Bill's Account of Inner Exploration

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote:

>

> >

> >

> > Doesn't have to be that at all.

> > I said in one of my replies on this thread that

> > making " silent mind " an objective is a serious

> > danger, and is one reason I tend to avoid talking

> > about it.

>

>

>

>

>

> A danger to whom?

>

> You assume that there is an automomous self that can somehow put

> itself in jeopardy through its own volitional action.

>

> You talk as if you have a choice about what words flow through your

> mouth............almost as if you believe that you are something more

> then a character in the movie.

>

>

>

> toombaru

>

 

no whom at all...

 

if there is any " objective " with respect to experience

there is confusion

 

just a fact

 

that an objective is operative does not

entail that there is any who for whom

it is operative

 

any such " who " is purely imaginary

 

what imagines...?

 

we could say it is the brain...

 

whatever it is... it is outside the

realm of discussion

 

this discussion occurs within imagination

 

 

Bill

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002

wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote:

> >

> >

> > In a message dated 4/22/2006 1:50:46 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

> > Nisargadatta writes:

> >

> > Sat, 22 Apr 2006 03:15:16 -0000

> > " billrishel " <illusyn@>

> > Re: Bill's Account of Inner Exploration

>

>

> > ...Peace is when it *really doesn't matter*.

> >

> >

> > Bill

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Yup, and maybe if it really, truly doesn't matter, the 0 becomes a

> 1. That

> > damn well better be the case or I'll really be mad! Hehe.

>

>

>

>

> If it really, truly doesn´t matter, then the understanding doesn´t

> matter. I don´t think there is such a thing as " doesn´t matter " ,

> this is just another goal ego sets to avoid suffering.

> Suffering does matter, understanding does matter, freedom from

> illusions does matter, goodness does matter.

> It´s just that suffering cannot end through escape, through a fight

> against it, so we have no other choice then going through pain. But

> pretending that pain doesn´t matter makes us insensitive and not

> capable of understanding. It is not fun, we cannot make ourselves

> indifferent, we can only pretend to be indifferent, which will make

> us dumb, insensitive.

> If we are interested in understanding, it is exactly because it does

> matter, more then anything. Understanding is the purpose of life.

>

> Len

>

 

so you *believe*?

 

so much theory in these words...

 

Now just is

 

indifferent to whatever words

 

 

Bill

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn

wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@>

> wrote:

 

 

> > If it really, truly doesn´t matter, then the understanding

doesn´t

> > matter. I don´t think there is such a thing as " doesn´t matter " ,

> > this is just another goal ego sets to avoid suffering.

> > Suffering does matter, understanding does matter, freedom from

> > illusions does matter, goodness does matter.

> > It´s just that suffering cannot end through escape, through a

fight

> > against it, so we have no other choice then going through pain.

But

> > pretending that pain doesn´t matter makes us insensitive and not

> > capable of understanding. It is not fun, we cannot make

ourselves

> > indifferent, we can only pretend to be indifferent, which will

make

> > us dumb, insensitive.

> > If we are interested in understanding, it is exactly because it

does

> > matter, more then anything. Understanding is the purpose of life.

> >

> > Len

 

 

 

> so you *believe*?

 

 

 

No, things just do matter to me. A lot.

I´m not clinging to being indifferent in order not to feel, in order

to avoid suffering, because this is sick. And a denial.

I care about my own life an about others, and if this leads to

suffering, I go right in it and through it and I suffer as much as

it takes. And the beautiful thing is, that this suffering is not

only cleansing, but when it ends, there is no left over, no emotion,

no clinging, no sorrow, no fear, no " me " , just clarity of freedom.

 

 

 

 

> so much theory in these words...

 

 

No theory whatsoever.

 

 

 

> Now just is

>

> indifferent to whatever words

>

>

> Bill

>

 

 

You wish.

This is what I call theory ;-)

 

Len

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002

wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@>

> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@>

> > wrote:

>

>

> > > If it really, truly doesn´t matter, then the understanding

> doesn´t

> > > matter. I don´t think there is such a thing as " doesn´t matter " ,

> > > this is just another goal ego sets to avoid suffering.

> > > Suffering does matter, understanding does matter, freedom from

> > > illusions does matter, goodness does matter.

> > > It´s just that suffering cannot end through escape, through a

> fight

> > > against it, so we have no other choice then going through pain.

> But

> > > pretending that pain doesn´t matter makes us insensitive and not

> > > capable of understanding. It is not fun, we cannot make

> ourselves

> > > indifferent, we can only pretend to be indifferent, which will

> make

> > > us dumb, insensitive.

