|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 2, 2013 13:39:37 GMT -5
I consider it to be the case that silence is just pure and simply....wrong. It's not all just imagination. If that doesn't answer your question (from my perspective) then you need to clarify what you're asking (me). sdp Okay, that's something I can understand and discuss. From my perspective, to say that it's all imagination, (which I HAVE said) is to suggest that creation in the largest context is fundamentally imagined into apparent existence. Time/space, as the framework in which experience occurs, is itself conceptual in origin. Imagination is occurring on both individual and 'collective' levels as there is no separation between what seems objective and subjective. Ideas about faeries and unicorns (and who's right and wrong) are not separate from the scientific principles that seem to drive the universe. Likewise, the nature of man is not separate from the nature of life we call 'mother nature'. The reason duality consists of a coin with two sides is that there is no foundation for any of it other than imagination, and so mutually defining polarities are imagined into apparent existence and experienced. There quite literally is no solid place to stand, and no-one to stand there. There isn't even a 'there'. OK, I guess this is where we came to an impasse before. By imagination I take you to mean something ephemeral, insubstantial, a misunderstanding of the term maya. I have a friend who weighs at least double what she should. What you seem to mean by imagination is like saying that her extra 130+ lbs. does not really exist, it's merely imaginary. There is an ancient description of reality called the Great Chain of Being. A comparable description is the Kabbalistic Tree, likewise the description of the universe by Plotinus in The Enneads, and another called the Ray of Creation. In each there are at least seven orders of being, seven planes or seven gradations of vibrations of energy between Oneness and our material world. I take it you are saying that these are all imaginary. For me this is the same as saying that my friends extra 130+ lbs. is imaginary. This is also like saying that cultural self/ego/personality/false self is imaginary. For me, to say it's imaginary, is imaginary. Those extra pounds of my friend are stored energy. To lose the extra pounds she will have to burn more calories than she takes in, a most difficult task she has kept trying for over 35 years. To be fully liberated one has to take the energy out of false self like one has to take the energy out of those fat cells. For me, this necessitates cultivation of spiritual practice, interior spiritual practice. This is the purpose of living through one's attention and through one's awareness. One is either feeding false self or taking the energy out of false self, there really isn't any neutral ground. zd's ATA is the firm foundation, the solid place to stand. .....But it continually gets lost in....imagination...... Your attention is what can, metaphorically, burn the fat, of false self. sdp |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 2, 2013 13:43:25 GMT -5
Greetings.. The conceptual structure presented has the potential to collapse upon itself, and maintaining it requires quite a bit of effort. There is no way it can stand in a mind informed by nonconceptual realization. If "just letting go" were all that easy, if the mind could be willed into silence, then I imagine that what we would observe looking outward would be very very different. It IS that easy, but the choice to do it is less so.. the mind isn't "willed into silence", it's allowed to fall silent.. we are still and silent more than we understand, but precisely because we are still and silent, it isn't 'noticed'.. if there is a practice or training that has merit, it is to enhance the capacity for 'noticing' without engaging the mind.. Be well.. It's simple, but not easy. sdp |
|
|
|
Post by silence on Jun 2, 2013 13:47:13 GMT -5
Greetings.. Where does the boundary of mind end so that we may notice without its interference? Just as 'you' have no boundary, there is no boundary of mind.. stillness is non-interference, looking for boundaries is distraction.. Be well.. Yes, it's a distraction unless there are boundaries believed to be true. That's basically what these discussions here are about and why everyone can't simply just drop everything and be still and silent. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 2, 2013 14:00:48 GMT -5
Greetings.. It IS that easy, but the choice to do it is less so.. the mind isn't "willed into silence", it's allowed to fall silent.. we are still and silent more than we understand, but precisely because we are still and silent, it isn't 'noticed'.. if there is a practice or training that has merit, it is to enhance the capacity for 'noticing' without engaging the mind.. Be well.. Where does the boundary of mind end so that we may notice without its interference? There is a difference between thought as function, and being conscious. (I first noticed this in elementary school. I could be reading but suddenly notice that even though my eyes were still following each word on the page, my mind was elsewhere, thinking of something different. I would then have to go back and find the place where my mind was still engaged with the words on the page, as I always could. Why did I have to go back? Because I was not conscious of what I had read and therefore remembered nothing of