|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Dec 7, 2018 8:38:38 GMT -5
“Keeping the mind focused on its Source” is a process of waiting, basically, of not commanding the impulse, the channel — the seeming channel — to action, allowing whatever happens to happen of its own accord, so to say, meaning that the sense of flowing involuntary spontaneity remains unbroken.
For example, I was just sitting after meditation today. Now there is a sense “I could get up.” But instead of getting up in a way that would have the feeling “I am getting up" attached to it, the mind simply rested in Self, so to say — for this is merely figurative; mind is always in Self, mind is nothing but Self — until, from that position of rest, of total unbroken non-doing sense, the body arose. But that beat is syncopated… it may take considerably longer than seems necessary to the mind for that body to get up in the circumstance, and it should not be forced.
Even if the mind "interfered," that is of course nothing other than another movement in Self, but it is an undesirable movement from the standpoint of mental peace (though all is peace, even un-peace!).
But what is going on here? How would we describe what’s happening in this? It’s the mind remaining quiescent instead of rising up and commanding the situation; and then something happens anyway, regardless.
|
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 7, 2018 9:28:44 GMT -5
“Keeping the mind focused on its Source” is a process of waiting, basically, of not commanding the impulse, the channel — the seeming channel — to action, allowing whatever happens to happen of its own accord, so to say, meaning that the sense of flowing involuntary spontaneity remains unbroken. For example, I was just sitting after meditation today. Now there is a sense “I could get up.” But instead of getting up in a way that would have the feeling “I am getting up" attached to it, the mind simply rested in Self, so to say — for this is merely figurative; mind is always in Self, mind is nothing but Self — until, from that position of rest, of total unbroken non-doing sense, the body arose. But that beat is syncopated… it may take considerably longer than seems necessary to the mind for that body to get up in the circumstance, and it should not be forced. Even if the mind "interfered," that is of course nothing other than another movement in Self, but it is an undesirable movement from the standpoint of mental peace (though all is peace, even un-peace!). But what is going on here? How would we describe what’s happening in this? It’s the mind remaining quiescent instead of rising up and commanding the situation; and then something happens anyway, regardless. Yes, the mind can remain totally quiescent, yet the body will continue to act. No efforting, planning, or thought is necessary. This is non-doing doing or non-volitional doing. Keeping mind focused on Source means simple watching rather than a concerted mental effort to do something. Anyone who has any doubt about this can simply sit in silence and watch what happens after the mind becomes quiescent. This is the basis of the saying, "A sage does nothing but everything gets done." |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2018 11:03:04 GMT -5
“Keeping the mind focused on its Source” is a process of waiting, basically, of not commanding the impulse, the channel — the seeming channel — to action, allowing whatever happens to happen of its own accord, so to say, meaning that the sense of flowing involuntary spontaneity remains unbroken. For example, I was just sitting after meditation today. Now there is a sense “I could get up.” But instead of getting up in a way that would have the feeling “I am getting up" attached to it, the mind simply rested in Self, so to say — for this is merely figurative; mind is always in Self, mind is nothing but Self — until, from that position of rest, of total unbroken non-doing sense, the body arose. But that beat is syncopated… it may take considerably longer than seems necessary to the mind for that body to get up in the circumstance, and it should not be forced. Even if the mind "interfered," that is of course nothing other than another movement in Self, but it is an undesirable movement from the standpoint of mental peace (though all is peace, even un-peace!). But what is going on here? How would we describe what’s happening in this? It’s the mind remaining quiescent instead of rising up and commanding the situation; and then something happens anyway, regardless. Yes, the mind can remain totally quiescent, yet the body will continue to act. No efforting, planning, or thought is necessary. This is non-doing doing or non-volitional doing. Keeping mind focused on Source means simple watching rather than a concerted mental effort to do something. Anyone who has any doubt about this can simply sit in silence and watch what happens after the mind becomes quiescent. This is the basis of the saying, "A sage does nothing but everything gets done." This is a question to both Sifty and ZD. Does the mind control which thoughts arise? |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 7, 2018 11:31:59 GMT -5
Yes, the mind can remain totally quiescent, yet the body will continue to act. No efforting, planning, or thought is necessary. This is non-doing doing or non-volitional doing. Keeping mind focused on Source means simple watching rather than a concerted mental effort to do something. Anyone who has any doubt about this can simply sit in silence and watch what happens after the mind becomes quiescent. This is the basis of the saying, "A sage does nothing but everything gets done." This is a question to both Sifty and ZD. Does the mind control which thoughts arise? THIS/the Infinite does everything. There is no personal entity doing anything or in control of anything. We use terms like "mind" and "body," but it's all one. |
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Dec 7, 2018 11:40:57 GMT -5
This is a question to both Sifty and ZD. Does the mind control which thoughts arise? No. And actually, thoughts cannot really be said to arise  . |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2018 13:13:38 GMT -5
