Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2011 12:12:12 GMT -5
as zd seems to say, i think of mindfulness as sort of allowing everything to happen, even thoughts. but the thoughts just arise and pass away and the content of the thoughts is not engaged in (in theory). I say in theory because as a beginner i obviously do engage in them frequently. at that point the mindfulness practice i use is to come back to an object of attention -- for me usually the breath around the nostril area, or counting the breath -- and after some bit of anchoring, release the anchor and let whatever happens to happen again. mostly it's just bodily sensations but also thoughts (but the brain is just a thought sense organ, right?).
how is that different than attending the actual?
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Mar 9, 2011 13:19:28 GMT -5
Max: Perhaps it isn't different, but in my case I was primarily interested in leaving thoughts behind, so whenever I became aware of thoughts, I shifted attention to what could be seen or heard. I had spent so much of my life in my head, that I wanted to leave head-knowing behind. I wanted to experience life like a young child who doesn't do much thinking, or isn't concerned with thinking. The most direct path to that way of interacting with the world that I could see was to focus on seeing and hearing. This approach, in retrospect, seems far more directed, energetic, and intense than what most people call "mindfulness" or "resting in awareness." I wasn't interested in being aware of thoughts; I was interested in seeing, hearing, and feeling "what is."
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Mar 9, 2011 13:29:45 GMT -5
Max: Perhaps it isn't different, but in my case I was primarily interested in leaving thoughts behind, so whenever I became aware of thoughts, I shifted attention to what could be seen or heard. I had spent so much of my life in my head, that I wanted to leave head-knowing behind. I wanted to experience life like a young child who doesn't do much thinking, or isn't concerned with thinking. The most direct path to that way of interacting with the world that I could see was to focus on seeing and hearing. This approach, in retrospect, seems far more directed, energetic, and intense than what most people call "mindfulness" or "resting in awareness." I wasn't interested in being aware of thoughts; I was interested in seeing, hearing, and feeling "what is." The easiest way to see the difference in these two approaches is to sit in a chair, close the eyes, and listen to whatever sounds can be heard. Try to "hold onto" the sounds by becoming a giant ear. If thoughts appear (and they will), ignore them and return to pure hearing. Most people will find that it is extraordinarily difficult to sustain pure hearing without being distracted by thoughts. After experimenting with hearing, one can then experiment with pure seeing. This is even more difficult because vision conjures more thoughts than hearing. If one persists, thoughts eventually diminish in frequency and duration, and one's attention returns to "what is" more and more often.
|
|
|
Post by grapefruit on Mar 9, 2011 13:31:38 GMT -5
Passed through the gateless gate about an hour ago, what did it for me is doing zendancer attending the actual with writing.
What I would do is just auto type into the keyboard and at the same time pay attention to the untruth of the words I was writing, like I was writing all the shit in my head onto the page in plain sight. Just looking at the typing and attending the actuality of it constantly.
What caused recognition to happen in the end was seeing how much of a haze I was in, literally just look at the unconsciousness and know there is a way out of it, this grew into a burning desire to get the hell out of the vain haze of ego. I was literally completely breaking down in frustration with it. Eventually it just utterly defeats you, and you just stop.
When the itch for not being in an unconscious dream becomes so strong you just cannot handle it you will break free.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Mar 9, 2011 13:44:09 GMT -5
I'll drink to that! Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by grapefruit on Mar 9, 2011 14:09:00 GMT -5
I must thank you for your description of attending the actual, it's what helped me to really understand spiritual autolysis.
