Is There an Inside, a Within?(silver)

March 6, 2006

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

Nisargadatta , " s_i_l_v_e_r1069 " <silver-

1069 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote:

> >

> > In a message dated 3/5/2006 10:28:49 PM Pacific Standard Time,

> > Nisargadatta writes:

> >

> > Sun, 5 Mar 2006 21:28:46 EST

> > epston@

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

> >

> > In a message dated 3/5/2006 6:03:57 PM Pacific Standard Time,

> > lastrain@ writes:

> >

> > > In Nisargadatta , epston@ wrote:

> > > >

> > > >In a message dated 3/5/2006 3:32:19 PM Pacific Standard Time,

> > > >lissbon2002@ writes:

> > > >

> > > >>I haven´t give up noticing anything. It really doesn´t take

a

> > > >>thought to perceive a thought. Thought itself cannot

> perceive, it´s

> > > >>an image producing process, which you can see very well when

> you

> > > >>observe it.

> > > >>

> > > >>Len

> > > >>

> > > >>I agree with Len.

> > > >>

> > > >>Larry

> > > >

> > >

> > > Nope..........'You' are not separate from the 'thought'.

> > >

> > > Go to the corner with Stephen.

> > >

> > > toombaru

> > >

> > > L.E: He didn't say he was separate from the 'thought. "

> > He said: " It really doesn´t take a thought to perceive a

thought.

> Thought

> > itself cannot perceive,. " Reading skills problem?

> >

> > Larry Epston

> >

> > What he's implying is that there is a thought and then there is a

> perceiver

> > of a thought, which is to say something separate from the

thought.

> > Comprehension skills problem?

> >

> > Phil

> *******

> Aww, shucks. That's what I wanted to write. Ya' beat me to it.

> Lol.

>

> " Silver "

>

March 6, 2006

Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain

wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@>

wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote:

> > >

> > > In a message dated 3/4/2006 7:20:27 PM Pacific Standard Time,

> > > Nisargadatta writes:

> > >

> > > Sun, 05 Mar 2006 00:14:41 -0000

> > > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@>

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

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 "

<lastrain@>

> > > wrote:

> > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > " Facts " exist only in thought.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > toombaru

> > > > >

> > > > > nonsense.

> > > > >

> > > > > Len

> > > > >

> > > >

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

> > > >

> > > > toombaru

> > >

> > > Feel your breath.

> > >

> > > Len

> > >

> > > Here's something else for 'you' to 'think' about: Feeling

arises

> > from

> > > thought. If you're feeling, the thought (which is 'you'

perceiving

> > the breath)

> > > already snuck by without you noticing it. It can do this

because,

> > while you

> > > haven't given up thinking, you have given up noticing the

thinking.

> > >

> > > Phil

> >

> > I haven´t give up noticing anything. It really doesn´t take a

> > thought to perceive a thought. Thought itself cannot perceive,

it´s

> > an image producing process, which you can see very well when you

> > observe it.

> >

> > Len

> >

>

> Nope.....thought just thinks it can.

>

> toombaru

What?

Len

March 6, 2006

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

March 6, 2006

Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain

wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , epston@ wrote:

> >

> > In a message dated 3/5/2006 3:32:19 PM Pacific Standard Time,

> > lissbon2002@ writes:

> >

> > > I haven´t give up noticing anything. It really doesn´t take a

> > > thought to perceive a thought. Thought itself cannot perceive,

it´s

> > > an image producing process, which you can see very well when

you

> > > observe it.

> > >

> > > Len

> > >

> > > I agree with Len.

> > >

> > > Larry

> >

>

> Nope..........'You' are not separate from the 'thought'.

>

> Go to the corner with Stephen.

>

> toombaru

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

March 6, 2006

Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain

wrote:

>

> 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

> >

>

> Nope.

>

> A swing.....and a miss.

>

> Thinking that you are 'looking at thought' is merely another

separate thought.

>

> (Now think about this)

>

> toombaru

Every arising thought can be seen. Only if you are so brainwashed

that you take the content of thoughts for the reality, you are

identyfied with thought contents.

Len

March 6, 2006

Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002

wrote:

>

> 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

>

yes,there is no how because there is no you doing anything.

there is not a seer, otherwise there would be a how to see.

March 6, 2006

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

March 6, 2006

Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote:

>

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

> Nisargadatta writes:

>

> Sun, 05 Mar 2006 22:47:40 -0000

> " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002

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

>

> Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@>

> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 "

<lissbon2002@>

> wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 "

<lastrain@>

> > > wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 "

> <lissbon2002@>

> > > wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Nisargadatta , epston@ wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > In a message dated 3/4/2006 1:30:31 PM Pacific Standard

> Time,

> > > > > > lissbon2002@ writes:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > > > " Facts " exist only in thought.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >toombaru

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > nonsense.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Len

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > L.E: Depends how you look at it, and who is looking,

if

> > > anybody.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Larry

> > > > >

> > > > > You see, I don´t think about it, I just look.

