|
Post by zendancer on Mar 20, 2014 8:57:37 GMT -5
Steve: My "unlike you" phrase was a poor choice of words. I was responding to this:
"I had a realization that my most foundational truth, the truth that my pure empty awareness is universal awareness, could not in fact be proven to be true, and in a moment of complete self honesty, I accepted that my own awareness may actually be just my own personal awareness...I accepted that there is no way other than an unprovable logic chain that my awareness was also your awareness...with that, I accepted that if I could not ever know with absolute certainty that my awareness was the very same awareness as your awareness, that all knowledge was effectively useless to me on this path. The result of that realization was that I totally and utterly gave up the energy of seeking knowledge of self."
I was saying that realizations can occur that follow a different route than what you described. I didn't mean to imply that your route was wrong, only that it is one of many routes. In my case there was a direct experience that "my awareness" is universal awareness (that the same thing looking out of my eyes is the same thing looking out of all eyes), that an unprovable logic chain involving that kind of direct knowledge is not necessary, that it is possilbe to know with absolute certainty that my awareness is the same as all other awareness, and that it is not necessary to give up the energy of seeking knowledge of self in order for realization to occur.
IOW, many posters on the forum imply that it is necessary to give up seeking in order for realization to occur, but some people continue energetically/consciously seeking until they find. This is why I don't identify with the "futility" pointer; I identify with the "persistence" pointer (the fool who persists in his folly may become wise).
I didn't intend to criticize the futility approach; I just wanted to indicate that the persistence approach is an equally viable alternative.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 21, 2014 12:07:55 GMT -5
What you wrote in your first line is what I meant by "seeing through the looker," but your statement may be a clearer way to convey what happens when the illusion of selfhood collapses. Like you, on a particular day I sensed something odd (that something was missing), looked within, and discovered that the personal sense of self had totally vanished. It then became clear that my past sense of personal identity had been some kind of thought structure/story that was now absent. It was also instantly clear that "what is," or Reality, was what had always been looking out of the body's eyes. The past delineation between "inside" and "outside" thereby ceased to exist, and it never returned. Unlike you, I had an experience in which it became self-evident that the cosmos was equally aware of itself through the sensory apparati of all organisms. The words of Flora Courtois, after she had a similar experience, could have been my own: "It was as if, before all of this occurred, 'I' had been a fixed point inside my head looking at a world out there, a separate and comparatively flat world. The periphery of awareness had now come to light, yet neither fixed periphery nor center existed as such. A paradoxical quality seemed to permeate all existence. Feeling myself centered as never before, at the same time I knew the whole universe to be centered at every point. Having plunged to the center of emptiness, having lost all purposefulness in the old sense, I had never felt so one-pointed, so clear, and decisive. Freed from separateness, feeling one with the universe, everything including myself had become at once unique and equal. If God was the word for this Presence in which I was absorbed then everything was either holy or nothing; no distinction was possible. All was meaningful, complete as it was, each bird, bud, midge, mole, atom, crystal, of total importance to the whole. I now saw that wholeness and holiness are one." IOW, this body/mind never dropped the agenda of seeking. It is more accurate to say that the cosmos kept seeking until it found what it was looking for--that the imagined seeker was imaginary (I was not who I had thought I was). The body/mind had been actively pursuing a still mind right up to the moment when the imagined seeker vanished and only the emptiness of "what is" remained. 15 years before that collapse I had seen what Helen was describing in the above paragraph, but afterwards the "me" returned. It felt like I was a person seeking internal unity right up until the moment that personhood was seen to have vanished. Only then did it become obvious that unity had ALWAYS been the case, but it had been obscured by the idea of separateness. This is why I don't place any particular importance upon the state of samadhi or an alert still mind after freedom is attained. Samadhi is something that comes and goes within our beingness, but it is no more important than anything else. I see value in samadhi for seekers because I liken it to the "clear" button on a computer. It is a mind-free state of awareness that seems to loosen the intellect's attachment to ideas. Similarly, I see value in looking at the world with a still mind for seekers because it seems to function in the same way--as a way of subconsciously freeing the body/mind from various ideas or thought structures. Today, this body/mind may sit in silence listening to universal sound or watching a sunset, but most of the time it is busily thinking about a wide range of topics--from technical issues concerning construction projects to large and small scale economic issues. "Still mind" or "busy mind" no longer matter to me, and life feels exactly like it did when I was a little kid who was so busy playing that there was no reflection about whatever was happening. People who have a strong sense of personal selfhood are like fish struggling to swim in a tank of glue (sticky thoughts). When selfhood collapses, it is as if the fish escape the tank of glue and are able to freely swim in the sea, unhindered by thoughts. AAR, that's been this body/mind's experience. :-) i rez pretty closely with all of that except the bolded bit. the part that immediately follows the bolded bit is concurrent with my conceptualization, but with a bit more added to it, in that, not only is it clear that all the sensory perceptions that occur are the means of the cosmos 'seeing', but also, all the 'doings', and all the choices of where to place attention are equally the means by which the cosmos excersizes volition and creation...God is not one ocean governing billions of waves (minds), God is billions of minds (waves) governing one Ocean so to speak lol As an aside, Here is a little conundrum of a statement to contemplate lol "God has no volition, but WE do....because we are all God!" Do concepts have volition? lol
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Mar 22, 2014 6:08:40 GMT -5
The italicized edit, beliefs, is my understanding where the author had used the word 'separateness. The edited version is a close approximation of my understanding..
An excerpt from the edited-out portion:
The cosmos is just looking, through you as you, willing to see what IS.. you, as you have observed, 'think' you are not what you are, and you 'think' you are something else.. you are less willing to see what IS, than 'that which you are'..