> > > If we are interested in understanding, it is exactly because it

> does

> > > matter, more then anything. Understanding is the purpose of life.

> > >

> > > Len

>

>

>

> > so you *believe*?

>

>

>

> No, things just do matter to me. A lot.

> I´m not clinging to being indifferent in order not to feel, in order

> to avoid suffering, because this is sick. And a denial.

> I care about my own life an about others, and if this leads to

> suffering, I go right in it and through it and I suffer as much as

> it takes. And the beautiful thing is, that this suffering is not

> only cleansing, but when it ends, there is no left over, no emotion,

> no clinging, no sorrow, no fear, no " me " , just clarity of freedom.

>

 

So it is good for you then... follow the path

that suits you...

 

But what is for you is not necessarily for others.

 

 

> > so much theory in these words...

>

>

> No theory whatsoever.

>

>

>

> > Now just is

> >

> > indifferent to whatever words

> >

> >

> > Bill

> >

>

>

> You wish.

 

where there are no words, how can words possibly

matter?

 

'indifference' as used there is not an *attitude*...

it refers to a non-distinguishing

 

you are quick to judge

 

perhaps you have no understanding of what I am saying

 

which is OK

 

I am not expecting my words to be understood

 

they are just there for consideration

 

 

Bill

 

 

> This is what I call theory ;-)

>

> Len

>

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002

wrote:

>

> 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

>

 

bliss?

 

a low and minor state

 

don't hang onto it!

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn

wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@>

> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@>

> > wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 "

<lissbon2002@>

> > > wrote:

> >

> >

> > > > If it really, truly doesn´t matter, then the understanding

> > doesn´t

> > > > matter. I don´t think there is such a thing as " doesn´t

matter " ,

> > > > this is just another goal ego sets to avoid suffering.

> > > > Suffering does matter, understanding does matter, freedom

from

> > > > illusions does matter, goodness does matter.

> > > > It´s just that suffering cannot end through escape, through

a

> > fight

> > > > against it, so we have no other choice then going through

pain.

> > But

> > > > pretending that pain doesn´t matter makes us insensitive and

not

> > > > capable of understanding. It is not fun, we cannot make

> > ourselves

> > > > indifferent, we can only pretend to be indifferent, which

will

> > make

> > > > us dumb, insensitive.

> > > > If we are interested in understanding, it is exactly because

it

> > does

> > > > matter, more then anything. Understanding is the purpose of

life.

> > > >

> > > > Len

> >

> >

> >

> > > so you *believe*?

> >

> >

> >

> > No, things just do matter to me. A lot.

> > I´m not clinging to being indifferent in order not to feel, in

order

> > to avoid suffering, because this is sick. And a denial.

> > I care about my own life an about others, and if this leads to

> > suffering, I go right in it and through it and I suffer as much

as

> > it takes. And the beautiful thing is, that this suffering is not

> > only cleansing, but when it ends, there is no left over, no

emotion,

> > no clinging, no sorrow, no fear, no " me " , just clarity of

freedom.

> >

>

> So it is good for you then... follow the path

> that suits you...

>

> But what is for you is not necessarily for others.

>

>

> > > so much theory in these words...

> >

> >

> > No theory whatsoever.

> >

> >

> >

> > > Now just is

> > >

> > > indifferent to whatever words

> > >

> > >

> > > Bill

> > >

> >

> >

> > You wish.

>

> where there are no words, how can words possibly

> matter?

>

> 'indifference' as used there is not an *attitude*...

> it refers to a non-distinguishing

>

> you are quick to judge

>

> perhaps you have no understanding of what I am saying

>

> which is OK

>

> I am not expecting my words to be understood

>

> they are just there for consideration

>

>

> Bill

>

>

> > This is what I call theory ;-)

> >

> > Len

 

 

 

I only replied to your message, Bill. You were talking about belief

and theory in my attitude, but this is not the case.

I don´t expect my words to be understood either. However, it could

be a nice surprise ;-)

 

Len

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn

wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@>

> wrote:

> >

> > 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

> >

>

> bliss?

>

> a low and minor state

>

> don't hang onto it!

 

 

Sorry for even having mentioned this minor state.

It´s only Peace, right?

 

Len

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002

wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@>

> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@>

> > wrote:

> > >

> > > 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

> > >

> >

> > bliss?

> >

> > a low and minor state

> >

> > don't hang onto it!

>

>

> Sorry for even having mentioned this minor state.

> It´s only Peace, right?