This is a question to both Sifty and ZD. Does the mind control which thoughts arise? No. And actually, thoughts cannot really be said to arise . I was using Advaita vernacular. Doesn't Ramana often speak of thoughts "arising." Separate topic. If mind does not control thought then it doesn't control action which is what you are suggesting. |
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Dec 7, 2018 13:22:26 GMT -5
No. And actually, thoughts cannot really be said to arise . I was using Advaita vernacular. Doesn't Ramana often speak of thoughts "arising." Separate topic. If mind does not control thought then it Doesn't control acction. Yes, well, the idea of thoughts arising is an approximation that's helpful to seekers, but not quite accurate. Correct, the mind does not control action. But this is tricky territory. It's one thing to say this -- another to actually live the truth of it. Many people will fall into the trap of saying this but then saying "I will then lie back on my bed and do nothing since anyway it's out of my control." Well, that very idea of inaction is an egoic stance, because it implies "I am the one who can refuse to take action." Basically, as long as one identifies with the mind, one has to treat themselves as if they have free will. You can decide to "give up" control as part of an effortful, deliberate act of surrender, though, in which you decide you will accept whatever happens and let go of all desires to change things (except, of course, your desire to surrender -- that you have to hold on to). |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 7, 2018 13:41:09 GMT -5
“Keeping the mind focused on its Source” is a process of waiting, basically, of not commanding the impulse, the channel — the seeming channel — to action, allowing whatever happens to happen of its own accord, so to say, meaning that the sense of flowing involuntary spontaneity remains unbroken. For example, I was just sitting after meditation today. Now there is a sense “I could get up.” But instead of getting up in a way that would have the feeling “I am getting up" attached to it, the mind simply rested in Self, so to say — for this is merely figurative; mind is always in Self, mind is nothing but Self — until, from that position of rest, of total unbroken non-doing sense, the body arose. But that beat is syncopated… it may take considerably longer than seems necessary to the mind for that body to get up in the circumstance, and it should not be forced. Even if the mind "interfered," that is of course nothing other than another movement in Self, but it is an undesirable movement from the standpoint of mental peace (though all is peace, even un-peace!). But what is going on here? How would we describe what’s happening in this? It’s the mind remaining quiescent instead of rising up and commanding the situation; and then something happens anyway, regardless. What's going on here? From my perspective this is the difference between essence operating and personality operating. Essence is what we truly are, what we are born as (or born with. The first thing that should come-to-mind, the physical body. Other ~aspects of essence might take longer to recognize). Personality is acquired through the process of a baby and then child learning about the world, and as info/data stored in the neural structure of the brain. Personality is said to consist of what is NOT one's own. The ~mind itself~ belongs/is from essence. The CONTENTS of the mind form personality. That is, thoughts and thinking-thoughts arise from personality. Essence is one's true individuality. Personality is one's false sense of self, or simply false self. Personality is just name to refer to this false sense of self. Other names (besides those already used), referring to personality: Imaginary I, (directly from *our* language), cultural self (my invented term), mask, persona. Other possible names for essence: "who you were before you were born", true self, Buddha-nature. So essence is like hardware, personality is like software. I view essence a little differently from ZD. The Whole does not act through essence (IM view), essence is the possibility of the individuation being able to participate in/with the Whole. So now we can get to your question, what's going on here? If we think (and that described as pretty quickly), some desire arises as I need to do so-n-so, that's most likely, very likely the operation of personality (personality as thoughts jumping up, basically generally likes to stay *in charge*. But if we sit, in quiet, silence, and wait, what actually needs to be done next, will be/become obvious. The ~purpose~ of the journey is to shift from operating from personality back to living through one's essence. (one's is the distinction from ZD's view, the Whole operates through the individuation, through chosen cooperation/activation of possibility, via essence). |
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Dec 7, 2018 19:58:45 GMT -5
What's going on here? From my perspective this is the difference between essence operating and personality operating. Essence is what we truly are, what we are born as (or born with. The first thing that should come-to-mind, the physical body. Other ~aspects of essence might take longer to recognize). Personality is acquired through the process of a baby and then child learning about the world, and as info/data stored in the neural structure of the brain. Personality is said to consist of what is NOT one's own. The ~mind itself~ belongs/is from essence. The CONTENTS of the mind form personality. That is, thoughts and thinking-thoughts arise from personality. Essence is one's true individuality. Personality is one's false sense of self, or simply false self. Personality is just name to refer to this false sense of self. Other names (besides those already used), referring to personality: Imaginary I, (directly from *our* language), cultural self (my invented term), mask, persona. Other possible names for essence: "who you were before you were born", true self, Buddha-nature. So