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Mar 22, 2014 8:51:16 GMT -5
The italicized edit, beliefs, is my understanding where the author had used the word 'separateness. The edited version is a close approximation of my understanding.. An excerpt from the edited-out portion: The cosmos is just looking, through you as you, willing to see what IS.. you, as you have observed, 'think' you are not what you are, and you 'think' you are something else.. you are less willing to see what IS, than 'that which you are'.. Tzu: I have no problem with your re-write of my post. It's another way of pointing to the same thing I am always pointing to. Your last line, however, reflects either a poor choice of words, a misunderstanding or some sort, of an arrogant belief that you are the only person who understands anything existentially important. I suspect it is the latter because you are always wanting to judge everyone else or pick a fight with everyone else. That's why I rarely respond to your posts. I think you have some strong beliefs that prevent you from hearing or understanding other people. Maybe as a martial artist you are so used to fighting with people that fighting is your only way of interacting with other people. (smile) In 1999 I realized that I was not who I had thought I was; I was not a person separate from the cosmos--someone "in here" looking at a world "out there." I had previously thought that I was a person searching for the truth, but on that day I saw that who I REALLY was was the cosmos searching for the truth of its own being using a particular body/mind. I saw, clearly, that I am "what is," and that "what is" is all there is, and that everyone is one-with THAT. After seeing the truth, the search for truth came to an end for this body/mind, and life continued as before but without the previous idea or feeling of separation. To summarize, I am "what is" manifesting as a person with a particular name, but there is no feeling or psychological sense of separation from "what is." You are always writing about the importance of looking at the world "with a still mind." FWIW, I spent 15 years trying to look at the world with a still mind, and in the process hundreds of ideas fell away or were seen through. I continued trying to look at the world with a still mind right up to the point when the imaginary looker vanished, and all that remained was the REAL looker. Afterwards, it no longer mattered whether the mind was still or busy because it was seen that there is only "what is," and it doesn't matter whether "what is" is busily thinking or being still (looking at the world non-conceptually with neither words nor thoughts). As I've said before, I see great value in seekers looking at the world with a still mind because a still mind does not consciously reinforce ideational habits or the usual illusions of separateness, and makes it more likely that illusions will collapse. After seeing through the illusion of separateness, we could say that the mind then remains still whether or not thinking is present, but I don't think that this is what you mean when you recommend having a still mind. Can you clear up your position on this by answering the following questions? 1. Why do you recommend looking at the world with a still mind? 2. From your understanding can the mind be considered still in the midst of thinking, or does "still mind" refer to a state of no thinking? 3. What is the difference between looking at the world with a still mind and ATA, or between looking at the world with a still mind and E.'s "looking at what in the blazes is going on"? 4. Does your own mind oscillate between stillness and busyness, or is it still all the time? If it is still all the time, does that mean that there is no thinking? 5. Do you recommend looking at the world with a still mind in order to attain psychological freedom, or do you recommend it as an end in itself? 6. Do you consider yourself one-with "what is" or separate from it? 7. Do you feel that you are psychologically free and at peace? 8. If someone asked you, "Who are you, REALLY?" how would you answer? 9. What is the difference you see, if any, between life and "what is?" IOW, can you be a bit more explicit about how you see the role of a still mind, why a still mind is so important to you, and who/what you are?
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Mar 22, 2014 14:38:26 GMT -5
The italicized edit, beliefs, is my understanding where the author had used the word 'separateness. The edited version is a close approximation of my understanding.. An excerpt from the edited-out portion: The cosmos is just looking, through you as you, willing to see what IS.. you, as you have observed, 'think' you are not what you are, and you 'think' you are something else.. you are less willing to see what IS, than 'that which you are'.. Tzu: I have no problem with your re-write of my post. It's another way of pointing to the same thing I am always pointing to. Your last line, however, reflects either a poor choice of words, a misunderstanding or some sort, of an arrogant belief that you are the only person who understands anything existentially important. I suspect it is the latter because you are always wanting to judge everyone else or pick a fight with everyone else. That's why I rarely respond to your posts. I think you have some strong beliefs that prevent you from hearing or understanding other people. Maybe as a martial artist you are so used to fighting with people that fighting is your only way of interacting with other people. (smile) In 1999 I realized that I was not who I had thought I was; I was not a person separate from the cosmos--someone "in here" looking at a world "out there." I had previously thought that I was a person searching for the truth, but on that day I saw that who I REALLY was was the cosmos searching for the truth of its own being using a particular body/mind. I saw, clearly, that I am "what is," and that "what is" is all there is, and that everyone is one-with THAT. After seeing the truth, the search for truth came to an end for this body/mind, and life continued as before but without the previous idea or feeling of separation. To summarize, I am "what is" manifesting as a person with a particular name, but there is no feeling or psychological sense of separation from "what is." You are always writing about the importance of looking at the world "with a still mind." FWIW, I spent 15 years trying to look at the world with a still mind, and in the process hundreds of ideas fell away or were seen through. I continued trying to look at the world with a still mind right up to the point when the imaginary looker vanished, and all that remained was the REAL looker. Afterwards, it no longer mattered whether the mind was still or busy because it was seen that there is only "what is," and it doesn't matter whether "what is" is busily thinking or being still (looking at the world non-conceptually with neither words nor thoughts). As I've said before, I see great value in seekers looking at the world with a still mind because a still mind does not consciously reinforce ideational habits or the usual illusions of separateness, and makes it more likely that illusions will collapse. After seeing through the illusion of separateness, we could say that the mind then remains still whether or not thinking is present, but I don't think that this is what you mean when you recommend having a still mind. Can you clear up your position on this by answering the following questions? 1. Why do you recommend looking at the world with a still mind? 2. From your understanding can the mind be considered still in the midst of thinking, or does "still mind" refer to a state of no thinking? 3. What is the difference between looking at the world with a still mind and ATA, or between looking at the world with a still mind and E.'s "looking at what in the blazes is going on"? 4. Does your own mind oscillate between stillness and busyness, or is it still all the time? If it is still all the time, does that mean that there is no thinking? 5. Do you recommend looking at the world with a still mind in order to attain psychological freedom, or do you recommend it as an end in itself? 6. Do you consider yourself one-with "what is" or separate from it? 7. Do you feel that you are psychologically free and at peace? 8. If someone asked you, "Who are you, REALLY?" how would you answer? 