Leaving no residue/unconditional attention

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Bob N. " <Roberibus111

wrote:

>

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

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 "

<lissbon2002@>

> > wrote:

 

 

> > > > 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

 

 

 

The storm means the psychological conflict, for instance:

fear, anger, hatred...

Allowing this to be means that the anger, fear and hatred can

express themselves. This is what war is: an expression of emotional

conflict and fear.

So allowing it doesn´t end it.

Suppressing it doesn´t end it either, cause sooner or later it will

explode in another war.

Something else is needed to end conflict: understanding of its whole

structure.

 

Len

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002

wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " Bob N. " <Roberibus111@>

> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@>

wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 "

> <lissbon2002@>

> > > wrote:

>

>

> > > > > 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

>

>

>

> The storm means the psychological conflict, for instance:

> fear, anger, hatred...

> Allowing this to be means that the anger, fear and hatred can

> express themselves. This is what war is: an expression of emotional

> conflict and fear.

> So allowing it doesn´t end it.

> Suppressing it doesn´t end it either, cause sooner or later it will

> explode in another war.

> Something else is needed to end conflict: understanding of its

whole

> structure.

>

> Len

>

I am not trying to be dense here Len, but I don't get your

position at all.If I'm to understand I think we agree on this: fear,

anger, hatred (the storm) = war. yes? But to say that allowing =

suppression, or allowing necessitates action/reaction/expression does

not in my belief hold. If we allow war but do not participate..how

does that fit your equation? I'm not sure of your age but if you are

of an age that permits you to recall Viet Nam, there was a poster

around at the time that made the only sense to me. That wasn't the

Peace Now stuff either..that only incited more violence in one form

or another. It merely stated " What if there was a war and nobody

came? " . Not that it turns out to be practical in this world, but it

does make sense. Therefore when Phil is saying to allow the storm, in

my opinion he is giving a rephrasing to those words. And in simple

point of fact, for those who did not participate, there was no war.

Maybe prison, and maybe violence was done upon them by others who

disagreed and came from a different personal space..but for the ones

who refused to join the game, the ones who allowed with non violent

disposition..there was no warring.Period. And for those who issued

violent acts upon them, there was no victory. I'm not talking now

regarding the Government and it's non-war War fiasco in Nam, I mean

the ones that kicked and shot those who refused to participate.

Absolutely they could defile those and imprison them and savage their

bodies and end their lives but all of their violence and

imprisonments and lectures and labours..came to nought. The ones who

allowed were not conquered.They were resisted but did not resist. No

one changed their minds or positions or allowances. Those were the

ones that won.

.....bob

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002

wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " Bob N. " <Roberibus111@>

> wrote:

> >

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

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 "

> <lissbon2002@>

> > > wrote:

>

>

> > > > > 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

>

>

>

> The storm means the psychological conflict, for instance:

> fear, anger, hatred...

> Allowing this to be means that the anger, fear and hatred can

> express themselves. This is what war is: an expression of emotional

> conflict and fear.

> So allowing it doesn´t end it.

> Suppressing it doesn´t end it either, cause sooner or later it will

> explode in another war.

> Something else is needed to end conflict: understanding of its whole

> structure.

>

> Len

>

 

It seems you are referring to really witnessing the roots

as opposed to merely " riding " it.

 

If someone is feeling furious and simply vents I suppose

they could call that " allowing it to be " . Clearly there

is no growth in that.

 

I expect that by " understanding its structure " you simply

mean how the " me " is wrapped around into it, i.e. realizing

that the hate/anger is not really about something " out there "

at all.

 

It seems to me that what is really required to transform

it is to witness it in a nonjudgemental, unconditional

way. Nothing needs to be *done*. And it is nothing to be

anxious about, alarmed about, any of that.

 

And as we have been saying, it is not difficult, but can

be *very* arduous (especially in relation to extreme

emotions like hate).

 

 

Bill

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 4/7/2006 2:55:32 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

Nisargadatta writes:

 

Fri, 07 Apr 2006 07:25:13 -0000

" billrishel " <illusyn

Re: Leaving no residue/unconditional attention

 

<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?

 

 

 

 

It was just a suggestion to Len from my perspective, Bill. No stubborn

resisting going on here. ~

 

Phil

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Bob N. " <Roberibus111

wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@>

> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " Bob N. " <Roberibus111@>

> > wrote:

> > >

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

> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 "

> > <lissbon2002@>

> > > > wrote:

> >

> >

> > > > > > 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

> >

> >

> >

> > The storm means the psychological conflict, for instance:

> > fear, anger, hatred...

> > Allowing this to be means that the anger, fear and hatred can

> > express themselves. This is what war is: an expression of

emotional

> > conflict and fear.

> > So allowing it doesn´t end it.

> > Suppressing it doesn´t end it either, cause sooner or later it

will

> > explode in another war.

> > Something else is needed to end conflict: understanding of its

> whole

> > structure.

> >

> > Len

> >

> I am not trying to be dense here Len, but I don't get your

> position at all.If I'm to understand I think we agree on this:

fear,

> anger, hatred (the storm) = war. yes? But to say that allowing =

> suppression, or allowing necessitates action/reaction/expression

does

> not in my belief hold. If we allow war but do not participate..how

> does that fit your equation? I'm not sure of your age but if you

are

> of an age that permits you to recall Viet Nam, there was a poster

> around at the time that made the only sense to me. That wasn't the

> Peace Now stuff either..that only incited more violence in one

form

> or another. It merely stated " What if there was a war and nobody

> came? " . Not that it turns out to be practical in this world, but

it

> does make sense. Therefore when Phil is saying to allow the storm,

in

> my opinion he is giving a rephrasing to those words. And in simple

> point of fact, for those who did not participate, there was no

war.

> Maybe prison, and maybe violence was done upon them by others who

> disagreed and came from a different personal space..but for the

ones

> who refused to join the game, the ones who allowed with non

violent

> disposition..there was no warring.Period. And for those who issued

> violent acts upon them, there was no victory. I'm not talking now

> regarding the Government and it's non-war War fiasco in Nam, I

mean

> the ones that kicked and shot those who refused to participate.

> Absolutely they could defile those and imprison them and savage

their

> bodies and end their lives but all of their violence and

> imprisonments and lectures and labours..came to nought. The ones

who

> allowed were not conquered.They were resisted but did not resist.

No

> one changed their minds or positions or allowances. Those were the

> ones that won.

> .....bob

>

 

 

 

Well, we don´t understand each other.

I try to put more clearly what I mean.

If I am full of anger, what does it mean to allow this anger to be?

To me it means to give this anger all space to be and to express

itself. This doesn´t end anger, the expression of anger will bring

some temporary relief, but the seed of anger will still be in me,

and so the anger will reoccur again and again.

Not allowing the anger to be is not a solution, either, because

suppressed anger will find another, indirect way of expresing

itself, which may be even more destructive.

