|
Post by zendancer on May 27, 2011 22:32:56 GMT -5
The problem for most people is that they believe their thoughts, and they get attached to their thoughts, and they get lost in their thoughts, and their thoughts become so incessant that the verbal chatter itself becomes a bit crazy (as in, "I can't get away from the dialogue I'm having with myself!").
Thinking consumes a lot of energy, and the most productive energetic people I have ever met were people who were intensely focused upon the actual and did not spend much time reflecting. These people were not enlightened, but they were extremely present. They rarely second-guessed themselves or reflected upon whether they liked or didn't like what they were doing; they just did whatever had to be done, and then did the next thing that had to be done. They were "in the zone" without knowing they were in the zone or even knowing that there is such a thing as the zone. The only difference between these type of "do it" people and enlightened people is that they think they are human beings, and are still attached to various political or religious belief systems.
As E. says, when there is non-abidance in the mind, thinking is no problem. Thoughts appear and thoughts disappear, but they don't stick, and there is no one who has to defend them.
|
|
|
Post by therealfake on May 28, 2011 9:52:32 GMT -5
What is the action, non-action, non-judging, looking, not looking, doing, not doing, etc....of non-abidance?
Is it not just another clever thought?
Aren't you referring to the judging mind as the target of non-abidance? The chooser of this and not that? Making a thought right, because that then makes the thinker right?
Non-abidance seems like a nice thought, but is it a Reality?
It seems to me abidance is functioning for the sole purpose of creating false idols. Don't you have to delve into the reality or illusionary nature of that first?
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on May 28, 2011 14:10:38 GMT -5
What is the action, non-action, non-judging, looking, not looking, doing, not doing, etc....of non-abidance? Is it not just another clever thought? Aren't you referring to the judging mind as the target of non-abidance? The chooser of this and not that? Making a thought right, because that then makes the thinker right? Non-abidance seems like a nice thought, but is it a Reality? It seems to me abidance is functioning for the sole purpose of creating false idols. Don't you have to delve into the reality or illusionary nature of that first? TRF: The phrase "non-abidance" is pointing to a state in which there is no identification with mind or the ideas that pour forth from mind. It is a state of freedom. If there is searching or seeking for anything, then the mind is still in control, and some subtle (or not-so-subtle) sense of selfhood remains extant. When the sense of selfhood totally evaporates, freedom is what ensues. I often say that various "structures of thought" support the sense of selfhood. I have no idea what these structures are, but they must go deep into our past, and are probably formed in early childhood. When we first imagine that we are separate from the world around us, and we learn that we have a name, these thoughts probably start "laying down tracks" in the brain that are then built upon as years go by. Every time there is a self-referential thought, and every feeling that we identify as personal, reinforces our sense of separateness. In fact, our entire imaginary world emanates from our sense of separation. It has been claimed that the average adult thinks 60,000 thoughts each day, and most of those thoughts probably revolve around selfhood. Think of the cumulative effect of forty years of self-centered thinking! This is why an intellectual understanding that selfhood is an illusion has no power. It is all on the surface. To break free requires great persistence and great attentiveness of the actual. Bernadette Roberts and others have written about what happens as the structures of thought supporting selfhood collapse. It can often lead to a strange sense of being disembodied, and Roberts writes about how she completely forgot about her personal appearance. She began to view the body like a houseplant--something that needed to be watered and minimally cared for, but which had nothing to do with her. How this happens with each person is somewhat different, but it is like diving deeper and deeper into the source of selfhood until the total falsity of it is finally recognized in some tangible way. Occasionally, the entire artificial edifice of selfhood suddenly collapses, but more often, the collapse is sequential, as one sees through more and more aspects of the illusion. I can only say that when the deepest structures collapse, it is a discontinuous event that happens in a split second. Only when that final event happens is there finally freedom from the illusion. It may be that when the illusion fully collapses, the mind and its thoughts are no longer viewed in the same way as before. Whatever the case may be, I can only say that non-abidance is NOT a clever thought. It is what remains after the structure of selfhood collapses along with attachment to clever thoughts. The idea that non-abidance is a clever thought is, itself, a clever thought, and the idea that THAT idea is a clever thought is a clever thought (ha ha), but that is NOT what is being pointed to with the phrase "non-abidance."
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 28, 2011 15:31:20 GMT -5
Zen: "Bernadette Roberts and others have written about what happens as the structures of thought supporting selfhood collapse. It can often lead to a strange sense of being disembodied, and "Roberts writes about how she completely forgot about her personal appearance. She began to view the body like a houseplant--something that needed to be watered and minimally cared for, but which had nothing to do with her."
