|
Post by Reefs on Oct 19, 2019 8:10:24 GMT -5
Found this interesting Q&A with Alan Watts:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2019 10:44:22 GMT -5
Found this interesting Q&A with Alan Watts: Very good point. It points out the danger of separating Self and self, the permanent from the impermanent. This concession to the intellect often used as a pedagogic fulcrum if appropriated by the ego can provide it cover.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 20, 2019 14:01:29 GMT -5
Found this interesting Q&A with Alan Watts: Very good point. It points out the danger of separating Self and self, the permanent from the impermanent. This concession to the intellect often used as a pedagogic fulcrum if appropriated by the ego can provide it cover. For decades I was a stoic -- not that I thought of myself that way at the time, but stoicism is sort of embedded into Western culture, especially for males. The difference between material, relative witnessing of the stoic and the witnessing Watts is talking about is a realization that distinguishes between the content of mind - the voice that some of us can hear in our head - and what we really are, which is the space into which that voice appears and that which the voice appears to. To me, this was the most significant of the existential realizations. My head was in the tiger's mouth at that point. But even then, I could see how what Watts is talking about by way of warning is salient. Even that is a realization someone could get attached to, even though it's not the material detachment of the stoics, it's still a place someone could get stuck.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Oct 21, 2019 3:48:33 GMT -5
I have always agreed with Ramana on how he explained the relationship between the self, awareness, consciousness, witness.
There is only a witness for as long as there is self within awareness ..
All the potential suggestions for one to observe the self is pants, because the observer is the aware self observing lol ..
I think peeps at times think that the witness, witnesses one's actions and thoughts of the physical, but without the self construct that thought wouldn't be possible ..
Beyond the physical attributes of self, the same applies until there is no self ..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2019 8:28:21 GMT -5
I have always agreed with Ramana on how he explained the relationship between the self, awareness, consciousness, witness. There is only a witness for as long as there is self within awareness .. All the potential suggestions for one to observe the self is pants, because the observer is the aware self observing lol .. I think peeps at times think that the witness, witnesses one's actions and thoughts of the physical, but without the self construct that thought wouldn't be possible .. Beyond the physical attributes of self, the same applies until there is no self .. I don't think Watts is denigrating the process of self observing. I serously doubt he would. Note that he qualifies his response with " it depends how you're watching." This is the crux of the matter. The process doesn't necessarily lead to the conclusion that self as the observer is immune from the consequences of life, the kind of conclusion ego thrives on. This is the kind of conclusion he warns against, where ego deftly finds another hiding place. For me "abiding as self" is observing little self interacting with the world, but the illusory component, I know now, is not what I am observing, but the notion that I am separate. Ego like Houdini is always looking for a way out, but there is no escape.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Oct 21, 2019 8:53:15 GMT -5
I have always agreed with Ramana on how he explained the relationship between the self, awareness, consciousness, witness. There is only a witness for as long as there is self within awareness .. All the potential suggestions for one to observe the self is pants, because the observer is the aware self observing lol .. I think peeps at times think that the witness, witnesses one's actions and thoughts of the physical, but without the self construct that thought wouldn't be possible .. Beyond the physical attributes of self, the same applies until there is no self .. I don't think Watts is denigrating the process of self observing. I serously doubt he would. Note that he qualifies his response with " it depends how you're watching." This is the crux of the matter. The process doesn't necessarily lead to the conclusion that self as the observer is immune from the consequences of life, the kind of conclusion ego thrives on. This is the kind of conclusion he warns against, where ego deftly finds another hiding place. For me "abiding as self" is observing little self interacting with the world, but the illusory component, I know now, is not what I am observing, but the notion that I am separate. Ego like Houdini is always looking for a way out, but there is no escape. I don't buy into anything where there is an observation of events and there is the knowing of what is happening / transpiring but yet silently observes without any thought of it or response to it. The only aspect of this I can buy into is where there is no awareness of anything happening, all there is, is the awareness of self .. This I would say doesn't really reflect witnessing or observing life as we know it .. What I hear that is quite common nowadays is to stop thinking and be still and be aware of the witness or the observer (roughly translated). The same witness or self is present whether you are silent or not lol .. there isn't anything else present the moment you stop thinking lol, like some super duper witness that lies behind the scenes in stealth mode .. The witness is self, aware of what self is doing, thinking or not thinking, doing or not doing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2019 10:06:35 GMT -5