> > > > >

> > > > > Len

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > No..........you are the looking.

> > > >

> > > > toombaru

> > >

> > > I don´t care :-)

> > >

> > > Len

> > >

> >

> > You still think that there is an I to care?

> >

> > toombaru

>

> I don´t think ;-)

>

> Len

>

> That's what you think. Hehe.

>

> Phil

That´s what you think :-)

Len

March 6, 2006

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

March 6, 2006

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

March 6, 2006

Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote:

>

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

> Nisargadatta writes:

>

> Sun, 05 Mar 2006 23:08:06 -0000

> " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002

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

>

> Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote:

> >

> > In a message dated 3/4/2006 7:20:27 PM Pacific Standard Time,

> > Nisargadatta writes:

> >

> > Sun, 05 Mar 2006 00:14:41 -0000

> > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@>

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

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 "

<lastrain@>

> > wrote:

> > >

> > > > >

> > > > > " Facts " exist only in thought.

> > > > >

> > > > > toombaru

> > > >

> > > > nonsense.

> > > >

> > > > Len

> > > >

> > >

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

> > >

> > > toombaru

> >

> > Feel your breath.

> >

> > Len

> >

> > Here's something else for 'you' to 'think' about: Feeling

arises

> from

> > thought. If you're feeling, the thought (which is 'you'

perceiving

> the breath)

> > already snuck by without you noticing it. It can do this

because,

> while you

> > haven't given up thinking, you have given up noticing the

thinking.

> >

> > Phil

>

> I haven´t give up noticing anything. It really doesn´t take a

> thought to perceive a thought. Thought itself cannot perceive,

it´s

> an image producing process, which you can see very well when you

> observe it.

>

> Len

>

> It does take a thought to perceive a thought.

It doesn´t, that´s the thing.

Len

> Look very closely and see.

> Yes, thought works with images. Thought creates the images. Where

else would

> they come from?

>

> Phil

>

March 6, 2006

Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote:

>

> In a message dated 3/5/2006 10:28:49 PM Pacific Standard Time,

> Nisargadatta writes:

>

> Sun, 5 Mar 2006 21:28:46 EST

> epston

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

>

> In a message dated 3/5/2006 6:03:57 PM Pacific Standard Time,

> lastrain writes:

>

> > In Nisargadatta , epston@ wrote:

> > >

> > >In a message dated 3/5/2006 3:32:19 PM Pacific Standard Time,

> > >lissbon2002@ writes:

> > >

> > >>I haven´t give up noticing anything. It really doesn´t take a

> > >>thought to perceive a thought. Thought itself cannot

perceive, it´s

> > >>an image producing process, which you can see very well when

you

> > >>observe it.

> > >>

> > >>Len

> > >>

> > >>I agree with Len.

> > >>

> > >>Larry

> > >

> >

> > Nope..........'You' are not separate from the 'thought'.

> >

> > Go to the corner with Stephen.

> >

> > toombaru

> >

> > L.E: He didn't say he was separate from the 'thought. "

> He said: " It really doesn´t take a thought to perceive a thought.

Thought

> itself cannot perceive,. " Reading skills problem?

>

> Larry Epston

>

> What he's implying is that there is a thought and then there is a

perceiver

> of a thought, which is to say something separate from the thought.

> Comprehension skills problem?

>

> Phil

No, I didn´t say that.

Thought is seen, while appearing, that´s all.

Any perceiver separate from this thought is just another thought

appearing.

Len

March 6, 2006

there's only one power in Ultimate Reality and it's YES! (hope they don't pack

much for the trip to the void)

-

ADHHUB

Nisargadatta

Monday, March 06, 2006 1:24 AM

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

Yes indeedy. And nothing wrong with a rest stop now and then, unless one

falls asleep in the parking lot and forgets where he was going.

Phil

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

Nisargadatta writes:

Sun, 5 Mar 2006 10:25:21 -0500

" Fred " <thejman

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

bliss is sometimes a stopping space in the continuum of Truth.

-

annaruiz

Nisargadatta

Sunday, March 05, 2006 7:07 AM

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

>

> In a message dated 3/4/2006 7:20:27 PM Pacific Standard Time,

> Nisargadatta writes:

>

> Sun, 05 Mar 2006 00:14:41 -0000

> " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002

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

>

> Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain

> wrote:

>>

>> > >

>> > > " Facts " exist only in thought.

>> > >

>> > > toombaru

>> >

>> > nonsense.

>> >

>> > Len

>> >

>>

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

>>

>> toombaru

>

> Feel your breath.

>

> Len

>

> Here's something else for 'you' to 'think' about: Feeling arises from

> thought. If you're feeling, the thought (which is 'you' perceiving the

> breath)

> already snuck by without you noticing it. It can do this because, while

> you

> haven't given up thinking, you have given up noticing the thinking.

