Bill's Account of Inner Exploration

April 27, 2006

Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002

wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@>

> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , OConnor Patricia <gdtige@>

> wrote:

> > >

> > > --- billrishel <illusyn@> a ?rit :

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote:

> > > >

> > > > In a message dated 4/25/2006 4:40:18 PM Pacific

> > > Daylight Time,

> > > > Nisargadatta writes:

> > > >

> > > > Tue, 25 Apr 2006 23:24:09 -0000

> > > > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@>

> > > > Re: Bill's Account of Inner Exploration

> > > >

> > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel "

> > > <illusyn@>

> > > > wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Nisargadatta ,

> > > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@>

> > > > > wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Nisargadatta ,

> > > " billrishel " <illusyn@>

> > > > wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > > any *preference* with respect to experience

> > > > > > > is the jaws of confusion itself

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Bill

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Jaws, confusion, who cares? No preferences,

> > > right? ;-)

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Len

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > nobody cares

> > > > >

> > > > > Bill

> > > >

> > > > True, nobody? here, nobody cares, Peace and Bliss

> > > all over.

> > > >

> > > > Len

> > > >

> > > > Hey Len, you got a mop over there? We need to clean

> > > up all this sticky

> > > > bliss. ~

> > > >

> > > > Attachment never flows into not caring. Equanimity

> > > makes it possible

> > > to care

> > > > deeply without the need to cling to it or make it

> > > something other

> > > than it

> > > > is. It embraces all and accepts all rather than

> > > devaluing all to the

> > > level of

> > > > not caring.

> > > >

> > > > Phil

> > >

> > > Jumping at words and not paying attention to what the

> > > conversation

> > > is about.

> > >

> > > The discussion was about " preferences with respect to

> > > experience " .

> > > It was about " not caring " about what comes up, what

> > > " presents " in

> > > experience.

> > >

> > > It did not pertain to " not caring " in the sense you

> > > use it here.

> > >

> > > So while it is quite true that:

> > > " Equanimity makes it possible to care deeply without

> > > the

> > > need to cling to it or make it something other than

> > > it is.

> > > It embraces all and accepts all rather than

> > > devaluing all to

> > > the level of not caring. " (indeed, that is an

> > > important point)

> > >

> > > that is not relevant to what was being discussed.

> > >

> > > Bill

> > >

> > > You are talking of an ideal state here.

> > > Can you really applie this kind of attitude of

> > > choicelessness or is that a consequence of a reverence

> > > for life, a complete involvement with what is..

> > >

> > > Patricia

> >

> > I was speaking of " *preference* with respect to experience "

> > as a *symptom*.

> >

> > To try to have no preference with respect to experience

> > is like trying to make your car go faster by bending

> > the needle of the speedometer.

> >

> > The remedy is always to simply stop and be-with what is.

> > The symptoms are the flags that bring attention to the

> > fact that all is not so great as might be imagined.

> >

> > Bill

>

> I think Patricia has a point.

> You talk a lot about " symptoms " . An awful lot.

> The one who´s really in peace doesn´t talk about peace.

> He knows this is pointless.

> Talking about some idealized state isn´t going to bring peace

closer

> to you, the opposite is true: it only feeds the ego.

> You babble a lot about some idealized state, but have no interest

in

> paying the price for understanding. The price is high, you would

> have to stopp babbling and start observing the confusion. And this

> is not peaceful nor pleasurable.

>

> Len

>

this message goes... you ... you ... you ... you

not interested in what you are selling Len.

I've told you that before.

It is so cheap to take pot shots at others.

And someone who doesn't talk about what is going on

for them doesn't have a toe to stand on when

dishing out advice.

And dishing out *unsolicited* advice is bad taste.

Check out your vibes Len. Pretty darn negative I'd say.

And not healthy for open list discussion.

Make your own comments about life, nonduality, whatever

and leave to the members to decide for themselves what

is of value or not. They don't need to have anyone to go

around finger pointing as to who is a fraud etc.

