|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 1, 2013 22:33:09 GMT -5
The question is: Who is shifting attention? (Hint: one can see it in the results of the attention shift 'who' that actually was) Shifting attention, two things are noticed: (1)A cornucopia of sensations including a lingering questioning state; and (2) somesortof presence, being, exisiting (?), knowingness. The question 'who is shifting attention?' presupposes a who doing the shifting. To answer the question requires a temporary adornment of a who to say who. I was talking in the context of what Niz said: |
|
|
|
Post by steven on Oct 1, 2013 22:33:20 GMT -5
it can be advantagious to understand, what these words are meant to mean. Sure words are words like roses are roses. Handles. Ego being is a word "I" (which is just another label) must get-to the bottom of if "I" must understand root-meanings. The whole idea of ego was ill-conceived. kinda like tits on a boar Yeah |
|
|
|
Post by steven on Oct 1, 2013 22:37:39 GMT -5
Silence and Enigma: When Papaji says this: You have two choices: Either you follow most teachers and spend your life trying to remove or clean out the mind. First you will have to find out if the mind exists. No one has seen the mind. Even if you found it, how do you propose to clean it? Everyone is practicing cleaning the mind but there is no one so far who has cleaned it. Where is this mind to be cleaned? Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/3112/keep-quiet-attack-allowed-thread#ixzz2gWLu87r4What do you think he is talking about? And do you agree or disagree? As an aside, Papaji stated very clearly that mostly what he offered when he suggested stuff like this in his talks was just a temporary feelgoodism, a temporary glimpse so to speak, and yet, my own experiences suggest that there is much more that mental stability and health in play here, and Ramana and most of the great sages have recommended not getting engaged in mental "fixing" and stuff, and instead to meditate. Also, the "method" of clearing the vasanas/conditioning recommended by all of them is basically what Papaji has recommended here. I agree that its not ALL about meditation alone, if it were Pantanjal's 8 fold path would be a threefold path and not have things like honesty and compassion and self restraint written in. But on the other hand, continuous meditation using things like the "who am I" inquiry seems to take the energy out of the vasanas and by degrees release attachments. When asked how to clear the vasanas, Ramana was VERY clear in saying that ONLY the "Who am I" inquiry (in its various iterations like who is thinking this thought) was needed. What say you? Seems like mind is always interested in doing something about mind... Mind is generally interested in avoiding doing anything about mind, which is understandable. If, by that you mean that mind is often avoiding doing anything about undoing itself, then I agree, but mind does seem to be interested in "improving" itself quite a lot...i.e. its capacity, and state of health, emotional stability and happiness etc... "Self" perpetuation and improvement seems to be an activity that mind is very content with :-) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2013 22:38:34 GMT -5
it can be advantagious to understand, what these words are meant to mean. Sure words are words like roses are roses. Handles. Ego being is a word "I" (which is just another label) must get-to the bottom of if "I" must understand root-meanings. The whole idea of ego was ill-conceived. kinda like tits on a boar who's ego-concept is the one you're referring to? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2013 22:40:03 GMT -5
The whole idea of ego was ill-conceived. kinda like tits on a boar Yeah which concept are you referring to? |
|
|
|
Post by steven on Oct 1, 2013 22:41:42 GMT -5
which concept are you referring to? Any... |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Oct 1, 2013 22:42:12 GMT -5
The whole idea of ego was ill-conceived. kinda like tits on a boar who's ego-concept is the one you're referring to? Freud started it, but everyone who uses it who thinks they understand some special concept...that's who I'm referring to. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2013 22:43:57 GMT -5
which concept are you referring to? what takes the bait? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2013 22:45:48 GMT -5
who's ego-concept is the one you're referring to? Freud started it, but everyone who uses it who thinks they understand some special concept...that's who I'm referring to. dont know his concept, cept, in st I saw he was a fan of cocaine. Perhaps it was his ego that was drawn to it? To my knowledge, life needs no-other. |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Oct 1, 2013 22:47:53 GMT -5
