|
Post by nowhereman on Oct 2, 2013 10:08:44 GMT -5
Understood. It depends on who is speaking. The overall consensus is in deep sleep there is no experiencer there to experience anything. However there is Swami Atmananda Krishna Menon who writes in his book Atma Darshan that not only can you be aware of being in deep sleep you can make changes to your life while in deep sleep. To my knowledge he is the only one that I know who takes this view. For myself I can honestly say I never found myself to be in deep sleep nor know anyone that has. Nowhereman So, in general, we can say conditioning is present any time consciousness is present. I would agree with that. I think the word conditioning comes with a lot of baggage. Speaking from a body/mind it's all conditioning. Not just for undesirable traits but for all. We have muscle memory so the more you practice anything physical the better you get at it. We have psychological memory etc. It's all conditioning. Nowhereman
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 2, 2013 12:39:46 GMT -5
There really isn't any momentum to conditioning. One thinks and acts repeatedly because the conditioning that drives the thought each time remains unchanged. Not engaging a particular thought doesn't change the conditioning that gives rise to it. Instead, the need for expression or fulfilment of that thought grows stronger, as it always does in repression. What you're saying is, repress the thoughts and that will make them stop. No, actually, it won't. In my experience the less I engage with the mind the less conditioned responses happen. I.E. I used to try and work out conversations with people ahead of time. Work out what I was gonna say. I no longer engage the thought to work conversations out ahead of time and that thought never surfaces anymore. You seem to be assuming that the thought never surfaces anymore because you chose to not engage it repeatedly. How do you know it never surfaces anymore because you understand it causes anxiety and robs you of spontaneity and doesn't really work very well? I suggest that, as this clarity happened, you naturally first started rejecting the thought consciously, and eventually the interest in forming the thought went away. Mind likes the idea that it caused the thoughts to stop by choosing to stop them, and so that's how it interprets what happened, but it has nothing to do with your choices and everything to do with your clarity. You can't stop thoughts by choosing to stop them. You stop them by changing the conditioning out of which they spontaneously arise; by seeing them clearly for what they are and therefore losing interest in forming the thought to begin with. The end result is the same but understanding how it comes about is important because it determines how you proceed in dealing with the next thought. Never do battle with your thoughts, just shine the light on them and expose them for what they are. Let illusions die of their own accord.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 2, 2013 12:54:09 GMT -5
In my experience the less I engage with the mind the less conditioned responses happen. I.E. I used to try and work out conversations with people ahead of time. Work out what I was gonna say. I no longer engage the thought to work conversations out ahead of time and that thought never surfaces anymore. Yeah, it seems that vasanas need engagement and involvement to some degree to keep their momentum of habituation. It only seems that way. There is no momentum of habituation. You think a thought because you want to, or think you need to. This is usually the result of not seeing clearly. The solution is to see clearly.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 2, 2013 13:10:09 GMT -5
There really isn't any momentum to conditioning. One thinks and acts repeatedly because the conditioning that drives the thought each time remains unchanged. Not engaging a particular thought doesn't change the conditioning that gives rise to it. Instead, the need for expression or fulfilment of that thought grows stronger, as it always does in repression. What you're saying is, repress the thoughts and that will make them stop. No, actually, it won't. Without going near this idea of momentum, I'll offer the distinction between the witnessing that I think Steve was referring to and the repression you're referring to. What I've experienced is a process of conditioning which seems to undo other conditioning that involves witnessing thoughts without reaction, without rejection -- just allowing them to arise and allowing them to fall away, to dissolve. [ You form the thought, and then you ignore it. (Whether or not it is being rejected is debatable) There's no effective 'process' in this. Ignoring it does not stop it from arising again, clarity does. If you're ignoring the thought, you obviously already have some clarity about it that says you don't want it, which at this is point is you working out a split mind that both wants it and doesn't. When you are clear you have no interest in the thought, it will stop arising. It doesn't stop arising because you kept witnessing it. This is why I argued that you (conditioning) are the author of all your thoughts. They don't appear randomly out of some mechanism that you have nothing to do with. It's very simple, if you don't want to think a thought, you won't. Everything else is just mind games.