Bill

April 27, 2006

Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002

wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@>

> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@>

> > wrote:

> > >

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

> > > wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > In a message dated 4/25/2006 4:40:18 PM Pacific Daylight

> Time,

> > > > > Nisargadatta writes:

> > > > >

> > > > > Tue, 25 Apr 2006 23:24:09 -0000

> > > > > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@>

> > > > > Re: Bill's Account of Inner Exploration

> > > > >

> > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel "

> <illusyn@>

> > > > > wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 "

> > > <lissbon2002@>

> > > > > > wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel "

> > > <illusyn@>

> > > > > wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > any *preference* with respect to experience

> > > > > > > > is the jaws of confusion itself

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Bill

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Jaws, confusion, who cares? No preferences, right? ;-)

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Len

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > nobody cares

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Bill

> > > > >

> > > > > True, nobody? here, nobody cares, Peace and Bliss all

over.

> > > > >

> > > > > Len

> > > > >

> > > > > Hey Len, you got a mop over there? We need to clean up all

> this

> > > sticky

> > > > > bliss. ~

> > > > >

> > > > > Attachment never flows into not caring. Equanimity makes it

> > > possible

> > > > to care

> > > > > deeply without the need to cling to it or make it something

> other

> > > > than it

> > > > > is. It embraces all and accepts all rather than devaluing

> all to

> > > the

> > > > level of

> > > > > not caring.

> > > > >

> > > > > Phil

> > > >

> > > > Jumping at words and not paying attention to what the

> conversation

> > > > is about.

> > > >

> > > > The discussion was about " preferences with respect to

> experience " .

> > > > It was about " not caring " about what comes up,

what " presents "

> in

> > > > experience.

> > > >

> > > > It did not pertain to " not caring " in the sense you use it

> here.

> > > >

> > > > So while it is quite true that:

> > > > " Equanimity makes it possible to care deeply without the

> > > > need to cling to it or make it something other than it is.

> > > > It embraces all and accepts all rather than devaluing all to

> > > > the level of not caring. " (indeed, that is an important

> point)

> > > >

> > > > that is not relevant to what was being discussed.

> > > >

> > > > Bill

> > >

> > > I think it is.

> > > If you don? care about what comes up, why would you care about

> > > anybody?

> > >

> > > Len

> > >

> >

> > I'm amazed...

> >

> > Doh... if there is no preference to what comes up, then the

> > pain of another is not an " inconvenience " , it is simply what

> > is and there is an ability to be completely present with that.

> > Caring is not pathos, we agree on that right? Caring is not

> > some sentimental emotion of " oh gee shucks, that's too bad!

> > I really feel for you! "

> >

> > In my work with the mentally ill I am able to be very present

> > with them (something most of the other staff won't or can't do),

> > and there is an interaction in the " space between " that is not

> > based on any particular intent on my part. Amazing things happen

> > in the very brief five minute or so interactions I am able to

> > have with them.

> >

> > They *know* that I am there and open, present. They *know* that

> > I see them without predjudice. And they really respond to that.

> > Particularly as they get very little of that in their lives.

> >

> > It was the same when I worked with emotionally disturbed children.

> > I have been practicing what I am talking about.

> >

> > Bill

>

> This is possible, but we weren´t talking about that.

> I´m responding to what you wrote above.

> You talk about preferences as being the jaws of confusion.

> I´m saying that you do have preferences, like anybody else.

> For instance you would rather avoid the jaws of confusion ;-)

> So I suggest, you just enter the jaws of confusion through

> recognizing that you do have preferences. And see what happens then.

>

> Len

>

Doh! I do recognize that I have preferences. What on earth

tells you different?

I do what I suggest. The way I know something is " up " is

if there is a feeling that is separated out from the

general field of awareness. When that occurs I " go into it " .

And I don't see such as something to " fix " . I see it as an

opportunity, as an adventure.

In my view, if a day goes by without a startling discovery

then it has been a day of being asleep, not one of paying

attention.

And you see, I am not afraid to talk about what is for me.

Something you seem to do very rarely, preferring to talk

about *others*.

Bill

April 27, 2006

Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn

wrote:

> > I think Patricia has a point.

> > You talk a lot about " symptoms " . An awful lot.

