|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 9, 2013 20:15:27 GMT -5
Greetings.. Get out of your head!! TMT.. try stillness, it really will surprise you.. you are so attached to your precious beliefs, let them go, if you are actually interested in liberation, but.. i sense that you would rather entice others into your 'thoughts'.. Be well.. Hi Bob, One of the things that I noticed about actively silencing the mind, such as TM style meditations is that it is like putting the car in neutral. It disengages the gears. The gears of the mind have to be engaged in order to "process". The mind will pick up right where it left off when it returns from stillness if it has been actively stilled and silenced. Listening, on the other hand has an active mind in the process. The mind is in a receptive/digestive mode which processes what is experienced. Listening I find to be a more clear directive. It is open, receptive, and engaging. It is present and participatory. There is a reconciling principle between what you and Phil are saying, if you choose to acknowledge it. And that is that in order to listen, one must tear down within themselves that which interferes with hearing clearly. That is the nature of Phil's approach, an exploration of what it is that interferes with Listening. I'm not claiming that he is perfect at executing his intent, just acknowledging that his stated intent has purpose and value. -Edward Yes, it's a good point. The mind that sees clearly is still, yet highly alert and attentive, which can be a difficult mode for a mind that is not operating in a state of full conscious awareness (lots of unconscious stuff happening). Hencely, it may be necessary to remove the mental distractions before one can see clearly with a 'still mind'. Otherwise, whatever one sees when one stills the mind, is more mind stuff coming from God knows where. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 9, 2013 20:31:45 GMT -5
Hi Bob, One of the things that I noticed about actively silencing the mind, such as TM style meditations is that it is like putting the car in neutral. It disengages the gears. The gears of the mind have to be engaged in order to "process". The mind will pick up right where it left off when it returns from stillness if it has been actively stilled and silenced. Listening, on the other hand has an active mind in the process. The mind is in a receptive/digestive mode which processes what is experienced. Listening I find to be a more clear directive. It is open, receptive, and engaging. It is present and participatory. There is a reconciling principle between what you and Phil are saying, if you choose to acknowledge it. And that is that in order to listen, one must tear down within themselves that which interferes with hearing clearly. That is the nature of Phil's approach, an exploration of what it is that interferes with Listening. I'm not claiming that he is perfect at executing his intent, just acknowledging that his stated intent has purpose and value. -Edward Yes, it's a good point. The mind that sees clearly is still, yet highly alert and attentive, which can be a difficult mode for a mind that is not operating in a state of full conscious awareness (lots of unconscious stuff happening). Hencely, it may be necessary to remove the mental distractions before one can see clearly with a 'still mind'. Otherwise, whatever one sees when one stills the mind, is more mind stuff coming from God knows where. The materialist's model, constantly reinforced as it is by everyday perception and experience, isn't one that collapses easily, even when there is sincerity on the part of the one questioning it. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 9, 2013 20:53:35 GMT -5
Yes, it's a good point. The mind that sees clearly is still, yet highly alert and attentive, which can be a difficult mode for a mind that is not operating in a state of full conscious awareness (lots of unconscious stuff happening). Hencely, it may be necessary to remove the mental distractions before one can see clearly with a 'still mind'. Otherwise, whatever one sees when one stills the mind, is more mind stuff coming from God knows where. The materialist's model, constantly reinforced as it is by everyday perception and experience, isn't one that collapses easily, even when there is sincerity on the part of the one questioning it. Twue. The prerequisite might be the willingness to ask oneself some obvious questions about the presumed validity of their experience. Even separating that which is actually experienced from that which is thought about the experience seems to be challenging. |
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Mar 10, 2013 13:15:39 GMT -5
Greetings..
Welcome back, Top.. i distinguish between active, as a willful agent exercising its will over the 'processing', and inactive, where the 'will' is silent but the alert and unimpeded processing happens in a natural synergistic relationship with what is actually happening.. a 'still mind' is not dull or non-functional, it is clear, bright, and allowed to process unimpeded in real-time..
Suppose there is no 'model'.. there is simply the acknowledgement that there is 'stuff' that exists in the environment of existence, and that that 'stuff' affects and effects how we experience that existence.. to over-simplify 'stuff' as non-existent by 'reason' of scientific descriptions of what 'stuff' is made of, ignores what it is that shapes science, and stuff, and reason, which is all 'still here' whether we believe in it or not..
I accept experience as valid. If the experience is of an illusion, it is a valid experience of an illusion. If i experience a 'dream', it is a valid experience of a dream, and i do not relate the experience of the dream to the waking experience which is aware of the difference between 'dream' experience and awake experience..
