|
Post by zendancer on Sept 8, 2019 13:19:18 GMT -5
If there is no "me," how can a "me" make an effort of any kind? The reason sages are equanimous is because this truth has been non-conceptually realized. That's all very well, but in order to find out there is no me you have to start with a me. If you can juggle it is effortless and performed without thinking, and it would be legitimate to say in that moment while all the balls are in the air that I feel like I've always been able to juggle. But of course that's not true. I'm not crazy about the juggling metaphor for a lot of reasons, but the idea of volition interested me fairly early. Sometimes I'd sit in an easy chair in the evening, look at my arms, and think, "I know that I don't have anything to do with how hairs grow out of the skin, or how the blood cells move through the veins and arteries, or how the eyes see what they see, or any of the other trillion things that the body is doing, etc., so why do I have any sense that there's a 'me' involved in anything that's happening?" After thinking this kind of thought, I'd shift attention away from thoughts to "universal sound" or some other actual sound in the room and stay in silence, just listening. Sometimes I'd think, "Attention is being shifted away from thoughts to sounds, again and again, but how am 'I' involved in making that happen?" Again, silent contemplation would follow. Several years later, after the sense of "me" totally vanished one day (along with a sense of inside and outside), then everything became clear, and it was understood that there is only one thingless thing here, and it is what does everything (because it IS everything). The realization was like a cosmic joke. Only then was the illusory nature of both "me" and the idea of "efforting" seen through. THIS never makes an effort even though efforting is often imagined by humans who try to conceptualize what's happening.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 8, 2019 19:38:33 GMT -5
Bumped, as referred to... It's okay to imagine that effort is needed, but there comes a point where it's realized that the idea of efforting has been an illusion. Not only do some people, such as Paul Morgan-Somers, fall into unity consciousness without doing anything, but other people do so through inquiry rather than meditative practices. Norio Kushi, Ramana, and many other people fall into that category. People who pursue meditative practices, and subsequently attain SR, often refer to efforting as a way of encouraging other people to become internally silent because that's what's usually correlated with realizations, and it's one way of pointing to that. Niz, for example, often told people that staying in the "I am" initially required a lot of effort, and i've told people the same sort of thing about ATA-T, but if someone asked me whether that claim is true, I'd have to admit that what was thought to be effort at the time, ceased to be thought about that way after a particular realization. Why? Because there are not two here. There is no separate entity that can make an effort to find anything; it's only imagined like that, and imagination requires dualistic thinking. If there is no "me," how can a "me" make an effort of any kind? The reason sages are equanimous is because this truth has been non-conceptually realized. The fact that there is no SVP does not mean that what was done never happened, it just means it wasn't done by an SVP.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 8, 2019 19:46:03 GMT -5
That's all very well, but in order to find out there is no me you have to start with a me. If you can juggle it is effortless and performed without thinking, and it would be legitimate to say in that moment while all the balls are in the air that I feel like I've always been able to juggle. But of course that's not true. I'm not crazy about the juggling metaphor for a lot of reasons, but the idea of volition interested me fairly early. Sometimes I'd sit in an easy chair in the evening, look at my arms, and think, "I know that I don't have anything to do with how hairs grow out of the skin, or how the blood cells move through the veins and arteries, or how the eyes see what they see, or any of the other trillion things that the body is doing, etc., so why do I have any sense that there's a 'me' involved in anything that's happening?" After thinking this kind of thought, I'd shift attention away from thoughts to "universal sound" or some other actual sound in the room and stay in silence, just listening. Sometimes I'd think, "Attention is being shifted away from thoughts to sounds, again and again, but how am 'I' involved in making that happen?" Again, silent contemplation would follow. Several years later, after the sense of "me" totally vanished one day (along with a sense of inside and outside), then everything became clear, and it was understood that there is only one thingless thing here, and it is what does everything (because it IS everything). The realization was like a cosmic joke. Only then was the illusory nature of both "me" and the idea of "efforting" seen through. THIS never makes an effort even though efforting is often imagined by humans who try to conceptualize what's happening. If efforting happens, it's not really true that THIS never makes an effort, except in a particular context in which THIS is being distinguished from form. In truth, it's a false distinction.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Sept 8, 2019 21:47:59 GMT -5
