|
|
Post by ivory on Aug 27, 2011 11:26:49 GMT -5
Nice post TRF. Do I really need this thought, and if the answer is No, or I don't know, you get the chance to kick it to the side of the road. This resonates. Recently I was having a hard time distinguishing between useful and useless thoughts because they seem to blend together. I sit back and watch thoughts arise, and 99% of them are utterly useless. After a while I was pretty much ignoring all thought (or just letting it pass, rather), but it was as if I had lost the ability to think logically and make decisions. I found myself in a haze where I couldn't think straight. I guess what I'm getting at is that there's no point in getting rid of baggage if a person just fills it up with 'new' baggage, including spiritual baggage. Yeah. A while back I realized that I had traded my old belief system with spiritual beliefs. Now I have the fun job of puking all that out too. Some teachers will say, "Don't believe a word I say." But I think the really good ones will just throw questions at you. I like J. Krishnamurti for that reason, too bad it's so hard to understand his ancient-styled language. I like Jed for his clarity of speech, but he talks about himself too much and has a very definitive and attractive writing style. Very easy to lap up everything he says without even realizing it. Once a person trusts themselves 100% though, as ZD said, then letting go of the baggage, gets easier and easier, especially when nothing is sacred... I'm still struggling with the trust thing. I think for the trust to really open up you have to be brutally honest with yourself. This is harder than one would think. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 27, 2011 20:08:31 GMT -5
This resonates. Recently I was having a hard time distinguishing between useful and useless thoughts because they seem to blend together. I sit back and watch thoughts arise, and 99% of them are utterly useless. After a while I was pretty much ignoring all thought (or just letting it pass, rather), but it was as if I had lost the ability to think logically and make decisions. I found myself in a haze where I couldn't think straight. I read your post this morning, and on the way to work, a gaggle of thoughts showed up about it. Were they useful thoughts? How could I possibly know? Anyhoo, here they are. I sometimes say 'come empty' and I'm pretty sure it's not very clear. To be empty is to be attentive stillness, like a cat at a mouse hole. Not physically still or necessarily mentally still, but stillness itself in which all physical and mental activity arise spontaneously. Spontaneous means not mitigated by a thinker, controller or doer, which does not mean thought and action do not occur. Thinking about thoughts, observing thoughts, controlling thoughts, rejecting thoughts and categorizing thoughts is not empty. It's mind directing traffic in one way or another, and this is a dysfunctional mind. Effort is not emptiness. In our desire to subdue or negate thought, mind becomes dysfunctional because attention is not open but rather constricted and focused on controlling thought. Examining to see which thoughts are needed and which are not is, itself, a thinking process, and is likewise dysfunctional. In this way, we could seem to be devoid of thought, and yet be so distracted that we get hit by a bus. Notice how hard it is to run over a cat with a bus. (Don't try this at home, folks) Mind is what we use to experience and function in the world. A state of 'no-mind' is actually a myth. How is it known one is in a state of no-mind? A bullet to the head is no-mind, and it's neither functional nor 'enlightened'. So maybe we could say it's about emptiness rather than no mind. Alert, attentive stillness is the case when thought is neither disturbing nor entrancing, both of which pull attention into the thoughts and this open attention becomes constricted. So maybe we can say the 'goal' is to not constrict attention. It's not, of course, a doing, but rather comes about when the interest in constricting attention is lost. There are innumerable awakening stories in which the constricted attention on thought is lost. It often happens when the seeker gives up in utter futility, or perhaps drawing a mental blank while pondering a koan, or relaxing the focus during a meditation, or attending to what is present just prior to the constriction. (ATA) |
|
|
|
Post by ivory on Aug 27, 2011 20:39:51 GMT -5
I certainly appreciate the response, but I am deeply confused by what you are saying here...
"Thinking about thoughts, observing thoughts, controlling thoughts, rejecting thoughts and categorizing thoughts is not empty."
I'm especially confused about the "observing part". Isn't that what you typically propose? Watching, noticing, observing? If I recall correctly, you talk about standing on the bank of the river and watching.
Also, isn't SA about thinking or analyzing thought (to a certain degree at least)?
"Alert, attentive stillness is the case when thought is neither disturbing nor entrancing, both of which pull attention into the thoughts and this open attention becomes constricted. So maybe we can say the 'goal' is to not constrict attention."
I think I understand you here. There isn't any effort (or not much anyways) in being aware. There is an awareness of thought, awareness of ones surroundings, etc. Attention goes where it goes, but there is no resistance to it, and there isn't any guidance or focusing of it. In other words, effortless effort. Adyashanti teaches a style of meditation where you let everything be as it is. Let attention go where it goes without interfering... Mind drifts, and you simply notice without analyzing, etc. Just let it be. This, by the way, is the style of meditation I do.
