Is There an Inside, a Within?(silver)

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/6/2006 6:17:17 AM Pacific Standard Time,

lissbon2002 writes:

 

> Can you tell me of a fact that exists outside of thought?

> >> >>

> >>>>

> >>>>toombaru

> >>>

> >> >

> >>>Feel your breath.

> >>>

> >>>Len

> >> >

> >>

> >L.E: A sneeze, a yawn, a reflex.

> >

> >Larry

> >

> >

> >

> >You mean to say there's no thought associated with these events?

> How is it

> >that you know they occur?

> >

> >Phil

>

>

> In the same way as you feel a kick in your ass even before you

> realize it is one ;-)

>

L.E: Because you are the sneeze, the burp and the fart.

 

Larry Epston

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

that motion your experiencing on your leg is schrödinger's cat rubbing against

you...she says " meow, meow " ..which translated is: thank you for taking me out

of the indeterminate state (confusion).

-

ADHHUB

Nisargadatta

Monday, March 06, 2006 4:03 PM

Re: Is There an Inside, a Within?(silver)

 

 

 

In a message dated 3/6/2006 4:10:25 AM Pacific Standard Time,

Nisargadatta writes:

 

Mon, 06 Mar 2006 10:25:50 -0000

" Werner Woehr " <wwoehr

Re: Is There an Inside, a Within?(silver)

 

There appears a thought. There is no experiencer of it. But this

thought says: I am the experiencer.

 

And it goes on, endlessly:

I like, I disike, I think, I see, I hear, I come, I go, I am hungry,

I was sleeping, blah blah blah - all just thoughts, but no doer and

no experiencer and no thinker.

 

Werner

 

 

 

It's a groovy idea, but of course the purpose of such concepts is to expand

beyond the limitations of the concept it replaces, so there's always a greater

truth than whatever we can conceptualize. What gives us a hint as to how we

might find that greater truth is the paradoxes that that show up in the

currently embraced concept.

 

There is no human person with any individual volition that is doing

anything. That's what the concept reveals to egos that imagine they are in

charge of

they're own enlightenment. But experiencing is still occurring, so the

paradox is, how could experience be occurring without an experiencer? Can't

be.

 

'You' are still experiencing. Nothing says you have to be an individual

human in order for this to occur. Experience is occurring. Everything is

consciousness. 'You' are consciousness (Not human consciousness.) 'You' are

experiencing.

 

God is still being put in a box, but maybe the box is a little bigger this

way.

 

Phil

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/6/2006 5:09:58 PM Pacific Standard Time, ADHHUB

writes:

 

> and then the long night ends

> and awakening happens as who

> is awakened in/as/of bliss,

>

> pure noticing

> ....This...Is.

>

> a reoccuring dream, lost in a stream of consciousness

 

L.E: Here's that " dream " crap again. He said it was like a dream, not that

it is a dream.

 

 

Larry Epston

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

So.....Do I have to feed it now or what?

 

 

 

In a message dated 3/6/2006 5:30:31 PM Pacific Standard Time,

Nisargadatta writes:

 

Mon, 6 Mar 2006 16:17:12 -0500

" Fred " <thejman

Re: Is There an Inside, a Within?(silver)

 

that motion your experiencing on your leg is schrödinger's cat rubbing

against you...she says " meow, meow " ..which translated is: thank you for taking

me

out of the indeterminate state (confusion).

-

ADHHUB

Nisargadatta

Monday, March 06, 2006 4:03 PM

Re: Is There an Inside, a Within?(silver)

 

 

 

In a message dated 3/6/2006 4:10:25 AM Pacific Standard Time,

Nisargadatta writes:

 

Mon, 06 Mar 2006 10:25:50 -0000

" Werner Woehr " <wwoehr

Re: Is There an Inside, a Within?(silver)

 

There appears a thought. There is no experiencer of it. But this

thought says: I am the experiencer.

 

And it goes on, endlessly:

I like, I disike, I think, I see, I hear, I come, I go, I am hungry,

I was sleeping, blah blah blah - all just thoughts, but no doer and

no experiencer and no thinker.