I take counsel from the experiences of existing, such that the interacting with existence is consistent with what 'is', and not with 'thoughts about' what 'is'.. thoughts about what 'is' are useful in discerning what to set aside for further experiences to clarify any confusion about the relationships inherent with an interconnected experience with existence..
Be well..
|
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 10, 2013 13:34:55 GMT -5
Suppose there is no 'model'.. there is simply the acknowledgement that there is 'stuff' that exists in the environment of existence, and that that 'stuff' affects and effects how we experience that existence.. to over-simplify 'stuff' as non-existent by 'reason' of scientific descriptions of what 'stuff' is made of, ignores what it is that shapes science, and stuff, and reason, which is all 'still here' whether we believe in it or not.. If there is no model then there is no model. I can certainly understand why you heard me say "stuff is non-existent" here: Ha ha! ... actually it's "no sweat" Max 'cause all that mindstuff, even though it doesn't have any other mindstuff to make it false, just collapses under it's own weight: Mankind assumed that there was stuff that we was made of, set out to find what that stuff was, and eventually found the assumption to be faulty. only if you see stuff and not-stuff instead of THIS ... but that's not what I said. "THIS" is a word. "I am not separate from THIS" is an idea. It's not a model. It's a pointer. Tzu', look closely ... where do you find me making the statement that "stuff does not exist"? I do say quite a bit about the nature of matter now, don't I ... but do I question it's existence? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 10, 2013 13:58:17 GMT -5
Greetings.. Welcome back, Top.. i distinguish between active, as a willful agent exercising its will over the 'processing', and inactive, where the 'will' is silent but the alert and unimpeded processing happens in a natural synergistic relationship with what is actually happening.. a 'still mind' is not dull or non-functional, it is clear, bright, and allowed to process unimpeded in real-time.. Suppose there is no 'model'.. there is simply the acknowledgement that there is 'stuff' that exists in the environment of existence, and that that 'stuff' affects and effects how we experience that existence.. to over-simplify 'stuff' as non-existent by 'reason' of scientific descriptions of what 'stuff' is made of, ignores what it is that shapes science, and stuff, and reason, which is all 'still here' whether we believe in it or not.. I accept experience as valid. If the experience is of an illusion, it is a valid experience of an illusion. If i experience a 'dream', it is a valid experience of a dream, and i do not relate the experience of the dream to the waking experience which is aware of the difference between 'dream' experience and awake experience.. I take counsel from the experiences of existing, such that the interacting with existence is consistent with what 'is', and not with 'thoughts about' what 'is'.. thoughts about what 'is' are useful in discerning what to set aside for further experiences to clarify any confusion about the relationships inherent with an interconnected experience with existence.. Be well.. It's a natural inclination, when one first contemplates the possibility of illusion, to resist the apparent implication that there is no stuff to interact with, no personal perspective through which to experience and no valid experience happening. That's not the implication and misses the point. Nothing is being dismissed, devalued or discarded. It's just being seen for what it actually is. Life goes on, but without the false beliefs about life. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2013 7:53:12 GMT -5
A Dialogue
<In the beginning, a Chorus of Laughter: Mankind assumed that there was stuff that we was made of, set out to find what that stuff was, and eventually found the assumption to be faulty.>
<Enter Hylas and Philonous, in the park, strolling on a gravelly walk, melting snow on the edges, squirrels busily foraging and ducks slowly drifting in a nearby pond. They continue a discussion from a party the night before.>
Hylas: And, through all of the elaborate explanations of why there isn't really 'stuff', the 'stuff' persistently affects this actual 'now' experience of existence..
Philonous: only if you see stuff and not-stuff instead of THIS.
That's the faulty assumption. You don't know anything about stuff.
Hylas : That's the faulty assumption. You don't know anything about what i know.
"THIS" is just another 'thought about' what 'is'.. you seem attached to using your interpretation of existence through the 'word/thought', THIS.. you can let go of 'THIS', but 'stuff' is still right there in front of you.. trying to describe it away doesn't invalidate it, it reinforces it..
Philonous: You don't know if there is stuff right in front of you, you only know that it appears that way. In your nightly dreams, it also appears that stuff is right in front of you, and yet there is no stuff in front of you. That at least should open the door to the possibility that there isn't stuff in front of you now.
Hylas: You have really confused your dreams with reality, you are too attached to your imagination..
You say "there is no stuff in front of you", but you live in stuff, type and post on stuff, stuff fills you existence, and.. you pretend it isn't there, feeding your own illusions which you peddle as 'true'..