> > The one who´s really in peace doesn´t talk about peace.

> > He knows this is pointless.

> > Talking about some idealized state isn´t going to bring peace

> closer

> > to you, the opposite is true: it only feeds the ego.

> > You babble a lot about some idealized state, but have no

interest

> in

> > paying the price for understanding. The price is high, you would

> > have to stopp babbling and start observing the confusion. And

this

> > is not peaceful nor pleasurable.

> >

> > Len

> >

>

> this message goes... you ... you ... you ... you

>

> not interested in what you are selling Len.

I know. It isn´t satisfying.

> I've told you that before.

>

> It is so cheap to take pot shots at others.

> And someone who doesn't talk about what is going on

> for them doesn't have a toe to stand on when

> dishing out advice.

>

> And dishing out *unsolicited* advice is bad taste.

I have no advice for you.

Simply pointing out something which you obviously don´t like.

Don´t forget about no preferences ;-)

> Check out your vibes Len. Pretty darn negative I'd say.

> And not healthy for open list discussion.

It is not that I say something which you don´t like, that it is not

healthy. It could be even very healthy if you didn´t resist it it so

compulsively. Relaxe and let it come in. Watch your reaction. It

won´t destroy you, or maybe it will, who knows ;-)

It can be good to realize that these are just words.

Negative vibes are yours and it can be very interesting to ask

yourself how come. Is your image system in danger? You pretend

you´re interested in learning, but the very moment some challenge is

there, you close your eyes. Learning is not a beautiful dream of

peace, Bill, it can be tough sometimes. Truth is not always

precisely what you want to hear. It often hurts. This is how it

works. Welcome to reality.

Len

> Make your own comments about life, nonduality, whatever

> and leave to the members to decide for themselves what

> is of value or not. They don't need to have anyone to go

> around finger pointing as to who is a fraud etc.

>

> Bill

April 27, 2006

Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002

wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@>

> wrote:

>

> > > I think Patricia has a point.

> > > You talk a lot about " symptoms " . An awful lot.

> > > The one who´s really in peace doesn´t talk about peace.

> > > He knows this is pointless.

> > > Talking about some idealized state isn´t going to bring peace

> > closer

> > > to you, the opposite is true: it only feeds the ego.

> > > You babble a lot about some idealized state, but have no

> interest

> > in

> > > paying the price for understanding. The price is high, you would

> > > have to stopp babbling and start observing the confusion. And

> this

> > > is not peaceful nor pleasurable.

> > >

> > > Len

> > >

> >

> > this message goes... you ... you ... you ... you

> >

> > not interested in what you are selling Len.

>

> I know. It isn´t satisfying.

>

> > I've told you that before.

> >

> > It is so cheap to take pot shots at others.

> > And someone who doesn't talk about what is going on

> > for them doesn't have a toe to stand on when

> > dishing out advice.

> >

> > And dishing out *unsolicited* advice is bad taste.

>

> I have no advice for you.

> Simply pointing out something which you obviously don´t like.

> Don´t forget about no preferences ;-)

>

> > Check out your vibes Len. Pretty darn negative I'd say.

> > And not healthy for open list discussion.

>

> It is not that I say something which you don´t like, that it is not

> healthy. It could be even very healthy if you didn´t resist it it so

> compulsively. Relaxe and let it come in. Watch your reaction. It

> won´t destroy you, or maybe it will, who knows ;-)

> It can be good to realize that these are just words.

> Negative vibes are yours and it can be very interesting to ask

> yourself how come. Is your image system in danger? You pretend

> you´re interested in learning, but the very moment some challenge is

> there, you close your eyes. Learning is not a beautiful dream of

> peace, Bill, it can be tough sometimes. Truth is not always

> precisely what you want to hear. It often hurts. This is how it

> works. Welcome to reality.

>

> Len

>

You are just chewing on your own brain Len.

Do you think you are talking to someone else?

And me, I'm chewing on my own brain too.

If something strikes home it strikes home. Right?

It seems to me you are working pretty hard at it.

But chew away.

It's your brain!

BTW, I'm stil resisting helping you out.

Just my code of conduct.

I don't believe in saving dream entities.

