Guest guest Posted April 22, 2006 Report Share Posted April 22, 2006 In a message dated 4/22/2006 6:16:46 PM Pacific Daylight Time, ADHHUB writes: > > 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? > L.E: What do you guys expect or want to get out of this self-conscious analysis? Did you read somewhere this is an activity that leads to some positive goal, or are you just having fun and amusement? Goals are concerned with the future and expectations, so if you have goals of achievment, what are they? Is this activity moving you toward realization or enlightenment? Do you care if it is? Or is it just a past-time, a way to try to escape from the present and suspend yourself in intellectualization? Snap out of it for a moment and consider this issue. What and why are you doing this? Is it competition? One ups man ship? What? Larry Epston Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 23, 2006 Report Share Posted April 23, 2006 In a message dated 4/22/2006 8:46:45 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Sat, 22 Apr 2006 21:42:44 EDT epston Re: Non-Existing Ego. What Is This? In a message dated 4/22/2006 6:16:46 PM Pacific Daylight Time, ADHHUB writes: > > 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? > L.E: What do you guys expect or want to get out of this self-conscious analysis? Did you read somewhere this is an activity that leads to some positive goal, or are you just having fun and amusement? Goals are concerned with the future and expectations, so if you have goals of achievment, what are they? Is this activity moving you toward realization or enlightenment? Do you care if it is? Or is it just a past-time, a way to try to escape from the present and suspend yourself in intellectualization? Snap out of it for a moment and consider this issue. What and why are you doing this? Is it competition? One ups man ship? What? Larry Epston Well, I've gained so much by exploring unconscious processes in my ego, I'm wanting to know how far I can go with it. Len has been indicating that ego itself seems to pretty much dissolve at times, and I'm not convinced this is possible, but that's what the conversation is about. The 'problem' is ego, and clearly ego dynamics can be changed. The only question is how much. Does that answer your question or do you insist on a self degrading answer? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 23, 2006 Report Share Posted April 23, 2006 In a message dated 4/22/2006 9:55:06 PM Pacific Daylight Time, ADHHUB writes: > > Well, I've gained so much by exploring unconscious processes in my ego, I'm > > wanting to know how far I can go with it. Len has been indicating that ego > itself seems to pretty much dissolve at times, and I'm not convinced this is > > possible, but that's what the conversation is about. The 'problem' is ego, > and > clearly ego dynamics can be changed. The only question is how much. Does > that > answer your question or do you insist on a self degrading answer? > L.E: I have no idea what you mean by a self degrading anwer, but I appreciate that you take my question seriously and tried to answer it. If you feel certain you are gaining something so be it. Within myself nothing like what you are discussing occurs. My inner world is very silent except for some ordinary self-talking. Like I might continue to self-talk about our conversation. This self-talking is not like thinking or tying to solve a problem of choosing. Like, simply, what am I going to do tomorrow. That is thinking, but usually I'm just self-talking which is me, I as ego and it causes me no probems. But that situation with Bob was a difficult problem and rather unusual for me to have to relate to that whole mess. That was a combination of self-talking and thinking and my feeling and emotions were engaged which is not usual so that is where suffering begins. Although the combination of self-talking, thinking and feeling might combine to enjoy something expererienced or anticipated and that is not a problem. Larry Epston Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 23, 2006 Report Share Posted April 23, 2006 In a message dated 4/22/2006 10:34:49 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 01:08:17 EDT epston Re: Non-Existing Ego. What Is This? In a message dated 4/22/2006 9:55:06 PM Pacific Daylight Time, ADHHUB writes: > > Well, I've gained so much by exploring unconscious processes in my ego, I'm > > wanting to know how far I can go with it. Len has been indicating that ego > itself seems to pretty much dissolve at times, and I'm not convinced this is > > possible, but that's what the conversation is about. The 'problem' is ego, > and > clearly ego dynamics can be changed. The only question is how much. Does > that > answer your question or do you insist on a self degrading answer? > L.E: I have no idea what you mean by a self degrading anwer, but I appreciate that you take my question seriously and tried to answer it. If you feel certain you are gaining something so be it. Within myself nothing like what you are discussing occurs. My inner world is very silent except for some ordinary self-talking. Like I might continue to self-talk about our conversation. This self-talking is not like thinking or tying to solve a problem of choosing. Like, simply, what am I going to do tomorrow. That is thinking, but usually I'm just self-talking which is me, I as ego and it causes me no probems. But that situation with Bob was a difficult problem and rather unusual for me to have to relate to that whole mess. That was a combination of self-talking and thinking and my feeling and emotions were engaged which is not usual so that is where suffering begins. Although the combination of self-talking, thinking and feeling might combine to enjoy something expererienced or anticipated and that is not a problem. Larry Epston You offered several possible explanations for why the conversation might be occurring, and if I recall correctly, they were all negative, and so I wasn't sure you were open to a possibility that didn't fit that negative thought pattern. It seems you are, which is cool. I'm curious, most of the thinkingness that I used to do has become a kind of intuitive 'looking' which I don't see as a problem at all, but to the degree that the self talk occurs, I do see this as a problem for me. It's not struggled with, but it clearly needs to end. It sounds like you don't have such concerns about your self talk? Is this because awakening is not of interest to you and you're happy with the way things are? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 23, 2006 Report Share Posted April 23, 2006 In a message dated 4/22/2006 10:34:49 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 05:15:17 -0000 " toombaru2006 " <lastrain Re: Non-Existing Ego. What Is This? Nisargadatta , epston wrote: > > In a message dated 4/22/2006 9:55:06 PM Pacific Daylight Time, ADHHUB > writes: > > > > > Well, I've gained so much by exploring unconscious processes in my ego, I'm > > > > wanting to know how far I can go with it. Len has been indicating that ego > > itself seems to pretty much dissolve at times, and I'm not convinced this is > > > > possible, but that's what the conversation is about. The 'problem' is ego, > > and > > clearly ego dynamics can be changed. The only question is how much. There are two of you? toombaru I hear tell there's not even one of me, though I can't speak from personal experience. Hehe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 23, 2006 Report Share Posted April 23, 2006 Nisargadatta , epston wrote: > > In a message dated 4/22/2006 9:55:06 PM Pacific Daylight Time, ADHHUB > writes: > > > > > Well, I've gained so much by exploring unconscious processes in my ego, I'm > > > > wanting to know how far I can go with it. Len has been indicating that ego > > itself seems to pretty much dissolve at times, and I'm not convinced this is > > > > possible, but that's what the conversation is about. The 'problem' is ego, > > and > > clearly ego dynamics can be changed. The only question is how much. There are two of you? toombaru 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.