So, what does end anger?

In my perception only the understanding of its cause ends it.

What is the cause of anger? Isn´t anger a defensive reaction when

something which I cling to and which I want to protect is beeing

threatened? I may need anger to fight back when somebody is

attacking me physically, it seems natural to me to protect my body.

But what if somebody is attacking my self image, my beliefs, in

other words the psychological wall I have built around myself? Do I

really need to protect it? Is there anything worth protecting there

at all? What is this wall made from? What happens when I don´t act

on anger and watch its movement? What happens when somebody attacks

my self-image and I don´t defend myself at all?

These are all interesting questions to explore.

 

Len

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn

wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@>

> wrote:

 

> > The storm means the psychological conflict, for instance:

> > fear, anger, hatred...

> > Allowing this to be means that the anger, fear and hatred can

> > express themselves. This is what war is: an expression of

emotional

> > conflict and fear.

> > So allowing it doesn´t end it.

> > Suppressing it doesn´t end it either, cause sooner or later it

will

> > explode in another war.

> > Something else is needed to end conflict: understanding of its

whole

> > structure.

> >

> > Len

 

 

 

> It seems you are referring to really witnessing the roots

> as opposed to merely " riding " it.

 

 

Yes.

 

 

> If someone is feeling furious and simply vents I suppose

> they could call that " allowing it to be " . Clearly there

> is no growth in that.

>

> I expect that by " understanding its structure " you simply

> mean how the " me " is wrapped around into it, i.e. realizing

> that the hate/anger is not really about something " out there "

> at all.

 

 

Yes.

 

 

> It seems to me that what is really required to transform

> it is to witness it in a nonjudgemental, unconditional

> way. Nothing needs to be *done*. And it is nothing to be

> anxious about, alarmed about, any of that.

>

> And as we have been saying, it is not difficult, but can

> be *very* arduous (especially in relation to extreme

> emotions like hate).

 

 

 

Yes, anger is one of the most difficult emotions to witness, because

the body is full of adrenaline and is screaming for action.

The smaller it is, the easier it is to observe.

The difficulty was in my case to contain it. The energy was so big,

that it was spouting out of my head like an erupting volcano. Once I

could contain it all, the observation became much easier, and I

could watch it like any other emotion.

 

Len

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002

wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@>

> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@>

> > wrote:

>

> > > The storm means the psychological conflict, for instance:

> > > fear, anger, hatred...

> > > Allowing this to be means that the anger, fear and hatred can

> > > express themselves. This is what war is: an expression of

> emotional

> > > conflict and fear.

> > > So allowing it doesn´t end it.

> > > Suppressing it doesn´t end it either, cause sooner or later it

> will

> > > explode in another war.

> > > Something else is needed to end conflict: understanding of its

> whole

> > > structure.

> > >

> > > Len

>

>

>

> > It seems you are referring to really witnessing the roots

> > as opposed to merely " riding " it.

>

>

> Yes.

>

>

> > If someone is feeling furious and simply vents I suppose

> > they could call that " allowing it to be " . Clearly there

> > is no growth in that.

> >

> > I expect that by " understanding its structure " you simply

> > mean how the " me " is wrapped around into it, i.e. realizing

> > that the hate/anger is not really about something " out there "

> > at all.

>

>

> Yes.

>

>

> > It seems to me that what is really required to transform

> > it is to witness it in a nonjudgemental, unconditional

> > way. Nothing needs to be *done*. And it is nothing to be

> > anxious about, alarmed about, any of that.

> >

> > And as we have been saying, it is not difficult, but can

> > be *very* arduous (especially in relation to extreme

> > emotions like hate).

>

>

>

> Yes, anger is one of the most difficult emotions to witness, because

> the body is full of adrenaline and is screaming for action.

> The smaller it is, the easier it is to observe.

> The difficulty was in my case to contain it. The energy was so big,

> that it was spouting out of my head like an erupting volcano. Once I

> could contain it all, the observation became much easier, and I

> could watch it like any other emotion.

>

> Len

>

 

So Bob, reading my comments and Len's responses

do you see where Len is coming from better?

Because at first what he was saying didn't click

with me either, but because of my exchages with

Len I was able to sort out what he actually meant.

 

Bill

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 4/7/2006 9:33:59 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

Nisargadatta writes:

 

Fri, 07 Apr 2006 16:31:42 -0000

" lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002

Re: Leaving no residue/unconditional attention

 

Nisargadatta , " Bob N. " <Roberibus111

wrote:

>

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

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 "

<lissbon2002@>

> > wrote:

 

 

> > > > 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

 

 

 

The storm means the psychological conflict, for instance:

fear, anger, hatred...

Allowing this to be means that the anger, fear and hatred can

express themselves. This is what war is: an expression of emotional

conflict and fear.

So allowing it doesn´t end it.

Suppressing it doesn´t end it either, cause sooner or later it will

explode in another war.

Something else is needed to end conflict: understanding of its whole

structure.

 

Len

 

 

 

This isn't an intellectual/philosophical point, Len. It's necessary to slow

the mentation down a bit and simply 'look' in order to understand.

 

What you see is the feeling and the expression of the feeling. You think

that to allow the feeling is to allow the expression. We're not talking about

expression. We're just talking about the " storm " . If the feeling of fear, for

example, is allowed to be felt, it quickly dissipates. No expression is

required. What locks the feeling in place is the resistance to feeling it. Once

the

resistance is released, something remarkable is noticed: there is nothing

behind the resistance. There is no fear waiting to be felt behind the resistance

to the fear. This is because the fear, itself, is nothing more than

resistance.

 

Invite the storm, and there is no more storm.

 

Phil

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , OConnor Patricia <gdtige

wrote:

>

>

> >

> > > > The storm means the psychological conflict, for

> instance:

> > > > fear, anger, hatred...

> > > > Allowing this to be means that the anger, fear

> and hatred can

> > > > express themselves. This is what war is: an

> expression of

> > emotional

> > > > conflict and fear.

> > > > So allowing it doesn´t end it.

> > > > Suppressing it doesn´t end it either, cause

> sooner or later it

> > will

> > > > explode in another war.

> > > > Something else is needed to end conflict:

> understanding of its

> > whole

> > > > structure.

> > > >

> > > > Len

> >

> >

> >

> > > It seems you are referring to really witnessing

> the roots

> > > as opposed to merely " riding " it.

> >

> >

> > Yes.

> >

> >

> > > If someone is feeling furious and simply vents I

> suppose

> > > they could call that " allowing it to be " . Clearly

> there

> > > is no growth in that.

> > >

> > > I expect that by " understanding its structure " you

> simply

> > > mean how the " me " is wrapped around into it, i.e.

> realizing

> > > that the hate/anger is not really about something

> " out there "

> > > at all.

> >

> >

> > Yes.