Anyways, thanks for posting. Looking forward to your response.
|
|
|
|
Post by ivory on Aug 27, 2011 20:55:12 GMT -5
Oh, one more thing...
"I read your post this morning, and on the way to work, a gaggle of thoughts showed up about it. Were they useful thoughts? How could I possibly know? Anyhoo, here they are."
In my experience, part of the attachment to thought is believing that certain thoughts were useful or important. I happen to be in a very stressful career field (or getting back into anyways). When I find myself thinking about I can ask the question, "is this a useful thought?" What I find is that most of the thought is grounded in fear, or worry. How can fearful thoughts be useful? It's not going to help me get the job done.
When that is known, then there is less attachment to thought. If those thoughts arise, I know that I can discard them when I notice that I am caught up in them.
Do you not agree with that?
|
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 27, 2011 23:02:54 GMT -5
I certainly appreciate the response, but I am deeply confused by what you are saying here... "Thinking about thoughts, observing thoughts, controlling thoughts, rejecting thoughts and categorizing thoughts is not empty." I'm especially confused about the "observing part". Isn't that what you typically propose? Watching, noticing, observing? If I recall correctly, you talk about standing on the bank of the river and watching. Also, isn't SA about thinking or analyzing thought (to a certain degree at least)? Yes, when I talk about watching, it's about being conscious as opposed to unconscious. The observer/witness position. But I didn't mean to imply this is self realization or whatever. The observer/witness is, itself observed. However, I don't think it's common to awaken from an unconscious state, so it seems like an important focus. Groovy. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 27, 2011 23:26:40 GMT -5
Oh, one more thing... "I read your post this morning, and on the way to work, a gaggle of thoughts showed up about it. Were they useful thoughts? How could I possibly know? Anyhoo, here they are." In my experience, part of the attachment to thought is believing that certain thoughts were useful or important. I happen to be in a very stressful career field (or getting back into anyways). When I find myself thinking about I can ask the question, "is this a useful thought?" What I find is that most of the thought is grounded in fear, or worry. How can fearful thoughts be useful? It's not going to help me get the job done. When that is known, then there is less attachment to thought. If those thoughts arise, I know that I can discard them when I notice that I am caught up in them. Do you not agree with that? Yeah, sorta kinda. This is just dragging yourself out of the river and onto the bank. You're noticing that you don't really have an interest in some thoughts, and that's the end of them. They can't continue without your interest. Evaluating whether or not a thought is useful is a subjective thought process and may seem obvious in some cases and not so much in others. If you're driving and you encounter a potentially dangerous driving situation, and a fear thought occurs, is it to be responded to or dismissed? Fear can be a natural call to action for the protection of the body. If you imagine engaging in a quick process of weighing the pros and cons of dismissing the thought, then this is what I mean by the dismissal process being, itself, a thinking process, which defeats the whole purpose. Even if you dismiss the thought, and there is still an interest, the thought will arise again or remain on a less than fully conscious level where it becomes suppression. You don't have control over your interest, and interest is the driving factor. Noticing the nature of the thought is useful. Evaluating the thought for engagement or dismissal is not. That's what I was trying to say in the first post. You aren't a doer, you're a noticer. That's all that's needed. |
|
|
|
Post by ivory on Aug 27, 2011 23:32:33 GMT -5
"The observer/witness is, itself observed"
Say what? I realize that it's hard to talk about this stuff but what I get from this is there is the observed, the observer, and the observer of the observer.
(EDIT: okay, perhaps you are saying the observer is observing the observer. That there is no separation. IOW, the observed is self aware. In fact, I think that's what you are saying which leads into this...)
The main question I've been playing with here for the last couple months is, "Is awareness centralized?" In other words, am I seeing from here (excuse the dualistic language) and looking at things "out there"? It seems like a silly question, but when you look at the body visually, it is also observed. But from where? People point to our face so we believe that is where we are looking from. Maybe that is a silly question, I dunno. But that question happens to be the one that stops thought, and genuine curiosity kicks in.