9. What is the difference you see, if any, between life and "what is?" IOW, can you be a bit more explicit about how you see the role of a still mind, why a still mind is so important to you, and who/what you are? Hi ZD: First, thank you for the opportunity to be 'explicit'. I'll begin by answering the questions, and conclude by explaining the 'last line'.. 1. Why do you recommend looking at the world with a still mind?It has been my experience that people operate from what they 'believe' is real (conditioning), included in that operating is seeing what is happening, 'now'. A still mind's awareness disconnects the experiencer from the conditioning/beliefs, and allows the experience/observation of 'now' to be integrated without being shaped by the conditioning of 'thinking'.. 2. From your understanding can the mind be considered still in the midst of thinking, or does "still mind" refer to a state of no thinking?In the midst of thinking, there are intervals, sometimes only micro intervals, of stillness between the thoughts, and.. the experiencer can learn that the thinking is like a mesh between experiencer and the experience, and 'what is' slips through that mesh.. thinking and no thinking happen simultaneously, which version is integrated depends on where the attention is.. Thoughts are like the screen on a window, if you focus on the screen you won't see beyond the screen/thoughts clearly.. 3. What is the difference between looking at the world with a still mind and ATA, or between looking at the world with a still mind and E.'s "looking at what in the blazes is going on"?E's "looking at what in the blazes is going on", and ATA, are not sourced from a still mind's awareness.. if i tell someone that i've walked into a tree, and they tell me the tree is an illusion, who is the more interested in what is actually happening? 4. Does your own mind oscillate between stillness and busyness, or is it still all the time? If it is still all the time, does that mean that there is no thinking?My own mind oscillates between stillness and busyness, much more in resonance with my intentions these many years later, but still challenged on occasion.. 5. Do you recommend looking at the world with a still mind in order to attain psychological freedom, or do you recommend it as an end in itself?There's no difference, once stillness is realized.. 6. Do you consider yourself one-with "what is" or separate from it?Both and neither.. i'm not overly concerned about 'me', i'm much more concerned about the relationship between 'me' and we and us and them and Life and IS.. 7. Do you feel that you are psychologically free and at peace?I experience immense and boundless peace.. not so up on the psychology gig, i've observed too many great minds/perspectives go down that rabbit hole never to return.. often, nonduality believers express themselves from their 'psychoanalysis' model, stuck in a self-referential feedback loop.. 8. If someone asked you, "Who are you, REALLY?" how would you answer?I don't know, really.. and, i'm open to how the cosmos reveals what i am, so.. i'm paying attention with unconditional and genuine curiosity.. no matter who/what 'i am', the journey is simply awesome.. 9. What is the difference you see, if any, between life and "what is?"Life is 'IS' happening, experiencing its own existence.. setting itself free from itself, so that the authenticity of the relationship reveals what 'is' is.. 10. (the unasked question)I didn't spend much, if any, time searching for a 'still mind', that experience was thrust upon me in the heat of combat.. i had done more than my fair share of 'exploring the cosmos' prior to the still mind experience, so i may have been 'primed' for it, but.. those couple of hours were the seeds of clarity that continue to reveal what is actual.. Your commentary about my 'last line'.. there was no intent to pick a fight or judge, though judgement may have played a part in the experience of reading the line i referenced.. it was an observation that the Cosmos is willing to see what 'is', and you are more inclined to take your current understanding, as the description/imagined, as the 'is'.. we can talk about that, or you can adjudicate me as " always wanting to judge everyone else or pick a fight with everyone else", when.. rather than talk about it, 'everyone else' sees a 'fight', so.. which is which, i'm often offering the discussion, seldom accepted.. whose perception is 'right', and whose is 'wrong'?
|
|
|
Post by runstill on Mar 22, 2014 16:47:37 GMT -5
The italicized edit, beliefs, is my understanding where the author had used the word 'separateness. The edited version is a close approximation of my understanding.. An excerpt from the edited-out portion: The cosmos is just looking, through you as you, willing to see what IS.. you, as you have observed, 'think' you are not what you are, and you 'think' you are something else.. you are less willing to see what IS, than 'that which you are'.. Tzu: I have no problem with your re-write of my post. It's another way of pointing to the same thing I am always pointing to. Your last line, however, reflects either a poor choice of words, a misunderstanding or some sort, of an arrogant belief that you are the only person who understands anything existentially important. I suspect it is the latter because you are always wanting to judge everyone else or pick a fight with everyone else. That's why I rarely respond to your posts. I think you have some strong beliefs that prevent you from hearing or understanding other people. Maybe as a martial artist you are so used to fighting with people that fighting is your only way of interacting with other people. (smile) In 1999 I realized that I was not who I had thought I was; I was not a person separate from the cosmos--someone "in here" looking at a world "out there." I had previously thought that I was a person searching for the truth, but on that day I saw that who I REALLY was was the cosmos searching for the truth of its own being using a particular body/mind. I saw, clearly, that I am "what is," and that "what is" is all there is, and that everyone is one-with THAT. After seeing the truth, the search for truth came to an end for this body/mind, and life continued as before but without the previous idea or feeling of separation. To summarize, I am "what is" manifesting as a person with a particular name, but there is no feeling or psychological sense of separation from "what is." You are always writing about the importance of looking at the world "with a still mind." FWIW, I spent 15 years trying to look at the world with a still mind, and in the process hundreds of ideas fell away or were seen through. I continued trying to look at the world with a still mind right up to the point when the imaginary looker vanished, and all that remained was the REAL looker. Afterwards, it no longer mattered whether the mind was still or busy because it was seen that there is only "what ;is," and it doesn't matter whether "what is" is busily thinking or being still (looking at the world non-conceptually with neither words nor thoughts). As I've said before, I see great value in seekers looking at the world with a still mind because a still mind does not consciously reinforce ideational habits or the usual illusions of separateness, and makes it more likely that illusions will collapse. After seeing through the illusion of separateness, we could say that the mind then remains still whether or not thinking is present, but I don't think that this is what you mean when you recommend having a still mind. Can you clear up your position on this by answering the following questions? 1. Why do you recommend looking at the world with a still mind? 2. From your understanding can the mind be considered still in the midst of thinking, or does "still mind" refer to a state of no thinking? 3. What is the difference between looking at the world with a still mind and ATA, or between looking at the world with a still mind and E.'s "looking at what in the blazes is going on"? 4. Does your own mind oscillate between stillness and busyness, or is it still all the time? If it is still all the time, does that mean that there is no thinking? 5. Do you recommend looking at the world with a still mind in order to attain psychological freedom, or do you recommend it as an end in itself? 6. Do you consider yourself one-with "what is" or separate from it? 7. Do you feel that you are psychologically free and at peace? 8. If someone asked you, "Who are you, REALLY?" how would you answer? 9. What is the difference you see, if any, between life and "what is?" IOW, can you be a bit more explicit about how you see the role of a still mind, why a still mind is so important to you, and who/what you are?