It's okay to imagine that effort is needed, but there comes a point where it's realized that the idea of efforting has been an illusion. Not only do some people, such as Paul Morgan-Somers, fall into unity consciousness without doing anything, but other people do so through inquiry rather than meditative practices. Norio Kushi, Ramana, and many other people fall into that category. People who pursue meditative practices, and subsequently attain SR, often refer to efforting as a way of encouraging other people to become internally silent because that's what's usually correlated with realizations, and it's one way of pointing to that. Niz, for example, often told people that staying in the "I am" initially required a lot of effort, and i've told people the same sort of thing about ATA-T, but if someone asked me whether that claim is true, I'd have to admit that what was thought to be effort at the time, ceased to be thought about that way after a particular realization. Why? Because there are not two here. There is no separate entity that can make an effort to find anything; it's only imagined like that, and imagination requires dualistic thinking. If there is no "me," how can a "me" make an effort of any kind? The reason sages are equanimous is because this truth has been non-conceptually realized. The fact that there is no SVP does not mean that what was done never happened, it just means it wasn't done by an SVP. Of course.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Sept 8, 2019 22:17:55 GMT -5
I'm not crazy about the juggling metaphor for a lot of reasons, but the idea of volition interested me fairly early. Sometimes I'd sit in an easy chair in the evening, look at my arms, and think, "I know that I don't have anything to do with how hairs grow out of the skin, or how the blood cells move through the veins and arteries, or how the eyes see what they see, or any of the other trillion things that the body is doing, etc., so why do I have any sense that there's a 'me' involved in anything that's happening?" After thinking this kind of thought, I'd shift attention away from thoughts to "universal sound" or some other actual sound in the room and stay in silence, just listening. Sometimes I'd think, "Attention is being shifted away from thoughts to sounds, again and again, but how am 'I' involved in making that happen?" Again, silent contemplation would follow. Several years later, after the sense of "me" totally vanished one day (along with a sense of inside and outside), then everything became clear, and it was understood that there is only one thingless thing here, and it is what does everything (because it IS everything). The realization was like a cosmic joke. Only then was the illusory nature of both "me" and the idea of "efforting" seen through. THIS never makes an effort even though efforting is often imagined by humans who try to conceptualize what's happening. If efforting happens, it's not really true that THIS never makes an effort, except in a particular context in which THIS is being distinguished from form. In truth, it's a false distinction. That's the problem with pointing to a "no-context context." It would probably be far wiser just to remain silent.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 9, 2019 14:53:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 10, 2019 9:33:57 GMT -5
That's all very well, but in order to find out there is no me you have to start with a me. If you can juggle it is effortless and performed without thinking, and it would be legitimate to say in that moment while all the balls are in the air that I feel like I've always been able to juggle. But of course that's not true. I'm not crazy about the juggling metaphor for a lot of reasons, but the idea of volition interested me fairly early. Sometimes I'd sit in an easy chair in the evening, look at my arms, and think, "I know that I don't have anything to do with how hairs grow out of the skin, or how the blood cells move through the veins and arteries, or how the eyes see what they see, or any of the other trillion things that the body is doing, etc., so why do I have any sense that there's a 'me' involved in anything that's happening?" After thinking this kind of thought, I'd shift attention away from thoughts to "universal sound" or some other actual sound in the room and stay in silence, just listening. Sometimes I'd think, "Attention is being shifted away from thoughts to sounds, again and again, but how am 'I' involved in making that happen?" Again, silent contemplation would follow. Several years later, after the sense of "me" totally vanished one day (along with a sense of inside and outside), then everything became clear, and it was understood that there is only one thingless thing here, and it is what does everything (because it IS everything). The realization was like a cosmic joke. Only then was the illusory nature of both "me" and the idea of "efforting" seen through. THIS never makes an effort even though efforting is often imagined by humans who try to conceptualize what's happening. The purpose of this post is to try to make a clear distinction between self-remembering and Self Realization. I will give another metaphor. Will you agree that you have experienced at least two different states of consciousness, (1): ordinary sleep and (2): your present consciousness, ordinary consciousness? Two distinct states. On average we spend about 16 hours out of 24 in ordinary consciousness, about 8 hours in ordinary sleep. On occasion ordinary consciousness can be extended to 24 or even 30 hours, sometimes more. But what happens in these cases? One gets very tired, a great lack of energy, sleepy. A period of rest is necessary, sleep (the first state of