Bill

>

> > Make your own comments about life, nonduality, whatever

> > and leave to the members to decide for themselves what

> > is of value or not. They don't need to have anyone to go

> > around finger pointing as to who is a fraud etc.

> >

> > Bill

>

April 28, 2006

In a message dated 4/26/2006 5:50:49 PM Pacific Daylight Time,

Nisargadatta writes:

Wed, 26 Apr 2006 19:47:56 -0000

" billrishel " <illusyn

Re: Bill's Account of Inner Exploration

Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote:

>

> In a message dated 4/25/2006 4:40:18 PM Pacific Daylight Time,

> Nisargadatta writes:

>

> Tue, 25 Apr 2006 23:24:09 -0000

> " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002

> Re: Bill's Account of Inner Exploration

>

> Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@>

> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@>

> > wrote:

> > >

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

> wrote:

> > >

> > > > any *preference* with respect to experience

> > > > is the jaws of confusion itself

> > > >

> > > > Bill

> > >

> > > Jaws, confusion, who cares? No preferences, right? ;-)

> > >

> > > Len

> > >

> >

> > nobody cares

> >

> > Bill

>

> True, nobody´s here, nobody cares, Peace and Bliss all over.

>

> Len

>

> Hey Len, you got a mop over there? We need to clean up all this sticky

> bliss. ~

>

> Attachment never flows into not caring. Equanimity makes it possible

to care

> deeply without the need to cling to it or make it something other

than it

> is. It embraces all and accepts all rather than devaluing all to the

level of

> not caring.

>

> Phil

Jumping at words and not paying attention to what the conversation

is about.

The discussion was about " preferences with respect to experience " .

It was about " not caring " about what comes up, what " presents " in

experience.

It did not pertain to " not caring " in the sense you use it here.

So while it is quite true that:

" Equanimity makes it possible to care deeply without the

need to cling to it or make it something other than it is.

It embraces all and accepts all rather than devaluing all to

the level of not caring. " (indeed, that is an important point)

that is not relevant to what was being discussed.

Bill

Well, I was responding to Len and the tone of his comments. " Who

cares?...Nobody cares " , etc, and so it seems Len wasn't referring to

" preferences " but

was rather implying something else in a tongue in cheek sort of way. Did you

miss that? The conversation is still above if you care to review more closely.

Phil

April 28, 2006

In a message dated 4/26/2006 5:50:49 PM Pacific Daylight Time,

Nisargadatta writes:

Thu, 27 Apr 2006 00:46:55 +0200 (CEST)

OConnor Patricia <gdtige

RE: Re: Bill's Account of Inner Exploration

--- billrishel <illusyn a écrit :

Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote:

>

> In a message dated 4/25/2006 4:40:18 PM Pacific

Daylight Time,

> Nisargadatta writes:

>

> Tue, 25 Apr 2006 23:24:09 -0000

> " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002

> Re: Bill's Account of Inner Exploration

>

> Nisargadatta , " billrishel "

<illusyn@>

> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta ,

" lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@>

> > wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta ,

" billrishel " <illusyn@>

> wrote:

> > >

> > > > any *preference* with respect to experience

> > > > is the jaws of confusion itself

> > > >

> > > > Bill

> > >

> > > Jaws, confusion, who cares? No preferences,

right? ;-)

> > >

> > > Len

> > >

> >

> > nobody cares

> >

> > Bill

>

> True, nobody´s here, nobody cares, Peace and Bliss

all over.

>

> Len

>

> Hey Len, you got a mop over there? We need to clean

up all this sticky

> bliss. ~

>

> Attachment never flows into not caring. Equanimity

makes it possible

to care

> deeply without the need to cling to it or make it

something other

than it

> is. It embraces all and accepts all rather than

devaluing all to the

level of

> not caring.

>

> Phil

Jumping at words and not paying attention to what the

conversation

is about.

The discussion was about " preferences with respect to

experience " .

It was about " not caring " about what comes up, what

" presents " in

experience.

It did not pertain to " not caring " in the sense you

use it here.