> >

> >

> > > It seems to me that what is really required to

> transform

> > > it is to witness it in a nonjudgemental,

> unconditional

> > > way. Nothing needs to be *done*. And it is nothing

> to be

> > > anxious about, alarmed about, any of that.

> > >

> > > And as we have been saying, it is not difficult,

> but can

> > > be *very* arduous (especially in relation to

> extreme

> > > emotions like hate).

> >

> >

> >

> > Yes, anger is one of the most difficult emotions to

> witness, because

> > the body is full of adrenaline and is screaming for

> action.

> > The smaller it is, the easier it is to observe.

> > The difficulty was in my case to contain it. The

> energy was so big,

> > that it was spouting out of my head like an erupting

> volcano. Once I

> > could contain it all, the observation became much

> easier, and I

> > could watch it like any other emotion.

> >

> > Len

> >

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

>

>

> it seems that sometimes anger is the only way to get

> something across. But it has to be contained otherwise

> it is devastating and useless. I do <play> with that

> emotion, let it be triggered and use it effectivily w/

> my 15 years old and my stubborn mustang when they try

> to boss me around.

> And they try me!

> Patricia

 

 

 

Yes, anger can be useful sometimes.

 

Len

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 4/7/2006 12:23:40 PM Pacific Daylight Time,

Nisargadatta writes:

 

Fri, 07 Apr 2006 17:03:26 -0000

" Bob N. " <Roberibus111

Re: Leaving no residue/unconditional attention

 

Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002

wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " Bob N. " <Roberibus111@>

> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@>

wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 "

> <lissbon2002@>

> > > wrote:

>

>

> > > > > 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

>

>

>

> The storm means the psychological conflict, for instance:

> fear, anger, hatred...

> Allowing this to be means that the anger, fear and hatred can

> express themselves. This is what war is: an expression of emotional

> conflict and fear.

> So allowing it doesn´t end it.

> Suppressing it doesn´t end it either, cause sooner or later it will

> explode in another war.

> Something else is needed to end conflict: understanding of its

whole

> structure.

>

> Len

>

I am not trying to be dense here Len, but I don't get your

position at all.If I'm to understand I think we agree on this: fear,

anger, hatred (the storm) = war. yes? But to say that allowing =

suppression, or allowing necessitates action/reaction/expression does

not in my belief hold. If we allow war but do not participate..how

does that fit your equation? I'm not sure of your age but if you are

of an age that permits you to recall Viet Nam, there was a poster

around at the time that made the only sense to me. That wasn't the

Peace Now stuff either..that only incited more violence in one form

or another. It merely stated " What if there was a war and nobody

came? " . Not that it turns out to be practical in this world, but it

does make sense. Therefore when Phil is saying to allow the storm, in

my opinion he is giving a rephrasing to those words. And in simple

point of fact, for those who did not participate, there was no war.

Maybe prison, and maybe violence was done upon them by others who

disagreed and came from a different personal space..but for the ones

who refused to join the game, the ones who allowed with non violent

disposition..there was no warring.Period. And for those who issued

violent acts upon them, there was no victory. I'm not talking now

regarding the Government and it's non-war War fiasco in Nam, I mean

the ones that kicked and shot those who refused to participate.

Absolutely they could defile those and imprison them and savage their

bodies and end their lives but all of their violence and

imprisonments and lectures and labours..came to nought. The ones who

allowed were not conquered.They were resisted but did not resist. No

one changed their minds or positions or allowances. Those were the

ones that won.

......bob

 

 

 

I was actually referring to internal resistance, but acceptance applies to

external situations as well, as you say, Bob. Perception and creation are

actually the same, since everything is actually 'occurring' in consciousness. To

struggle with an external situation simply creates more situations of

struggle. Mother Theresa understood this, which is why she would not

participate in

antiwar demonstrations, but she would march for peace. To some this seems like

the same thing, but to those who understand how our experiences are created,

it makes all the difference in the world.

 

Phil

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , OConnor Patricia <gdtige

wrote:

>

>

> >

> > > > The storm means the psychological conflict, for

> instance:

> > > > fear, anger, hatred...

> > > > Allowing this to be means that the anger, fear

> and hatred can

> > > > express themselves. This is what war is: an

> expression of

> > emotional

> > > > conflict and fear.

> > > > So allowing it doesn´t end it.

> > > > Suppressing it doesn´t end it either, cause

> sooner or later it

> > will

> > > > explode in another war.

> > > > Something else is needed to end conflict:

> understanding of its

> > whole

> > > > structure.

> > > >

> > > > Len

> >

> >

> >

> > > It seems you are referring to really witnessing

> the roots

> > > as opposed to merely " riding " it.

> >

> >

> > Yes.

> >

> >

> > > If someone is feeling furious and simply vents I

> suppose

> > > they could call that " allowing it to be " . Clearly

> there

> > > is no growth in that.

> > >

> > > I expect that by " understanding its structure " you

> simply

> > > mean how the " me " is wrapped around into it, i.e.

> realizing

> > > that the hate/anger is not really about something

> " out there "

> > > at all.

> >

> >

> > Yes.

> >

> >

> > > It seems to me that what is really required to

> transform

> > > it is to witness it in a nonjudgemental,

> unconditional

> > > way. Nothing needs to be *done*. And it is nothing

> to be

> > > anxious about, alarmed about, any of that.

> > >

> > > And as we have been saying, it is not difficult,

> but can

> > > be *very* arduous (especially in relation to

> extreme

> > > emotions like hate).

> >

> >

> >

> > Yes, anger is one of the most difficult emotions to

> witness, because

> > the body is full of adrenaline and is screaming for

> action.

> > The smaller it is, the easier it is to observe.

> > The difficulty was in my case to contain it. The

> energy was so big,

> > that it was spouting out of my head like an erupting

> volcano. Once I

> > could contain it all, the observation became much

> easier, and I

> > could watch it like any other emotion.

> >

> > Len

> >

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

>

>

> it seems that sometimes anger is the only way to get

> something across. But it has to be contained otherwise

> it is devastating and useless. I do <play> with that

> emotion, let it be triggered and use it effectivily w/

> my 15 years old and my stubborn mustang when they try

> to boss me around.

> And they try me!

> Patricia

>

>

 

About a year ago, when I was working with emotionally

disturbed children (residential setting) a few times

when they were really acting out I put on a big show

of being quite furious with them. I was loud and intense.

Their eyes widened, and it was all the more effective

because they were used to me being always very mellow,

friendly etc. They settled right down (and went to bed

like they were supposed to). Immediately afterwards I

noticed I was completely calm, and went back to what

I had been doing as if nothing had happened. So I had

*displayed* anger, but not actually felt it. And so there

was no " residue " -- when it was over it was over.

