Guest guest Report post Posted April 23, 2006 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 4/21/2006 9:35:02 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > > > Fri, 21 Apr 2006 15:47:58 -0000 > > > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > > > Re: Non-Existing Ego > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " > > <lissbon2002@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Phil: > > > > > and such powerful resistances don't occur at all, so is > > > > > there a direct perception focus that might be used to notice > > > what > > > > you're > > > > > talking about? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You can only observe what you´ve got. So, why not observe the > > > > thought movement with its images for as long as it takes for > > > > understanding to occur? > > > > > > > > Len > > > > > > > > > However, I think that observation limited to thought movement is > > not > > > enough. > > > Body speaks a totally different language, beyond words. Maybe > > this > > > observation of bodily facts breaks the seeming continuity of > the > > > ego process, moving the attention to factual perception. > > > > > > Len > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Right now, I don't believe observing thought movement can expose > > illusion. > > > The thought that is the observation of thought IS the illusion. I > > don't > > > understand what is meant by " bodily facts " . Could you explain? > > > > > > > > It is not thought observing. Thought is very quick and immediately > > comments on what is seen. But it is not thought seeing, thought is > > seen, like any other object. It can happen, because it does happen > > to me, that in the observation, thought is suddenly recognized as > > just that - thought. Which means that there is the realization that > > the image which this thought creates is not reality. There is a > > difference between knowing this, intellectualy, and the immediate > > perception of this fact. In this immediate perception the > whole " me " > > system can be recognized as unreal, which stops its process. But > not > > for good, of course, it restores itself, at least in my case. > > In some, more tough cases, when the emotional reaction to thought > is > > disturbing and unpleasant, I simply watch this reaction. This is > > what I mean by bodily facts: the reaction can be perceived as body > > sensation. Observing the body, which is - being the body, with full > > attention for every observed sensation, seems to dissolve the > > resistance. When the resistance is gone, the recognition of the > > thought as illusory is evident, so the whole thing just vanishes. > > Also in this observation the image system of " me " sometimes just > > stops running. Of course it makes no sense to try to stop it on > > purpose, but it´s a fact for me, which I´ve observed for hundreds > of > > times, that this kind of observation often has this effect. > > But even if it doesn´t, it´s still more interesting then to simply > > act on the impulse of thought and emotional reaction. > > > > Len > > To observe one's perceptual processes, one must imagine a split > between the subjective awareness as observing self, and the object > being observed, " my perceptual processes. " > > -- Dan Nonsense, but I´m not interested in discussing it with you. len Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 23, 2006 Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 4/22/2006 7:13:12 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > Sat, 22 Apr 2006 11:47:15 -0000 > > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > > Re: Non-Existing Ego > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > P: Well, clearly I'm 'closer to God' than you are. Hehe. > (Okay, > > I'm in > > > trouble with somebody for that.) > > > Resistance occurs on infinite 'levels' and so I don't mean to > say > > there is > > > no resistance. If this were so, I'd be cooked and we wouldn't > be > > here talking > > > about how this can occur. Yesterday, I picked up a hot glass > and > > said > > > " ouch! " , I had an uncomfortable burning in the heart area from > an > > energy build up > > > (Kundalini related). There was no struggle with anything on the > > forum or > > > Larry's latest belligerent emails or on my trip into town, so > what > > I'm suggesting > > > is that the explorations of unconscious processes that lead to > > struggle are > > > rare. When struggle does occur, it usually doesn't warrant an > > exploration cause > > > I understand the ego fear that triggered it and just note it. > > > > > > P: I've been doing these explorations since I studied > psychology > > in my 20's > > > (30 years ago) and so, no, I'm not concerned about any major > > hidden ego > > > processes. > > > > > > > > The fact that you are not concerned doesn´t mean that they aren´t > > there. Most people aren´t concerned about them. > > The fact that you aren´aware of them says just nothing. > > Maybe it could be interesting to explore struggles when they do > > occur? I mean, this is not of my bussiness, but it´s you who > spoke > > about the importance of this exploration, so it´s somehow > surprizing > > that you don´t notice anything worth exploring. > > > > Len > > > > > > > > Either I'm not making myself clear or you're motivated to insure > that I > > don't have less struggles than you. Once again, when struggle > occurs, it is > > looked at and understood. There is nothing more to be done. > > > > Are you sure? Because if the struggle is entirely understood, > the " me " ends, and this is a complete different state of being. > That´s why I think there are unconscious layers. > > Len > It is not a different state of being. That which never was......has no layers. toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 23, 2006 Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 4/21/2006 9:35:02 AM Pacific Daylight > Time, > > > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > > > > > Fri, 21 Apr 2006 15:47:58 -0000 > > > > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > > > > Re: Non-Existing Ego > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " > > > <lissbon2002@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Phil: > > > > > > and such powerful resistances don't occur at all, so is > > > > > > there a direct perception focus that might be used to > notice > > > > what > > > > > you're > > > > > > talking about? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You can only observe what you´ve got. So, why not observe > the > > > > > thought movement with its images for as long as it takes > for > > > > > understanding to occur? > > > > > > > > > > Len > > > > > > > > > > > > However, I think that observation limited to thought movement > is > > > not > > > > enough. > > > > Body speaks a totally different language, beyond words. Maybe > > > this > > > > observation of bodily facts breaks the seeming continuity of > > the > > > > ego process, moving the attention to factual perception. > > > > > > > > Len > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Right now, I don't believe observing thought movement can > expose > > > illusion. > > > > The thought that is the observation of thought IS the > illusion. I > > > don't > > > > understand what is meant by " bodily facts " . Could you explain? > > > > > > > > > > > > It is not thought observing. Thought is very quick and > immediately > > > comments on what is seen. But it is not thought seeing, thought > is > > > seen, like any other object. It can happen, because it does > happen > > > to me, that in the observation, thought is suddenly recognized > as > > > just that - thought. Which means that there is the realization > that > > > the image which this thought creates is not reality. There is a > > > difference between