 

Werner

 

 

 

It's a groovy idea, but of course the purpose of such concepts is to expand

beyond the limitations of the concept it replaces, so there's always a

greater

truth than whatever we can conceptualize. What gives us a hint as to how we

 

might find that greater truth is the paradoxes that that show up in the

currently embraced concept.

 

There is no human person with any individual volition that is doing

anything. That's what the concept reveals to egos that imagine they are in

charge of

they're own enlightenment. But experiencing is still occurring, so the

paradox is, how could experience be occurring without an experiencer? Can't

be.

 

'You' are still experiencing. Nothing says you have to be an individual

human in order for this to occur. Experience is occurring. Everything is

consciousness. 'You' are consciousness (Not human consciousness.) 'You' are

experiencing.

 

God is still being put in a box, but maybe the box is a little bigger this

way.

 

Phil

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote:

>

>

> In a message dated 3/6/2006 6:14:18 AM Pacific Standard Time,

> Nisargadatta writes:

>

> Mon, 06 Mar 2006 13:53:12 -0000

> " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002

> Re: Is There an Inside, a Within?(silver)

>

> Nisargadatta , epston@ wrote:

> >

> > In a message dated 3/5/2006 3:06:18 PM Pacific Standard Time,

> > lissbon2002@ writes:

> >

> > > I look at everything which is in some way perceivable,

including

> > > thoughts.

> > >

> > > Len

> >

> > L.E: I agree with Len.

> >

> > Larry

>

>

> And, the interesting thing is, we can perceive a thought although

we

> cannot say HOW we perceive it. We just see it. In the same way we

> don´t know HOW we see, hear, taste in a so called physical world.

> The eye, the ear are instruments, like a camera, but they cannot

> SEE. Seeing is what we are.

>

> Len

>

>

>

> The reeeeally interesting thing is that you can't perceive a

thought as it

> occurs, because this perception is, itself, a thought. If you

observe very

> closely, you'll notice that the only way you know that a thought

has occurred is

> by recalling that thought from memory, where it was stored a split

second

> ago. As long as you're thinking the thought, you cannot be also

be the observer

> of that thought (In an ego context).

>

> The reverse is also true, which is why observing our thoughts

tends to stop

> them. As long as you are positioned as the watcher of the

thoughts, you cannot

> be the 'thinker' of the thoughts. Thoughts won't arise until

you 'forget' to

> watch.

>

> In order for you to be able to say how you perceive a thought, you

first

> have to notice the process above occurring, then you have to

notice that you are

> noticing that process. Yes, it can be noticed how you perceive a

thought.

> It's just yet another thought. There isn't, however, any

significance to

> noticing this beyond a thought game.

>

> Phil

 

 

As you wish. You seem so convinced of what you´re saying that I

don´t see the point of talking any further.

 

Len

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote:

>

>

> In a message dated 3/6/2006 8:01:22 AM Pacific Standard Time,

> Nisargadatta writes:

>

> Mon, 06 Mar 2006 14:25:56 -0000

> " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002

> Re: Is There an Inside, a Within?(silver)

>

> Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote:

> >

> >

> > In a message dated 3/5/2006 3:42:28 PM Pacific Standard Time,

> > Nisargadatta writes:

> >

> > Sun, 05 Mar 2006 23:04:51 -0000

> > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@>

> > Re: Is There an Inside, a Within?(silver)

>

>

>

> > I look at everything which is in some way perceivable,

including

> > thoughts.

> >

> > Len

>

>

>

> > Yes, and it all requires thoughts,

>

>

>

> No, it doesn´t. That´s the basic misunderstanding. Perception is

> primary, the thought follows, and can be perceived.

>

>

>

> > and so as Larry suggested, you do things

> > pretty much the same way everybody else does. My suspicion is

> that you spend

> > a lot of time observing your thoughts, which is not a new

> technique to anyone

> > here, I would guess.

>

>

>

> I have no technique, I just see whatever is there, it´s not an

> activity or effort.