 

 

Bill

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote:

>

>

> In a message dated 4/7/2006 9:33:59 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

> Nisargadatta writes:

>

> Fri, 07 Apr 2006 16:31:42 -0000

> " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002

> Re: Leaving no residue/unconditional attention

>

> Nisargadatta , " Bob N. " <Roberibus111@>

> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@>

wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 "

> <lissbon2002@>

> > > wrote:

>

>

> > > > > 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

>

>

>

> The storm means the psychological conflict, for instance:

> fear, anger, hatred...

> Allowing this to be means that the anger, fear and hatred can

> express themselves. This is what war is: an expression of

emotional

> conflict and fear.

> So allowing it doesn´t end it.

> Suppressing it doesn´t end it either, cause sooner or later it

will

> explode in another war.

> Something else is needed to end conflict: understanding of its

whole

> structure.

>

> Len

>

>

>

> This isn't an intellectual/philosophical point, Len. It's

necessary to slow

> the mentation down a bit and simply 'look' in order to understand.

>

> What you see is the feeling and the expression of the feeling. You

think

> that to allow the feeling is to allow the expression. We're not

talking about

> expression. We're just talking about the " storm " . If the feeling

of fear, for

> example, is allowed to be felt, it quickly dissipates. No

expression is

> required. What locks the feeling in place is the resistance to

feeling it. Once the

> resistance is released, something remarkable is noticed: there is

nothing

> behind the resistance. There is no fear waiting to be felt behind

the resistance

> to the fear. This is because the fear, itself, is nothing more

than

> resistance.

>

> Invite the storm, and there is no more storm.

>

> Phil

 

 

 

 

If allowing a storm to be means to you - observing the feeling with

all attention and without acting on it, I´m with you.

To me allowing something sounds more like what everybody is doing

with feelings, letting them find their way, without any interest in

understanding them (the other possibility is suppression).

I assure you that simply allowing anger to be, doesn´t end it.

So to me what you say sounds simplistic.

In some cases simply admitting something to exist may be the end of

conflict (this is the case when only suppression of some impuls

creates a conflict), most of the time it is´t a case though. It

takes a lot of attention and courage even, to face some emotions.

Let´s not generalize, the same thing happened with our discussion

about physical pain. It´s not that some physical pain isn´t

experienced as negative when observed, that it counts for all

physical pain.

 

Len

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote:

>

>

> In a message dated 4/7/2006 9:33:59 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

> Nisargadatta writes:

>

> Fri, 07 Apr 2006 14:34:10 -0000

> " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002

> Re: Leaving no residue/unconditional attention

>

>

> > > 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

>

>

>

> I'm suggesting the possibility that there was no perceived

difficulty in

> facing the feeling because the feeling was rather enjoyed to begin

with.

> Instead, there was the choice to not explore the feeling for a

time so as to prolong

> the feeling.

>

> Have you ever had the experience of noticing that you choose to

keep your

> anger or sadness or longing or grief, even though there is the

option to let it

> go? There are sometimes unrecognized benefits and the benefits can

only

> continue as long as the real reason for retaining the feeling

remain hidden.

>

> Phil

 

 

 

OK, now I understand you.

But this is different from my example.

There was a feeling/conflict which I kept avoiding.

I didn´t want to face it, so one could think that there was fear

involved in facing it. However, when I decided to face it anyway,

there was practically no fear involved, the sensation which I kept

avoiding appeared to be very easy to observe, there was hardly any

resistance to the sensations. The only resistance was a kind of

stubbornness, a tendency to stick to my usual behaviour pattern, and

this behaviour pattern seemed to be related to the habit of

protection of self-image - pride.

 

Len

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote:

>

>

> In a message dated 4/7/2006 12:23:40 PM Pacific Daylight Time,

> Nisargadatta writes:

>

> Fri, 07 Apr 2006 17:03:26 -0000

> " Bob N. " <Roberibus111

> Re: Leaving no residue/unconditional attention

>

> Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@>

> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " Bob N. " <Roberibus111@>

> > wrote:

> > >

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

> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 "

> > <lissbon2002@>

> > > > wrote:

> >

> >

> > > > > > 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

> >

> >

> >

> > The storm means the psychological conflict, for instance:

> > fear, anger, hatred...

> > Allowing this to be means that the anger, fear and hatred can

> > express themselves. This is what war is: an expression of

emotional

> > conflict and fear.

> > So allowing it doesn´t end it.

> > Suppressing it doesn´t end it either, cause sooner or later it

will

> > explode in another war.

> > Something else is needed to end conflict: understanding of its

> whole

> > structure.

> >

> > Len

> >

> I am not trying to be dense here Len, but I don't get your

> position at all.If I'm to understand I think we agree on this:

fear,

> anger, hatred (the storm) = war. yes? But to say that allowing =

> suppression, or allowing necessitates action/reaction/expression

does

> not in my belief hold. If we allow war but do not participate..how

> does that fit your equation? I'm not sure of your age but if you

are

> of an age that permits you to recall Viet Nam, there was a poster

> around at the time that made the only sense to me. That wasn't the

> Peace Now stuff either..that only incited more violence in one form

> or another. It merely stated " What if there was a war and nobody

> came? " . Not that it turns out to be practical in this world, but

it

> does make sense. Therefore when Phil is saying to allow the storm,

in

> my opinion he is giving a rephrasing to those words. And in simple

> point of fact, for those who did not participate, there was no

war.

> Maybe prison, and maybe violence was done upon them by others who

> disagreed and came from a different personal space..but for the

ones

> who refused to join the game, the ones who allowed with non

violent

> disposition..there was no warring.Period. And for those who issued

> violent acts upon them, there was no victory. I'm not talking now

> regarding the Government and it's non-war War fiasco in Nam, I

mean

> the ones that kicked and shot those who refused to participate.

> Absolutely they could defile those and imprison them and savage

their

> bodies and end their lives but all of their violence and

> imprisonments and lectures and labours..came to nought. The ones

who

> allowed were not conquered.They were resisted but did not resist.

No

> one changed their minds or positions or allowances. Those were the

> ones that won.

> .....bob

>

>

>

> I was actually referring to internal resistance, but acceptance

applies to

> external situations as well, as you say, Bob. Perception and

creation are

> actually the same, since everything is actually 'occurring' in

consciousness. To

> struggle with an external situation simply creates more situations

of

> struggle. Mother Theresa understood this, which is why she would

not participate in

> antiwar demonstrations, but she would march for peace. To some this

seems like

> the same thing, but to those who understand how our experiences

are created,

> it makes all the difference in the world.

>

> Phil

>

> That's got my vote Phil. Mother Theresa is a hero of mine. Toombaru

said somewhere that she lied...I don't know what he meant by that,

but I don't really know a lot about a lot of people or things..and

that's fine...so fine. I like it like that..not understanding

everything and everybody or even myself. But I do understand a few

things and this right here that you give voice to..I understand that.