I was telling a friend about this recently, but the first spiritual experience happened about a year ago after reading a couple of chapters of Tolle's book. I was in a park one day and I remembered him saying that "ego fears and desires". For whatever reason I happened to notice desires and fears arising. I looked at them and said, "Oh that's ego". But than I thought, "wait a minute, what's noticing?" I had never heard of awareness or the witness or whatever. But there was a clear gap from thought. At that moment I felt like a veil had been lifted, and what looked like was "out there", was actually "in here". I remember looking out there and in here simultaneously and wondering "is that me?"
|
|
|
|
Post by therealfake on Aug 28, 2011 0:00:29 GMT -5
Oh, one more thing... "I read your post this morning, and on the way to work, a gaggle of thoughts showed up about it. Were they useful thoughts? How could I possibly know? Anyhoo, here they are." In my experience, part of the attachment to thought is believing that certain thoughts were useful or important. I happen to be in a very stressful career field (or getting back into anyways). When I find myself thinking about I can ask the question, "is this a useful thought?" What I find is that most of the thought is grounded in fear, or worry. How can fearful thoughts be useful? It's not going to help me get the job done. When that is known, then there is less attachment to thought. If those thoughts arise, I know that I can discard them when I notice that I am caught up in them. Do you not agree with that? Yeah, sorta kinda. This is just dragging yourself out of the river and onto the bank. You're noticing that you don't really have an interest in some thoughts, and that's the end of them. They can't continue without your interest. Evaluating whether or not a thought is useful is a subjective thought process and may seem obvious in some cases and not so much in others. If you're driving and you encounter a potentially dangerous driving situation, and a fear thought occurs, is it to be responded to or dismissed? Fear can be a natural call to action for the protection of the body. If you imagine engaging in a quick process of weighing the pros and cons of dismissing the thought, then this is what I mean by the dismissal process being, itself, a thinking process, which defeats the whole purpose. Even if you dismiss the thought, and there is still an interest, the thought will arise again or remain on a less than fully conscious level where it becomes suppression. You don't have control over your interest, and interest is the driving factor. Noticing the nature of the thought is useful. Evaluating the thought for engagement or dismissal is not. That's what I was trying to say in the first post. You aren't a doer, you're a noticer. That's all that's needed. Heh... I always tell my wife when she's driving and sees a gopher or deer in the middle of the road not to swerve... Too many folks out of fear, or instinct will avoid the animal and swerve into on coming traffic or into the ditch. Awareness of the attention, that observes the instinct to swerve on the other hand, allows one the 'space' to choose to swerve or say good bye gopher... |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 28, 2011 0:31:20 GMT -5
"The observer/witness is, itself observed" Say what? I realize that it's hard to talk about this stuff but what I get from this is there is the observed, the observer, and the observer of the observer. (EDIT: okay, perhaps you are saying the observer is observing the observer. That there is no separation. IOW, the observed is self aware. In fact, I think that's what you are saying which leads into this...) The main question I've been playing with here for the last couple months is, "Is awareness centralized?" In other words, am I seeing from here (excuse the dualistic language) and looking at things "out there"? It seems like a silly question, but when you look at the body visually, it is also observed. But from where? People point to our face so we believe that is where we are looking from. Maybe that is a silly question, I dunno. But that question happens to be the one that stops thought, and genuine curiosity kicks in. I was telling a friend about this recently, but the first spiritual experience happened about a year ago after reading a couple of chapters of Tolle's book. I was in a park one day and I remembered him saying that "ego fears and desires". For whatever reason I happened to notice desires and fears arising. I looked at them and said, "Oh that's ego". But than I thought, "wait a minute, what's noticing?" I had never heard of awareness or the witness or whatever. But there was a clear gap from thought. At that moment I felt like a veil had been lifted, and what looked like was "out there", was actually "in here". I remember looking out there and in here simultaneously and wondering "is that me?" You are aware that observation is happening. Hencely, this is a 'mind object' appearing to 'something'. We could call that 'something' awareness, but if awareness is turned into another mind object, then it is placed 'out there' as one more object that 'something' is aware of. Ultimately, we arrive at subjectivity itself, which cannot appear as a mind object, and does not 'happen'. Subjectivity is not a happening as observation is. To say awareness does not happen means that it does not appear, and so it has no form of any kind. If it is formless, it is non-local. If it is non-local, it does not have a center. It is not located in time and space, and so we can say it is everywhere or it is nowhere. While this seems to separate subjectivity from appearances, this is only done to make the point that appearances come and go but awareness does not, (I sometimes call it intelligence) and therefore awareness is more essential. However, as you say, there is no separation, and so the appearances are awareness appearing as the appearances. An analogy would be your nightly dreams. The dream objects don't appear as separate from the mind. There isn't a mind 'over here' and some dream characters 'over there'. The dream objects appear in and as the mind itself. Mind has no substance beyond whatever appearances appear in it, or we could say the process of perception. While mind is imagined to be local in this context, (usually imagined to be a function of the brain) awareness is not, and so 'my' awareness is precisely the same as 'your' awareness. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 28, 2011 0:36:41 GMT -5
