Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2013 12:31:49 GMT -5
You are right, one is aware of the head, and not through the eyes. I specifically mentioned this because the person who posted the picture, I think it was Less Than Nothing, asked if this is what Steve meant. There was no head in the picture. I don't know if this picture specifically came from Douglas Harding (if not , he has many similar pictures), but in his "practice" On Having No Head, he goes to great lengths to show that one can't demonstrate in any manner that one actually has a head (he gets around, "I can see the tip of my nose" and "I can see my head in a mirror....etc....). I could never buy this because, I know I have a head. I can sense it and I can be aware of it. sdp I never actually got the whole headless thingy. It may be related to the sort of empty awareness that Steve is talking about (which I do get), but I'm not sure just how. Anyhoo, yes, there is the awareness of, for example, the expression on one's face, tension in the head, etc. No need to go into head denial. Hehe. Harding's headless method is a way of entering a state of awareness free of thought and imagination....when you imagine yourself without a head, more than just just physical experience of a physical head goes away, cognitive reasoning goes away as well, and one is left with simple sensory perception and empty awareness....fundamentally it is a yogic technique of elimination of experience (in this case the movement of mind) in order to make it easier to be aware of their essential nature of Empty Awareness. Where the method of stepping back into Meta-Awareness differs from the "headless" method, is that one does not have to imagine something like being headless, and one does not have to "eliminate the head or the thought movements that its perceived to "contain". "Stepping back" so to speak, into the Meta Awareness of the observer position, and observing ones totality of personhood, i.e. The mind, the body, thoughts, emotions, desires etc, as an integrated part of the physical environment and the body/mind sitting next to you, means that one can observe with objectivity the integration (oneness) of the entire "small self" with everything else. On a practical level, its very useful in seeing clearly how the actions of the body mind are interacting with the environment and "other" body/minds, and seeing the most "effective" means of realizing a desire. But perhaps more importantly, stepping back into this kind of Meta-Awareness places one's center (so to speak) in empty awareness as opposed to being absorbed in the happenings of the 'small self', and self identifying with the 'small self'. In a state of Meta-Awareness...the "person" that one imagines oneself to be, is clearly seen to be nothing more than an aspect of an integrated whole of a perceived happening. In other words, in a state of Meta-Awareness, your personhood is seen clearly to be just another part of the one ISNESS. In Hardings Headless method, a different approach is taken, wherein by eliminating the head and in so doing eliminating the movement of mind that one identifies with, one can clearly see that they are not, in their essential nature, the mind that they were identifying with. The method I presented here is a bit more inclusive though, in that it shows one that they are not the mind, or the body, or the environment, and that these things are all part of an integrated perception of what you really are in your most essential nature, and that there is fundamentally no separation of body, mind, environment, and 'other' body/minds. And again, on a more practical level of human existence, one can see clearly how to most harmoniously and effectively direct the body/mind as an integrated part of one existence.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2013 13:01:16 GMT -5
Why are you concerned with immortality....thats still all about an imagined future. You are alive and aware in this moment....and this moment is all that exists...the past and future are memories and imagination. Even your memories are imagination. Every spirituat text always talks about immortality. I mean if one were to live forever then there would be nothing one couldn't be, have, or achieve.
