Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 21, 2014 12:34:40 GMT -5
Besides, to the seeker, doing nothing is moot. There may be an attempt to be effortless, to act like one is disinterested, just go on about life as normal, but it is temporary. Sooner or later you're going to trip on something. Dharma is everywhere and can only be ignored by the so-plagued for so long. Doing, practicing, seeking. The point is to see that effort happening, feel it, face it. Where is it coming from? Yes, noticing is the key, which is, itself, effortless, and therefore is not a doing. Mind naturally wants to turn pointers into doing prescriptions. At some point the search gets more subtle; less doing and more looking. Isn't your awareness occupied by a thought while you are looking? Isn't Looking also another kind of thought flow?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 21, 2014 14:00:52 GMT -5
I watched the video, very cool. If you understand what Mooji is pointing to, is discussing, describing, very cool. If you have never experienced what he is discussing, I'd say watch it again, and again. He reads a letter of an experience some guy had and has written to Mooji about. He reads it and discusses it line by line. At the end he discusses effortlessness. The guy was in this state for only a few seconds, and while he was there, it was effortless. And it was very significant or he wouldn't have written Mooji about it (but part of the letter he is questioning what happened, this is where the title of the thread comes from). I'm right there with everything Mooji says, until the end. He talks about effortlessness. He seems to indicate that there isn't a way to get to this state. I disagree. And that's why I disagree with E over and over concerning volition. If there is no volition, then you just have to wait for the described state to merely happen. And you can wait and wait and wait for months and years.
Now, I consider what's described here as the same or very similar to E's sitting on the riverbank watching. I don't understand why E calls this effortlessness. Sure, when you are in the state, effortless. But if non-volition means that there is nothing anyone can do to get to the state, I vehemently disagree.But watch and enjoy, listen to the words.......you...can.... arrive at this state.......right now, tonight. ........And then you have to decide, or can decide, which is better, my ordinary state, or the described state? Anybody can get this........and it's possible to get back there.......... This is what meditation is all about.......meditation by any other name.......... If you think you are doing this or have done it, or have had it happen, and it's not significant, you're not there yet........ I think to get here, this is the MT of zd's ATA-MT ...........maybe something a little more........ Effort may be required to get to a state of effortlessness. I've never said you have to sit around and wait for anything because you have no volition. I have said that such an idea is a misunderstanding of what non-volition means. Mooji likes to say 'Go home, zip yourself up in a sleeping bag, and contemplate this'. Obviously, he's not saying sit around and wait either. One thing he did say is 'this is not easy or hard, it's just obvious'. It means to point to different way of looking, knowing, seeing that has very little to do with doing. It's not the advice to do or not do anything, but rather a pointing to this effortless seeing. You can do whatever you want, though the wanting is not yours. There is a pointer meant to help you notice that nonvolition is the case, and there is a pointer to effortlessness to help you notice that an absence is required in order to be effortless. The two pointers should not be conceptually combined to derive the conclusion that you have to sit around and wait for effortlesness to happen. It was fun and interesting watching him make the point about obviousness. It's the kind of idea that obviously goes over much better in person.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 21, 2014 14:01:58 GMT -5
Here is a story that you might have heard before: "There was a lion that grew up in a flock of sheep and so he had no consciousness that he was a lion. He didn’t know he was a lion. He would bleat like a sheep, he’d eat grass like a sheep. One day they were wandering at the edge of a big jungle when a mighty lion let out a big roar and leaped out of the forest and right into the middle of the flock. All the sheep scattered and ran away. Imagine the surprise of the jungle lion when he saw this other lion there among the sheep. So, he gave chase. He got hold of him. And there was this lion, cringing in front of the king of the jungle. And the jungle lion said to him, “What are you doing here?” And the other lion said, “Have mercy on me. Don’t eat me. Have mercy on me.” But the king of the forest dragged him away saying “Come on with me.” And he took him to a lake and he said, “Look.” So, the lion who thought he was a sheep looked and for the first time he saw his reflection. He saw his image. Then he looked at the jungle lion, and he looked in the water again, and he let out a mighty roar. He was never a sheep again. It took only one minute." A question. What effort was ever needed for the lion to become a lion? Was he not always a lion with only a mistaken belief separating him from the realization of his lionness? Yes, there is no effort required, and no need to become what you already are. The lion was always what he ever was, is and will be. That is what they are referring to when they speak of effortlessness. This is not to say that effort in getting free from the self referential thinking blocking the full realization of your true identity must not be employed. Zacklee........ stupid lion. Hehe (** muttley snicker **)