what the eyes had actually been following. Of course I did not put it into those words, then, I only knew I had to go back and read again what I had just read, very annoying. It was only years later that I was taught and came to understand the difference between scattered attention, interested attention and directed attention). You can always go back and look at how a newborn baby encounters the world. A newborn baby has no self, no ego, no cultural self, no thoughts as abstract representations. But a newborn baby knows of hunger, knows of a wet or dirty diaper, (and communicates this through crying). How? Through their inborn awareness, through their attention. Your attention and awareness are there, within, just as pristine as a newborn's. But they are continually caught and held prisoner by the contents of the neural structure, false self. This is the boundary. Spiritual practice is separating out and living through your attention (&/or awareness) instead of it continually being held captive by the tiny little self. But what's simple is not easy. sdp |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 2, 2013 14:02:14 GMT -5
What I consider practice is a reinforcement as to what is already the case as most of my life was lived with what is the case taken to be not what was the case. Most of your life was lived not knowing you were aware? (** skijump! **) |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 2, 2013 14:03:20 GMT -5
Do you see what is implied about any and all theory, about any and all conceptual structure in what was said? Wouldn't it be great if all concepts self-destructed 5 seconds after their original inception? Everyone would literally be walking around with smoke coming out of their ears.  a sight I'd like to see! |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Jun 2, 2013 14:04:40 GMT -5
I think the key is "the mind isn't "willed into silence", it's allowed to fall silent.. The second scenario is simply a more devious form of the first. Both involve someone at the steering wheel. we are still and silent more than we understand, but precisely because we are still and silent, it isn't 'noticed'.. " I basically agree. People aren't looking for the obvious. The obvious has already been discounted long ago. To think and say that our minds 'interfere' is an undesirable, negative way of looking at what our mind is (not that it matters) and in itself allows this 'interference.' Just my 2 cents. It was in response to Tzu talking about noticing without engaging the mind. I'm basically saying mind isn't being shut down and then coming back into the picture as most would have it. Yes, I know it was in response to Tzu talking about noticing w/o engaging mind. Is mind supposed to be 'shut down' then, in your view? I honestly don't think it was ever meant to be the way you envision a 'better' existence (?) I think I prefer a holistic approach to nearly everything - in this instance, where mind is not treated like some kind of pariah - not unlike the 'ego'. I don't think anyone can pin anything on them - practically speaking.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 2, 2013 14:05:05 GMT -5
The conceptual structure presented has the potential to collapse upon itself, and maintaining it requires quite a bit of effort. There is no way it can stand in a mind informed by nonconceptual realization. If "just letting go" were all that easy, if the mind could be willed into silence, then I imagine that what we would observe looking outward would be very very different. People really can will themselves into "silent" states and this is often how spiritual progress enters the picture as one hones the ability to create self controlled mind breaks for longer and longer periods. What becomes increasingly more difficult to notice as one gets better and better at this is that it is the polar opposite of letting go and that they feel more in control than ever. yes, a trap. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 2, 2013 14:10:20 GMT -5
Where does the boundary of mind end so that we may notice without its interference? I think the key is "the mind isn't "willed into silence", it's allowed to fall silent.. we are still and silent more than we understand, but precisely because we are still and silent, it isn't 'noticed'.. " To think and say that our minds 'interfere' is an undesirable, negative way of looking at what our mind is (not that it matters) and in itself allows this 'interference.' Just my 2 cents. It's an example of what E calls a "mind split" and it's a classic ... the Tolle board get's at least a few a year who are just about punching themselves in the face. Doesn't make the prescription to "watch the thinker" (or as Niz would say "cultivate the witness attitude, attend 'I AM', reject all else", or as ZD would say "attend the actual") any less powerful. I like to say and have repeated often: be grateful for the noticing rather than recriminating for what was noticed. |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Jun 2, 2013 14:13:44 GMT -5