Yeah, sorta kinda. This is just dragging yourself out of the river and onto the bank. You're noticing that you don't really have an interest in some thoughts, and that's the end of them. They can't continue without your interest. Evaluating whether or not a thought is useful is a subjective thought process and may seem obvious in some cases and not so much in others. If you're driving and you encounter a potentially dangerous driving situation, and a fear thought occurs, is it to be responded to or dismissed? Fear can be a natural call to action for the protection of the body. If you imagine engaging in a quick process of weighing the pros and cons of dismissing the thought, then this is what I mean by the dismissal process being, itself, a thinking process, which defeats the whole purpose. Even if you dismiss the thought, and there is still an interest, the thought will arise again or remain on a less than fully conscious level where it becomes suppression. You don't have control over your interest, and interest is the driving factor. Noticing the nature of the thought is useful. Evaluating the thought for engagement or dismissal is not. That's what I was trying to say in the first post. You aren't a doer, you're a noticer. That's all that's needed. Heh... I always tell my wife when she's driving and sees a gopher or deer in the middle of the road not to swerve... Too many folks out of fear, or instinct will avoid the animal and swerve into on coming traffic or into the ditch. Awareness of the attention, that observes the instinct to swerve on the other hand, allows one the 'space' to choose to swerve or say good bye gopher... Would slowing down, perhaps even expeditiously, be advisable in the case of a deer, or should this fear based thought be dismissed? I do see that you're suggesting that an open awareness will allow for the most appropriate response (At least I think that's what you're saying) and I agree. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2011 6:29:17 GMT -5
"You gave me life Dad, so I'l give you Life!" He's a bright Man dont you think?  very sweet acewell -- great family values! |
|
|
|
Post by ivory on Aug 28, 2011 15:06:05 GMT -5
Sounds simple enough. Seekers probably make this more complicated than it needs to be.
I like the analogy. Thanks
|
|
|
|
Post by tathagata on Aug 29, 2011 19:41:03 GMT -5
exactly, what one encounters when stopping is an ego/self that is attached to the search, the arguing, the persisting, the "being right", the making others wrong. i have literally spent years behaving as if Truth were something to HAVE, to GET, to ACQUIRE. something special that others didn't have, and i couldn't have been more wrong. and only through trusting the universe did i come to see the universe and thus myself. make no mistake the path will not end with the stopping, at first i thought it was a teacher testing a students(my) resolve. so his telling me to stop made me push harder. all that i could think was bull crap i am not giving up now i have too much into this, effort, time, tears....... when i finally came to see what he was saying i let go. what happened was i disengaged the brain i kicked it into neutral so to speak and that emptied my cup and the universe flooded me with itself. ( to use as many empty metaphors as possible in one sentence ) good luck to all of you. trust yourself. robert Ivory this is one of the most useful testimonials I have seen in this forum...it is beautiful...it is a man who hit rock bottom and realized that in the end the searching the quoting the being right was the thing that was keeping him from realizing...when he let it go he realized. |
|
|
|
Post by tathagata on Aug 29, 2011 19:53:11 GMT -5
What is there inside you that cuases a kneejerk reaction to attack anyone who has had an experience that you havent had yet? You could just accept their experience as true and move on....or you could choose to not to take there word for it but explore it on your own to see if it is true...or you could attack the messenger and call them names...why do you choose the latter? You are so addicted to your personal power at discovering the truth that if anyone else offers a truth you have not already discovered on your own you attack.....your powers of contemplation have grown quite effective...contemplate why you attack in these situations. It seems you intentionally attempted to marginalized someone that wasnt saying what you wanted to hear. So I will ask again...are you here to learn...or stake out a territory? Stop doing the latter and you might let go of that little bit of barrier between the outer an inner that you said you were still experiencing in your meditation practice....Stop searching judging opinionating and being right and you will open the last gate....your insights are keen and observent and your awareness has grown quite accute...but... |
|
|
|
Post by ivory on Aug 29, 2011 20:47:49 GMT -5
You misread the thread. I'm well aware of what robert realized and I think it's very cool. My comment was in response to another poster who posted a link to his website.
Every once and a while a self-proclaimed guru will come to this board to save, convert, or teach various forms of spirituality. Most of the people on this board have the sense to know that these self-proclaimed gurus are talking out their butts. Nobody calls them out, we just let them have their fun.
You, I'm not so sure about. You are well spoken, have clearly spent some time looking inward (as you call it), and I agree with a lot of what you write (you are quite convincing). But there are certain things that stand out as red flags.
I've been here for almost a year and I happen to like a good number of the posters here. Me calling you out was not an attack on you, but an alert to them. It is not my place to interfere with their search, but I do hope that they do not get led astray.
Please note that if I am wrong about you I will be the first to apologize. I had no intention of making a big deal out of this, and I have no desire to go back and forth about this. But do consider this: I think you assume too much trust for a new guy.
|
|