consciousness). For some reason even scientists do not fully understand, periodic sleep is necessary. To add to our example, periodic nourishment is necessary, food, and periodic intake of oxygen and exhalation of CO2 is likewise necessary (the cycle of food intake can be extended through fasting, but 60 days is getting very near the maximum). The periodicity of breathing is quite short, a few seconds, but absolutely necessary within four minutes or brain damage is a very real threat. All this is necessary to maintain the necessary energy to live and exist in the second state of consciousness (ordinary consciousness). And all this should be pretty clear and simple and understandable. So this is the basis of our metaphor/analogy. self-remembering, the third state of consciousness, is an altogether different state of consciousness, different from ordinary consciousness. We could say that as sleep (the first state) is to ordinary consciousness (second state), so is the ordinary state (the second) to self-remembering (the third state). As we see that the ordinary state requires certain energies gained from food, air and sleep, without which the body inevitably returns to sleep, the first state, self-remembering also requires certain quantities as well as qualities of energy. IOW, without a certain quantity and quality of energy, the third state of consciousness, self-remembering, cannot be attained. So how are these energies acquired? Through conscious efforts and voluntary suffering (henceforth just called conscious efforts). Just as the body takes food and oxygen and transforms that energy to a finer energy which is used for thinking, feeling, moving and sensing, the body + conscious efforts, transforms the energy we have, to and even finer energy. This finer energy is what brings the third state of consciousness. Without this finer energy present, one's consciousness inevitably returns from the third state to the second state, just as the body returns to ordinary sleep, the first state, when the necessary energy for ordinary consciousness (2nd state) is depleted (as described above). There is an exact parallel. I will expand somewhat. Take for instance a water cooler, open at the top with a spout at the bottom to withdraw water. And let's put this water cooler under and old time hand cranked water pump. The spout represents water used, the hand pump replenishes the water in the cooler. Now we can let pumping the hand pump represent conscious efforts. Now, we are using energy all the time, to move, think, feel and sense (and the spout also inevitably leaks, through the wrong use of energy). This is represented by the spout being turned on and water exiting (the organism). Energy is saved (by conservation) and transformed via conscious efforts. So water (energy) is being used up (exiting the spout) and water (energy) is entering the organism via the hand pump. If enough energy is transformed to a certain quality, the water cooler will overflow. This overflow is the third state of consciousness, self-remembering. Now, this isn't a perfect analogy, but it suffices. Now, we can take all this back to juggling, the OP. Juggling represents conscious efforts (and conscious efforts involve not only the transformation of air and food, but primarily impressions). Becoming more conscious means achieving the third state of consciousness, self-remembering. If one "stops juggling" one inevitably returns to the second state of consciousness. self-remembering cannot be understood in any other terms than itself. And if experienced it is self-explanatory (or at least understood that this is something never previously encountered). Now, to put many things in context, Gurdjieff called the second state of consciousness the so-called waking state of consciousness, but he said that in fact it is a state of sleep, very like the first state, ordinary sleep. He said the third state of consciousness, self-remembering, is a higher state of consciousness, and it is only achieved through making conscious efforts. All this is why man is called a self-developing organism. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ But, I am sure you will continue to try to understand self-remembering from your own POV.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Sept 10, 2019 10:55:41 GMT -5
It would be truly unfortunate if what we conceive as "effort" had no end. One would never be able to simply relax and live life without having to do anything other than live life. After going on meditation retreats and pursuing a formal practice for two or three years, I began to wonder, "Is this sort of activity always going to be necessary?" As a global thinker, it seemed suspicious, to say the least. During that time I met people who had been rigorously meditating for thirty years or more, and none of them seemed free. In fact, very few of them exhibited any joie de vivre, emotional openess, or significant sense of humor. I knew that meditation (later I would realize that it was the internal silence that was the most highly correlated factor) often led to realizations that increased understanding, so I continued meditating, but the question of how long that would be necessary remained. After about ten years, I left the Zen tradition for several reasons. First, I realized that the informal activity of ATA-T was just as efficacious as formal zazen for precipitating realizations; second, I met Advaita teachers who seemed to be freer, funnier, more emotionally open, and much looser than Zen teachers, and third, I felt that the rigidity of the Zen approach in America was outdated and far too stifling.