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Mar 23, 2014 9:54:00 GMT -5
Hi ZD: First, thank you for the opportunity to be 'explicit'. I'll begin by answering the questions, and conclude by explaining the 'last line'..
1. Why do you recommend looking at the world with a still mind? It has been my experience that people operate from what they 'believe' is real (conditioning), included in that operating is seeing what is happening, 'now'. A still mind's awareness disconnects the experiencer from the conditioning/beliefs, and allows the experience/observation of 'now' to be integrated without being shaped by the conditioning of 'thinking'..
2. From your understanding can the mind be considered still in the midst of thinking, or does "still mind" refer to a state of no thinking? In the midst of thinking, there are intervals, sometimes only micro intervals, of stillness between the thoughts, and.. the experiencer can learn that the thinking is like a mesh between experiencer and the experience, and 'what is' slips through that mesh.. thinking and no thinking happen simultaneously, which version is integrated depends on where the attention is.. Thoughts are like the screen on a window, if you focus on the screen you won't see beyond the screen/thoughts clearly..
3. What is the difference between looking at the world with a still mind and ATA, or between looking at the world with a still mind and E.'s "looking at what in the blazes is going on"? E's "looking at what in the blazes is going on", and ATA, are not sourced from a still mind's awareness.. if i tell someone that i've walked into a tree, and they tell me the tree is an illusion, who is the more interested in what is actually happening?
4. Does your own mind oscillate between stillness and busyness, or is it still all the time? If it is still all the time, does that mean that there is no thinking? My own mind oscillates between stillness and busyness, much more in resonance with my intentions these many years later, but still challenged on occasion..
5. Do you recommend looking at the world with a still mind in order to attain psychological freedom, or do you recommend it as an end in itself? There's no difference, once stillness is realized..
6. Do you consider yourself one-with "what is" or separate from it? Both and neither.. i'm not overly concerned about 'me', i'm much more concerned about the relationship between 'me' and we and us and them and Life and IS..
7. Do you feel that you are psychologically free and at peace? I experience immense and boundless peace.. not so up on the psychology gig, i've observed too many great minds/perspectives go down that rabbit hole never to return.. often, nonduality believers express themselves from their 'psychoanalysis' model, stuck in a self-referential feedback loop..
8. If someone asked you, "Who are you, REALLY?" how would you answer? I don't know, really.. and, i'm open to how the cosmos reveals what i am, so.. i'm paying attention with unconditional and genuine curiosity.. no matter who/what 'i am', the journey is simply awesome..
9. What is the difference you see, if any, between life and "what is?" Life is 'IS' happening, experiencing its own existence.. setting itself free from itself, so that the authenticity of the relationship reveals what 'is' is..
10. (the unasked question) I didn't spend much, if any, time searching for a 'still mind', that experience was thrust upon me in the heat of combat.. i had done more than my fair share of 'exploring the cosmos' prior to the still mind experience, so i may have been 'primed' for it, but.. those couple of hours were the seeds of clarity that continue to reveal what is actual..
Your commentary about my 'last line'.. there was no intent to pick a fight or judge, though judgement may have played a part in the experience of reading the line i referenced.. it was an observation that the Cosmos is willing to see what 'is', and you are more inclined to take your current understanding, as the description/imagined, as the 'is'.. we can talk about that, or you can adjudicate me as "always wanting to judge everyone else or pick a fight with everyone else", when.. rather than talk about it, 'everyone else' sees a 'fight', so.. which is which, i'm often offering the discussion, seldom accepted.. whose perception is 'right', and whose is 'wrong'?
Hi Tzu: Thanks for your response. I think we both agree with what you wrote in response to question #1.
Same same with #2 except the statement that thinking and no thinking happen simultaneously, and that there is something that needs to be integrated. In my experience thoughts are either present or not, but not at the same time. The body/mind might be in a thought-free state for a while, which is what I assume you are calling "a still mind" and then thoughts arise. By thoughts I am referring in general to the internal dialogue--the mental conversation most of us have with ourselves about the world. Most people do not realize how mindtalk influences their perception of the world, but I assume that most people on this forum are aware of that. I'm not sure what you mean by the word "integrated," but perhaps you are simply talking about where attention is placed and how free we are when attention is not held captive by thoughts about the world.