Attending the actual seems to be the core of the practice and the writing is what grounds you in the moment, it's not really there for anything else other than to take you away from the hazeyness so what you write doesn't matter so much as looking at what is actually going on while your doing it, constantly bringing yourself back to the actuality of the typing. Everything I typed was pretty much total melt down crap and I'd be embarrassed as hell to let anyone see it. You just write whatever and let the truth do the heavy lifting for you.
|
|
|
Post by question on Mar 27, 2011 14:40:51 GMT -5
Hi ZD, I'm quoting you from the "True Advaita" thread: It's hard to see the truth when "True Advaita" is blocking one's vision. LOL Empty suchness in all directions. Not emptiness. Not suchness. Simply what the words point to. Nothing to teach, nothing to learn, nothing to clear up, nothing to do, nothing happening. "Haven't you recognized by now that its the same old fellow?" "Today, walking along, I meet him everywhere I turn. He is the same as me, but I am not him." A bird sings out a single note. "When it fades, we fade." Is suchness the same as form in the context of "form is emptiness, emptiness is form"? If suchness is the same as empty form and if emptiness is the same as form insofar as emptiness is a reflection about form, then how can we attend to the actual if the actual always appears as suchness? I've always thought that suchness and form are different things in the sense that suchness is an actual experience and form is a labeling of that experience. But you seem to be saying that suchness is itself form and the actual is not this suchness and that when the eyes actually sees, then that seeing is still illusion (but relative to what that isn't itself form?)?
|
|
|
Post by klaus on Mar 27, 2011 15:51:00 GMT -5
Question,
Form is emptiness, emptiness is form. Suchness is simultaneously emptiness and form.
Form IS emptiness, emptiness IS form.
The mind will never see this.
|
|
|
Post by question on Mar 27, 2011 16:10:22 GMT -5
So then suchness is neither emptiness nor form?
It's just that if we classify suchness as form then that classification is unjustified and therefore empty? And if we define suchness as empty, then this definition is still a form (and therefore empty)?
So then these thoughts/experiences of emptiness/form are still suchness, but the content of these thoughts doesn't contain its own suchness? They appear as suchness, but their content never touches this suchness?
Because what you've described is some kind of a paradox or because "language =/= reality"?
|
|
|
Post by klaus on Mar 27, 2011 16:14:28 GMT -5
In words it is paradox.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Mar 27, 2011 16:22:33 GMT -5
Question, Form is emptiness, emptiness is form. Suchness is simultaneously emptiness and form. Form IS emptiness, emptiness IS form. The mind will never see this. Yes. Another way of saying it is that suchness is beyond ideation. Suchness="what is" and is unimaginable.
|
|
|
Post by question on Mar 27, 2011 16:24:27 GMT -5
Hm, it looks more like a pointer to me and not a paradox. I think it would be a paradox if suchness is defined exclusively as emptiness/form, but if suchness is defined as a "neither/nor and yet this this this" then it would be a pointer to the actual experience of suchness containing the idea about suchness but also beyond any idea about what suchness is.
|
|
|
Post by question on Mar 27, 2011 16:27:48 GMT -5
Yes. Another way of saying it is that suchness is beyond ideation. Suchness="what is" and is unimaginable. I see. My problem is with the bolded part in the quote below: ZD: Empty suchness in all directions. Not emptiness. Not suchness.
|
|
|
Post by mamza on Mar 27, 2011 21:02:52 GMT -5
Things are neither real, nor unreal. From the perspective of emptiness, form does not exist. From the perspective of form, emptiness does not exist. It's a game of perspective--this vs. that. If you drop both real and not real, what is left?
When I'm washing my dishes, ideas about emptiness and suchness don't matter. There are only dishes being washed (unless I'm thinking about it, LOL).
|
|
|
Post by karen on Mar 28, 2011 21:49:02 GMT -5
Hm, it looks more like a pointer to me and not a paradox. I think it would be a paradox if suchness is defined exclusively as emptiness/form, but if suchness is defined as a "neither/nor and yet this this this" then it would be a pointer to the actual experience of suchness containing the idea about suchness but also beyond any idea about what suchness is. It might have to do with not being able to see yourself directly. That might be the direction. But keep in mind, if the word suchness is sticky, chose whatever you'd like to call what is.
|
|