Leaving no residue/unconditional attention

April 3, 2006

> > The question is: can we deal with this

> > residue, so that it is really finished, and doesn´t come back, so

> > that there is no need to suppress it in any way?

> >

> > Len

That *is* the question.

To think in terms of " dealing with it " though,

that is not it, is it?

The problem with the " residue " is not that it is

*there*, but that it has an " impetus " ... i.e. it

tends to *provoke* action, action to diminish

the *discomfort*.

[Note that if there is not an associated discomfort

than it will typically not be regarded as " residue " .

Perhaps at a later time the same " material " will

begin to generate discomfort. *Then* it will be more

readily seen as residue.]

I was simply " observing " the other day... I guess

you could call it meditating... and was noticing

that some material " coming up " could have a quality

of discomfort to it. It occurred to me that simply

observing (i.e. not *doing* anything) what is

uncomforable is *very* important.

So my response to the " residue " question is that

all that is needed is to simply observe/allow

whatever discomfort that presents. That's it.

In other words, to simply observe *whatever

presents*. Dealing with " residue " is no different

than any other moment.

You could call it *unconditional attention*.

Bill

April 3, 2006

Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn

wrote:

>

> > > The question is: can we deal with this

> > > residue, so that it is really finished, and doesn´t come back,

so

> > > that there is no need to suppress it in any way?

> > >

> > > Len

>

> That *is* the question.

>

> To think in terms of " dealing with it " though,

> that is not it, is it?

>

> The problem with the " residue " is not that it is

> *there*, but that it has an " impetus " ... i.e. it

> tends to *provoke* action, action to diminish

> the *discomfort*.

>

> [Note that if there is not an associated discomfort

> than it will typically not be regarded as " residue " .

> Perhaps at a later time the same " material " will

> begin to generate discomfort. *Then* it will be more

> readily seen as residue.]

>

> I was simply " observing " the other day... I guess

> you could call it meditating... and was noticing

> that some material " coming up " could have a quality

> of discomfort to it. It occurred to me that simply

> observing (i.e. not *doing* anything) what is

> uncomforable is *very* important.

>

> So my response to the " residue " question is that

> all that is needed is to simply observe/allow

> whatever discomfort that presents. That's it.

> In other words, to simply observe *whatever

> presents*. Dealing with " residue " is no different

> than any other moment.

>

> You could call it *unconditional attention*.

>

> Bill

Yes, that´s it.

Have you noticed what happens when you give your full attention to

discomfort?

Len

April 3, 2006

Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002

wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@>

> wrote:

> >

> > > > The question is: can we deal with this

> > > > residue, so that it is really finished, and doesn´t come back,

> so

> > > > that there is no need to suppress it in any way?

> > > >

> > > > Len

> >

> > That *is* the question.

> >

> > To think in terms of " dealing with it " though,

> > that is not it, is it?

> >

> > The problem with the " residue " is not that it is

> > *there*, but that it has an " impetus " ... i.e. it

> > tends to *provoke* action, action to diminish

> > the *discomfort*.

> >

> > [Note that if there is not an associated discomfort

> > than it will typically not be regarded as " residue " .

> > Perhaps at a later time the same " material " will

> > begin to generate discomfort. *Then* it will be more

> > readily seen as residue.]

> >

> > I was simply " observing " the other day... I guess

> > you could call it meditating... and was noticing

> > that some material " coming up " could have a quality

> > of discomfort to it. It occurred to me that simply

> > observing (i.e. not *doing* anything) what is

> > uncomforable is *very* important.

> >

> > So my response to the " residue " question is that

> > all that is needed is to simply observe/allow

> > whatever discomfort that presents. That's it.

> > In other words, to simply observe *whatever

> > presents*. Dealing with " residue " is no different

> > than any other moment.

> >

> > You could call it *unconditional attention*.

> >

> > Bill

>

> Yes, that´s it.

> Have you noticed what happens when you give your full attention to

> discomfort?

>

> Len

>

mmm...yes...

a bit vague... but

first noticed that there where " sensations " that

qualified as discomfort.

Also noticed a bit of a tug to move away from that.

But just kept observing...

and then was noticing how it was all " sparkly energy "

so to speak...

that the energy of the " discomfort " was of the same

sparkly pixels as everything else...

and so the *differentiation* of the " discomfort part "

from " all the rest " kind of melted away...

and then that was it...

drifted on to whatever...

Bill

April 4, 2006

Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@>

> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@>

> > wrote:

> > >

> > > > > The question is: can we deal with this

> > > > > residue, so that it is really finished, and doesn´t come

back,

> > so

> > > > > that there is no need to suppress it in any way?

> > > > >

> > > > > Len

> > >

> > > That *is* the question.

> > >

> > > To think in terms of " dealing with it " though,

> > > that is not it, is it?

> > >

> > > The problem with the " residue " is not that it is

> > > *there*, but that it has an " impetus " ... i.e. it

> > > tends to *provoke* action, action to diminish

> > > the *discomfort*.

> > >

> > > [Note that if there is not an associated discomfort

> > > than it will typically not be regarded as " residue " .

> > > Perhaps at a later time the same " material " will

> > > begin to generate discomfort. *Then* it will be more

> > > readily seen as residue.]

> > >

> > > I was simply " observing " the other day... I guess

> > > you could call it meditating... and was noticing

> > > that some material " coming up " could have a quality

> > > of discomfort to it. It occurred to me that simply

> > > observing (i.e. not *doing* anything) what is

> > > uncomforable is *very* important.

> > >

> > > So my response to the " residue " question is that

> > > all that is needed is to simply observe/allow

> > > whatever discomfort that presents. That's it.

> > > In other words, to simply observe *whatever

> > > presents*. Dealing with " residue " is no different

> > > than any other moment.

> > >

> > > You could call it *unconditional attention*.

> > >

> > > Bill

> >

> > Yes, that´s it.

> > Have you noticed what happens when you give your full attention

to

> > discomfort?

> >

> > Len

> >

>

> mmm...yes...

> a bit vague... but

> first noticed that there where " sensations " that

> qualified as discomfort.

>

> Also noticed a bit of a tug to move away from that.

>

> But just kept observing...

>

> and then was noticing how it was all " sparkly energy "

> so to speak...

>

> that the energy of the " discomfort " was of the same

> sparkly pixels as everything else...

>

> and so the *differentiation* of the " discomfort part "

> from " all the rest " kind of melted away...

>

> and then that was it...

>

> drifted on to whatever...

>

> Bill

Yes.

What I observe goes even further then that.

Very difficult to put in words, and also it's each time different.

So maybe it makes no sense to talk about it.

Did you ever observe some extreme emotional pain?

It's extremely interesting what happens when it melts away :-)

Len

April 4, 2006

Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002

wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@>

> > wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@>

> > > wrote:

> > > >

> > > > > > The question is: can we deal with this

> > > > > > residue, so that it is really finished, and doesn´t come

> back,

> > > so

> > > > > > that there is no need to suppress it in any way?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Len

> > > >

> > > > That *is* the question.