knowing this, intellectualy, and the > immediate > > > perception of this fact. In this immediate perception the > > whole " me " > > > system can be recognized as unreal, which stops its process. But > > not > > > for good, of course, it restores itself, at least in my case. > > > In some, more tough cases, when the emotional reaction to > thought > > is > > > disturbing and unpleasant, I simply watch this reaction. This is > > > what I mean by bodily facts: the reaction can be perceived as > body > > > sensation. Observing the body, which is - being the body, with > full > > > attention for every observed sensation, seems to dissolve the > > > resistance. When the resistance is gone, the recognition of the > > > thought as illusory is evident, so the whole thing just vanishes. > > > Also in this observation the image system of " me " sometimes just > > > stops running. Of course it makes no sense to try to stop it on > > > purpose, but it´s a fact for me, which I´ve observed for > hundreds > > of > > > times, that this kind of observation often has this effect. > > > But even if it doesn´t, it´s still more interesting then to > simply > > > act on the impulse of thought and emotional reaction. > > > > > > Len > > > > To observe one's perceptual processes, one must imagine a split > > between the subjective awareness as observing self, and the object > > being observed, " my perceptual processes. " > > > > -- Dan > > > Nonsense, but I´m not interested in discussing it with you. > > len > You should indeed end all discussions. Dan is about to destroy your entire world. toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 23, 2006 In a message dated 4/23/2006 7:41:27 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 11:41:32 -0000 " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 Re: Non-Existing Ego Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/22/2006 7:13:12 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Sat, 22 Apr 2006 11:47:15 -0000 > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 > Re: Non-Existing Ego > > > P: Well, clearly I'm 'closer to God' than you are. Hehe. (Okay, > I'm in > > trouble with somebody for that.) > > Resistance occurs on infinite 'levels' and so I don't mean to say > there is > > no resistance. If this were so, I'd be cooked and we wouldn't be > here talking > > about how this can occur. Yesterday, I picked up a hot glass and > said > > " ouch! " , I had an uncomfortable burning in the heart area from an > energy build up > > (Kundalini related). There was no struggle with anything on the > forum or > > Larry's latest belligerent emails or on my trip into town, so what > I'm suggesting > > is that the explorations of unconscious processes that lead to > struggle are > > rare. When struggle does occur, it usually doesn't warrant an > exploration cause > > I understand the ego fear that triggered it and just note it. > > > > P: I've been doing these explorations since I studied psychology > in my 20's > > (30 years ago) and so, no, I'm not concerned about any major > hidden ego > > processes. > > > > The fact that you are not concerned doesn´t mean that they aren´t > there. Most people aren´t concerned about them. > The fact that you aren´aware of them says just nothing. > Maybe it could be interesting to explore struggles when they do > occur? I mean, this is not of my bussiness, but it´s you who spoke > about the importance of this exploration, so it´s somehow surprizing > that you don´t notice anything worth exploring. > > Len > > > > Either I'm not making myself clear or you're motivated to insure that I > don't have less struggles than you. Once again, when struggle occurs, it is > looked at and understood. There is nothing more to be done. Are you sure? Because if the struggle is entirely understood, the " me " ends, and this is a complete different state of being. That´s why I think there are unconscious layers. Len I agree. That's why I don't claim to not have struggles. My biggest struggle is that I love what happens when I intuitively look at the pieces parts of Wholeness that I can see, and then conceptualize it. I'm in awe of what I see and enjoy the concepts, and yet I know that this is a problem. When I focus on consciousness, I get nauseous and feverish and feel like hell. This is because I'm scared that my lovely concepts are going to become meaningless and I won't be able to enjoy them anymore. Are there deep dark, hidden layers of unconscious material there? No, I'm scared shitless and I know exactly why I'm scared. Have you ever felt so disconnected from everything that life seems to lose all meaning? Have you ever felt so vulnerable and isolated that you feel like you're dying? Call it ego death or void or dark night of the soul or whatever you want, but if you have any idea what I'm talking about you know that uncovering unconscious ego issues is child's play by comparison. I know what has to happen, and I'm working on the courage to allow that. Is that struggle? You're damn right it is. It's time I stopped looking for a way out. There is no way out....... I think I just finally realized that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 23, 2006 In a message dated 4/23/2006 7:41:27 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 11:54:11 -0000 " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 Re: Non-Existing Ego > I have not experienced " though being seen " except by another thought. Of course you have, everybody does. Thought is not capable of seeing. It only seems that it´s thought looking because of the fastness of its comment/reaction. If you wacht carefully, you see thoughts arising, and every new comment/thought arising is being seen as soon as it arises. The other cause is identification with thought, you think, believe that you are thought, and therefore believe that it is thought seeing. Observe thoughts arising and don´t go into their content, into their story, just watch them as a process of thoughts arising. Okay, I can see we're gonna hafta agree to disagree on this one. Watch more carefully what occurs when you observe your thoughts. Observing is itself a thought. As long as you hold that thought in mind, there will be no other thoughts, because you can't think two thoughts at the same time. This is why observing thought stops thought. After some time, the thought of observing will slip and another thought will arise. After that thought has occurred, you'll remember the observing thought and return to it, and observe the thought that just occurred, which is now in memory where all thoughts are stored. You are able to observe your thoughts, not because you are observing from the perspective of consciousness as the witness, but simply because you are able to have the thought of observing thought. The witness, witnesses, it does not think, and therefore does not have a thought that a thought just occurred. You are multitasking your own mind. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 23, 2006 In a message dated 4/23/2006 7:41:27 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 12:01:45 -0000 " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 Re: Non-Existing Ego Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 4/21/2006 9:35:02 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > > > Fri, 21 Apr 2006 15:47:58 -0000 > > > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > > > Re: Non-Existing Ego > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " > > <lissbon2002@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Phil: > > > > > and such powerful resistances don't occur at all, so is > > > > > there a direct perception focus that might be used to notice > > > what > > > > you're > > > > > talking about? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You can only observe what you´ve got. So, why not observe the > > > > thought movement with its images for as long as it takes for > > > > understanding to occur? > > > > > > > > Len > > > > > > > > > However, I think that observation limited to thought movement is > > not > > > enough. > > > Body speaks a totally different language, beyond words. Maybe > > this > > > observation of bodily facts breaks the seeming continuity of > the > > > ego process, moving the attention to factual perception. > > > > > > Len > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Right now, I don't believe observing thought movement can expose > > illusion. > > > The thought that is the observation of thought IS the illusion. I > > don't > > > understand what is meant by " bodily facts " . Could you explain? > > > > > > > > It is not thought observing. Thought is very quick and immediately > > comments on what is seen. But it is not thought seeing, thought is > > seen, like any other object. It can happen, because it does happen > > to me, that in the observation, thought is suddenly recognized as > > just that - thought. Which means that there is the realization that > > the image which this thought creates is not reality. There is a > > difference between knowing this, intellectualy, and the immediate > > perception of this fact. In this immediate perception the > whole " me " > > system can be recognized as unreal, which stops its process. But > not > > for good, of course, it restores itself, at least in my case. > > In some, more tough cases, when the emotional reaction to thought > is > > disturbing and unpleasant, I simply watch this reaction. This is > > what I mean by bodily facts: the reaction can be perceived as body > > sensation. Observing the body, which is - being the body, with full > > attention for every observed sensation, seems to dissolve the > > resistance. When the resistance is gone, the recognition of the > > thought as illusory is evident, so the whole thing just vanishes. > > Also in this observation the image system of " me " sometimes just > > stops running. Of course it makes no sense to try to stop it on > > purpose, but it´s a fact for me, which I´ve observed for hundreds > of > > times, that this kind of observation often has this effect. > > But even if it doesn´t, it´s still more interesting then to simply > > act on the impulse of thought and emotional reaction. > > > > Len > > To observe one's perceptual processes, one must imagine a split > between the subjective awareness as observing self, and the object > being observed, " my perceptual processes. " > > -- Dan Nonsense, but I´m not interested in discussing it with you. len Tis true. This is a split mind process. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 23, 2006 In a message dated 4/23/2006 5:35:45 PM Pacific Daylight Time, ADHHUB writes: > What I'm suggesting is that the explorations of unconscious processes > that lead to struggle are rare. When struggle does occur, it usually doesn't > warrant an > exploration cause I understand the ego fear that triggered it and just > note it. > L.E: Do you mean to say that " unconscious processes that lead to struggle are rare " so there is rarely anything to explore? And that you usually don't have to explore something you already understand? Is this a sign of going in circles? Or repitions of the already known? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 23, 2006 The fact that you are not concerned doesn´t mean that they aren´t >there. Most people aren´t concerned about them. >The fact that you aren´aware of them says just nothing. >Maybe it could be interesting to explore struggles when they do >occur? I mean, this is not of my bussiness, but it´s you who spoke >about the importance of this exploration, so it´s somehow surprizing > that you don´t notice anything worth exploring. > > Len L.E: This kind of statement can be very misleading. If there wasn't anything worth exploring perhaps it is because there is nothing there to explore, or that he has explored so much already, that there is nothing left to explore. > But this idea that something exists even if you are not aware of it is > dangerous and leads in all kinds of unfortunate directions by manipulators of all > kinds. I'm not suggesting you have any ill intent, but many do. Ramana > talked about just because a person is not aware that he was preaching, he said > he was preacing in silence. " There are so many things we are aware of, it can > be very misleading to start to suspecting hidden causes and forces, devils > and angels. Is there an unseen god, an unseen christ, unseen sins, unseen > spirits, etc. The list goes on and on. Perhas it is that old adage, that you can't prove a negative that comes into play here. And finally, if they aren't there, there is nothing to be concerned about. Maybe focusing on what isn't there is not a good use of your life. Larry Epston p.s. Yes, I am sometimes belligerent, sometimes serious, sometimes funny, etc. I'm not anything most of the time. Take that as you will. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 23, 2006 In a message dated 4/23/2006 5:49:41 PM Pacific Daylight Time, ADHHUB writes: > Phil: Observing is itself a thought. As long as you hold that thought in > mind, there will be no other thoughts, because you can't think two thoughts > at the same time. This is why observing thought stops thought. After some > time, the thought of observing will slip and another thought will arise. After > that thought has occurred, you'll remember the observing thought and return > to it, and observe the thought that just occurred, which is now in memory > where all thoughts are stored. > > You are able to observe your thoughts, not because you are observing from > the perspective of consciousness as the witness, but simply because you are > able > to have the thought of observing thought. The witness, witnesses, it does > not think, and therefore does not have a thought that a thought just > occurred. > You are multitasking your own mind. > > L.E: If observing a thought is a thought and you can't think two thoughts > at the same time, isn't that a bit self-defeating so to speak. As you try to > observe thoughts, no more thoughts will occurr. Doesn't that seem a little > foolish to be sitting there trying to obseve thoughts when you know that none > will occurr while you are trying to observe them? Then you 'slip' and more > thoughts arise, but you are no longer observing them, and can only remember > that you forgot to keep observing them which probably got uninteresting because > no thoughts occurred so there was nothing to observe. How do you remember > that you were thinking and what you were thinking? Can that be done when you > are thinking and watching that no thoughts arise? Does the memory of your > thinking arise? Is the memory of more thoughts that can't arise when you're > are thinking about what thoughts arose when you stopped the thought of > watching thoughts? Am I being belligerent, or are you just being foolish? Larry Epston p.s. Will you guys please put initials on your comments so it is clear who said what? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 24, 2006 In a message dated 4/23/2006 9:21:50 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 21:12:16 EDT epston Re: Non-Existing Ego In a message dated 4/23/2006 5:35:45 PM Pacific Daylight Time, ADHHUB writes: > What I'm suggesting is that the explorations of unconscious processes > that lead to struggle are rare. When struggle does occur, it usually doesn't > warrant an > exploration cause I understand the ego fear that triggered it and just > note it. > L.E: Do you mean to say that " unconscious processes that lead to struggle are rare " so there is rarely anything to explore? And that you usually don't have to explore something you already understand? Is this a sign of going in circles? Or repitions of the already known? I don't understand your " circles " and " repetitions " . I was making a personal comment about my own process, saying to Len that the work is essentially done. The mind can be used to restore integrity to ego, but perhaps at that point, it has outlived it's usefulness. Mind cannot be used to remove the basic ego structure of mind. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 24, 2006 In a message dated 4/23/2006 9:21:50 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 21:24:57 EDT epston Re: Non-Existing Ego The fact that you are not concerned doesn´t mean that they aren´t >there. Most people aren´t concerned about them. >The fact that you aren´aware of them says just nothing. >Maybe it could be interesting to explore struggles when they do >occur? I mean, this is not of my bussiness, but it´s you who spoke >about the importance of this exploration, so it´s somehow surprizing > that you don´t notice anything worth exploring. > > Len L.E: This kind of statement can be very misleading. If there wasn't anything worth exploring perhaps it is because there is nothing there to explore, or that he has explored so much already, that there is nothing left to explore. > But this idea that something exists even if you are not aware of it is > dangerous and leads in all kinds of unfortunate directions by manipulators of all > kinds. I'm not suggesting you have any ill intent, but many do. Ramana > talked about just because a person is not aware that he was preaching, he said > he was preacing in silence. " There are so many things we are aware of, it can > be very misleading to start to suspecting hidden causes and forces, devils > and angels. Is there an unseen god, an unseen christ, unseen sins, unseen > spirits, etc. The list goes on and on. Perhas it is that old adage, that you can't prove a negative that comes into play here. And finally, if they aren't there, there is nothing to be concerned about. Maybe focusing on what isn't there is not a good use of your life. Larry Epston Yes, that was what I was trying to say. While it's true that nobody can look and see how much unconscious ego is left, what remains always arises in the form of struggle, and so struggle is the indicator. Certainly, if one is not struggling, one need not be looking for the unconscious source of struggle. On the other hand, it's true that the basic ego structure of mind itself is a source of struggle. As Buddha says, 'Life is struggle'. The mind creates dualistically, perceives lack, and seeks nondualistic love, joy and peace. This is true even if there are no unconscious processes at work. Spiritual longing for Truth need not be placed in the category of unconscious ego issues that needs to be explored. It just is what it is. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 24, 2006 In a message dated 4/23/2006 9:21:50 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 21:44:16 EDT epston Re: Non-Existing Ego In a message dated 4/23/2006 5:49:41 PM Pacific Daylight Time, ADHHUB writes: > Phil: Observing is itself a thought. As long as you hold that thought in > mind, there will be no other thoughts, because you can't think two thoughts > at the same time. This is why observing thought stops thought. After some > time, the thought of observing will slip and another thought will arise. After > that thought has occurred, you'll remember the observing thought and return > to it, and observe the thought that just occurred, which is now in memory > where all thoughts are stored. > > You are able to observe your thoughts, not because you are observing from > the perspective of consciousness as the witness, but simply because you are > able > to have the thought of observing thought. The witness, witnesses, it does > not think, and therefore does not have a thought that a thought just > occurred. > You are multitasking your own mind. > > L.E: If observing a thought is a thought and you can't think two thoughts > at the same time, isn't that a bit self-defeating so to speak. As you try to > observe thoughts, no more thoughts will occurr. Doesn't that seem a little > foolish to be sitting there trying to obseve thoughts when you know that none > will occurr while you are trying to observe them? Then you 'slip' and more > thoughts arise, but you are no longer observing them, and can only remember > that you forgot to keep observing them which probably got uninteresting because > no thoughts occurred so there was nothing to observe. How do you remember > that you were thinking and what you were thinking? Can that be done when you > are thinking and watching that no thoughts arise? Does the memory of your > thinking arise? Is the memory of more thoughts that can't arise when you're > are thinking about what thoughts arose when you stopped the thought of > watching thoughts? Am I being belligerent, or are you just being foolish? Larry Epston p.s. Will you guys please put initials on your comments so it is clear who said what? I didn't see you as being belligerent until you mentioned it as an option. I guess I figured everybody could identify with this simple 'technique' of placing oneself as the observer of thoughts. It's an effective way to still the mind. The purpose is not to find a thought. Hehe. Okay, so now I'm curious what you do to still your mind, Larry. Could you sketch a picture of how that occurs for you? Phil Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 24, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > I agree. That's why I don't claim to not have struggles. My biggest struggle > is that I love what happens when I intuitively look at the pieces parts of > Wholeness that I can see, and then conceptualize it. I'm in awe of what I see > and enjoy the concepts, and yet I know that this is a problem. When I focus on > consciousness, I get nauseous and feverish and feel like hell. This is > because I'm scared that my lovely concepts are going to become meaningless and I > won't be able to enjoy them anymore. > > Are there deep dark, hidden layers of unconscious material there? No, I'm > scared shitless and I know exactly why I'm scared. Have you ever felt so > disconnected from everything that life seems to lose all meaning? Have you ever > felt so vulnerable and isolated that you feel like you're dying? Yes, I had it when I was a child and felt scared and lonely. I still have it now, from time to time, when I´m confused, and invest too much energy in thinking. However, if I observe what happens with full attention: thoughts spinning round in search for answers and solutions, and body in tension and pain, it ends most of the time in dissolution of this movement and results in amazing beauty. > Call it ego > death or void or dark night of the soul or whatever you want, but if you have > any idea what I'm talking about you know that uncovering unconscious ego issues > is child's play by comparison. IT IS uncovering of unconscious ego issues, but concentrated, a lot of resistance at once. By the way - even uncovering small issues feels a little bit like dying, it´s just less in intensity, but it is always a kind of dying to the problem. Dissolving resistance is a kind of dying of the ego defence at this point. > I know what has to happen, and I'm working on > the courage to allow that. That the thing: you think you know what has to happen. But there is no way for you to know that, one never knows what is to happen, and if one thinks one knows, one is just clinging to images. It is the clinging which causes pain. The fact is, you´re in pain, you resist and you don´t know what´s going to happen. This is all you have. So this is what you have to face. And you will only know what happens when it happens. In the middle of it you are completely alone and no