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 2, 2013 13:15:39 GMT -5
Ah blessed primacy. Ah Sharon,.. yes there is *that* primacy.. But I wasnt being that awesome. I was hoping someone was going to ask which primary I meant, and then I would say - shampoo... Conditioning is secondary,.. shampooing is primary... Ahh fahgeddit... long day and time for bed! I could talk about what one without a second is.... I'll see myself out now. I was going to ask you what in blazes you were talking about, but you and Sharon seemed to be enjoying your chat so much I didn't want to interrupt. Hehe.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 2, 2013 13:17:29 GMT -5
“Our problem is how to be free from all conditioning. Either you say it is impossible, that no human mind can ever be free from conditioning, or you begin to experiment, to inquire, to discover." ~ Jiddu Krishnamurti what can said about conditioning? O.k., time for today's cliche! Everywhere you go, there you are. But what about when I'm over there?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 2, 2013 13:19:10 GMT -5
Ah Sharon,.. yes there is *that* primacy.. But I wasnt being that awesome. I was hoping someone was going to ask which primary I meant, and then I would say - shampoo... Conditioning is secondary,.. shampooing is primary... Ahh fahgeddit... long day and time for bed! I could talk about what one without a second is.... I'll see myself out now. Yer all wet! The conditioner is tertiary! The water is what is primary ... er ... wait, is it the shower handle that's primary ... hmmmm ..... ... I think it's the rain....but it might be the butterfly flapping it's wings.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2013 13:21:54 GMT -5
“Our problem is how to be free from all conditioning. Either you say it is impossible, that no human mind can ever be free from conditioning, or you begin to experiment, to inquire, to discover." ~ Jiddu Krishnamurti what can said about conditioning? O.k., time for today's cliche! Everywhere you go, there you are. The first time I heard that particular cliché (not one at that moment):
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 2, 2013 13:31:47 GMT -5
So, in general, we can say conditioning is present any time consciousness is present. I would agree with that. I think the word conditioning comes with a lot of baggage. Speaking from a body/mind it's all conditioning. Not just for undesirable traits but for all. We have muscle memory so the more you practice anything physical the better you get at it. We have psychological memory etc. It's all conditioning. Nowhereman Yeah, the person is literally conditioning. There's nothing else there but a set of behavioral patterns.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2013 13:35:45 GMT -5
Yer all wet! The conditioner is tertiary! The water is what is primary ... er ... wait, is it the shower handle that's primary ... hmmmm ..... ... I think it's the rain....but it might be the butterfly flapping it's wings. nice segue to the butterfly effect .. ;-) dag gum flapping in China is causing a heat wave over here. hehe and did you happen to see my pic of that really really big container we're in? and I just know I'm right dead smack at the center of it ... so where the hell are you?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 2, 2013 14:45:47 GMT -5
Without going near this idea of momentum, I'll offer the distinction between the witnessing that I think Steve was referring to and the repression you're referring to. What I've experienced is a process of conditioning which seems to undo other conditioning that involves witnessing thoughts without reaction, without rejection -- just allowing them to arise and allowing them to fall away, to dissolve. [ You form the thought, and then you ignore it. (Whether or not it is being rejected is debatable) There's no effective 'process' in this. Ignoring it does not stop it from arising again, clarity does. If you're ignoring the thought, you obviously already have some clarity about it that says you don't want it, which at