Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Sleep
May 13, 2011 13:58:04 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2011 13:58:04 GMT -5
didn't Snarky say something about how thinking can be like peeling a potato? It was somewhere on his website or maybe a podcast. Snarky says "Well.....yeah....Like, duh!" Sorry, he can be a bit snarky sometimes. The irony is that thinking becomes both effortful and unproductive when we enter the thought stream because we go blind. We're no longer looking with awareness and instead we're manipulating memory, trying to reorganize what we already think we know as though it will reveal something new that we don't know, or we imagine a problem and go about trying to solve the imaginary problem. Doing also becomes effortful in the same way. The thought stream usually involves resistance to what is being done because we don't want to do it, and yet it's the thought that's it's a problem that causes it to be experienced as an effort. Peeling potatoes is just peeling potatoes. so thinking is possible while also being aware of it? or no? thoughts come and go. that is, i can see them start to begin and just fade...if i don't engage. Engaging in the thoughts -- mebbe what you're calling believing in them -- leads to thinking/daydreaming or whatever. i am only aware of those episodes in retrospect, it seems. in that there is an experience of getting off the train..."wow i've been on that train for a while, wonder why i got off here?" in either case, who cares? say i'm caught up thinking something filled with fear and worry. then it ends and i'm like okay time to smell the roses or listen to the HVAC...what next? Or maybe i'm thinking something that is amusing to myself and i find myself chuckling or smiling...and then it stops and back to square one, right here right now. that's life, eh? i can't remember a time while thinking/daydreaming is happening that i was also aware of it. personal defect or just human nature? when jed mckenna calls himself enlightened with an asterisk (ABIDING nondual awareness) it implies to this simple mind that he's nonconceptually aware all the time, ie during thinking as well. [btw, that asterisk thingy doesn't seem very nondual PC]
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Sleep
May 13, 2011 14:02:36 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2011 14:02:36 GMT -5
where can i get a can of that direct seeing? ...and a can opener? What I'm suggesting is stepping out of the thought stream and remaining as the observer. What this amounts to is becoming fully conscious, because getting caught in the thought stream is unconsciousness. It's a kind of trance in which thoughts are no longer questioned in the same way that the odd events in our nightly dreams aren't questioned, because we imagine ourselves to be in the dream rather than observing it. From within the dream, all that matters is what is in the dream. Likewise, in the thought stream, all that matters is the content of thought. Thoughts and feelings become meaningful and true and there's nothing to imply that they aren't. one issue i have with the concept of direct seeing or clear seeing is that i am very skeptical that what i see is clear or 'what is.' there are so many little biological and psychological little leaps that have to happen for sensations to register wherever in this brain. who am i to judge whether it is clear or direct?
|
|
|
Sleep
May 13, 2011 15:21:56 GMT -5
Post by enigma on May 13, 2011 15:21:56 GMT -5
Snarky says "Well.....yeah....Like, duh!" Sorry, he can be a bit snarky sometimes. The irony is that thinking becomes both effortful and unproductive when we enter the thought stream because we go blind. We're no longer looking with awareness and instead we're manipulating memory, trying to reorganize what we already think we know as though it will reveal something new that we don't know, or we imagine a problem and go about trying to solve the imaginary problem. Doing also becomes effortful in the same way. The thought stream usually involves resistance to what is being done because we don't want to do it, and yet it's the thought that's it's a problem that causes it to be experienced as an effort. Peeling potatoes is just peeling potatoes. Well, I'm saying thinking can happen while 'looking'. The thinking happens spontaneously and doesn't require you to do it, which really means it's not necessary for you to position yourself as the doer of the thinking, which really means that the attention that you are does not need to enter the thought stream that is appearing within your attention and cause the thoughts to happen. It's a little like imagining that you have to control all the muscle movements in your face in order to talk. It just happens, right? Not only would that become very tedious, you would sound weird. Hehe. The belief that it IS necessary to enter the thought stream and cause thoughts, results in a sense of effort, which we all recognize as a heaviness. You're aware that 'some' thoughts happen spontaneously because you notice that you don't start thought streams, but being pulled into those thoughts and positioning yourself as the thinker creates the impression that there are other thoughts that are not spontaneous, and yet the entire stream is spontaneous even if it's conditioned by the belief that you are the one doing the thinking. As I type this, there is an empty space of 'looking', and there are pauses where there are no thoughts occurring, only a kind of waiting, but with a focus of attention in which seeing happens and thoughts arise as an expression of that seeing. Never do i enter the thought stream and leave that empty space. The thinking/typing is, therefore, effortless. The only time thinking happens is when trying to understand something that somebody wrote from within a complex thinking process, and it's necessary for me to follow that process, which does become effortful. Sometimes the interest in those posts fades completely and I move on, though I don't mean any disrespect to anyone. Yeah, watching thoughts is the attention on thoughts that withdraws energy from that spontaneous process, but it also means you're not attending to anything else. You're not looking, seeing, noticing anything, you're just waiting at the door for the next thought to happen, which won't happen as long as you're attention is on watching. The mind won't be happy with that for very long. To me, engaging with the thoughts means positioning yourself as the one doing the thinking, which is a kind of falling into the thoughts and going unconscious. If you're amused by riding that roller coaster, I guess it's not a problem. If you ever find that you wanna get off it, you can probly do that too. Right, because instead of standing on the bank of the river looking, you got knocked unconscious and fell in. Hehe. Yeah. I'm having some 'issues' with Jed at the moment. Hehe.
