Silly ego game #3 (((IPercpetion Without Thinking

March 8, 2006

Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn

wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@>

> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@>

wrote:

> > >

> > > Silly ego game #3 is where we learn to consistently bring

> ourselves to a

> > > state of peace in meditation, and then believe that we've

accomplished

> > > something

> > > almost no human has ever been able to do before. Hehe. Since

this

> has no

> > > relationship to noticing the truth of our ego dynamics, those

dynamics

> > > continue

> > > all during our non-meditating time. In order to pretend that

this

> > > isn't so, we

> > > elevate ourselves above others and project our thinkingness

and

> > struggle

> > > onto them, all the while hiding behind the obscurity of our

own words

> > > so that

> > > nobody can be clear enough about what we're saying to really

be

> able to

> > > challenge us.

> > >

> > > ~~~~~

> > >

> > > A couple of questions, Phil:

> > > Do you consider the " ego " to actually exist, or to only

> > > " appear " to exist?

> > >

> > > You speak of " noticing the truth of our ego dynamics... " ,

> > > But noticing " one's own ego dynamics " is inherently

> > > problematic. The biggest ego trap there is is the one

> > > about stamping out ego. " Noticing ego dynamics " is inherently

> > > not in the Now. And anything that is not in the Now is

> > > illusory. See what I mean?

> > >

> > > Bill

> >

> > There is nothing which is not inherently in the now, Bill.

> >

> > Len

> >

>

> Doh....

>

> Sure, " noticing ego dynamics " is inherently in the now,

> if there is no *stopping*. The moment there is a sense

> of something as distinct, as something existing as real,

> then there is illusion. It is not real. But considered-

> as-such it is illusion. In reality there is never anything

> that is not Now. And yet there is a great deal of Ignorance,

> confusion arising from the spinning of mind processes

> along implied paths that stem from an " appearance of "

> something being fixed, as being a distinct something

> that exists.

>

> If you want to say there is no Ignorance, there is

> no confusion, that everyone (the non-existent ones)

> is always totally immerse in Now, go for it. But is

> that really what you want to say?

>

> Buddha saw that all the suffering beings in the world

> were unreal, just as the world is unreal. Nevertheless

> he undertook to speak his message. Why?

>

> Bill

Hi Bill,

Convictions, opinions, thought-images all together with emotional

responses triggered by them, create an imaginary world, which could

be called illusory, although it causes a lot of real suffering,

conflicts, wars.

As long as you suffer because of it, calling it an illusion is

simply another illusory escape. As long as the ego dynamic operates,

calling it an illusion is a lie. Really seeing that it´s an ilusion,

is the end of the ego.

Ego, trying to escape suffering has found many ways, among which a

ways of belief that it isn´t real. This belief makes for a double

illusion. The activity of the ego takes place now and can be

observed now. Don´t call it real, don´t call it unreal, simply watch

it. If you deny and ignore it, it will remain underneath covered by

a belief in it´s illusory nature.

You only know that something was an illusion when it is gone, never

before. If you think you know it before, it´s simply the expression

of a belief which you cling to in order not to deal with the

discomfort which it brings.

Here´s something from K, whom you like I think:

"

The Cultivation of Detachment

There is only attachment; there is no such thing as detachment. The

mind invents detachment as a reaction to the pain of attachment.

When you react to attachment by becoming " detached, " you are

attached to something else. So that whole process is one of

attachment. You are attached to your wife or your husband, to your

children, to ideas, to tradition, to authority, and so on; and your

reaction to that attachment is detachment. The cultivation of

detachment is the outcome of sorrow, pain. You want to escape from

the pain of attachment, and your escape is to find something to

which you think you can be attached. So there is only attachment,

and it is a stupid mind that cultivates detachment. All the books

say, " Be detached, " but what is the truth of the matter? If you

observe your own mind, you will see an extraordinary thing—that

through cultivating detachment, your mind is becoming attached to

something else. "

The Book of Life - March 8

Greetings,

Len

March 8, 2006

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

Nisargadatta writes:

Wed, 08 Mar 2006 13:36:41 -0000

" billrishel " <illusyn

Silly ego game #3 (((Re: IPercpetion Without Thinking

Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote:

>

> In a message dated 3/7/2006 5:32:52 PM Pacific Standard Time,

> Nisargadatta writes:

>

> Tue, 07 Mar 2006 23:31:48 -0000

> " billrishel " <illusyn

> Silly ego game #3 (((Re: IPercpetion Without Thinking

>

> Silly ego game #3 is where we learn to consistently bring ourselves

to a

> state of peace in meditation, and then believe that we've accomplished

> something

> almost no human has ever been able to do before. Hehe. Since this

has no

> relationship to noticing the truth of our ego dynamics, those dynamics

> continue

> all during our non-meditating time. In order to pretend that this

> isn't so, we

> elevate ourselves above others and project our thinkingness and

struggle

> onto them, all the while hiding behind the obscurity of our own words

> so that

> nobody can be clear enough about what we're saying to really be

able to

> challenge us.

>

> ~~~~~

> B:

> A couple of questions, Phil:

> Do you consider the " ego " to actually exist, or to only

> " appear " to exist?

>

> P: Thoughts. Do you imply that it can therefore be ignored?

B:

What needs to be *attended to* if everything happens

of its own nature? When immersed in the Now there is

no " problem " .

A sign of " immersed in the Now " is *sparkle*/life.

P: When " immersed in the Now " , is this the same as knowing who you ARE?

P: But " noticing " as something that is a " self-observation "

is not in the Now (my view) as it requires time to occur.

P: It doesn't require time to notice. Noticing occurs in the timeless moment

of now, because it doesn't require thought. It occurs as a flash of

awareness. What requires time is the getting the hell out of the way so that

this can

occur.

Phil

March 8, 2006

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

Nisargadatta writes:

Wed, 08 Mar 2006 14:36:16 -0000

" lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002

Silly ego game #3 (((Re: IPercpetion Without Thinking

Hi Bill,

Convictions, opinions, thought-images all together with emotional

responses triggered by them, create an imaginary world, which could

be called illusory, although it causes a lot of real suffering,

conflicts, wars.

As long as you suffer because of it, calling it an illusion is

simply another illusory escape. As long as the ego dynamic operates,

calling it an illusion is a lie. Really seeing that itÂ´s an ilusion,

is the end of the ego.

Ego, trying to escape suffering has found many ways, among which a

ways of belief that it isnÂ´t real. This belief makes for a double

illusion. The activity of the ego takes place now and can be

observed now. DonÂ´t call it real, donÂ´t call it unreal, simply watch

it. If you deny and ignore it, it will remain underneath covered by

a belief in itÂ´s illusory nature.

You only know that something was an illusion when it is gone, never

before. If you think you know it before, itÂ´s simply the expression

of a belief which you cling to in order not to deal with the

discomfort which it brings.

HereÂ´s something from K, whom you like I think: