|
page 72
Jun 28, 2014 18:51:16 GMT -5
Post by quinn on Jun 28, 2014 18:51:16 GMT -5
Agreed. Back to something else, though. Your differentiation between working out the question and seeing through the illusion... In this case the question is, Is volition actually true?. So, as Max said, you "look openly". Looking openly is what I call working on the question, and it involves the mind. I don't see how you can look at a concept without using mind. "Seeing through the illusion" (any illusion, actually) would be the end of that looking. Why would that not be called working out the question? The distinction is often necessary to make it crystal clear that what's being talked about is not thought thinking about thought. No progression of working through it. No logical analysis. In this case it's more like a burning question that sits openly with no resolution. The moment it's seen to be irrelevant, it's done. There's nothing left to say. The whole thing evaporates. The interest in the question evaporates. Innocent confusion, period. Yeah, ok. That makes sense. I don't see a distinct separation between mind and progressions and realization or awareness or whatever, though. But I understand the need to differentiate between seeing the unreality of something vs concluding/creating an alternate belief.
|
|
|
page 72
Jun 28, 2014 19:39:22 GMT -5
Post by enigma on Jun 28, 2014 19:39:22 GMT -5
I don't know that looking openly in a process involving mind means realizing the truth of non-volition. If it does, then we're talking about the same thing. To me, the focus of attention is done with mind, but not the actual seeing. If you don't see the distinction, then we're not talking about the same thing. As Reefs said, it's possible to mentally understand non-volition, and just as easily mind may conclude the opposite since they're both just conceptual stories. One timeless moment of clear seeing, without thought, ends both the stories. Ok. I see the distinction you're making, but I don't know if I'd describe it the same way. Here, I'll give you a little rundown of how I see it: Mind wonders whether volition is something that actually happens. Mind turns attention to volition. Mind says, no, not this - no, not that (repeat, repeat....) (... until eventually) *HEAD-SLAP* Ferchrissake, it's not there! Mind says, "I think I'll have some ice cream. Maybe rum raisin." I guess so. And the HEAD-SLAP is a required step.
|
|
|
page 72
Jun 28, 2014 19:48:13 GMT -5
Post by tzujanli on Jun 28, 2014 19:48:13 GMT -5
In that timeless instant of seeing/experiencing with the clarity of a still mind's awareness it is realized that neither volition, nor non-volition, nor absence of volition are valid topics for discussion, those topics are the distortions.. realizing that clarity resolves the conflicts, the realized experiencer advocates the clarity not amateurish psychotherapy..
For that reason, ZenDancer reveals more clarity than the dream-weavers and the story-tellers.. ZD offers practical processes that can result in an experiencer's clarity, processes with account for the experiencer's completeness, 'part AND whole', body, mind, and spirit..
Inclination toward mind-play and attachment to beliefs about what happened previously as explanations for what is happening or what the story-teller thinks will happen, is evident in the insistence that what is happening in the believer's mind is 'true/truth' for others..
Be still, and know..
|
|
|
page 72
Jun 28, 2014 19:48:41 GMT -5
Post by silence on Jun 28, 2014 19:48:41 GMT -5
I don't see a distinct separation between mind and progressions and realization or awareness or whatever, though. I don't really know what you mean. But I understand the need to differentiate between seeing the unreality of something vs concluding/creating an alternate belief. Yes, the need is critical. The desire to simply think about whatever it is and form a conclusion is so strong that over 99% of people simply fall prey to it into infinity.
|
|
|
page 72
Jun 28, 2014 20:00:29 GMT -5
Post by silence on Jun 28, 2014 20:00:29 GMT -5
In that timeless instant of seeing/experiencing with the clarity of a still mind's awareness it is realized that neither volition, nor non-volition, nor absence of volition are valid topics for discussion, those topics are the distortions.. realizing that clarity resolves the conflicts, the realized experiencer advocates the clarity not amateurish psychotherapy.. If volition is being interjected into discussions where it needn't be and the question brought up under false pretenses, I'd be inclined to agree with you. On the other hand, whether we overtly label it volition or simply talk about how people struggle to control their lives, I'd say it's an extremely valid topic in relation to spirituality and life at large. For that reason, ZenDancer reveals more clarity than the dream-weavers and the story-tellers.. ZD offers practical processes that can result in an experiencer's clarity, processes with account for the experiencer's completeness, 'part AND whole', body, mind, and spirit.. It's rather surprising you mention ZD by name. ZD of all people talks about answers to existential questions and goes on lengthy story telling.
|
|
|
page 72
Jun 28, 2014 20:11:55 GMT -5
Post by tzujanli on Jun 28, 2014 20:11:55 GMT -5
In that timeless instant of seeing/experiencing with the clarity of a still mind's awareness it is realized that neither volition, nor non-volition, nor absence of volition are valid topics for discussion, those topics are the distortions.. realizing that clarity resolves the conflicts, the realized experiencer advocates the clarity not amateurish psychotherapy.. If volition is being interjected into discussions where it needn't be and the question brought up under false pretenses, I'd be inclined to agree with you. On the other hand, whether we overtly label it volition or simply talk about how people struggle to control their lives, I'd say it's an extremely valid topic in relation to spirituality and life at large. For that reason, ZenDancer reveals more clarity than the dream-weavers and the story-tellers.. ZD offers practical processes that can result in an experiencer's clarity, processes which account for the experiencer's completeness, 'part AND whole', body, mind, and spirit.. It's rather surprising you mention ZD by name. ZD of all people talks about answers to existential questions and goes on lengthy story telling. You're listening to stories, i'm talking about processes..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
page 72
Jun 28, 2014 20:21:24 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2014 20:21:24 GMT -5
If volition is being interjected into discussions where it needn't be and the question brought up under false pretenses, I'd be inclined to agree with you. On the other hand, whether we overtly label it volition or simply talk about how people struggle to control their lives, I'd say it's an extremely valid topic in relation to spirituality and life at large. It's rather surprising you mention ZD by name. ZD of all people talks about answers to existential questions and goes on lengthy story telling. You're listening to stories, i'm talking about processes.. Your retort is irrelevant to what he was pointing out to you.
