Guest guest Posted April 30, 2006 Report Share Posted April 30, 2006 In a message dated 4/29/2006 1:34:26 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Sat, 29 Apr 2006 11:33:46 -0700 " Adamson " <adamson Surrender - a view of > > < And what for do you want to surrender ? Is you wife arround ? > > < Werner > > Perhaps such things as " unlove, resentment, anger, condescenscion, > hatred, prejudice, indifference, smugness, malicious intent, > etc. " > Only annoying things you want to get rid off? ;-) > What about pleasure and elf-estime? > Len Hi Len, I didn't say I wanted to " get rid of(f) " these things or any things, whethr annoying or not. Just to merely surrender into what is AS what is which isn't an " intentional act " but the automatic result of the clarity of the realization that what is is what is and there ain't nuttin' else and no getting out of it, going beyond it, changing it, improving it, etc. The rest takes care of itself all by itself, just as turbulent water settles when left alone. In regards to " pleasure " , it's one's attachment to pleasure and the driven desire to have it be repeated, possesed, control, engineered, exploited, etc that is the cause of and *is* the pain and suffering. If the desire to avoid/pursue is simply and only felt without motive, it dissipates on it's own, which is surrender in my parlance, leaving in its wake the a sense of infinite presence (for lack of better words). In regards to " (s)elf-est(e)ime " , it's totally uncessary, a mental concoction or fabrication similar to a mirage in the desert taken to be " real " or even necessary. When seen as such, it loses its distracting/disturbing influence. Michael But don't you hafta qualify that realization that what is, is, and it can't be changed? I mean, if you're sitting on a knitting needle, you don't just say it can't be changed and sit there. So, are there some things that can be changed and others not? P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 30, 2006 Report Share Posted April 30, 2006 Message: 25 Sun, 30 Apr 2006 02:47:04 EDT ADHHUB Re: Surrender - a view of In a message dated 4/29/2006 1:34:26 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Sat, 29 Apr 2006 11:33:46 -0700 " Adamson " <adamson Surrender - a view of > > < And what for do you want to surrender ? Is you wife arround ? > > < Werner > > Perhaps such things as " unlove, resentment, anger, condescenscion, > hatred, prejudice, indifference, smugness, malicious intent, > etc. " > Only annoying things you want to get rid off? ;-) > What about pleasure and elf-estime? > Len > Hi Len, > I didn't say I wanted to " get rid of(f) " these things or any things, > whethr annoying or not. Just to merely surrender into what is AS > what > is which isn't an " intentional act " but the automatic result of the > clarity of the realization that what is is what is and there ain't > nuttin' else and no getting out of it, going beyond it, changing it, > improving it, etc. The rest takes care of itself all by itself, just > as > turbulent water settles when left alone. > In regards to " pleasure " , it's one's attachment to pleasure and the > driven desire to have it be repeated, possesed, control, engineered, > exploited, etc that is the cause of and *is* the pain and suffering. > If > the desire to avoid/pursue is simply and only felt without motive, it > dissipates on it's own, which is surrender in my parlance, leaving in > its wake the a sense of infinite presence (for lack of better words). > In regards to " (s)elf-est(e)ime " , it's totally uncessary, a mental > concoction or fabrication similar to a mirage in the desert taken to > be > " real " or even necessary. When seen as such, it loses its > distracting/disturbing influence. > Michael > But don't you hafta qualify that realization that what is, is, and it > can't > be changed? I mean, if you're sitting on a knitting needle, you don't > just say > it can't be changed and sit there. So, are there some things that can > be > changed and others not? > P Hi P, If I follow you correctly, I see what you're saying about jumping up when you sit on a needle and I agree that jumping up indicates that a change has taken place. But I wasn't saying that " what is " is *stagnant*. There's movement *in* WHAT IS but there is no movement *of* WHAT IS. As a rough analogy, there's movement in and of and as the entire ocean, but the entire ocean isn't going anywhere. Sort of like the images on a movie screen. Lots of movement but the whole array of images are going anywhere. Change, to me, occurs perpetually. Nothing stands still. But we " know " change only through comparison. If there were no comparing there'd be no percetion of change. Change might have indeed taken place (in