My houseplants keep dying from lack of attention, which might explain some other things. Hehe.
|
|
|
Post by therealfake on May 28, 2011 18:29:14 GMT -5
What is the action, non-action, non-judging, looking, not looking, doing, not doing, etc....of non-abidance? Is it not just another clever thought? Aren't you referring to the judging mind as the target of non-abidance? The chooser of this and not that? Making a thought right, because that then makes the thinker right? Non-abidance seems like a nice thought, but is it a Reality? It seems to me abidance is functioning for the sole purpose of creating false idols. Don't you have to delve into the reality or illusionary nature of that first? TRF: The phrase "non-abidance" is pointing to a state in which there is no identification with mind or the ideas that pour forth from mind. It is a state of freedom. If there is searching or seeking for anything, then the mind is still in control, and some subtle (or not-so-subtle) sense of selfhood remains extant. When the sense of selfhood totally evaporates, freedom is what ensues. I often say that various "structures of thought" support the sense of selfhood. I have no idea what these structures are, but they must go deep into our past, and are probably formed in early childhood. When we first imagine that we are separate from the world around us, and we learn that we have a name, these thoughts probably start "laying down tracks" in the brain that are then built upon as years go by. Every time there is a self-referential thought, and every feeling that we identify as personal, reinforces our sense of separateness. In fact, our entire imaginary world emanates from our sense of separation. It has been claimed that the average adult thinks 60,000 thoughts each day, and most of those thoughts probably revolve around selfhood. Think of the cumulative effect of forty years of self-centered thinking! This is why an intellectual understanding that selfhood is an illusion has no power. It is all on the surface. To break free requires great persistence and great attentiveness of the actual. Bernadette Roberts and others have written about what happens as the structures of thought supporting selfhood collapse. It can often lead to a strange sense of being disembodied, and Roberts writes about how she completely forgot about her personal appearance. She began to view the body like a houseplant--something that needed to be watered and minimally cared for, but which had nothing to do with her. How this happens with each person is somewhat different, but it is like diving deeper and deeper into the source of selfhood until the total falsity of it is finally recognized in some tangible way. Occasionally, the entire artificial edifice of selfhood suddenly collapses, but more often, the collapse is sequential, as one sees through more and more aspects of the illusion. I can only say that when the deepest structures collapse, it is a discontinuous event that happens in a split second. Only when that final event happens is there finally freedom from the illusion. It may be that when the illusion fully collapses, the mind and its thoughts are no longer viewed in the same way as before. Whatever the case may be, I can only say that non-abidance is NOT a clever thought. It is what remains after the structure of selfhood collapses along with attachment to clever thoughts. The idea that non-abidance is a clever thought is, itself, a clever thought, and the idea that THAT idea is a clever thought is a clever thought (ha ha), but that is NOT what is being pointed to with the phrase "non-abidance." Like a 3 year old would ask, which I'm still trying to figure out, or not figure out, or just feel, or just not feel, is this " State" Is it not the same as "being"? Is being not a state, or is the state your talking about different? Isn't it just staying as the awareness, which isn't a state but simple moment to moment attention? Pointing to a state, means it's not available now, here, in the present moment. Can you elaborate on the state of the state, for us 3 year olds?... Thanks in advance...
|
|
|
Post by Portto on May 28, 2011 20:08:33 GMT -5
Zendancer: How are you holding on with all those tornadoes?
