding to the wind; the serenity

> within the storm.

>

> L.E: Let's hope you can put this all into action and be it and move into the

fullfilment of the whole process.

April 23, 2006

In a message dated 4/22/2006 10:34:49 PM Pacific Daylight Time,

Nisargadatta writes:

Sun, 23 Apr 2006 00:57:45 EDT

epston

Re: Bill's Account of Inner Exploration

In a message dated 4/22/2006 8:44:23 PM Pacific Daylight Time,

ADHHUB

writes:

> In a slightly different context, " doesn't matter " does not mean

insensitive

>

> and numb, it just means accepting and unattached to outcome. Where there

is

>

> acceptance of self, there is love sourced from within. Where there is

> acceptance of whatever shows up in one's experience, there is peace,

which

> is also

> found to be sourced from within. Where there is love and peace, there

will

> be

> joy, since there is no longer anything to hide it's presence.

>

> Insensitivity is not the end result of detachment, but rather the result

of

>

> the perception of unfulfilled desires that disallows the possibility of

> genuine depth of feeling because the risk is simply too high.

Insensitivity

> is the

> struggle against the wind. Peace is the yielding to the wind; the serenity

> within the storm.

>

> L.E: Let's hope you can put this all into action and be it and move into

the

fullfilment of the whole process.

Yes, lets keep our fingers and toes crossed.

April 23, 2006

Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote:

>

> In a message dated 4/22/2006 6:36:27 PM Pacific Daylight Time,

> Nisargadatta writes:

>

> Sat, 22 Apr 2006 22:36:31 -0000

> " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002

> Re: Bill's Account of Inner Exploration

>

> Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote:

> >

> > In a message dated 4/22/2006 1:50:46 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

> > Nisargadatta writes:

> >

> > Sat, 22 Apr 2006 03:15:16 -0000

> > " billrishel " <illusyn@>

> > Re: Bill's Account of Inner Exploration

>

> > ...Peace is when it *really doesn't matter*.

> >

> > Bill

> >

> > Yup, and maybe if it really, truly doesn't matter, the 0

becomes a

> 1. That

> > damn well better be the case or I'll really be mad! Hehe.

>

> If it really, truly doesn´t matter, then the understanding

doesn´t

> matter. I don´t think there is such a thing as " doesn´t matter " ,

> this is just another goal ego sets to avoid suffering.

> Suffering does matter, understanding does matter, freedom from

> illusions does matter, goodness does matter.

> It´s just that suffering cannot end through escape, through a

fight

> against it, so we have no other choice then going through pain.

But

> pretending that pain doesn´t matter makes us insensitive and not

> capable of understanding. It is not fun, we cannot make ourselves

> indifferent, we can only pretend to be indifferent, which will

make

> us dumb, insensitive.

> If we are interested in understanding, it is exactly because it

does

> matter, more then anything. Understanding is the purpose of life.

>

> Len

> I agree with you, Len, at least in that context. The idea that

various

> things are to be made not meaningful has always disturbed me, not

because I

> necessarily want them to mean something, but because I don't

believe 'we' can

> awaken to something meaningful by making what we experience now

meaningless.

Yes.

> In a slightly different context, " doesn't matter " does not mean

insensitive

> and numb, it just means accepting and unattached to outcome. Where

there is

> acceptance of self, there is love sourced from within. Where there

is

> acceptance of whatever shows up in one's experience, there is

peace, which is also

> found to be sourced from within. Where there is love and peace,

there will be

> joy, since there is no longer anything to hide it's presence.

>

> Insensitivity is not the end result of detachment, but rather the

result of

> the perception of unfulfilled desires that disallows the

possibility of

> genuine depth of feeling because the risk is simply too high.

Insensitivity is the

> struggle against the wind. Peace is the yielding to the wind; the

serenity

> within the storm.

Ok. But we have to start where we are, not where we hope to get.

There is resistance to start with. This is not love or peace, but a

mess of confusion. Now, if I´m going to chase peace, ego will find

several methods to convince itself it is on his way to peace. One of

these methods is trying to be indifferent, unattached. It is

possible to make onself insensitive, and to call this insensitivity:

indifference of unattachment. Goal, ideals, make no sense, they

always lead to suppression of what is through images of what should

be. So why don´t we just forget where we want to be and realize

where we are.

Len

April 24, 2006

In a message dated 4/23/2006 4:22:32 PM Pacific Daylight Time,

Nisargadatta writes:

Sun, 23 Apr 2006 21:54:20 -0000