theory), but it wouldn't (couldn't) have been perceived without memory getting involved. So backtracking somewhat, 1) the body is sitting on a needle ( = " what is " at that moment); 2) then pain is noticed ( = " what is " at that moment); 3) then the body responds by jumping up ( = " what is " at that moment). At any given moment, and at all moments, there is only " what is " (i.e., sitting, pain, jumping up). There is no " one " outside the moment, separate from the event/experience looking at it and deciding what to do or not to do. Another way of stating it is that at each moment there can only be the moment as it is. If a so-called " thinker " enters the scence (seen), then that is the next " event/moment " (which is still occurring Now...to it, in it, and as a modification of itself.) In short, change occurs, but there isn't a " changer " sitting around outside the moment engineering the successive flow of events that are movement but don't really go anywhere. Sort of like dreaming. Lots of stuff happens in the dream but the dream doesn't go anywhere. Michael 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 4/30/2006 12:51:49 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Sun, 30 Apr 2006 13:31:26 -0000 " billrishel " <illusyn Re: Surrender - a view of Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/29/2006 1:34:26 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Sat, 29 Apr 2006 11:33:46 -0700 > " Adamson " <adamson > Surrender - a view of > > > > > > < And what for do you want to surrender ? Is you wife arround ? > > > > < Werner > > > > Perhaps such things as " unlove, resentment, anger, condescenscion, > > hatred, prejudice, indifference, smugness, malicious intent, > > etc. " > > > > Only annoying things you want to get rid off? ;-) > > What about pleasure and elf-estime? > > > Len > > Hi Len, > > I didn't say I wanted to " get rid of(f) " these things or any things, > whethr annoying or not. Just to merely surrender into what is AS what > is which isn't an " intentional act " but the automatic result of the > clarity of the realization that what is is what is and there ain't > nuttin' else and no getting out of it, going beyond it, changing it, > improving it, etc. The rest takes care of itself all by itself, just as > turbulent water settles when left alone. > > In regards to " pleasure " , it's one's attachment to pleasure and the > driven desire to have it be repeated, possesed, control, engineered, > exploited, etc that is the cause of and *is* the pain and suffering. If > the desire to avoid/pursue is simply and only felt without motive, it > dissipates on it's own, which is surrender in my parlance, leaving in > its wake the a sense of infinite presence (for lack of better words). > In regards to " (s)elf-est(e)ime " , it's totally uncessary, a mental > concoction or fabrication similar to a mirage in the desert taken to be > " real " or even necessary. When seen as such, it loses its > distracting/disturbing influence. > > Michael > > > > But don't you hafta qualify that realization that what is, is, and it can't > be changed? I mean, if you're sitting on a knitting needle, you don't just say > it can't be changed and sit there. So, are there some things that can be > changed and others not? > > P Attempting to change the nature of experience is one thing. Attempting to change a flat tire another. Bill Right, so how is the realization qualified? I relate 'volitional' changing to doingness in physicality rather than qualities of being, but there is an overlap. Something can be " done " about a flat tire. Nothing is to be 'done' about anger toward a coworker, except perhaps to look at it. What about the coworker who repeatedly flattens you tires? I see this as the fallacy of the 'realization' that What Is, cannot be changed. It flies in the face of our experience that tells us it can indeed. Acceptance is a different matter. It implies the absence of attachment and struggle, but neither prescribes nor prohibits action. It's not involved with action. P 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 4/30/2006 12:51:49 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Sun, 30 Apr 2006 08:02:08 -0700 " Adamson " <adamson Surrender - a view of Message: 25 Sun, 30 Apr 2006 02:47:04 EDT ADHHUB Re: Surrender - a view of In a message dated 4/29/2006 1:34:26 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Sat, 29 Apr 2006 11:33:46 -0700 " Adamson " <adamson Surrender - a view of > > < And what for do you want to surrender ? Is you wife arround ? > > < Werner > > Perhaps such things as " unlove, resentment, anger, condescenscion, > hatred, prejudice, indifference, smugness, malicious intent, > etc. " > Only annoying things you want to get rid off? ;-) > What