|
|
|
Sleep
May 13, 2011 15:32:37 GMT -5
Post by enigma on May 13, 2011 15:32:37 GMT -5
What I'm suggesting is stepping out of the thought stream and remaining as the observer. What this amounts to is becoming fully conscious, because getting caught in the thought stream is unconsciousness. It's a kind of trance in which thoughts are no longer questioned in the same way that the odd events in our nightly dreams aren't questioned, because we imagine ourselves to be in the dream rather than observing it. From within the dream, all that matters is what is in the dream. Likewise, in the thought stream, all that matters is the content of thought. Thoughts and feelings become meaningful and true and there's nothing to imply that they aren't. one issue i have with the concept of direct seeing or clear seeing is that i am very skeptical that what i see is clear or 'what is.' there are so many little biological and psychological little leaps that have to happen for sensations to register wherever in this brain. who am i to judge whether it is clear or direct? Direct seeing isn't a process happening in the brain. It's not a process at all (timeless) and doesn't involve knowledge (non-conceptual), so it's not subject to all those doubts you refer to. Essentially, direct seeing isn't the seeing of 'something', it's realization, clarity. It's pre-thought. Thought engages as a conceptual expression of that clarity, which is necessary in order to inform mind as to the falsity of it's conceptual boundaries. In this, nothing is added to mind, only taken away. The 'space' that results grows larger and mind becomes quieter.
|
|
|
Sleep
May 13, 2011 18:28:30 GMT -5
Post by Portto on May 13, 2011 18:28:30 GMT -5
Why would anyone tell "You're dreaming" to a dream character?
|
|
|
Sleep
May 13, 2011 19:05:13 GMT -5
Post by enigma on May 13, 2011 19:05:13 GMT -5
Could only be the dreamer wanting to wake up, eh?
|
|
|
Sleep
May 13, 2011 20:15:31 GMT -5
Post by Portto on May 13, 2011 20:15:31 GMT -5
^^ Oh yes, that must be it!
|
|
|
Sleep
May 13, 2011 20:20:01 GMT -5
Post by Portto on May 13, 2011 20:20:01 GMT -5
i can't remember a time while thinking/daydreaming is happening that i was also aware of it. personal defect or just human nature? What about when you wrote these lines? I'm sure you were aware of writing and thinking. We are never completely un-aware of being a witness, although we can go very deep into thought.
|
|
|
Sleep
May 13, 2011 20:23:12 GMT -5
Post by Portto on May 13, 2011 20:23:12 GMT -5
one issue i have with the concept of direct seeing or clear seeing is that i am very skeptical that what i see is clear or 'what is.' there are so many little biological and psychological little leaps that have to happen for sensations to register wherever in this brain. who am i to judge whether it is clear or direct? If there are so many steps, what is the first step in seeing? And more importantly, what is the last step that happens before the sensation registers (is seen)? If there may be confusion about the initial steps, how can the last step not be clear?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Sleep
May 13, 2011 20:43:19 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2011 20:43:19 GMT -5
Well, I'm saying thinking can happen while 'looking'. The thinking happens spontaneously and doesn't require you to do it, which really means it's not necessary for you to position yourself as the doer of the thinking, which really means that the attention that you are does not need to enter the thought stream that is appearing within your attention and cause the thoughts to happen. It's a little like imagining that you have to control all the muscle movements in your face in order to talk. It just happens, right? Not only would that become very tedious, you would sound weird. Hehe. The belief that it IS necessary to enter the thought stream and cause thoughts, results in a sense of effort, which we all recognize as a heaviness. You're aware that 'some' thoughts happen spontaneously because you notice that you don't start thought streams, but being pulled into those thoughts and positioning yourself as the thinker creates the impression that there are other thoughts that are not spontaneous, and yet the entire stream is spontaneous even if it's conditioned by the belief that you are the one doing the thinking. well i don't really think i have any choice in the matter --whether i'm attending to thinking and other stuff or just unconscious in the stream. the whacked on the side of the head, falling into the river, rather than watching it, just sort of happens. it's only when i drag myself back onto the bank sputtering that i recognize that i've been swept away. (you seem to stomach a lot more complexity than most) yes, i can do that -- typing while looking. so yes, i see what you mean.... this sort of looking while typing seems to be an entirely different animal than the sort of unconscious swept up in the stream type of mental activity. it's a lot harder, for me, to get caught in the stream while typing -- there's often reflection going on with