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 21, 2014 14:11:07 GMT -5
Agreed. As I told Silver, it's cool that this stuff is talked about at all in the mainstream media. It's a good sign. It's also good that science is faced with the potential dissolution of objectivity. A well funded performance-art project revolving around the centennial of matrix mechanics might catalyze that.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 21, 2014 22:42:14 GMT -5
Yes, noticing is the key, which is, itself, effortless, and therefore is not a doing. Mind naturally wants to turn pointers into doing prescriptions. At some point the search gets more subtle; less doing and more looking. Isn't your awareness occupied by a thought while you are looking? Isn't Looking also another kind of thought flow? Awareness occupied by a thought is called thinking. No, it's not that.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 21, 2014 22:47:34 GMT -5
Effort may be required to get to a state of effortlessness. I've never said you have to sit around and wait for anything because you have no volition. I have said that such an idea is a misunderstanding of what non-volition means. Mooji likes to say 'Go home, zip yourself up in a sleeping bag, and contemplate this'. Obviously, he's not saying sit around and wait either. One thing he did say is 'this is not easy or hard, it's just obvious'. It means to point to different way of looking, knowing, seeing that has very little to do with doing. It's not the advice to do or not do anything, but rather a pointing to this effortless seeing. You can do whatever you want, though the wanting is not yours. There is a pointer meant to help you notice that nonvolition is the case, and there is a pointer to effortlessness to help you notice that an absence is required in order to be effortless. The two pointers should not be conceptually combined to derive the conclusion that you have to sit around and wait for effortlesness to happen. It was fun and interesting watching him make the point about obviousness. It's the kind of idea that obviously goes over much better in person. Yeah, he's implying that what's required is an absence. A subtlety that seems to escape nearly everyone.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 21, 2014 22:49:45 GMT -5
Zacklee........ stupid lion. Hehe (** muttley snicker **)
Certainly grounds for getting kicked out of the 'King of the forest' club.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 22, 2014 19:40:16 GMT -5
Huffpost Healthy Living December 20, 2014 Arthur Rosenfeld The Watcher Within You In ground-breaking research earlier this century, Nobel laureate Dr. Wilder Penfield, attempted to "map" the connections between specific parts of the body and particular areas of the brain. He wanted to see, for example, where the "wires" from the hand led to, and where the connections to the feet ended up. To produce his map, Penfield had to be able to talk to his subjects while working on them. A needle stuck in a particular part of the brain might make a patient feel hungry or make him feel as if his hand were on fire, but Penfield could only know this if the patient was awake and talking. Fortunately, while the skull has sensory nerves in it, the brain does not, so Penfield could numb the skull and go ahead and poke away without causing the patient pain. This process of poking and talking gave him the information he was after. But another, unexpected result mystified Penfield: the patient was able to announce what he was experiencing. Rather than simply saying, "Yum, mustard," the patient was able to say, "When you use the first needle, I taste salt, but when you used the second I taste mustard on my tongue." Penfield got to wondering who was the "I" relating the experience, and who was the other "I" he was talking about? Put another way, what person was it who was watching the experiment from afar and reporting on the effects of his needle? He realized that in order to phrase things that way, the patient had to be both able to directly experience the needle and to be aware of the experiment from some place deep within, or high above. There's more. When Penfield stimulated a place in the brain that made the patient clench his fist, he used such language as "Look, I'm going to do that again, this time try to resist the clenching". Guess what happened? The fist didn't clench so tight! Again this suggested that the person whose hand was moving and the person who was trying to stop the hand from moving were not one and the same! Penfield called the person he was talking to the "watcher". In Taoist and Buddhist meditation, and indeed in other metaphysical traditions as well, the phenomenon of the watcher is well known. Some systems of inner development go so far as to name a particular watcher as the "real" you. It might be the fifth one, for example, the I watching the I watching the I watching the I watching the I. This may sound like no more than an amusing game, but if you spend a little time at it you'll discover that you can go up a few levels without any special training at all. You could try it