about pleasure and elf-estime? > Len > Hi Len, > I didn't say I wanted to " get rid of(f) " these things or any things, > whethr annoying or not. Just to merely surrender into what is AS > what > is which isn't an " intentional act " but the automatic result of the > clarity of the realization that what is is what is and there ain't > nuttin' else and no getting out of it, going beyond it, changing it, > improving it, etc. The rest takes care of itself all by itself, just > as > turbulent water settles when left alone. > In regards to " pleasure " , it's one's attachment to pleasure and the > driven desire to have it be repeated, possesed, control, engineered, > exploited, etc that is the cause of and *is* the pain and suffering. > If > the desire to avoid/pursue is simply and only felt without motive, it > dissipates on it's own, which is surrender in my parlance, leaving in > its wake the a sense of infinite presence (for lack of better words). > In regards to " (s)elf-est(e)ime " , it's totally uncessary, a mental > concoction or fabrication similar to a mirage in the desert taken to > be > " real " or even necessary. When seen as such, it loses its > distracting/disturbing influence. > Michael > But don't you hafta qualify that realization that what is, is, and it > can't > be changed? I mean, if you're sitting on a knitting needle, you don't > just say > it can't be changed and sit there. So, are there some things that can > be > changed and others not? > P Hi P, If I follow you correctly, I see what you're saying about jumping up when you sit on a needle and I agree that jumping up indicates that a change has taken place. But I wasn't saying that " what is " is *stagnant*. There's movement *in* WHAT IS but there is no movement *of* WHAT IS. As a rough analogy, there's movement in and of and as the entire ocean, but the entire ocean isn't going anywhere. Sort of like the images on a movie screen. Lots of movement but the whole array of images are going anywhere. Change, to me, occurs perpetually. Nothing stands still. But we " know " change only through comparison. If there were no comparing there'd be no percetion of change. Change might have indeed taken place (in theory), but it wouldn't (couldn't) have been perceived without memory getting involved. So backtracking somewhat, 1) the body is sitting on a needle ( = " what is " at that moment); 2) then pain is noticed ( = " what is " at that moment); 3) then the body responds by jumping up ( = " what is " at that moment). At any given moment, and at all moments, there is only " what is " (i.e., sitting, pain, jumping up). There is no " one " outside the moment, separate from the event/experience looking at it and deciding what to do or not to do. Another way of stating it is that at each moment there can only be the moment as it is. If a so-called " thinker " enters the scence (seen), then that is the next " event/moment " (which is still occurring Now...to it, in it, and as a modification of itself.) In short, change occurs, but there isn't a " changer " sitting around outside the moment engineering the successive flow of events that are movement but don't really go anywhere. Sort of like dreaming. Lots of stuff happens in the dream but the dream doesn't go anywhere. Michael Hmmmmm, okay, I guess you're saying you're just responding to whatever's happening in this moment, and so since there's no past analysis or future projecting going on, then you remain within the bounds of what's 'real'; what's happening in this moment? And when you say what is can't be changed, you mean that the present moment simply is what it is and can only be changed in the next moment, which you aren't looking at? Well, that's cool and all but you're not talking about this as a way of life, right? I mean, you set intentions and project into the future to fulfill those intentions continuously, right? Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 1, 2006 Report Share Posted May 1, 2006 > > > > > < And what for do you want to surrender ? Is you > wife arround ? > > > > < Werner > > > > Perhaps such things as " unlove, resentment, > anger, condescenscion, > > hatred, prejudice, indifference, smugness, > malicious intent, > > etc. " > > > > Only annoying things you want to get rid off? ;-) > > What about pleasure and elf-estime? > > > Len > > > Hi Len, > > > I didn't say I wanted to " get rid of(f) " these > things or any things, > > whethr annoying or not. Just to merely surrender > into what is AS > > what > > is which isn't an " intentional act " but the > automatic result of the > > clarity of the realization that what is is what > is and there ain't > > nuttin' else and no getting out of it, going > beyond it, changing it, > > improving