Guest guest Posted April 26, 2006 Report Share Posted April 26, 2006 Nisargadatta , ERTAN ASLAN <aslann2003 wrote: > > hi I m a new member... > in a book nisargadatta's he says don't have something, know nothing and be nothing... > what does that mean? I m waiting your comments... > Look deeply into what ownership means... if no ownership, then no having... and who is there to potentially own anything if all ownership is erased? is not the appearance of a " who behind it all " dependent on the accumulations of " ownerships " ? if no ownerships then the sense of a who-behind- it-all becomes empty, meaningless, void Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 26, 2006 Report Share Posted April 26, 2006 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , ERTAN ASLAN <aslann2003@> wrote: > > > > hi I m a new member... > > in a book nisargadatta's he says don't have something, know > nothing and be nothing... > > what does that mean? I m waiting your comments... > > > > Look deeply into what ownership means... > > if no ownership, then no having... > > and who is there to potentially own anything > if all ownership is erased? The owner of the concept of erased ownership :-) Len > is not the appearance of a " who behind it all " > dependent on the accumulations of " ownerships " ? > > if no ownerships then the sense of a who-behind- > it-all becomes empty, meaningless, void > > > Bill > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 26, 2006 Report Share Posted April 26, 2006 Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , ERTAN ASLAN <aslann2003@> > wrote: > > > > > > hi I m a new member... > > > in a book nisargadatta's he says don't have something, know > > nothing and be nothing... > > > what does that mean? I m waiting your comments... > > > > > > > Look deeply into what ownership means... > > > > if no ownership, then no having... > > > > and who is there to potentially own anything > > if all ownership is erased? > > > > The owner of the concept of erased ownership :-) > > Len again a manner of speaking... when a feeling that is " mine " is fully experienced, gone through such that it is no more an adornment, something that no longer comes up, then it is in a very real sense *gone*... what would you call that? " erased " is not an ideal term, admittedly, being a transitive verb... It is not that *someone* erases it... I just had an experience of this a few minutes ago. A feeling came up that was clearly a kind of attachment, and instead of ignoring, slowed down to really experience. Instead of treating as an object, allowed an actual " being the feeling " , a complete non-resistance of the feeling. And in an instant... poof! it vaporized. [in this case a fairly minor attachment.] So there was not an attempt to *get rid of*... but on the contrary a willingness to actually *be it*. An in a willingnes to be it, ironically, it vaporizes. Would be interested in a term for that. " Erase " ... agree not a good term. Am recalling Krishnamurti talking about experiences being " residue " when not experienced fully... Perhaps when we judge something felt, and thus push it off, we don't experience it fully and it becomes residue. Does that interpretation make sense from your view? Bill > > > > is not the appearance of a " who behind it all " > > dependent on the accumulations of " ownerships " ? > > > > if no ownerships then the sense of a who-behind- > > it-all becomes empty, meaningless, void > > > > > > Bill > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 27, 2006 Report Share Posted April 27, 2006 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , ERTAN ASLAN <aslann2003@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > hi I m a new member... > > > > in a book nisargadatta's he says don't have something, know > > > nothing and be nothing... > > > > what does that mean? I m waiting your comments... > > > > > > > > > > Look deeply into what ownership means... > > > > > > if no ownership, then no having... > > > > > > and who is there to potentially own anything > > > if all ownership is erased? > > > > > > > > The owner of the concept of erased ownership :-) > > > > Len > > again a manner of speaking... > > when a feeling that is " mine " is fully experienced, > gone through such that it is no more an adornment, > something that no longer comes up, then it is in a > very real sense *gone*... > > what would you call that? > > " erased " is not an ideal term, admittedly, being a > transitive verb... > > It is not that *someone* erases it... > > I just had an experience of this a few minutes ago. > A feeling came up that was clearly a kind of attachment, > and instead of ignoring, slowed down to really experience. > Instead of treating as an object, allowed an actual > " being the feeling " , a complete non-resistance of the > feeling. And in an instant... poof! it vaporized. > [in this case a fairly minor attachment.] > > So there was not an attempt to *get rid of*... but on > the contrary a willingness to actually *be it*. An in > a willingnes to be it, ironically, it vaporizes. > > Would be interested in a term for that. > " Erase " ... agree not a good term. > > Am recalling Krishnamurti talking about experiences being > " residue " when not experienced fully... > Perhaps when we judge something felt, and thus push it off, > we don't experience it fully and it becomes residue. > > Does that interpretation make sense from your view? > > Bill Yes, it certainly makes sense. This is what I´ve been talking about with Phil, lately. I just don´t see what it has to do with erased ownership. We´ve been talking about it already, and the obvious thing to me is, that emotion/conflict is a part/symptom of ego movement, and so is the " owner " . Therefore it makes no sense to discuss/question ownership, because when the conflict is there, it is because the " owner " is there as well. It´s like a french cheese and the smell ;-). If this is clear, all this ownership issue is nonsense. What counts, is the reaction and how this reaction is being dealt with. If dealt with directly, without avoidance, it comes to an end. If not, it leaves a residue. That´s all. If something arises in the field of awareness, how childish is it to discuss the ownership of it, especially the erased one :-)? So you shouldn´t be surprised that I cannot take this kind of talk seriously. Len Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 27, 2006 Report Share Posted April 27, 2006 Nisargadatta , OConnor Patricia <gdtige wrote: > > > --- billrishel <illusyn a écrit : > > > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " > <lissbon2002@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " > <illusyn@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , ERTAN ASLAN > <aslann2003@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > hi I m a new member... > > > > in a book nisargadatta's he says don't have > something, know > > > nothing and be nothing... > > > > what does that mean? I m waiting your > comments... > > > > > > > > > > Look deeply into what ownership means... > > > > > > if no ownership, then no having... > > > > > > and who is there to potentially own anything > > > if all ownership is erased? > > > > > > > > The owner of the concept of erased ownership :-) > > > > Len > > again a manner of speaking... > > when a feeling that is " mine " is fully experienced, > gone through such that it is no more an adornment, > something that no longer comes up, then it is in a > very real sense *gone*... > > what would you call that? > > " erased " is not an ideal term, admittedly, being a > transitive verb... > > It is not that *someone* erases it... > > I just had an experience of this a few minutes ago. > A feeling came up that was clearly a kind of > attachment, > and instead of ignoring, slowed down to really > experience. > Instead of treating as an object, allowed an actual > " being the feeling " , a complete non-resistance of the > feeling. And in an instant... poof! it vaporized. > [in this case a fairly minor attachment.] > > So there was not an attempt to *get rid of*... but on > the contrary a willingness to actually *be it*. An in > a willingnes to be it, ironically, it vaporizes. > > Would be interested in a term for that. > " Erase " ... agree not a good term. > > Am recalling Krishnamurti talking about experiences > being > " residue " when not experienced fully... > Perhaps when we judge something felt, and thus push it > off, > we don't experience it fully and it becomes residue. > > Does that interpretation make sense from your view? > > Bill > > I`d like to add something to that : > You cannot do that with the intent of getting raid off > something, erasing, annihilation. > It has to become part off, reintegrated in the All, > that is you, and it won`t if you don`t <welcome it.