Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2019 10:36:07 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?g I can only comment on how this body/mind experiences this thing called life. The post was initially a warning by Wats that the concept of a witness, the Self/self split is potentially another place for the ego to hide. It can be a trap if one draws certain conclusions about it. It can in fact be appropriated by the ego and misused a la early Jeff Foster. I am not little self. I am big Self. Little self doesn't exist, big Self does. I am big Self or the witness. I am not responsible for what little self does. BS like that. I am big Self therefore better than the little selfs I'm debating, etc. Tenka puts the practice of observing self as part and parcel of the "dodge" above. I disagree. To me falling into that mode is not caused by self observing, but rather by mind drawing certain conclusions about what is experienced during self observing. When mind rests those kinds of conclusions, in fact, all conclusions are BS. In the flow, I could give a rat's arse about all this brainal rigamarole, this neuronic pretzelism, been dying to use that term. I am HAPPY, really really so. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Oct 22, 2019 10:44:03 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?g I can only comment on how this body/mind experiences this thing called life. The post was initially a warning by Wats that the concept of a witness, the Self/self split is potentially another place for the ego to hide. It can be a trap if one draws certain conclusions about it. It can in fact be appropriated by the ego and misused a la early Jeff Foster. I am not little self. I am big Self. Little self doesn't exist, big Self does. I am big Self or the witness. I am not responsible for what little self does. BS like that. ....When the mind is at rest, all conclusions are BS. In the flow, I could give a rat's arse about all this brainal rigamarole, this neuronic pretzelism, being dying to use that term. I am HAPPY, really really so. I'll buy that. No thoughts about being a witness, self, Self, or anything else; just being one-with the flow of everyday life. "neuronic pretzelism" and "brainal rigamarole"--my vocabulary is expanding this morning.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2019 11:03:33 GMT -5
I can only comment on how this body/mind experiences this thing called life. The post was initially a warning by Wats that the concept of a witness, the Self/self split is potentially another place for the ego to hide. It can be a trap if one draws certain conclusions about it. It can in fact be appropriated by the ego and misused a la early Jeff Foster. I am not little self. I am big Self. Little self doesn't exist, big Self does. I am big Self or the witness. I am not responsible for what little self does. BS like that. ....When the mind is at rest, all conclusions are BS. In the flow, I could give a rat's arse about all this brainal rigamarole, this neuronic pretzelism, being dying to use that term. I am HAPPY, really really so. I'll buy that. No thoughts about being a witness, self, Self, or anything else; just being one-with the flow of everyday life. "neuronic pretzelism" and "brainal rigamarole"--my vocabulary is expanding this morning. To me self observing is pulling back, being aware of being aware. This is where mind stops and rests a la ATA-T, the self observing component can be called a by-product, but you begin to realize things about little self in the thought chains that you see as attention is drawn away by mind. Little subtle tendencies are exposed. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 22, 2019 17:20:57 GMT -5
I'll buy that. No thoughts about being a witness, self, Self, or anything else; just being one-with the flow of everyday life. "neuronic pretzelism" and "brainal rigamarole"--my vocabulary is expanding this morning. To me self observing is pulling back, being aware of being aware. This is where mind stops and rests a la ATA-T, the self observing component can be called a by-product, but you begin to realize things about little self in the thought chains that you see as attention is drawn away by mind. Little subtle tendencies are exposed. Yes, just as a stoic can benefit materially from his or her detachment, we, as individuals, can benefit in relative terms, by becoming more conscious of the content and dynamic of our minds. This isn't to say that there is some sort of perfected state that can ever be reached by this sort of observation, or that it ultimately has anything to do with self-realization. While it can have something to do with becoming more prone toward the happy accident of realization, that's an entirely different subject. While such a process may or may not result in transcendent experiences, that, too, is yet another, entirely different subject. While this process can happen either before or after the end of existential seeking, that, yet again, is a third, entirely different subject.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2019 22:30:25 GMT -5