> > > >

> > > > To think in terms of " dealing with it " though,

> > > > that is not it, is it?

> > > >

> > > > The problem with the " residue " is not that it is

> > > > *there*, but that it has an " impetus " ... i.e. it

> > > > tends to *provoke* action, action to diminish

> > > > the *discomfort*.

> > > >

> > > > [Note that if there is not an associated discomfort

> > > > than it will typically not be regarded as " residue " .

> > > > Perhaps at a later time the same " material " will

> > > > begin to generate discomfort. *Then* it will be more

> > > > readily seen as residue.]

> > > >

> > > > I was simply " observing " the other day... I guess

> > > > you could call it meditating... and was noticing

> > > > that some material " coming up " could have a quality

> > > > of discomfort to it. It occurred to me that simply

> > > > observing (i.e. not *doing* anything) what is

> > > > uncomforable is *very* important.

> > > >

> > > > So my response to the " residue " question is that

> > > > all that is needed is to simply observe/allow

> > > > whatever discomfort that presents. That's it.

> > > > In other words, to simply observe *whatever

> > > > presents*. Dealing with " residue " is no different

> > > > than any other moment.

> > > >

> > > > You could call it *unconditional attention*.

> > > >

> > > > Bill

> > >

> > > Yes, that´s it.

> > > Have you noticed what happens when you give your full attention

> to

> > > discomfort?

> > >

> > > Len

> > >

> >

> > mmm...yes...

> > a bit vague... but

> > first noticed that there where " sensations " that

> > qualified as discomfort.

> >

> > Also noticed a bit of a tug to move away from that.

> >

> > But just kept observing...

> >

> > and then was noticing how it was all " sparkly energy "

> > so to speak...

> >

> > that the energy of the " discomfort " was of the same

> > sparkly pixels as everything else...

> >

> > and so the *differentiation* of the " discomfort part "

> > from " all the rest " kind of melted away...

> >

> > and then that was it...

> >

> > drifted on to whatever...

> >

> > Bill

>

> Yes.

> What I observe goes even further then that.

> Very difficult to put in words, and also it's each time different.

> So maybe it makes no sense to talk about it.

> Did you ever observe some extreme emotional pain?

> It's extremely interesting what happens when it melts away :-)

>

> Len

>

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The last really extreme emotional pain I recall was when

I received an email telling me that a very dear friend

had been admitted to the hospital and that cancer had

been found spread throughout her body. I knew it was coming

because I had had a vision preparing me, but nevertheless

when I read that I let out a wail that was long and loud

and am sure the neighbors could hear. And then it ended.

Then I was at peace about it. I was able to talk to her

subsequently and be calm, peaceful, supportive.

Looking back that, wail is to me a beautiful thing. Somehow

my life is richer for it. Can't explain.

So there is beauty in sorrow, or can be.

That is not the type of example you mean I suppose.

But other than that...

well, I'll just have to keep a lookout

But isn't it interesting how when one " turns things around "

and starts really looking at such things that they

actually can become fascinating?

Bill

April 4, 2006

" " It occurred to me that simply

observing (i.e. not *doing* anything) what is

uncomforable is *very* important " "

Why??

What happens when you don`t react?