> > > Patricia It is already intergrated in all, it doesn´t need you to do that. Len Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 27, 2006 Report Share Posted April 27, 2006 Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , ERTAN ASLAN <aslann2003@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > hi I m a new member... > > > > > in a book nisargadatta's he says don't have something, know > > > > nothing and be nothing... > > > > > what does that mean? I m waiting your comments... > > > > > > > > > > > > > Look deeply into what ownership means... > > > > > > > > if no ownership, then no having... > > > > > > > > and who is there to potentially own anything > > > > if all ownership is erased? > > > > > > > > > > > > The owner of the concept of erased ownership :-) > > > > > > Len > > > > again a manner of speaking... > > > > when a feeling that is " mine " is fully experienced, > > gone through such that it is no more an adornment, > > something that no longer comes up, then it is in a > > very real sense *gone*... > > > > what would you call that? > > > > " erased " is not an ideal term, admittedly, being a > > transitive verb... > > > > It is not that *someone* erases it... > > > > I just had an experience of this a few minutes ago. > > A feeling came up that was clearly a kind of attachment, > > and instead of ignoring, slowed down to really experience. > > Instead of treating as an object, allowed an actual > > " being the feeling " , a complete non-resistance of the > > feeling. And in an instant... poof! it vaporized. > > [in this case a fairly minor attachment.] > > > > So there was not an attempt to *get rid of*... but on > > the contrary a willingness to actually *be it*. An in > > a willingnes to be it, ironically, it vaporizes. > > > > Would be interested in a term for that. > > " Erase " ... agree not a good term. > > > > Am recalling Krishnamurti talking about experiences being > > " residue " when not experienced fully... > > Perhaps when we judge something felt, and thus push it off, > > we don't experience it fully and it becomes residue. > > > > Does that interpretation make sense from your view? > > > > Bill > > > > Yes, it certainly makes sense. > This is what I´ve been talking about with Phil, lately. > I just don´t see what it has to do with erased ownership. > We´ve been talking about it already, and the obvious thing to me is, > that emotion/conflict is a part/symptom of ego movement, and so is > the " owner " . Therefore it makes no sense to discuss/question > ownership, because when the conflict is there, it is because > the " owner " is there as well. It´s like a french cheese and the > smell ;-). > If this is clear, all this ownership issue is nonsense. What counts, > is the reaction and how this reaction is being dealt with. > If dealt with directly, without avoidance, it comes to an end. > If not, it leaves a residue. That´s all. > If something arises in the field of awareness, how childish is it to > discuss the ownership of it, especially the erased one :-)? > So you shouldn´t be surprised that I cannot take this kind of talk > seriously. > > Len > I clarified my use of the term " erase " . I said that I saw it was a misleading term. You have chosen to ignore, blithely skip over, or otherwise miss the point of what I was saying... so I was wasting my breath. " Ownership " as I use it is intended as a flag. And in that sense it *is* useful. If something is felt by one to be " theirs " then I am saying that is a flag. Where there is ownership problems generally (most likely always) lurk. So, re: " Therefore it makes no sense to discuss/question ownership, because when the conflict is there, it is because the " owner " is there as well. " there can be plenty of cases where there is *no* sense of conflict but there *is* a sense of ownership. And I am saying that when that comes up: " Hey! Stop. Slow down. Go into that. Because that is an attachment. " Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 27, 2006 Report Share Posted April 27, 2006 Nisargadatta , OConnor Patricia <gdtige wrote: > > > --- lissbon2002 <lissbon2002 a écrit : > > > > Nisargadatta , OConnor Patricia > <gdtige@> > wrote: > > > > > > --- billrishel <illusyn@> a écrit : > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " > > <lissbon2002@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " > > <illusyn@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , ERTAN ASLAN > > <aslann2003@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > hi I m a new member... > > > > > in a book nisargadatta's he says don't have > > something, know > > > > nothing and be nothing... > > > > > what does that mean? I m waiting your > > comments... > > > > > > > > > > > > > Look deeply into what ownership means... > > > > > > > > if no ownership, then no having... > > > > > > > > and who is there to potentially own anything > > > > if all ownership is erased? > > > > > > > > > > > > The owner of the concept of erased ownership :-) > > > > > > Len > > > > again a manner of speaking... > > > > when a feeling that is " mine " is fully experienced, > > gone through such that it is no more an adornment, > > something that no longer comes up, then it is in a > > very real sense *gone*... > > > > what would you call that? > > > > " erased " is not an ideal term, admittedly, being a > > transitive verb... > > > > It is not that *someone* erases it... > > > > I just had an experience of this a few minutes ago. > > A feeling came up that was clearly a kind of > > attachment, > > and instead of ignoring, slowed down to really > > experience. > > Instead of treating as an object, allowed an actual > > " being the feeling " , a complete non-resistance of > the > > feeling. And in an instant... poof! it vaporized. > > [in this case a fairly minor attachment.] > > > > So there was not an attempt to *get rid of*... but > on > > the contrary a willingness to actually *be it*. An > in > > a willingnes to be it, ironically, it vaporizes. > > > > Would be interested in a term for that. > > " Erase " ... agree not a good term. > > > > Am recalling Krishnamurti talking about experiences > > being > > " residue " when not experienced fully... > > Perhaps when we judge something felt, and thus push > it > > off, > > we don't experience it fully and it becomes residue. > > > > Does that interpretation make sense from your view? > > > > Bill > > > > I`d like to add something to that : > > You cannot do that with the intent of getting raid > off > > something, erasing, annihilation. > > It has to become part off, reintegrated in the All, > > that is you, and it won`t if you don`t <welcome it.> > > > > Patricia > > > > It is already intergrated in all, it doesn´t need you > to do that. > > Len > > And yet, my attention has to stay put on that, because > I do have the illusion of not always being integrated. > That is the very core of why I am here, discussing > those non-sense senses of fragmentation. > > PAtricia Agreed about attention. We need attention to see how our effort to integrate anything makes part of the imaginary process of disintegration. Ego is a process of images, which when taken for reality, create the illusion of disintegration. Observing conflicting thought processes and emotional reactions to them is enough. When the nature of disintergating images is seen, they dissolve, when they dissolve, it is obvious that there was never any need to intergrate anything, because it was never disintegrated. Only our thoughts made us believe it. The thing is though, that we are addicted to mental effort, and so absorbed in it, that there is no attention left to notice the nature of this process: imagery. Thougts/ images are not reality, when this is seen there is no conflict. Len Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 27, 2006 Report Share Posted April 27, 2006 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > " Ownership " as I use it is intended as a flag. > And in that