So while it is quite true that:

" Equanimity makes it possible to care deeply without

the

need to cling to it or make it something other than

it is.

It embraces all and accepts all rather than

devaluing all to

the level of not caring. " (indeed, that is an

important point)

that is not relevant to what was being discussed.

Bill

You are talking of an ideal state here.

Can you really applie this kind of attitude of

choicelessness or is that a consequence of a reverence

for life, a complete involvement with what is..

Patricia

As you imply, it's not an attitude that can be chosen. It's simply genuine

acceptance which comes about as described in an earlier post of yours. " It

has to become part off, reintegrated in the All,

that is you, and it won`t if you don`t <welcome it.> "

Yes, it's an ideal 'state' and acceptance isn't binary.

Phil

April 28, 2006

Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote:

>

> In a message dated 4/26/2006 5:50:49 PM Pacific Daylight Time,

> Nisargadatta writes:

>

> Wed, 26 Apr 2006 19:47:56 -0000

> " billrishel " <illusyn

> Re: Bill's Account of Inner Exploration

>

> Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote:

> >

> > In a message dated 4/25/2006 4:40:18 PM Pacific Daylight Time,

> > Nisargadatta writes:

> >

> > Tue, 25 Apr 2006 23:24:09 -0000

> > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@>

> > Re: Bill's Account of Inner Exploration

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@>

> > wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@>

> > > wrote:

> > > >

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

> > wrote:

> > > >

> > > > > any *preference* with respect to experience

> > > > > is the jaws of confusion itself

> > > > >

> > > > > Bill

> > > >

> > > > Jaws, confusion, who cares? No preferences, right? ;-)

> > > >

> > > > Len

> > > >

> > >

> > > nobody cares

> > >

> > > Bill

> >

> > True, nobody´s here, nobody cares, Peace and Bliss all over.

> >

> > Len

> >

> > Hey Len, you got a mop over there? We need to clean up all this

sticky

> > bliss. ~

> >

> > Attachment never flows into not caring. Equanimity makes it possible

> to care

> > deeply without the need to cling to it or make it something other

> than it

> > is. It embraces all and accepts all rather than devaluing all to the

> level of

> > not caring.

> >

> > Phil

>

> Jumping at words and not paying attention to what the conversation

> is about.

>

> The discussion was about " preferences with respect to experience " .

> It was about " not caring " about what comes up, what " presents " in

> experience.

>

> It did not pertain to " not caring " in the sense you use it here.

>

> So while it is quite true that:

> " Equanimity makes it possible to care deeply without the

> need to cling to it or make it something other than it is.

> It embraces all and accepts all rather than devaluing all to

> the level of not caring. " (indeed, that is an important point)

>

> that is not relevant to what was being discussed.

>

> Bill

>

> Well, I was responding to Len and the tone of his comments. " Who

> cares?...Nobody cares " , etc, and so it seems Len wasn't referring to

" preferences " but

> was rather implying something else in a tongue in cheek sort of

way. Did you

> miss that? The conversation is still above if you care to review

more closely.

>

> Phil

>

read up further

April 29, 2006

In a message dated 4/27/2006 9:10:02 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

Nisargadatta writes:

> I think Patricia has a point.

> You talk a lot about " symptoms " . An awful lot.

> The one who´s really in peace doesn´t talk about peace.

> He knows this is pointless.

> Talking about some idealized state isn´t going to bring peace

closer

> to you, the opposite is true: it only feeds the ego.

> You babble a lot about some idealized state, but have no interest

in

> paying the price for understanding. The price is high, you would

> have to stopp babbling and start observing the confusion. And this

> is not peaceful nor pleasurable.

>

> Len

>

this message goes... you ... you ... you ... you

not interested in what you are selling Len.

I've told you that before.

It is so cheap to take pot shots at others.

And someone who doesn't talk about what is going on

for them doesn't have a toe to stand on when

dishing out advice.

And dishing out *unsolicited* advice is bad taste.

Check out your vibes Len. Pretty darn negative I'd say.

And not healthy for open list discussion.

Make your own comments about life, nonduality, whatever

and leave to the members to decide for themselves what

is of value or not. They don't need to have anyone to go

around finger pointing as to who is a fraud etc.