>

>

>

> > Notice that, in order for you to perceive your

> > thoughts, you first need to have the thought that you are going

> to do that, then you

> > have to lose track of that thought, then allow another thought

to

> arise, then

> > remember that you wanted to monitor your thoughts, and then

> notice the

> > thought that just occurred, which requires searching your

memory

> from a fraction

> > of a second ago, because you can't think one thought and watch

it

> at the same

> > time.

>

>

>

> You can, which often would make the thought dissolve, when its

> uselessness is sufficiently realized.

>

>

>

> > The point is that there's a tremendous amount of mental

processing

> going on

> > all the time and only a small fraction of it ever becomes

> conscious.

> >

> > Phil

>

>

>

> Doesn´t matter, the observation of a small fraction teaches you

> everything about the process of image making.

>

> Len

>

>

>

> Sorry, Len. We've circled this wagon a couple of times already and

there's

> nothing useful to me here any more.

>

> Phil

*************

Hop into the wagon, Phil. I'll take you out of here. Hi ho,

Silver! Awaaaay!

 

 

" Silver "

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , epston wrote:

>

> In a message dated 3/6/2006 6:17:17 AM Pacific Standard Time,

> lissbon2002 writes:

>

> > Can you tell me of a fact that exists outside of thought?

> > >> >>

> > >>>>

> > >>>>toombaru

> > >>>

> > >> >

> > >>>Feel your breath.

> > >>>

> > >>>Len

> > >> >

> > >>

> > >L.E: A sneeze, a yawn, a reflex.

> > >

> > >Larry

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >You mean to say there's no thought associated with these

events?

> > How is it

> > >that you know they occur?

> > >

> > >Phil

> >

> >

> > In the same way as you feel a kick in your ass even before you

> > realize it is one ;-)

> >

> L.E: Because you are the sneeze, the burp and the fart.

>

> Larry Epston

***********

I guess this means I really am an asshole, eh?

 

;|

 

" Silver "

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote:

>

>

> In a message dated 3/6/2006 8:01:22 AM Pacific Standard Time,

> Nisargadatta writes:

>

> Mon, 06 Mar 2006 14:09:20 -0000

> " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002

> Re: Is There an Inside, a Within?(silver)

>

> Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote:

> >

> >

> > In a message dated 3/5/2006 9:24:41 AM Pacific Standard Time,

> > Nisargadatta writes:

> >

> > Sun, 5 Mar 2006 09:57:32 EST

> > epston@

> > Re: Is There an Inside, a Within?(silver)

> >

> > In a message dated 3/5/2006 4:08:19 AM Pacific Standard Time,

> > annaruiz@ writes:

> >

> > > Can you tell me of a fact that exists outside of thought?

> > > >>

> > > >>

> > > >> toombaru

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >Feel your breath.

> > > >

> > > >Len

> > > >

> > >

> > L.E: A sneeze, a yawn, a reflex.

> >

> > Larry

> >

> >

> >

> > You mean to say there's no thought associated with these events?

> How is it

> > that you know they occur?

> >

> > Phil

>

>

> In the same way as you feel a kick in your ass even before you

> realize it is one ;-)

>

> Len

>

>

>

> Now, Len, that's not so. Just because you fail to notice all those

thoughts

> that interpret sensory input, doesn't mean they don't occur.

>

> Phil

 

 

But Phil, nobody is saying that they don´t occur. The perception is

first, then thought compares it with memories of previous perceptions

and labels it as something. This takes place very quickly, so it´s not

easy to notice but perception is always primary and if it wasnt, you

wouldn´t be able to see things which are not already registered in the

memory.