sense it *is* useful. If something is > felt by one to be " theirs " then I am saying that is > a flag. Where there is ownership problems generally > (most likely always) lurk. So, what happens when you see a flag? Why is it useful? > So, re: > " Therefore it makes no sense to discuss/question > ownership, because when the conflict is there, it is because > the " owner " is there as well. " > there can be plenty of cases where there is *no* sense > of conflict but there *is* a sense of ownership. And I > am saying that when that comes up: " Hey! Stop. Slow down. > Go into that. Because that is an attachment. " How do you go into that? Len Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 27, 2006 Report Share Posted April 27, 2006 Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> > wrote: > > > > " Ownership " as I use it is intended as a flag. > > And in that sense it *is* useful. If something is > > felt by one to be " theirs " then I am saying that is > > a flag. Where there is ownership problems generally > > (most likely always) lurk. > > > > So, what happens when you see a flag? > Why is it useful? > > > > > So, re: > > " Therefore it makes no sense to discuss/question > > ownership, because when the conflict is there, it is because > > the " owner " is there as well. " > > there can be plenty of cases where there is *no* sense > > of conflict but there *is* a sense of ownership. And I > > am saying that when that comes up: " Hey! Stop. Slow down. > > Go into that. Because that is an attachment. " > > > How do you go into that? > > Len > stop, slow down, pay attention. that's it. Aren't you familiar with Krishnamurti? He uses the expression, " Let's go into it together, " all the time. Does his use of that expression puzzle you also? Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 27, 2006 Report Share Posted April 27, 2006 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > " Ownership " as I use it is intended as a flag. > > > And in that sense it *is* useful. If something is > > > felt by one to be " theirs " then I am saying that is > > > a flag. Where there is ownership problems generally > > > (most likely always) lurk. > > > > > > > > So, what happens when you see a flag? > > Why is it useful? > > > > > > > > > So, re: > > > " Therefore it makes no sense to discuss/question > > > ownership, because when the conflict is there, it is because > > > the " owner " is there as well. " > > > there can be plenty of cases where there is *no* sense > > > of conflict but there *is* a sense of ownership. And I > > > am saying that when that comes up: " Hey! Stop. Slow down. > > > Go into that. Because that is an attachment. " > > > > > > How do you go into that? > > > > Len > > > > stop, slow down, pay attention. > that's it. > > Aren't you familiar with Krishnamurti? > He uses the expression, " Let's go into it together, " all the time. > > Does his use of that expression puzzle you also? > > Bill I´m not talking theory, it is not about being familiar with something. The question is: how do you deal with conflict? How do you deal with your reaction to some things I just told you? Don´t talk about it, don´t react it off through expressing your opinions about it, DEAL with it to the end, both mentally and bodily. Len Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 27, 2006 Report Share Posted April 27, 2006 Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > " Ownership " as I use it is intended as a flag. > > > > And in that sense it *is* useful. If something is > > > > felt by one to be " theirs " then I am saying that is > > > > a flag. Where there is ownership problems generally > > > > (most likely always) lurk. > > > > > > > > > > > > So, what happens when you see a flag? > > > Why is it useful? > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, re: > > > > " Therefore it makes no sense to discuss/question > > > > ownership, because when the conflict is there, it is because > > > > the " owner " is there as well. " > > > > there can be plenty of cases where there is *no* sense > > > > of conflict but there *is* a sense of ownership. And I > > > > am saying that when that comes up: " Hey! Stop. Slow down. > > > > Go into that. Because that is an attachment. " > > > > > > > > > How do you go into that? > > > > > > Len > > > > > > > stop, slow down, pay attention. > > that's it. > > > > Aren't you familiar with Krishnamurti? > > He uses the expression, " Let's go into it together, " all the time. > > > > Does his use of that expression puzzle you also? > > > > Bill > > > > I´m not talking theory, it is not about being familiar with > something. > The question is: how do you deal with conflict? > How do you deal with your reaction to some things I just told you? > Don´t talk about it, don´t react it off through expressing your > opinions about it, DEAL with it to the end, both mentally and > bodily. > > Len > Milarepa invited the demons to tea and discourse... All of a sudden I feel so chatty! Hey! Len! Check that mirror! Somethin' is saying DEAL with it ;;;; Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 28, 2006 Report Share Posted April 28, 2006 In a message dated 4/26/2006 10:06:04 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 16:51:44 -0000 " billrishel " <illusyn Re: nisargadatta says what? = no-ownership Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , ERTAN ASLAN <aslann2003@> > wrote: > > > > > > hi I m a new member... > > > in a book nisargadatta's he says don't have something, know > > nothing and be nothing... > > > what does that mean? I m waiting your comments... > > > > > > > Look deeply into what ownership means... > > > > if no ownership, then no having... > > > > and who is there to potentially own anything > > if all ownership is erased? > > > > The owner of the concept of erased ownership :-) > > Len again a manner of speaking... when a feeling that is " mine " is fully experienced, gone through such that it is no more an adornment, something that no longer comes up, then it is in a very real sense *gone*... what would you call that? " erased " is not an ideal term, admittedly, being a transitive verb... It is not that *someone* erases it... I just had an experience of this a few minutes ago. A feeling came up that was clearly a kind of attachment, and instead of ignoring, slowed down to really experience. Instead of treating as an object, allowed an actual " being the feeling " , a complete non-resistance of the feeling. And in an instant... poof! it vaporized. [in this case a fairly minor attachment.] So there was not an attempt to *get rid of*... but on the contrary a willingness to actually *be it*. An in a willingnes to be it, ironically, it vaporizes. Would be interested in a term for that. " Erase " ... agree not a good term. Am recalling Krishnamurti talking about experiences being " residue " when not experienced fully... Perhaps when we judge something felt, and thus push it off, we don't experience it fully and it becomes residue. Does that interpretation make sense from your view? Bill What " it " is, is resistance itself. The willingness to be " it " , is the negation of resistance. This is surrender. Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 28, 2006 Report Share Posted April 28, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/26/2006 10:06:04 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Wed, 26 Apr 2006 16:51:44 -0000 > " billrishel " <illusyn > Re: nisargadatta says what? = no-ownership > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , ERTAN ASLAN <aslann2003@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > hi I m a new member... > > > > in a book nisargadatta's he says don't have something, know > > > nothing and be nothing... > > > > what does that mean? I m waiting your comments... > > > > > > > > > > Look deeply into what ownership means... > > > > > > if no ownership, then no having... > > > > > > and who is there to potentially own anything > > > if all ownership is erased? > > > > > > > > The owner of the concept of erased ownership :-) > > > > Len > > again a manner of speaking... > > when a feeling that is " mine " is fully experienced, > gone through such that it is no more an adornment, > something that no longer comes up, then it is in a > very real sense *gone*... > > what would you call that? > > " erased " is not an ideal term, admittedly, being a > transitive verb... > > It is not that *someone* erases it... > > I just had an experience of this a few minutes ago. > A feeling came up that was clearly a kind of attachment, > and instead of ignoring, slowed down to really experience. > Instead of treating as an object, allowed an actual > " being the feeling " , a complete non-resistance of the > feeling. And in an instant... poof! it vaporized. > [in this case a fairly minor attachment.] > > So there was not an attempt to *get rid of*... but on > the contrary a willingness to actually *be it*. An in > a willingnes to be it, ironically, it vaporizes. > > Would be interested in a term for that. > " Erase " ... agree not a good term. > > Am recalling Krishnamurti talking about experiences being > " residue " when not experienced fully... > Perhaps when we judge something felt, and thus push it off, > we don't experience it fully and it becomes residue. > > Does that interpretation make sense from your view? > > Bill > > > > What " it " is, is resistance itself. The willingness to be " it " , is the > negation of resistance. This is surrender. > > Phil works for me... and I like the way you brought surrender in. that seems to me what surrender *really* is... and notice that surrender as you use the term here is not surrender *to* anything. nor is it a " giving anything up " . it is just a ceasing to resist. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 28, 2006 Report Share Posted April 28, 2006 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 4/26/2006 10:06:04 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > Wed, 26 Apr 2006 16:51:44 -0000 > > " billrishel " <illusyn@> > > Re: nisargadatta says what? = no-ownership > > > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , ERTAN ASLAN <aslann2003@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > hi I m a new member... > > > > > in a book nisargadatta's he says don't have something, know > > > > nothing and be nothing... > > > > > what does that mean? I m waiting your comments... > > > > > > > > > > > > > Look deeply into what ownership means... > > > > > > > > if no ownership, then no having... > > > > > > > > and who is there to potentially own anything > > > > if all ownership is erased? > > > > > > > > > > > > The owner of the concept of erased ownership :-) > > > > > > Len > > > > again a manner of speaking... > > > > when a feeling that is " mine " is fully experienced, > > gone through such that it is no more an adornment, > > something that no longer comes up, then it is in a > > very real sense *gone*... > > > > what would you call that? > > > > " erased " is not an ideal term, admittedly, being a > > transitive verb... > > > > It is not that *someone* erases it... > > > > I just had an experience of this a few minutes ago. > > A feeling came up that was clearly a kind of attachment, > > and instead of ignoring, slowed down to really experience. > > Instead of treating as an object, allowed an actual > > " being the feeling " , a complete non-resistance of the > > feeling. And in an instant... poof! it vaporized. > > [in this case a fairly minor attachment.] > > > > So there was not an attempt to *get rid of*... but on > > the contrary a willingness to actually *be it*. An in > > a willingnes to be it, ironically, it vaporizes. > > > > Would be interested in a term for that. > > " Erase " ... agree not a good term. > > > > Am recalling Krishnamurti talking about experiences being > > " residue " when not experienced fully... > > Perhaps when we judge something felt, and thus push it off, > > we don't experience it fully and it becomes residue. > > > > Does that interpretation make sense from your view? > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > What " it " is, is resistance itself. The willingness to be " it " , is > the > > negation of resistance. This is surrender. > > > > Phil > Willingness to be 'it' only exacerbates the illusion of separation from 'it'........which by the way.....is just another concept. Surrender occurs downstream from the Understanding.......Surrender is not its cause. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 29, 2006 Report Share Posted April 29, 2006 In a message dated 4/27/2006 9:10:02 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 13:27:22 -0000 " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 Re: nisargadatta says what? = no-ownership Nisargadatta , OConnor Patricia <gdtige wrote: > > > --- lissbon2002 <lissbon2002 a écrit : > > > > Nisargadatta , OConnor Patricia > <gdtige@> > wrote: > > > > > > --- billrishel <illusyn@> a écrit : > > > > > > > > --- In Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " > > <lissbon2002@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " > > <illusyn@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , ERTAN ASLAN > > <aslann2003@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > hi I m a new member... > > > > > in a book nisargadatta's he says don't have > > something, know > > > > nothing and be nothing... > > > > > what does that mean? I m waiting your > > comments... > > > > > > > > > > > > > Look deeply into what ownership means... > > > > > > > > if no ownership, then no having... > > > > > > > > and who is there to potentially own anything > > > > if all ownership is erased? > > > > > > > > > > > > The owner of the concept of erased ownership :-) > > > > > > Len > > > > again a manner of speaking... > > > > when a feeling that is " mine " is fully experienced, > > gone through such that it is no more an adornment, > > something that no longer comes up, then it is in a > > very real sense *gone*... > > > > what would you call that? > > > > " erased " is not an ideal term, admittedly, being a > > transitive verb... > > > > It is not that *someone* erases it... > > > > I just had an experience of this a few minutes ago. > > A feeling came up that was clearly a kind of > > attachment, > > and instead of ignoring, slowed down to really > > experience. > > Instead of treating as an object, allowed an actual > > " being the feeling " , a complete non-resistance of > the > > feeling. And in an instant... poof! it vaporized. > > [in this case a fairly minor attachment.] > > > > So there was not an attempt to *get rid of*... but > on > > the contrary a willingness to actually *be it*. An > in > > a willingnes to be it, ironically, it vaporizes. > > > > Would be interested in a term for that. > > " Erase " ... agree not a good term. > > > > Am recalling Krishnamurti talking about experiences > > being > > " residue " when not experienced fully... > > Perhaps when we judge something felt, and thus push > it > > off, > > we don't experience it fully and it becomes residue. > > > > Does that interpretation make sense from your view? > > > > Bill > > > > I`d like to add something to that : > > You cannot do that with the intent of getting raid > off > > something, erasing, annihilation. > > It has to become part off, reintegrated in the All, > > that is you, and it won`t if you don`t <welcome it.> > > > > Patricia > > > > It is already intergrated in all, it doesn´t need you > to do that. > > Len > > And yet, my attention has to stay put on that, because > I do have the illusion of not always being integrated. > That is the very core of why I am here, discussing > those non-sense senses of fragmentation. > > PAtricia Agreed about attention. We need attention to see how our effort to integrate anything makes part of the imaginary process of disintegration. Ego is a process of images, which when taken for reality, create the illusion of disintegration. Observing conflicting thought processes and emotional reactions to them is enough. When the nature of disintergating images is seen, they dissolve, when they dissolve, it is obvious that there was never any need to intergrate anything, because it was never disintegrated. Only our thoughts made us believe it. The thing is though, that we are addicted to mental effort, and so absorbed in it, that there is no attention left to notice the nature of this process: imagery. Thougts/ images are not reality, when this is seen there is no conflict. Len Lemme suggest that it may not be question of 'remaining attention', but that there is a strong motivation to not place attention on these 'images' for the exact reason you mention; they are mushrooms that can only live in the dark. Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 29, 2006 Report Share Posted April 29, 2006 In a message dated 4/27/2006 9:10:02 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 16:08:21 -0000 " billrishel " <illusyn Re: nisargadatta says what? = no-ownership Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > " Ownership " as I use it is intended as a flag. > > > > And in that sense it *is* useful. If something is > > > > felt by one to be " theirs " then I am saying that is > > > > a flag. Where there is ownership problems generally > > > > (most likely always) lurk. > > > > > > > > > > > > So, what happens when you see a flag? > > > Why is it useful? > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, re: > > > > " Therefore it makes no sense to discuss/question > > > > ownership, because when the conflict is there, it is because > > > > the " owner " is there as well. " > > > > there can be plenty of cases where there is *no* sense > > > > of conflict but there *is* a sense of ownership. And I > > > > am saying that when that comes up: " Hey! Stop. Slow down. > > > > Go into that. Because that is an attachment. " > > > > > > > > > How do you go into that? > > > > > > Len > > > > > > > stop, slow down, pay attention. > > that's it. > > > > Aren't you familiar with Krishnamurti? > > He uses the expression, " Let's go into it together, " all the time. > > > > Does his use of that expression puzzle you also? > > > > Bill > > > > I´m not talking theory, it is not about being familiar with > something. > The question is: how do you deal with conflict? > How do you deal with your reaction to some things I just told you? > Don´t talk about it, don´t react it off through expressing your > opinions about it, DEAL with it to the end, both mentally and > bodily. > > Len > Milarepa invited the demons to tea and discourse... All of a sudden I feel so chatty! Hey! Len! Check that mirror! Somethin' is saying DEAL with it ;;;; Bill That " sumthin " you hear is ego, Bill, and it desperately wants to direct your attention elsewhere. Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 29, 2006 Report Share Posted April 29, 2006 In a message dated 4/28/2006 7:26:49 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 11:45:39 -0000 " billrishel " <illusyn Re: nisargadatta says what? = no-ownership Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/26/2006 10:06:04 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Wed, 26 Apr 2006 16:51:44 -0000 > " billrishel " <illusyn > Re: nisargadatta says what? = no-ownership > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , ERTAN ASLAN <aslann2003@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > hi I m a new member... > > > > in a book nisargadatta's he says don't have something, know > > > nothing and be nothing... > > > > what does that mean? I m waiting your comments... > > > > > > > > > > Look deeply into what ownership means... > > > > > > if no ownership, then no having... > > > > > > and who is there to potentially own anything > > > if all ownership is erased? > > > > > > > > The owner of the concept of erased ownership :-) > > > > Len > > again a manner of speaking... > > when a feeling that is " mine " is fully experienced, > gone through such that it is no more an adornment, > something that no longer comes up, then it is in a > very real sense *gone*... > > what would you call that? > > " erased " is not an ideal term, admittedly, being a > transitive verb... > > It is not that *someone* erases it... > > I just had an experience of this a few minutes ago. > A feeling came up that was clearly a kind of attachment, > and instead of ignoring, slowed down to really experience. > Instead of treating as an object, allowed an actual > " being the feeling " , a complete non-resistance of the > feeling. And in an instant... poof! it vaporized. > [in this case a fairly minor attachment.] > > So there was not an attempt to *get rid of*... but on > the contrary a willingness to actually *be it*. An in > a willingnes to be it, ironically, it vaporizes. > > Would be interested in a term for that. > " Erase " ... agree not a good term. > > Am recalling Krishnamurti talking about experiences being > " residue " when not experienced fully... > Perhaps when we judge something felt, and thus push it off, > we don't experience it fully and it becomes residue. > > Does that interpretation make sense from your view? > > Bill > > > > What " it " is, is resistance itself. The willingness to be " it " , is the > negation of resistance. This is surrender. > > Phil works for me... and I like the way you brought surrender in. that seems to me what surrender *really* is... and notice that surrender as you use the term here is not surrender *to* anything. nor is it a " giving anything up " . it is just a ceasing to resist. Bill Yes, it's also significant that surrender is not a conscious choice, even if volition is assumed. The mind is a doing thing and surrender is a not-doing. The mind cannot act on a command to not-do without resisting the doing, making the negation of resistance impossible. This is why welcoming the resistance is effective. It is a doing that the mind can do, which also negates the doingness that is already being done. Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 29, 2006 Report Share Posted April 29, 2006 In a message dated 4/28/2006 10:41:35 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 17:29:20 -0000 " toombaru2006 " <lastrain Re: nisargadatta says what? = no-ownership Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 4/26/2006 10:06:04 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > Wed, 26 Apr 2006 16:51:44 -0000 > > " billrishel " <illusyn@> > > Re: nisargadatta says what? = no-ownership > > > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , ERTAN ASLAN <aslann2003@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > hi I m a new member... > > > > > in a book nisargadatta's he says don't have something, know > > > > nothing and be nothing... > > > > > what does that mean? I m waiting your comments... > > > > > > > > > > > > > Look deeply into what ownership means... > > > > > > > > if no ownership, then no having... > > > > > > > > and who is there to potentially own anything > > > > if all ownership is erased? > > > > > > > > > > > > The owner of the concept of erased ownership :-) > > > > > > Len > > > > again a manner of speaking... > > > > when a feeling that is " mine " is fully experienced, > > gone through such that it is no more an adornment, > > something that no longer comes up, then it is in a > > very real sense *gone*... > > > > what would you call that? > > > > " erased " is not an ideal term, admittedly, being a > > transitive verb... > > > > It is not that *someone* erases it... > > > > I just had an experience of this a few minutes ago. > > A feeling came up that was clearly a kind of attachment, > > and instead of ignoring, slowed down to really experience. > > Instead of treating as an object, allowed an actual > > " being the feeling " , a complete non-resistance of the > > feeling. And in an instant... poof! it vaporized. > > [in this case a fairly minor attachment.] > > > > So there was not an attempt to *get rid of*... but on > > the contrary a willingness to actually *be it*. An in > > a willingnes to be it, ironically, it vaporizes. > > > > Would be interested in a term for that. > > " Erase " ... agree not a good term. > > > > Am recalling Krishnamurti talking about experiences being > > " residue " when not experienced fully... > > Perhaps when we judge something felt, and thus push it off, > > we don't experience it fully and it becomes residue. > > > > Does that interpretation make sense from your view? > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > What " it " is, is resistance itself. The willingness to be " it " , is > the > > negation of resistance. This is surrender. > > > > Phil > Willingness to be 'it' only exacerbates the illusion of separation from 'it'........which by the way.....is just another concept. Surrender occurs downstream from the Understanding.......Surrender is not its cause. toombaru Surrender is not the cause of understanding? Is that what you're saying? Of course not. How silly. P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 29, 2006 Report Share Posted April 29, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/28/2006 7:26:49 