|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 12, 2014 21:27:39 GMT -5
What if not everyone who meditates has uncomfortable feelings to turn away from? You mean from the get-go? And this person is not lost in thought, they're just hanging out very still (mentally)? That'd be cool.  I read this: There is effort at first in sitting down to meditate. It's a handy dandy word to describe what feels like swimming upstream against the currents of conditioned behaviors (mostly the behavior of turning away from uncomfortable feelings, but also the tantrum of "I'm not doing anything!"). ... as stating that the meditator has to make effort to address uncomfortable feelings. Do you think it impossible that this would not be the case, and if you don't think it impossible, then is that meditator perhaps not engaged in any effort? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 12, 2014 22:06:12 GMT -5
I can let my attention be captured by the empty associative chain of thoughts, daydreaming, when I am standing in line in the grocery store, IOW, I can be a zombie, then, or I can be present by being aware of myself standing in line, become more conscious by taking back my attention from the associative chain of thoughts. Does this usually require thinking and remembering to make this effort (meaning ego can participate)? In the beginning, yes. Does this mean ego can make the actual effort? Never. The way out, is already out, but effort is necessary, conscious effort, effort from what's already out. Ego will always take the path of least resistance, ego will never move outside itself, to me that's what effortlessness means. So yes, there is a means from ~here~ to ~there~, working directly with one's attention and awareness. My attention can be passive and therefore captured by ego or my attention can be active. sdp This experience of observing in an everyday situation is one I share: noticing a train of thought ending and attention shifting to immediate surroundings. Attention shifting from thought to feeling to quiet. The source of the impetus for the directing of attention, and the nature of that source can each be investigated in direct experience. This source and it's nature are empty, void, beyond direct description, and not anything that any pattern localized to "my brain/mind/body" can claim credit for. This is encompassed in what Damiani referred to in your quote, all you need do is specialize the thought that you are observing the metamorphosis of. It might seem like effort to direct attention, but that's an appearance. Ultimately, the only thing that would wrench and grasp attention away from ego is just ego in another guise, and that's what's meant by the term "split mind". What the word "shift" refers to in "shift of attention" from dead mind involves an opening and a relaxing. As it happens there is sort of a release, a lifting, a lightness and a neutrality that the ego can characterize as mundane, boring, uneventful and lacking of stimulation or interest. The witness knows no pride, no exhaustion, no preferences and doesn't appear as a result of coercion. If it's muscular, it's not clarity. |
|
|
|
Post by runstill on Aug 13, 2014 0:18:03 GMT -5
Here are some interesting dialogues with Bankei (1622-1693): A farmer: I was born with a very short temper, so I find it difficult to remain in the Unborn. Bankei: Since the unborn Buddha-mind is something you and everyone else is born with, there's no way you can go about attaining it now for the first time. Just attend to your farmwork and have no other thoughts. That's the working of the unborn mind. You can swing your hoe while you're angry, too, for that matter. But in that case, since anger is an evil that links you to hell, your work becomes hard and onerous. When you hoe with a mind unclouded by anger and such things, the work is easy and pleasant. Layman: There's no letup to the thoughts that come into my mind. I find it impossible to stay in the Unborn. Bankei: Although you arrived in the world with nothing but the unborn Buddha-mind, you fell into your present deluded ways as you were growing up, by watching and listening to other people in their delusion. You picked all this up gradually, over a long period of time, habituating your mind to it, until now your deluded mind has taken over completely and works its delusion unchecked. But none of your deluded thoughts was inborn. They weren't there from the start. They cease to exist in a mind that's affirming the Unborn......If you just let illusory thoughts come and go, and don't put them to work or try to avoid them, then one day you'll find that they've vanished completely into the unborn mind. Monk: I have great difficulty subduing all the desires and deluded thoughts from my mind. Bankei: The idea to subdue deluded thoughts is a deluded thought itself. Leave all such thoughts behind. Part of a Bankei talk: ....when you look at things, you're able to see and distinguish them all at once. And as you are doing that, if a bird sings or a bell tolls, or