|
Post by quinn on Nov 15, 2014 14:05:45 GMT -5
Yes, good point. There a big difference between introspection and attending (what I'd call noticing). As far as attending to emotions, sensations, etc. - that gets into some tricky bizness. I think it's a bit over the top to notice "every movement the body makes". You're probably not suggesting a super-high level of self-monitoring (I hope!). To notice tension is probably useful for some people if they're not in touch with the thought that underlies that tension. And noticing emotions that are out of whack with what's actually happening is a pretty good clue too. But, imo, they're generated by thoughts and if you can see the thought, you don't need to bother with the rest of it. Hey quinn....... I was just pointing out to zd there's more interior than just thinking, including any movement the body makes (thought of two more, postures and tone of voice), not that you have to observe everything. Phew! (jk) Yeah, we've (general forum we) talked about whether emotions stand alone. I disagree with your take on it, but we don't have to get into it. I don't think tension is an aberration - I only said it might be useful for some people to notice it. There's tension that's based on what's actually happening (double-wide semi tailgating you at 70mph) and tension based on what might happen or based on a memory. The difference is all that needs to be seen.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Nov 15, 2014 20:16:03 GMT -5
Hey quinn....... I was just pointing out to zd there's more interior than just thinking, including any movement the body makes (thought of two more, postures and tone of voice), not that you have to observe everything. Phew! (jk) Yeah, we've (general forum we) talked about whether emotions stand alone. I disagree with your take on it, but we don't have to get into it. I don't think tension is an aberration - I only said it might be useful for some people to notice it. There's tension that's based on what's actually happening (double-wide semi tailgating you at 70mph) and tension based on what might happen or based on a memory. The difference is all that needs to be seen. You are correct concerning the tension. I'm thinking of habitual tension we don't notice unless we make a special effort to do so. Most people have a certain amount of unnecessary tension in the face for example. It causes wrinkles, lines in the face before age would necessitate. You can check for this tension right now. And it's also throughout the body (of course for some more than others). As for emotions, this can also be shown pretty easily. Our brain shows the evolutionary story. The oldest part of the brain is the reptilian brain including the brain stem and spinal column. Next, the mammalian brain, the limbic system covers the reptilian brain. Mammals have emotions, reptiles don't. Have you ever had a pet, a cat or a dog? It's obvious they have emotions, but they don't generally think abstractly. Animals can think, they think in pictures, images, but they don't abstract like the human brain. So, I would suggest that human emotions likewise come from our mammalian brain, separate from the cerebral cortex. sdp
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Nov 16, 2014 11:30:24 GMT -5
Emotions are unsolicited feelings.. most people confuse emotions with their thoughts about the emotions..
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 16, 2014 21:18:57 GMT -5
A smile solicits an emotion.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Nov 17, 2014 9:48:12 GMT -5
A smile is the expression of an emotion.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Nov 17, 2014 10:31:16 GMT -5
This is off topic, but I thought it was interesting. Carol was watching a video of Francis Lucille last night, and someone asked him if there was a difference between awareness and consciousness. He replied that any distinction between the two probably only occurs in English because in French there is only one word that refers to what the two English words refer to. In France the question he was asked simply would not arise.