 

.........bob

>

>

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , OConnor Patricia <gdtige@>

> wrote:

> >

> >

> > >

> > > > > The storm means the psychological conflict, for

> > instance:

> > > > > fear, anger, hatred...

> > > > > Allowing this to be means that the anger, fear

> > and hatred can

> > > > > express themselves. This is what war is: an

> > expression of

> > > emotional

> > > > > conflict and fear.

> > > > > So allowing it doesn´t end it.

> > > > > Suppressing it doesn´t end it either, cause

> > sooner or later it

> > > will

> > > > > explode in another war.

> > > > > Something else is needed to end conflict:

> > understanding of its

> > > whole

> > > > > structure.

> > > > >

> > > > > Len

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > It seems you are referring to really witnessing

> > the roots

> > > > as opposed to merely " riding " it.

> > >

> > >

> > > Yes.

> > >

> > >

> > > > If someone is feeling furious and simply vents I

> > suppose

> > > > they could call that " allowing it to be " . Clearly

> > there

> > > > is no growth in that.

> > > >

> > > > I expect that by " understanding its structure " you

> > simply

> > > > mean how the " me " is wrapped around into it, i.e.

> > realizing

> > > > that the hate/anger is not really about something

> > " out there "

> > > > at all.

> > >

> > >

> > > Yes.

> > >

> > >

> > > > It seems to me that what is really required to

> > transform

> > > > it is to witness it in a nonjudgemental,

> > unconditional

> > > > way. Nothing needs to be *done*. And it is nothing

> > to be

> > > > anxious about, alarmed about, any of that.

> > > >

> > > > And as we have been saying, it is not difficult,

> > but can

> > > > be *very* arduous (especially in relation to

> > extreme

> > > > emotions like hate).

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Yes, anger is one of the most difficult emotions to

> > witness, because

> > > the body is full of adrenaline and is screaming for

> > action.

> > > The smaller it is, the easier it is to observe.

> > > The difficulty was in my case to contain it. The

> > energy was so big,

> > > that it was spouting out of my head like an erupting

> > volcano. Once I

> > > could contain it all, the observation became much

> > easier, and I

> > > could watch it like any other emotion.

> > >

> > > Len

> > >

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

> >

> >

> > it seems that sometimes anger is the only way to get

> > something across. But it has to be contained otherwise

> > it is devastating and useless. I do <play> with that

> > emotion, let it be triggered and use it effectivily w/

> > my 15 years old and my stubborn mustang when they try

> > to boss me around.

> > And they try me!

> > Patricia

> >

> >

>

> About a year ago, when I was working with emotionally

> disturbed children (residential setting) a few times

> when they were really acting out I put on a big show

> of being quite furious with them. I was loud and intense.

> Their eyes widened, and it was all the more effective

> because they were used to me being always very mellow,

> friendly etc. They settled right down (and went to bed

> like they were supposed to). Immediately afterwards I

> noticed I was completely calm, and went back to what

> I had been doing as if nothing had happened. So I had

> *displayed* anger, but not actually felt it. And so there

> was no " residue " -- when it was over it was over.

>

>

> Bill

>

Good Morning Bill...I like this a lot. This is a neat trick

when certain types of transactions occur with seemingly

sane,wholesome and emotionally stable adults as well. It's sometimes

the ONLY survival tactic. Nice move friend.

.......bob

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 4/8/2006 4:37:15 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

Nisargadatta writes:

 

Sat, 08 Apr 2006 11:02:38 -0000

" lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002

Re: Leaving no residue/unconditional attention

 

Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote:

>

>

> In a message dated 4/7/2006 9:33:59 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

> Nisargadatta writes:

>

> Fri, 07 Apr 2006 16:31:42 -0000

> " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002

> Re: Leaving no residue/unconditional attention

>

> Nisargadatta , " Bob N. " <Roberibus111@>

> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@>

wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 "

> <lissbon2002@>

> > > wrote:

>

>

> > > > > 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

>

>

>

> The storm means the psychological conflict, for instance:

> fear, anger, hatred...

> Allowing this to be means that the anger, fear and hatred can

> express themselves. This is what war is: an expression of

emotional

> conflict and fear.

> So allowing it doesn´t end it.

> Suppressing it doesn´t end it either, cause sooner or later it

will

> explode in another war.

> Something else is needed to end conflict: understanding of its

whole

> structure.

>

> Len

>

>

>

> This isn't an intellectual/philosophical point, Len. It's

necessary to slow

> the mentation down a bit and simply 'look' in order to understand.

>

> What you see is the feeling and the expression of the feeling. You

think

> that to allow the feeling is to allow the expression. We're not

talking about

> expression. We're just talking about the " storm " . If the feeling

of fear, for

> example, is allowed to be felt, it quickly dissipates. No

expression is

> required. What locks the feeling in place is the resistance to

feeling it. Once the

> resistance is released, something remarkable is noticed: there is

nothing

> behind the resistance. There is no fear waiting to be felt behind

the resistance

> to the fear. This is because the fear, itself, is nothing more

than

> resistance.

>

> Invite the storm, and there is no more storm.

>

> Phil

 

 

 

 

If allowing a storm to be means to you - observing the feeling with

all attention and without acting on it, I´m with you.

To me allowing something sounds more like what everybody is doing

with feelings, letting them find their way, without any interest in

understanding them (the other possibility is suppression).

I assure you that simply allowing anger to be, doesn´t end it.

So to me what you say sounds simplistic.

In some cases simply admitting something to exist may be the end of

conflict (this is the case when only suppression of some impuls

creates a conflict), most of the time it is´t a case though. It

takes a lot of attention and courage even, to face some emotions.

Let´s not generalize, the same thing happened with our discussion

about physical pain. It´s not that some physical pain isn´t

experienced as negative when observed, that it counts for all

physical pain.

 

Len

 

 

 

 

Yes, we might understand each other. Not sure.

If you pay close attention to your anger, you'll notice that you use your

thoughts to feed it. The only way it can survive while you are watching it is if

you continue to feed it. Stop the thoughts and just be with the anger; allow

it to simply be present. The allowing, itself, will dissipate the anger,

since all that held it in place was the resistance to feeling it or the

resistance to letting it go, both of which are an attempt to keep it. In the

end, it

consists of resistance only.

 

Don't understand your comments re: pain.

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 4/8/2006 4:37:15 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

Nisargadatta writes:

 

Sat, 08 Apr 2006 11:23:00 -0000

" lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002

Re: Leaving no residue/unconditional attention

 

Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote:

>

>

> In a message dated 4/7/2006 9:33:59 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

> Nisargadatta writes:

>

> Fri, 07 Apr 2006 14:34:10 -0000

> " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002

> Re: Leaving no residue/unconditional attention

>

>

> > > 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

>

>

>

> I'm suggesting the possibility that there was no perceived

difficulty in

> facing the feeling because the feeling was rather enjoyed to begin

with.