essence is like hardware, personality is like software. I view essence a little differently from ZD. The Whole does not act through essence (IM view), essence is the possibility of the individuation being able to participate in/with the Whole. So now we can get to your question, what's going on here? If we think (and that described as pretty quickly), some desire arises as I need to do so-n-so, that's most likely, very likely the operation of personality (personality as thoughts jumping up, basically generally likes to stay *in charge*. But if we sit, in quiet, silence, and wait, what actually needs to be done next, will be/become obvious. The ~purpose~ of the journey is to shift from operating from personality back to living through one's essence. (one's is the distinction from ZD's view, the Whole operates through the individuation, through chosen cooperation/activation of possibility, via essence). Interesting, but there are of course complications to this model. All of language, for example, would then fall under 'personality' under this model. Which means essence couldn’t' use it -- it would be 'tainted' with personality -- all those language-based assumptions and ways of looking at the world and speaking. And yet of course people operating under essence DO speak, presumably. Indeed, the entire complex of implicit and explicit knowledge of how-the-world-works and how-people-work and how-to-do-anything-at-all and so on is all perspectivized through 'personality.' |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 7, 2018 21:38:54 GMT -5
What's going on here? From my perspective this is the difference between essence operating and personality operating. Essence is what we truly are, what we are born as (or born with. The first thing that should come-to-mind, the physical body. Other ~aspects of essence might take longer to recognize). Personality is acquired through the process of a baby and then child learning about the world, and as info/data stored in the neural structure of the brain. Personality is said to consist of what is NOT one's own. The ~mind itself~ belongs/is from essence. The CONTENTS of the mind form personality. That is, thoughts and thinking-thoughts arise from personality. Essence is one's true individuality. Personality is one's false sense of self, or simply false self. Personality is just name to refer to this false sense of self. Other names (besides those already used), referring to personality: Imaginary I, (directly from *our* language), cultural self (my invented term), mask, persona. Other possible names for essence: "who you were before you were born", true self, Buddha-nature. So essence is like hardware, personality is like software. I view essence a little differently from ZD. The Whole does not act through essence (IM view), essence is the possibility of the individuation being able to participate in/with the Whole. So now we can get to your question, what's going on here? If we think (and that described as pretty quickly), some desire arises as I need to do so-n-so, that's most likely, very likely the operation of personality (personality as thoughts jumping up, basically generally likes to stay *in charge*. But if we sit, in quiet, silence, and wait, what actually needs to be done next, will be/become obvious. The ~purpose~ of the journey is to shift from operating from personality back to living through one's essence. (one's is the distinction from ZD's view, the Whole operates through the individuation, through chosen cooperation/activation of possibility, via essence). Interesting, but there are of course complications to this model. All of language, for example, would then fall under 'personality' under this model. Which means essence couldn’t' use it -- it would be 'tainted' with personality -- all those language-based assumptions and ways of looking at the world and speaking. And yet of course people operating under essence DO speak, presumably. Indeed, the entire complex of implicit and explicit knowledge of how-the-world-works and how-people-work and how-to-do-anything-at-all and so on is all perspectivized through 'personality.' Yes. Almost all of culture is part of what Joseph Chilton Pearce called the consensus trance. Essence does not speak English, or any other language from culture. There are three kinds of influences. A: cultural influences. C: Conscious influences (which originate outside of culture) and B: Conscious influences which have entered culture and have become mixed with cultural influences. An example of B influences are the scriptures of religions, some fairy tales (Arabian Nights), stories of the sages, many more. And yes to second paragraph also. People all the time here on ST's talk about pointers (comparably). Anything that can be said via language can only be a "pointer". Edit: But language is a necessary link, in the beginning, between personality and essence, necessary in a certain sense. The "path" begins in personality by what it encounters in terms of certain information/knowledge. But knowledge (as language) can only go so far and no further. |
|
|
|
Post by explorer on Dec 8, 2018 5:32:10 GMT -5
The difficulty of language is evident on this site. There seem to be endless and sometimes even angry discussions of what is consciousness v what is awareness, the differences between mind, ego, personality, feelings and so on. Goodness me - how tiring that can be to read. What is enlightenment but nothingness or spaciousness? Err... so not much to talk about you'd think! I like Ramana Maharshi's phrase that "thoughts arise," and in the same way "life arises" and "destiny arises." And the way life arises for us all is so unpredictable and also marvellous in its many flavours. For me, waiting for life to unfold and participating in its unfolding takes a lot of patience and humility and sometimes courage.
Friendship is also important in my view in the sometimes lonely landscape of Enlightenment, so I would like to see more friendship on this site in the way we relate to each other. So let us then treat each other “with a tender hand,” respecting our differences and diversity.
