|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 13, 2014 11:29:48 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. Yes, the redirecting of attention is an effortless noticing, in this case the realization that one has been caught in thought. The realization is effortless and the redirecting is effortless. What requires effort is attending to thought streams, and so the redirecting of attention is the ending of effort. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Aug 13, 2014 11:55:30 GMT -5
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'? Each person is different, but I'm guessing that for Tolle there is no day-dreaming at all and very little self-referential checking, shifting, etc. Tolle mentioned one time that when his mother came to visit him (this was many years ago), her negativity and constant talking forced him to practice presence (shifting his attention to breathing and other forms of ATA-T). Most people who have attained the kind of understanding Tolle has attained have learned to remain present and non-reflective/non-judgmental. Carol watches some of his videos, and the other night she was watching one of his interviews. The interviewer asked him if he ever gets angry, irritated, etc. Tolle responded with a grin, "No, because I accept what is." It helps to keep in mind, however, that Tolle has no children, does not work at a regular job, and is a fairly quiet introverted kind of person. From what I gather he only talks a lot when he's giving an interview or conducting satsangs. I suspect that he's pretty content most of the time to remain silent and respond to people only when directly questioned. This kind of sustained silence leads to a great deal of equanimity. Leonard Jacobsen has written: "You would be quite amazed to know how little I think. I am not trying to stop thinking. I think when it is necessary to think but beyond that, I don't think." Other people may have much busier lives than Tolle or Jacobsen in which a great deal of thinking is required, but in those cases there is probably little or no self-reflection of the kind you're asking about. IOW, for the sage there is thinking but not much thinking ABOUT thinking or thinking ABOUT oneself as a separate person. Gary Weber has written that after many years of doing both an ATA practice and a yoga practice his reflectivity, self-referential thinking, and internal dialogue suddenly stopped one day and never returned. He was still working as a top-level manager at that time, but he stopped thinking about upcoming meetings and simply went to meetings without having any idea about what would happen. He was surprised to discover that all of his past reflectivity and projection had been completely unnecessary, and he felt like he was able to function far more effectively without all of the thinking that he used to engage in. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Aug 13, 2014 11:59:00 GMT -5
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. Yes. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 13, 2014 12:03:44 GMT -5
I read this: ... 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. There are plenty of people who are actually quite comfortable in their skin, and while I've never done a poll to determine what % meditate, my guess is that there's probably plenty of them. Now that of course is a different question as to whether there's uncomfortable thoughts that arise, whether during meditation or not, and I'd agree that it's probably the rare person that doesn't ever have that happen. But what you wrote originally suggested that meditation involves the effort of dealing with uncomfortable thoughts. Do you take that to be the purpose of meditation? I'll tell you from my experience that uncomfortable thoughts during meditation are quite rare, and the vast majority of times that I've sat they simply don't arise, and my sitting practice has zippo to do with any deliberate effort to confront them or ferret them out. From what I've read I'm not alone on that last point. Lots of people meditate out of curiosity or just for the the meditation as an end in itself. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 13, 2014 12:07:50 GMT -5
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. What you're describing is what I take Tolle to mean by "sense of being" and Niz to mean by "I AM". All the advice to stop thinking refers to shifting focus away from abstraction and thought and toward that sense of presence, and this can be done regularly and deliberately in a sitting practice and also on the fly 24/7. Witnessing happens.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 13, 2014 12:10:37 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. .. ok maxy, you know what the cliche question is in response here, right? ... starts with "who" ... |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 13, 2014 12:11:59 GMT -5
I read this: ... 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. I likewise. Any practice aimed at challenging one's beliefs or encountering one's negative feelings will require courage and determination which amounts to effort. A very useful focus for meditation. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 13, 2014 12:17:03 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. If 'I am' means 'I exist', I'd say no. If it means 'I am this or that', then yes. I used to be clear it meant the former until Niz came along, and apparently we don't argue with Niz.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 13, 2014 12:23:12 GMT -5