Philonous: Obviously, nightly dreams were given as an example of stuff apparently appearing where there is, in fact, no stuff. While dreaming, you believe in this 'stuff', though you are mistaken. Anyone interested in what's really going on might stop to wonder if they're also mistaken about the waking state, especially since science strongly points to the same conclusion.
Hylas: Here's the deal, this is mindplay, even the science.. tell as many stories as you choose, and the 'stuff' is still there.. forget 'dreams', deal with what is consistently present in Life.. you can change your beliefs about many things, but the 'stuff' is still there.. you can describe the 'physics of emptiness', but the 'stuff' is still there.. learn to be truly present, and benefit from the absence of battling against beliefs about 'stuff'.. it is so much more simple than a war against 'stuff'..
Philonous: No need to go to war against stuff, just question your own assumptions about what appears in front of you, to whom it appears, whether it appears 'out there', whether or not it is objectively there, and if it is really separate from what's 'in here' or separate from the perceiver or the perceiving of it.
Hylas: Get out of your head!! TMT.. try stillness, it really will surprise you.. you are so attached to your precious beliefs, let them go, if you are actually interested in liberation, but.. i sense that you would rather entice others into your 'thoughts'..
Philonous, checking watch: It has been a pleasure strolling and talking again with you Hylas, perhaps we will meet at some other time soon.
Hylas: Yes, dear Philonous, it is always a pleasure, and I look forward to our next stroll.
<Hylas and Philonous exit, both taking different paths.>
|
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Mar 11, 2013 9:02:24 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. Welcome back, Top.. i distinguish between active, as a willful agent exercising its will over the 'processing', and inactive, where the 'will' is silent but the alert and unimpeded processing happens in a natural synergistic relationship with what is actually happening.. a 'still mind' is not dull or non-functional, it is clear, bright, and allowed to process unimpeded in real-time.. Suppose there is no 'model'.. there is simply the acknowledgement that there is 'stuff' that exists in the environment of existence, and that that 'stuff' affects and effects how we experience that existence.. to over-simplify 'stuff' as non-existent by 'reason' of scientific descriptions of what 'stuff' is made of, ignores what it is that shapes science, and stuff, and reason, which is all 'still here' whether we believe in it or not.. I accept experience as valid. If the experience is of an illusion, it is a valid experience of an illusion. If i experience a 'dream', it is a valid experience of a dream, and i do not relate the experience of the dream to the waking experience which is aware of the difference between 'dream' experience and awake experience.. I take counsel from the experiences of existing, such that the interacting with existence is consistent with what 'is', and not with 'thoughts about' what 'is'.. thoughts about what 'is' are useful in discerning what to set aside for further experiences to clarify any confusion about the relationships inherent with an interconnected experience with existence.. Be well.. It's a natural inclination, when one first contemplates the possibility of illusion, to resist the apparent implication that there is no stuff to interact with, no personal perspective through which to experience and no valid experience happening. That's not the implication and misses the point. Nothing is being dismissed, devalued or discarded. It's just being seen for what it actually is. Life goes on, but without the false beliefs about life. So.. the curious person contemplates the possibility of illusion.. they employ the mind to imagine the belief being explained as "illusion".. but, Life goes on, all beliefs are inherently "false", including advaita.. the attempt to use the mind to disprove the mind is a failed adventure from its conception.. Life goes on. When the mind is still there are no beliefs shaping and distorting the information being experienced.. there is clarity, what 'is' is seen and the mind's influence is suspended.. in this way, Life is seen for what it actually is. Be well.. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2013 9:21:32 GMT -5
Greetings.. It's a natural inclination, when one first contemplates the possibility of illusion, to resist the apparent implication that there is no stuff to interact with, no personal perspective through which to experience and no valid experience happening. That's not the implication and misses the point. Nothing is being dismissed, devalued or discarded. It's just being seen for what it actually is. Life goes on, but without the false beliefs about life. So.. the curious person contemplates the possibility of illusion.. they employ the mind to imagine the belief being explained as "illusion".. but, Life goes on, all beliefs are inherently "false", including advaita.. the attempt to use the mind to disprove the mind is a failed adventure from its conception.. Life goes on. When the mind is still there are no beliefs shaping and distorting the information being experienced.. there is clarity, what 'is' is seen and the mind's influence is suspended.. in this way, Life is seen for what it actually is. Be well.. That's a nice way of expressing it Tzu. I imagine that's how it works. |
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Mar 11, 2013 9:34:52 GMT -5