Your response to question #3 was surprising because it indicates that you don't understand what I am pointing to when I discuss ATA. ATA is simply looking at the world with a still mind. It is looking without any thoughts about what is seen--no labels, no interpretation, no commentary. We could also call it simple seeing or seeing without touching. It is seeing "what is" without any story about it. If I look, non-conceptually, at what we call "a tree," there are no images, ideas, or symbols generated about what is seen. If we look at a tree with a still mind for a sufficient period of time, it becomes obvious that what a tree IS is quite different than the idea "tree," but this has nothing to do with denying the reality of what confronts us. When I say that the idea of "tree" is an illusion, what I mean is that the lines of demarcation between tree and not-tree are imaginary. The word "illusion" doesn't mean that there is nothing there; it means that "what is" is a unified field which can be imagined to be divided into "things" such as trees.
I think we agree about question #4, but it makes me wonder if we should introduce Bernadette Robert's terminology concerning the "reflexive faculty of mind?" Mental stillness and busyness oscillate, but if there is no reflexive self-referentiality, there is freedom from the idea that there is someone "in here" interacting with a world "out there." Without reflexive self-referentiality the body/mind freely goes about its business in much the same way as a small child plays. The body/mind does whatever it has to do free from the dualistic idea of selfhood. Most people have periods of time in which they become so focused on what they're doing that there is no thought of selfhood. The only difference between most people and a sage is that the sage no longer imagines that s/he is separate from "what is." IOW the sage is always psychologically unified with whatever is happening.
I didn't understand your answer to question #5. I would understand if you had answered "both," but I didn't understand "no difference," nor do I understand what you mean when you say "once stillness has been realized." I generally recommend ATA, or looking with a still mind (which I see as synonymous), as a way to penetrate illusions/beliefs created by thought. When it is seen that personhood is illusory (that there is only "what is"), then it no longer matters whether the mind is busy or still because it is realized that there is no person controlling what the mind does. After self-realization the mind may be still or it may be busy, but it doesn't matter; there is freedom from the whole control/efforting issue that arises from a self-centered perspective.
I think I understand your answer to question #6. It was a koan I threw in just to see how you might answer it. If someone asked me that question, I would probably answer by saying, "How can I help you?" Someone familiar with koans would understand that answer, but others probably wouldn't.
Your answer to question #8 was honest, but it, too, was a koan. If we ignore koans, then what you wrote is certainly true. Who/what we are is unknowable; the only thing than be known is who or what we are NOT. I am not anything that can be imagined. I am what I am. Whatever I am imagined to be is a product of imagination, and I think that's what you were saying.
I think we both agree with your answer to #9.
I would be interested to hear what happened to you in the heat of combat concerning how a still mind was thrust upon you. Please expand upon that when you have some free time to relate that experience.
As for the last line, I'll certainly accept your claim that you have no interest in picking a fight with anyone, or that your writing expresses any judgment of others. Many people have written about having a still mind and understanding what a still mind is, but your comments have often made it seem that you dismiss such comments on the basis of various beliefs that you imagine they have. In such cases it has often seemed to me that you have beliefs about what other people believe and are unwilling or unable to accept that they may be totally free of any beliefs. This may not be the case, but perhaps that will become clearer in the future as these issues are discussed further.
In particular I would be interested in hearing why you think that ATA or E.'s "seeing what in the blazes is going on" are "not sourced from a still mind's awareness." As I've mentioned before, after decades of intermittently looking at the world non-conceptually--ATA, the internal dialogue often stops for long periods of time, and there is no thought--no words, images, ideas, etc. I would be curious to know why you think such total silence is different than what you call "a still mind," and an explanation of what you think that difference might be. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 23, 2014 13:04:34 GMT -5
Same same with #2 except the statement that thinking and no thinking happen simultaneously, and that there is something that needs to be integrated. In my experience thoughts are either present or not, but not at the same time. The body/mind might be in a thought-free state for a while, which is what I assume you are calling "a still mind" and then thoughts arise. By thoughts I am referring in general to the internal dialogue--the mental conversation most of us have with ourselves about the world. Most people do not realize how mindtalk influences their perception of the world, but I assume that most people on this forum are aware of that. I'm not sure what you mean by the word "integrated," but perhaps you are simply talking about where attention is placed and how free we are when attention is not held captive by thoughts about the world. At the risk of disturbing the dialog, and not to speak for Tzu': thinking and no thinking happen simultaneously, which version is integrated depends on where the attention is.. Thoughts are like the screen on a window, if you focus on the screen you won't see beyond the screen/thoughts clearly.. My reference for this particular idea is of the witnessing of a conditioned pattern or an instance of the internal dialog as it happens.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Mar 23, 2014 13:51:32 GMT -5
Same same with #2 except the statement that thinking and no thinking happen simultaneously, and that there is something that needs to be integrated. In my experience thoughts are either present or not, but not at the same time. The body/mind might be in a thought-free state for a while, which is what I assume you are calling "a still mind" and then thoughts arise. By thoughts I am referring in general to the internal dialogue--the mental conversation most of us have with ourselves about the world. Most people do not realize how mindtalk influences their perception of the world, but I assume that most people on this forum are aware of that. I'm not sure what you mean by the word "integrated," but perhaps you are simply talking about where attention is placed and how free we are when attention is not held captive by thoughts about the world. At the risk of disturbing the dialog, and not to speak for Tzu': thinking and no thinking happen simultaneously, which version is integrated depends on where the attention is.. Thoughts are like the screen on a window, if you focus on the screen you won't see beyond the screen/thoughts clearly.. My reference for this particular idea is of the witnessing of a conditioned pattern or an instance of the internal dialog as it happens. As a way of explaining how thoughts distort what is seen, I have often used the metaphor of looking from the inside of a room at the reflections on a window versus looking through the glass at what lies on the other side of the window, but attention is drawn to either one or the other; not both at the same time. I think most people spend most of their time think-seeing--seeing the world in a way that conforms to their ideas and beliefs about reality. In this sense I agree with Tzu that looking with a still mind reveals "what is" and not what is imagined. Why Tzu thinks that still-mind looking differs from ATA minus thoughts is not yet clear. I frequently forget to add the "minus thoughts" phrase when writing about ATA, so perhaps that is the source of the confusion. As I've noted before, ATA seems to have an advantage over mindfulness practice because thoughts are not watched or engaged at all. Attention is simply shifted away from thoughts to "what is." I probably ought to use the phrase "non-conceptual awareness" rather than ATA to avoid any confusion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2014 14:08:35 GMT -5