image is going to help you, to make you feel safe. There is no knowledge you can take with you there, simply nothing. But you´ll be OK. Unless you kill yourself, so don´t kill yourself ;-) >Is that struggle? You're damn right it is. It's > time I stopped looking for a way out. There is no way out....... I think I just > finally realized that. Go for it, then. Len Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 24, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/23/2006 7:41:27 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Sun, 23 Apr 2006 11:54:11 -0000 > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 > Re: Non-Existing Ego > > I have not experienced " though being seen " except by another > thought. > > > > Of course you have, everybody does. Thought is not capable of seeing. > It only seems that it´s thought looking because of the fastness of > its comment/reaction. If you wacht carefully, you see thoughts > arising, and every new comment/thought arising is being seen as soon > as it arises. The other cause is identification with thought, you > think, believe that you are thought, and therefore believe that it > is thought seeing. Observe thoughts arising and don´t go into their > content, into their story, just watch them as a process of thoughts > arising. > > > > > Okay, I can see we're gonna hafta agree to disagree on this one. Watch more > carefully what occurs when you observe your thoughts. Observing is itself a > thought. No, no, no. > As long as you hold that thought in mind, there will be no other > thoughts, because you can't think two thoughts at the same time. Can you breathe two breaths at the same time? Does it mean that it is breath which sees? Or is it breath being seen? You´re strongly identyfied with thought, that´s why it seems that it is thought observing. But it is not. Think a thought: " today it´s monday " . Is this thought seeing anything, or is it an object, seen? > This is why > observing thought stops thought. After some time, the thought of observing will > slip and another thought will arise. Oh, but you are talking about controlling thoughts by holding to only one thought. This can be done, for some time. And again this process can be fully seen. > After that thought has occurred, you'll > remember the observing thought and return to it, and observe the thought that > just occurred, which is now in memory where all thoughts are stored. Yes, and all of it is observed. > You are able to observe your thoughts, not because you are observing from > the perspective of consciousness as the witness, but simply because you are able > to have the thought of observing thought. No, no, no, this thought can be seen as any other, and you don´t need an extra thought for that. It may be that an extra thought will occur, but then again, it will be seen, immediately as it occurs. A thought comment about this observation only occurs after a while (but very short). Len Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 24, 2006 In a message dated 4/24/2006 11:12:15 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 11:11:10 -0000 " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 Re: Non-Existing Ego Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > I agree. That's why I don't claim to not have struggles. My biggest struggle > is that I love what happens when I intuitively look at the pieces parts of > Wholeness that I can see, and then conceptualize it. I'm in awe of what I see > and enjoy the concepts, and yet I know that this is a problem. When I focus on > consciousness, I get nauseous and feverish and feel like hell. This is > because I'm scared that my lovely concepts are going to become meaningless and I > won't be able to enjoy them anymore. > > Are there deep dark, hidden layers of unconscious material there? No, I'm > scared shitless and I know exactly why I'm scared. Have you ever felt so > disconnected from everything that life seems to lose all meaning? Have you ever > felt so vulnerable and isolated that you feel like you're dying? Yes, I had it when I was a child and felt scared and lonely. I still have it now, from time to time, when I´m confused, and invest too much energy in thinking. However, if I observe what happens with full attention: thoughts spinning round in search for answers and solutions, and body in tension and pain, it ends most of the time in dissolution of this movement and results in amazing beauty. Phil: What you're talking about is different. When I need a break, I conceptualize to my heart's content, and it grounds my mind and reestablishes it's imagined identity. There is no tension in thought, the tension arises from an emptiness, a nothingness when the thought ceases. > Call it ego > death or void or dark night of the soul or whatever you want, but if you have > any idea what I'm talking about you know that uncovering unconscious ego issues > is child's play by comparison. IT IS uncovering of unconscious ego issues, but concentrated, a lot of resistance at once. By the way - even uncovering small issues feels a little bit like dying, it´s just less in intensity, but it is always a kind of dying to the problem. Dissolving resistance is a kind of dying of the ego defence at this point. > I know what has to happen, and I'm working on > the courage to allow that. That the thing: you think you know what has to happen. But there is no way for you to know that, one never knows what is to happen, and if one thinks one knows, one is just clinging to images. It is the clinging which causes pain. The fact is, you´re in pain, you resist and you don´t know what´s going to happen. This is all you have. So this is what you have to face. And you will only know what happens when it happens. In the middle of it you are completely alone and no image is going to help you, to make you feel safe. There is no knowledge you can take with you there, simply nothing. But you´ll be OK. Unless you kill yourself, so don´t kill yourself ;-) Phil: Yes, that's actually the truth of the matter. I'll be fine. Forcing things is not my thang. Whatever happens will happen when it sposed to happen unless it doesn't happen at all. That's pretty much the conclusion of a lifetime of collecting wisdom. Hehe. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 24, 2006 In a message dated 4/24/2006 11:12:15 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 11:24:59 -0000 " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 Re: Non-Existing Ego > As long as you hold that thought in mind, there will be no other > thoughts, because you can't think two thoughts at the same time. Can you breathe two breaths at the same time? Does it mean that it is breath which sees? Or is it breath being seen? You´re strongly identyfied with thought, that´s why it seems that it is thought observing. But it is not. Think a thought: " today it´s monday " . Is this thought seeing anything, or is it an object, seen? It is a thought, which becomes a memory in the next moment. If the thought occurs to 'see' that thought, then it becomes an object observed by the thought of observing. The mind can turn any thought into an object seen because all thoughts are contained in memory. Recalling the experience of your first kiss is not direct perception by the witnessing consciousness, it's just a recalled memory. When this recollection occurs within a split second of the thought being recalled, the illusion is created that the thought is being observed as it occurs, but it is also a memory. The process occurs too quickly for mind to notice the gap. > This is why > observing thought stops thought. After some time, the thought of observing will > slip and another thought will arise. Oh, but you are talking about controlling thoughts by holding to only one thought. This can be done, for some time. And again this