To me self observing is pulling back, being aware of being aware. This is where mind stops and rests a la ATA-T, the self observing component can be called a by-product, but you begin to realize things about little self in the thought chains that you see as attention is drawn away by mind. Little subtle tendencies are exposed. Yes, just as a stoic can benefit materially from his or her detachment, we, as individuals, can benefit in relative terms, by becoming more conscious of the content and dynamic of our minds. This isn't to say that there is some sort of perfected state that can ever be reached by this sort of observation, or that it ultimately has anything to do with self-realization. While it can have something to do with becoming more prone toward the happy accident of realization, that's an entirely different subject. While such a process may or may not result in transcendent experiences, that, too, is yet another, entirely different subject. While this process can happen either before or after the end of existential seeking, that, yet again, is a third, entirely different subject. It is enlightening and humbling. You are less prone to judge others, because much of what you see in others, doesn't compare to the "beam in my eye." More likely to be forgiving. Is that related to SR? Does it matter? |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Oct 23, 2019 1:43:46 GMT -5
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. I think we are talking about completely different things because of our understandings of key words used .. You see in my understandings, the mind can't reside anywhere like the heart because the mind is the foundation and the environment for self and the heart to be .. Without mind, there is no self.. this is why Ramana speaks about the witness as being part of the parcel of being self aware .. For you to even contemplate on being free, it is what you are of the mind (self) being able to know what freedom feels like compared to not .. This is the whole dual package holiday deal you have signed up for .. All I have really stated is that if you pause your thoughts for a moment, self doesn't disappear .. Not thinking doesn't change anything about what is present. You are present regardless. People seem to divide up the witness as the true self and the thinking man as something else .. I have emphasised that for there to be no self, one has to transcend the mind . Sitting there cross legged feeling free is not transcending anything mind related or self related .. I am happy to agree to disagree with this statement for sure .. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Oct 23, 2019 1:50:36 GMT -5
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?" I think saying there is only what you are is for good reason cos it bypasses questions like these . If you are asking who Am I you are asking along personal lines of self identification are you not? Only self of the mind can identify and the realization itself has no thought of it .. So we are in a difficult position based upon this predicament . It's easy to say from this self perspective that fundamentally I am light, I am Love, I am Self and all that jazz, but I don't suppose it means much to folk, it sounds a bit wishy washy and floaty but in my eyes it does hold some weight (unless everything said doesn't in the land of the dreamer). |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 23, 2019 2:15:16 GMT -5
Yes, just as a stoic can benefit materially from his or her detachment, we, as individuals, can benefit in relative terms, by becoming more conscious of the content and dynamic of our minds. This isn't to say that there is some sort of perfected state that can ever be reached by this sort of observation, or that it ultimately has anything to do with self-realization. While it can have something to do with becoming more prone toward the happy accident of realization, that's an entirely different subject. While such a process may or may not result in transcendent experiences, that, too, is yet another, entirely different subject. While this process can happen either before or after the end of existential seeking, that, yet again, is a third, entirely different subject. It is enlightening and humbling. You are less prone to judge others, because much of what you see in others, doesn't compare to the "beam in my eye." More likely to be forgiving. Is that related to SR? Does it matter? Yes, it is related. It can matter to the individual because of the finality of the realization. But, you're right: in practical, day-to-day terms, simple, genuine humility is possible for anyone, in any moment, in any encounter, and no, that's not a monopoly of the "self-realized", not by a long shot. |
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Oct 23, 2019 8:23:53 GMT -5
It is not possible to watch yourself thinking or perceiving an object. As soon as you try to become the witness of what you are thinking or seeing you will momentarily experience only awareness. If that is so then the world including mind ceases to exist. It disappears, perhaps only for a fraction of a second. You cannot sit back and observe a thought because you are completely absorbed in it. If you have the intention to observe a thought and wait for a thought to arrive, then as soon as a thought appears you will immediately forget that you want to observe it because the thought will take up your entire attention. After the thought disappears you will be reminded that you want to observe the thought, but it is too late. The reminder appears automatically because you have planted that intention in your mind in the same way that if you plant a reminder to meet someone in 5 hours time, the thought to look at your watch will occasionally appear spontaneously in the mind without constantly having to look at the time for 5 hours.
The fact that the intention to observe the thought comes back after you have already been absorbed in the thought doesn't matter because the intention to observe the thought is not what actually happens. The intention simply takes you back to the source which is awareness and which is thought free.
