Guest guest Report post Posted April 24, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > All effort is medicine for a disease that does not exist. > > > toombaru > > > > Is that why I can't get my insurance company to pick up the tab? > > Phil > > > 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 9:21:50 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Mon, 24 Apr 2006 00:16:39 EDT > epston > Re: The Present > > In a message dated 4/23/2006 9:03:45 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > ADHHUB > writes: > > > > > Sure. Was just discussing with Dan whether 'being present' involves memory > > > or not.......That's all. > > > L.E: Sure memory exists in the present it is just free from the emotional > charge that keep us from being in the present. > > > > In my experience, it's not just emotional charge that keeps us from being in > the present, unless you label all mental activity as emotional charge. The > thought of a past event, or a future projection, whether positive, negative or > neutral, will keep you out of the present and locked in thought. Even the > simple mental labeling of what is perceived, which is a memory process, will > keep you out of the present. > > Phil Then you are talking about a present that has an outside to it, and believe you exist separately from it, to be able not to be in it. -- D. 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 1:56:53 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 20:07:12 -0000 " dan330033 " <dan330033 Re: The Present Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > All effort is medicine for a disease that does not exist. > > > toombaru > > > > Is that why I can't get my insurance company to pick up the tab? > > Phil > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Let's start an insurance company to pay people for damages due to results of behavior " in which volition was assumed. " The cost of the insurance will be $2,000,000,000 per year, which should be enough to cover the average amount of damage to the average person. -- D. That sounds reasonable. If we then made the insurance mandatory, it might stop all the lawsuits. Phil 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 1:56:53 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 20:12:50 -0000 " dan330033 " <dan330033 Re: The Present Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/23/2006 9:21:50 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Mon, 24 Apr 2006 00:16:39 EDT > epston > Re: The Present > > In a message dated 4/23/2006 9:03:45 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > ADHHUB > writes: > > > > > Sure. Was just discussing with Dan whether 'being present' involves memory > > > or not.......That's all. > > > L.E: Sure memory exists in the present it is just free from the emotional > charge that keep us from being in the present. > > > > In my experience, it's not just emotional charge that keeps us from being in > the present, unless you label all mental activity as emotional charge. The > thought of a past event, or a future projection, whether positive, negative or > neutral, will keep you out of the present and locked in thought. Even the > simple mental labeling of what is perceived, which is a memory process, will > keep you out of the present. > > Phil Then you are talking about a present that has an outside to it, and believe you exist separately from it, to be able not to be in it. -- D. Well, I don't know that that's how I see the description, although it's true I see myself as physically separate from what I perceive. The term " present " is perhaps a misnomer, which I didn't invent it. One can focus on memory, thought, feeling, or simply be aware of what apparently is, without attempting to label and construct mental images. Both are occurring in the present in which we are physically present. I'm also not a big fan of that game, just addressing Lary's comments about it. Phil 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 1:56:53 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 18:59:57 -0000 " dan330033 " <dan330033 Re: The Present Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/23/2006 4:45:56 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Sun, 23 Apr 2006 09:45:38 -0000 > " dan330033 " <dan330033 > Re: The Present > > --- In Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > Such concepts have nothing to do with foregoing the use of memory, > which is > > all being present means. > > No need to forego memory. > > Do you think memory occurs somewhere outside of the present? > > Maybe memory occurs within a memory of a memory within a memory, ad > infinitum. > > Or maybe not. > > ;-) > > -- D. > > > > Lordy, lets hope not. ~ > Of course, the focus on memory occurs in the present, since there is only > the present, but it's a mental reconstruction, and isn't the idea to avoid such > mentations as much as possible? The attempt to avoid a certain kind of mentation is itself requiring of a type of mentation. The intent to gain a certain desired state by avoiding certain mentations, is a self-oriented intent. How can following an intention to get a certain result bring truth - truth which isn't dependent nor following one's intent, which doesn't have a " you " or " me " to revolve around? The chief benefit from trying to follow prescriptions to avoid certain kinds of thought, is