I think the key is "the mind isn't "willed into silence", it's allowed to fall silent.. we are still and silent more than we understand, but precisely because we are still and silent, it isn't 'noticed'.. " To think and say that our minds 'interfere' is an undesirable, negative way of looking at what our mind is (not that it matters) and in itself allows this 'interference.' Just my 2 cents. It's an example of what E calls a "mind split" and it's a classic ... the Tolle board get's at least a few a year who are just about punching themselves in the face. Doesn't make the prescription to "watch the thinker" (or as Niz would say "cultivate the witness attitude, attend 'I AM', reject all else", or as ZD would say "attend the actual") any less powerful. I like to say and have repeated often: be grateful for the noticing rather than recriminating for what was noticed. Haha, yes. I respect ZD's 'ATA' - as far as I do any other ideas. Ruun, mind, ruuuun!!!  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 2, 2013 14:18:07 GMT -5
Where does the boundary of mind end so that we may notice without its interference? There is a difference between thought as function, and being conscious. You can always go back and look at how a newborn baby encounters the world. A newborn baby has no self, no ego, no cultural self, no thoughts as abstract representations. But a newborn baby knows of hunger, knows of a wet or dirty diaper, (and communicates this through crying). How? Through their inborn awareness, through their attention. Your attention and awareness are there, within, just as pristine as a newborn's. But they are continually caught and held prisoner by the contents of the neural structure, false self. This is the boundary. Spiritual practice is separating out and living through your attention (&/or awareness) instead of it continually being held captive by the tiny little self. But what's simple is not easy. sdp sdp -- note that silence and tzu use the word mind in a way that blurs the distinction of your thread title, and in my experience of speaking with them previously they are rather inflexible in this position. While what they say about boundaries isn't refutable a word is just a word and carries with it an inherent boundary. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 2, 2013 14:35:18 GMT -5
There is a difference between thought as function, and being conscious. You can always go back and look at how a newborn baby encounters the world. A newborn baby has no self, no ego, no cultural self, no thoughts as abstract representations. But a newborn baby knows of hunger, knows of a wet or dirty diaper, (and communicates this through crying). How? Through their inborn awareness, through their attention. Your attention and awareness are there, within, just as pristine as a newborn's. But they are continually caught and held prisoner by the contents of the neural structure, false self. This is the boundary. Spiritual practice is separating out and living through your attention (&/or awareness) instead of it continually being held captive by the tiny little self. But what's simple is not easy. sdp sdp -- note that silence and tzu use the word mind in a way that blurs the distinction of your thread title, and in my experience of speaking with them previously they are rather inflexible in this position. While what they say about boundaries isn't refutable a word is just a word and carries with it an inherent boundary. A great deal of problems in communication are because of defining terms differently. One also has to have had similar experience to really understand meaning in the same manner. I can't do anything concerning the later, and just try to be clear about the former. I also just added a few things ("I first noticed this in elementary school.....") in the post you quoted here, that might clarify things for silence and tzu concerning this........discrepancy. sdp |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 2, 2013 14:44:47 GMT -5
It's an example of what E calls a "mind split" and it's a classic ... the Tolle board get's at least a few a year who are just about punching themselves in the face. Doesn't make the prescription to "watch the thinker" (or as Niz would say "cultivate the witness attitude, attend 'I AM', reject all else", or as ZD would say "attend the actual") any less powerful. I like to say and have repeated often: be grateful for the noticing rather than recriminating for what was noticed. Haha, yes. I respect ZD's 'ATA' - as far as I do any other ideas. Ruun, mind, ruuuun!!! hehe ... yeah, that's what lotsa folks do after a "first glimpse" .... their minds run theyselves one marathon after another! ... on a circular track!  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2013 15:00:15 GMT -5
I observed my thoughts intently for a while, and then one day out of the blue it dawned on me that most if not all of them were simply not true. So then the steady stream of thoughts in my head subsided (or perhaps just receded into some dark corner somewhere.) And though "still mind" certainly seems better than the alternative, it obviously isn't the end of the search. But I have no idea where to go from here, so it appears I'm stuck in some kind of a still mind limbo.
|
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jun 2, 2013 16:08:39 GMT -5
I observed my thoughts intently for a while, and then one day out of the blue it dawned on me that most if not all of them were simply not true. So then the steady stream of thoughts in my head subsided (or perhaps just receded into some dark corner somewhere.) And though "still mind" certainly seems better than the alternative, it obviously isn't the end of the search. But I have no idea where to go from here, so it appears I'm stuck in some kind of a still mind limbo. Sounds like you're exactly where you need to be to keep irritating whatever it is that thinks there is somewhere else to go from "here". |
|