Greetings.. A Dialogue<In the beginning, a Chorus of Laughter: Mankind assumed that there was stuff that we was made of, set out to find what that stuff was, and eventually found the assumption to be faulty.> <Enter Hylas and Philonous, in . They continue a discussion from a party the night before.> Hylas: And, through all of the elaborate explanations of why there isn't really 'stuff', the 'stuff' persistently affects this actual 'now' experience of existence.. Philonous: only if you see stuff and not-stuff instead of THIS. That's the faulty assumption. You don't know anything about stuff. Hylas : That's the faulty assumption. You don't know anything about what i know. "THIS" is just another 'thought about' what 'is'.. you seem attached to using your interpretation of existence through the 'word/thought', THIS.. you can let go of 'THIS', but 'stuff' is still right there in front of you.. trying to describe it away doesn't invalidate it, it reinforces it.. Philonous: You don't know if there is stuff right in front of you, you only know that it appears that way. In your nightly dreams, it also appears that stuff is right in front of you, and yet there is no stuff in front of you. That at least should open the door to the possibility that there isn't stuff in front of you now. Hylas: You have really confused your dreams with reality, you are too attached to your imagination.. You say "there is no stuff in front of you", but you live in stuff, type and post on stuff, stuff fills you existence, and.. you pretend it isn't there, feeding your own illusions which you peddle as 'true'.. Philonous: Obviously, nightly dreams were given as an example of stuff apparently appearing where there is, in fact, no stuff. While dreaming, you believe in this 'stuff', though you are mistaken. Anyone interested in what's really going on might stop to wonder if they're also mistaken about the waking state, especially since science strongly points to the same conclusion. Hylas: Here's the deal, this is mindplay, even the science.. tell as many stories as you choose, and the 'stuff' is still there.. forget 'dreams', deal with what is consistently present in Life.. you can change your beliefs about many things, but the 'stuff' is still there.. you can describe the 'physics of emptiness', but the 'stuff' is still there.. learn to be truly present, and benefit from the absence of battling against beliefs about 'stuff'.. it is so much more simple than a war against 'stuff'.. Philonous: No need to go to war against stuff, just question your own assumptions about what appears in front of you, to whom it appears, whether it appears 'out there', whether or not it is objectively there, and if it is really separate from what's 'in here' or separate from the perceiver or the perceiving of it. Hylas: Get out of your head!! TMT.. try stillness, it really will surprise you.. you are so attached to your precious beliefs, let them go, if you are actually interested in liberation, but.. i sense that you would rather entice others into your 'thoughts'.. Philonous, checking watch: It has been a pleasure strolling and talking again with you Hylas, perhaps we will meet at some other time soon. Hylas: Yes, dear Philonous, it is always a pleasure, and I look forward to our next stroll. <Hylas and Philonous exit, both taking different paths.> Hi Max: I offer a deep appreciation for your effort, thank you.. In your story, i notice that you take care to 'set the scene', to arrange 'stuff': " the park, strolling on a gravelly walk, melting snow on the edges, squirrels busily foraging and ducks slowly drifting in a nearby pond".. my interest in 'stuff' is that it persists, regardless of the wizardry that wants it to not be 'real'.. of course, i would also challenge most people's notion of 'real'.. The still mind experiences Life happening.. it doesn't question the existence of the 'stuff' it encounters, it employs the practicality of 'stuff' for the interval of its usefulness, and continues its interaction with existing.. it is that simple. Contemplating 'the existence of 'stuff', and conceiving ways to imagine that it's not real, is a process existing solely in the imagination of mind.. and, as much imagining as one does, the 'chair' is there, and by any other name you can still sit in it, experience it, even while contemplating its non-existence.. There are amazing possibilities given the explorations of modern physics, but.. it does not escape my notice that explorations are made with 'stuff', even while challenging our understandings of the same 'stuff'.. for me, the real questions center around the dichotomy of understanding the physics, the effects of focused consciousness, and the presence that exists regardless of the beliefs to the contrary.. Be well.. |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Mar 11, 2013 9:59:13 GMT -5
Greetings.. So.. the curious person contemplates the possibility of illusion.. they employ the mind to imagine the belief being explained as "illusion".. but, Life goes on, all beliefs are inherently "false", including advaita.. the attempt to use the mind to disprove the mind is a failed adventure from its conception.. Life goes on. When the mind is still there are no beliefs shaping and distorting the information being experienced.. there is clarity, what 'is' is seen and the mind's influence is suspended.. in this way, Life is seen for what it actually is. Be well.. It's been my experience that the mind has no intention of going still. And that stillness has nothing to do with the contents of mind. Mind is many-layered and can even convince us that it is capable of stilling itself. The only thing that does is push the contents of mind underground. The goal is not stillness. Stillness is a side-effect of noticing the inherent unsubstantial quality of thoughts, that thoughts are not the reality of what's actually happening. Stillness is always here, it's just a matter of where our attention is focused. |