At the risk of disturbing the dialog, and not to speak for Tzu': My reference for this particular idea is of the witnessing of a conditioned pattern or an instance of the internal dialog as it happens. As a way of explaining how thoughts distort what is seen, I have often used the metaphor of looking from the inside of a room at the reflections on a window versus looking through the glass at what lies on the other side of the window, but attention is drawn to either one or the other; not both at the same time. I think most people spend most of their time think-seeing--seeing the world in a way that conforms to their ideas and beliefs about reality. In this sense I agree with Tzu that looking with a still mind reveals "what is" and not what is imagined. Why Tzu thinks that still-mind looking differs from ATA minus thoughts is not yet clear. I frequently forget to add the "minus thoughts" phrase when writing about ATA, so perhaps that is the source of the confusion. As I've noted before, ATA seems to have an advantage over mindfulness practice because thoughts are not watched or engaged at all. Attention is simply shifted away from thoughts to "what is." I probably ought to use the phrase "non-conceptual awareness" rather than ATA to avoid any confusion. I was taught a different mindfulness practice. Watch the breath. Just lucky, I guess.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 23, 2014 14:10:53 GMT -5
At the risk of disturbing the dialog, and not to speak for Tzu': My reference for this particular idea is of the witnessing of a conditioned pattern or an instance of the internal dialog as it happens. As a way of explaining how thoughts distort what is seen, I have often used the metaphor of looking from the inside of a room at the reflections on a window versus looking through the glass at what lies on the other side of the window, but attention is drawn to either one or the other; not both at the same time. I think most people spend most of their time think-seeing--seeing the world in a way that conforms to their ideas and beliefs about reality. In this sense I agree with Tzu that looking with a still mind reveals "what is" and not what is imagined. Why Tzu thinks that still-mind looking differs from ATA minus thoughts is not yet clear. I frequently forget to add the "minus thoughts" phrase when writing about ATA, so perhaps that is the source of the confusion. As I've noted before, ATA seems to have an advantage over mindfulness practice because thoughts are not watched or engaged at all. Attention is simply shifted away from thoughts to "what is." I probably ought to use the phrase "non-conceptual awareness" rather than ATA to avoid any confusion. As a description "non-conceptual awareness" conveys a crucial distinction but as a prescription "ATA" is grasped in movement, in action and completely seamlessly in the shift of focus away from thought. It is unambiguous to the one following the prescription as to the fact that thoughts about the pointer and the words that comprise the pointer are not the pointer.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Mar 23, 2014 15:13:34 GMT -5
As a way of explaining how thoughts distort what is seen, I have often used the metaphor of looking from the inside of a room at the reflections on a window versus looking through the glass at what lies on the other side of the window, but attention is drawn to either one or the other; not both at the same time. I think most people spend most of their time think-seeing--seeing the world in a way that conforms to their ideas and beliefs about reality. In this sense I agree with Tzu that looking with a still mind reveals "what is" and not what is imagined. Why Tzu thinks that still-mind looking differs from ATA minus thoughts is not yet clear. I frequently forget to add the "minus thoughts" phrase when writing about ATA, so perhaps that is the source of the confusion. As I've noted before, ATA seems to have an advantage over mindfulness practice because thoughts are not watched or engaged at all. Attention is simply shifted away from thoughts to "what is." I probably ought to use the phrase "non-conceptual awareness" rather than ATA to avoid any confusion. I was taught a different mindfulness practice. Watch the breath. Just lucky, I guess. Watching the breath is a particular form of ATA. Attention is being shifted from thoughts to the feeling of breathing or the watching of the breathing process. Same same. ATA minus thoughts, however, encompasses all things and all activities, so it is not confined to a particular activity. Breath-watching is often a formal practice, like zazen, whereas ATA is an informal practice, and can be pursued anywhere and at any time.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Mar 23, 2014 15:55:08 GMT -5
I was taught a different mindfulness practice. Watch the breath. Just lucky, I guess. Watching the breath is a particular form of ATA. Attention is being shifted from thoughts to the feeling of breathing or the watching of the breathing process. Same same. ATA minus thoughts, however, encompasses all things and all activities, so it is not confined to a particular activity. Breath-watching is often a formal practice, like zazen, whereas ATA is an informal practice, and can be pursued anywhere and at any time. I began what I didn't know was spiritual practice as a young kid, counting four-leaf clovers for big chunks of time, watching my kite, watching my cork while fishing, counting the dots of the ceiling tiles at church while laying on my back (as I always hated to be dragged away from these activities back to "reality", I later came to realize that it was during these times that I was in my natural state). I consider it my good fortune that this was expanded by accident by my fifth grade teacher when she frequently made the comment, "I can only do five things at one time". I took her seriously and would frequently "multitask" (this would have been about 1962), do my homework while watching TV and listen to the radio and sometimes eat and carry on conversation with my sister and parents (explained further below). Of course I didn't realize that I was essentially practicing to practice until I began TM about 1971 and then my second teacher taught me to meditate by watching the flame of a candle, and I later learned less object oriented meditation. My point is that one can divide one's attention, make watching the breath a grounded base as well as a reminder to ATA (point being that you always have to be breathing). This can be done as when I eat alone I usually read and I make a point of tasting my food while reading. Not easy, but it can be done. I think it's also within this arena that we can make a distinction between being attentive and being aware (thus why we might want to keep a distinction between ATA and non-conceptual awareness). I can be aware of the TV, my computer screen, the ceiling fan, the air conditioner and my aching feet, but I cannot be attentive to all these simultaneously. I would say awareness casts a bigger net than attention. sdp