|
|
|
Post by Portto on May 28, 2011 20:09:50 GMT -5
My houseplants keep dying from lack of attention, which might explain some other things. Hehe. So you're feeding the squirrels, but not the houseplants?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 28, 2011 20:46:37 GMT -5
TRF: The phrase "non-abidance" is pointing to a state in which there is no identification with mind or the ideas that pour forth from mind. It is a state of freedom. If there is searching or seeking for anything, then the mind is still in control, and some subtle (or not-so-subtle) sense of selfhood remains extant. When the sense of selfhood totally evaporates, freedom is what ensues. I often say that various "structures of thought" support the sense of selfhood. I have no idea what these structures are, but they must go deep into our past, and are probably formed in early childhood. When we first imagine that we are separate from the world around us, and we learn that we have a name, these thoughts probably start "laying down tracks" in the brain that are then built upon as years go by. Every time there is a self-referential thought, and every feeling that we identify as personal, reinforces our sense of separateness. In fact, our entire imaginary world emanates from our sense of separation. It has been claimed that the average adult thinks 60,000 thoughts each day, and most of those thoughts probably revolve around selfhood. Think of the cumulative effect of forty years of self-centered thinking! This is why an intellectual understanding that selfhood is an illusion has no power. It is all on the surface. To break free requires great persistence and great attentiveness of the actual. Bernadette Roberts and others have written about what happens as the structures of thought supporting selfhood collapse. It can often lead to a strange sense of being disembodied, and Roberts writes about how she completely forgot about her personal appearance. She began to view the body like a houseplant--something that needed to be watered and minimally cared for, but which had nothing to do with her. How this happens with each person is somewhat different, but it is like diving deeper and deeper into the source of selfhood until the total falsity of it is finally recognized in some tangible way. Occasionally, the entire artificial edifice of selfhood suddenly collapses, but more often, the collapse is sequential, as one sees through more and more aspects of the illusion. I can only say that when the deepest structures collapse, it is a discontinuous event that happens in a split second. Only when that final event happens is there finally freedom from the illusion. It may be that when the illusion fully collapses, the mind and its thoughts are no longer viewed in the same way as before. Whatever the case may be, I can only say that non-abidance is NOT a clever thought. It is what remains after the structure of selfhood collapses along with attachment to clever thoughts. The idea that non-abidance is a clever thought is, itself, a clever thought, and the idea that THAT idea is a clever thought is a clever thought (ha ha), but that is NOT what is being pointed to with the phrase "non-abidance." Like a 3 year old would ask, which I'm still trying to figure out, or not figure out, or just feel, or just not feel, is this " State" Is it not the same as "being"? Is being not a state, or is the state your talking about different? Isn't it just staying as the awareness, which isn't a state but simple moment to moment attention? Pointing to a state, means it's not available now, here, in the present moment. Can you elaborate on the state of the state, for us 3 year olds?... Thanks in advance... Most 3-year olds I've known don't complicate things so much. Hehe.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 28, 2011 20:49:03 GMT -5
My houseplants keep dying from lack of attention, which might explain some other things. Hehe. So you're feeding the squirrels, but not the houseplants? The squirrels are better at asking for what they want.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2011 14:08:41 GMT -5
it's real absurd to try and talk about this non-abidance in mind pointer! walk your talk, etc.
okay, abiding a bit...
i like the spirit of trf's question. i also wonder if non-abidance in the mind can be mistaken for a practice or false idol. it seems over here that thoughts come up and this is due perhaps to 'structures of thought' as zd points. so they come up and are watched and there they go. non-attachment. and then i play rocket ship with my son and most of it is just pure play, minimal mental distraction. that's the natural state, eh? but i hear/read about all these really special sounding already-fully-accessible 'objectives' like non-abidance in the mind, abiding nondual awareness, etc. and i start to wonder and abide if this 'natural state' of play or washing dishes or whatever is not the whole enchilada and i need to be somehow more present more natural more non-abiding.
blah blah just an abideful rant
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on May 30, 2011 7:34:03 GMT -5
What is the action, non-action, non-judging, looking, not looking, doing, not doing, etc....of non-abidance? Is it not just another clever thought? Aren't you referring to the judging mind as the target of non-abidance? The chooser of this and not that? Making a thought right, because that then makes the thinker right? Non-abidance seems like a nice thought, but is it a Reality? It seems to me abidance is functioning for the sole purpose of creating false idols. Don't you have to delve into the reality or illusionary nature of that first? Breaking the habit of judging is usually a first step toward non-abidance. One realizes that judging separates one from reality and begins making an effort to look at the world without judging. One looks at some aspect of the world that was once judged and simply attends the actual in silence. However, one can become significantly non-judgmental without becoming free. After non-abidance occurs, judging appears but it is no longer judging. It is simply an acceptance of "what is" as it is, and this is seen without attachment. This kind of non-judging judging is not self-centered. It is profoundly empty. This is what the mythical (?) Yaqui sorcerer in the Carlos Castenada books was pointing to when he and Carlos were sitting at a sidewalk cafe and watching people walk by. I've forgotten the sorcerer's name, but he was telling Carlos about the "tonal" and the "nargwahl (sp?)" and how he could perceive people's state of mind by observing them carefully. His judgment of people did not make him feel better about himself or separate him from reality; it was simply a realization of how reality was manifesting through a particular embodiment.
|
|