 

Len

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote:

>

>

> In a message dated 3/6/2006 8:01:22 AM Pacific Standard Time,

> Nisargadatta writes:

>

> Mon, 06 Mar 2006 14:17:28 -0000

> " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002

> Re: Is There an Inside, a Within?(silver)

>

> Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote:

> >

> >

> > In a message dated 3/5/2006 3:42:28 PM Pacific Standard Time,

> > Nisargadatta writes:

> >

> > Sun, 05 Mar 2006 23:01:09 -0000

> > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@>

> > Re: Is There an Inside, a Within?(silver)

> >

> > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > > In a message dated 3/4/2006 8:44:48 AM Pacific Standard Time,

> > > Nisargadatta writes:

> > >

> > > Sat, 04 Mar 2006 14:20:55 -0000

> > > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@>

> > > Re: Is There an Inside, a Within?(silver)

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 "

> <lastrain@>

> > > wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > In a message dated 3/3/2006 11:35:42 PM Pacific Standard

> > Time,

> > > > > Nisargadatta writes:

> > > > >

> > > > > Sat, 04 Mar 2006 01:39:10 -0000

> > > > > " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@>

> > > > > Re: Is There an Inside, a Within?(silver)

> > > > >

> > > > > ......................................

> > > > > > Pooh`s honey represents its love of beingness,

> > > > > >>

> > > > > > Patricia

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Nisargadatta tells us that our love of being (the

> illusion

> > of

> > > I am) is the

> > > > > crux of our problem.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > toombaru

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Yes, indeedy, which brings up the question, is there

> really

> > > a 'problem'?

> > > > >

> > > > > Phil

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > Only in mind.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > toombaru

> > >

> > >

> > > Thought is the only problem.

> > > That´s why it´s so important to discern it from facts.

> > >

> > > len

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Okay, so you see a factual world, and you see thinking about

> that

> > factual

> > > world as different and problematic.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Yes, only thinking makes it problematic. Thinking is responsible

> for

> > al problematic emotions.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > > Fine, whatever. So, does not thinking yield

> > > the same facts to everyone? You figure we can perceive and

> > experience and

> > > make 'choices' and come up with facts without thought?

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Thoughts which are creating problems, like thinking that

> something

> > or someone should be different, can be recognized as absurd and

> > vanish. The rest of thoughts will stay and do their job.

> >

> > Len

>

>

>

> > Okay, now maybe we're getting somewhere. Now there are absurd

> thoughts and

> > there are okay thoughts that do their job. I agree, but a thinking

> process is

> > required in order to distinguish between the two,

>

>

>

> No, it´s direct perception who must do that. It must be obvious what

> is real and what exists exclusively as an image.

>

>

>

>

> > and every ego will come to

> > their own conclusion as to where to draw the line. One ego will

> notice that a

> > misspelled word is not of any significance and another ego will

> think it

> > reasonable or helpful to call the person an idiot.

> >

> > So, isn't the idea of selecting what to think and what not to

> think part of

> > the process of perception itself, and therefore subjective, not

> definable or

> > controllable or fundamentally meaningful?

> >

> > Phil

>

>

>

> If it is selecting, it´s an ego activity and meaningless.

> Direct perception leaves no doubt - no space for personal

> conditioning to play.

>

> Len

>

>

>

> This is ego fantasy, Len. All activity is ego activity and personal

> conditioning.

>

> Phil

 

 

I don´t know what you mean by activity, but not everything is ego and

conditoning.

 

Len

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote:

>

>

> In a message dated 3/6/2006 8:01:22 AM Pacific Standard Time,

> Nisargadatta writes:

>

> Mon, 06 Mar 2006 14:25:56 -0000

> " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002

> Re: Is There an Inside, a Within?(silver)

>

> Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote:

> >

> >

> > In a message dated 3/5/2006 3:42:28 PM Pacific Standard Time,

> > Nisargadatta writes:

> >

> > Sun, 05 Mar 2006 23:04:51 -0000

> > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@>

> > Re: Is There an Inside, a Within?(silver)

>

>

>

> > I look at everything which is in some way perceivable, including

> > thoughts.

> >

> > Len

>

>

>

> > Yes, and it all requires thoughts,

>

>

>

> No, it doesn´t. That´s the basic misunderstanding. Perception is

> primary, the thought follows, and can be perceived.

>

>

>

> > and so as Larry suggested, you do things

> > pretty much the same way everybody else does. My suspicion is

> that you spend

> > a lot of time observing your thoughts, which is not a new

> technique to anyone

> > here, I would guess.

>

>

>

> I have no technique, I just see whatever is there, it´s not an

> activity or effort.