Bill

You mean advice such as 'rather than denigrate you should inquire into what

Dan says' or the advice you give here as to proper posting etiquette? It is

what it is, Bill, and if you're finding it's not okay, that can be looked into.

I find most of what Len has to say rings true for me and what he points out

is often of value, even if it's not to your liking because he happens to be

pointing to you.

Bill

April 29, 2006

Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote:

>

> In a message dated 4/27/2006 9:10:02 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

> Nisargadatta writes:

>

> > I think Patricia has a point.

> > You talk a lot about " symptoms " . An awful lot.

> > The one who´s really in peace doesn´t talk about peace.

> > He knows this is pointless.

> > Talking about some idealized state isn´t going to bring peace

> closer

> > to you, the opposite is true: it only feeds the ego.

> > You babble a lot about some idealized state, but have no

interest

> in

> > paying the price for understanding. The price is high, you would

> > have to stopp babbling and start observing the confusion. And

this

> > is not peaceful nor pleasurable.

> >

> > Len

> >

>

> this message goes... you ... you ... you ... you

>

> not interested in what you are selling Len.

> I've told you that before.

>

> It is so cheap to take pot shots at others.

> And someone who doesn't talk about what is going on

> for them doesn't have a toe to stand on when

> dishing out advice.

>

> And dishing out *unsolicited* advice is bad taste.

>

> Check out your vibes Len. Pretty darn negative I'd say.

> And not healthy for open list discussion.

>

> Make your own comments about life, nonduality, whatever

> and leave to the members to decide for themselves what

> is of value or not. They don't need to have anyone to go

> around finger pointing as to who is a fraud etc.

>

> Bill

>

> Phil:

> You mean advice such as 'rather than denigrate you should inquire

into what

> Dan says' or the advice you give here as to proper posting

etiquette? It is

> what it is, Bill, and if you're finding it's not okay, that can be

looked into.

> I find most of what Len has to say rings true for me and what he

points out

> is often of value, even if it's not to your liking because he

happens to be

> pointing to you.

Great it rings true for you. Enjoy.

Seems you have a reaction to what I had to say?

Trying to rectify something?

Sometimes one comes to distrust the integrity of

a person's statements. That is reality.

And nothing wrong with that.

Bill

April 29, 2006

In a message dated 4/29/2006 3:56:39 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

Nisargadatta writes:

Sat, 29 Apr 2006 06:38:49 -0000

" billrishel " <illusyn

Re: Bill's Account of Inner Exploration

Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote:

>

> In a message dated 4/27/2006 9:10:02 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

> Nisargadatta writes:

>

> > I think Patricia has a point.

> > You talk a lot about " symptoms " . An awful lot.

> > The one who´s really in peace doesn´t talk about peace.

> > He knows this is pointless.

> > Talking about some idealized state isn´t going to bring peace

> closer

> > to you, the opposite is true: it only feeds the ego.

> > You babble a lot about some idealized state, but have no

interest

> in

> > paying the price for understanding. The price is high, you would

> > have to stopp babbling and start observing the confusion. And

this

> > is not peaceful nor pleasurable.

> >

> > Len

> >

>

> this message goes... you ... you ... you ... you

>

> not interested in what you are selling Len.

> I've told you that before.

>

> It is so cheap to take pot shots at others.

> And someone who doesn't talk about what is going on

> for them doesn't have a toe to stand on when

> dishing out advice.

>

> And dishing out *unsolicited* advice is bad taste.

>

> Check out your vibes Len. Pretty darn negative I'd say.

> And not healthy for open list discussion.

>

> Make your own comments about life, nonduality, whatever

> and leave to the members to decide for themselves what

> is of value or not. They don't need to have anyone to go

> around finger pointing as to who is a fraud etc.

>

> Bill

>

> Phil:

> You mean advice such as 'rather than denigrate you should inquire

into what

> Dan says' or the advice you give here as to proper posting

etiquette? It is

> what it is, Bill, and if you're finding it's not okay, that can be

looked into.