Patricia

~~~~~~~~~~

I don't know...

if there is reaction, then there is just

observation of *that*...

so by " simply observing " I don't mean any

*resisting* of doing...

I mean simply observing *whatever arises*...

Bill

April 4, 2006

Nisargadatta , OConnor Patricia <gdtige wrote:

>

> --- billrishel <illusyn a écrit :

>

> " " It occurred to me that simply

> observing (i.e. not *doing* anything) what is

> uncomforable is *very* important " "

>

> Why??

> What happens when you don`t react?

>

> Patricia

> ~~~~~~~~~~

>

> I don't know...

>

> if there is reaction, then there is just

> observation of *that*...

>

> so by " simply observing " I don't mean any

> *resisting* of doing...

>

> I mean simply observing *whatever arises*...

>

> Bill

>

> look harder!

there's not really anything I can do...

not even " look harder " ...

choiceless awareness is just that --

no choice!

Bill

April 4, 2006

Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn

wrote:

> The last really extreme emotional pain I recall was when

> I received an email telling me that a very dear friend

> had been admitted to the hospital and that cancer had

> been found spread throughout her body. I knew it was coming

> because I had had a vision preparing me, but nevertheless

> when I read that I let out a wail that was long and loud

> and am sure the neighbors could hear. And then it ended.

> Then I was at peace about it. I was able to talk to her

> subsequently and be calm, peaceful, supportive.

>

> Looking back that, wail is to me a beautiful thing. Somehow

> my life is richer for it. Can't explain.

>

> So there is beauty in sorrow, or can be.

Yes. Sorrow, when pure and unresisted is sheer beauty.

> That is not the type of example you mean I suppose.

I mean anything really.

It´s each time different.

But what I found really astonishing was what happened after I´ve

stayed with some extreme resistance for like half a day.

The clarity which came suddenly, brought a completely new perception

of reality, I cannot describe it. A different world.

The more I cling to something, the more I resist what I refuse to

accept, the more astonishing the change which occurs, if I only

observe as long as it´s necessary for the whole thing to vanish.

This is why I actually started to love resistance ;-)

> But other than that...

>

> well, I'll just have to keep a lookout

>

> But isn't it interesting how when one " turns things around "

> and starts really looking at such things that they

> actually can become fascinating?

The only " wall " which separates us from an entirely new perception,

is fear. Fear of looking at things which we have been conditioned to

escape.

Len

April 4, 2006

Nisargadatta , OConnor Patricia <gdtige

wrote:

>

> > Yes.

> > What I observe goes even further then that.

> > Very difficult to put in words, and also it's each

> time different.

> > So maybe it makes no sense to talk about it.

> > Did you ever observe some extreme emotional pain?

> > It's extremely interesting what happens when it

> melts away :-)

> >

> > Len

> >

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>

> The last really extreme emotional pain I recall was

> when

> I received an email telling me that a very dear friend

> had been admitted to the hospital and that cancer had

> been found spread throughout her body. I knew it was

> coming

> because I had had a vision preparing me, but

> nevertheless

> when I read that I let out a wail that was long and

> loud

> and am sure the neighbors could hear. And then it

> ended.

> Then I was at peace about it. I was able to talk to

> her

> subsequently and be calm, peaceful, supportive.

>

> Looking back that, wail is to me a beautiful thing.

> Somehow

> my life is richer for it. Can't explain.

>

> So there is beauty in sorrow, or can be.

>

> That is not the type of example you mean I suppose.

> But other than that...

>

> well, I'll just have to keep a lookout

>

> But isn't it interesting how when one " turns things

> around "

> and starts really looking at such things that they

> actually can become fascinating?

>

> Bill.

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

> " " It occurred to me that simply

> observing (i.e. not *doing* anything) what is

> uncomforable is *very* important " "

>

> Why??

> What happens when you don`t react?

>

> Patricia

You can do an experiment:

When you feel the urge to react - just don´t.

Watch what´s going on in your mind and body, and see what happens.

Len

April 4, 2006

> B:

> > The last really extreme emotional pain I recall was when

> > I received an email telling me that a very dear friend

> > had been admitted to the hospital and that cancer had

> > been found spread throughout her body. I knew it was coming

> > because I had had a vision preparing me, but nevertheless

> > when I read that I let out a wail that was long and loud

> > and am sure the neighbors could hear. And then it ended.

> > Then I was at peace about it. I was able to talk to her

> > subsequently and be calm, peaceful, supportive.

> >

> > Looking back that, wail is to me a beautiful thing. Somehow

> > my life is richer for it. Can't explain.

> >

> > So there is beauty in sorrow, or can be.

> L:

> Yes. Sorrow, when pure and unresisted is sheer beauty.

> B:

> > That is not the type of example you mean I suppose.

>

> L:

> I mean anything really.

> It´s each time different.

> But what I found really astonishing was what happened after I´ve

> stayed with some extreme resistance for like half a day.

> The clarity which came suddenly, brought a completely new perception

> of reality, I cannot describe it. A different world.

> The more I cling to something, the more I resist what I refuse to

> accept, the more astonishing the change which occurs, if I only

> observe as long as it´s necessary for the whole thing to vanish.

> This is why I actually started to love resistance ;-)

>

I expect that the reason for the " astonishing change " is that

a whole lot of psychic energy that had been bound up in the

" containment " of the pain is suddenly liberated. I've certainly

had those kinds of experiences. Sometimes it's an experience of

being like a child with wide-open eyes on a brand-new day.

> > But other than that...

> >

> > well, I'll just have to keep a lookout

> >

> > But isn't it interesting how when one " turns things around "

> > and starts really looking at such things that they

> > actually can become fascinating?

>

> The only " wall " which separates us from an entirely new perception,

> is fear. Fear of looking at things which we have been conditioned to

> escape.

>

> Len

>

I wonder if it can sometimes just be " UGH! I don't want to go there! "

I have some stuff I keep putting off, and am skeptical that it is

really fear.

Bill

April 4, 2006

Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn

wrote:

>

> > B:

> > > The last really extreme emotional pain I recall was when

> > > I received an email telling me that a very dear friend

> > > had been admitted to the hospital and that cancer had

> > > been found spread throughout her body. I knew it was coming

> > > because I had had a vision preparing me, but nevertheless

> > > when I read that I let out a wail that was long and loud

> > > and am sure the neighbors could hear. And then it ended.

> > > Then I was at peace about it. I was able to talk to her

> > > subsequently and be calm, peaceful, supportive.

> > >

> > > Looking back that, wail is to me a beautiful thing. Somehow

> > > my life is richer for it. Can't explain.

> > >

> > > So there is beauty in sorrow, or can be.

> > L:

> > Yes. Sorrow, when pure and unresisted is sheer beauty.

> > B:

> > > That is not the type of example you mean I suppose.

> >

> > L:

> > I mean anything really.

> > It´s each time different.

> > But what I found really astonishing was what happened after I´ve

> > stayed with some extreme resistance for like half a day.

> > The clarity which came suddenly, brought a completely new

perception

> > of reality, I cannot describe it. A different world.

> > The more I cling to something, the more I resist what I refuse

to

> > accept, the more astonishing the change which occurs, if I only

> > observe as long as it´s necessary for the whole thing to vanish.

> > This is why I actually started to love resistance ;-)

> >

> I expect that the reason for the " astonishing change " is that

> a whole lot of psychic energy that had been bound up in the

> " containment " of the pain is suddenly liberated. I've certainly

> had those kinds of experiences. Sometimes it's an experience of

> being like a child with wide-open eyes on a brand-new day.

>

> > > But other than that...

> > >

> > > well, I'll just have to keep a lookout

> > >

> > > But isn't it interesting how when one " turns things around "

> > > and starts really looking at such things that they

> > > actually can become fascinating?

> >

> > The only " wall " which separates us from an entirely new

perception,

> > is fear. Fear of looking at things which we have been

conditioned to

> > escape.

> >

> > Len

> >

>

> I wonder if it can sometimes just be " UGH! I don't want to go

there! "

> I have some stuff I keep putting off, and am skeptical that it is

> really fear.

>

> Bill

What else could it be?

len

April 4, 2006

Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002

wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@>

> wrote:

> >

> > > B:

> > > > The last really extreme emotional pain I recall was when

> > > > I received an email telling me that a very dear friend

> > > > had been admitted to the hospital and that cancer had

> > > > been found spread throughout her body. I knew it was coming

> > > > because I had had a vision preparing me, but nevertheless

> > > > when I read that I let out a wail that was long and loud

> > > > and am sure the neighbors could hear. And then it ended.

> > > > Then I was at peace about it. I was able to talk to her

> > > > subsequently and be calm, peaceful, supportive.

> > > >

> > > > Looking back that, wail is to me a beautiful thing. Somehow

> > > > my life is richer for it. Can't explain.

> > > >

> > > > So there is beauty in sorrow, or can be.

> > > L:

> > > Yes. Sorrow, when pure and unresisted is sheer beauty.

> > > B:

> > > > That is not the type of example you mean I suppose.

> > >

> > > L:

> > > I mean anything really.

> > > It´s each time different.

> > > But what I found really astonishing was what happened after I´ve

> > > stayed with some extreme resistance for like half a day.

> > > The clarity which came suddenly, brought a completely new

> perception

> > > of reality, I cannot describe it. A different world.

> > > The more I cling to something, the more I resist what I refuse

> to

> > > accept, the more astonishing the change which occurs, if I only

> > > observe as long as it´s necessary for the whole thing to vanish.

> > > This is why I actually started to love resistance ;-)

> > >

> > I expect that the reason for the " astonishing change " is that

> > a whole lot of psychic energy that had been bound up in the

> > " containment " of the pain is suddenly liberated. I've certainly

> > had those kinds of experiences. Sometimes it's an experience of

> > being like a child with wide-open eyes on a brand-new day.

> >

> > > > But other than that...

> > > >

> > > > well, I'll just have to keep a lookout

> > > >

> > > > But isn't it interesting how when one " turns things around "

> > > > and starts really looking at such things that they

> > > > actually can become fascinating?

> > >

> > > The only " wall " which separates us from an entirely new

> perception,

> > > is fear. Fear of looking at things which we have been

> conditioned to

> > > escape.

> > >

> > > Len

> > >

> >

> > I wonder if it can sometimes just be " UGH! I don't want to go

> there! "

> > I have some stuff I keep putting off, and am skeptical that it is

> > really fear.

> >

> > Bill

>

> What else could it be?

>

> len

>

~~~~~~

I guess I need to take a real look at that!