>

>

>

> > Notice that, in order for you to perceive your

> > thoughts, you first need to have the thought that you are going

> to do that, then you

> > have to lose track of that thought, then allow another thought to

> arise, then

> > remember that you wanted to monitor your thoughts, and then

> notice the

> > thought that just occurred, which requires searching your memory

> from a fraction

> > of a second ago, because you can't think one thought and watch it

> at the same

> > time.

>

>

>

> You can, which often would make the thought dissolve, when its

> uselessness is sufficiently realized.

>

>

>

> > The point is that there's a tremendous amount of mental processing

> going on

> > all the time and only a small fraction of it ever becomes

> conscious.

> >

> > Phil

>

>

>

> Doesn´t matter, the observation of a small fraction teaches you

> everything about the process of image making.

>

> Len

>

>

>

> Sorry, Len. We've circled this wagon a couple of times already and

there's

> nothing useful to me here any more.

>

> Phil

 

 

Yes, I´ve also noticed this.

 

Len

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , epston wrote:

>

> In a message dated 3/6/2006 5:59:13 AM Pacific Standard Time,

> lissbon2002 writes:

>

> > The " you " which is not separate from the thought, IS a thought, just

> > among many other. This " you " thought can be seen, and it also can

> > fall apart. You can see this thought falling apart, but the

> > perception remains.

> >

> > Len

>

> L.E: Yes, but the you which is not a thought is not a thought. The

> perception that remains is that you. Although to name it you cannot

be done. Because

> it is not the you that can be named.

>

> Larry Epston

> www.epston.com

 

 

Yes.

 

Len

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , epston wrote:

>

> In a message dated 3/6/2006 6:17:17 AM Pacific Standard Time,

> lissbon2002 writes:

>

> > Can you tell me of a fact that exists outside of thought?

> > >> >>

> > >>>>

> > >>>>toombaru

> > >>>

> > >> >

> > >>>Feel your breath.

> > >>>

> > >>>Len

> > >> >

> > >>

> > >L.E: A sneeze, a yawn, a reflex.

> > >

> > >Larry

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >You mean to say there's no thought associated with these events?

> > How is it

> > >that you know they occur?

> > >

> > >Phil

> >

> >

> > In the same way as you feel a kick in your ass even before you

> > realize it is one ;-)

> >

> L.E: Because you are the sneeze, the burp and the fart.

>

> Larry Epston

 

 

Indeed :-)

 

Len

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote:

> >

> >

> > In a message dated 3/6/2006 8:01:22 AM Pacific Standard Time,

> > Nisargadatta writes:

> >

> > Mon, 06 Mar 2006 14:25:56 -0000

> > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@>

> > Re: Is There an Inside, a Within?(silver)

> >

> > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > > In a message dated 3/5/2006 3:42:28 PM Pacific Standard Time,

> > > Nisargadatta writes:

> > >

> > > Sun, 05 Mar 2006 23:04:51 -0000

> > > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@>

> > > Re: Is There an Inside, a Within?(silver)

> >

> >

> >

> > > I look at everything which is in some way perceivable, including

> > > thoughts.

> > >

> > > Len

> >

> >

> >

> > > Yes, and it all requires thoughts,

> >

> >

> >

> > No, it doesn´t. That´s the basic misunderstanding. Perception is

> > primary, the thought follows, and can be perceived.

> >

> >

> >

> > > and so as Larry suggested, you do things

> > > pretty much the same way everybody else does. My suspicion is

> > that you spend

> > > a lot of time observing your thoughts, which is not a new

> > technique to anyone

> > > here, I would guess.

> >

> >

> >

> > I have no technique, I just see whatever is there, it´s not an

> > activity or effort.

> >

> >

> >

> > > Notice that, in order for you to perceive your

> > > thoughts, you first need to have the thought that you are going

> > to do that, then you

> > > have to lose track of that thought, then allow another thought to

> > arise, then

> > > remember that you wanted to monitor your thoughts, and then

> > notice the

> > > thought that just occurred, which requires searching your memory

> > from a fraction

> > > of a second ago, because you can't think one thought and watch it

> > at the same

> > > time.