it, etc. The rest takes care of itself > all by itself, just > > as > > turbulent water settles when left alone. > > > In regards to " pleasure " , it's one's attachment to > pleasure and the > > driven desire to have it be repeated, possesed, > control, engineered, > > exploited, etc that is the cause of and *is* the > pain and suffering. > > If > > the desire to avoid/pursue is simply and only felt > without motive, it > > dissipates on it's own, which is surrender in my > parlance, leaving in > > its wake the a sense of infinite presence (for > lack of better words). > > In regards to " (s)elf-est(e)ime " , it's totally > uncessary, a mental > > concoction or fabrication similar to a mirage in > the desert taken to > > be > > " real " or even necessary. When seen as such, it > loses its > > distracting/disturbing influence. > > > Michael > > > But don't you hafta qualify that realization that > what is, is, and it > > can't > > be changed? I mean, if you're sitting on a > knitting needle, you don't > > just say > > it can't be changed and sit there. So, are there > some things that can > > be > > changed and others not? > > > P > > Hi P, > > If I follow you correctly, I see what you're > saying about jumping up > when you sit on a needle and I agree that jumping up > indicates that a > change has taken place. But I wasn't saying that > " what is " is > *stagnant*. There's movement *in* WHAT IS but there > is no movement *of* > WHAT IS. As a rough analogy, there's movement in and > of and as the > entire ocean, but the entire ocean isn't going > anywhere. Sort of like > the images on a movie screen. Lots of movement but > the whole array of > images are going anywhere. > > Change, to me, occurs perpetually. Nothing > stands still. But we > " know " change only through comparison. If there were > no comparing > there'd be no percetion of change. Change might have > indeed taken place > (in theory), but it wouldn't (couldn't) have been > perceived without > memory getting involved. > > So backtracking somewhat, 1) the body is > sitting on a needle ( = > " what is " at that moment); 2) then pain is noticed ( > = " what is " at that > moment); 3) then the body responds by jumping up ( > = " what is " at that > moment). At any given moment, and at all moments, > there is only " what > is " (i.e., sitting, pain, jumping up). There is no > " one " outside the > moment, separate from the event/experience looking > at it and deciding > what to do or not to do. Another way of stating it > is that at each > moment there can only be the moment as it is. If a > so-called " thinker " > enters the scence (seen), then that is the next > " event/moment " (which is > still occurring Now...to it, in it, and as a > modification of itself.) > In short, change occurs, but there isn't a " changer " > sitting around > outside the moment engineering the successive flow > of events that are > movement but don't really go anywhere. Sort of like > dreaming. Lots of > stuff happens in the dream but the dream doesn't go > anywhere. > > Michael YIt seems that you are describing a very fundamental law of this floating world : rising, shining and fading away. Constant change so we do not crystalize into dinos. but we keep being broken up back into Living Reality. And then...that presence...indisputably here...witnessing the finite dance within a defined circle... Good stuff Michael. Patricia > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 1, 2006 Report Share Posted May 1, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/30/2006 12:51:49 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Sun, 30 Apr 2006 13:31:26 -0000 > " billrishel " <illusyn > Re: Surrender - a view of > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 4/29/2006 1:34:26 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > Sat, 29 Apr 2006 11:33:46 -0700 > > " Adamson " <adamson@> > > Surrender - a view of > > > > > > > > > > < And what for do you want to surrender ? Is you wife arround ? > > > > > > < Werner > > > > > > Perhaps such things as " unlove, resentment, anger, > condescenscion, > > > hatred, prejudice, indifference, smugness, malicious intent, > > > etc. " > > > > > > > Only annoying things you want to get rid off? ;-) > > > What about pleasure and elf-estime? > > > > > Len > > > > Hi Len, > > > > I didn't say I wanted to " get rid of(f) " these things or any > things, > > whethr annoying or not. Just to merely surrender into what is AS > what > > is which isn't an " intentional act " but the automatic result of > the > > clarity of the realization that what is is what is and there ain't > > nuttin' else and no getting out of it, going beyond it, changing > it, > > improving it, etc. The rest takes care of itself all by