After subsequently discovering that the "me" at the center of all efforting was an illusion, the Big Picture was finally seen, and it felt wonderful to leave seeking and efforting behind and thereby become an ordinary person. The body/mind was then free to do whatever needed to be done with no sense of emotional or psychological restriction. Only then was it realized that the whole idea of "effort" in the past had been a misconception based upon the illusion of a separate "me." Hopefully, sooner or later all beings will see through that imprisoning illusion. As one sage stated upon discovering the truth, "I had been like a fish stuck in a tank of glue suddenly released into the freedom of an infinite sea." The good news is that all efforting and seeking can come to an end.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 10, 2019 15:32:19 GMT -5
It would be truly unfortunate if what we conceive as "effort" had no end. One would never be able to simply relax and live life without having to do anything other than live life. After going on meditation retreats and pursuing a formal practice for two or three years, I began to wonder, "Is this sort of activity always going to be necessary?" As a global thinker, it seemed suspicious, to say the least. During that time I met people who had been rigorously meditating for thirty years or more, and none of them seemed free. In fact, very few of them exhibited any joie de vivre, emotional openess, or significant sense of humor. I knew that meditation (later I would realize that it was the internal silence that was the most highly correlated factor) often led to realizations that increased understanding, so I continued meditating, but the question of how long that would be necessary remained. After about ten years, I left the Zen tradition for several reasons. First, I realized that the informal activity of ATA-T was just as efficacious at formal zazen for precipitating realizations; second, I met Advaita teachers who seemed to be freer, funnier, more emotionally open, and much looser than Zen teachers, and third, I felt that the rigidity of the Zen approach in America was outdated and far too stifling. After subsequently discovering that the "me" at the center of all efforting was an illusion, the Big Picture was finally seen, and it felt wonderful to leave seeking and efforting behind and thereby become an ordinary person. The body/mind was then free to do whatever needed to be done with no sense of emotional or psychological restriction. Only then was it realized that the whole idea of "effort" in the past had been a misconception based upon the illusion of a separate "me." Hopefully, sooner or later all beings will see through that imprisoning illusion. As one sage stated upon discovering the truth, "I had been like a fish stuck in a tank of glue suddenly released into the freedom of an infinite sea." The good news is that all efforting and seeking can come to an end. Bearing in mind one name for the Gurdjieff teaching is the Work, and making conscious efforts is called work (on oneself), and the last sentence of my last post, and that post in general, "No work can be done in sleep" (the second state of consciousness), Gurdjieff. So one has to judge the value of "efforting", and the results, and what sleep is (the second state), and what it means to not-be asleep. (IOW, one comes to love and enjoy conscious efforts, and to such an extent that the results are simply a bonus). But of course you will still interpret all this from your own POV.
|
|
|
Post by zin on Sept 14, 2019 20:33:03 GMT -5
It would be truly unfortunate if what we conceive as "effort" had no end. One would never be able to simply relax and live life without having to do anything other than live life. After going on meditation retreats and pursuing a formal practice for two or three years, I began to wonder, "Is this sort of activity always going to be necessary?" As a global thinker, it seemed suspicious, to say the least. During that time I met people who had been rigorously meditating for thirty years or more, and none of them seemed free. In fact, very few of them exhibited any joie de vivre, emotional openess, or significant sense of humor. I knew that meditation (later I would realize that it was the internal silence that was the most highly correlated factor) often led to realizations that increased understanding, so I continued meditating, but the question of how long that would be necessary remained. After about ten years, I left the Zen tradition for several reasons. First, I realized that the informal activity of ATA-T was just as efficacious at formal zazen for precipitating realizations; second, I met Advaita teachers who seemed to be freer, funnier, more emotionally open, and much looser than Zen teachers, and third, I felt that the rigidity of the Zen approach in America was outdated and far too stifling. After subsequently discovering that the "me" at the center of all efforting was an illusion, the Big Picture was finally seen, and it felt wonderful to leave seeking and efforting behind and thereby become an ordinary person. The body/mind was then free to do whatever needed to be done with no sense of emotional or psychological restriction. Only then was it realized that the whole idea of "effort" in the past had been a misconception based upon the illusion of a separate "me." Hopefully, sooner or later all beings will see through that imprisoning illusion. As one sage stated upon discovering the truth, "I had been like a fish stuck in a tank of glue suddenly released into the freedom of an infinite sea." The good news is that all efforting and seeking can come to an end. Bearing in mind one name for the Gurdjieff teaching is the Work, and making conscious efforts is called work (on oneself), and the last sentence of my last post, and that post in general, "No work can be done in sleep" (the second state of consciousness), Gurdjieff. So one has to judge the value of "efforting", and the results, and what sleep is (the second state), and what it means to not-be asleep. (IOW, one comes to love and enjoy conscious efforts, and to such an extent that the results are simply a bonus). But of course you will still interpret all this from your own POV. I am going to ask about 'conscious efforts' (I haven't read this thread from the start this time). I don't know about any formal practice; neither zazen nor self-remembering. What I am reading nowadays about Gurdjieff's teaching focuses on harmonious working of three centers of man (intellectual center, feeling center, instinctive-moving center). It seems one just tries not to get lost in one of them - one tries to use all three as much as possible. Is that right?