this is point is you working out a split mind that both wants it and doesn't. When you are clear you have no interest in the thought, it will stop arising. It doesn't stop arising because you kept witnessing it. This is why I argued that you (conditioning) are the author of all your thoughts. They don't appear randomly out of some mechanism that you have nothing to do with. It's very simple, if you don't want to think a thought, you won't. Everything else is just mind games. Not denying that what I'm talking about couldn't be characterized as a mind game. Not disagreeing that conditioning isn't the author of the thoughts or denying responsibility for them and not denying that I somehow didn't want them -- but on the other hand, not claiming that I did either. The question of chance in regard to thoughts isn't really applicable to what I was getting at. The question of whether or not the process is effective seems a subjective one, but as it would somehow some way implicate the notion of identity I'm not going to try to claim that it is effective, but it certainly is a process. The reason for my reply is to make one specific distinction here: what I'm describing is not ignoring the thought. This isn't to say that there are times when that happens: following the pointer to ATA, especially during action-oriented activity, does sometimes result in that ignoring, although I'd refer to it more as a truncation than a repression. Following the pointer to watch the thinker, on the other hand does not involve ignoring the thought. In this instance, the thought is just left let to hang there -- the most important part of what happens is that the thought is not followed -- by that I mean that it doesn't form the basis for the next thought in a train of thought. For example: "that sun feels nice on my skin ... wow, it's warm for this time of year ... gettin' close to ski season ... hmmm, wonder if I can squeeze one more year outta' the AC500's?" .... would have stopped at "that sun feels nice on my skin" -- not because I would have cut the thought off, but because I would have let it hang there and dissolve on its own accord in the witnessing of it. It's a gentle, gradual, open process rather than an abrupt one. The result is a gap between thoughts in which the arising of the next can be eventually witnessed, and over time that's actually a fun and subtle process to get a feel for. Most of the times these days I watch the thinker during sitting meditation. When I first picked up the pointer, I did it most of the time for, as best I can remember several months but the lack of constant self-referentiality these days gives alot less to watch outside of sitting. There are certain circumstances that will lead to the noticing of being lost in a train, but it just doesn't happen that often nowadays. The point that you can make about how the story I've told about watching the thinker really has nothing to do with not identifying with my mind or body is one that I can't argue with, but the story is there and lends an appearance of causality: watching the thinker resulted in a realization about the thinker.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 2, 2013 14:58:06 GMT -5
You can't stop thoughts by choosing to stop them. You stop them by changing the conditioning out of which they spontaneously arise; by seeing them clearly for what they are and therefore losing interest in forming the thought to begin with. The end result is the same but understanding how it comes about is important because it determines how you proceed in dealing with the next thought. Never do battle with your thoughts, just shine the light on them and expose them for what they are. Let illusions die of their own accord. That is exactly what I am referring to by watching the thinker. When I first picked up the pointer it was in the context of the assertion: "You are not Your Mind". Turned out that that was, surprisingly, something that was true ... that this little gollum that I had running around up in my head that took itself as the owner of this body was all in the imagination ... poor little guy!
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 2, 2013 15:23:44 GMT -5
I think it's the rain....but it might be the butterfly flapping it's wings. nice segue to the butterfly effect .. ;-) dag gum flapping in China is causing a heat wave over here. hehe Of course, the butterfly wouldn't be flapping if not for the shrub the caterpillar was feeding on, so the answer to God, the universe and everything just might be..... shrubs. You might be at the geographical center, but I'm at the, like, central nexus of the...um...multi-dimensional spatial-temporal rotation thingy around which the entire universe spins.....So there!