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Mar 11, 2013 10:48:04 GMT -5
Greetings.. So.. the curious person contemplates the possibility of illusion.. they employ the mind to imagine the belief being explained as "illusion".. but, Life goes on, all beliefs are inherently "false", including advaita.. the attempt to use the mind to disprove the mind is a failed adventure from its conception.. Life goes on. When the mind is still there are no beliefs shaping and distorting the information being experienced.. there is clarity, what 'is' is seen and the mind's influence is suspended.. in this way, Life is seen for what it actually is. Be well.. It's been my experience that the mind has no intention of going still. And that stillness has nothing to do with the contents of mind. Mind is many-layered and can even convince us that it is capable of stilling itself. The only thing that does is push the contents of mind underground. The goal is not stillness. Stillness is a side-effect of noticing the inherent unsubstantial quality of thoughts, that thoughts are not the reality of what's actually happening. Stillness is always here, it's just a matter of where our attention is focused. That you can communicate, that you DO communicate, those are 'thought-based' agents of necessity.. it is my understanding that we are best served by a balance of 'stillness and activity' related to the mind's necessary function.. It is my direct experience that the mind is still often, but that is the issue.. in its stillness, it can only be noticed without expecting to 'find stillness'.. Be well.. |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Mar 11, 2013 12:12:40 GMT -5
It's been my experience that the mind has no intention of going still. And that stillness has nothing to do with the contents of mind. Mind is many-layered and can even convince us that it is capable of stilling itself. The only thing that does is push the contents of mind underground. The goal is not stillness. Stillness is a side-effect of noticing the inherent unsubstantial quality of thoughts, that thoughts are not the reality of what's actually happening. Stillness is always here, it's just a matter of where our attention is focused. That you can communicate, that you DO communicate, those are 'thought-based' agents of necessity.. it is my understanding that we are best served by a balance of 'stillness and activity' related to the mind's necessary function.. To say that 'thoughts have an unsubstantial quality' does not mean that 'thoughts are worthless'. Of course we need thoughts to navigate. It only means that the thought "My shoelace needs tying" is not the shoelace or its status. To tie it or not tie it has nothing to do with the quality of thoughts. What can be noticed? I'm not following that sentence. My point was that it is fruitless to tell someone to "be still", or more to the point, for someone to tell themselves, "I must be still". It can't be done. Stillness shows itself when we stop believing that thoughts are 'reality'. When we stop living in our heads, stillness is revealed. |
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Mar 11, 2013 12:21:50 GMT -5
That you can communicate, that you DO communicate, those are 'thought-based' agents of necessity.. it is my understanding that we are best served by a balance of 'stillness and activity' related to the mind's necessary function.. To say that 'thoughts have an unsubstantial quality' does not mean that 'thoughts are worthless'. Of course we need thoughts to navigate. It only means that the thought "My shoelace needs tying" is not the shoelace or its status. To tie it or not tie it has nothing to do with the quality of thoughts. What can be noticed? I'm not following that sentence. My point was that it is fruitless to tell someone to "be still", or more to the point, for someone to tell themselves, "I must be still". It can't be done. Stillness shows itself when we stop believing that thoughts are 'reality'. When we stop living in our heads, stillness is revealed. "The menu is not the meal", i think most of us understand the meaning of that.. There are ways to achieve stillness.. it is fruitless to tell people to 'be still', and not be prepared to help them find a 'way', IF they choose to explore stillness.. Be well.. |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Mar 11, 2013 12:36:30 GMT -5
To say that 'thoughts have an unsubstantial quality' does not mean that 'thoughts are worthless'. Of course we need thoughts to navigate. It only means that the thought "My shoelace needs tying" is not the shoelace or its status. To tie it or not tie it has nothing to do with the quality of thoughts. What can be noticed? I'm not following that sentence. My point was that it is fruitless to tell someone to "be still", or more to the point, for someone to tell themselves, "I must be still". It can't be done. Stillness shows itself when we stop believing that thoughts are 'reality'. When we stop living in our heads, stillness is revealed. "The menu is not the meal", i think most of us understand the meaning of that.. Yes, sure. This is spirituality 101 stuff. It was in response to your comment about not being able to communicate if we didn't have thoughts. Guess I still have no idea of your point there. What say you to what I was saying - that the approach of 'achieving stillness' is misguided. It is not something to achieve. And that it has nothing to do with a quiet mind. Is it something you're willing to consider? Would you like to explore it? |
|