I think the intellectual center brings the possibility of seeing; the body, doing; and the emotional center gives 'depth'. I don't know what brings them together exactly.. But the 'effort' there does not look like an effort of sitting at some place for hours.. I mean it is a normal activity, but not always possible due to abnormal habits.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 14, 2019 21:57:33 GMT -5
Bearing in mind one name for the Gurdjieff teaching is the Work, and making conscious efforts is called work (on oneself), and the last sentence of my last post, and that post in general, "No work can be done in sleep" (the second state of consciousness), Gurdjieff. So one has to judge the value of "efforting", and the results, and what sleep is (the second state), and what it means to not-be asleep. (IOW, one comes to love and enjoy conscious efforts, and to such an extent that the results are simply a bonus). But of course you will still interpret all this from your own POV. I am going to ask about 'conscious efforts' (I haven't read this thread from the start this time). I don't know about any formal practice; neither zazen nor self-remembering. What I am reading nowadays about Gurdjieff's teaching focuses on harmonious working of three centers of man (intellectual center, feeling center, instinctive-moving center). It seems one just tries not to get lost in one of them - one tries to use all three as much as possible. Is that right?
I think the intellectual center brings the possibility of seeing; the body, doing; and the emotional center gives 'depth'. I don't know what brings them together exactly.. But the 'effort' there does not look like an effort of sitting at some place for hours.. I mean it is a normal activity, but not always possible due to abnormal habits. First paragraph. Gurdjieff taught that for each person one center predominates. When the moving or instinctive center predominates, this is man #1. If the heart/emotional center predominates, this is man #2. If the intellectual center predominates, this is man (or of course woman too), man #3. Work is to work toward balancing the centers. So yes, we should use our weaker centers, daily. I knew immediately my weakest center is the emotional center. Best way to work on emotional center is to mix with people. Also to get involved in some manner some art. But yes also, try not to become lost in the using of the center, (understanding what this means is a good start). A first primary goal is to work toward becoming a balanced man, man #4. Getting into 2nd paragraph, another thing is to use the appropriate center for it's appropriate work, this saves energy. Right work of the centers is somewhat expressed in the Chuang Tzu story of the cook, who went 19 years without having to sharpen his knife, cutting up thousands of oxen. Now...conscious efforts are not done with the centers, not thinking, not feeling/emotions, not bodily-actions, not sensations. zd's ATA-T is/can be a kind of conscious effort, but it is closer to preparatory work, it is sensing (which is preparatory work). Conscious efforts can take place simultaneously with the use of the centers, any time, any place, so yes, along with any normal activity. One other thing, feeling center can give another kind of knowledge, other than intellectual knowledge, (so your word 'depth' might apply). Your other points, the work is like building a ladder. You build the rungs (learn how to eventually answer your own questions). This is expressed, somewhat, in the Chuang Tzu story of the Wheelwright.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2019 8:38:12 GMT -5
I am going to ask about 'conscious efforts' (I haven't read this thread from the start this time). I don't know about any formal practice; neither zazen nor self-remembering. What I am reading nowadays about Gurdjieff's teaching focuses on harmonious working of three centers of man (intellectual center, feeling center, instinctive-moving center). It seems one just tries not to get lost in one of them - one tries to use all three as much as possible. Is that right?