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 2, 2013 15:42:37 GMT -5
[ You form the thought, and then you ignore it. (Whether or not it is being rejected is debatable) There's no effective 'process' in this. Ignoring it does not stop it from arising again, clarity does. If you're ignoring the thought, you obviously already have some clarity about it that says you don't want it, which at this is point is you working out a split mind that both wants it and doesn't. When you are clear you have no interest in the thought, it will stop arising. It doesn't stop arising because you kept witnessing it. This is why I argued that you (conditioning) are the author of all your thoughts. They don't appear randomly out of some mechanism that you have nothing to do with. It's very simple, if you don't want to think a thought, you won't. Everything else is just mind games. Not denying that what I'm talking about couldn't be characterized as a mind game. Not disagreeing that conditioning isn't the author of the thoughts or denying responsibility for them and not denying that I somehow didn't want them -- but on the other hand, not claiming that I did either. The question of chance in regard to thoughts isn't really applicable to what I was getting at. The question of whether or not the process is effective seems a subjective one, but as it would somehow some way implicate the notion of identity I'm not going to try to claim that it is effective, but it certainly is a process. The reason for my reply is to make one specific distinction here: what I'm describing is not ignoring the thought. This isn't to say that there are times when that happens: following the pointer to ATA, especially during action-oriented activity, does sometimes result in that ignoring, although I'd refer to it more as a truncation than a repression. Following the pointer to watch the thinker, on the other hand does not involve ignoring the thought. In this instance, the thought is just left let to hang there -- the most important part of what happens is that the thought is not followed -- by that I mean that it doesn't form the basis for the next thought in a train of thought. For example: "that sun feels nice on my skin ... wow, it's warm for this time of year ... gettin' close to ski season ... hmmm, wonder if I can squeeze one more year outta' the AC500's?" .... would have stopped at "that sun feels nice on my skin" -- not because I would have cut the thought off, but because I would have let it hang there and dissolve on its own accord in the witnessing of it. It's a gentle, gradual, open process rather than an abrupt one. The result is a gap between thoughts in which the arising of the next can be eventually witnessed, and over time that's actually a fun and subtle process to get a feel for. Most of the times these days I watch the thinker during sitting meditation. When I first picked up the pointer, I did it most of the time for, as best I can remember several months but the lack of constant self-referentiality these days gives alot less to watch outside of sitting. There are certain circumstances that will lead to the noticing of being lost in a train, but it just doesn't happen that often nowadays. The point that you can make about how the story I've told about watching the thinker really has nothing to do with not identifying with my mind or body is one that I can't argue with, but the story is there and lends an appearance of causality: watching the thinker resulted in a realization about the thinker. Honestly, I don't know how to make the distinction between ignoring a thought and 'just leaving it to hang there', but I don't think it matters. What DOES seem important is why a particular thought actually stops happening in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 2, 2013 15:48:44 GMT -5
Not denying that what I'm talking about couldn't be characterized as a mind game. Not disagreeing that conditioning isn't the author of the thoughts or denying responsibility for them and not denying that I somehow didn't want them -- but on the other hand, not claiming that I did either. The question of chance in regard to thoughts isn't really applicable to what I was getting at. The question of whether or not the process is effective seems a subjective one, but as it would somehow some way implicate the notion of identity I'm not going to try to claim that it is effective, but it certainly is a process. The reason for my reply is to make one specific distinction here: what I'm describing is not ignoring the thought. This isn't to say that there are times when that happens: following the pointer to ATA, especially during action-oriented activity, does sometimes result in that ignoring, although I'd refer to it more as a truncation than a repression. Following the pointer to watch the thinker, on the other hand does not involve ignoring the thought. In this instance, the thought is just left let to hang there -- the most important part of what happens is that the thought is not followed -- by that I mean that it doesn't form the basis for the next thought in a train of thought. For example: "that sun feels nice on my skin ... wow, it's warm for this time of year ... gettin' close to ski season ... hmmm, wonder if I can squeeze one more year outta' the AC500's?" .... would have stopped at "that sun feels nice on my skin" -- not because I would have cut the thought off, but because I would have let it hang there and dissolve on its own accord in the witnessing of it. It's a gentle, gradual, open process rather than an abrupt one. The result is a gap between thoughts in which the arising of the next can be eventually witnessed, and over time that's actually a fun and subtle process to get a feel for. Most of the times these days I watch the thinker during sitting meditation. When I first picked up the pointer, I did it most of the time for, as best I can remember several months but the lack of constant self-referentiality these days gives alot less to watch outside of sitting. There are certain circumstances that will lead to the noticing of being lost in a train, but it just doesn't happen that often nowadays. The point that you can make about how the story I've told about watching the thinker really has nothing to do with not identifying with my mind or body is one that I can't argue with, but the story is there and lends an appearance of causality: watching the thinker resulted in a realization about the thinker. Honestly, I don't know how to make the distinction between ignoring a thought and 'just leaving it to hang there', but I don't think it matters. What DOES seem important is why a particular thought actually stops happening in the first place. Ignoring means withdrawing attention, so what is ignored can't be seen clearly. A thought witnessed but not followed on the other hand, this get's some light shed on it.
|
|