>

> Phil

..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

March 6, 2006

" Does a brain dead person experience? "

(answering that might get one in trouble)

-

ADHHUB

Nisargadatta

Monday, March 06, 2006 3:14 AM

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

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

Nisargadatta writes:

Sun, 05 Mar 2006 22:55:59 -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 14:12:32 -0000

> " toombaru2006 " <lastrain

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

>

> 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

>

> Yeah, it's only a problem in the mind, but that includes our

entire

> experience

Not if the problem is in thought. Then it doesn´t include our entire

experience: when the thought is gone the problem is gone, but life

goes on.

Len

Is it possible that " thought " covers a lot more territory than you presently

allow? I would agree that thinking is the problem, but thought itself is

part of the process of perception. Without thought, there is no sensory

analysis

or stored memories of the event. As such, there can be no experience. Does a

brain dead person experience?

Phil

March 6, 2006

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

March 6, 2006

> -

> ADHHUB

> Nisargadatta

> Monday, March 06, 2006 3:14 AM

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

> Is it possible that " thought " covers a lot more territory than

you presently

> allow? I would agree that thinking is the problem, but thought

itself is

> part of the process of perception. Without thought, there is no

sensory analysis

> or stored memories of the event. As such, there can be no

experience. Does a

> brain dead person experience?

>

> Phil

You would have to ask it to a brain dead person ;-)

Thought is indeed analyzing and labelling, which seems a necessary

activity for the body to function in the world.

But a thought is entirely responsible for creating problems. This is

helpful when it comes to finding practical solutions but very

disturbing when it leads to emotional conflicts. They exist because

of thought interpreting a situation as not desirable.

Len

March 6, 2006

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

March 6, 2006

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

March 6, 2006

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

March 6, 2006

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

March 6, 2006

Take away the 'no' and one guru forum falls deadly silent, eh? Hmmm.......

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

Nisargadatta writes:

Mon, 6 Mar 2006 10:49:30 -0500

" Fred " <thejman

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

there's only one power in Ultimate Reality and it's YES! (hope they don't

pack much for the trip to the void)

----- Original Message -----

ADHHUB

Nisargadatta

Monday, March 06, 2006 1:24 AM

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

Yes indeedy. And nothing wrong with a rest stop now and then, unless one

falls asleep in the parking lot and forgets where he was going.

Phil

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

Nisargadatta writes:

Sun, 5 Mar 2006 10:25:21 -0500

" Fred " <thejman

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

bliss is sometimes a stopping space in the continuum of Truth.

----- Original Message -----

annaruiz

Nisargadatta

Sunday, March 05, 2006 7:07 AM

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

>

> In a message dated 3/4/2006 7:20:27 PM Pacific Standard Time,

> Nisargadatta writes:

>

> Sun, 05 Mar 2006 00:14:41 -0000

> " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002

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

>

> Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain

> wrote:

>>

>> > >

>> > > " Facts " exist only in thought.

>> > >

>> > > toombaru

>> >

>> > nonsense.

>> >

>> > Len

>> >

>>

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

>>

>> toombaru

>

> Feel your breath.

>

> Len

>

> Here's something else for 'you' to 'think' about: Feeling arises from

> thought. If you're feeling, the thought (which is 'you' perceiving the

> breath)

> already snuck by without you noticing it. It can do this because, while

> you

> haven't given up thinking, you have given up noticing the thinking.

>

> Phil

...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

March 6, 2006

Well, a 'correct' answer ruins my argument, so lets not go there. ~

Phil

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

Nisargadatta writes:

Mon, 6 Mar 2006 10:57:13 -0500

" Fred " <thejman

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

" Does a brain dead person experience? "

(answering that might get one in trouble)

-

ADHHUB

Nisargadatta

Monday, March 06, 2006 3:14 AM

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

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

Nisargadatta writes:

Sun, 05 Mar 2006 22:55:59 -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 14:12:32 -0000

> " toombaru2006 " <lastrain

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

>

> 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

>

> Yeah, it's only a problem in the mind, but that includes our

entire

> experience

Not if the problem is in thought. Then it doesn´t include our entire

experience: when the thought is gone the problem is gone, but life

goes on.

Len

Is it possible that " thought " covers a lot more territory than you

presently

allow? I would agree that thinking is the problem, but thought itself is

part of the process of perception. Without thought, there is no sensory

analysis

or stored memories of the event. As such, there can be no experience. Does

a

brain dead person experience?

Phil

March 6, 2006

In a message dated 3/6/2006 5:54:19 AM Pacific Standard Time,

lissbon2002 writes:

> 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

L.E: It seems that Being is what we are.

Larry

March 6, 2006

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

March 6, 2006

In a message dated 3/6/2006 6:00:09 AM Pacific Standard Time,

lissbon2002 writes:

> Every arising thought can be seen. Only if you are so brainwashed

> that you take the content of thoughts for the reality, you are

> identyfied with thought contents.

>

> Len

L.E; I agree with that.

Larry E.

Sign In

Is There an Inside, a Within?(silver)

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest