Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2014 12:04:08 GMT -5
I'm having trouble right now with the responsibility and choose concepts in relation to an absence of free will / volition. But I also welcome the charge/caution that modeling self-referential thinking as based on habit is just another evasion tactic. They're different contexts. It doesn't require volition in order to engage in mind games designed to avoid responsibility, just the belief in volition and responsibility. Conditioning IS the ultimate culprit, but self referential thinking happens because of the belief in the self. What you're calling habit is a split mind game engaged in because we want the advantages of engaging the habit as well as the advantages of ending it, and we're caught in a battle to make that impossibility happen. It's insane, and once that insanity is seen clearly, the battle ends. Whether or not the 'habit' continues will then be a conscious 'choice' rather than an insane split mind game of self deception. The belief in self is a result of conditioning. We both agree on that. And right, the belief in self underlies the self-referential thinking (Capt Obvious just ran by). But also the fact is that self-referential thinking doesn't happen all the time. So why does it start? Self-inquiry, mindfulness, ATA all are also habitualized in the sense that one eventually starts engaging those in the heat of self-referential thinking. When noticing that one is engaged in self-referential thinking the habit of asking the question 'who or what am I?' is inserted. With a little practice it is noticed that there actually ain't a whole lot there in terms of self. And also one may notice that there is the presence of boredom or anger or desire. With practice those types of feelings get dissociated from the thinking that previously accompanied it. Shifting attention to sense-perception ceases the energy put into that type of thinking creating space for the feelings to dissipate. This is all just becoming aware of the way that works. I guess I'm skeptical that just knowing that one is engaged in a split mind game, that one ultimately wants to be lost in self-referential thinking, will end that battle.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 17, 2014 16:18:47 GMT -5
They're different contexts. It doesn't require volition in order to engage in mind games designed to avoid responsibility, just the belief in volition and responsibility. Conditioning IS the ultimate culprit, but self referential thinking happens because of the belief in the self. What you're calling habit is a split mind game engaged in because we want the advantages of engaging the habit as well as the advantages of ending it, and we're caught in a battle to make that impossibility happen. It's insane, and once that insanity is seen clearly, the battle ends. Whether or not the 'habit' continues will then be a conscious 'choice' rather than an insane split mind game of self deception. The belief in self is a result of conditioning. We both agree on that. And right, the belief in self underlies the self-referential thinking (Capt Obvious just ran by). But also the fact is that self-referential thinking doesn't happen all the time. So why does it start? Self-inquiry, mindfulness, ATA all are also habitualized in the sense that one eventually starts engaging those in the heat of self-referential thinking. When noticing that one is engaged in self-referential thinking the habit of asking the question 'who or what am I?' is inserted. With a little practice it is noticed that there actually ain't a whole lot there in terms of self. And also one may notice that there is the presence of boredom or anger or desire. With practice those types of feelings get dissociated from the thinking that previously accompanied it. Shifting attention to sense-perception ceases the energy put into that type of thinking creating space for the feelings to dissipate. This is all just becoming aware of the way that works. Yes, it's the same form of habit as fastening your seat belt. There can be internal conflict around forming good habits too, and that would be equally gamey, but it doesn't typically involve the trick of doing something 'unconsciously' and pretending you didn't notice, simply because we want to acknowledge when we perform a good habit. Internal battles are sufficiently silly that we don't engage in them consciously. If you were to consciously stage a mock internal battle, it would likely make you laugh. There are lots of things we do that we would not do consciously, which is why becoming conscious is important. For example, to become conscious of a projection is to end projecting. It makes no sense to consciously pretend you are talking about somebody else when you're really talking about yourself. Keep in mind that to end the internal battle regarding getting lost in self referential thinking doesn't mean self referential thinking will stop. It means the superfluous battle will stop. You will see that you are doing what you want to be doing, so why would you try to do something else? You cannot do that consciously.
