Guest guest Posted September 9, 2004 Report Share Posted September 9, 2004 bill's " No Self " appears to be very selfish, indeed... even downright hostile... Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@a...> wrote: > Dan.... > > Are you capable of an intelligent exchange? Or are these > little " peanut gallery " cracks the zenith of your capabilites? > > Bill > > > > - > danananda2004 > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, September 08, 2004 6:34 PM > Re: Bill's No Self. > > > for somebody whose writing " leaves no impression " , you sure are > defensive about it... > > > Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@a...> > wrote: > > bill. if " the writing of this message leaves no impression " , why is > > it posted here on this forum for all to read? > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > Why is it Dan? > > That is something for you to contemplate... > > What did I mean by " impression " Dan? > > Do you *know* what I meant? > > Or do you assume that the first thing that > > pops into your head is surely what I meant? > > > > Perhaps when what I say doesn't make sense > > to you it is a sign that you have not understood. > > > > > > Bill > > > > - > > danananda2004 > > Nisargadatta > > Wednesday, September 08, 2004 7:17 AM > > Re: Bill's No Self. > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@a...> > > wrote: > > > Bill, I find interesting that you write > > > you no longer have a sense of self. I'm > > > not sure what you mean by this. Do you > > > mean that now you find all concepts, and > > > memories regarding a Bill to be a false > > > imputation? Or is it that now you lack > > > those feelings of interiority associated > > > with a locus of activity? > > > > > > Pete > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > The latter, Pete. > > > > > > The former option you mention would be > > > -- if I read you right -- a conceptual > > > " adjustment " of some kind. > > > > > > But I can't even say " I lack those feelings > > > of interiority... " > > > even that is an overstatement, because > > > the subjective sense of " I lack " is not > > > there. > > > > > > I cannot seem to say: I sense, I experience, > > > I feel, etc. Nevertheless I can say I > > > just read your message, and that I am > > > writing a response to your message. > > > I can also say: I remember responding to > > > your message. > > > > > > There is a very subtle sense of absence, > > > but it is like noting the blind spot > > > of your eye... a most fleeting sense or > > > impression. > > > > > > There are " private " sensations, meaning > > > sensations that only I can give a report > > > of, such as say a tingling in the fingers. > > > But such sensations are " free floating " ... > > > and are not really distinct from the sound > > > of water running in the swimming pool next > > > door. All sensations belong to the same > > > non-container (meaning there is no such > > > " thing " as such a container) and are themselves > > > *non-distinct*. Everything moves and > > > transforms freely and is integrated as > > > an " organic " whole. > > > > > > When I (sometimes) say that nothing ever > > > happens, I mean that there is nothing > > > distinct, nothing singular, nothing special, > > > that it is all a blur, all a phantasmic, > > > dreamlike apparition. > > > > > > I used to say there is a sense of wholeness, > > > a sense of deep peace, etc. But now even > > > that is gone. I can say there is Appearance, > > > but that is the most I can report. And even > > > a reporting as such is a blur, a dreamlike > > > trace of smoke. Nothing stands out, nothing is > > > apart. The writing of this message is such a > > > dreamlike trace of smoke. While I could remember > > > about it if asked, the writing of this message > > > leaves no impression. The trace of smoke has > > > faded, is gone. > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 10, 2004 Report Share Posted September 10, 2004 bill's " No Self " appears to be very selfish, indeed... even downright hostile... >>>>>>>>>>>>> Dan, When I wrote: " Are you capable of an intelligent exchange? " I wrote that because I believe that you *are*. But you seem to indulge in much less much of the time. For example, in the above remark of yours you write: " bill's 'No Self' appears to be very selfish " It seems you are trying hard to get a contradiction out of that, and really reaching in calling what I wrote " selfish " . How do you justify that? It seems very sloppy on your part, in my view. And as for the " hostility " ... what if it was? I would call it " very sharp " . I can be fierce at times, and don't appologize for it. Sometimes I overstep myself, but I go with how I go, and learn as I go. Call it *tough love*. I see you making silly-ass remarks that really don't deserve a response. I know you can do better. I'm suggesting you put your head on straight and put a little/a lot of depth into your remarks. I know you have something worth saying if you can rev yourself up to saying it. I think it *is* selfish to have the measure of understanding that you do and not to go deep to share something deep. Respectfully, Bill Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@a...> wrote: > Dan.... > > Are you capable of an intelligent exchange? Or are these > little " peanut gallery " cracks the zenith of your capabilites? > > Bill 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.