Bill

April 4, 2006

Yes, that´s it.

Have you noticed what happens when you give your full attention to

discomfort?

Len

L.E: Yes, you feel fully discomforted.

Larry Epston

April 5, 2006

Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn

wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@>

> wrote:

> > > > The only " wall " which separates us from an entirely new

> > perception,

> > > > is fear. Fear of looking at things which we have been

> > conditioned to

> > > > escape.

> > > >

> > > > Len

> > > >

> > >

> > > I wonder if it can sometimes just be " UGH! I don't want to go

> > there! "

> > > I have some stuff I keep putting off, and am skeptical that it

is

> > > really fear.

> > >

> > > Bill

> >

> > What else could it be?

> >

> > len

> >

> ~~~~~~

>

> I guess I need to take a real look at that!

>

> Bill

I was thinking... Few day´s ago I observed some conflict, and I was

aware that I didn´t feel like really ending it in myself.

So I asked myself about the cause, and indeed, it wasn´t fear, but

rather a kind of stubbornness, pride. I wasn´t affraid to face it,

I just wouldn´t do it. When I realized it, I did have a look at it.

It was like... nothing really, no significant resistance, no fear,

it was so easy to watch. I asked myself why I kept avoiding this

point for so long. Just because of pride.

So, yes, it doesn´t always have to be fear.

len

April 6, 2006

In a message dated 4/5/2006 6:53:18 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

Nisargadatta writes:

Wed, 05 Apr 2006 11:44:07 -0000

" lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002

Re: Leaving no residue/unconditional attention

Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn

wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@>

> wrote:

> > > > The only " wall " which separates us from an entirely new

> > perception,

> > > > is fear. Fear of looking at things which we have been

> > conditioned to

> > > > escape.

> > > >

> > > > Len

> > > >

> > >

> > > I wonder if it can sometimes just be " UGH! I don't want to go

> > there! "

> > > I have some stuff I keep putting off, and am skeptical that it

is

> > > really fear.

> > >

> > > Bill

> >

> > What else could it be?

> >

> > len

> >

> ~~~~~~

>

> I guess I need to take a real look at that!

>

> Bill

I was thinking... Few day´s ago I observed some conflict, and I was

aware that I didn´t feel like really ending it in myself.

So I asked myself about the cause, and indeed, it wasn´t fear, but

rather a kind of stubbornness, pride. I wasn´t affraid to face it,

I just wouldn´t do it. When I realized it, I did have a look at it.

It was like... nothing really, no significant resistance, no fear,

it was so easy to watch. I asked myself why I kept avoiding this

point for so long. Just because of pride.

So, yes, it doesn´t always have to be fear.

len

What is pride but the attachment to one's positive image? What is attachment

but the fear of losing that which one wants? Conflict is resistance. Not

feeling like ending a conflict is resistance. Resistance is always from fear.

Why would one resist something that is not feared?

April 6, 2006

<snip>

> >

> > Perhaps an important point is that while there *was* a

> > reaction (the feelings) to an event, there wasn't a

> > *reaction to the reaction*.

>

> Yes.

>

> > The totally naive stage:

> > I have a reaction to X and I'm upset about it and

> > I'm gonna do so-and-so because it just ain't right

> > etc. etc.

> >

> > The " somewhat emancipated " stage:

> > I have a reaction to X, but I realize it's " my stuff "

> > so I gotta work this out, I need to *heal* myself,

> > etc.

> >

> > I say " somewhat " emancipated because there is still

> > anxiety about the " stuff coming up " .

> >

> > Then the stage where there is not a reaction to the

> > reaction, just observation. The " reaction " is not taken

> > as a " problem " , unlike the " somewhat emancipated " stage

> > where it is.

>

> Very well put. In the last stage there is no

> food for the " me " who wants to fix the problem.

> That´s why in this stage it may happen that the

> activity of the " me " stops. I just understood

> that, now, while writing these words. Funny, I

> knew that it worked, now I suddenly see why: no

> food for the " me " , for the " reactor " , for the

> " fixer " .

Wow. That makes so much sense.

Reminds me of the adage, " Don't feed the Trolls! "

But that way of putting it could also lead someone

to think that they could " fix it " by starving

the " me " . So odd how things can always be twisted

around.

So again, what you say is *descriptive* but possibly

misleading if taken as prescriptive.

One of the things that has struck me is that when

someone really does have the kind of breakthrough

we have been talking about, suddenly they " understand "

so much that had been " seen through a glass darkly " .

The error so easily made, it seems, is to think one

can convey to others by communicating those new

understandings. It is like trying to tell someone

how to get to the mountain top by describing the

great view!

> L:

> > So there is a " me " , there is

> > what " me " doesn´t want to be there, which is another part of

> > the " me " , there are emotional reactions to it, and all of

> > that, all this movement is being observed. But I don´t call

> > it surrender, cause the opposition of thoughts, the fight,

> > the virtual division, is still there.

> > B:

> > I can't say I really understand you when you talk about a

> > " me " there. Other than that, makes complete sense. I

> > especially like the part about not calling it a surrender.

>

> L:

> I mean: a thought about " me " which is believed to be

> separate from what is troubling this " me " , the so

> called " problem " and to which " me " has an emotional

> reaction. This " me " thought may be not obvious but it

> is always there in the background when there is a

> " problem " . If " me " thought wasn't there, separating

> itself from the " problem " thought, there wouldn't be a

> " problem " , but just facts one can directly deal with.

Are you saying that whenever there is a figure/ground

there is a " me " ?

I seem to be getting what you are saying here in a way I

hadn't before (we have gone over this ground more than

once). In the case I related of my feeling " annoyance " ,

when it first appeared I recognized that it was " false "

because I had come to realize (by then) that any sense of

" separateness " in consciousness is false, that any sense

of " persistence " is false. So I did not " indulge " those

feelings -- from the very beginning. But they were still

banging around, nevertheless. So yes, there was a separateness

at that point. It was as if those feelings were something

I could " isolate " , sense as something separate. And oddly,

just now as I write this, I think, " Well, they were! "

Separation is illusion (that's the theory), seeing them

as separate then was illusion? Well, that is what presented.

My response was the " stage three " of simply observing but

doing nothing about it. There was no action to " heal it " .

In that case the annoyance didn't vaporize immediately,

but banged around a bit before jostling its way out.

Kind of like some bad gas!

So getting back to what you said, I am wondering if you

would say there was necessarily a " me " /centre when the

" annoyance " first appeared?

And is that question similar to:

If one is simply " witnessing " , is that the Now, or

of time?

And having posed that question the answer that comes to

me about it is that it depends on if there is a process

of becoming involved. So a " stage two " response *would*

entail a " me " . But if it is a stage three response,

then really there is not process of becoming and so no

" me " .

I'll be interested to see your response to this!

[Note: while writing the above a flash of insight that

there can't be persistence without separateness. Does

that make sense?]