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'? All we can ever really write about for sure on this is our own experience and from reading what you've wrote in the past few years it seems that ours is similar. Mine was of a sudden and massive reduction in the time and intensity spent thinking when the self-referential thoughts were seen for what they are, which is, that they literally refer to nothing. Some of that came back over time but it's never been the same since in terms of the way that it's taken, which is to say, not all that seriously when self-reference is noticed, and of course, I can't be conscious of what I'm unconscious of. The intensity and time spent thinking also has never returned back to where it was before "the event". Now I can speculate from having read the few accounts from ZD and others that it seems it is possible for self-referential thinking to disappear for once and for all and for good. But here again, I can say from my own experience that not every reverie has self-reference at it's core. It's possible to get lost in a train of recursive thought that doesn't have the I-thought at the center. IOW, thinking can happen, one thought based on another can happen, and what's referenced from one thought to the next can be empty in terms that it isn't relative to an inner/outer boundary. "The sky is blue. Summer is here, but it will fade. Fresh cider, halloween." etc .. That last point is probably common to any peep if they just take a look, but of course, my guess is that for most peeps, that kind of sequence leads almost inevitably to self-reference. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 13, 2014 12:29:31 GMT -5
Is 'I Am' a self referential thought? Seems like it. If 'I am' means 'I exist', I'd say no. If it means 'I am this or that', then yes. I used to be clear it meant the former until Niz came along, and apparently we don't argue with Niz. That differential correlates to the two seemingly contradicting ways that Niz used the term, and the answer to Maxy's question depends on what the one experiencing the sense of being takes the I-thought to refer to. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 13, 2014 12:37:10 GMT -5
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. To attempt to simplify: practice may or may not lead to clarity but in clarity there remains seer and seen, and no there's no effort applicable to the clear and pure divide between seer and seen uncluttered with ideas about what each are. Also, by anecdote, meditative practice and perhaps even clarity aren't necessary for at least the temporary experience of the nature of the divide. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 13, 2014 12:39:26 GMT -5
I read this: ... 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.  What an ingenious design!  |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Aug 13, 2014 12:42:45 GMT -5
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. There are plenty of people who are actually quite comfortable in their skin, and while I've never done a poll to determine what % meditate, my guess is that there's probably plenty of them. Now that of course is a different question as to whether there's uncomfortable thoughts that arise, whether during meditation or not, and I'd agree that it's probably the rare person that doesn't ever have that happen. But what you wrote originally suggested that meditation involves the effort of dealing with uncomfortable thoughts. Do you take that to be the purpose of meditation? I'll tell you from my experience that uncomfortable thoughts during meditation are quite rare, and the vast majority of times that I've sat they simply don't arise, and my sitting practice has zippo to do with any deliberate effort to confront them or ferret them out. From what I've read I'm not alone on that last point. Lots of people meditate out of curiosity or just for the the meditation as an end in itself. There are hundreds of different forms of meditation. Really what I was talking about there was the self-inquiry arm of Vipassana. Meditation that's purely resting in awareness is cool too. My original point was that for a beginning meditator who's steeped in unconsciousness and strongly identified with thoughts, effort is required to begin seeing even slightly clearer. Part of that effort often has to do with resisting the urge to turn away from what makes us uncomfortable. Another part is resisting the urge to take up residence in Blissville. There are quite a few pitfalls to be aware of and they may require effort. For those who don't want to call that effort, fine. I get the feeling, though, that you're (collective you) adding 'will power' and 'battle' and all sorts of things to the word effort. To me, effort is just a description of that movement that feels contrary to conditioning. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 13, 2014 12:44:56 GMT -5
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. Yes, the redirecting of attention is an effortless noticing, in this case the realization that one has been caught in thought. The realization is effortless and the redirecting is effortless. What requires effort is attending to thought streams, and so the redirecting of attention is the ending of effort. Holding one's breath to "remain present" and finding disappointment in the noticing obviously is what it is but it seems to me that the curiosity about WIBIGO underlying that scenario is some sort of a sign of willingness! |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 13, 2014 12:45:41 GMT -5
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'? Being conscious is a state of being rather than a successful ongoing practice. |
|