hahaha "One theory supports the view that false memories are a result of an erroneous processing of past experience. People create an outline of proceedings and then fit in false events that corroborate with the outline to develop a recollection of the original experience. Several observations support this view. The left hemisphere specializes in generating such schemata and has the ability to put the memory into context. In an attempt to interpret pieces of information within the larger context the left hemisphere is constantly seeking meaning and reason behind events. However when presented with information that is inconsistent with the schemata, the left hemisphere unable to differentiate between true and false data constructs an artificial past in place of the original one.(4). These findings are supported by the demonstration that left prefrontal regions of the brain of normal subjects are activated when false memories are recalled. In another experiment to determine the neurological pathway involved in the creation of memory, experimenters PET scanned the brains of volunteers. It is found that while true and false memories activate the hippocampus, only true memories activate the superior temporal lobe.(2). However PET scans cannot be relied on for accuracy. False memories may be equally likely to ignite the sensory apparatus of the brain as true memories do as a result of repeated misinformation.(2). Once false memories are implanted it is often hard to rid them from memory. Yet studies have shown that propranolol, a beta blocker used in the treatment of patients with PTSD might prove to be effective in erasing false memories. Propranolol "interferes with the neurochemical pathway thought to be responsible for making emotionally arousing events more memorable- the beta adrenergic system."(5). Hence if the creation of false memories rely on activation of this system then propranolol administration could be effective in treatment of FMS. However false memories that are created as a result of fantasies or outright fabrications would be immune to the drug.(5)." All I need is some DMT, LSD and and now a little PROPRANOLO and I'lll be good to go! Step back into Meta Awareness, and observe yourself in your environment, and then come and tell me what you are?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2013 13:22:34 GMT -5
I never actually got the whole headless thingy. It may be related to the sort of empty awareness that Steve is talking about (which I do get), but I'm not sure just how. Anyhoo, yes, there is the awareness of, for example, the expression on one's face, tension in the head, etc. No need to go into head denial. Hehe. Harding's headless method is a way of entering a state of awareness free of thought and imagination....when you imagine yourself without a head, more than just just physical experience of a physical head goes away, cognitive reasoning goes away as well, and one is left with simple sensory perception and empty awareness....fundamentally it is a yogic technique of elimination of experience (in this case the movement of mind) in order to make it easier to be aware of their essential nature of Empty Awareness. Where the method of stepping back into Meta-Awareness differs from the "headless" method, is that one does not have to imagine something like being headless, and one does not have to "eliminate the head or the thought movements that its perceived to "contain". "Stepping back" so to speak, into the Meta Awareness of the observer position, and observing ones totality of personhood, i.e. The mind, the body, thoughts, emotions, desires etc, as an integrated part of the physical environment and the body/mind sitting next to you, means that one can observe with objectivity the integration (oneness) of the entire "small self" with everything else. On a practical level, its very useful in seeing clearly how the actions of the body mind are interacting with the environment and "other" body/minds, and seeing the most "effective" means of realizing a desire. But perhaps more importantly, stepping back into this kind of Meta-Awareness places one's center (so to speak) in empty awareness as opposed to being absorbed in the happenings of the 'small self', and self identifying with the 'small self'. In a state of Meta-Awareness...the "person" that one imagines oneself to be, is clearly seen to be nothing more than an aspect of an integrated whole of a perceived happening. In other words, in a state of Meta-Awareness, your personhood is seen clearly to be just another part of the one ISNESS. In Hardings Headless method, a different approach is taken, wherein by eliminating the head and in so doing eliminating the movement of mind that one identifies with, one can clearly see that they are not, in their essential nature, the mind that they were identifying with. The method I presented here is a bit more inclusive though, in that it shows one that they are not the mind, or the body, or the environment, and that these things are all part of an integrated perception of what you really are in your most essential nature, and that there is fundamentally no separation of body, mind, environment, and 'other' body/minds. And again, on a more practical level of human existence, one can see clearly how to most harmoniously and effectively direct the body/mind as an integrated part of one existence. Does Meta awareness = nonconceptual awareness Does Meta awareness = naked awareness
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2013 13:34:28 GMT -5