> It is only because of this unreal division in " me " and

> the " problem " that any emotional conflict arises. " I "

> sees something, " I " has a negative image of it

> ( " problem " ) and " I " starts reacting against this

> image. But both " I " and the image of the problem are

> thoughts, opposing each other in a virtual fight. " I "

> cannot stand " that " , and therefore " that " must change.

> At this stage emotions arise: anger, sadness,

> hopelessness etc…

So you seem in effect to agree with what I just said.

A " stage three " response doesn't identify a problem, so

no emotional conflict arises.

> > L:

> > I say: " I " IS the storm, the observation of this

> > process can take place, and both: the " I " and the storm

> > cease when their structure is fully understood.

> > B:

> > I'm not sure about the " structure is fully understood "

> > part. In the example I gave above I don't know that I

> > " fully understood " anything. It seemed that I actually

> > understood from the beginning, it was all so transparent.

> > It was as if a pattern (read: program) that at one time

> > would have got me didn't now because there has been so

> > much change. The program tried to start a bunch of times.

> > But the engine could never turn over. Maybe it is a special

> > case where instead of the cycle being broken (finally)

> > it never got really started in the first place.

>

> L:

> I think that every case is slightly different.

> I recognize what you say, it happens to me when I have

> been through some kind of stuff before, so when something

> similar happens, I somehow don´t buy it anymore, it

> doesn´t get a chance to make roots.

Again, it strikes me that one is " presented with " a

" program " , and the option to run the program. " Not buying it "

signifies declining to do so.

I *Listening to Prozac* the author talks about

someone on Prozac that had had a certain symptom,

say anxiety, and how what was different was that

the " mental content " of the anxiety would present

itself *just as before*, but the *reflex* to act on

that did not kick in as before. As if one leg had

been kicked out of the process. And that seems to

fit the pattern of a " program being presented " but

now the reflex to respond in the old way is no

longer there.

>

> > Talking about this stuff means I'm looking at things so much

> > more deeply because of this dialog. I love it!

>

> It´s a pleasure to talk to you, Bill.

> There is honesty in the way you communicate, no holding

> back. It makes the communication very interesting, new

> and fragile.

>

I'm not afraid to stick my neck out

Nice to have that appreciated.

What you say about fragile is quite beautiful.

There is a subtle balance in good communication,

it seems, between unrelenting honesty and vulnerability,

a hardness and a tenderness that in union is beyond

both.

And I must say it is a great pleasure to me as well.

It's like I'm on this deserted island and I've been

throwing bottles with notes into the ocean for eons,

and then one day a bottle washes up on the shore with

a note that says, " Hey Bill! Got your note! "

> > L:

> > What´s left

> > has no name. I can call it myself, no problem, but there is a

> > danger of misunderstanding. People confuse the " I " with that

> > which has no name.

> >

> > I don't know if you are familiar with Ramana Majarshi...

> > but he talks about " I " in two ways. An " I " that is the

> > " false I " and the " I " that is the " Self " . Seems to me

> > that people get pretty confused by that.

>

> Yes. That´s possibly why Krishnamurti refused to talk about

> " real self " , it only creates confusion. Because when one

> mistakes the images of himself for what he is, the

> definition of a " real self " will be just added to the rest

> of the collection and considered as something divine ;-)

> So at the end it creates even more confusion then before.

>

Ahh... yes, and that would fit with his willingness to

say things in conversation with Bohm, and in his notebooks,

that he would not say other places.

> > So yes, I understand what you are saying.

> >

> > L:

> > So when somebody tells them: you are the

> > calm centre of the storm, a virtual division in " me " and the

> > storm is being created and perpetuated. And then the " me "

> > desperately tries to be calm and observe the storm ;-)

> > B:

> > The " desperately " is stage two above! The anxiety about

> > " fixing my stuff " .

>

> Yes. " I " is very active and produces many thoughts about

> how to fix it.

>

That reminds me of a funny statement a coworker made once

after a long meeting when I was a teacher. At the end of

a meeting where we had hashed through a ton of stuff and

in a sense had made some progress but where there was no

closure... he said, " We are are now confused at a higher

level and about more important things! "

Perhaps that applies to " stage two " (somewhat emancipated).

> > L:

> > But

> > the storm IS " me " . It is exactly this division in " me " and

> > " not me " which causes the storm and which must be understood.

> > B:

> > Yes, the isolation of " the storm " as something apart, as a

> > " problem " is what keeps the storm brewing.

> >

> > But can't say I'm with you on the " must be understood " part.

>

> L:

> You say: isolation.

> What is the problem isolated from?

> From that which doesn´t want the problem, from the fixer: " me " .

> As long as the fixer " me " is active, as long as all energy is put

in

> producing imaginary solutions, the fact that the activity of

> the " fixer " is the only problem, cannot be noticed.

So you are speaking here of a process of becoming...

> You need larger perspective to notice it. The awareness of the

whole

> movement gives this perspective.

nice...

> When the futility of the thought activity of the " fixer " is seen,

it

> stops, and when this activity stops, the problem stops, because

this

> dividing activity was the only problem.

Yes. It will be interesting to see what you say about the

case of the " annoyance " I describe above. In that case there

was a sense of " something felt " and there was a distinctness

about it (which clued me it was " false " ). But it did not

turn into a becoming process. So it would appear there could

be isolation without a becoming process being invoked. It

can be seen as a " program being presented " but not activating.

> > I had another experience about two months ago where I had

> > the insight that while another person was conducting himself

> > in an extraordinarily bizarre way with me, it was nevertheless

> > not about him, it was really about me. I never got especially

> > *upset*, but I felt I had a problem to deal with (he's my

> > boss) and so was going through various strategies etc.

> >

> > Finally I was able to see it as really about me (not his

> > behavior, but my feeling that there was a problem). Anyway,

> > once I came to that shift in how I was considering the

> > matter it all seemed to clear up, including *with him*!

> > I was able to make an " olive branch " phone call to him and

> > the whole matter cleared up.

> >

> > Now, I don't know if that is an example of what you mean

> > by understanding the structure, the cause etc. or not.

>

> Yes, I think so.

> I´m going into details, now, in order to precisely understand the

> mechanism, but in practice the understanding happens spontaneously,

> often without knowing what really happened, just noticing that it

> happened.

> Did you have any resistance to the emotions involved?

Interesting question.

What comes is that there was not resistance to the emotions

per se, but an *impedence* to " seeing the emotions " involved.

I know that impedance and resistance are very similar in meaning,

but by impedance I mean not a psychological resistance, but

a " difficulty in seeing " because I had to expand my view quite

a bit to see it. At one point I noticed I was seeing him as

" sinister " , and when someone asked me about that I was brought

to stop, back up, and take a bigger view. I could then see

that the " sinister " bit was my own material brought into it.

When I saw that the " binding cycle " was broken. If by resistance

to the emotions you mean that some content was coming up that

I was averting, no. It was, rather, something wound back into

me in such a way that I simply was not seeing it. His behavior

had been *extremly bizarre* and he seemed mentally imbalanced.