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Fri, 28 Apr 2006 11:45:39 -0000 > " billrishel " <illusyn > Re: nisargadatta says what? = no-ownership > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 4/26/2006 10:06:04 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > Wed, 26 Apr 2006 16:51:44 -0000 > > " billrishel " <illusyn@> > > Re: nisargadatta says what? = no-ownership > > > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , ERTAN ASLAN <aslann2003@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > hi I m a new member... > > > > > in a book nisargadatta's he says don't have something, know > > > > nothing and be nothing... > > > > > what does that mean? I m waiting your comments... > > > > > > > > > > > > > Look deeply into what ownership means... > > > > > > > > if no ownership, then no having... > > > > > > > > and who is there to potentially own anything > > > > if all ownership is erased? > > > > > > > > > > > > The owner of the concept of erased ownership :-) > > > > > > Len > > > > again a manner of speaking... > > > > when a feeling that is " mine " is fully experienced, > > gone through such that it is no more an adornment, > > something that no longer comes up, then it is in a > > very real sense *gone*... > > > > what would you call that? > > > > " erased " is not an ideal term, admittedly, being a > > transitive verb... > > > > It is not that *someone* erases it... > > > > I just had an experience of this a few minutes ago. > > A feeling came up that was clearly a kind of attachment, > > and instead of ignoring, slowed down to really experience. > > Instead of treating as an object, allowed an actual > > " being the feeling " , a complete non-resistance of the > > feeling. And in an instant... poof! it vaporized. > > [in this case a fairly minor attachment.] > > > > So there was not an attempt to *get rid of*... but on > > the contrary a willingness to actually *be it*. An in > > a willingnes to be it, ironically, it vaporizes. > > > > Would be interested in a term for that. > > " Erase " ... agree not a good term. > > > > Am recalling Krishnamurti talking about experiences being > > " residue " when not experienced fully... > > Perhaps when we judge something felt, and thus push it off, > > we don't experience it fully and it becomes residue. > > > > Does that interpretation make sense from your view? > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > What " it " is, is resistance itself. The willingness to be " it " , is > the > > negation of resistance. This is surrender. > > > > Phil > > works for me... > > and I like the way you brought surrender in. > that seems to me what surrender *really* is... > > and notice that surrender as you use the term here > is not surrender *to* anything. > > nor is it a " giving anything up " . > > it is just a ceasing to resist. > > > Bill > > > > Yes, it's also significant that surrender is not a conscious choice, even if > volition is assumed. The mind is a doing thing and surrender is a not-doing. > The mind cannot act on a command to not-do without resisting the doing, > making the negation of resistance impossible. This is why welcoming the resistance > is effective. It is a doing that the mind can do, which also negates the > doingness that is already being done. > > Phil interesting... not sure about the logic, but that is how it seems to work for me. The key is that when something like that comes up and I allow myself to *be* whatever it is, I am not trying to fix, heal, correct. And I am not *trying to surrender* either. It is, or at least seems to be, that I have learned that when something " charged " comes up it is best not to fight that. It is OK. No need to fight anything. There is no state that is not grace. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 29, 2006 Report Share Posted April 29, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/28/2006 10:41:35 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Fri, 28 Apr 2006 17:29:20 -0000 > " toombaru2006 " <lastrain > Re: nisargadatta says what? = no-ownership > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 4/26/2006 10:06:04 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > > > Wed, 26 Apr 2006 16:51:44 -0000 > > > " billrishel " <illusyn@> > > > Re: nisargadatta says what? = no-ownership > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , ERTAN ASLAN <aslann2003@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > hi I m a new member... > > > > > > in a book nisargadatta's he says don't have something, know > > > > > nothing and be nothing... > > > > > > what does that mean? I m waiting your comments... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Look deeply into what ownership means... > > > > > > > > > > if no ownership, then no having... > > > > > > > > > > and who is there to potentially own anything > > > > > if all ownership is erased? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The owner of the concept of erased ownership :-) > > > > > > > > Len > > > > > > again a manner of speaking... > > > > > > when a feeling that is " mine " is fully experienced, > > > gone through such that it is no more an adornment, > > > something that no longer comes up, then it is in a > > > very real sense *gone*... > > > > > > what would you call that? > > > > > > " erased " is not an ideal term, admittedly, being a > > > transitive verb... > > > > > > It is not that *someone* erases it... > > > > > > I just had an experience of this a few minutes ago. > > > A feeling came up that was clearly a kind of attachment, > > > and instead of ignoring, slowed down to really experience. > > > Instead of treating as an object, allowed an actual > > > " being the feeling " , a complete non-resistance of the > > > feeling. And in an instant... poof! it vaporized. > > > [in this case a fairly minor attachment.] > > > > > > So there was not an attempt to *get rid of*... but on > > > the contrary a willingness to actually *be it*. An in > > > a willingnes to be it, ironically, it vaporizes. > > > > > > Would be interested in a term for that. > > > " Erase " ... agree not a good term. > > > > > > Am recalling Krishnamurti talking about experiences being > > > " residue " when not experienced fully... > > > Perhaps when we judge something felt, and thus push it off, > > > we don't experience it fully and it becomes residue. > > > > > > Does that interpretation make sense from your view? > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > What " it " is, is resistance itself. The willingness to be " it " , is > > the > > > negation of resistance. This is surrender. > > > > > > Phil > > > > Willingness to be 'it' only exacerbates the illusion of separation > from 'it'........which by the way.....is just another concept. > > > Surrender occurs downstream from the Understanding.......Surrender is > not its cause. > > > > toombaru > > > > Surrender is not the cause of understanding? Is that what you're saying? Of > course not. How silly. > > P Surrender is a prerequisite for understanding. But is not understanding a prerequisite for *true* surrender as well? Seems there is no lock-step causation in experience. It is rather a dynamic, open-ended system, so to speak. I could say, surrender is experience without predjudice. And experience without predjudice is a precondition for understanding, just as a concentration of atmospheric H2O is a precondition for rain. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 29, 2006 Report Share Posted April 29, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/27/2006 9:10:02 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Thu, 27 Apr 2006 13:27:22 -0000 > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 > Re: nisargadatta says what? = no-ownership > > Nisargadatta , OConnor Patricia <gdtige@> > wrote: > > > > > > --- lissbon2002 <lissbon2002@> a écrit : > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , OConnor Patricia > > <gdtige@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > --- billrishel <illusyn@> a écrit : > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " > > > <lissbon2002@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " > > > <illusyn@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , ERTAN ASLAN > > > <aslann2003@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > hi I m a new member... > > > > > > in a book nisargadatta's he says don't have > > > something, know > > > > > nothing and be nothing... > > > > > > what does that mean? I m waiting your > > > comments... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Look deeply into what ownership means... > > > > > > > > > > if no ownership, then no having... > > > > > > > > > > and who is there to potentially own anything > > > > > if all ownership is erased? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The owner of the concept of erased ownership :-) > > > > > > > > Len > > > > > > again a manner of speaking... > > > > > > when a feeling that is " mine " is fully experienced, > > > gone through such that it is no more an adornment, > > > something that no longer comes up, then it is in a > > > very real sense *gone*... > > > > > > what would you call that? > > > > > > " erased " is not an ideal term, admittedly, being a > > > transitive verb... > > > > > > It is not that *someone* erases it... > > > > > > I just had an experience of this a few minutes ago. > > > A feeling came up that was clearly a kind of > > > attachment, > > > and instead of ignoring, slowed down to really > > > experience. > > > Instead of treating as an object, allowed an actual > > > " being the feeling " , a complete non-resistance of > > the > > > feeling. And in an instant... poof! it vaporized. > > > [in this case a fairly minor attachment.] > > > > > > So there was not an attempt to *get rid of*... but > > on > > > the contrary a willingness to actually *be it*. An > > in > > > a willingnes to be it, ironically, it vaporizes. > > > > > > Would be interested in a term for that. > > > " Erase " ... agree not a good term. > > > > > > Am recalling Krishnamurti talking about experiences > > > being > > > " residue " when not experienced fully... > > > Perhaps when we judge something felt, and thus push > > it > > > off, > > > we don't experience it fully and it becomes residue. > > > > > > Does that interpretation make sense from your view? > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > I`d like to add something to that : > > > You cannot do that with the intent of getting raid > > off > > > something, erasing, annihilation. > > > It has to become part off, reintegrated in the All, > > > that is you, and it won`t if you don`t <welcome it.> > > > > > > Patricia > > > > > > > > It is already intergrated in all, it doesn´t need you > > to do that. > > > > Len > > > > And yet, my attention has to stay put on that, because > > I do have the illusion of not always being integrated. > > That is the very core of why I am here, discussing > > those non-sense senses of fragmentation. > > > > PAtricia > > > > Agreed about attention. We need attention to see how our effort to > integrate anything makes part of the imaginary process of > disintegration. > Ego is a process of images, which when taken for reality, create the > illusion of disintegration. Observing conflicting thought processes > and emotional reactions to them is enough. When the nature of > disintergating images is seen, they dissolve, when they dissolve, it > is obvious that there was never any need to intergrate anything, > because it was never disintegrated. Only our thoughts made us > believe it. > The thing is though, that we are addicted to mental effort, and so > absorbed in it, that there is no attention left to notice the nature > of this process: imagery. > Thougts/ images are not reality, when this is seen there is no > conflict. > > Len > > > > Lemme suggest that it may not be question of 'remaining attention', but that > there is a strong motivation to not place attention on these 'images' for > the exact reason you mention; they are mushrooms that can only live in the dark. > > Phil Yes :-) If there is no interest in understanding and a strong motivation to cling to images, there is no attention to the process whatsoever... All emphasis is put on worshipping images, and everything which may challenge their holiness is interpreted as a danger. But it seems that even without the problem of the motivation, treating images as reality is such a strong habit, that we need plenty of attention. Len Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 30, 2006 Report Share Posted April 30, 2006 In a message dated 4/29/2006 3:56:39 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Sat, 29 Apr 2006 08:37:12 -0000 " billrishel " <illusyn Re: nisargadatta says what? = no-ownership Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/28/2006 7:26:49 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Fri, 28 Apr 2006 11:45:39 -0000 > " billrishel " <illusyn > Re: nisargadatta says what? = no-ownership > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 4/26/2006 10:06:04 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > Wed, 26 Apr 2006 16:51:44 -0000 > > " billrishel " <illusyn@> > > Re: nisargadatta says what? = no-ownership > > > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , ERTAN ASLAN <aslann2003@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > hi I m a new member... > > > > > in a book nisargadatta's he says don't have something, know > > > > nothing and be nothing... > > > > > what does that mean? I m waiting your comments... > > > > > > > > > > > > > Look deeply into what ownership means... > > > > > > > > if no ownership, then no having... > > > > > > > > and who is there to potentially own anything > > > > if all ownership is erased? > > > > > > > > > > > > The owner of the concept of erased ownership :-) > > > > > > Len > > > > again a manner of speaking... > > > > when a feeling that is " mine " is fully experienced, > > gone through such that it is no more an adornment, > > something that no longer comes up, then it is in a > > very real sense *gone*... > > > > what would you call that? > > > > " erased " is not an ideal term, admittedly, being a > > transitive verb... > > > > It is not that *someone* erases it... > > > > I just had an experience of this a few minutes ago. > > A feeling came up that was clearly a kind of attachment, > > and instead of ignoring, slowed down to really experience. > > Instead of treating as an object, allowed an actual > > " being the feeling " , a complete non-resistance of the > > feeling. And in an instant... poof! it vaporized. > > [in this case a fairly minor attachment.] > > > > So there was not an attempt to *get rid of*... but on > > the contrary a willingness to actually *be it*. An in > > a willingnes to be it, ironically, it vaporizes. > > > > Would be interested in a term for that. > > " Erase " ... agree not a good term. > > > > Am recalling Krishnamurti talking about experiences being > > " residue " when not experienced fully... > > Perhaps when we judge something felt, and thus push it off, > > we don't experience it fully and it becomes residue. > > > > Does that interpretation make sense from your view? > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > What " it " is, is resistance itself. The willingness to be " it " , is > the > > negation of resistance. This is surrender. > > > > Phil > > works for me... > > and I like the way you brought surrender in. > that seems to me what surrender *really* is... > > and notice that surrender as you use the term here > is not surrender *to* anything. > > nor is it a " giving anything up " . > > it is just a ceasing to resist. > > > Bill > > > > Yes, it's also significant that surrender is not a conscious choice, even if > volition is assumed. The mind is a doing thing and surrender is a not-doing. > The mind cannot act on a command to not-do without resisting the doing, > making the negation of resistance impossible. This is why welcoming the resistance > is effective. It is a doing that the mind can do, which also negates the > doingness that is already being done. > > Phil interesting... not sure about the logic, but that is how it seems to work for me. The key is that when something like that comes up and I allow myself to *be* whatever it is, I am not trying to fix, heal, correct. And I am not *trying to surrender* either. It is, or at least seems to be, that I have learned that when something " charged " comes up it is best not to fight that. It is OK. No need to fight anything. There is no state that is not grace. Bill Yup, and it's a major realization, in my opinion. The " charge " is resistance, which is, of course, sourced in mind/ego. As this resistance arises, mind/ego would like to stop it, which of course is resisting the resistance. If one then tries to surrender, this is resistance to the struggle, and so he now resists the resistance to the resistance. Hehe. All mind can do is pile on additional layers of resistance, which makes it clear why the mind nonsense needs to stop, although the stopping is not a choice. If the mind stops, all the layers of resistance collapse. Another name for inviting the resistance, besides surrender, is acceptance. Mind, of course, likes to complicate matters, but that's the entire spiritual 'path'. Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 30, 2006 Report Share Posted April 30, 2006 In a message dated 4/29/2006 3:56:39 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Sat, 29 Apr 2006 08:47:26 -0000 " billrishel " <illusyn Re: nisargadatta says what? = no-ownership > > > What " it " is, is resistance itself. The willingness to be " it " , is > > the > > > negation of resistance. This is surrender. > > > > > > Phil > > > > Willingness to be 'it' only exacerbates the illusion of separation > from 'it'........which by the way.....is just another concept. > > > Surrender occurs downstream from the Understanding.......Surrender is > not its cause. > > > > toombaru > > > > Surrender is not the cause of understanding? Is that what you're saying? Of > course not. How silly. > > P Surrender is a prerequisite for understanding. But is not understanding a prerequisite for *true* surrender as well? Seems there is no lock-step causation in experience. It is rather a dynamic, open-ended system, so to speak. I could say, surrender is experience without predjudice. And experience without predjudice is a precondition for understanding, just as a concentration of atmospheric H2O is a precondition for rain. Bill Um....yeah, basically agree with that. I would use different terminology. Experience leads to increased awareness which results in new experience, and so on until we wake up from the dream. In that 'process', surrender, acceptance, willingness, nonattachment, release of thinkingness, etc occur. Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 30, 2006 Report Share Posted April 30, 2006 In a message dated 4/29/2006 8:52:08 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Sat, 29 Apr 2006 11:58:13 -0000 " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 Re: nisargadatta says what? = no-ownership > Lemme suggest that it may not be question of 'remaining attention', but that > there is a strong motivation to not place attention on these 'images' for > the exact reason you mention; they are mushrooms that can only live in the dark. > > Phil Yes :-) If there is no interest in understanding and a strong motivation to cling to images, there is no attention to the process whatsoever... All emphasis is put on worshipping images, and everything which may challenge their holiness is interpreted as a danger. But it seems that even without the problem of the motivation, treating images as reality is such a strong habit, that we need plenty of attention. Len Since you've had the experience of the illusion 'collapsing', this might be of interest. There aren't any 'images' to go with it but I'll wing it. I've noticed that the illusion is always on the verge of collapsing every moment, and it's only through rather strenuous effort, conscious and unconscious, and some tricks of mind that we are able to prevent this from happening. The reason any effort happens at all is ultimately to hold up the fake scenery. This, of course, makes liars of us all who imagine that we're looking for Reality but refuse to stop the effort to hide it even for a moment. It was a shock to notice that which we seek is so close that it literally can't be avoided and must be ignored through these efforts, and the efforts are very subtle and complex. You know the complexity of the self deceptions we use to reinforce our view of self. This is minor in comparison to the greater issue of obscuring Reality, when Reality is so close that it's the very act of illusion creation itself. As an analogy, it's like frantically filling a bucket with water and the bucket has a large hole in the bottom. Sometimes we're not vigilant enough, and the water runs out for just a moment. When this realization has almost reached conscious awareness, we simply ignore reality as it pokes through the illusion, much the same way we would ignore something in the illusion that has displeasing implications. I believe you've had the experiences you describe because I believe I can 'see' it. My sense is that the split second you noticed the illusion collapse, you ignored everything else that followed from that until you found a way to reestablish it. What I'm seeing now is the belly laugh of the awakened one who noticed the absurdity of this sham. Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 30, 2006 Report Share Posted April 30, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/29/2006 8:52:08 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Sat, 29 Apr 2006 11:58:13 -0000 > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 > Re: nisargadatta says what? = no-ownership > > > Lemme suggest that it may not be question of 'remaining > attention', but that > > there is a strong motivation to not place attention on > these 'images' for > > the exact reason you mention; they are mushrooms that can only > live in the dark. > > > > Phil > > > > Yes :-) If there is no interest in understanding and a strong > motivation to cling to images, there is no attention to the process > whatsoever... All emphasis is put on worshipping images, and > everything which may challenge their holiness is interpreted as a > danger. > But it seems that even without the problem of the motivation, > treating images as reality is such a strong habit, that we need > plenty of attention. > > Len > > > > Since you've had the experience of the illusion 'collapsing', this might be > of interest. There aren't any 'images' to go with it but I'll wing it. I've > noticed that the illusion is always on the verge of collapsing every moment, > and it's only through rather strenuous effort, conscious and unconscious, and > some tricks of mind that we are able to prevent this from happening. The > reason any effort happens at all is ultimately to hold up the fake scenery. This, > of course, makes liars of us all who imagine that we're looking for Reality > but refuse to stop the effort to hide it even for a moment. > > > It was a shock to notice that which we seek is so close that it literally > can't be avoided and must be ignored through these efforts, and the efforts are > very subtle and complex. Indeed. The reality of the self is a result of quasi constant mental effort, without which it collapses. It is evident and very funny when one isn´t caught in this process. However, this knowledge means nothing when one is caught in it, and plenty of attention is needed to see through it. As you say the effort is very subtle and complex, and can easily hide in any unexamined statement/concept, especially a concept of the unreality of the self, so popular among seekers ;-) Seeking is itself an effort, that´s why it´s so hard, if not impossible at all to " find " that is which is more then close, because it is just there, and only escapes because one is seeking. Len > You know the complexity of the self deceptions we > use to reinforce our view of self. This is minor in comparison to the greater > issue of obscuring Reality, when Reality is so close that it's the very act of > illusion creation itself. > > > As an analogy, it's like frantically filling a bucket with water and the > bucket has a large hole in the bottom. Sometimes we're not vigilant enough, and > the water runs out for just a moment. When this realization has almost reached > conscious awareness, we simply ignore reality as it pokes through the > illusion, much the same way we would ignore something in the illusion that has > displeasing implications. > > I believe you've had the experiences you describe because I believe I can > 'see' it. My sense is that the split second you noticed the illusion collapse, > you ignored everything else that followed from that until you found a way to > reestablish it. What I'm seeing now is the belly laugh of the awakened one who > noticed the absurdity of this sham. > > Phil 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.