right now if you like. Just sit quietly in a peaceful place with your eyes closed. The second I will immediately appear and you will be able to see yourself, in your mind's eye, sitting quietly. Next, see if you can see the I that just saw the I sitting quietly. If you manage that--not typical for someone without meditation training but certainly possible--then keep going until you can no longer ad any further watchers. For those of us who don't want to take esoteric practice to a high level, Pennfield's study, and concept of multiple levels of consciousness or multiple identities within a single mind provide an instantly useful tool. At any time we can find multiple emotional states within us, and with a little practice we can scale the ladder of watchers until we find one who is cool, calm, collected, not freaking out, not in the throes of passion or despair, the one who has perspective, the watcher who is the highest, best, truest expression of our self.With a little practice you will be able to distinguish the I who receives information from the optic nerve from the one who notices that the sky is blue from the one who interprets blue sky as a happy, pretty thing, to the one who finds that a blue sky lifts mood. Formal training in meditation makes it easier still, but that level of time and effort and commitment is not necessary in order to simply use our watcher to ground or calm us. Try the watcher game when you feel stressed, anxious, fearful or angry. See if you can click up a notch and see yourself acting out, then perhaps another notch to see yourself watching yourself. Don't worry about what to do with this ability, understanding or knowledge. The mere act of watching has an amazing ability to defuse the bombs within us, to help calm us and to dispel negative emotions. New abilities may arise for you in practicing this sort of meditation. The ability was there all along, you simply never asked that part of your brain, that level of your consciouness, that you to take control. With the hygiene of distance, keeping your equilibrium becomes much, much easier. You almost surely will develop better control of your moods not by dint of effort but by dint of transcendence, the ability to see beyond fear or regret or sadness. More immediate and gritty changes to your perception may also occur as dangerous and stressful events have less immediacy. You may find that time slows down when your life is threatened, such as in a car accident, and that you suddenly have more than enough opportunity to react and avoid the crash. Learning to find, ask and use your watchers really can help you handle life's challenges, lead you to deeper understanding, and help you grow. His conclusion that there are multiple levels of consciousness is in error. There is always only the silent witnessing. Identification with the observer makes it seem like there are two, and then when one tries to notice that the observer is being observed, the mind tends to identify with THAT observer, and so on. The five levels or so of observers are not levels of consciousness, but just mind reassigning identification over and over until it's seen there is no end to that game. There's just one step back. Everything else is in front of you. To equate multiple levels of consciousness with multiple identities within a single mind is nonsense (sticking or between them). What the writer of the article is describing is one part of mind "watching" another part of mind (essentially what E described). I support E and the others who have shot down the article. No one should in any sense equate this article with what Mooji has presented. That's not to say the article shouldn't have been posted as it was. But of course, we each are going make our own determination about such things.........
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Dec 22, 2014 19:50:12 GMT -5
His conclusion that there are multiple levels of consciousness is in error. There is always only the silent witnessing. Identification with the observer makes it seem like there are two, and then when one tries to notice that the observer is being observed, the mind tends to identify with THAT observer, and so on. The five levels or so of observers are not levels of consciousness, but just mind reassigning identification over and over until it's seen there is no end to that game. There's just one step back. Everything else is in front of you. To equate multiple levels of consciousness with multiple identities within a single mind is nonsense (sticking or between them). What the writer of the article is describing is one part of mind "watching" another part of mind (essentially what E described). I support E and the others who have shot down the article. No one should in any sense equate this article with what Mooji has presented. That's not to say the article shouldn't have been posted as it was. But of course, we each are going make our own determination about such things......... Yeah I'm still learning about keeping things clear and concise. It sometimes creates unnecessary distraction otherwise. Anyway, I should have posted just the first three paragraphs. That is what I found interesting.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 24, 2014 2:41:53 GMT -5
Isn't your awareness occupied by a thought while you are looking? Isn't Looking also another kind of thought flow? Awareness occupied by a thought is called thinking. No, it's not that. So Looking doesn't involve any thought?