The drama around it was great enough that I was distracted

from seeing my own material as part of it.

These words of yours seem to fit:

> As long as the fixer " me " is active, as long as all energy is put

in

> producing imaginary solutions, the fact that the activity of

> the " fixer " is the only problem, cannot be noticed.

In that particular case I wasn't trying to fix myself.

I was actually amazingly calm going through it all.

But I *was* engaged in thinking about what I needed to

do about my work situation. So it was a " fixing " process

of a different sort. But the pattern you describes does

fit.

> B:

> > It seemed that I managed to return to wholeness upon seeing

> > my own lack of wholeness in how I was considering it.

>

> Yes.

>

> > BTW, notice how communication about these things seems to

> > flow so much better when we give examples? I think that is

> > partly due to the vulnerability inherent in doing so.

>

> This makes me realize that I didn´t give any examples, I hope you

> don´t mind :-)

I don't agree at all. You have given examples. It was your

examples that, it seems to me, first opened this dialog up.

The details are not important. It is the process gone through.

You have described some of those processes for yourself,

which has enabled me to understand you vis-a-vis me so much

better.

One this and other such lists it seems that a large portion

of the participants do not say much of anything about themselves,

their own experiences, etc. I get the impression that there

is a fear that if one were to do so then their " nondualness "

would be discredited. And that is why I admire those (such

as Patricia and Silver) that are willing/able to be vulnerable

about themselves. Actually, a ounce of vulnerability is worth

a pound of insight/understanding. Because vulnerability =

honesty. Vulnerability before others corresponds to vulnerability/

honesty with oneself. They simply *have* to go together, in

my view.

>

> Brilliant dialogue, Bill,

Thanks, and note a root in " dialogue " is di- meaning two.

It seems that the ratio of light to heat had shifted dramatically

in favor of light. Sometimes when just rubbing those sticks

together it can seem like there's no point.

But I *knew* you had some real understanding, even when the

signals were getting crossed. So I hung in there, of which

I am *very* glad!

Bill

PS: BTW, I've haven't felt the intrusion of " ego " stuff in

this dialog. When the ego does come in, the conversation

doesn't get beyond the foothills. Someone who *really*

understands doesn't have anything to lose. So a " plasticity "

comes into it with such a person. Such plasticity is needed

to overcome the impedance mismatch of different proclivities

in terms of " pet " ways of stating things etc.

April 6, 2006

Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote:

>

> In a message dated 4/5/2006 6:53:18 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

> Nisargadatta writes:

>

> Wed, 05 Apr 2006 11:44:07 -0000

> " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002

> Re: Leaving no residue/unconditional attention

>

> Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@>

> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 "

<lissbon2002@>

> > wrote:

>

> > > > > The only " wall " which separates us from an entirely new

> > > perception,

> > > > > is fear. Fear of looking at things which we have been

> > > conditioned to

> > > > > escape.

> > > > >

> > > > > Len

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > I wonder if it can sometimes just be " UGH! I don't want to

go

> > > there! "

> > > > I have some stuff I keep putting off, and am skeptical that

it

> is

> > > > really fear.

> > > >

> > > > Bill

> > >

> > > What else could it be?

> > >

> > > len

> > >

> > ~~~~~~

> >

> > I guess I need to take a real look at that!

> >

> > Bill

>

> I was thinking... Few day´s ago I observed some conflict, and I

was

> aware that I didn´t feel like really ending it in myself.

> So I asked myself about the cause, and indeed, it wasn´t fear,

but

> rather a kind of stubbornness, pride. I wasn´t affraid to face

it,

> I just wouldn´t do it. When I realized it, I did have a look at

it.

> It was like... nothing really, no significant resistance, no

fear,

> it was so easy to watch. I asked myself why I kept avoiding this

> point for so long. Just because of pride.

> So, yes, it doesn´t always have to be fear.

>

> len

>

> What is pride but the attachment to one's positive image? What is

attachment

> but the fear of losing that which one wants? Conflict is

resistance. Not

> feeling like ending a conflict is resistance. Resistance is

always from fear.

> Why would one resist something that is not feared?

I see what you mean, Phil, this was also my reasoning first, but in

this case it was interesting to notice a subtle, interesting

difference between not facing some feeling because the sensation of

it is just too scary, and not facing something which isn´t difficult

to face at all, and where the only obstacle is stubbornness.

Len

April 6, 2006

Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002

wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote:

> >

> > In a message dated 4/5/2006 6:53:18 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

> > Nisargadatta writes:

> >

> > Wed, 05 Apr 2006 11:44:07 -0000

> > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@>

> > Re: Leaving no residue/unconditional attention

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@>

> > wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 "

> <lissbon2002@>

> > > wrote:

> >

> > > > > > The only " wall " which separates us from an entirely new

> > > > perception,

> > > > > > is fear. Fear of looking at things which we have been

> > > > conditioned to

> > > > > > escape.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Len

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > I wonder if it can sometimes just be " UGH! I don't want to

> go

> > > > there! "

> > > > > I have some stuff I keep putting off, and am skeptical that

> it

> > is

> > > > > really fear.

> > > > >

> > > > > Bill

> > > >

> > > > What else could it be?

> > > >

> > > > len

> > > >

> > > ~~~~~~

> > >

> > > I guess I need to take a real look at that!

> > >

> > > Bill

> >

> > I was thinking... Few day´s ago I observed some conflict, and I

> was

> > aware that I didn´t feel like really ending it in myself.

> > So I asked myself about the cause, and indeed, it wasn´t fear,

> but

> > rather a kind of stubbornness, pride. I wasn´t affraid to face

> it,

> > I just wouldn´t do it. When I realized it, I did have a look at

> it.

> > It was like... nothing really, no significant resistance, no

> fear,

> > it was so easy to watch. I asked myself why I kept avoiding this

> > point for so long. Just because of pride.

> > So, yes, it doesn´t always have to be fear.

> >

> > len

> >

> > What is pride but the attachment to one's positive image? What is

> attachment

> > but the fear of losing that which one wants? Conflict is

> resistance. Not

> > feeling like ending a conflict is resistance. Resistance is

> always from fear.

> > Why would one resist something that is not feared?

>

> I see what you mean, Phil, this was also my reasoning first, but in

> this case it was interesting to notice a subtle, interesting

> difference between not facing some feeling because the sensation of

> it is just too scary, and not facing something which isn´t difficult

> to face at all, and where the only obstacle is stubbornness.

>

> Len

>

sometimes I think it can even be " inertia at rest " .

it doesn't always have to have a personal significance.

Bill

April 6, 2006

In a message dated 4/5/2006 12:54:25 PM Pacific Daylight Time,

Nisargadatta writes:

In my case - no. I don´t know how long precisely it takes for the

chemicals to be broken down in the body. This is someting else

though, something " technical " .