|
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Oct 23, 2019 8:39:14 GMT -5
You cannot sit back and observe a thought because you are completely absorbed in it. Yes absolutely .. you cannot divide or prise apart the thinker from the thought from the witness .. They are all the same self . This is why Ramana says there is no witness / witnessing when there is no self. It is part of the self parcel .. When you try and simply be a witness to your thoughts or actions, it is another thought and another action to witness your thoughts and your actions .. You can't watch a movie while no-one is in to watch it . |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2019 8:53:46 GMT -5
It is not possible to watch yourself thinking or perceiving an object. As soon as you try to become the witness of what you are thinking or seeing you will momentarily experience only awareness. If that is so then the world including mind ceases to exist. It disappears, perhaps only for a fraction of a second. You cannot sit back and observe a thought because you are completely absorbed in it. If you have the intention to observe a thought and wait for a thought to arrive, then as soon as a thought appears you will immediately forget that you want to observe it because the thought will take up your entire attention. After the thought disappears you will be reminded that you want to observe the thought, but it is too late. The reminder appears automatically because you have planted that intention in your mind in the same way that if you plant a reminder to meet someone in 5 hours time, the thought to look at your watch will occasionally appear spontaneously in the mind without constantly having to look at the time for 5 hours. The fact that the intention to observe the thought comes back after you have already been absorbed in the thought doesn't matter because the intention to observe the thought is not what actually happens. The intention simply takes you back to the source which is awareness and which is thought free. What you describe is exactly accurate. I agree that it is impossible to even "have" a thought without full attention, becoming engrossed in it. Usually for me it is a chain of thoughts, all related. "My dog is crying. Maybe she needs to be let out. But I want to finish my meditation. She just went to the bathroom on her walk. She wants to play. She's spoiled. I need to be more forceful with her. She takes advantage. She even bites me when she doesn't get her way." There are also little waves of emotion rising and falling that I note, playing accompaniment to the words. Back to the breath, finallly, to peace, but I recall the thinking, I note it. It is revealing, educational. This is what I refer to as "observing" self. |
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Oct 23, 2019 9:03:41 GMT -5
What you describe is exactly accurate. I agree that it is impossible to even "have" a thought without full attention, becoming engrossed in it. Usually for me it is a chain of thoughts, all related. "My dog is crying. Maybe she needs to be let out. But I want to finish my meditation. She just went to the bathroom on her walk. She wants to play. She's spoiled. I need to be more forceful with her. She takes advantage. She even bites me when she doesn't get her way." There are also little waves of emotion rising and falling that I note, playing accompaniment to the words. Back to the breath, finallly, to peace, but I recall the thinking, I note it. It is revealing, educational. This is what I refer to as "observing" self. So instead of trying to step back from the experience of phenomena, we do the opposite by putting attention on one object. In your practice it is breath. And the way to get to witnessing awareness is to experience finer and more subtle experience of breath so that it is transcended or let go of so that what remains is Awareness/Peace. |
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Oct 23, 2019 9:09:13 GMT -5
From the Vijñāna-bhairava-Tantra.
12. ‘Cessation’ (nirodha) [of the mind] was taught by previous [masters] through the yoga/method of renunciation [of the mind and senses] and arduous practice. Here I will teach a cessation that is [comparatively] effortless.
13. Focus the mind upon something that then dissolves. Because it is not grasping anything else [other than the dissolving object], the mind comes to rest in one’s Self.
14. It is similar to the case of a powerful thunder-clap gradually fading: when it dies away, the mind, due to being [totally] focused on it, comes to rest.
15. One should give oneself to one-pointedness [i.e. meditate] on any enchanting (manohara) sound that comes into one’s hearing, until ceasing it brings about the cessation [of mind].
Although this tantra refers to the fading of sound the same principle applies to the fading of the experience of any object or point of attention such as breath, bodily sensations, mantra etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 23, 2019 9:37:18 GMT -5
Witnessing, at it's best, is about establishing a metaphorical distance between your sense of awareness and the content of your thoughts and emotions. A quiet body/mind is one that is spacious, and clear. The process is quite simple, and involves deliberately stepping-back and considering what it is that we're thinking or feeling. What is the source of the emotion? Why do we react to the things that we encounter the way that we do? Taking a breath before reacting, or looking back and determining why we reacted with sudden force, when that happens, can be particularly illuminating.
As a challenge, can you sit quietly somewhere - anywhere, either in a room or outside - alone, with no distractions, and for how long? This is called being comfortable in your own skin.
Even when the stream of thoughts is immediate and fast-moving, there is always a space between thoughts. All that has to happen is for you to place your attention there. How long can you maintain this before you happen to notice that your mind is lost in thought again?
|
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Oct 23, 2019 10:21:47 GMT -5
Witnessing, at it's best, is about establishing a metaphorical distance between your sense of awareness and the content of your thoughts and emotions. A quiet body/mind is one that is spacious, and clear. The process is quite simple, and involves deliberately stepping-back and considering what it is that we're thinking or feeling. What is the source of the emotion? Why do we react to the things that we encounter the way that we do? Taking a breath before reacting, or looking back and determining why we reacted with sudden force, when that happens, can be particularly illuminating. Witnessing can neither be at its best or at its worst. There is either witnessing or not. What you describe is NOT witnessing or a process which leads to witnessing. What you describe is introspection, an analysis of what you are thinking and why. This is intellectual mind stuff, very far from the simplicity of witnessing which is passive and uninvolved in the thinking process. You cannot get to it by examining the content of your thoughts because to do so keeps you with thoughts and generates yet more thoughts to ponder about. This approach is in opposition to transcendence of thoughts. So we should not be concerned with the content of thoughts. |
|