Harding's headless method is a way of entering a state of awareness free of thought and imagination....when you imagine yourself without a head, more than just just physical experience of a physical head goes away, cognitive reasoning goes away as well, and one is left with simple sensory perception and empty awareness....fundamentally it is a yogic technique of elimination of experience (in this case the movement of mind) in order to make it easier to be aware of their essential nature of Empty Awareness. Where the method of stepping back into Meta-Awareness differs from the "headless" method, is that one does not have to imagine something like being headless, and one does not have to "eliminate the head or the thought movements that its perceived to "contain". "Stepping back" so to speak, into the Meta Awareness of the observer position, and observing ones totality of personhood, i.e. The mind, the body, thoughts, emotions, desires etc, as an integrated part of the physical environment and the body/mind sitting next to you, means that one can observe with objectivity the integration (oneness) of the entire "small self" with everything else. On a practical level, its very useful in seeing clearly how the actions of the body mind are interacting with the environment and "other" body/minds, and seeing the most "effective" means of realizing a desire. But perhaps more importantly, stepping back into this kind of Meta-Awareness places one's center (so to speak) in empty awareness as opposed to being absorbed in the happenings of the 'small self', and self identifying with the 'small self'. In a state of Meta-Awareness...the "person" that one imagines oneself to be, is clearly seen to be nothing more than an aspect of an integrated whole of a perceived happening. In other words, in a state of Meta-Awareness, your personhood is seen clearly to be just another part of the one ISNESS. In Hardings Headless method, a different approach is taken, wherein by eliminating the head and in so doing eliminating the movement of mind that one identifies with, one can clearly see that they are not, in their essential nature, the mind that they were identifying with. The method I presented here is a bit more inclusive though, in that it shows one that they are not the mind, or the body, or the environment, and that these things are all part of an integrated perception of what you really are in your most essential nature, and that there is fundamentally no separation of body, mind, environment, and 'other' body/minds. And again, on a more practical level of human existence, one can see clearly how to most harmoniously and effectively direct the body/mind as an integrated part of one existence. Does Meta awareness = nonconceptual awareness Does Meta awareness = naked awareness I would describe Meta Awareness, as I have used it here, as a practice in which one steps back; so to speak, into non-conceptual awareness, but then 'looks' at the body/mind, the environment, and the other body/minds as a single unit, an integrated whole. And, as SDP said, the "practice" is the state....a shift of perspective. In some ways, this "shift" is like the snake oil of old, in that its a kind of "cure all"....only its really a cure all, and not snake oil ;-)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2013 14:26:49 GMT -5
Step back into Meta Awareness, and observe yourself in your environment, and the come and tell me what you are? I feel like I'm more my body than my mind. The mind just thinks, what it thinks about might be true or not. Thoughts actually seem like they are part of the body or a function of the body like the heart. But the body, now that feels real. You have to watch out for it, feed it, or it can be painful. Very good...now you are beginning to see more clearly. "Step back" within yourself, and observe the body, mind, and environment, and other people, as one whole....nothing excluded within or without. the same way you did that day when you were doing the peripheral vision thing and ended up including everything , even yourself, as the observed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2013 14:50:58 GMT -5
Haha....good stuff Basking the the warm glow of the leaders approval! Just curious though, when are you going to get on with the service to the greater good, and let all these personal foibles, beliefs, and absorptions go? I don't know I don't know what the highest good is. I look at it like this. According to the Butterfly Effect some little something one place can effect great change somewhere eles. But it does seem like I could do more and it does seem like there are people needing help.
About foibles, I'm sure I'm playing out some methodically thing like Joseph Campbell talks about. The hero's jouney or something.
My family invited me here for a couple of weeks. We/they need a bigger house so I thought I would give work another try. Come out of retirement So i call around and find out a cookie factory is hiring through a temp service. I'm sure i'll get the job so the next day I get ready to go get the job. Jack (my relativity new step dad) says first he wants to make a quick trip to the store before I go see about the job. Well, he ends up rolling the SUV, totaling the thing, he gets hurt but not to bad, just a big black eye but now we don't have a vehicle and live out in the country.
I'm sort of stranded here now. Back in the city today they call me for a job there and I can't get to it either. So my early retirement is still in effect. I think well maybe I'm suppose to be on the forum. I don't know. Back to that Meta Awareness thing ;-)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2013 14:59:33 GMT -5
Back to that Meta Awareness thing ;-) My fun thoughts are about as hard to deal with as upset thoughts. For now, no need to "deal" with thoughts....just observe the thoughts and the body, and the environment as a whole. While looking in this manner, what do you see... Look at it all, including yourself, as one whole unit....and look without judgement.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 22, 2013 15:30:00 GMT -5
The point is that self-esteem and self-loathing define one another in that you can't have one without the other. For example, self-love as E' has styled it would mean that one would stop viewing ones body and mind as ugly and polluted on one hand, but wouldn't replace that negative self-image with one of self-aggrandizement on the other. These philosophies of nondualism and dualism are just that, and don't necessarily provide anything truly solid - factual - they are just two ways of looking at stuff in our lives. I think my post holds as much water as Enigma's, tbh. If you tag me as a dualistic type person, you can't necessarily claim that I always see things the way you're saying dualistic people always see them -- a 'dualistic' person doesn't necessarily see things that way (being judgmental, etc.). What??