But once really understood - the storm stops. There is a stage

though, when I observe, while the storm goes on. This takes time,

sometimes a second, sometimes half a day, during this period the

storm goes on, while being observed. So there is a " me " , there is

what " me " doesn´t want to be there, which is another part of

the " me " , there are emotional reactions to it, and all of that, all

this movement is being observed. But I don´t call it surrender,

cause the opposition of thoughts, the fight, the virtual division,

is still there.

This is a big difference with what many Advaitins seem to be saying:

you are a calm centre and observe while the storm is going on.

I say: " I " IS the storm, the observation of this process can take

place, and both: the " I " and the storm cease when their structure

is fully understood. What´s left has no name. I can call it myself,

no problem, but there is a danger of misunderstanding. People

confuse the " I " with that which has no name. So when somebody tells

them: you are the calm centre of the storm, a virtual division

in " me " and the storm is being created and perpetuated. And then

the " me " desperately tries to be calm and observe the storm ;-) But

the storm IS " me " . It is exactly this division in " me " and " not me "

which causes the storm and which must be understood.

len

If I'm understanding, I agree that the storm is 'me', but I'm not sure I

agree that recognizing this resolves the storm. We often recognize internalized

storms without knowing the external source. 'I am irritable', 'I am sad'. This

doesn't change anything.

Allowing the storm to 'be', calms the storm because the storm is nothing

more than the resistance to the storm.

Phil

April 6, 2006

In a message dated 4/6/2006 9:47:57 AM Pacific Daylight Time, N

isargadatta writes:

Thu, 06 Apr 2006 12:18:42 -0000

" lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002

Re: Leaving no residue/unconditional attention

Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote:

>

> In a message dated 4/5/2006 6:53:18 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

> Nisargadatta writes:

>

> Wed, 05 Apr 2006 11:44:07 -0000

> " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002

> Re: Leaving no residue/unconditional attention

>

> Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@>

> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 "

<lissbon2002@>

> > wrote:

>

> > > > > The only " wall " which separates us from an entirely new

> > > perception,

> > > > > is fear. Fear of looking at things which we have been

> > > conditioned to

> > > > > escape.

> > > > >

> > > > > Len

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > I wonder if it can sometimes just be " UGH! I don't want to

go

> > > there! "

> > > > I have some stuff I keep putting off, and am skeptical that

it

> is

> > > > really fear.

> > > >

> > > > Bill

> > >

> > > What else could it be?

> > >

> > > len

> > >

> > ~~~~~~

> >

> > I guess I need to take a real look at that!

> >

> > Bill

>

> I was thinking... Few day´s ago I observed some conflict, and I

was

> aware that I didn´t feel like really ending it in myself.

> So I asked myself about the cause, and indeed, it wasn´t fear,

but

> rather a kind of stubbornness, pride. I wasn´t affraid to face

it,

> I just wouldn´t do it. When I realized it, I did have a look at

it.

> It was like... nothing really, no significant resistance, no

fear,

> it was so easy to watch. I asked myself why I kept avoiding this

> point for so long. Just because of pride.

> So, yes, it doesn´t always have to be fear.

>

> len

>

> What is pride but the attachment to one's positive image? What is

attachment

> but the fear of losing that which one wants? Conflict is

resistance. Not

> feeling like ending a conflict is resistance. Resistance is

always from fear.

> Why would one resist something that is not feared?

I see what you mean, Phil, this was also my reasoning first, but in

this case it was interesting to notice a subtle, interesting

difference between not facing some feeling because the sensation of

it is just too scary, and not facing something which isn´t difficult

to face at all, and where the only obstacle is stubbornness.

Len

Yes, that caught my attention, too, then I got distracted.

It's quite common for some so called 'negative' feelings to be strangely

embraced. This often occurs in the case of 'lost love'. Is it possible it wasn't

really stubbornness at all?

Phil

April 7, 2006

<snip>

> > I was thinking... Few day´s ago I observed some conflict, and I

> was

> > aware that I didn´t feel like really ending it in myself.

> > So I asked myself about the cause, and indeed, it wasn´t fear,

> but

> > rather a kind of stubbornness, pride. I wasn´t affraid to face

> it,

> > I just wouldn´t do it. When I realized it, I did have a look at

> it.

> > It was like... nothing really, no significant resistance, no

> fear,

> > it was so easy to watch. I asked myself why I kept avoiding

this

> > point for so long. Just because of pride.

> > So, yes, it doesn´t always have to be fear.

> >

> > len

> >

> > What is pride but the attachment to one's positive image? What

is

> attachment

> > but the fear of losing that which one wants? Conflict is

> resistance. Not

> > feeling like ending a conflict is resistance. Resistance is

> always from fear.

> > Why would one resist something that is not feared?

>

> I see what you mean, Phil, this was also my reasoning first, but

in

> this case it was interesting to notice a subtle, interesting

> difference between not facing some feeling because the sensation

of

> it is just too scary, and not facing something which isn´t

difficult

> to face at all, and where the only obstacle is stubbornness.

>

> Len

>

> Yes, that caught my attention, too, then I got distracted.

> It's quite common for some so called 'negative' feelings to be

strangely

> embraced. This often occurs in the case of 'lost love'. Is it

possible it wasn't

> really stubbornness at all?

>

> Phil

And is it possible you are stubbornly resisting considering

that it could be?

But the " strangely embraced " notion is an interesting one.

There was a theme that would show up in some of my artwork

that had a " strange fascination " for me. I say strange because

there were qualities that in ways did not appeal to me, yet

the fascination continued. Over the years the fascination

diminished and yet the reflex for that theme would still come

up. It occurred to me that I was perhaps interpreting the

theme as having a special significance *for me* because of

the emotional response I had to it. So it could be a self-

closed loop: It seemed meaningful because of the emotional

response, the emotional response because it seemed meaningful.

I am not sure if that is the mechanism that was going on,

but it seems that such a mechanism *could* occur in cases.

In such a pattern particular " content " becomes self-reinforcing.

Words are not reality, but there is a tendency to make them

so. The notion that all human " hangups " are rooted in fear

is a powerful one, and I think there is a great deal of truth

in it. But I question that *all* hangups can be traced to that.

" Fear " is a word. Reality is much richer than what words can

describe, and, I suggest, it is wishful thinking to imagine

that reality confines itself to the tidy categories of our

word labels.

Bill

April 7, 2006

Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote:

>

> In a message dated 4/5/2006 12:54:25 PM Pacific Daylight Time,

> Nisargadatta writes:

>

> In my case - no. I don´t know how long precisely it takes for the

> chemicals to be broken down in the body. This is someting else

> though, something " technical " .

> But once really understood - the storm stops. There is a stage

> though, when I observe, while the storm goes on. This takes time,

> sometimes a second, sometimes half a day, during this period the

> storm goes on, while being observed. So there is a " me " , there is

> what " me " doesn´t want to be there, which is another part of

> the " me " , there are emotional reactions to it, and all of that,

all

> this movement is being observed. But I don´t call it surrender,

> cause the opposition of thoughts, the fight, the virtual

division,

> is still there.