|
|
|
Post by vacant on Oct 19, 2014 17:09:06 GMT -5
Ok, it's easier for me to notice Headlessness in the bustle of everyday life. Street scenes are easier I suppose because I'm not drawn in by the hypnotism of the shops and the peoples. This may not be so, for you, you might need a quieter environment. When a head vanishes there isn't an identifier left and so Oneness can present itself. Any identification with Oneness kills it, because it doesn't live like that. Though it's stays living. If you're still looking for apparitions, then that may be in your way. You're a clean thinking guy, so clear seeing sight is probably more akin to your operating system. Thoughts and emotions have a way of bringing doubt with them, though I don't really know what there is to doubt anymore. It's the notion of Oneness that opens the door to doubt. It's because, to me, it is a notion. I can almost accept it as shorthand in the same way headlessness is, or nonconceptual awareness. However those terms seem a bit more honest to me because they are pointing away from what one is not, which is a natural direction to point away from. Mentally, Oneness, as a term, immediately rockets my imagination into the nether regions of the universe, fueled by doubt. Everything, as in All, is One. It's a large category. It just seems a safer bet to stay local, within sense-perception range. Not this, not that. Ideas also fall in that range. Not that or that either. Oneness is one of those ideas. I think you have your finger right on it there. You are beautifully articulate about the plight of the chronic seeker, your candidness is exactly why this forum is precious. Can you not worry about finding or reaching the notion of oneness or any other notion —you are acutely aware that those are just notions after all —stuff them all in your bag and you're done: bag full of notions. All is very well as it is, including your made-up feeling of not being found, and mine. It could be that there is more to discover in life so far, it could be that some around here are merchants of nothing, and it could very well be that vanity possesses some of the wannabe leading characters around these pages, enough to posture unduly , or maybe duly in some way but still misleading. So what if some imaginary peeps see the Oneness or the Whatchamaycallit and some don't, including imaginary you and imaginary me? If you want to see the perfection of it all, do look at the perfection of it all, right here AS IT IS, that's how it is, not how better —read "revealed"— it could or should be. There are so many stories told, heard, and many more to come. They can all go on by, and you see them go on by, and there aint nothing missing from the scene nor from the imaginary you. Remember?... what you think you are after is exactly what you are seeing and is always the case, no hidden message, no biggy (except perhaps the wonderful liberating feeling). I say that but I am just lost Bro, it is perfect as it is and if I was, I probably would have to look no further.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2014 10:01:55 GMT -5
It's the notion of Oneness that opens the door to doubt. It's because, to me, it is a notion. I can almost accept it as shorthand in the same way headlessness is, or nonconceptual awareness. However those terms seem a bit more honest to me because they are pointing away from what one is not, which is a natural direction to point away from. Mentally, Oneness, as a term, immediately rockets my imagination into the nether regions of the universe, fueled by doubt. Everything, as in All, is One. It's a large category. It just seems a safer bet to stay local, within sense-perception range. Not this, not that. Ideas also fall in that range. Not that or that either. Oneness is one of those ideas. I think you have your finger right on it there. You are beautifully articulate about the plight of the chronic seeker, your candidness is exactly why this forum is precious. Can you not worry about finding or reaching the notion of oneness or any other notion —you are acutely aware that those are just notions after all —stuff them all in your bag and you're done: bag full of notions. All is very well as it is, including your made-up feeling of not being found, and mine. It could be that there is more to discover in life so far, it could be that some around here are merchants of nothing, and it could very well be that vanity possesses some of the wannabe leading characters around these pages, enough to posture unduly , or maybe duly in some way but still misleading. So what if some imaginary peeps see the Oneness or the Whatchamaycallit and some don't, including imaginary you and imaginary me? If you want to see the perfection of it all, do look at the perfection of it all, right here AS IT IS, that's how it is, not how better —read "revealed"— it could or should be. There are so many stories told, heard, and many more to come. They can all go on by, and you see them go on by, and there aint nothing missing from the scene nor from the imaginary you. Remember?... what you think you are after is exactly what you are seeing and is always the case, no hidden message, no biggy (except perhaps the wonderful liberating feeling). I say that but I am just lost Bro, it is perfect as it is and if I was, I probably would have to look no further. Thanks for your very kind words. I think the fire for investigating the way this shiny concept of nonduality reflects on things has been cooling down to a smoulder. Good for marshmallows maybe.
|
|
|
Post by vacant on Oct 20, 2014 18:57:16 GMT -5
You could not extinguish the flame if you tried anyway so, good enough for roasting marshmallows is useful! Hmmm I do love roasted marshmallows. Funny how a lot gets clearer in the absence of trying. Clarity is pleasing, if not necessarily liberating.
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Oct 25, 2014 12:07:32 GMT -5
Would you say that you struggle with that apparent paradox or clearly see it for the mind game it is? Where does searching and letting go happen? Don'tcha have to lose something and/or pick something up or believe in something first? Btw, Tzu needs to pay attention to your answer, so clarify it to him. The Silent Watcher, observed as the intangible essence behind the eyes of the newly born babe, is never lost but is ever present. Recognition of the fact that "I am that by which I know I am" is only seemingly lost through subsequent identification with mind stuff and the senses. But sometimes it becomes clear to one that nothing of the mind belongs to this Watcher. That realization, if and when it comes, will come completely of its own accord. But when it does, the only thing that is lost is a continued belief that you are your mind. At this point mind simply becomes appreciated for what it is, a tool by which experience is experienced, but it is never again taken for who or what one is, the ever Silent Watcher. Yes, the intangible is unentangleable. Well, tang, that ain't so interestang.
|
|