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Mar 23, 2014 17:07:32 GMT -5
Hi ZD: First, thank you for the opportunity to be 'explicit'. I'll begin by answering the questions, and conclude by explaining the 'last line'.. 1. Why do you recommend looking at the world with a still mind? It has been my experience that people operate from what they 'believe' is real (conditioning), included in that operating is seeing what is happening, 'now'. A still mind's awareness disconnects the experiencer from the conditioning/beliefs, and allows the experience/observation of 'now' to be integrated without being shaped by the conditioning of 'thinking'.. 2. From your understanding can the mind be considered still in the midst of thinking, or does "still mind" refer to a state of no thinking? In the midst of thinking, there are intervals, sometimes only micro intervals, of stillness between the thoughts, and.. the experiencer can learn that the thinking is like a mesh between experiencer and the experience, and 'what is' slips through that mesh.. thinking and no thinking happen simultaneously, which version is integrated depends on where the attention is.. Thoughts are like the screen on a window, if you focus on the screen you won't see beyond the screen/thoughts clearly.. 3. What is the difference between looking at the world with a still mind and ATA, or between looking at the world with a still mind and E.'s "looking at what in the blazes is going on"? E's "looking at what in the blazes is going on", and ATA, are not sourced from a still mind's awareness.. if i tell someone that i've walked into a tree, and they tell me the tree is an illusion, who is the more interested in what is actually happening? 4. Does your own mind oscillate between stillness and busyness, or is it still all the time? If it is still all the time, does that mean that there is no thinking? My own mind oscillates between stillness and busyness, much more in resonance with my intentions these many years later, but still challenged on occasion.. 5. Do you recommend looking at the world with a still mind in order to attain psychological freedom, or do you recommend it as an end in itself? There's no difference, once stillness is realized.. 6. Do you consider yourself one-with "what is" or separate from it? Both and neither.. i'm not overly concerned about 'me', i'm much more concerned about the relationship between 'me' and we and us and them and Life and IS.. 7. Do you feel that you are psychologically free and at peace? I experience immense and boundless peace.. not so up on the psychology gig, i've observed too many great minds/perspectives go down that rabbit hole never to return.. often, nonduality believers express themselves from their 'psychoanalysis' model, stuck in a self-referential feedback loop.. 8. If someone asked you, "Who are you, REALLY?" how would you answer? I don't know, really.. and, i'm open to how the cosmos reveals what i am, so.. i'm paying attention with unconditional and genuine curiosity.. no matter who/what 'i am', the journey is simply awesome.. 9. What is the difference you see, if any, between life and "what is?" Life is 'IS' happening, experiencing its own existence.. setting itself free from itself, so that the authenticity of the relationship reveals what 'is' is.. 10. (the unasked question) I didn't spend much, if any, time searching for a 'still mind', that experience was thrust upon me in the heat of combat.. i had done more than my fair share of 'exploring the cosmos' prior to the still mind experience, so i may have been 'primed' for it, but.. those couple of hours were the seeds of clarity that continue to reveal what is actual.. Your commentary about my 'last line'.. there was no intent to pick a fight or judge, though judgement may have played a part in the experience of reading the line i referenced.. it was an observation that the Cosmos is willing to see what 'is', and you are more inclined to take your current understanding, as the description/imagined, as the 'is'.. we can talk about that, or you can adjudicate me as "always wanting to judge everyone else or pick a fight with everyone else", when.. rather than talk about it, 'everyone else' sees a 'fight', so.. which is which, i'm often offering the discussion, seldom accepted.. whose perception is 'right', and whose is 'wrong'? Hi Tzu: Thanks for your response. I think we both agree with what you wrote in response to question #1. Same same with #2 except the statement that thinking and no thinking happen simultaneously, and that there is something that needs to be integrated. In my experience thoughts are either present or not, but not at the same time. The body/mind might be in a thought-free state for a while, which is what I assume you are calling "a still mind" and then thoughts arise. By thoughts I am referring in general to the internal dialogue--the mental conversation most of us have with ourselves about the world. Most people do not realize how mindtalk influences their perception of the world, but I assume that most people on this forum are aware of that. I'm not sure what you mean by the word "integrated," but perhaps you are simply talking about where attention is placed and how free we are when attention is not held captive by thoughts about the world. Your response to question #3 was surprising because it indicates that you don't understand what I am pointing to when I discuss ATA. ATA is simply looking at the world with a still mind. It is looking without any thoughts about what is seen--no labels, no interpretation, no commentary. We could also call it simple seeing or seeing without touching. It is seeing "what is" without any story about it. If I look, non-conceptually, at what we call "a tree," there are no images, ideas, or symbols generated about what is seen. If we look at a tree with a still mind for a sufficient period of time, it becomes obvious that what a tree IS is quite different than the idea "tree," but this has nothing to do with denying the reality of what confronts us. When I say that the idea of "tree" is an illusion, what I mean is that the lines of demarcation between tree and not-tree are imaginary. The word "illusion" doesn't mean that there is nothing there; it means that "what is" is a unified field which can be imagined to be divided into "things" such as trees. I think we agree about question #4, but it makes me wonder if we should introduce Bernadette Robert's terminology concerning the "reflexive faculty of mind?" Mental stillness and busyness oscillate, but if there is no reflexive self-referentiality, there is freedom from the idea that there is someone "in here" interacting with a world "out there." Without reflexive self-referentiality the body/mind freely goes about its business in much the same way as a small child plays. The body/mind does whatever it has to do free from the dualistic idea of selfhood. Most people have periods of time in which they become so focused on what they're doing that there is no thought of selfhood. The only difference between most people and a sage is that the sage no longer imagines that s/he is separate from "what is." IOW the sage is always psychologically unified with