to see that such prescriptions fail. There isn't any prescription for truth -- regardless of all of the proclamations, agendas, rituals, practices, to the contrary. And knowing that there is no prescription isn't itself some kind of prescription, doesn't give the truth any more than a prescription does. The truth must be known without mediation, including mediation by thought -- but that doesn't mean that one can't think. Thought has its uses, just as one will put on a coat if it is cold outside, there are actions for which thought and premeditation can be useful, or necessary. But thought simply can't yield what isn't a thought construct. -- D. Agreed. Again, just addressing the issue, not recommending the practice. Phil 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 1:56:53 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 18:20:33 -0000 " dan330033 " <dan330033 Re: The Present You can inquire deeply, beyond words and ideas, what it is to " be " -- not what it means to be, but what it is to be ... The inquiry is deeply individual ... until there is not an individual. But the inquiry can't be avoided, and its personal nature can't be sidestepped. It is inquiry into one's own being and death. To understand is to know what *is* prior to one's own birth and existence. No such understanding can come without the inquiry into what it is to be ... The inquiry must be of the depth to question the very foundations of the existence that previously was taken as rock-solid: the foundations of pleasure, relationship, fear, self, wanting, holding, getting rid of ... As long as there is clinging to existence or desire for nonexistence, there can't be understanding. And in this sense, the inquiry is deeply personal -- and can't be had from reading what some supposed " sage " said, or by conceptually knowing how to answer questions according to some religion or philosophy. It is known first hand, this unknowing. Not through mediation, and doesn't allow for " embedding " in any reality, personal or impersonal (the supposed " impersonal reality " just ends up being a construction for personal benefit). So, truth, being so deeply impersonal as to not be found in any construction of an impersonal reality, is discovered by the individual taken beyond himself or herself, at the point of crisis and emergency brought about by the deepest inquiry of everything previously taken as " sanity, " " pleasure, " " reality, " and " meaning " . And with resolution, one is back again living day to day as a human being, with the pleasures and pains, relationships, and meanings of everday life. -- Dan Good stuff, Dan. Thanks. Phil 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 11:58:37 -0000 > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 > Re: The Present > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 4/22/2006 9:14:18 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > Sat, 22 Apr 2006 14:13:04 -0000 > > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > > Re: The Present & Looking Backwards.. > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Don't say no, Len, > > > > > > Just ask tennis players. They will tell you that they are > training > > > not to use conscioiousness to react to the approaching ball - > > their > > > brain learns to react without consciously seeing the ball. > > > > > > Because consciousness is always to late the same also is with > > boxers > > > or soccer keepers, etc. > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > I have no idea what you mean with consciousness, but there is > > obviously something which isn´t too late. > > But please tell me, what is it that you are too late for? > > > > Len > > > > > > > > For an imaginary present. Now ain't that a kick in the synaptic > gap? > > > > Yes, I wonder what does he need this concept for? > > Len > > > > Perhaps he is in the business of building conceptual boundaries designed to > make infinite possibilities appear limited? Where I come from, this is called > 'putting God in a box'. What for? My guess is, that it´s an excuse not to take responsibility for one´s own limitations. If I´m always too late, per definition, it´s not my fault and nothing can be done. Len 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 12:05:51 -0000 > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 > Re: The Present > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 4/22/2006 6:36:27 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > Sat, 22 Apr 2006 22:46:34 -0000 > > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > > Re: The Present & Looking Backwards.. > > > > Nisargadatta , " bigwaaba " <bigwaaba@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " > <lissbon2002@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Len, > > > > > > > > > > NoOne is to late. But if you say " I am consciousness " then > you > > > are > > > > > always to late. > > > > > > > > > > > > Then I have to repeat myself: > > > > Too late for what? > > > > > > > > len > > > > > > > > > > > > " To forget this illusion is the sole means to > > > kill the mind and remain as Bliss. > > > Though Shiva, Vishnu, or > > > Brahman Himself should instruct you, realisation is not > > > possible without this one means. > > > Without forgetting > > > everything, fixity as the Self is impossible. Therefore > > > altogether forget everything. " > > > > > > -- Advaita