His answer is a good reminder that words only describe or point in a cartoonish way to aspects of isness. The Greeks had six words for love and two words for knowledge whereas English only has one for each.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2014 11:38:07 GMT -5
This is off topic, but I thought it was interesting. Carol was watching a video of Francis Lucille last night, and someone asked him if there was a difference between awareness and consciousness. He replied that any distinction between the two probably only occurs in English because in French there is only one word that refers to what the two English words refer to. In France the question he was asked simply would not arise. His answer is a good reminder that words only describe or point in a cartoonish way to aspects of isness. The Greeks had six words for love and two words for knowledge whereas English only has one for each. --and I just witnessed 2 diverging trains: one cheerleading for more words, more distinctions, more refinement and articulation; and one leaving for a horizon, perhaps far back into the recesses of humankind, to the very beginnings of the great mother tongue, where there was perhaps just one word... *grunt*
|
|
|
Post by silver on Nov 17, 2014 11:54:30 GMT -5
This is off topic, but I thought it was interesting. Carol was watching a video of Francis Lucille last night, and someone asked him if there was a difference between awareness and consciousness. He replied that any distinction between the two probably only occurs in English because in French there is only one word that refers to what the two English words refer to. In France the question he was asked simply would not arise. His answer is a good reminder that words only describe or point in a cartoonish way to aspects of isness. The Greeks had six words for love and two words for knowledge whereas English only has one for each. --and I just witnessed 2 diverging trains: one cheerleading for more words, more distinctions, more refinement and articulation; and one leaving for a horizon, perhaps far back into the recesses of humankind, to the very beginnings of the great mother tongue, where there was perhaps just one word... *grunt* I think I know what you're getting at and if I'm right, more words do not refinement and articulation make ... necessarily.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2014 12:08:13 GMT -5
--and I just witnessed 2 diverging trains: one cheerleading for more words, more distinctions, more refinement and articulation; and one leaving for a horizon, perhaps far back into the recesses of humankind, to the very beginnings of the great mother tongue, where there was perhaps just one word... *grunt* I think I know what you're getting at and if I'm right, more words do not refinement and articulation make ... necessarily. I was just doing some trainspottin.
|
|
|
Post by silver on Nov 17, 2014 12:14:44 GMT -5
I think I know what you're getting at and if I'm right, more words do not refinement and articulation make ... necessarily. I was just doing some trainspottin. I knew (but never saw) the movie, so I did some lookin' up ... for those who don't know what that means (I'm probly the only one):
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 17, 2014 19:59:40 GMT -5
A smile is the expression of an emotion. Well sure, that too!
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 19, 2014 20:36:00 GMT -5
Based on my experience and that of Weber, I'm not at all sure that interior observation is necessary. Our experience was that silence, ATA, and attentiveness in general was sufficient to bring about realizations. Weber says that brain studies show three main circuits of operation--self-referentiality, planning, and problem solving. Our thesis is that ATA (which is direct sensory perception and not a form of thinking), planning, and problem solving all bypass the circuit of self-referentiality, and it ultimately ceases to function as a primary circuit. Gangaji calls such a cessation "a collapsing of the structures of (self-referential) thought." Most people constantly think about themselves in relation to everything they do and everything that happens to them. They are constantly judging themselves, thinking about people's judgments about them, fantasizing about their future, hoping, wishing, regretting, thinking about their acomplishments or lack of them, their career, their possessions, etc. If someone leaves all of that kind of thinking behind and focuses, instead, solely upon what's happening, what needs to be planned, problem solving, and ATA, the circuit of self-referentiality ceases to be utilized. One becomes focused upon what is here and now, and one therefore lives in a high state alert attentiveness rather than a state of intellectual reflectiveness. This, alone, is probably sufficient to free one from the mind's dominance and change one's life. In Weber's case he did his meditative and yogic practices without checking on his progress. He sort of epitomized the Nike phrase, "Just do it!" Suddenly, one day after several years of such practice, his internal dialogue ceased and he become self-realized. He was amazed that the body/mind could function perfectly well without an internal dialogue and without any self-reference. As far as I know, he did not focus at all on his interior "stuff." In my case the same sort of thing happened. I did ATA relentlessly, and eventually I did it without checking on what effect it was having or what kind of progress "I" was making. Suddenly, one day I saw through the illusion of a personal identity, and my search came to an end. Like Weber, I realized that I was not who I had thought I was, and I realized that my entire search had been based upon an imaginary "me" that was trying to get something or find something. I saw, clearly, that