I think the intellectual center brings the possibility of seeing; the body, doing; and the emotional center gives 'depth'. I don't know what brings them together exactly.. But the 'effort' there does not look like an effort of sitting at some place for hours.. I mean it is a normal activity, but not always possible due to abnormal habits. First paragraph. Gurdjieff taught that for each person one center predominates. When the moving or instinctive center predominates, this is man #1. If the heart/emotional center predominates, this is man #2. If the intellectual center predominates, this is man (or of course woman too), man #3. Work is to work toward balancing the centers. So yes, we should use our weaker centers, daily. I knew immediately my weakest center is the emotional center. Best way to work on emotional center is to mix with people. Also to get involved in some manner some art. But yes also, try not to become lost in the using of the center, (understanding what this means is a good start). A first primary goal is to work toward becoming a balanced man, man #4. Getting into 2nd paragraph, another thing is to use the appropriate center for it's appropriate work, this saves energy. Right work of the centers is somewhat expressed in the Chuang Tzu story of the cook, who went 19 years without having to sharpen his knife, cutting up thousands of oxen. Now...conscious efforts are not done with the centers, not thinking, not feeling/emotions, not bodily-actions, not sensations. zd's ATA-T is/can be a kind of conscious effort, but it is closer to preparatory work, it is sensing (which is preparatory work). Conscious efforts can take place simultaneously with the use of the centers, any time, any place, so yes, along with any normal activity. One other thing, feeling center can give another kind of knowledge, other than intellectual knowledge, (so your word 'depth' might apply). Your other points, the work is like building a ladder. You build the rungs (learn how to eventually answer your own questions). This is expressed, somewhat, in the Chuang Tzu story of the Wheelwright. My mother always said those who practice their art for the sake of something greater are missing the point. Life is an art form.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 15, 2019 8:55:42 GMT -5
First paragraph. Gurdjieff taught that for each person one center predominates. When the moving or instinctive center predominates, this is man #1. If the heart/emotional center predominates, this is man #2. If the intellectual center predominates, this is man (or of course woman too), man #3. Work is to work toward balancing the centers. So yes, we should use our weaker centers, daily. I knew immediately my weakest center is the emotional center. Best way to work on emotional center is to mix with people. Also to get involved in some manner some art. But yes also, try not to become lost in the using of the center, (understanding what this means is a good start). A first primary goal is to work toward becoming a balanced man, man #4. Getting into 2nd paragraph, another thing is to use the appropriate center for it's appropriate work, this saves energy. Right work of the centers is somewhat expressed in the Chuang Tzu story of the cook, who went 19 years without having to sharpen his knife, cutting up thousands of oxen. Now...conscious efforts are not done with the centers, not thinking, not feeling/emotions, not bodily-actions, not sensations. zd's ATA-T is/can be a kind of conscious effort, but it is closer to preparatory work, it is sensing (which is preparatory work). Conscious efforts can take place simultaneously with the use of the centers, any time, any place, so yes, along with any normal activity. One other thing, feeling center can give another kind of knowledge, other than intellectual knowledge, (so your word 'depth' might apply). Your other points, the work is like building a ladder. You build the rungs (learn how to eventually answer your own questions). This is expressed, somewhat, in the Chuang Tzu story of the Wheelwright. My mother always said those who practice their art for the sake of something greater are missing the point. Life is an art form. Yes. But sometimes can apply, "Two birds, one stone". (This does not mean multitasking).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2019 9:47:25 GMT -5
My mother always said those who practice their art for the sake of something greater are missing the point. Life is an art form. Yes. But sometimes can apply, "Two birds, one stone". (This does not mean multitasking). The expectation turns into handcuffs. I was shooting baskets the other day. The mind said let the body do its thing, but then critiqued every motion. "Follow through, bend the wrist, don't throw it in." Only when it truly stopped did things change for only a moment then it jumped into the mix again when I missed, the expectation.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 15, 2019 17:18:18 GMT -5
Yes. But sometimes can apply, "Two birds, one stone". (This does not mean multitasking). The expectation turns into handcuffs. I was shooting baskets the other day. The mind said let the body do its thing, but then critiqued every motion. "Follow through, bend the wrist, don't throw it in." Only when it truly stopped did things change for only a moment then it jumped into the mix again when I missed, the expectation. But attention is merely attention. Attention just sees what is, there is no judgement, and as C Daily King says, no tutorialness. Google the Ikkyu story about attention, attention, attention.
|
|