> Instead, there was the choice to not explore the feeling for a

time so as to prolong

> the feeling.

>

> Have you ever had the experience of noticing that you choose to

keep your

> anger or sadness or longing or grief, even though there is the

option to let it

> go? There are sometimes unrecognized benefits and the benefits can

only

> continue as long as the real reason for retaining the feeling

remain hidden.

>

> Phil

 

 

 

OK, now I understand you.

But this is different from my example.

There was a feeling/conflict which I kept avoiding.

I didn´t want to face it, so one could think that there was fear

involved in facing it. However, when I decided to face it anyway,

there was practically no fear involved, the sensation which I kept

avoiding appeared to be very easy to observe, there was hardly any

resistance to the sensations. The only resistance was a kind of

stubbornness, a tendency to stick to my usual behaviour pattern, and

this behaviour pattern seemed to be related to the habit of

protection of self-image - pride.

 

Len

 

 

 

 

Oh, okay. My assumption was that this " facing " was known to be the process

by which such things were dissolved, and so to face it would essentially be the

same as to let it go. My mistake.

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote:

>

>

> In a message dated 4/8/2006 4:37:15 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

> Nisargadatta writes:

>

> Sat, 08 Apr 2006 11:02:38 -0000

> " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002

> Re: Leaving no residue/unconditional attention

>

> If allowing a storm to be means to you - observing the feeling

with

> all attention and without acting on it, I´m with you.

> To me allowing something sounds more like what everybody is doing

> with feelings, letting them find their way, without any interest

in

> understanding them (the other possibility is suppression).

> I assure you that simply allowing anger to be, doesn´t end it.

> So to me what you say sounds simplistic.

> In some cases simply admitting something to exist may be the end

of

> conflict (this is the case when only suppression of some impuls

> creates a conflict), most of the time it is´t a case though. It

> takes a lot of attention and courage even, to face some emotions.

> Let´s not generalize, the same thing happened with our discussion

> about physical pain. It´s not that some physical pain isn´t

> experienced as negative when observed, that it counts for all

> physical pain.

>

> Len

>

>

>

>

> Yes, we might understand each other. Not sure.

> If you pay close attention to your anger, you'll notice that you

use your

> thoughts to feed it. The only way it can survive while you are

watching it is if

> you continue to feed it. Stop the thoughts and just be with the

anger; allow

> it to simply be present. The allowing, itself, will dissipate the

anger,

> since all that held it in place was the resistance to feeling it

or the

> resistance to letting it go, both of which are an attempt to keep

it. In the end, it

> consists of resistance only.

>

> Don't understand your comments re: pain.

 

 

 

 

The structure of anger is actually very interesting.

Anger is a pretty complex emotion.

Anger is a reaction of resistance against something.

If you can contain and observe anger for long enough, its intensity

may diminish. But this is not the end of observation. Next

interesting step is, to ask yourself what is it that you resist.

Then you can see that what you resist is an image of something,

some situation which you don´t want to be confronted with.

Let´s say that you´re angry because somebody told you that that you

are incompetent. You react to it with anger because you don´t want

to be found incompetent. You don´t want to FEEL incompetent. Then

you can ask yourself how it would be to feel incompetent. Simply

allowing the image of you being incompetent will trigger the

emotional reaction. If you enter this reaction, you will feel how it

is to admit such an idea as being incompetent. If you stay with this

sensation until it dissolves, you are free from fear of being

incompetent and from anger as a reaction to this idea.

This is how a little piece of self-image dissolves. If you do it

every time when some defensive reaction like anger and irritation

arise, you will learn about the unreality of the self-image and self-

defence.

 

Len

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002

wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote:

> >

> >

> > In a message dated 4/7/2006 9:33:59 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

> > Nisargadatta writes:

> >

> > Fri, 07 Apr 2006 14:34:10 -0000

> > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@>

> > Re: Leaving no residue/unconditional attention

> >

> >

> > > > 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

> >

> >

> >

> > I'm suggesting the possibility that there was no perceived

> difficulty in

> > facing the feeling because the feeling was rather enjoyed to

begin

> with.

> > Instead, there was the choice to not explore the feeling for a

> time so as to prolong

> > the feeling.

> >

> > Have you ever had the experience of noticing that you choose to

> keep your

> > anger or sadness or longing or grief, even though there is the

> option to let it

> > go? There are sometimes unrecognized benefits and the benefits

can

> only

> > continue as long as the real reason for retaining the feeling

> remain hidden.

> >

> > Phil

>

>

>

> OK, now I understand you.

> But this is different from my example.

> There was a feeling/conflict which I kept avoiding.

> I didn´t want to face it, so one could think that there was fear

> involved in facing it. However, when I decided to face it anyway,

> there was practically no fear involved, the sensation which I kept

> avoiding appeared to be very easy to observe, there was hardly any

> resistance to the sensations. The only resistance was a kind of

> stubbornness, a tendency to stick to my usual behaviour pattern,

and

> this behaviour pattern seemed to be related to the habit of

> protection of self-image - pride.

>

> Len

>

 

pride = protection of self-image

 

nice equation

 

 

Bill

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 4/9/2006 2:56:11 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

Nisargadatta writes:

 

Sun, 09 Apr 2006 08:49:36 -0000

" lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002

Re: Leaving no residue/unconditional attention

 

Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote:

>

>

> In a message dated 4/8/2006 4:37:15 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

> Nisargadatta writes:

>

> Sat, 08 Apr 2006 11:02:38 -0000

> " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002

> Re: Leaving no residue/unconditional attention

>

> If allowing a storm to be means to you - observing the feeling

with

> all attention and without acting on it, I´m with you.

> To me allowing something sounds more like what everybody is doing

> with feelings, letting them find their way, without any interest

in

> understanding them (the other possibility is suppression).

> I assure you that simply allowing anger to be, doesn´t end it.

> So to me what you say sounds simplistic.

> In some cases simply admitting something to exist may be the end

of

> conflict (this is the case when only suppression of some impuls

> creates a conflict), most of the time it is´t a case though. It

> takes a lot of attention and courage even, to face some emotions.

> Let´s not generalize, the same thing happened with our discussion

> about physical pain. It´s not that some physical pain isn´t

> experienced as negative when observed, that it counts for all

> physical pain.

>

> Len

>

>

>

>

> Yes, we might understand each other. Not sure.

> If you pay close attention to your anger, you'll notice that you

use your

> thoughts to feed it. The only way it can survive while you are

watching it is if

> you continue to feed it. Stop the thoughts and just be with the

anger; allow

> it to simply be present. The allowing, itself, will dissipate the

anger,

> since all that held it in place was the resistance to feeling it

or the

> resistance to letting it go, both of which are an attempt to keep

it. In the end, it

> consists of resistance only.

>

> Don't understand your comments re: pain.

 

 

 

 

The structure of anger is actually very interesting.