typing, editing, clarifying... (perhaps this is some of the allure of engaging in this forum.) if what there is is this. everything. that includes being swept up in the stream. that 'experience' comes and goes as does everything else. you're right, there's a lot of other 'actual' stuff that happens that is a lot richer than just that fantasy and this is understood. having an asterisk would be nice! but that's just a thought floating by. this ATA and noticing...it makes sense. and more and more of it is happening over here. it's sort of a mystery to me however why it happens spontaneously. what is it that suddenly spurs me to crawl back up onto the bank to inspect the driftwood? i can understand getting whacked unconsciuos and falling into the river -- some sort of investment in a ripening thought. i suppose one of the life rings are pointers...becoming more accident prone... how does one do this FULL STOP?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Sleep
May 13, 2011 20:48:29 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2011 20:48:29 GMT -5
Direct seeing isn't a process happening in the brain. It's not a process at all (timeless) and doesn't involve knowledge (non-conceptual), so it's not subject to all those doubts you refer to. Essentially, direct seeing isn't the seeing of 'something', it's realization, clarity. It's pre-thought. Thought engages as a conceptual expression of that clarity, which is necessary in order to inform mind as to the falsity of it's conceptual boundaries. In this, nothing is added to mind, only taken away. The 'space' that results grows larger and mind becomes quieter. so basically skepticism is moot. if there's skepticism /doubt, it's a different subject (and probably worthy of skepticism/doubt). i know pre-thought. by definition doubts don't arise. really looking forward to that 'space!' but now i'm just creating another little expectation and becoming aware of it and forcibly smushing it with some alphanumeric text.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Sleep
May 13, 2011 20:50:54 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2011 20:50:54 GMT -5
i can't remember a time while thinking/daydreaming is happening that i was also aware of it. personal defect or just human nature? What about when you wrote these lines? I'm sure you were aware of writing and thinking. We are never completely un-aware of being a witness, although we can go very deep into thought. touché
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Sleep
May 13, 2011 20:56:47 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2011 20:56:47 GMT -5
one issue i have with the concept of direct seeing or clear seeing is that i am very skeptical that what i see is clear or 'what is.' there are so many little biological and psychological little leaps that have to happen for sensations to register wherever in this brain. who am i to judge whether it is clear or direct? If there are so many steps, what is the first step in seeing? And more importantly, what is the last step that happens before the sensation registers (is seen)? If there may be confusion about the initial steps, how can the last step not be clear? i think what i'm confusing is the meaning of seeing as a sense perception and seeing as noticing in the awareness sense. as a sense perception, i'll defer to a neuroscientist to define the steps. but this direct seeing is pointing to something else. the direct part seems to refer to non-conceptual? prior to any sort of mental interpretation or reaction -- not prior in the time sense but prior in the sense of more fundamental. it's a mystery.
|
|
waddicalwabbit
Full Member
Let's all go down the wabbit hole
Posts: 125
|
Sleep
May 13, 2011 21:04:23 GMT -5
Post by waddicalwabbit on May 13, 2011 21:04:23 GMT -5
Yeah. they don't get it. It's contraindicated. Like trying to teach a pig to fly. I was thinking about someone the other day. They were in angst. It occurred to me, "they're only human". Got a inner giggle out of that.
|
|
|
Sleep
May 13, 2011 23:10:44 GMT -5
Post by ivory on May 13, 2011 23:10:44 GMT -5
You're not looking, seeing, noticing anything, you're just waiting at the door for the next thought to happen, which won't happen as long as you're attention is on watching. The mind won't be happy with that for very long. To me, engaging with the thoughts means positioning yourself as the one doing the thinking, which is a kind of falling into the thoughts and going unconscious. You said the mind won't be happy with that for very long. But, there really isn't a mind is there? Just a stream of thought. I don't know this for, but judging by the nature of thought, it seems as such... Thought, memory, emotion, "reality" (or the senses), dreams ... it's all consciousness. Sometimes I think I can kind of understand what Steven Norquist meant when he said to remember the formula: Universe= Consciousness. Whoa nelly! I like your analogy of the river. That's exactly how it feels... One minute I'm watching the river flow by, the next I'm being swept away by it. It's very interesting to me how that happens.
|
|