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 24, 2014 7:44:08 GMT -5
Awareness occupied by a thought is called thinking. No, it's not that. So Looking doesn't involve any thought? No.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 24, 2014 10:06:18 GMT -5
So Looking doesn't involve any thought? No. Hey gopal, I agree with enigma and zd, but this looking without the baggage of thought is not easy to come to. And then even if you can see without the baggage of thought, what you clearly have seen can then be distorted when it's placed within the context of previously conditioned thought. But you also have another problem. If the looking is clear without the distortion of previous thought (which is essentially ego), once the looking is finished, it's over. So you must now always start at square one with looking, or you turn what you had seen into a concept, a memory of the former seeing. And then you are still dealing with looking through conceptual thought, so you still have a problem. But I have a different viewpoint which zd and E and all other nondual "people" refuse to accept. I propose that what one has once clearly seen to be the case, now becomes a part of one's consciousness, and thus in this manner one's consciousness evolves. As you take in more of how the universe actually operates, this becomes a part of your consciousness, but not as an abstract concept, but as a living part of your being, there is a growth of being. The evolution of consciousness is an expansion of the capacity to take-in what-is. So you don't have to start from the beginning every time you look without the baggage of thought, of ego. Your basis of looking has expanded in accordance with truth and actuality. A necessary aspect of such evolution of consciousness is the simultaneous "deconstruction" of the distorting factor, ego. But the very looking without the distortion of thought by way of attention and awareness is what disengages the mechanism of ego. So consciousness can grow and expand, but only at the cost of loss of ego (which is a fiction anyway, a means of operation in the world, so no real loss). In the past here, I have given the image of a see-saw, a teeter-totter, ego on one side, essence on the other side. The "weight" of consciousness increases only as the "weight" of ego diminishes. IOW, if the distorting factor of ego doesn't decrease, consciousness can't increase. And consciousness can only grow in relation to understanding what actually is. What's false can never "feed" consciousness. Essence is a seed that grows, is nourished, by truth, not error, just as a seed can germinate only under the right conditions. The clearing work Ishtahota talks about (presently on the Emotional work thread) is a part of the decreation of ego (Simone Weil's word).
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Dec 24, 2014 15:04:22 GMT -5
Hey gopal, I agree with enigma and zd, but this looking without the baggage of thought is not easy to come to. And then even if you can see without the baggage of thought, what you clearly have seen can then be distorted when it's placed within the context of previously conditioned thought. But you also have another problem. If the looking is clear without the distortion of previous thought (which is essentially ego), once the looking is finished, it's over. So you must now always start at square one with looking, or you turn what you had seen into a concept, a memory of the former seeing. And then you are still dealing with looking through conceptual thought, so you still have a problem. But I have a different viewpoint which zd and E and all other nondual "people" refuse to accept. I propose that what one has once clearly seen to be the case, now becomes a part of one's consciousness, and thus in this manner one's consciousness evolves. As you take in more of how the universe actually operates, this becomes a part of your consciousness, but not as an abstract concept, but as a living part of your being, there is a growth of being. The evolution of consciousness is an expansion of the capacity to take-in what-is. So you don't have to start from the beginning every time you look without the baggage of thought, of ego. Your basis of looking has expanded in accordance with truth and actuality. A necessary aspect of such evolution of consciousness is the simultaneous "deconstruction" of the distorting factor, ego. But the very looking without the distortion of thought by way of attention and awareness is what disengages the mechanism of ego. So consciousness can grow and expand, but only at the cost of loss of ego (which is a fiction anyway, a means of operation in the world, so no real loss). In the past here, I have given the image of a see-saw, a teeter-totter, ego on one side, essence on the other side. The "weight" of consciousness increases only as the "weight" of ego diminishes. IOW, if the distorting factor of ego doesn't decrease, consciousness can't increase. And consciousness can only grow in relation to understanding what actually is. What's false can never "feed" consciousness. Essence is a seed that grows, is nourished, by truth, not error, just as a seed can germinate only under the right conditions. The clearing work Ishtahota talks about (presently on the Emotional work thread) is a part of the decreation of ego (Simone Weil's word). Hey, sdp - question for you. Is the essence/consciousness you refer to here an individual one? In other words, is the context of what you're writing within the context of an individuated perspective? If so, I can agree with what you're saying. Alternately, within the context of life-lifeing, god-godding (if you know what I'm talking about there), consciousness is ever present, ever empty of size/shape/growth/loss/etc. and could never not be expressing in the world. To me, that's the meaning behind "closer than close" and "no where to go" (and effortlessness, for that matter).