process can be fully seen. Yes, and that's what you're doing when the thought occurs to 'directly perceive' thought. It's just another thought. If it weren't a thought, the thought stream could be passively watched without thought interference with the thought stream. In fact, thoughts are being 'watched' by consciousness, but consciousness will have no thought about that, and so mind does not know that it is being watched. If you notice that your thoughts are being observed, it's because you had the thought about it being observed, which originated from the thought of observing. The mind will never be able to notice it's own process because noticing IS the process; it's contained within the process it's trying to notice. The only way what I'm describing can be noticed is by intuition. Direct perception will reveal how the mind functions, it cannot reveal it as it is functioning because this direct perception only occurs when the mind is silent and focus rests in consciousness. Intuition will not reveal a thought occurring. The thought, the thinker and the observer are all the same. Only mind can make them appear separate. Phil Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 24, 2006 Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 4/21/2006 9:35:02 AM Pacific Daylight > Time, > > > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > > > > > Fri, 21 Apr 2006 15:47:58 -0000 > > > > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > > > > Re: Non-Existing Ego > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " > > > <lissbon2002@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Phil: > > > > > > and such powerful resistances don't occur at all, so is > > > > > > there a direct perception focus that might be used to > notice > > > > what > > > > > you're > > > > > > talking about? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You can only observe what you´ve got. So, why not observe > the > > > > > thought movement with its images for as long as it takes > for > > > > > understanding to occur? > > > > > > > > > > Len > > > > > > > > > > > > However, I think that observation limited to thought movement > is > > > not > > > > enough. > > > > Body speaks a totally different language, beyond words. Maybe > > > this > > > > observation of bodily facts breaks the seeming continuity of > > the > > > > ego process, moving the attention to factual perception. > > > > > > > > Len > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Right now, I don't believe observing thought movement can > expose > > > illusion. > > > > The thought that is the observation of thought IS the > illusion. I > > > don't > > > > understand what is meant by " bodily facts " . Could you explain? > > > > > > > > > > > > It is not thought observing. Thought is very quick and > immediately > > > comments on what is seen. But it is not thought seeing, thought > is > > > seen, like any other object. It can happen, because it does > happen > > > to me, that in the observation, thought is suddenly recognized > as > > > just that - thought. Which means that there is the realization > that > > > the image which this thought creates is not reality. There is a > > > difference between knowing this, intellectualy, and the > immediate > > > perception of this fact. In this immediate perception the > > whole " me " > > > system can be recognized as unreal, which stops its process. But > > not > > > for good, of course, it restores itself, at least in my case. > > > In some, more tough cases, when the emotional reaction to > thought > > is > > > disturbing and unpleasant, I simply watch this reaction. This is > > > what I mean by bodily facts: the reaction can be perceived as > body > > > sensation. Observing the body, which is - being the body, with > full > > > attention for every observed sensation, seems to dissolve the > > > resistance. When the resistance is gone, the recognition of the > > > thought as illusory is evident, so the whole thing just vanishes. > > > Also in this observation the image system of " me " sometimes just > > > stops running. Of course it makes no sense to try to stop it on > > > purpose, but it´s a fact for me, which I´ve observed for > hundreds > > of > > > times, that this kind of observation often has this effect. > > > But even if it doesn´t, it´s still more interesting then to > simply > > > act on the impulse of thought and emotional reaction. > > > > > > Len > > > > To observe one's perceptual processes, one must imagine a split > > between the subjective awareness as observing self, and the object > > being observed, " my perceptual processes. " > > > > -- Dan > > > Nonsense, but I´m not interested in discussing it with you. > > len No need to, you've already said plenty. -- D. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 24, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/23/2006 7:41:27 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Sun, 23 Apr 2006 11:41:32 -0000 > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 > Re: Non-Existing Ego > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 4/22/2006 7:13:12 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > Sat, 22 Apr 2006 11:47:15 -0000 > > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > > Re: Non-Existing Ego > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > P: Well, clearly I'm 'closer to God' than you are. Hehe. > (Okay, > > I'm in > > > trouble with somebody for that.) > > > Resistance occurs on infinite 'levels' and so I don't mean to > say > > there is > > > no resistance. If this were so, I'd be cooked and we wouldn't > be > > here talking > > > about how this can occur. Yesterday, I picked up a hot glass > and > > said > > > " ouch! " , I had an uncomfortable burning in the heart area from > an > > energy build up > > > (Kundalini related). There was no struggle with anything on the > > forum or > > > Larry's latest belligerent emails or on my trip into town, so > what > > I'm suggesting > > > is that the explorations of unconscious processes that lead to > > struggle are > > > rare. When struggle does occur, it usually doesn't warrant an > > exploration cause > > > I understand the ego fear that triggered it and just note it. > > > > > > P: I've been doing these explorations since I studied > psychology > > in my 20's > > > (30 years ago) and so, no, I'm not concerned about any major > > hidden ego > > > processes. > > > > > > > > The fact that you are not concerned doesn´t mean that they aren´t > > there. Most people aren´t concerned about them. > > The fact that you aren´aware of them says just nothing. > > Maybe it could be interesting to explore struggles when they do > > occur? I mean, this is not of my bussiness, but it´s you who > spoke > > about the importance of this exploration, so it´s somehow > surprizing > > that you don´t notice anything worth exploring. > > > > Len > > > > > > > > Either I'm not making myself clear or you're motivated to insure > that I > > don't have less struggles than you. Once again, when struggle > occurs, it is > > looked at and understood. There is nothing more to be done. > > > > Are you sure? Because if the struggle is entirely understood, > the " me " ends, and this is a complete different state of being. > That´s why I think there are unconscious layers. > > Len > > > > I agree. That's why I don't claim to not have struggles. My biggest struggle > is that I love what happens when I intuitively look at the pieces parts of > Wholeness that I can see, and then conceptualize it. I'm in awe of what I see > and enjoy the concepts, and yet I know that this is a problem. When I focus on > consciousness, I get nauseous and feverish and feel like hell. This is > because I'm scared that my lovely concepts are going to become meaningless and I > won't be able to enjoy them