whatever is happening. I didn't understand your answer to question #5. I would understand if you had answered "both," but I didn't understand "no difference," nor do I understand what you mean when you say "once stillness has been realized." I generally recommend ATA, or looking with a still mind (which I see as synonymous), as a way to penetrate illusions/beliefs created by thought. When it is seen that personhood is illusory (that there is only "what is"), then it no longer matters whether the mind is busy or still because it is realized that there is no person controlling what the mind does. After self-realization the mind may be still or it may be busy, but it doesn't matter; there is freedom from the whole control/efforting issue that arises from a self-centered perspective. I think I understand your answer to question #6. It was a koan I threw in just to see how you might answer it. If someone asked me that question, I would probably answer by saying, "How can I help you?" Someone familiar with koans would understand that answer, but others probably wouldn't. Your answer to question #8 was honest, but it, too, was a koan. If we ignore koans, then what you wrote is certainly true. Who/what we are is unknowable; the only thing than be known is who or what we are NOT. I am not anything that can be imagined. I am what I am. Whatever I am imagined to be is a product of imagination, and I think that's what you were saying. I think we both agree with your answer to #9. I would be interested to hear what happened to you in the heat of combat concerning how a still mind was thrust upon you. Please expand upon that when you have some free time to relate that experience. As for the last line, I'll certainly accept your claim that you have no interest in picking a fight with anyone, or that your writing expresses any judgment of others. Many people have written about having a still mind and understanding what a still mind is, but your comments have often made it seem that you dismiss such comments on the basis of various beliefs that you imagine they have. In such cases it has often seemed to me that you have beliefs about what other people believe and are unwilling or unable to accept that they may be totally free of any beliefs. This may not be the case, but perhaps that will become clearer in the future as these issues are discussed further. In particular I would be interested in hearing why you think that ATA or E.'s "seeing what in the blazes is going on" are "not sourced from a still mind's awareness." As I've mentioned before, after decades of intermittently looking at the world non-conceptually--ATA, the internal dialogue often stops for long periods of time, and there is no thought--no words, images, ideas, etc. I would be curious to know why you think such total silence is different than what you call "a still mind," and an explanation of what you think that difference might be. Cheers. 2.) Nothing needs to integrated, it happens as a result of a still mind's awareness.. there is a 'thought-free interval' between thoughts, even within thoughts.. i had hoped the mesh/screen analogy might evoke imagery that could approximate my understanding.. information that is integrated is not stored in a mental filing cabinet, it is present in as an aspect of what we are, it is not recalled, it is present in the the happening.. 3.) If ATA is looking at the world with a still mind, why not say that? the novice or visitor has no idea what is being conveyed by 'ATA'.. ATA, when i see it, suggests a mind working to present selective imagery, where 'looking at the word with still mind' is fairly self-explanatory.. 4.) What does Bernadette Robert's terminology actually bring to the discussion, aside from engaging the mind more intensely on terminology that seems confusing to me, but that's just me.. 5.) Regarding my answer, it is my experience that once the experiencer notices what is happening during stillness, psychological freedom has already occurred.. 6.) Cool, i wasn't in a 'Koan' state of mind.. i sense that i am One with it by my included participation.. 8.) Yeah, still hadn't slipped into a 'Koana'.. What i am not, is not important, i am not a unicorn, and i don't trifle with that awareness as it distracts from what is happening.. as an answer to the 'Koan': Why, yes i am, and thanks for asking.. It is difficult to talk about what happened in terms than those not familiar with such events can easily grasp, the account last written is in here somewhere, i think.. rewriting it taxes my willingness to revisit the situation and the less favorable aspects leading up to the event (which will remain unspoken).. the Reader's Digest version was that i/we were clearly overwhelmed and our physical journey's conclusion was imminent, we chose to walk into destiny with our heads held high.. by all odds and any rational observer's account, what happened cannot be explained.. i/we walked through a timeless (+/-2 hours) fire-fight where we were looking those that would end this physical experience in their eyes, the sheer violence transformed at some point and we were no longer interested in ending their journey, something 'shifted'.. time slowed to a crawl, matrix-like, and a soft deep hum filled my presence.. every molecule of air was felt as it tumbled across my skin and danced in my lungs, a brightness revealed 'vibrations' (i don't know how to say it better, yet).. i could feel my heart pumping the blood through me, and i could feel the Life/lives around me.. at one point, we huddled and we wept, but no sorrow.. the immense joy of being so alive, so crystal clear, in the moments we were certain we would greet the Great Mystery, was upon us, and Life/Death had revealed itself as no 'end', no destination, it was a companion for the 'never ending journey'.. the last 200 - 300 yards to safety i didn't even raise my weapon, and i don't think any of us did.. complete silence engulfed me/us, and we can't discuss it today with dry eyes, but.. that last short walk, sometimes within only a few yards of 'Chuck', as they were fondly referred to in cruder rhymes, during those last few hundred yards even Chuck, after squeezing off a few rounds, fell silent, still, and a tangible awe stripping away all of our illusions resonated deep within that which is 'me', even now.. as we walked up to the rescue site the extraction team was stunned, we were grinning/laughing/crying, even waving back to Chuck with a very real compassion/reverence for that endless instant we were one and many, together, in reverence for the Life we were discovering that day.. (whew...) thanks for that opportunity, ZD, the sharing is a worthy doing, and my apologies to those that don't understand.. As for your reference to ATA and E's "What in the blazes is going on".. there is a simpler, less contrived, and more inclusive way to say what you wish to convey.. it is my 'way' to keep it simple, direct, and as inclusive as possible.. it is my experience that the more 'versions' of what is actually happening being claimed as 'the' version, the more likely there will be conflicting attachments to one version or another.. the most simple accurate and direct account of the 'happening' as experienced through a still mind's awareness, unembellished with ideology, is the most likely to resonate with broader audiences.. aiming at the same 'target' (clarity), there is best chance of achieving it..
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 23, 2014 18:43:08 GMT -5
In reading these words thoughts move through the mind ... there is no way to read this sentence with the mind remaining silent, with the mind being still.
|
|