> >

> >

> >

> > You can, which often would make the thought dissolve, when its

> > uselessness is sufficiently realized.

> >

> >

> >

> > > The point is that there's a tremendous amount of mental processing

> > going on

> > > all the time and only a small fraction of it ever becomes

> > conscious.

> > >

> > > Phil

> >

> >

> >

> > Doesn´t matter, the observation of a small fraction teaches you

> > everything about the process of image making.

> >

> > Len

> >

> >

> >

> > Sorry, Len. We've circled this wagon a couple of times already and

> there's

> > nothing useful to me here any more.

> >

> > Phil

>

>

> Yes, I´ve also noticed this.

>

> Len

>

 

 

Does that tell you something?

 

 

toombaru

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/7/2006 7:30:03 AM Pacific Standard Time,

Nisargadatta writes:

 

Tue, 07 Mar 2006 15:02:18 -0000

" lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002

Re: Is There an Inside, a Within?(silver)

 

Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote:

>

>

> In a message dated 3/6/2006 8:01:22 AM Pacific Standard Time,

> Nisargadatta writes:

>

> Mon, 06 Mar 2006 14:25:56 -0000

> " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002

> Re: Is There an Inside, a Within?(silver)

>

> Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote:

> >

> >

> > In a message dated 3/5/2006 3:42:28 PM Pacific Standard Time,

> > Nisargadatta writes:

> >

> > Sun, 05 Mar 2006 23:04:51 -0000

> > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@>

> > Re: Is There an Inside, a Within?(silver)

>

>

>

> > I look at everything which is in some way perceivable, including

> > thoughts.

> >

> > Len

>

>

>

> > Yes, and it all requires thoughts,

>

>

>

> No, it doesn´t. That´s the basic misunderstanding. Perception is

> primary, the thought follows, and can be perceived.

>

>

>

> > and so as Larry suggested, you do things

> > pretty much the same way everybody else does. My suspicion is

> that you spend

> > a lot of time observing your thoughts, which is not a new

> technique to anyone

> > here, I would guess.

>

>

>

> I have no technique, I just see whatever is there, it´s not an

> activity or effort.

>

>

>

> > Notice that, in order for you to perceive your

> > thoughts, you first need to have the thought that you are going

> to do that, then you

> > have to lose track of that thought, then allow another thought to

> arise, then

> > remember that you wanted to monitor your thoughts, and then

> notice the

> > thought that just occurred, which requires searching your memory

> from a fraction

> > of a second ago, because you can't think one thought and watch it

> at the same

> > time.

>

>

>

> You can, which often would make the thought dissolve, when its

> uselessness is sufficiently realized.

>

>

>

> > The point is that there's a tremendous amount of mental processing

> going on

> > all the time and only a small fraction of it ever becomes

> conscious.

> >

> > Phil

>

>

>

> Doesn´t matter, the observation of a small fraction teaches you

> everything about the process of image making.

>

> Len

>

>

>

> Sorry, Len. We've circled this wagon a couple of times already and

there's

> nothing useful to me here any more.

>

> Phil

 

 

Yes, I´ve also noticed this.

 

Len

 

 

 

 

Your kindness is appreciated, though, Len.

 

Phil

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/7/2006 7:30:03 AM Pacific Standard Time,

Nisargadatta writes:

 

Tue, 07 Mar 2006 15:08:57 -0000

" lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002

Re: Is There an Inside, a Within?(silver)

 

Nisargadatta , epston wrote:

>

> In a message dated 3/6/2006 6:17:17 AM Pacific Standard Time,

> lissbon2002 writes:

>

> > Can you tell me of a fact that exists outside of thought?

> > >> >>

> > >>>>

> > >>>>toombaru

> > >>>

> > >> >

> > >>>Feel your breath.

> > >>>

> > >>>Len

> > >> >

> > >>

> > >L.E: A sneeze, a yawn, a reflex.

> > >

> > >Larry

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >You mean to say there's no thought associated with these events?

> > How is it

> > >that you know they occur?