bodha Deepika > > > > > > > > Nothing is more doomed to fail then trying to forget anything on > > purpose ;-) > > > > Len > > > > > > > > Well, I'd put a few more things in that same category of futility. > Trying to > > not think, trying to surrender, trying to accept, trying to > believe, trying > > to be effortless, trying to be desireless, trying to be egoless, > trying to be > > spiritual, trying to be enlightened, trying to be...... > > > In other words: effort. > > Len > > > > Zackly. And so it can be said that the effort must always be directed toward > the goal of awareness that results in the releasing of effort rather than an > attempt to cause the releasing of effort directly. I´m affraid though, that if one makes awareness into a goal, one will keep thinking about awareness, producing plenty of thoughts about it and focusing attention on their content. Awareness cannot be a goal, because it is completely effortless. The only effect of effort to be aware are just more thoughts. Do you ever relaxe, lay on your back, and just do nothing, want nothing, even not to be aware? If you do that, you will notice that awareness is always taking place, whether you want it, or not. Len Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 25, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > Yes, of course it's speculation. > > > > So it´s useless, it´s just an image. > > Len > > > > Everything in the mind is an image, Len. Every word written in these posts > is a concept that isn't True. Every thought you ever had exists only in the > realm of thought. Speculation is no more useless than what passes for knowing in > the illusion. Is the monitor you're looking at now real, or is that just > speculation? If you believe one answer makes it useful and the other makes it > useless, you're going to want to know which it is. It's just another quest to > take us down the rabbit hole. How far down the rabbit hole do you wanna go? Not everything is speculation. Speculation is when you talk about so called " facts " which you´ve never seen though. You imagine something to be such and such, however, you have no idea what you´re talking about, because you´ve never seen this thing. Imagine somebody asks you the way to the nearest gas station. You have no idea where the gas station is and start speculating: maybe it´s to the left? maybe it´s to the right? maybe it´s in the centre? maybe there is no gas station in this city? This is not helpful, you better tell the guy to ask somebody else, who knows where the gas station is, instead of speculating. However, if I pay you a visit, and ask you whether you have a cold beer for me, you just open the fridge, look and say: yes or no. No speculation involved. " Yes, I have a cold beer " is just a sentence, a concept, but you are not speculating, because you see the fact you point to. Len Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 25, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > The speculation was not about being present. I understand what that is > experientially and if at all possible, I'd rather avoid having that discussion > again about how I should try it. What I was speculating about was being TOTALLY > present, which implies no thought at all, which means no memory traces, which > means no experience, which means the one who is TOTALLY present cannot even > know that he has been. You´re trying to imagine the state in which no thought is present. To do that you use thoughts. This is totally pointless. Len > In that way, thought is integral to perception and experience will not occur > without it. Mind is what forms experience, as well as the temporal framework > in which it appears. > > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 25, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > Now, now, lets not be too hard on each other. The mind is a tool to help > deal with ego's self deceptions and is very useful, but the inclination to > follow this path amounts to an identification with thought which means the > ultimate release of the basic ego structure itself (mind) becomes more difficult Not at all. You keep sticking to the idea that it is thought observing. However thought cannot see. Awareness of the ego process has nothing to do with thinking, but possibly thinking is what you understand under awareness. Am I right? In this case it´s a part of ego " observing " the rest of ego. This doesn´t work. Thinking/analysing ego doesn´t bring understanding, maybe it brings partial understanding, but it cannot end the process. Awareness is simply seeing everything which is there, including thoughts. Seeing is beeing. Len > so > Larry has a valid point even if he doesn't acknowledge the value of that > exploration. > > On the other hand, to bypass the ego work and accomplish various states of > presence in meditation or to even carry that over into 'normal' life to some > extent, as wonderful an experience as that is, locks the ego dynamics in place > and ego will take possession of such experiences, becoming identified with > them rather than thought. > > So, I see both paths as valid. In our case, the challenge is to release > mind. In Larry's case, the challenge is to deal with the unexplored ego > structure, so nobody's got a lock on the truth here. However, ultimately, ego is the > problem, so I'm glad to be where I am in that