>

> Len

>

 

No it is blISs

sat chit ananda

[Guest guest]

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

Nisargadatta writes:

 

Tue, 25 Apr 2006 23:14:18 -0000

" lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002

Re: Bill's Account of Inner Exploration

 

Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn

wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@>

> wrote:

 

 

> > If it really, truly doesn´t matter, then the understanding

doesn´t

> > matter. I don´t think there is such a thing as " doesn´t matter " ,

> > this is just another goal ego sets to avoid suffering.

> > Suffering does matter, understanding does matter, freedom from

> > illusions does matter, goodness does matter.

> > It´s just that suffering cannot end through escape, through a

fight

> > against it, so we have no other choice then going through pain.

But

> > pretending that pain doesn´t matter makes us insensitive and not

> > capable of understanding. It is not fun, we cannot make

ourselves

> > indifferent, we can only pretend to be indifferent, which will

make

> > us dumb, insensitive.

> > If we are interested in understanding, it is exactly because it

does

> > matter, more then anything. Understanding is the purpose of life.

> >

> > Len

 

 

 

> so you *believe*?

 

 

 

No, things just do matter to me. A lot.

I´m not clinging to being indifferent in order not to feel, in order

to avoid suffering, because this is sick. And a denial.

I care about my own life an about others, and if this leads to

suffering, I go right in it and through it and I suffer as much as

it takes. And the beautiful thing is, that this suffering is not

only cleansing, but when it ends, there is no left over, no emotion,

no clinging, no sorrow, no fear, no " me " , just clarity of freedom.

 

 

 

 

Yes, that's a pursuit of truth. No games, no pretenses, just always looking

to see how it is, how it's actually being seen, how it actually feels, what is

actually believed, feared, desired.

 

Phil

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002

wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@>

> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@>

> > wrote:

> > >

> > > 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

> > >

> >

> > bliss?

> >

> > a low and minor state

> >

> > don't hang onto it!

>

>

> Sorry for even having mentioned this minor state.

> It´s only Peace, right?

>

> Len

>

 

Not if " Peace " is considered a " state " ...

 

Bill

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002

wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@>

> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@>

> > wrote:

> > >

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

> > > wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 "

> <lissbon2002@>

> > > > wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > > > > If it really, truly doesn´t matter, then the understanding

> > > doesn´t

> > > > > matter. I don´t think there is such a thing as " doesn´t

> matter " ,

> > > > > this is just another goal ego sets to avoid suffering.

> > > > > Suffering does matter, understanding does matter, freedom

> from

> > > > > illusions does matter, goodness does matter.

> > > > > It´s just that suffering cannot end through escape, through

> a

> > > fight

> > > > > against it, so we have no other choice then going through

> pain.

> > > But

> > > > > pretending that pain doesn´t matter makes us insensitive and

> not

> > > > > capable of understanding. It is not fun, we cannot make

> > > ourselves

> > > > > indifferent, we can only pretend to be indifferent, which

> will

> > > make

> > > > > us dumb, insensitive.

> > > > > If we are interested in understanding, it is exactly because

> it

> > > does

> > > > > matter, more then anything. Understanding is the purpose of

> life.

> > > > >

> > > > > Len

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > so you *believe*?

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > No, things just do matter to me. A lot.

> > > I´m not clinging to being indifferent in order not to feel, in

> order

> > > to avoid suffering, because this is sick. And a denial.

> > > I care about my own life an about others, and if this leads to

> > > suffering, I go right in it and through it and I suffer as much

> as

> > > it takes. And the beautiful thing is, that this suffering is not

> > > only cleansing, but when it ends, there is no left over, no

> emotion,

> > > no clinging, no sorrow, no fear, no " me " , just clarity of

> freedom.

> > >

> >

> > So it is good for you then... follow the path

> > that suits you...

> >

> > But what is for you is not necessarily for others.

> >

> >

> > > > so much theory in these words...

> > >

> > >

> > > No theory whatsoever.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > Now just is

> > > >

> > > > indifferent to whatever words

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Bill

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > > You wish.

> >

> > where there are no words, how can words possibly

> > matter?

> >

> > 'indifference' as used there is not an *attitude*...

> > it refers to a non-distinguishing

> >

> > you are quick to judge

> >

> > perhaps you have no understanding of what I am saying

> >

> > which is OK

> >

> > I am not expecting my words to be understood

> >

> > they are just there for consideration

> >

> >

> > Bill

> >

> >

> > > This is what I call theory ;-)

> > >

> > > Len

>

>

>

> I only replied to your message, Bill. You were talking about belief

> and theory in my attitude, but this is not the case.

> I don´t expect my words to be understood either. However, it could

> be a nice surprise ;-)

>

> Len

>

 

ahhh... yes!

 

on all counts

[Guest guest]

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

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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

 

 

 

Not caring is a sickness, an expression of self which cares only

about itself, and would do anything to keep itself alive and pain

free.

Ironically, not caring leads ultimately to a kind of inner death,

only the mechanical, dead structure of self remains.

 

Len

[Guest guest]

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´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

 

 

 

I think it is.

If you don´t care about what comes up, why would you care about

anybody?

 

Len

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

--- billrishel <illusyn a écrit :

 

 

 

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

 

What you just wrote evoque my last post, and it is a

lot about not being in the way, and yet fully

blossomed in what is :

a flower fully is,

it doesn`t give or care,

it is the full exxpression of its beauty and

fragrance, no matter what.

Those aren`t mystical words.

They are an ultimate reality as far as I can see.

And it has to be tasted.

 

Patricia

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

**

 

If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to

change your subscription, sign in with your ID

and go to Edit My Groups:

 

/mygroups?edit=1

 

Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email "

for the Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes.

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , OConnor Patricia <gdtige wrote:

>

>

> --- billrishel <illusyn a écrit :

>

>

>

> 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

>

> What you just wrote evoque my last post, and it is a

> lot about not being in the way, and yet fully

> blossomed in what is :

> a flower fully is,

> it doesn`t give or care,

> it is the full exxpression of its beauty and

> fragrance, no matter what.

> Those aren`t mystical words.

> They are an ultimate reality as far as I can see.

> And it has to be tasted.

>

> Patricia

>

>

>

>

 

 

And you.......are one of God's better tasters.

 

 

 

toombaru

[Guest guest]

<snip>

 

> > > > 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

>

> What you just wrote evoque my last post, and it is a

> lot about not being in the way, and yet fully

> blossomed in what is :

> a flower fully is,

> it doesn`t give or care,

> it is the full exxpression of its beauty and

> fragrance, no matter what.

> Those aren`t mystical words.

> They are an ultimate reality as far as I can see.

> And it has to be tasted.

>

> Patricia

 

Interesting word you use there: " tasted "

Nisargadatta makes frequent use of the term " taste " ,

as in:

[the jnani's] state is not so desolate. It tastes

of the pure, uncaused, undiluted bliss.

 

And I am brought to recall the words of a friend who

himself has gone " beyond " into silence when once I

spoke of the " sweetness " of inner silence and emptiness.

He said, " That's a sure sign of someone who has really

experienced it, to speak of the 'sweetness' of it! "

 

Your fluid words speaking of the fragrance and the

taste are evidence that you speak from an actuality

of experience, and not from cogitations. [Will the

cogitators will find your words heretical and declare

them as nonsense?]

 

re:

> What you just wrote... is a

> lot about not being in the way, and yet fully

> blossomed in what is :

> a flower fully is,

> it doesn`t give or care,

> it is the full exxpression of its beauty and

> fragrance, no matter what.

 

You are absolutely right about the " not being in

the way " . The work I described with the mentally

ill is just like that... there is no doer, and

so the " magic " can happen, which you refer to here

with the image of a blossom unfolding. And your

image of the flower conveys the futher meaning that

what unfolds is not arbitrary or chance, but as

rooted in the depth of What Is as the unfolding of

a flower is rooted in the seed.

 

In short, what you say here is astonishingly

profound. But I had to really read carefully

to grasp the many layers of meaning. I'm afraid

many readers here will not take that trouble.

 

You refer to your immediately prior post. I went

back and looked at that. It is very short:

 

There is a very center of what is.

There is only that very very center, allowing

whatever, being quiet, attentive and small so as not

to shadow anything.

Not here but with...

 

I already responded to that, saying that I didn't

get what you meant by " center of what is " . Now that

I have read your comments in *this* post I better

understand what you mean by " center of what is " .

It seems to me that what you mean by the " center "

in relation to " what is " is like the relation of

the seed to the flower. And seeing it that way

what you wrote in that previous post makes beautiful

sense. And you have shown me a profound,

deeper way of looking at the matter of being

quite simply and openly in the Now.

 

You are so completely outside the [mainstreet

nondual] box in what you have to say!

 

Some (many?) here seem to speak as if from a central

doctrine of some sort. Certain things are clearly

" wrong " from such a view. But there is a big

difference betweeen nondualism as a " philosophy "

and nondual living/being in dynamic manifestation.

Such dynamic manifestation cares not for rules

and says what it pleases. How unruly!

 

But anything else (read: less) is simply vapors

of yearning.

 

Bill

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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