|
|
|
page 72
Jun 28, 2014 20:29:49 GMT -5
Post by silence on Jun 28, 2014 20:29:49 GMT -5
If volition is being interjected into discussions where it needn't be and the question brought up under false pretenses, I'd be inclined to agree with you. On the other hand, whether we overtly label it volition or simply talk about how people struggle to control their lives, I'd say it's an extremely valid topic in relation to spirituality and life at large. It's rather surprising you mention ZD by name. ZD of all people talks about answers to existential questions and goes on lengthy story telling. You're listening to stories, i'm talking about processes.. You're talking about a variety of things. I addressed several of them. A discussion about practical processes is one of the only things I didn't address. You singled that out and chose to ignore everything I said to you.
|
|
|
page 72
Jun 29, 2014 5:42:45 GMT -5
Post by quinn on Jun 29, 2014 5:42:45 GMT -5
I don't see a distinct separation between mind and progressions and realization or awareness or whatever, though. I don't really know what you mean. Yeah, probably because it's an area I'm not clear about. What I'm trying to say is I'm not convinced that mind isn't involved all the way through. I experience the difference between philosophizing or logic-ing my way to a conclusion and realizing that something I took as real is, in actuality, a thought about something. The difference between the experience of these two things is huge. But I'm not convinced that they are not both mind processes. (I don't know if that makes any more sense!)
|
|
|
page 72
Jun 29, 2014 7:23:41 GMT -5
Post by Reefs on Jun 29, 2014 7:23:41 GMT -5
Showtime!
|
|
|
page 72
Jun 29, 2014 13:47:48 GMT -5
Post by runstill on Jun 29, 2014 13:47:48 GMT -5
I don't really know what you mean. Yeah, probably because it's an area I'm not clear about. What I'm trying to say is I'm not convinced that mind isn't involved all the way through. I experience the difference between philosophizing or logic-ing my way to a conclusion and realizing that something I took as real is, in actuality, a thought about something. The difference between the experience of these two things is huge. But I'm not convinced that they are not both mind processes. (I don't know if that makes any more sense!) Mind can be informed , how it processes its disappearance depends on that which disappeared....
|
|
|
page 72
Jun 29, 2014 14:19:38 GMT -5
Post by laughter on Jun 29, 2014 14:19:38 GMT -5
Yeah, probably because it's an area I'm not clear about. What I'm trying to say is I'm not convinced that mind isn't involved all the way through. I experience the difference between philosophizing or logic-ing my way to a conclusion and realizing that something I took as real is, in actuality, a thought about something. The difference between the experience of these two things is huge. But I'm not convinced that they are not both mind processes. (I don't know if that makes any more sense!) Mind can be informed , how it processes its disappearance depends on that which disappeared.... In my experience the intellect can be used to arrive at the conclusion of the limited usefulness of the intellect, and this can happen both before and during the process of mind becoming informed.
|
|
|
page 72
Jun 29, 2014 16:07:20 GMT -5
Post by silence on Jun 29, 2014 16:07:20 GMT -5
I don't really know what you mean. Yeah, probably because it's an area I'm not clear about. What I'm trying to say is I'm not convinced that mind isn't involved all the way through. I experience the difference between philosophizing or logic-ing my way to a conclusion and realizing that something I took as real is, in actuality, a thought about something. The difference between the experience of these two things is huge. But I'm not convinced that they are not both mind processes. (I don't know if that makes any more sense!) It would likely be accurate to say that the intellect is involved in the first but not the second. Mind is involved with both. Mind can be talked about in such a way to overstretch everything or it can be discussed as merely the movement of thought. No matter how you want to look at it, one is transformative while the other is fragile and memory dependent. Needing to know where mind is and isn't is a sideshow that will take you into a never ending maze. To really see what it means to look with what you might call your inner eye is often enough to silence the intellect. There's a lot of potential there that often gets passed over as attention gets drawn into new feeling states.
|
|
|
page 72
Jun 29, 2014 17:27:05 GMT -5
Post by laughter on Jun 29, 2014 17:27:05 GMT -5
Mind can be talked about in such a way to overstretch everything or it can be discussed as merely the movement of thought. Not disagreeing with anything you wrote, but stating this definition of mind doesn't necessarily, depending on the individual reading, limit it, as it can simply shift the focus of the intellect from "mind" to "thought".
|
|
|
page 72
Jun 30, 2014 6:11:37 GMT -5
Post by quinn on Jun 30, 2014 6:11:37 GMT -5
Yeah, probably because it's an area I'm not clear about. What I'm trying to say is I'm not convinced that mind isn't involved all the way through. I experience the difference between philosophizing or logic-ing my way to a conclusion and realizing that something I took as real is, in actuality, a thought about something. The difference between the experience of these two things is huge. But I'm not convinced that they are not both mind processes. (I don't know if that makes any more sense!) Mind can be informed , how it processes its disappearance depends on that which disappeared.... Sorry, runstill - mind processing its own disappearance doesn't make any sense to me. Mind processing its relationship with reality does.
|
|