process. > > > 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 23:07:11 -0000 " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 Re: The Present Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > The speculation was not about being present. I understand what that is > experientially and if at all possible, I'd rather avoid having that discussion > again about how I should try it. What I was speculating about was being TOTALLY > present, which implies no thought at all, which means no memory traces, which > means no experience, which means the one who is TOTALLY present cannot even > know that he has been. You´re trying to imagine the state in which no thought is present. To do that you use thoughts. This is totally pointless. Len It was an attempt to point out the fallacy of the idea that being present means no thought or memory. Thought and memory are required in order to have the experience. It may be pointless to you but is it possible it's not pointless to the one who believes there is no thought occurring during that practice? The idea that thought is not absent during this experience of 'presence' was noticed as an intuition. The speculation was just overlaid on top of that. Does that make it less pointless? Phil 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 23:18:31 -0000 " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 Re: The Present Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > Now, now, lets not be too hard on each other. The mind is a tool to help > deal with ego's self deceptions and is very useful, but the inclination to > follow this path amounts to an identification with thought which means the > ultimate release of the basic ego structure itself (mind) becomes more difficult Not at all. You keep sticking to the idea that it is thought observing. However thought cannot see. Awareness of the ego process has nothing to do with thinking, but possibly thinking is what you understand under awareness. Am I right? In this case it´s a part of ego " observing " the rest of ego. This doesn´t work. Thinking/analysing ego doesn´t bring understanding, maybe it brings partial understanding, but it cannot end the process. Awareness is simply seeing everything which is there, including thoughts. Seeing is beeing. Len Perhaps I'm projecting my own inclinations by assuming that one who explores unconscious ego structures, whether through thought or intuition, is inclined toward intellect. Yes, awareness occurs beyond mind, including awareness of unconscious ego structure. Phil 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 22:44:39 -0000 " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 Re: The Present Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/23/2006 7:41:27 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Sun, 23 Apr 2006 12:05:51 -0000 > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 > Re: The Present > > --- In Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 4/22/2006 6:36:27 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > Sat, 22 Apr 2006 22:46:34 -0000 > > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > > Re: The Present & Looking Backwards.. > > > > Nisargadatta , " bigwaaba " <bigwaaba@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " > <lissbon2002@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Len, > > > > > > > > > > NoOne is to late. But if you say " I am consciousness " then > you > > > are > > > > > always to late. > > > > > > > > > > > > Then I have to repeat myself: > > > > Too late for what? > > > > > > > > len > > > > > > > > > > > > " To forget this illusion is the sole means to > > > kill the mind and remain as Bliss. > > > Though Shiva, Vishnu, or > > > Brahman Himself should instruct you, realisation is not > > > possible without this one means. > > > Without forgetting > > > everything, fixity as the Self is impossible. Therefore > > > altogether forget everything. " > > > > > > -- Advaita bodha Deepika > > > > > > > > Nothing is more doomed to fail then trying to forget anything on > > purpose ;-) > > > > Len > > > > > > > > Well, I'd put a few more things in that same category of futility. > Trying to > > not think, trying to surrender, trying to accept, trying to > believe, trying > > to be effortless, trying to be desireless, trying to be egoless, > trying to be > > spiritual, trying to be enlightened, trying to be...... > > > In other words: effort. > > Len > > > > Zackly. And so it can be said that the effort must always be directed toward > the goal of awareness that results in the releasing of effort rather than an > attempt to cause the releasing of effort directly. I´m affraid though, that if one makes awareness into a goal, one will keep thinking about awareness, producing plenty of thoughts about it and focusing attention on their content. Awareness cannot be a goal, because it is completely effortless. The only effect of effort to be aware are just more thoughts. Do you ever relaxe, lay on your back, and just do nothing, want nothing, even not to be aware? If you do that, you will notice that awareness is always taking place, whether you want it, or not. Len I didn't suggest a thought focus on awareness. I said releasing effort comes about through awareness. This awareness occurs in consciousness rather than by thought in the human mind. Phil Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 25, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > I didn't say everything was speculation. Speculation is what we think might > be true, but what we think we know to be true is not true either. Is it True > that mind/ego doesn't exist? No, it's just a concept. Is it true that mind > /ego does exist? No, it's just a concept. Where do we draw the line between what > we think might be true but is false, and what we know to be true but which > is false? > > > Phil You think too much, and get lost in thought constructs. Get down on earth. Just knock your head against the wall, and you will know whether the wall is true or not ;-) Len 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 4/24/2006 5:35:53 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Mon, 24 Apr 2006 23:07:11 -0000 > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 > Re: The Present > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > The speculation was not about being present. I understand what > that is > > experientially and if at all possible, I'd rather avoid having > that discussion > > again about how I should try it. What I was speculating about was > being TOTALLY > > present, which implies no thought at all, which means no memory > traces, which > > means no experience, which means the one who is TOTALLY present > cannot even > > know that he has been. > > > > You´re trying to imagine the state in which no thought is present. > To do that you use thoughts. This is totally pointless. > > Len > > > > It was an attempt to point out the fallacy of the idea that being present > means no thought or memory. Thought and memory are required in order to have the > experience. It may be pointless to you but is it possible it's not pointless > to the one who believes there is no thought occurring during that practice? > The idea that thought is not absent during this experience of 'presence' was > noticed as an intuition. The speculation was just overlaid on top of that. > Does that make it less pointless? > > > Phil You´re always present, there is no condition to being. Being doesn´t depend on the absence or presence of thought or anything else. Only the ego, being a thought process, does depend on the presence of (psychological) thought. Without this thought there is no ego, but you´re still there, because you being doesn´t depend on anything. Len Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 25, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > Perhaps I'm projecting my own inclinations by assuming that one who explores > unconscious ego structures, whether through thought or intuition, is > inclined toward intellect. > > Yes, awareness occurs beyond mind, including awareness of unconscious ego > structure. > > Phil OK, we´re moving again. So it is possible to see the whole thought process creating the illusion of the entity " me " , all together with body sensations/emotions, triggered by the reactions of " me " . In this observation, if done to the end, the ego and emotions collapse. The bodily part of observation is initially not easy, because we aren´t used to it, but in my case, this observation mostly dissolves the reaction and it´s trigger: thought. It is important to watch the body sensation and not to focus on the label which thought gives to the reaction. The name we give to the reaction doesn´t matter, only the bodily structure of it. Len 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 4/22/2006 7:13:12 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Sat, 22 Apr 2006 11:30:01 -0000 > " billrishel " <illusyn > Re: The Present & Looking Backwards.. > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > wrote: > > > > Yes, Big, > > > > Even looking backwards happens in the present. > > > > The interesting thing maybe to add is that data processed in the > > brain need about 200-400 msecs to get conscious. And therefore we > > never really are in the present. > > > > What we see as " present " is just the subjectivity of consciousness " > > and let me remind that Nit said consciousness is just a fever. > Which > > means the present is just a fever. > > > > Werner > > Let's take a look at that. > " We never really are in the present. " > What does that actually mean, thinking it through? > > Does it mean: " Being totally present, " is a joke? > > Bill > > > > Being totally present isn't possible, but not because of perceptual delays. > Or maybe more accurately, if we ever were totally present, we wouldn't know > it, and so couldn't talk about the 'experience'. There would be no experience > of the 'event'. > the Now is not an experience Bill Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 26, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/24/2006 5:35:53 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Mon, 24 Apr 2006 22:44:39 -0000 > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 > Re: The Present > I´m affraid though, that if one makes awareness into a goal, one > will keep thinking about awareness, producing plenty of thoughts > about it and focusing attention on their content. > Awareness cannot be a goal, because it is completely effortless. > The only effect of effort to be aware are just more thoughts. > Do you ever relaxe, lay on your back, and just do nothing, want > nothing, even not to be aware? If you do that, you will notice that > awareness is always