Freud started it, but everyone who uses it who thinks they understand some special concept...that's who I'm referring to. dont know his concept, cept, in st I saw he was a fan of cocaine. Perhaps it was his ego that was drawn to it? To my knowledge, life needs no-other. cocaine is an addicting substance. some may find it so and others not. obviously, it sucked him in. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2013 22:48:00 GMT -5
If ego is something that rises an falls
like the ocean, what is it that stays behind in the heart?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2013 22:49:05 GMT -5
dont know his concept, cept, in st I saw he was a fan of cocaine. Perhaps it was his ego that was drawn to it? To my knowledge, life needs no-other. cocaine is an addicting substance. some may find it so and others not. obviously, it sucked him in. was his invention of ego before or after his jaunt into cocaine? |
|
|
|
Post by steven on Oct 1, 2013 22:51:15 GMT -5
Shifting attention, two things are noticed: (1)A cornucopia of sensations including a lingering questioning state; and (2) somesortof presence, being, exisiting (?), knowingness. The question 'who is shifting attention?' presupposes a who doing the shifting. To answer the question requires a temporary adornment of a who to say who. I was talking in the context of what Niz said: That kinda quote from Niz never made any sense, in that the inner watcher needs to teaching so to speak, I've always considered quotes like that to just be a "skillful means" of developing a fascination of the inner watcher in his sanyasins so that they may more easily stick with the practice of keeping attention on the I AM. Ramana just suggested always coming back to the "Who am I" inquiry to do this, while Niz seemed to used a different approach of developing a fascination with the I AM in his students to draw their attention. Not unlike Gautama saying that it can be useful to tell an distracted child that there is a wonderful toy outside to get them to leave a burning house if you cannot go in and "get them"....Niz seemed to do a lot of mystfying of the I AM to turn it into a shiny bauble that drew the seekers attention, while Ramana just used a human's inherently curious nature to do the same thing. |
|
|
|
Post by silence on Oct 1, 2013 22:53:02 GMT -5
Zakly. It's the crutches that are being lost, and need to be lost because they were the wrong way to bring stability to instability resulting from erroneous beliefs. In a way, one has to back up and stop doing the wrong thing and start doing the right thing, and in between it might hurt a little, but the more honest one is willing to be, the more quickly that nonsense will be over. Seekers may spend their whole lives trying to avoid that 'dark night', but it's made up of only resistance. Silence and Enigma: When Papaji says this: You have two choices: Either you follow most teachers and spend your life trying to remove or clean out the mind. First you will have to find out if the mind exists. No one has seen the mind. Even if you found it, how do you propose to clean it? Everyone is practicing cleaning the mind but there is no one so far who has cleaned it. Where is this mind to be cleaned? Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/3112/keep-quiet-attack-allowed-thread#ixzz2gWLu87r4What do you think he is talking about? And do you agree or disagree? You could say there's no mind and you could also say there's nothing outside of mind to experience in any shape or form. Both statements would be correct and depending on who you're speaking to, one, both or neither may need to be said. A great deal of effort may be dropped if one stops objectifying mind and creating pointless conflict. This is what I hear him saying. This however does not mean that because mind is not a thing that mind is suddenly irrelevant. Unfortunately, it is the only relevant obstacle you face in the regard of distortion to reality. |
|
|
|
Post by steven on Oct 1, 2013 22:54:56 GMT -5
dont know his concept, cept, in st I saw he was a fan of cocaine. Perhaps it was his ego that was drawn to it? To my knowledge, life needs no-other. cocaine is an addicting substance. some may find it so and others not. obviously, it sucked him in. Haha, "Ego" seems to be the TMT creation of a guy hopped on a little white horse lol Having said that, there is this kind of survival instinct of "selfhood" that only gets more subtle as the person refines, but never leaves while the person remains. |
|