> This is a big difference with what many Advaitins seem to be

saying:

> you are a calm centre and observe while the storm is going on.

> I say: " I " IS the storm, the observation of this process can take

> place, and both: the " I " and the storm cease when their

structure

> is fully understood. What´s left has no name. I can call it

myself,

> no problem, but there is a danger of misunderstanding. People

> confuse the " I " with that which has no name. So when somebody

tells

> them: you are the calm centre of the storm, a virtual division

> in " me " and the storm is being created and perpetuated. And then

> the " me " desperately tries to be calm and observe the storm ;-)

But

> the storm IS " me " . It is exactly this division in " me " and " not

me "

> which causes the storm and which must be understood.

>

> len

>

> If I'm understanding, I agree that the storm is 'me', but I'm not

sure I

> agree that recognizing this resolves the storm. We often recognize

internalized

> storms without knowing the external source. 'I am irritable', 'I

am sad'. This

> doesn't change anything.

Understanding is not an intellectual issue, here.

Understanding comes only through thorough observation.

Not thinking about it, but consciously being it.

> Allowing the storm to 'be', calms the storm because the storm is

nothing

> more than the resistance to the storm.

>

> Phil

Allowing the storm to be calms the storm as much as a war calms fear

and hatred.

Len

April 7, 2006

Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002

wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote:

> >

> > In a message dated 4/5/2006 12:54:25 PM Pacific Daylight Time,

> > Nisargadatta writes:

> >

> > In my case - no. I don´t know how long precisely it takes for

the

> > chemicals to be broken down in the body. This is someting else

> > though, something " technical " .

> > But once really understood - the storm stops. There is a stage

> > though, when I observe, while the storm goes on. This takes

time,

> > sometimes a second, sometimes half a day, during this period the

> > storm goes on, while being observed. So there is a " me " , there

is

> > what " me " doesn´t want to be there, which is another part of

> > the " me " , there are emotional reactions to it, and all of that,

> all

> > this movement is being observed. But I don´t call it surrender,

> > cause the opposition of thoughts, the fight, the virtual

> division,

> > is still there.

> > This is a big difference with what many Advaitins seem to be

> saying:

> > you are a calm centre and observe while the storm is going on.

> > I say: " I " IS the storm, the observation of this process can

take

> > place, and both: the " I " and the storm cease when their

> structure

> > is fully understood. What´s left has no name. I can call it

> myself,

> > no problem, but there is a danger of misunderstanding. People

> > confuse the " I " with that which has no name. So when somebody

> tells

> > them: you are the calm centre of the storm, a virtual division

> > in " me " and the storm is being created and perpetuated. And then

> > the " me " desperately tries to be calm and observe the storm ;-)

> But

> > the storm IS " me " . It is exactly this division in " me " and " not

> me "

> > which causes the storm and which must be understood.

> >

> > len

> >

> > If I'm understanding, I agree that the storm is 'me', but I'm not

> sure I

> > agree that recognizing this resolves the storm. We often

recognize

> internalized

> > storms without knowing the external source. 'I am irritable', 'I

> am sad'. This

> > doesn't change anything.

>

> Understanding is not an intellectual issue, here.

> Understanding comes only through thorough observation.

> Not thinking about it, but consciously being it.

This is very important!

Bill

> > Allowing the storm to 'be', calms the storm because the storm is

> nothing

> > more than the resistance to the storm.

> >

> > Phil

>

> Allowing the storm to be calms the storm as much as a war calms

fear

> and hatred.

>

> Len

>

April 7, 2006

Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@>

> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote:

> > >

> > > In a message dated 4/5/2006 12:54:25 PM Pacific Daylight Time,

> > > Nisargadatta writes:

> > >

> > > In my case - no. I don´t know how long precisely it takes for

> the

> > > chemicals to be broken down in the body. This is someting else

> > > though, something " technical " .

> > > But once really understood - the storm stops. There is a stage

> > > though, when I observe, while the storm goes on. This takes

> time,

> > > sometimes a second, sometimes half a day, during this period

the

> > > storm goes on, while being observed. So there is a " me " , there

> is

> > > what " me " doesn´t want to be there, which is another part of

> > > the " me " , there are emotional reactions to it, and all of

that,

> > all

> > > this movement is being observed. But I don´t call it

surrender,

> > > cause the opposition of thoughts, the fight, the virtual

> > division,

> > > is still there.

> > > This is a big difference with what many Advaitins seem to be

> > saying:

> > > you are a calm centre and observe while the storm is going on.

> > > I say: " I " IS the storm, the observation of this process can

> take

> > > place, and both: the " I " and the storm cease when their

> > structure

> > > is fully understood. What´s left has no name. I can call it

> > myself,

> > > no problem, but there is a danger of misunderstanding. People

> > > confuse the " I " with that which has no name. So when somebody

> > tells

> > > them: you are the calm centre of the storm, a virtual division

> > > in " me " and the storm is being created and perpetuated. And

then

> > > the " me " desperately tries to be calm and observe the storm ;-

)

> > But

> > > the storm IS " me " . It is exactly this division in " me " and " not

> > me "

> > > which causes the storm and which must be understood.

> > >

> > > len

> > >

> > > If I'm understanding, I agree that the storm is 'me', but I'm

not

> > sure I

> > > agree that recognizing this resolves the storm. We often

> recognize

> > internalized

> > > storms without knowing the external source. 'I am

irritable', 'I

> > am sad'. This

> > > doesn't change anything.

> >

> > Understanding is not an intellectual issue, here.

> > Understanding comes only through thorough observation.

> > Not thinking about it, but consciously being it.

>

> This is very important!

>

> Bill

>

> > > Allowing the storm to 'be', calms the storm because the storm

is

> > nothing

> > > more than the resistance to the storm.

> > >

> > > Phil

> >

> > Allowing the storm to be calms the storm as much as a war calms

> fear

> > and hatred.

> >

> > Len

> >

> How in the world is " allowing the storm.. " (for whatever

reason), equal or equatable to war? That just doesn't make any sense

at all Len. Fear and hatred equal war..that's a given. But permission

of, or allowing to be, to anything or anyone, is not the same thing

at all.

..............bob

April 7, 2006

> > I see what you mean, Phil, this was also my reasoning first,

but

> in

> > this case it was interesting to notice a subtle, interesting

> > difference between not facing some feeling because the

sensation

> of

> > it is just too scary, and not facing something which isn´t

> difficult

> > to face at all, and where the only obstacle is stubbornness.

> >

> > Len

> >

> > Yes, that caught my attention, too, then I got distracted.

> > It's quite common for some so called 'negative' feelings to be

> strangely

> > embraced. This often occurs in the case of 'lost love'. Is it

> possible it wasn't

> > really stubbornness at all?

> >

> > Phil

It´s not clear to mme what you mean?

Len

Sign In

Leaving no residue/unconditional attention

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