taking place, whether you want it, or not. > > Len > > > > I didn't suggest a thought focus on awareness. I said releasing effort comes > about through awareness. This awareness occurs in consciousness rather than > by thought in the human mind. > > Phil You seem to be using the word consciousness in some very particular meaning, unclear to me. Len Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 26, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > And in that way, all beliefs are limiters; concepts only which are never > actual awareness but only boundaries placed on awareness. Unless such ideas are > verified beyond the conceptual mind, they only serve to shackle by being > placed in the service of the ego that mistakes resistance to what is, for true > understanding. I could be mistaken, but it always seems to me I'm meeting > Buddhas on the 'road' who need to be killed, but I'm too busy trying to kill my > own. > > Phil You and your buddhas die in the same instant, which is now. This means that the death of them and you is inevitable, because it is so, now -- and by postponing the inevitable, one necessarily retreats into a wish that is trying to be held by a desire, ad infinitum - a regression into an endless past that has no place to be located. -- D. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 26, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/24/2006 1:56:53 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Mon, 24 Apr 2006 20:07:12 -0000 > " dan330033 " <dan330033 > Re: The Present > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > All effort is medicine for a disease that does not exist. > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > Is that why I can't get my insurance company to pick up the tab? > > > > Phil > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > Let's start an insurance company to pay people for damages due to > results of behavior " in which volition was assumed. " > > The cost of the insurance will be $2,000,000,000 per year, which > should be enough to cover the average amount of damage to the average > person. > > -- D. > > > > That sounds reasonable. If we then made the insurance mandatory, it might > stop all the lawsuits. > > Phil Or, it could lead to endless lawsuits and countersuits -- all with the motive to pay off this year's installment of the mandatory insurance! -- D. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 26, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/24/2006 1:56:53 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Mon, 24 Apr 2006 20:12:50 -0000 > " dan330033 " <dan330033 > Re: The Present > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 4/23/2006 9:21:50 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > Mon, 24 Apr 2006 00:16:39 EDT > > epston@ > > Re: The Present > > > > In a message dated 4/23/2006 9:03:45 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > > ADHHUB@ > > writes: > > > > > > > > Sure. Was just discussing with Dan whether 'being present' > involves memory > > > > > or not.......That's all. > > > > > L.E: Sure memory exists in the present it is just free from the > emotional > > charge that keep us from being in the present. > > > > > > > > In my experience, it's not just emotional charge that keeps us from > being in > > the present, unless you label all mental activity as emotional > charge. The > > thought of a past event, or a future projection, whether positive, > negative or > > neutral, will keep you out of the present and locked in thought. > Even the > > simple mental labeling of what is perceived, which is a memory > process, will > > keep you out of the present. > > > > Phil > > Then you are talking about a present that has an outside to it, and > believe you exist separately from it, to be able not to be in it. > > -- D. > > > > Well, I don't know that that's how I see the description, although it's true > I see myself as physically separate from what I perceive. That's an interesting one to look into deeply. Where *exactly* is the boundary between the observer and the observed, the perceiver and the perceived? -- D. (nothing new below) > The term " present " > is perhaps a misnomer, which I didn't invent it. One can focus on memory, > thought, feeling, or simply be aware of what apparently is, without attempting > to label and construct mental images. Both are occurring in the present in > which we are physically present. I'm also not a big fan of that game, just > addressing Lary's comments about it. > > Phil > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 26, 2006 In a message dated 4/25/2006 2:54:06 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 16:51:58 -0000 " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 Re: The Present Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > Perhaps I'm projecting my own inclinations by assuming that one who explores > unconscious ego structures, whether through thought or intuition, is > inclined toward intellect. > > Yes, awareness occurs beyond mind, including awareness of unconscious ego > structure. > > Phil OK, we´re moving again. So it is possible to see the whole thought process creating the illusion of the entity " me " , all together with body sensations/emotions, triggered by the reactions of " me " . In this observation, if done to the end, the ego and emotions collapse. Phil:Okay, I'll 'look'. The bodily part of observation is initially not easy, because we aren´t used to it, but in my case, this observation mostly dissolves the reaction and it´s trigger: thought. It is important to watch the body sensation and not to focus on the label which thought gives to the reaction. The name we give to the reaction doesn´t matter, only the bodily structure of it. Len Phil: I'm not clear about this " bodily part " . Are you talking about feeling arising in the body out of conflict? This is where we got sidetracked before. Does the negative feeling have to be there for this exploration? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 26, 2006 In a message dated 4/25/2006 2:54:06 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 21:05:17 -0000 " billrishel " <illusyn Re: The Present Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/22/2006 7:13:12 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Sat, 22 Apr 2006 11:30:01 -0000 > " billrishel " <illusyn > Re: The Present & Looking Backwards.. > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > wrote: > > > > Yes, Big, > > > > Even looking backwards happens in the present. > > > > The interesting thing maybe to add is that data processed in the > > brain need about 200-400 msecs to get conscious. And therefore we > > never really are in the present. > > > > What we see as " present " is just the subjectivity of consciousness " > > and let me remind that Nit said consciousness is just a fever. > Which > > means the present is just a fever. > > > > Werner > > Let's take a look at that. > " We never really are in the present. " > What does that actually mean, thinking it through? > > Does it mean: " Being totally present, " is a joke? > > Bill > > > > Being totally present isn't possible, but not because of perceptual delays. > Or maybe more accurately, if we ever were totally present, we wouldn't know > it, and so couldn't talk about the 'experience'. There would be no experience > of the 'event'. > the Now is not an experience Bill How could you know that? It couldn't be your experience that this is so. Phil Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 26, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/25/2006 2:54:06 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Tue, 25 Apr 2006 16:51:58 -0000 > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 > Re: The Present > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > Perhaps I'm projecting my own inclinations by assuming that one > who explores > > unconscious ego structures, whether through thought or intuition, > is > > inclined toward intellect. > > > > Yes, awareness occurs beyond mind, including awareness of > unconscious ego > > structure. > > > > Phil > > > > OK, we´re moving again. So it is possible to see the whole thought > process creating the illusion of the entity " me " , all together with > body sensations/emotions, triggered by the reactions of " me " . > In this observation, if done to the end, the ego and emotions > collapse. > > > > Phil:Okay, I'll 'look'. > The bodily part of observation is initially not easy, because we > aren´t used to it, but in my case, this observation mostly dissolves > the reaction and it´s trigger: thought. It is important to watch the > body sensation and not to focus on the label which thought gives to > the reaction. The name we give to the reaction doesn´t matter, only > > the bodily structure of it. > > Len > > > > > Phil: I'm not clear about this " bodily part " . Are you talking about feeling > arising in the body out of conflict? This is where we got sidetracked before. > Does the negative feeling have to be there for this exploration? No, there are always body sensations which can be observed. However, when you feel relaxed, no tension, this observation comes down to simply enjoying it and letting it be. No suppression, no avoidance takes place, the things simply are as they are and it´s OK, everything is flowing. The interesting point to observe is, when the awareness of body reactions is avoided because of the negative label which thought puts on it. There you have a big deal of unexplored, suppressed body stuff, there you have blind spots. So called negative emotions, any kind of frustration are immediately being labelled by thought, and avoided. This is how fear works. The exploration of negatively labelled sensations dissolves fear attached to them, so that self- defence at this particular area becomes superfluous. Every fear reaction, explored, both: mentally and bodily, dissolves, which means that a part of defence system is gone. It may even cause the whole thing to stop spinning round for some time. What we call emotions are in fact reactions/resistances. When negatively labelled and therefore avoided and unexplored, they remain intact or even strenghten. When explored, they dissolve. They aren´t necessarily very strong, they strenght depends on the intensity of resistance and the degree to which one is aware of them. But even very subtle " negative " reactions can be observed. The hypothesis is, that it is because the awareness of the bodily part of resistance is lacking, that ego defences remain, even if the observation of the mental movement is there. This is certainly true in my case. I´d be interested to hear about your observations. Len Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