anymore. > > Are there deep dark, hidden layers of unconscious material there? No, I'm > scared shitless and I know exactly why I'm scared. Have you ever felt so > disconnected from everything that life seems to lose all meaning? Have you ever > felt so vulnerable and isolated that you feel like you're dying? Call it ego > death or void or dark night of the soul or whatever you want, but if you have > any idea what I'm talking about you know that uncovering unconscious ego issues > is child's play by comparison. I know what has to happen, and I'm working on > the courage to allow that. Is that struggle? You're damn right it is. It's > time I stopped looking for a way out. There is no way out....... I think I just > finally realized that. The fear that leads to conceptualized being as a human involves deep anxiety about death and loss and being nothing -- paradoxically it also involves anxiety about living, being responsible, and being aware. It sounds paradoxical in words, because words separate is and is not, being and nonbeing. There is no way out because what I have taken myself to be, me and my life of experiences, is only the " holding " that is the result of this anxiety. There is no choice to not be the anxiety, because the anxiety already is taking place, is what has been described as " human life, with its joys, sorrows, trials and tribulations, victories and loves. " Not that there's anything wrong with the stories and descriptions, nor with anxiety. It's just that these don't contain or produce " what is " -- never have and never could. But they play their part in the scheme of things, no need to do away with them. -- D. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 24, 2006 >L.E.: > p.s. Yes, I am sometimes belligerent, sometimes serious, sometimes funny, > etc. > I'm not anything most of the time. Take that as you will. I take it as a nice, direct statement of being human. And being human, with all its various states, moods, movements, and relationships, is worthwhile as it is, indeed necessary as it is. Transcending the (transitory) state of being human, doesn't negate, devalue, or do away with humanness. If anything, it shows the vulnerability and wonder of humanness, as it is, and of all that is, as it is. -- D. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 24, 2006 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 4/23/2006 7:41:27 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > Sun, 23 Apr 2006 11:41:32 -0000 > > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > > Re: Non-Existing Ego > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 4/22/2006 7:13:12 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > > > Sat, 22 Apr 2006 11:47:15 -0000 > > > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > > > Re: Non-Existing Ego > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > P: Well, clearly I'm 'closer to God' than you are. Hehe. > > (Okay, > > > I'm in > > > > trouble with somebody for that.) > > > > Resistance occurs on infinite 'levels' and so I don't mean to > > say > > > there is > > > > no resistance. If this were so, I'd be cooked and we wouldn't > > be > > > here talking > > > > about how this can occur. Yesterday, I picked up a hot glass > > and > > > said > > > > " ouch! " , I had an uncomfortable burning in the heart area from > > an > > > energy build up > > > > (Kundalini related). There was no struggle with anything on the > > > forum or > > > > Larry's latest belligerent emails or on my trip into town, so > > what > > > I'm suggesting > > > > is that the explorations of unconscious processes that lead to > > > struggle are > > > > rare. When struggle does occur, it usually doesn't warrant an > > > exploration cause > > > > I understand the ego fear that triggered it and just note it. > > > > > > > > P: I've been doing these explorations since I studied > > psychology > > > in my 20's > > > > (30 years ago) and so, no, I'm not concerned about any major > > > hidden ego > > > > processes. > > > > > > > > > > > > The fact that you are not concerned doesn´t mean that they aren´t > > > there. Most people aren´t concerned about them. > > > The fact that you aren´aware of them says just nothing. > > > Maybe it could be interesting to explore struggles when they do > > > occur? I mean, this is not of my bussiness, but it´s you who > > spoke > > > about the importance of this exploration, so it´s somehow > > surprizing > > > that you don´t notice anything worth exploring. > > > > > > Len > > > > > > > > > > > > Either I'm not making myself clear or you're motivated to insure > > that I > > > don't have less struggles than you. Once again, when struggle > > occurs, it is > > > looked at and understood. There is nothing more to be done. > > > > > > > > Are you sure? Because if the struggle is entirely understood, > > the " me " ends, and this is a complete different state of being. > > That´s why I think there are unconscious layers. > > > > Len > > > > > > > > I agree. That's why I don't claim to not have struggles. My biggest > struggle > > is that I love what happens when I intuitively look at the pieces > parts of > > Wholeness that I can see, and then conceptualize it. I'm in awe of > what I see > > and enjoy the concepts, and yet I know that this is a problem. When > I focus on > > consciousness, I get nauseous and feverish and feel like hell. This is > > because I'm scared that my lovely concepts are going to become > meaningless and I > > won't be able to enjoy them anymore. > > > > Are there deep dark, hidden layers of unconscious material there? > No, I'm > > scared shitless and I know exactly why I'm scared. Have you ever > felt so > > disconnected from everything that life seems to lose all meaning? > Have you ever > > felt so vulnerable and isolated that you feel like you're dying? > Call it ego > > death or void or dark night of the soul or whatever you want, but if > you have > > any idea what I'm talking about you know that uncovering unconscious > ego issues > > is child's play by comparison. I know what has to happen, and I'm > working on > > the courage to allow that. Is that struggle? You're damn right it > is. It's > > time I stopped looking for a way out. There is no way out....... I > think I just > > finally realized that. > > The fear that leads to conceptualized being as a human involves deep > anxiety about death and loss and being nothing -- paradoxically it > also involves anxiety about living, being responsible, and being aware. > > It sounds paradoxical in words, because words separate is and is not, > being and nonbeing. > > There is no way out because what I have taken myself to be, me and my > life of experiences, is only the " holding " that is the result of this > anxiety. > > There is no choice to not be the anxiety, because the anxiety already > is taking place, is what has been described as " human life, with its > joys, sorrows, trials and tribulations, victories and loves. " > > Not that there's anything wrong with the stories and descriptions, nor > with anxiety. > > It's just that these don't contain or produce " what is " -- never have > and never could. > > But they play their part in the scheme of things, no need to do away > with them. > > -- D. > Even if you could. toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 24, 2006 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > > > Not that there's anything wrong with the stories and descriptions, nor > > with anxiety. > > > > It's just that these don't contain or produce " what is " -- never have > > and never could. > > > > But they play their part in the scheme of things, no need to do away > > with them. > > > > -- D. > > > > > > Even if you could. > > > toombaru Yes - quite so! -- D. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 25, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/23/2006 7:41:27 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Sun, 23 Apr 2006 12:01:45 -0000 > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 > Re: Non-Existing Ego > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 4/21/2006 9:35:02 AM Pacific Daylight > Time, > > > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > > > > > Fri, 21 Apr 2006 15:47:58 -0000 > > > > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > > > > Re: Non-Existing Ego > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " > > > <lissbon2002@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Phil: > > > > > > and such powerful resistances don't occur at all, so is > > > > > > there a direct perception focus that might be used to > notice > > > > what > > > > > you're > > > > > > talking about? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You can only observe what you´ve got. So, why not observe > the > > > > > thought movement with its images for as long as it takes > for > > > > > understanding to occur? > > > > > > > > > > Len > > > > > > > > > > > > However, I think that observation limited to thought movement > is > > > not > > > > enough. > > > > Body speaks a totally different language, beyond words. Maybe > > > this > > > > observation of bodily facts breaks the seeming continuity of > > the > > > > ego process, moving the attention to factual perception. > > > > > > > > Len > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Right now, I don't believe observing thought movement can > expose > > > illusion. > > > > The thought that is the observation of thought IS the > illusion. I > > > don't > > > > understand what is meant by " bodily facts " . Could you explain? > > > > > > > > > > > > It is not thought observing. Thought is very quick and > immediately > > > comments on what is seen. But it is not thought seeing, thought > is > > > seen, like any other object. It can happen, because it does > happen > > > to me, that in the observation, thought is suddenly recognized > as > > > just that - thought. Which means that there is the realization > that > > > the image which this thought creates is not reality. There is a > > > difference between knowing this, intellectualy, and the > immediate > > > perception of this fact. In this immediate perception the > > whole " me " > > > system can be recognized as unreal, which stops its process. But > > not > > > for good, of course, it restores itself, at least in my case. > > > In some, more tough cases, when the emotional reaction to > thought > > is > > > disturbing and unpleasant, I simply watch this reaction. This is > > > what I mean by bodily facts: the reaction can be perceived as > body > > > sensation. Observing the body, which is - being the body, with > full > > > attention for every observed sensation, seems to dissolve the > > > resistance. When the resistance is gone, the recognition of the > > > thought as illusory is evident, so the whole thing just vanishes. > > > Also in this observation the image system of " me " sometimes just > > > stops running. Of course it makes no sense to try to stop it on > > > purpose, but it´s a fact for me, which I´ve observed for > hundreds > > of > > > times, that this kind of observation often has this effect. > > > But even if it doesn´t, it´s still more interesting then to > simply > > > act on the impulse of thought and emotional reaction. > > > > > > Len > > > > To observe one's perceptual processes, one must imagine a split > > between the subjective awareness as observing self, and the object > > being observed, " my perceptual processes. " > > > > -- Dan > > > Nonsense, but I´m not interested in discussing it with you. > > len > > > > Tis true. This is a split mind process. The mind process is mostly " split " , but it is not a part of an imagined split which observes. Imagining anything is not observation, however the products of this imagination can be seen. Thought is blind. Len Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 25, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > Phil: What you're talking about is different. When I need a break, I > conceptualize to my heart's content, and it grounds my mind and reestablishes it's > imagined identity. There is no tension in thought, the tension arises from an > emptiness, a nothingness when the thought ceases. There is no tension in nothingness. The only source of tension is thought. If the tension is there, it is not nothingness, but the image of nothingness, which is thought. Len Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 25, 2006 In a message dated 4/24/2006 5:35:53 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 23:32:23 -0000 " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 Re: Non-Existing Ego Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > Phil: What you're talking about is different. When I need a break, I > conceptualize to my heart's content, and it grounds my mind and reestablishes it's > imagined identity. There is no tension in thought, the tension arises from an > emptiness, a nothingness when the thought ceases. There is no tension in nothingness. The only source of tension is thought. If the tension is there, it is not nothingness, but the image of nothingness, which is thought. Len Of course. There was, however, a point that I was trying to make. Phil Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 25, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > It is a thought, which becomes a memory in the next moment. If the thought > occurs to 'see' that thought, then it becomes an object observed by the thought > of observing. The mind can turn any thought into an object seen because all > thoughts are contained in memory. Recalling the experience of your first kiss > is not direct perception by the witnessing consciousness, it's just a > recalled memory. Of course it is a memory, your first love may be dead by now. This is not the issue. It is not thought which sees, thought can be seen but it cannot see. In the same was as a chair you sit on can be seen but cannot see. In the same way as a camera can take a picture, but it needs you to see the picture, the camera itself cannot see it. Thought is slightly different from a chair, and also a little bit different from a camera, but the principle is the same: they all cannot see. > When this recollection occurs within a split second of the thought > being recalled, the illusion is created that the thought is being observed > as it occurs, but it is also a memory. The process occurs too quickly for mind > to notice the gap. I can see that you´re very attached to this concept, so probably you have invested something in it, and aren´t willing to let go of it. It is indeed so, that realizing that seeing is not thinking is very dangerous to the ego process which is entirely made of thoughts. The time hasn´t come yet, I guess :-) > Oh, but you are talking about controlling thoughts by holding to > only one thought. This can be done, for some time. And again this > process can be fully seen. > > > > Yes, and that's what you're doing when the thought occurs to 'directly > perceive' thought. It's just another thought. If it weren't a thought, the thought > stream could be passively watched without thought interference with the > thought stream. The thought stream IS passively being watched, ALWAYS, watching is always passive, but the thoughts add plenty of noise to the noise already present and are claiming to be the owner of perception. You keep focusing your attention on thoughts, that´s why it seems that it´s thought watching. That´s why it´s good to observe the body, it removes the focus of attention from the content of thoughts. Ok, it´s enough writing for tonight, Take care, Len Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