other noises occur, you hear and recognize each of them too, even though you haven't given rise to a single thought to do so. Everything in your life, from morning until night, proceeds in this same way, without your having to depend upon thought or reflection. But most people are unaware of that; they think everything is a result of their deliberation and discrimination. That's a great mistake. Anyone who tries to become enlightened thereby falls out of the Buddha-mind and into secondary matters. You are Buddhas to begin with. There's no way for you to become Buddhas now for the first time. Within this original mind, there isn't even a trace of illusion. When you clench your fists and run about, for example, that's the Unborn. If you harbor the least notion to become better than you are or the slightest inclination to seek something, you turn your back on the unborn.Yeah...I was nodding, nodding, nodding (agreeing this is all nicely put) until the very last highlighted in blue. Ah, I'm sure we've been through this territory before and yet, I still don't get it! By 'becoming better', improving, or seeking, we are in the process of maintenance of our lives and our surroundings (our individual kingdoms), and to a degree, I do 'get it' -- but I'd like to ask you for some examples so I for sure know what you mean. Your blue high light is talking about self referential thinking, and there isn't one. |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Aug 13, 2014 0:29:25 GMT -5
Yeah...I was nodding, nodding, nodding (agreeing this is all nicely put) until the very last highlighted in blue. Ah, I'm sure we've been through this territory before and yet, I still don't get it! By 'becoming better', improving, or seeking, we are in the process of maintenance of our lives and our surroundings (our individual kingdoms), and to a degree, I do 'get it' -- but I'd like to ask you for some examples so I for sure know what you mean. Your blue high light is talking about self referential thinking, and there isn't one. I don't get it. Isn't one what? What's that got to do with my query? Zooom!  |
|
|
|
Post by runstill on Aug 13, 2014 0:55:06 GMT -5
Excellent thread , investigating the self referential thought can be disconcerting and humorous, the thought is simply there it has no center that it came from , it's the only thing that says there is a self . It can be subtle to notice at first but it does become obvious, an involuntary grin is felt when this happens....
|
|
|
|
Post by runstill on Aug 13, 2014 1:11:39 GMT -5
Your blue high light is talking about self referential thinking, and there isn't one. I don't get it. Isn't one what? What's that got to do with my query? Zooom! A self ....there is no Silver other than a thought ...take a look at what is with out a I thought..... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2014 4:27:06 GMT -5
I don't get it. Isn't one what? What's that got to do with my query? Zooom! A self ....there is no Silver other than a thought ...take a look at what is with out a I thought..... fading away there Master! |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Aug 13, 2014 7:17:32 GMT -5
Not sure what you're asking. You mean from the get-go? And this person is not lost in thought, they're just hanging out very still (mentally)? That'd be cool. I read this: There is effort at first in sitting down to meditate. It's a handy dandy word to describe what feels like swimming upstream against the currents of conditioned behaviors (mostly the behavior of turning away from uncomfortable feelings, but also the tantrum of "I'm not doing anything!"). ... as stating that the meditator has to make effort to address uncomfortable feelings. Do you think it impossible that this would not be the case, and if you don't think it impossible, then is that meditator perhaps not engaged in any effort? Most people have to make an effort to stay with uncomfortable feelings. The teaching is to work with slightly uncomfortable ones first before trying to stay with the more overwhelming ones. It seems to be human nature to move towards pleasant feelings and away from unpleasant (probably based in a useful survival tool). Assuming that extreme honesty about what's seen in mind is necessary (which I think it is), and assuming that it's not all flowers and unicorns in there, we're going to be faced with something uncomfortable. You asked "What if not everyone who meditates has uncomfortable feelings to turn away from?". I suppose anything's possible, but I think it's highly unlikely. I'd tend to think they were exceptionally good at denial. Although if that's true, then life will usually help uncover that snake pit. But let's say that's the case - nothing uncomfortable ever comes up in meditation, even just sitting still is not uncomfortable, then ok - meditation would probably seem effortless. It's a wild guess, though - never ran across anyone who experiences that except long-time meditators who have already been through the effort part. And even they, on occasion, have uncomfortable stuff come up. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2014 8:18:56 GMT -5
I can let my attention be captured by the empty associative chain of thoughts, daydreaming, when I am standing in line in the grocery store, IOW, I can be a zombie, then, or I can be present by being aware of myself standing in line, become more conscious by taking back my attention from the associative chain of thoughts. Does this usually require thinking and remembering to make this effort (meaning ego can participate)? In the beginning, yes. Does this mean ego can make the actual effort? Never. The way out, is already out, but effort is necessary, conscious effort, effort from what's already out. Ego will always take the path of least resistance, ego will never move outside itself, to me that's what effortlessness means. So yes, there is a means from ~here~ to ~there~, working directly with one's attention and awareness. My attention can be passive and therefore captured by ego or my attention can be active. sdp This experience of observing in an everyday situation is one I share: noticing a train of thought ending and attention shifting to immediate surroundings. Attention shifting from thought to feeling to quiet. The source of the impetus for the directing of attention, and the nature of that source can each be investigated in direct experience. This source and it's nature are empty, void, beyond direct description, and not anything that any pattern localized to "my brain/mind/body" can claim credit for. This is encompassed in what Damiani referred to in your quote, all you need do is specialize the thought that you are observing the metamorphosis of. It might seem like effort to direct attention, but that's an appearance. Ultimately, the only thing that would wrench and grasp attention away from ego is just ego in another guise, and that's what's meant by the term "split mind". What the word "shift" refers to in "shift of attention" from dead mind involves an opening and a relaxing. As it happens there is sort of a release, a lifting, a lightness and a neutrality that the ego can characterize as mundane, boring, uneventful and lacking of stimulation or interest. The witness knows no pride, no exhaustion, no preferences and doesn't appear as a result of coercion. If it's muscular, it's not clarity. I think I have experienced neutrality by doing the Harding experiments. It seems like the substratum of consciousness, a silent presence underlying mental activity. I can doubt many things, but it is difficult to doubt this presence, which is simultaneously an absence. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2014 9:38:03 GMT -5
Excellent thread , investigating the self referential thought can be disconcerting and humorous, the thought is simply there it has no center that it came from , it's the only thing that says there is a self . It can be subtle to notice at first but it does become obvious, an involuntary grin is felt when this happens.... Is 'I Am' a self referential thought? Seems like it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2014 9:43:54 GMT -5
I can let my attention be captured by the empty associative chain of thoughts, daydreaming, when I am standing in line in the grocery store, IOW, I can be a zombie, then, or I can be present by being aware of myself standing in line, become more conscious by taking back my attention from the associative chain of thoughts. Does this usually require thinking and remembering to make this effort (meaning ego can participate)? In the beginning, yes. Does this mean ego can make the actual effort? Never. The way out, is already out, but effort is necessary, conscious effort, effort from what's already out. Ego will always take the path of least resistance, ego will never move outside itself, to me that's what effortlessness means. So yes, there is a means from ~here~ to ~there~, working directly with one's attention and awareness. My attention can be passive and therefore captured by ego or my attention can be active. sdp This experience of observing in an everyday situation is one I share: noticing a train of thought ending and attention shifting to immediate surroundings. Attention shifting from thought to feeling to quiet. The source of the impetus for the directing of attention, and the nature of that source can each be investigated in direct experience. This source and it's nature are empty, void, beyond direct description, and not anything that any pattern localized to "my brain/mind/body" can claim credit for. This is encompassed in what Damiani referred to in your quote, all you need do is specialize the thought that you are observing the metamorphosis of. It might seem like effort to direct attention, but that's an appearance. Ultimately, the only thing that would wrench and grasp attention away from ego is just ego in another guise, and that's what's meant by the term "split mind". What the word "shift" refers to in "shift of attention" from dead mind involves an opening and a relaxing. As it happens there is sort of a release, a lifting, a lightness and a neutrality that the ego can characterize as mundane, boring, uneventful and lacking of stimulation or interest. The witness knows no pride, no exhaustion, no preferences and doesn't appear as a result of coercion. If it's muscular, it's not clarity. Is it a misunderstanding to believe that Tolle and folks like him with massive deep Awakenings simply don't experience this type of shift anymore? There's just an abiding now and no more 'coming out of' something else? Or is it that there is no more resistance to the ongoing shifting, no more 'sh!t I've been daydreaming'? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 13, 2014 11:01:06 GMT -5