itself, > just as > > turbulent water settles when left alone. > > > > In regards to " pleasure " , it's one's attachment to pleasure and > the > > driven desire to have it be repeated, possesed, control, > engineered, > > exploited, etc that is the cause of and *is* the pain and > suffering. If > > the desire to avoid/pursue is simply and only felt without motive, > it > > dissipates on it's own, which is surrender in my parlance, leaving > in > > its wake the a sense of infinite presence (for lack of better > words). > > In regards to " (s)elf-est(e)ime " , it's totally uncessary, a mental > > concoction or fabrication similar to a mirage in the desert taken > to be > > " real " or even necessary. When seen as such, it loses its > > distracting/disturbing influence. > > > > Michael > > > > > > > > But don't you hafta qualify that realization that what is, is, and > it can't > > be changed? I mean, if you're sitting on a knitting needle, you > don't just say > > it can't be changed and sit there. So, are there some things that > can be > > changed and others not? > > > > P > > Attempting to change the nature of experience is one thing. > Attempting to change a flat tire another. > > Bill > > A flat tire can be changed. When the changer attempts to change the changer.....things get a bit sticky. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 1, 2006 Report Share Posted May 1, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/30/2006 12:51:49 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Sun, 30 Apr 2006 13:31:26 -0000 > " billrishel " <illusyn > Re: Surrender - a view of > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 4/29/2006 1:34:26 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > Sat, 29 Apr 2006 11:33:46 -0700 > > " Adamson " <adamson@> > > Surrender - a view of > > > > > > > > > > < And what for do you want to surrender ? Is you wife arround ? > > > > > > < Werner > > > > > > Perhaps such things as " unlove, resentment, anger, > condescenscion, > > > hatred, prejudice, indifference, smugness, malicious intent, > > > etc. " > > > > > > > Only annoying things you want to get rid off? ;-) > > > What about pleasure and elf-estime? > > > > > Len > > > > Hi Len, > > > > I didn't say I wanted to " get rid of(f) " these things or any > things, > > whethr annoying or not. Just to merely surrender into what is AS > what > > is which isn't an " intentional act " but the automatic result of > the > > clarity of the realization that what is is what is and there ain't > > nuttin' else and no getting out of it, going beyond it, changing > it, > > improving it, etc. The rest takes care of itself all by itself, > just as > > turbulent water settles when left alone. > > > > In regards to " pleasure " , it's one's attachment to pleasure and > the > > driven desire to have it be repeated, possesed, control, > engineered, > > exploited, etc that is the cause of and *is* the pain and > suffering. If > > the desire to avoid/pursue is simply and only felt without motive, > it > > dissipates on it's own, which is surrender in my parlance, leaving > in > > its wake the a sense of infinite presence (for lack of better > words). > > In regards to " (s)elf-est(e)ime " , it's totally uncessary, a mental > > concoction or fabrication similar to a mirage in the desert taken > to be > > " real " or even necessary. When seen as such, it loses its > > distracting/disturbing influence. > > > > Michael > > > > > > > > But don't you hafta qualify that realization that what is, is, and > it can't > > be changed? I mean, if you're sitting on a knitting needle, you > don't just say > > it can't be changed and sit there. So, are there some things that > can be > > changed and others not? > > > > P > > Attempting to change the nature of experience is one thing. > Attempting to change a flat tire another. > > Bill > > > > Right, so how is the realization qualified? I relate 'volitional' changing > to doingness in physicality rather than qualities of being, but there is an > overlap. Something can be " done " about a flat tire. Nothing is to be 'done' > about anger toward a coworker, except perhaps to look at it. What about the > coworker who repeatedly flattens you tires? > > I see this as the fallacy of the 'realization' that What Is, cannot be > changed. It flies in the face of our experience that tells us it can indeed. > Acceptance is a different matter. It implies the absence of attachment and > struggle, but neither prescribes nor prohibits action. It's not involved with action. > > P Observation is an action in itself. The " external " follows naturally when the nature of conflict is understood. It is impossible for the " external " conflict to remain present when the mental source of it is