> > >

> > >Phil

> >

> >

> > In the same way as you feel a kick in your ass even before you

> > realize it is one ;-)

> >

> L.E: Because you are the sneeze, the burp and the fart.

>

> Larry Epston

 

 

Indeed :-)

 

Len

 

 

 

If you experience a fart, you cannot be the fart.

(Bumper Sticker)

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/7/2006 7:30:03 AM Pacific Standard Time,

Nisargadatta writes:

 

Tue, 07 Mar 2006 15:09:28 -0000

" toombaru2006 " <lastrain

Re: Is There an Inside, a Within?(silver)

 

Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote:

> >

> >

> > In a message dated 3/6/2006 8:01:22 AM Pacific Standard Time,

> > Nisargadatta writes:

> >

> > Mon, 06 Mar 2006 14:25:56 -0000

> > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@>

> > Re: Is There an Inside, a Within?(silver)

> >

> > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > > In a message dated 3/5/2006 3:42:28 PM Pacific Standard Time,

> > > Nisargadatta writes:

> > >

> > > Sun, 05 Mar 2006 23:04:51 -0000

> > > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@>

> > > Re: Is There an Inside, a Within?(silver)

> >

> >

> >

> > > I look at everything which is in some way perceivable, including

> > > thoughts.

> > >

> > > Len

> >

> >

> >

> > > Yes, and it all requires thoughts,

> >

> >

> >

> > No, it doesn´t. That´s the basic misunderstanding. Perception is

> > primary, the thought follows, and can be perceived.

> >

> >

> >

> > > and so as Larry suggested, you do things

> > > pretty much the same way everybody else does. My suspicion is

> > that you spend

> > > a lot of time observing your thoughts, which is not a new

> > technique to anyone

> > > here, I would guess.

> >

> >

> >

> > I have no technique, I just see whatever is there, it´s not an

> > activity or effort.

> >

> >

> >

> > > Notice that, in order for you to perceive your

> > > thoughts, you first need to have the thought that you are going

> > to do that, then you

> > > have to lose track of that thought, then allow another thought to

> > arise, then

> > > remember that you wanted to monitor your thoughts, and then

> > notice the

> > > thought that just occurred, which requires searching your memory

> > from a fraction

> > > of a second ago, because you can't think one thought and watch it

> > at the same

> > > time.

> >

> >

> >

> > You can, which often would make the thought dissolve, when its

> > uselessness is sufficiently realized.

> >

> >

> >

> > > The point is that there's a tremendous amount of mental processing

> > going on

> > > all the time and only a small fraction of it ever becomes

> > conscious.

> > >

> > > Phil

> >

> >

> >

> > Doesn´t matter, the observation of a small fraction teaches you

> > everything about the process of image making.

> >

> > Len

> >

> >

> >

> > Sorry, Len. We've circled this wagon a couple of times already and

> there's

> > nothing useful to me here any more.

> >

> > Phil

>

>

> Yes, I´ve also noticed this.

>

> Len

>

 

 

Does that tell you something?

 

 

toombaru

 

 

 

It most likely tells him that I'm not capable of understanding. ~

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote:

>

>

> In a message dated 3/7/2006 7:30:03 AM Pacific Standard Time,

> Nisargadatta writes:

>

> Tue, 07 Mar 2006 15:08:57 -0000

> " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002

> Re: Is There an Inside, a Within?(silver)

>

> Nisargadatta , epston@ wrote:

> >

> > In a message dated 3/6/2006 6:17:17 AM Pacific Standard Time,

> > lissbon2002@ writes:

> >

> > > Can you tell me of a fact that exists outside of thought?

> > > >> >>

> > > >>>>

> > > >>>>toombaru

> > > >>>

> > > >> >

> > > >>>Feel your breath.

> > > >>>

> > > >>>Len

> > > >> >

> > > >>

> > > >L.E: A sneeze, a yawn, a reflex.

> > > >

> > > >Larry

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >You mean to say there's no thought associated with these

events?

> > > How is it

> > > >that you know they occur?