I don't think Watts is denigrating the process of self observing. I serously doubt he would. Note that he qualifies his response with " it depends how you're watching." This is the crux of the matter. The process doesn't necessarily lead to the conclusion that self as the observer is immune from the consequences of life, the kind of conclusion ego thrives on. This is the kind of conclusion he warns against, where ego deftly finds another hiding place. For me "abiding as self" is observing little self interacting with the world, but the illusory component, I know now, is not what I am observing, but the notion that I am separate. Ego like Houdini is always looking for a way out, but there is no escape. I don't buy into anything where there is an observation of events and there is the knowing of what is happening / transpiring but yet silently observes without any thought of it or response to it. The only aspect of this I can buy into is where there is no awareness of anything happening, all there is, is the awareness of self .. This I would say doesn't really reflect witnessing or observing life as we know it .. What I hear that is quite common nowadays is to stop thinking and be still and be aware of the witness or the observer (roughly translated). The same witness or self is present whether you are silent or not lol .. there isn't anything else present the moment you stop thinking lol, like some super duper witness that lies behind the scenes in stealth mode .. The witness is self, aware of what self is doing, thinking or not thinking, doing or not doing. Your entitled to your view of things. I won't try to dissuade you. The "laugh-out-loud" portion isn't necessary. My experience is wholly different. There is great benefit in "not thinking" . The mind adulterates our presence. We can agree to disagree.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Oct 21, 2019 11:20:50 GMT -5
I don't buy into anything where there is an observation of events and there is the knowing of what is happening / transpiring but yet silently observes without any thought of it or response to it. The only aspect of this I can buy into is where there is no awareness of anything happening, all there is, is the awareness of self .. This I would say doesn't really reflect witnessing or observing life as we know it .. What I hear that is quite common nowadays is to stop thinking and be still and be aware of the witness or the observer (roughly translated). The same witness or self is present whether you are silent or not lol .. there isn't anything else present the moment you stop thinking lol, like some super duper witness that lies behind the scenes in stealth mode .. The witness is self, aware of what self is doing, thinking or not thinking, doing or not doing. Your entitled to your view of things. I won't try to dissuade you. The "laugh-out-loud" portion isn't necessary. My experience is wholly different. There is great benefit in "not thinking" . The mind adulterates our presence. We can agree to disagree. Agreed, but I suspect that this is a language thing. If mind talk totally ceases, there is what we might call "a subconscious or direct body knowing" of what's happening, but there are no thoughts about it. This is the state we call "mushin." In that state there's no awareness of an observer because the intellect is not reflecting about what's happening, and "what is" is not being divided into two states--an observer and that which is being observed. If we start talking about a witness, we've already started imagining because there's nothing separate from "what is." IOW, there's no witness witnessing "what is;" there's just "what is." And yes, we can agree to disagree about any of this. It's all fun and games.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2019 12:41:39 GMT -5
I don't buy into anything where there is an observation of events and there is the knowing of what is happening / transpiring but yet silently observes without any thought of it or response to it. The only aspect of this I can buy into is where there is no awareness of anything happening, all there is, is the awareness of self .. This I would say doesn't really reflect witnessing or observing life as we know it .. What I hear that is quite common nowadays is to stop thinking and be still and be aware of the witness or the observer (roughly translated). The same witness or self is present whether you are silent or not lol .. there isn't anything else present the moment you stop thinking lol, like some super duper witness that lies behind the scenes in stealth mode .. The witness is self, aware of what self is doing, thinking or not thinking, doing or not doing. Your entitled to your view of things. I won't try to dissuade you. The "laugh-out-loud" portion isn't necessary. My experience is wholly different. There is great benefit in "not thinking" . The mind adulterates our presence. We can agree to disagree. Nice.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2019 12:46:49 GMT -5
Your entitled to your view of things. I won't try to dissuade you. The "laugh-out-loud" portion isn't necessary. My experience is wholly different. There is great benefit in "not thinking" . The mind adulterates our presence. We can agree to disagree. Agreed, but I suspect that this is a language thing. If mind talk totally ceases, there is what we might call "a subconscious or direct body knowing" of what's happening, but there are no thoughts about it. This is the state we call "mushin." In that state there's no awareness of an observer because the intellect is not reflecting aboput what's happening, and "what is" is not being divided into two states--an observer and that which is being observed. If we start talking about a witness, we've already started imagining because there's nothing separate from "what is." IOW, there's no witness witnessing "what is;" there's just "what is."And yes, we can agree to disagree about any of this. It's all fun and games. Correct.
As witnessing is happening, it's a good time to look and see that "a witness" is a facet of that which is witnessed...that ultimately, witnessing happens, absent a something THAT witnesses.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 21, 2019 18:37:00 GMT -5
I don't think Watts is denigrating the process of self observing. I serously doubt he would. Note that he qualifies his response with " it depends how you're watching." This is the crux of the matter. The process doesn't necessarily lead to the conclusion that self as the observer is immune from the consequences of life, the kind of conclusion ego thrives on. This is the kind of conclusion he warns against, where ego deftly finds another hiding place. For me "abiding as self" is observing little self interacting with the world, but the illusory component, I know now, is not what I am observing, but the notion that I am separate. Ego like Houdini is always looking for a way out, but there is no escape. I don't buy into anything where there is an observation of events and there is the knowing of what is happening / transpiring but yet silently observes without any thought of it or response to it. The only aspect of this I can buy into is where there is no awareness of anything happening, all there is, is the awareness of self .. This I would say doesn't really reflect witnessing or observing life as we know it .. What I hear that is quite common nowadays is to stop thinking and be still and be aware of the witness or the observer (roughly translated). The same witness or self is present whether you are silent or not lol .. there isn't anything else present the moment you stop thinking lol, like some super duper witness that lies behind the scenes in stealth mode .. The witness is self, aware of what self is doing, thinking or not thinking, doing or not doing. Yes, that's true, but for some of us, life was lived via a schism that it took a deliberate silence to illuminate.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Oct 22, 2019 1:45:29 GMT -5
I don't buy into anything where there is an observation of events and there is the knowing of what is happening / transpiring but yet silently observes without any thought of it or response to it. The only aspect of this I can buy into is where there is no awareness of anything happening, all there is, is the awareness of self .. This I would say doesn't really reflect witnessing or observing life as we know it .. What I hear that is quite common nowadays is to stop thinking and be still and be aware of the witness or the observer (roughly translated). The same witness or self is present whether you are silent or not lol .. there isn't anything else present the moment you stop thinking lol, like some super duper witness that lies behind the scenes in stealth mode .. The witness is self, aware of what self is doing, thinking or not thinking, doing or not doing. Your entitled to your view of things. I won't try to dissuade you. The "laugh-out-loud" portion isn't necessary. My experience is wholly different. There is great benefit in "not thinking" . The mind adulterates our presence. We can agree to disagree. If there was an intruder in the house and you turned off the lights, he will still be there, similar to when you press the pause button on the remote, the movie is still there .. What some peeps 'think' excuse the pun, is that when they pause their thoughts and entertain a quiet or still mind the self is no longer present and the silent witness is there instead of. If the so called silent witness was not present of the thinking mind you would not be able to think about not thinking .. There is confusion had where one tries to illuminate one aspect of what you are over another .. this is the foundation of neti neti .. You can't prise apart the silent witness from the chatter man, they are both the same, but for some reason one makes out that the silent assassin is more truer than the expressive fool. Who makes such a distinction, the silent self or the chatty self, or the self that is the most spiritual? A mind that is quiet or still is still of the mind .. If peeps want to dress that up and declare that it is the same as beyond mind then they are fooling themselves .. Awareness of what you are beyond self is not the same as being quiet of the mind .. I would say that when teachers point to the witness or the observer, they are not pointing to the self that is quiet .. but some teachers believe that this is somehow the same as beyond the self .. To me this illustrates that they don't know the difference either.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Oct 22, 2019 8:03:05 GMT -5
Your entitled to your view of things. I won't try to dissuade you. The "laugh-out-loud" portion isn't necessary. My experience is wholly different. There is great benefit in "not thinking" . The mind adulterates our presence. We can agree to disagree. If there was an intruder in the house and you turned off the lights, he will still be there, similar to when you press the pause button on the remote, the movie is still there .. What some peeps 'think' excuse the pun, is that when they pause their thoughts and entertain a quiet or still mind the self is no longer present and the silent witness is there instead of. If the so called silent witness was not present of the thinking mind you would not be able to think about not thinking .. There is confusion had where one tries to illuminate one aspect of what you are over another .. this is the foundation of neti neti .. You can't prise apart the silent witness from the chatter man, they are both the same, but for some reason one makes out that the silent assassin is more truer than the expressive fool. Who makes such a distinction, the silent self or the chatty self, or the self that is the most spiritual? A mind that is quiet or still is still of the mind .. If peeps want to dress that up and declare that it is the same as beyond mind then they are fooling themselves .. Awareness of what you are beyond self is not the same as being quiet of the mind .. I would say that when teachers point to the witness or the observer, they are not pointing to the self that is quiet .. but some teachers believe that this is somehow the same as beyond the self .. To me this illustrates that they don't know the difference either. I like your phrase "the chatter man." I'll have to remember that one for future reference. haha Out of curiosity, how would you answer the question, "Who are you, fundamentally?"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2019 8:29:39 GMT -5
Your entitled to your view of things. I won't try to dissuade you. The "laugh-out-loud" portion isn't necessary. My experience is wholly different. There is great benefit in "not thinking" . The mind adulterates our presence. We can agree to disagree. If there was an intruder in the house and you turned off the lights, he will still be there, similar to when you press the pause button on the remote, the movie is still there .. What some peeps 'think' excuse the pun, is that when they pause their thoughts and entertain a quiet or still mind the self is no longer present and the silent witness is there instead of. If the so called silent witness was not present of the thinking mind you would not be able to think about not thinking .. There is confusion had where one tries to illuminate one aspect of what you are over another .. this is the foundation of neti neti .. You can't prise apart the silent witness from the chatter man, they are both the same, but for some reason one makes out that the silent assassin is more truer than the expressive fool. Who makes such a distinction, the silent self or the chatty self, or the self that is the most spiritual? A mind that is quiet or still is still of the mind .. If peeps want to dress that up and declare that it is the same as beyond mind then they are fooling themselves .. Awareness of what you are beyond self is not the same as being quiet of the mind .. I would say that when teachers point to the witness or the observer, they are not pointing to the self that is quiet .. but some teachers believe that this is somehow the same as beyond the self .. To me this illustrates that they don't know the difference either. Like I said my experience is wholly different. When the mind rests in the heart, I am free. I can't relate to what you're saying. I am currently re-reading Michael James book "Happiness and the Art of Being" about the teachings of Ramana Maharshi. Almost every sentence in that book is consistent with what I'm saying. I could start throwing quotes on here, but am not interested in lengthy polemics. I accept that you disagree. I won't respond to your rebuttal regardng this issue. I'll concede the last word to you. I respect you. Peace.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 22, 2019 9:41:25 GMT -5
my brain isn't absorbing information well at the moment, is the basic discussion whether there is a 'self' present in the state of witnessing?
|
|