Anger is a pretty complex emotion.

Anger is a reaction of resistance against something.

If you can contain and observe anger for long enough, its intensity

may diminish. But this is not the end of observation. Next

interesting step is, to ask yourself what is it that you resist.

Then you can see that what you resist is an image of something,

some situation which you don´t want to be confronted with.

Let´s say that you´re angry because somebody told you that that you

are incompetent. You react to it with anger because you don´t want

to be found incompetent. You don´t want to FEEL incompetent. Then

you can ask yourself how it would be to feel incompetent. Simply

allowing the image of you being incompetent will trigger the

emotional reaction. If you enter this reaction, you will feel how it

is to admit such an idea as being incompetent. If you stay with this

sensation until it dissolves, you are free from fear of being

incompetent and from anger as a reaction to this idea.

This is how a little piece of self-image dissolves. If you do it

every time when some defensive reaction like anger and irritation

arise, you will learn about the unreality of the self-image and self-

defence.

 

Len

 

 

 

Yes. Agree and well said. What I believe actually occurs in your example is

the acceptance of the idea of incompetence followed by the surrender of the

judgment. It becomes a conclusion of 'who cares', with the understanding that

it really has no significance in contrast to what is actually desired: the

release of anger, fear and the acceptance of self as it is found. Sorry to

sound

like a broken record, but it has always seemed to all surround

surender/acceptance to me.

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote:

>

>

> In a message dated 4/9/2006 2:56:11 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

> Nisargadatta writes:

>

> Sun, 09 Apr 2006 08:49:36 -0000

> " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002

> Re: Leaving no residue/unconditional attention

>

> Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote:

> >

> >

> > In a message dated 4/8/2006 4:37:15 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

> > Nisargadatta writes:

> >

> > Sat, 08 Apr 2006 11:02:38 -0000

> > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@>

> > Re: Leaving no residue/unconditional attention

> >

> > If allowing a storm to be means to you - observing the feeling

> with

> > all attention and without acting on it, I´m with you.

> > To me allowing something sounds more like what everybody is

doing

> > with feelings, letting them find their way, without any

interest

> in

> > understanding them (the other possibility is suppression).

> > I assure you that simply allowing anger to be, doesn´t end it.

> > So to me what you say sounds simplistic.

> > In some cases simply admitting something to exist may be the

end

> of

> > conflict (this is the case when only suppression of some

impuls

> > creates a conflict), most of the time it is´t a case though.

It

> > takes a lot of attention and courage even, to face some

emotions.

> > Let´s not generalize, the same thing happened with our

discussion

> > about physical pain. It´s not that some physical pain isn´t

> > experienced as negative when observed, that it counts for all

> > physical pain.

> >

> > Len

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Yes, we might understand each other. Not sure.

> > If you pay close attention to your anger, you'll notice that

you

> use your

> > thoughts to feed it. The only way it can survive while you are

> watching it is if

> > you continue to feed it. Stop the thoughts and just be with

the

> anger; allow

> > it to simply be present. The allowing, itself, will dissipate

the

> anger,

> > since all that held it in place was the resistance to feeling

it

> or the

> > resistance to letting it go, both of which are an attempt to

keep

> it. In the end, it

> > consists of resistance only.

> >

> > Don't understand your comments re: pain.

>

>

>

>

> The structure of anger is actually very interesting.

> Anger is a pretty complex emotion.

> Anger is a reaction of resistance against something.

> If you can contain and observe anger for long enough, its

intensity

> may diminish. But this is not the end of observation. Next

> interesting step is, to ask yourself what is it that you resist.

> Then you can see that what you resist is an image of something,

> some situation which you don´t want to be confronted with.

> Let´s say that you´re angry because somebody told you that that

you

> are incompetent. You react to it with anger because you don´t

want

> to be found incompetent. You don´t want to FEEL incompetent. Then

> you can ask yourself how it would be to feel incompetent. Simply

> allowing the image of you being incompetent will trigger the

> emotional reaction. If you enter this reaction, you will feel how

it

> is to admit such an idea as being incompetent. If you stay with

this

> sensation until it dissolves, you are free from fear of being

> incompetent and from anger as a reaction to this idea.

> This is how a little piece of self-image dissolves. If you do it

> every time when some defensive reaction like anger and irritation

> arise, you will learn about the unreality of the self-image and

self-

> defence.

>

> Len

>

>

>

> Yes. Agree and well said. What I believe actually occurs in your

example is

> the acceptance of the idea of incompetence followed by the

surrender of the

> judgment. It becomes a conclusion of 'who cares', with the

understanding that

> it really has no significance in contrast to what is actually

desired: the

> release of anger, fear and the acceptance of self as it is found.

Sorry to sound

> like a broken record, but it has always seemed to all surround

> surender/acceptance to me.

 

 

 

Yes, no reaction, simply perception of what is there.

The whole image-system of " me " is one huge compulsion to protect

itself.

Ones identification with this system breaks when its elements are

recognized as imaginary.

 

 

Len

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 4/10/2006 3:47:32 PM Pacific Daylight Time,

Nisargadatta writes:

 

Mon, 10 Apr 2006 15:53:58 -0000

" lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002

Re: Leaving no residue/unconditional attention

 

Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote:

>

>

> In a message dated 4/9/2006 2:56:11 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

> Nisargadatta writes:

>

> Sun, 09 Apr 2006 08:49:36 -0000

> " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002

> Re: Leaving no residue/unconditional attention

>

> Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote:

> >

> >

> > In a message dated 4/8/2006 4:37:15 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

> > Nisargadatta writes:

> >

> > Sat, 08 Apr 2006 11:02:38 -0000

> > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@>

> > Re: Leaving no residue/unconditional attention

> >

> > If allowing a storm to be means to you - observing the feeling

> with

> > all attention and without acting on it, I´m with you.

> > To me allowing something sounds more like what everybody is

doing

> > with feelings, letting them find their way, without any

interest

> in

> > understanding them (the other possibility is suppression).

> > I assure you that simply allowing anger to be, doesn´t end it.

> > So to me what you say sounds simplistic.

> > In some cases simply admitting something to exist may be the

end

> of

> > conflict (this is the case when only suppression of some

impuls

> > creates a conflict), most of the time it is´t a case though.

It

> > takes a lot of attention and courage even, to face some

emotions.

> > Let´s not generalize, the same thing happened with our

discussion

> > about physical pain. It´s not that some physical pain isn´t

> > experienced as negative when observed, that it counts for all

> > physical pain.

> >

> > Len

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Yes, we might understand each other. Not sure.

> > If you pay close attention to your anger, you'll notice that

you

> use your

> > thoughts to feed it. The only way it can survive while you are

> watching it is if

> > you continue to feed it. Stop the thoughts and just be with

the

> anger; allow

> > it to simply be present. The allowing, itself, will dissipate

the

> anger,

> > since all that held it in place was the resistance to feeling

it

> or the

> > resistance to letting it go, both of which are an attempt to

keep

> it. In the end, it

> > consists of resistance only.