Matthew Arnold makes this plea better than I can in this conclusion to his wonderful poem, “Dover Beach,” (1867)
“Let us be true To one another!
For the world, which seems
To lie before us like a land of dreams,
So various, so beautiful, so new,
Hath really neither joy, nor love, nor light,
Nor certitude, nor peace, nor help for pain;
And we are here as on a darkling plain
Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight,
Where ignorant armies clash by night.”
|
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Dec 8, 2018 9:04:30 GMT -5
The difficulty of language is evident on this site. There seem to be endless and sometimes even angry discussions of what is consciousness v what is awareness, the differences between mind, ego, personality, feelings and so on. Goodness me - how tiring that can be to read. What is enlightenment but nothingness or spaciousness? Err... so not much to talk about you'd think! I like Ramana Maharshi's phrase that "thoughts arise," and in the same way "life arises" and "destiny arises." And the way life arises for us all is so unpredictable and also marvellous in its many flavours. For me, waiting for life to unfold and participating in its unfolding takes a lot of patience and humility and sometimes courage. Agreed, but unfortunately, on a site dedicated to non-duality and where there are so many who claim realizations, what is discussion to be about something which in fact cannot be really be discussed? I do wish there were more interesting topics of discussion and disagreement, though. And sure, more tact and friendship might be nice sometimes. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 8, 2018 9:49:28 GMT -5
The difficulty of language is evident on this site. There seem to be endless and sometimes even angry discussions of what is consciousness v what is awareness, the differences between mind, ego, personality, feelings and so on. Goodness me - how tiring that can be to read. What is enlightenment but nothingness or spaciousness? Err... so not much to talk about you'd think! I like Ramana Maharshi's phrase that "thoughts arise," and in the same way "life arises" and "destiny arises." And the way life arises for us all is so unpredictable and also marvellous in its many flavours. For me, waiting for life to unfold and participating in its unfolding takes a lot of patience and humility and sometimes courage. Agreed, but unfortunately, on a site dedicated to non-duality and where there are so many who claim realizations, what is discussion to be about something which in fact cannot be really be discussed? I do wish there were more interesting topics of discussion and disagreement, though. And sure, more tact and friendship might be nice sometimes. One can always go back into the archives to read what may be of more benefit. This site has been active for a decade and there have been over 150 threads during that time. The 'If I am the world' megathread has itself been active for over 3 and a half years. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 8, 2018 12:08:14 GMT -5
The difficulty of language is evident on this site. There seem to be endless and sometimes even angry discussions of what is consciousness v what is awareness, the differences between mind, ego, personality, feelings and so on. Goodness me - how tiring that can be to read. What is enlightenment but nothingness or spaciousness? Err... so not much to talk about you'd think! I like Ramana Maharshi's phrase that "thoughts arise," and in the same way "life arises" and "destiny arises." And the way life arises for us all is so unpredictable and also marvellous in its many flavours. For me, waiting for life to unfold and participating in its unfolding takes a lot of patience and humility and sometimes courage. Agreed, but unfortunately, on a site dedicated to non-duality and where there are so many who claim realizations, what is discussion to be about something which in fact cannot be really be discussed? I do wish there were more interesting topics of discussion and disagreement, though. And sure, more tact and friendship might be nice sometimes. Yes. Over the last decade this forum has attracted both seekers and finders. The finders have have had various non-dual experiences and realizations, and many of the convos have been oriented toward either, at worst, expressing ESA, or, at best, seeking commonality, consensus, and understanding. Unfortunately, finders have a tendency to think that what they've found is more important, truer, clearer, or deeper than what other people have found, and that often leads to food fights about numerous issues. It would interesting to start a thread that listed what most people could agree upon. From what I read here, these are some of the main points that I think are agreed upon: 1. THIS/Reality/Source/GodWhateverwewanttocallit is infinite and unified. 2. A sense of separation or sense of personal selfhood is an illusion. 3. There is no real birth or death. 4. Awareness is foundational. 5. THIS can be apprehended but it cannot be intellectually comprehended. 6. Time, space, causality, thingness, etc. are cognitive grids--a kind of intellectual abstract net projected upon THIS 7. No words can ever capture or accurately describe THIS. Words and the ideas they represent can only be used to point to THIS. 8. It is possible for a human being to attain peace, freedom, and equanimity if there is a sufficient depth of realization. 9. Non-abidance in mind is possible. 10. Thinking tends to obscure THIS. 11. A felt sense of oneness/unity/communion with THIS or as THIS is possible. |
|
|
|
Post by explorer on Dec 8, 2018 12:29:44 GMT -5
An impressive list! Thank you.
|
|
.