This is what I thought we were talking about! Yea........it's an enigma....... sdp Where I entered the conversation is when the comment was made that noticing (realization) requires effort. While the distinction between the effort required in practice, and the effortlessness of realization itself, may seem like a game of semantics to one who's not interested in the distinction, it's important because it means that the seeking effort is the real game. One is manipulating oneself into a position where something can be effortlessly seen. If it is effortless, it can be seen without the self manipulation if there is the willingness to see. If there is not, what is the real aim of the practice? Does one practice in order to become willing to effortlessly see? That game is what makes it complicated. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2014 11:10:57 GMT -5
Yea........it's an enigma....... sdp Where I entered the conversation is when the comment was made that noticing (realization) requires effort. While the distinction between the effort required in practice, and the effortlessness of realization itself, may seem like a game of semantics to one who's not interested in the distinction, it's important because it means that the seeking effort is the real game. One is manipulating oneself into a position where something can be effortlessly seen. If it is effortless, it can be seen without the self manipulation if there is the willingness to see. If there is not, what is the real aim of the practice? Does one practice in order to become willing to effortlessly see? That game is what makes it complicated. I just want to add two rusty train-mashed cents that as much as I find the 'accident prone' line of thinking elegant and entertaining, it seems to me to add fuel to the fire that Right Effort will lead to a state of effortlessness. Because more effort/practice will make one more accident prone, right?? My guess, not worth even two cents, is that this is wrong and also a distraction. However, I do think that effort in terms of mindfulness and tuning into 'the actual' (minus thoughts) is worthwhile in itself, intrinsically, like riding a bike is or taking a walk in the woods, or drinking a tall glass of cold water. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 13, 2014 11:16:59 GMT -5
Not sure what you're asking. You mean from the get-go? And this person is not lost in thought, they're just hanging out very still (mentally)? That'd be cool. I read this: There is effort at first in sitting down to meditate. It's a handy dandy word to describe what feels like swimming upstream against the currents of conditioned behaviors (mostly the behavior of turning away from uncomfortable feelings, but also the tantrum of "I'm not doing anything!"). ... as stating that the meditator has to make effort to address uncomfortable feelings. Do you think it impossible that this would not be the case, and if you don't think it impossible, then is that meditator perhaps not engaged in any effort? Sticking with the willingness theme, the seeker sees that there is no willingness to change whatever he thinks needs to change, and so the idea occurs that there is a conditioned one who is working in opposition to the one who wants change, and so a battle of some sort must ensue. So the imagined person imagines a second person to battle with in hopes of changing one's own mind in ways that one clearly doesn't want to happen. This can result in a rather lengthy seeking effort, but at least one can be assured of not accidentally losing one's imaginary self as long as the battle continues.  |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Aug 13, 2014 11:19:36 GMT -5
Excellent thread , investigating the self referential thought can be disconcerting and humorous, the thought is simply there it has no center that it came from , it's the only thing that says there is a self . It can be subtle to notice at first but it does become obvious, an involuntary grin is felt when this happens.... Is 'I Am' a self referential thought? Seems like it. Yes, it starts off being intellectually self-referential, but after contemplating it for a while, it ceases to apply to a strictly individuated perspective. Later," I am" refers to pure being, infinite in scope, and it becomes non-conceptual. |
|