> > > >

> > > >Phil

> > >

> > >

> > > In the same way as you feel a kick in your ass even before

you

> > > realize it is one ;-)

> > >

> > L.E: Because you are the sneeze, the burp and the fart.

> >

> > Larry Epston

>

>

> Indeed :-)

>

> Len

>

>

>

> If you experience a fart, you cannot be the fart.

> (Bumper Sticker)

 

 

If you experience the fart, you cannot not-be a fart, except in your

imagination :-)

 

len

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/8/2006 7:43:33 AM Pacific Standard Time,

Nisargadatta writes:

 

Wed, 08 Mar 2006 14:38:24 -0000

" lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002

Re: Is There an Inside, a Within?(silver)

 

Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote:

>

>

> In a message dated 3/7/2006 7:30:03 AM Pacific Standard Time,

> Nisargadatta writes:

>

> Tue, 07 Mar 2006 15:08:57 -0000

> " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002

> Re: Is There an Inside, a Within?(silver)

>

> Nisargadatta , epston@ wrote:

> >

> > In a message dated 3/6/2006 6:17:17 AM Pacific Standard Time,

> > lissbon2002@ writes:

> >

> > > Can you tell me of a fact that exists outside of thought?

> > > >> >>

> > > >>>>

> > > >>>>toombaru

> > > >>>

> > > >> >

> > > >>>Feel your breath.

> > > >>>

> > > >>>Len

> > > >> >

> > > >>

> > > >L.E: A sneeze, a yawn, a reflex.

> > > >

> > > >Larry

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >You mean to say there's no thought associated with these

events?

> > > How is it

> > > >that you know they occur?

> > > >

> > > >Phil

> > >

> > >

> > > In the same way as you feel a kick in your ass even before

you

> > > realize it is one ;-)

> > >

> > L.E: Because you are the sneeze, the burp and the fart.

> >

> > Larry Epston

>

>

> Indeed :-)

>

> Len

>

>

>

> If you experience a fart, you cannot be the fart.

> (Bumper Sticker)

 

 

If you experience the fart, you cannot not-be a fart, except in your

imagination :-)

 

len

 

 

 

Right, so why did you agree with Larry when he said the opposite? Hehe.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote:

>

>

> In a message dated 3/8/2006 7:43:33 AM Pacific Standard Time,

> Nisargadatta writes:

>

> Wed, 08 Mar 2006 14:38:24 -0000

> " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002

> Re: Is There an Inside, a Within?(silver)

>

> Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote:

> >

> >

> > In a message dated 3/7/2006 7:30:03 AM Pacific Standard Time,

> > Nisargadatta writes:

> >

> > Tue, 07 Mar 2006 15:08:57 -0000

> > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@>

> > Re: Is There an Inside, a Within?(silver)

> >

> > Nisargadatta , epston@ wrote:

> > >

> > > In a message dated 3/6/2006 6:17:17 AM Pacific Standard

Time,

> > > lissbon2002@ writes:

> > >

> > > > Can you tell me of a fact that exists outside of thought?

> > > > >> >>

> > > > >>>>

> > > > >>>>toombaru

> > > > >>>

> > > > >> >

> > > > >>>Feel your breath.

> > > > >>>

> > > > >>>Len

> > > > >> >

> > > > >>

> > > > >L.E: A sneeze, a yawn, a reflex.

> > > > >

> > > > >Larry

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >You mean to say there's no thought associated with these

> events?

> > > > How is it

> > > > >that you know they occur?

> > > > >

> > > > >Phil

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > In the same way as you feel a kick in your ass even before

> you

> > > > realize it is one ;-)

> > > >

> > > L.E: Because you are the sneeze, the burp and the fart.

> > >

> > > Larry Epston

> >

> >

> > Indeed :-)

> >

> > Len

> >

> >

> >

> > If you experience a fart, you cannot be the fart.

> > (Bumper Sticker)

>

>

> If you experience the fart, you cannot not-be a fart, except in

your

> imagination :-)

>

> len

>

>

>

> Right, so why did you agree with Larry when he said the opposite?

Hehe.

 

 

Because he said exactly the same :-)

 

Len