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 22, 2013 15:33:12 GMT -5
How to teach yourself self-love? Have you ever had the thought and/or feeling that there's affection you have for yourself cross your mind? If you have, try and recall those moments - for starters. It doesn't matter how old you were when you felt them. Think of moments in your life where you felt reasonably good or on an even keel or just simply confident about yourself. Doesn't matter how brief those interludes may have been experienced as. It doesn't even matter if there was a reason for you feeling like that. Self love isn't really about feeling affection for oneself as that's still engagement on the same dualistic battlefield. That affection is also conditional and you're bound to betray yourself. Self love is not self affection but rather self acceptance, which means the absence of self judgment. To end self judgment is to walk off that judgment/affection battlefield all together. If getting off the manic-depressive ups and downs of the self love/hate merry-go-round isn't a clear enough example of transcendence (and free of any woo-woo connotation), I don't know what is.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 22, 2013 15:41:49 GMT -5
Do you feel really, really good about yourself, Steve? Which part of the split mind are you expecting an answer from? I don't see it as split mind so much as just more judgment. It's easy to forget that judging oneself as lovable is just as problematic as judging oneself as unlovable. It's just defecting to the other side of the battle and it's still conditional. There is the aspect of self standing in judgment of self, though.
|
|
|
Post by silver on Oct 22, 2013 15:42:25 GMT -5
These philosophies of nondualism and dualism are just that, and don't necessarily provide anything truly solid - factual - they are just two ways of looking at stuff in our lives. I think my post holds as much water as Enigma's, tbh. If you tag me as a dualistic type person, you can't necessarily claim that I always see things the way you're saying dualistic people always see them -- a 'dualistic' person doesn't necessarily see things that way (being judgmental, etc.). What?? Did that help any?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 22, 2013 15:43:16 GMT -5
Do you feel really, really good about yourself, Steve? The question is misconceived ;-) Silver's comments were based on that misconception.
|
|
|
Post by silver on Oct 22, 2013 15:47:38 GMT -5
Self love isn't really about feeling affection for oneself as that's still engagement on the same dualistic battlefield. That affection is also conditional and you're bound to betray yourself. Self love is not self affection but rather self acceptance, which means the absence of self judgment. To end self judgment is to walk off that judgment/affection battlefield all together. If getting off the manic-depressive ups and downs of the self love/hate merry-go-round isn't a clear enough example of transcendence (and free of any woo-woo connotation), I don't know what is. But that's YOUR label for it -- I see it clearly -- self-love has nothing whatsoever to do with self-hate, self-loathing, self-disrespect, or any other self-x label. love is clear enough, isn't it? capital L or small l - love is love is love. I never included any other word but love, and you are misinterpreting what I said. I mean, if you're going to use the word love, it means the same no matter who says it. I admit to being a small bit confused because 'Love' has some special meaning in nondualityland, I guess. *sigh* To reiterate, you and Enigma mis-translated and mis-labeled my post and my meaning behind it. You are adding to what I said and that totally changes the meaning. Evil frog - bad deputy. *muttley snicker*
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2013 15:59:20 GMT -5
Does Meta awareness = nonconceptual awareness Does Meta awareness = naked awareness I would describe Meta Awareness, as I have used it here, as a practice in which one steps back; so to speak, into non-conceptual awareness, but then 'looks' at the body/mind, the environment, and the other body/minds as a single unit, an integrated whole. And, as SDP said, the "practice" is the state....a shift of perspective. In some ways, this "shift" is like the snake oil of old, in that its a kind of "cure all"....only its really a cure all, and not snake oil ;-) It's an interesting exercise, expanding the focus way out, no limits...lots of checking happening, to see if I'm still being aware of behavior, environment, sensations ... throughout a question forming: is meta awareness just imagined? Attention flits from sensations to, for lack of better terms, an 'internal environment.' For example, an internal environment may be openness, or feelings of self loathing, or boredom. There is a constant two step happening. The step back is conscious, the step forward is not. Checking, noticing.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 22, 2013 16:08:57 GMT -5
I don't know that I'd take that tack, because if a person stops judging themselves (for what, I would ask), I think I skipped the middle man by saying that just go for being kind, caring and affectionate to one's self, capice? Not every single thing has to be sorted like one pile of things being dualistic and the other nondualistic. You sure do like that battlefield catch-phrase, heh. The point is that self-esteem and self-loathing define one another in that, conceptually speaking, you can't have one without the other. For example, self-love as E' has styled it would mean that one would stop viewing ones body and mind as ugly and polluted on one hand, but wouldn't replace that negative self-image with one of self-aggrandizement on the other. Right, both are equally tenuous. Silver will love herself as long as she can convince herself (and necessarily others) that she's lovable or worthy of affection. The moment someone who's opinion she cares about implies she's done wrong, or the moment she compromises her own principles, there's internal conflict again. This notion of walking off the battle field is mucho important, and applies to forgiveness as well. In fact, it applies to Freedom and Peace.
|
|