Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Wisdom posted on the GuruRatings group

Expand Messages
  • medit8ionsociety
    Thanks to Bill Rishel for letting us repost his his excellent discussion about that which can t be discussed. Another way that he shares is in his art which
    Message 1 of 1 , Sep 28, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Thanks to Bill Rishel for letting us repost his
      his excellent discussion about that which can't
      be discussed. Another way that he shares is in
      his art which well demonstrates the adage
      "One picture is worth a thousand words".
      His enlightening work can be found at:

      Being present and "practice"

      To practice anything in order to change oneself is a
      process of becoming. A process of becoming involves
      time. Being present "this moment" is a timelessness.

      But this deserves a deeper discussion...

      I've been on a "spiritual path" for my entire adult life
      (over 40 years). I am able to look back and see how
      differently certain concepts have appeared to me at
      different stages. The concept of "living in the present"
      was one that was presented to me from very early on.
      My understanding of what that means has changed dramatically
      over the years. This tells me that saying something like
      "being totally present" means widely different things
      to different people. How am I to make clear what I really

      Early on I understood the notion of "being present" as
      simply noticing my sensations in a given moment. I
      experienced that as me being in the moment *for a
      moment*. Being in the moment in a sustained way - such
      as what Nisargadatta talks about - I didn't have any
      notion of.

      Being in the moment in a sustained way requires a
      losing of any sense of "self". Is this not obvious? For
      in the moment there are only sensations. There is no
      time, nothing persists. All is totally immediate. Yet,
      to go from experiencing as with a sense of self to a
      total immediacy without a sense of self involves a
      profound transformation. It is not something that can
      be comprehended intellectually, nor can it be "tried"
      experimentally to "see what it is like".

      As I see it, complete honesty in the face of
      experience leads to an end of sense of self and the
      total immediacy of what is. By "complete honesty" I
      mean a dedication to honesty, to truth, that goes
      beyond concern for outcomes.

      For me experience has totally changed to where I can't
      really even speak of "my experience" per se. When sense
      of self has died into "immediacy of now", it becomes such
      a profoundly alive depth, it is utterly undescribable.
      It is continually astonishing, and yet never the same.
      The very notion of "what it is like" is even
      meaningless. Yet that last statement will be
      incomprehensible to all but those who already know
      directly for themselves. There is a real difficulty in
      speaking of that which is beyond description!

      Immediacy, what is, the present... is a richly deep and
      dynamic vastness (though a vastness that is not a "space"
      in that there is no sense of location nor even of "inside"
      of...; so the word is used here for its connotation, not
      its denotation.). But when experience is through the
      lens of a sense of self, it is as if seeing through a
      tiny straw, and the fullness of "what is" not beheld.

      When experience is fully confronted with complete
      honesty the illusory nature of "self" comes
      (eventually) to be realized.[1] It comes to be seen that
      the nature of things already is detachment, that
      nothing needs to be changed. A notion of "waking up"
      then, is a coming to see unflinchingly what is, as the
      distorting lens of "self" dissolves and "what is" comes
      to be seen ever more directly.

      The account above is not based on ideas or theory,
      nor is it based on accounts by others. It cannot
      really be said that it is based on "my experience"
      in the sense that in a very real way what is written
      here comes from a place of "absence". These words
      come forth from imponderable silence.

      Presumably the sceptical reader will be dissatisfied
      with this account. But nothing can be done.

      A reasonable question remains to be addressed, if not
      answered. If "the moment", Now, is timeless, and so
      nothing persists in Now and there is no continuity in
      Now... then how is it that things appear to continue?
      The clock on the wall continues to tick, the refrigerator
      continues to hum. Or, what is perhaps the same question
      put a different way, if the moment is only sensation,
      how is it that there is what is not only sensation,
      such as ideas, and things (in the world)?

      That is perhaps the most difficult question for which I
      have sought an an explanation for some time. The short
      answer is that things only "appear" to exist and
      continue. [Note that to exist and to continue are
      essentially the same, hence the two quesions above are
      essentially the same.]

      There is at this moment alive, vibrant sensation...
      "what is" teems with sensation, yet the typing goes
      on. There is no "sense" of the typing as an "act",
      there is no "sense" of a "someone" doing the typing,
      there is no "sense" of a topic or of a point being
      made. There is no "steering" involved. All is happening
      of its own. If there is any magic, that is it. But
      it has always been happening of its own. Before it
      seemed as if there were someone doing what is done.
      Now it is clear there is no one doing.

      The difference between "normal functioning" and
      "selfless functioning" is in the absence of a sense
      of self as driver of what is going on. The sense of
      "onself" as a driver is an unnecessary encumberance
      that clouds full, open consciousness and creates
      distortions in both perception and action.


      [1] I don't actually *know* that, but am quite certain
      nevertheless. It seems to follow from the conclusion
      that "there is no self". Do I *know* that there is
      no self? I can't see any basis for one. It is a
      concept, and is not immediately experiencable.
      What presents in the immediacy of the moment is all
      I am willing to call real. Based on that, I say there
      is no self.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.