> I find most of what Len has to say rings true for me and what he

points out

> is often of value, even if it's not to your liking because he

happens to be

> pointing to you.

Great it rings true for you. Enjoy.

Seems you have a reaction to what I had to say?

Trying to rectify something?

Sometimes one comes to distrust the integrity of

a person's statements. That is reality.

And nothing wrong with that.

Bill

I don't know if there's the willingness to discuss such things, Bill, but

you're clearly a bright guy and I've seen a very gentle side to you, so here

goes.

Len and I, as far as I know, are the only ones here who believe in the

importance of seeking the truth of our own self created ego patterns. It's not

important at all that we're agreed with, the point is simply that when this

focus is tied to the belief that all of our communications with 'other' are an

indivisible part of our own explorations, then we simply proceed to explore what

is of interest in the context of ego dynamics just as you would explore

something in the context of 'sense of self' or 'now'.

As such, possibly you can see how neither of us establish any rules about

not commenting about what we perceive in the ego dynamics of the 'other', since

this is part of our self exploration. Such comments are not seen as rude or

hostile or inappropriate for a spirituality forum, although there is often

hesitation from at least my perspective, because folks are typically offended by

such comments. The exploration of such things with Larry, Bob et al. was

very useful from my perspective and I'm sorry that others saw it as a

disruption

from the spiritual exploration/expression that goes on here. I do not.

It's natural from an ego perspective to want to know if the person

commenting on our personal reactions is coming from a place of judgment or is

simply

discerning and pointing out the truth as it's discerned, accurate or not.

Ideally, this shouldn't matter, but I understand why it does. When I read a

post,

there's an entire intuitive content that comes along with it, that pretty

much tells me what is going on in the dynamics of the writer. That claim is

entirely indefensible, and so you may choose to disregard, but I mention it

because I've been watching Len closely in that context. Again, the reason being

that it's part of my own exploration. There are no judgments made of Len or

anybody else.

Anyhoo, what I see is that Len mostly makes such comments as he's made to

you without any perceivable tension at all, which implies no judgment or

arrogance. Sometimes, I see a tension slowly build, and then, suddenly, it's

gone

again. I can only assume that he's practicing what he preaches and looks at

this tension when he notices it arise. (Len, feel free to correct me if that's

nonsense from your perspective.)

And so, to me, there isn't a battle going on here, and it need not be

perceived that way. Of course, you will perceive it as you will, and either way

it's okay.

Phil

April 30, 2006

Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote:

>

> In a message dated 4/29/2006 3:56:39 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

> Nisargadatta writes:

>

> Sat, 29 Apr 2006 06:38:49 -0000

> " billrishel " <illusyn

> Re: Bill's Account of Inner Exploration

>

> Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote:

> >

> > In a message dated 4/27/2006 9:10:02 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

> > Nisargadatta writes:

> >

> > > I think Patricia has a point.

> > > You talk a lot about " symptoms " . An awful lot.

> > > The one who´s really in peace doesn´t talk about peace.

> > > He knows this is pointless.

> > > Talking about some idealized state isn´t going to bring

peace

> > closer

> > > to you, the opposite is true: it only feeds the ego.

> > > You babble a lot about some idealized state, but have no

> interest

> > in

> > > paying the price for understanding. The price is high, you

would

> > > have to stopp babbling and start observing the confusion.

And

> this

> > > is not peaceful nor pleasurable.

> > >

> > > Len

> > >

> >

> > this message goes... you ... you ... you ... you

> >

> > not interested in what you are selling Len.

> > I've told you that before.

> >

> > It is so cheap to take pot shots at others.

> > And someone who doesn't talk about what is going on

> > for them doesn't have a toe to stand on when

> > dishing out advice.

> >

> > And dishing out *unsolicited* advice is bad taste.

> >

> > Check out your vibes Len. Pretty darn negative I'd say.

> > And not healthy for open list discussion.

> >

> > Make your own comments about life, nonduality, whatever

> > and leave to the members to decide for themselves what

> > is of value or not. They don't need to have anyone to go

> > around finger pointing as to who is a fraud etc.