> >

> > Don't understand your comments re: pain.

>

>

>

>

> The structure of anger is actually very interesting.

> Anger is a pretty complex emotion.

> Anger is a reaction of resistance against something.

> If you can contain and observe anger for long enough, its

intensity

> may diminish. But this is not the end of observation. Next

> interesting step is, to ask yourself what is it that you resist.

> Then you can see that what you resist is an image of something,

> some situation which you don´t want to be confronted with.

> Let´s say that you´re angry because somebody told you that that

you

> are incompetent. You react to it with anger because you don´t

want

> to be found incompetent. You don´t want to FEEL incompetent. Then

> you can ask yourself how it would be to feel incompetent. Simply

> allowing the image of you being incompetent will trigger the

> emotional reaction. If you enter this reaction, you will feel how

it

> is to admit such an idea as being incompetent. If you stay with

this

> sensation until it dissolves, you are free from fear of being

> incompetent and from anger as a reaction to this idea.

> This is how a little piece of self-image dissolves. If you do it

> every time when some defensive reaction like anger and irritation

> arise, you will learn about the unreality of the self-image and

self-

> defence.

>

> Len

>

>

>

> Yes. Agree and well said. What I believe actually occurs in your

example is

> the acceptance of the idea of incompetence followed by the

surrender of the

> judgment. It becomes a conclusion of 'who cares', with the

understanding that

> it really has no significance in contrast to what is actually

desired: the

> release of anger, fear and the acceptance of self as it is found.

Sorry to sound

> like a broken record, but it has always seemed to all surround

> surender/acceptance to me.

 

 

 

Yes, no reaction, simply perception of what is there.

The whole image-system of " me " is one huge compulsion to protect

itself.

Ones identification with this system breaks when its elements are

recognized as imaginary.

 

 

Len

 

 

 

Yup. I posted this on another list a little while ago:

 

" Ego is truly a helpless creature. The full recognition of this truth may

bring true humility and silence.......and then it brings something else, and

this 'something else' may bring God tears. It's this 'something else' which you

and I seek. "

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote:

>

>

> In a message dated 4/10/2006 3:47:32 PM Pacific Daylight Time,

> Nisargadatta writes:

>

> Mon, 10 Apr 2006 15:53:58 -0000

> " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002

> Re: Leaving no residue/unconditional attention

>

> Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote:

> >

> >

> > In a message dated 4/9/2006 2:56:11 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

> > Nisargadatta writes:

> >

> > Sun, 09 Apr 2006 08:49:36 -0000

> > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@>

> > Re: Leaving no residue/unconditional attention

> >

> > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > > In a message dated 4/8/2006 4:37:15 AM Pacific Daylight

Time,

> > > Nisargadatta writes:

> > >

> > > Sat, 08 Apr 2006 11:02:38 -0000

> > > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@>

> > > Re: Leaving no residue/unconditional attention

> > >

> > > If allowing a storm to be means to you - observing the

feeling

> > with

> > > all attention and without acting on it, I´m with you.

> > > To me allowing something sounds more like what everybody is

> doing

> > > with feelings, letting them find their way, without any

> interest

> > in

> > > understanding them (the other possibility is suppression).

> > > I assure you that simply allowing anger to be, doesn´t end

it.

> > > So to me what you say sounds simplistic.

> > > In some cases simply admitting something to exist may be

the

> end

> > of

> > > conflict (this is the case when only suppression of some

> impuls

> > > creates a conflict), most of the time it is´t a case though.

> It

> > > takes a lot of attention and courage even, to face some

> emotions.

> > > Let´s not generalize, the same thing happened with our

> discussion

> > > about physical pain. It´s not that some physical pain isn´t

> > > experienced as negative when observed, that it counts for all

> > > physical pain.

> > >

> > > Len

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Yes, we might understand each other. Not sure.

> > > If you pay close attention to your anger, you'll notice that

> you

> > use your

> > > thoughts to feed it. The only way it can survive while you

are

> > watching it is if

> > > you continue to feed it. Stop the thoughts and just be with

> the

> > anger; allow

> > > it to simply be present. The allowing, itself, will

dissipate

> the

> > anger,

> > > since all that held it in place was the resistance to

feeling

> it

> > or the

> > > resistance to letting it go, both of which are an attempt to

> keep

> > it. In the end, it

> > > consists of resistance only.

> > >

> > > Don't understand your comments re: pain.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > The structure of anger is actually very interesting.

> > Anger is a pretty complex emotion.

> > Anger is a reaction of resistance against something.

> > If you can contain and observe anger for long enough, its

> intensity

> > may diminish. But this is not the end of observation. Next

> > interesting step is, to ask yourself what is it that you resist.

> > Then you can see that what you resist is an image of something,

> > some situation which you don´t want to be confronted with.

> > Let´s say that you´re angry because somebody told you that that

> you

> > are incompetent. You react to it with anger because you don´t

> want

> > to be found incompetent. You don´t want to FEEL incompetent.

Then

> > you can ask yourself how it would be to feel incompetent.

Simply

> > allowing the image of you being incompetent will trigger the

> > emotional reaction. If you enter this reaction, you will feel

how

> it

> > is to admit such an idea as being incompetent. If you stay with

> this

> > sensation until it dissolves, you are free from fear of being

> > incompetent and from anger as a reaction to this idea.

> > This is how a little piece of self-image dissolves. If you do

it

> > every time when some defensive reaction like anger and

irritation

> > arise, you will learn about the unreality of the self-image and

> self-

> > defence.

> >

> > Len

> >

> >

> >

> > Yes. Agree and well said. What I believe actually occurs in your

> example is

> > the acceptance of the idea of incompetence followed by the

> surrender of the

> > judgment. It becomes a conclusion of 'who cares', with the

> understanding that

> > it really has no significance in contrast to what is actually

> desired: the

> > release of anger, fear and the acceptance of self as it is

found.

> Sorry to sound

> > like a broken record, but it has always seemed to all surround

> > surender/acceptance to me.

>

>

>

> Yes, no reaction, simply perception of what is there.

> The whole image-system of " me " is one huge compulsion to protect

> itself.

> Ones identification with this system breaks when its elements are

> recognized as imaginary.

>

>

> Len

>

>

>

> Yup. I posted this on another list a little while ago:

>

> " Ego is truly a helpless creature. The full recognition of this

truth may

> bring true humility and silence.......and then it brings something

else, and

> this 'something else' may bring God tears. It's this 'something

else' which you

> and I seek. "

 

>

> This post..it's something else man! It may even bring me to tears!

" Seek not what the Kingdom may do for you, Seek what you may do for

the Kingdom. " ....

 

........JFbob

 

 

 

>