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 24, 2014 19:33:59 GMT -5
Hey gopal, I agree with enigma and zd, but this looking without the baggage of thought is not easy to come to. And then even if you can see without the baggage of thought, what you clearly have seen can then be distorted when it's placed within the context of previously conditioned thought. But you also have another problem. If the looking is clear without the distortion of previous thought (which is essentially ego), once the looking is finished, it's over. So you must now always start at square one with looking, or you turn what you had seen into a concept, a memory of the former seeing. And then you are still dealing with looking through conceptual thought, so you still have a problem. But I have a different viewpoint which zd and E and all other nondual "people" refuse to accept. I propose that what one has once clearly seen to be the case, now becomes a part of one's consciousness, and thus in this manner one's consciousness evolves. As you take in more of how the universe actually operates, this becomes a part of your consciousness, but not as an abstract concept, but as a living part of your being, there is a growth of being. The evolution of consciousness is an expansion of the capacity to take-in what-is. So you don't have to start from the beginning every time you look without the baggage of thought, of ego. Your basis of looking has expanded in accordance with truth and actuality. A necessary aspect of such evolution of consciousness is the simultaneous "deconstruction" of the distorting factor, ego. But the very looking without the distortion of thought by way of attention and awareness is what disengages the mechanism of ego. So consciousness can grow and expand, but only at the cost of loss of ego (which is a fiction anyway, a means of operation in the world, so no real loss). In the past here, I have given the image of a see-saw, a teeter-totter, ego on one side, essence on the other side. The "weight" of consciousness increases only as the "weight" of ego diminishes. IOW, if the distorting factor of ego doesn't decrease, consciousness can't increase. And consciousness can only grow in relation to understanding what actually is. What's false can never "feed" consciousness. Essence is a seed that grows, is nourished, by truth, not error, just as a seed can germinate only under the right conditions. The clearing work Ishtahota talks about (presently on the Emotional work thread) is a part of the decreation of ego (Simone Weil's word). Hey, sdp - question for you. Is the essence/consciousness you refer to here an individual one? In other words, is the context of what you're writing within the context of an individuated perspective? If so, I can agree with what you're saying. Alternately, within the context of life-lifeing, god-godding (if you know what I'm talking about there), consciousness is ever present, ever empty of size/shape/growth/loss/etc. and could never not be expressing in the world. To me, that's the meaning behind "closer than close" and "no where to go" (and effortlessness, for that matter). Hey Quinn.......yes, the essence/consciousness is individual. This is the back & forth discussion I had with E on the effortlessness thread (I think it was) about a "middle layer", he said no, I said yes. There is a wholeness to reality, but I don't see it in the same way expressed by nondualism. I would say there is an 'upper limit' beyond which man does not participate, cannot participate. This is why I'm not an unqualified nondualist. It seems the nondualists say you cannot have an experience of nonduality. I agree. Man doesn't have the capacity to experience the wholeness. But ATST the nondualists say one can have a realization of oneness. However, man is designed with the potential capability to experience more of what is, more of reality. The key word here is experience, not merely some kind of realization. I consider this an individual potential, a particular individual essence can grow, and with such an increase in the level of consciousness, can take in more of what is. This includes, but not limited to, space and time (within limits). I agree that the fullness of Consciousness (what I call SOI) pervades the whole of all that is. IOW the line of demarcation (alluded to above) is like a one-way mirror, there is no obstruction on the end of SOI, but we cannot look back through the mirror (there is a limit to what we can take in). This is expressed by the term panentheism (versus pantheism). Merry Christmas.......
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 24, 2014 19:36:41 GMT -5
So Looking doesn't involve any thought? No. (** muttley snicker **)
|
|