> >

> > Bill

> >

> > Phil:

> > You mean advice such as 'rather than denigrate you should

inquire

> into what

> > Dan says' or the advice you give here as to proper posting

> etiquette? It is

> > what it is, Bill, and if you're finding it's not okay, that can

be

> looked into.

> > I find most of what Len has to say rings true for me and what

he

> points out

> > is often of value, even if it's not to your liking because he

> happens to be

> > pointing to you.

>

> Great it rings true for you. Enjoy.

> Seems you have a reaction to what I had to say?

> Trying to rectify something?

>

> Sometimes one comes to distrust the integrity of

> a person's statements. That is reality.

> And nothing wrong with that.

>

> Bill

>

> I don't know if there's the willingness to discuss such things,

Bill, but

> you're clearly a bright guy and I've seen a very gentle side to

you, so here

> goes.

>

> Len and I, as far as I know, are the only ones here who believe in

the

> importance of seeking the truth of our own self created ego

patterns. It's not

> important at all that we're agreed with, the point is simply that

when this

> focus is tied to the belief that all of our communications

with 'other' are an

> indivisible part of our own explorations, then we simply proceed

to explore what

> is of interest in the context of ego dynamics just as you would

explore

> something in the context of 'sense of self' or 'now'.

>

> As such, possibly you can see how neither of us establish any

rules about

> not commenting about what we perceive in the ego dynamics of

the 'other', since

> this is part of our self exploration. Such comments are not seen

as rude or

> hostile or inappropriate for a spirituality forum, although there

is often

> hesitation from at least my perspective, because folks are

typically offended by

> such comments. The exploration of such things with Larry, Bob et

al. was

> very useful from my perspective and I'm sorry that others saw it

as a disruption

> from the spiritual exploration/expression that goes on here. I do

not.

>

> It's natural from an ego perspective to want to know if the

person

> commenting on our personal reactions is coming from a place of

judgment or is simply

> discerning and pointing out the truth as it's discerned, accurate

or not.

> Ideally, this shouldn't matter, but I understand why it does. When

I read a post,

> there's an entire intuitive content that comes along with it, that

pretty

> much tells me what is going on in the dynamics of the writer. That

claim is

> entirely indefensible, and so you may choose to disregard, but I

mention it

> because I've been watching Len closely in that context. Again, the

reason being

> that it's part of my own exploration. There are no judgments made

of Len or

> anybody else.

>

> Anyhoo, what I see is that Len mostly makes such comments as he's

made to

> you without any perceivable tension at all, which implies no

judgment or

> arrogance. Sometimes, I see a tension slowly build, and then,

suddenly, it's gone

> again. I can only assume that he's practicing what he preaches and

looks at

> this tension when he notices it arise. (Len, feel free to correct

me if that's

> nonsense from your perspective.)

>

> And so, to me, there isn't a battle going on here, and it need not

be

> perceived that way. Of course, you will perceive it as you will,

and either way

> it's okay.

>

> Phil

True, no correction needed. Observation takes place during

communication, and if tension arises, it is being examined to the

root. The interesting thing is, that what happens here or anywhere

else, and which triggers some tension often leads to " old " feelings,

residues of undissolved conflicts from the past, often childhood. It

is really beautiful to see the connection and to use every little

conflict as an opportunity to clar up this residues, through going

through it consciously. I can imagine that the biggest obstacle to

observe such things is, that people think that they are too wise and

too old to feel these things, which seem so childish, so they rather

condemn them and try to let go, then to admit them and face them.

That´s how an adult gets stuck in the trap of old, childlike

feelings.

To Bill: it´s far more important to face your tensions, no matter

how futile and childisch they seem, then trying to give yourself an

attitude, and manipulating and reacting to the image of the person

who´s seemingly causing you discomfort. The cause of conflit is in

you and can be solved only in you, my person is totally unimportant

in this process. When the inner conflict is solved you may be

surprised what consequences it has for your image of the person of

whom you think it is responsible for your reaction.

Len

May 1, 2006

In a message dated 4/30/2006 12:51:49 PM Pacific Daylight Time,

Nisargadatta writes:

Sun, 30 Apr 2006 17:08:12 -0000

" lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002