no such thought-created "me" had ever existed, and I realized that I am "what is." All of the thinking habits associated with that imaginary person simply stopped, and life continued unencumbered by that kind of thinking. The reason that I don't recommend mindfulness meditation or spending much time watching thoughts is that thoughts are sticky, and it's hard to simply watch thought trains without getting sucked on board. If you simply look, listen, feel, etc in a state of non-conceptual awareness, and become psychologically present to what's happening, everything else seems to take care of itself automatically. There's nothing wrong with experimenting with lots of different approaches, but at least consider the possibility that whatever is happening on the interior may just be a bad habit, and one that can be broken by becoming present and attentive. There must be different brain structures or something. You say that thoughts are sticky and it's hard to simply watch them go by, but I don't see that as any harder than relentlessly practicing ATA without popping in and out of it and checking on progress. They're both bypassing self-referential thinking, too. After spending a lot of time on the mat looking at thoughts, it becomes seen (as opposed to believed) that a large percentage of them are overlays/bad habits/distortions/made up and they get less and less sticky. The stickiness is the self-referencing - they're one and the same.I think an important element of watching thinking is to notice if we're a leetle tooo fascinated by the inner world. That would be a good time to go for a walk in the woods. Different strokes... I agree wit dat. The stickiness is what leads to self referencing. It's the interest in self that is sticky. So, to suggest turning attention away from that is to say, lose interest in what is found to be interesting and it won't be sticky anymore. This might explain why it can take decades of trying to lose interest in what one is interested in before seeing through the illusions at the core of that interest. It seems clear that addressing the interest directly has much greater potential, and this amounts to questioning everything that forms, reinforces and holds that self identity in place. The difficulty, of course, is that it's this self identity that drives the search for those answers, and so self deception is not only likely, but virtually inevitable. That's why sincerity is so highly valued in this game.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 19, 2014 20:48:51 GMT -5
Quinn: I wasn't saying that mindfulness practice and watching thoughts is NEVER effective; that wasn't my point. I was questioning SDP's statement that watching thoughts is a NECESSITY. If someone finds watching thoughts relatively easy, doesn't get sucked into the thoughts, and enjoys that practice, then they should certainly do what works for them. I was simply saying that, for some of us, turning away from thoughts entirely led us to the conclusion that watching thoughts is NOT a necessity. There are dozens of different pathways, and I always suggest that people stick with whatever resonates with them. IOW, trust yourself above all others as far as how to proceed. As I've pointed out before, I got interested in ATA because that's what little children do; they interact with the world directly through sensory perception rather than reflectively through thoughts. This insight made me suspect that ATA, alone, would lead to a child-like state of mind free of intellectual reflection, and, in fact, it will. But, as you say, "different strokes." It's all good. Oh, yeah - I know you know it's all good. I don't think anyone finds watching thoughts relatively easy, though. Not until most of the sticky is gone. It's actually a pretty painful process. But that's only after you go through frustration, confusion, and denial. Haha. Once it's relatively easy, there's probably no point to it anymore. Is it necessary? I don't know about that. Was it necessary for Niz to meet his guru and be told what path to follow? Was it necessary that he took that path? Maybe, maybe not. Maybe his earnestness was enough or maybe it needed a catalyst to blossom. Who knows? I think ATA is great, btw. My only caution with it is about the mind - how powerful it is and how easily we can be led around by what we don't see.Zakly, and if the process involves continually turning attention away from what mind is doing, it makes that leading quite easy.
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Nov 19, 2014 21:32:06 GMT -5
This is off topic, but I thought it was interesting. Carol was watching a video of Francis Lucille last night, and someone asked him if there was a difference between awareness and consciousness. He replied that any distinction between the two probably only occurs in English because in French there is only one word that refers to what the two English words refer to. In France the question he was asked simply would not arise. His answer is a good reminder that words only describe or point in a cartoonish way to aspects of isness. The Greeks had six words for love and two words for knowledge whereas English only has one for each. In spite of that, I think we do pretty well around here.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Nov 19, 2014 21:36:17 GMT -5
The experiencer is stuck when they insist only one perspective is 'truth/valid', their interest is trapped by attachment to only one perspective.. for that experiencer every discussion colored by the same lens of one perspective..
From a perspective that resonates with me, 'knowing' feels a bit stuck, too, a bit fixed.. 'understanding' feels more dynamic, fluid, adaptable to new experiences, and open to new information and insight..
Silence doesn't 'speak', it allows you to actually hear 'you'..
|
|