understood, because the " external " is just a mirror. Ever tried to get rid of your ugly haircut through sending your mirror to a hairdresser? On another hand, when there is no mental conflict, the external facts which do need an external action can be dealt with easily. Len Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 2, 2006 Report Share Posted May 2, 2006 In a message dated 5/1/2006 4:11:21 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Mon, 01 May 2006 11:08:31 -0000 " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 Re: Surrender - a view of Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/30/2006 12:51:49 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Sun, 30 Apr 2006 13:31:26 -0000 > " billrishel " <illusyn > Re: Surrender - a view of > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 4/29/2006 1:34:26 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > Sat, 29 Apr 2006 11:33:46 -0700 > > " Adamson " <adamson@> > > Surrender - a view of > > > > > > > > > > < And what for do you want to surrender ? Is you wife arround ? > > > > > > < Werner > > > > > > Perhaps such things as " unlove, resentment, anger, > condescenscion, > > > hatred, prejudice, indifference, smugness, malicious intent, > > > etc. " > > > > > > > Only annoying things you want to get rid off? ;-) > > > What about pleasure and elf-estime? > > > > > Len > > > > Hi Len, > > > > I didn't say I wanted to " get rid of(f) " these things or any > things, > > whethr annoying or not. Just to merely surrender into what is AS > what > > is which isn't an " intentional act " but the automatic result of > the > > clarity of the realization that what is is what is and there ain't > > nuttin' else and no getting out of it, going beyond it, changing > it, > > improving it, etc. The rest takes care of itself all by itself, > just as > > turbulent water settles when left alone. > > > > In regards to " pleasure " , it's one's attachment to pleasure and > the > > driven desire to have it be repeated, possesed, control, > engineered, > > exploited, etc that is the cause of and *is* the pain and > suffering. If > > the desire to avoid/pursue is simply and only felt without motive, > it > > dissipates on it's own, which is surrender in my parlance, leaving > in > > its wake the a sense of infinite presence (for lack of better > words). > > In regards to " (s)elf-est(e)ime " , it's totally uncessary, a mental > > concoction or fabrication similar to a mirage in the desert taken > to be > > " real " or even necessary. When seen as such, it loses its > > distracting/disturbing influence. > > > > Michael > > > > > > > > But don't you hafta qualify that realization that what is, is, and > it can't > > be changed? I mean, if you're sitting on a knitting needle, you > don't just say > > it can't be changed and sit there. So, are there some things that > can be > > changed and others not? > > > > P > > Attempting to change the nature of experience is one thing. > Attempting to change a flat tire another. > > Bill > > > > Right, so how is the realization qualified? I relate 'volitional' changing > to doingness in physicality rather than qualities of being, but there is an > overlap. Something can be " done " about a flat tire. Nothing is to be 'done' > about anger toward a coworker, except perhaps to look at it. What about the > coworker who repeatedly flattens you tires? > > I see this as the fallacy of the 'realization' that What Is, cannot be > changed. It flies in the face of our experience that tells us it can indeed. > Acceptance is a different matter. It implies the absence of attachment and > struggle, but neither prescribes nor prohibits action. It's not involved with action. > > P Observation is an action in itself. The " external " follows naturally when the nature of conflict is understood. It is impossible for the " external " conflict to remain present when the mental source of it is understood, because the " external " is just a mirror. Ever tried to get rid of your ugly haircut through sending your mirror to a hairdresser? On another hand, when there is no mental conflict, the external facts which do need an external action can be dealt with easily. Len Right. I think Michael may have meant something different from what it appeared to me, but to believe that external events can't be changed isn't useful, cause it's always going to appear that they can, and so the belief can only be a pretense. Events occur, things are done as usual, and if possible, all of it is accepted without struggle, but there's no choice in 'doing' this accepting. As you suggest, revealing the nature of the struggles themselves is what ultimately brings about this acceptance. 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.