|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 10, 2014 15:32:20 GMT -5
That first quote about the emptiness at the crux of the inception of thought is really well expressed, and it's something that can only be understood if one has done the investigation. This last idea ... "you can't allow yourself to be comfortable in the psyche" reminds me of Albert Low's prescription in "The Iron Cow of Zen": "arouse the mind without resting it on anything". Any conceptual structure that we get comfortable with is a potential place for the mind to rest, and perhaps the ultimate comfy-cozy-mind-couch is the deliberately suppressed and thereby unaroused state of mind. That's something I've said many times, maybe in the form of 'alert, empty attention', though I mean something other than not resting mind on a conceptual structure, which is a bit of an oxymoron. I mean not engaging thought at all. ( I might be talking about something different from what Albert means too)  from following the prescription I've found it to lead to the exact same place -- in a manner of speaking that is of course -- as Tolle's "watch the thinker", Niz's "refuse all thoughts but 'I AM'", and ZD's "attend the actual". Because the prescription is wrapped up in a pointing the meaning of it made by the reader can set the compass spinning fer sure. For example: "who watches the thinker?", or "what is the actual?". I'd say that "alert, empty attention" definitely captures what Low was advocating. I can see how your definition of mind as the movement of thought makes an oxymoron of "resting mind on a conceptual structure". It would be a challenge for me to put Low's definition of mind into words without re-reading the book. In a few of the military briefings I attended as a youngish lad the phrase "warm fuzzy" would sometimes come up. That's a term used by guys high up in the chain who just don't have the same skillset as the briefer but do have a working knowledge of the topic under discussion. Essentially it meant that the mental image they worked up during the briefing based on facts and limited hard knowledge resolved to a positive emotion to the effect that they could trust what the briefer was presenting. That's a really good example of what I took Low to mean by "resting the mind" on something. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 10, 2014 17:11:28 GMT -5
That's something I've said many times, maybe in the form of 'alert, empty attention', though I mean something other than not resting mind on a conceptual structure, which is a bit of an oxymoron. I mean not engaging thought at all. ( I might be talking about something different from what Albert means too) from following the prescription I've found it to lead to the exact same place -- in a manner of speaking that is of course -- as Tolle's "watch the thinker", Niz's "refuse all thoughts but 'I AM'", and ZD's "attend the actual". Because the prescription is wrapped up in a pointing the meaning of it made by the reader can set the compass spinning fer sure. For example: "who watches the thinker?", or "what is the actual?". I'd say that "alert, empty attention" definitely captures what Low was advocating. I can see how your definition of mind as the movement of thought makes an oxymoron of "resting mind on a conceptual structure". It would be a challenge for me to put Low's definition of mind into words without re-reading the book. In a few of the military briefings I attended as a youngish lad the phrase "warm fuzzy" would sometimes come up. That's a term used by guys high up in the chain who just don't have the same skillset as the briefer but do have a working knowledge of the topic under discussion. Essentially it meant that the mental image they worked up during the briefing based on facts and limited hard knowledge resolved to a positive emotion to the effect that they could trust what the briefer was presenting. That's a really good example of what I took Low to mean by "resting the mind" on something. Yeah, all risky pointers. One has to make another distinction between alertness, or alert attention, or empty awareness... and thinking. The movement of thought in a state of alert attention is so habitual that it may not be obvious that one can be in a state of alert attention without thought. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 10, 2014 17:29:14 GMT -5
from following the prescription I've found it to lead to the exact same place -- in a manner of speaking that is of course -- as Tolle's "watch the thinker", Niz's "refuse all thoughts but 'I AM'", and ZD's "attend the actual". Because the prescription is wrapped up in a pointing the meaning of it made by the reader can set the compass spinning fer sure. For example: "who watches the thinker?", or "what is the actual?". I'd say that "alert, empty attention" definitely captures what Low was advocating. I can see how your definition of mind as the movement of thought makes an oxymoron of "resting mind on a conceptual structure". It would be a challenge for me to put Low's definition of mind into words without re-reading the book. In a few of the military briefings I attended as a youngish lad the phrase "warm fuzzy" would sometimes come up. That's a term used by guys high up in the chain who just don't have the same skillset as the briefer but do have a working knowledge of the topic under discussion. Essentially it meant that the mental image they worked up during the briefing based on facts and limited hard knowledge resolved to a positive emotion to the effect that they could trust what the briefer was presenting. That's a really good example of what I took Low to mean by "resting the mind" on something. Yeah, all risky pointers. One has to make another distinction between alertness, or alert attention, or empty awareness... and thinking. The movement of thought in a state of alert attention is so habitual that it may not be obvious that one can be in a state of alert attention without thought. IOW, one might look back on a given state as without thought mistakenly because they weren't conscious of the habituated thoughts at the time? |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Aug 10, 2014 17:52:46 GMT -5
That first quote about the emptiness at the crux of the inception of thought is really well expressed, and it's something that can only be understood if one has done the investigation. This last idea ... "you can't allow yourself to be comfortable in the psyche" reminds me of Albert Low's prescription in "The Iron Cow of Zen": "arouse the mind without resting it on anything". Any conceptual structure that we get comfortable with is a potential place for the mind to rest, and perhaps the ultimate comfy-cozy-mind-couch is the deliberately suppressed and thereby unaroused state of mind. That's something I've said many times, maybe in the form of 'alert, empty attention', though I mean something other than not resting mind on a conceptual structure, which is a bit of an oxymoron. I mean not engaging thought at all. (I might be talking about something different from what Albert means too) I suspect that "alert, empty attention" and "not engaging thought at all" is also what Albert means, tho it's been a while since I read that book. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2014 17:56:10 GMT -5
from following the prescription I've found it to lead to the exact same place -- in a manner of speaking that is of course -- as Tolle's "watch the thinker", Niz's "refuse all thoughts but 'I AM'", and ZD's "attend the actual". Because the prescription is wrapped up in a pointing the meaning of it made by the reader can set the compass spinning fer sure. For example: "who watches the thinker?", or "what is the actual?". I'd say that "alert, empty attention" definitely captures what Low was advocating. I can see how your definition of mind as the movement of thought makes an oxymoron of "resting mind on a conceptual structure". It would be a challenge for me to put Low's definition of mind into words without re-reading the book. In a few of the military briefings I attended as a youngish lad the phrase "warm fuzzy" would sometimes come up. That's a term used by guys high up in the chain who just don't have the same skillset as the briefer but do have a working knowledge of the topic under discussion. Essentially it meant that the mental image they worked up during the briefing based on facts and limited hard knowledge resolved to a positive emotion to the effect that they could trust what the briefer was presenting. That's a really good example of what I took Low to mean by "resting the mind" on something. Yeah, all risky pointers. One has to make another distinction between alertness, or alert attention, or empty awareness... and thinking. The movement of thought in a state of alert attention is so habitual that it may not be obvious that one can be in a state of alert attention without thought. Me want.
|
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 10, 2014 20:46:55 GMT -5
Yeah, all risky pointers. One has to make another distinction between alertness, or alert attention, or empty awareness... and thinking. The movement of thought in a state of alert attention is so habitual that it may not be obvious that one can be in a state of alert attention without thought. IOW, one might look back on a given state as without thought mistakenly because they weren't conscious of the habituated thoughts at the time? I mean that it seems so natural to fill alertness with thought that it may seem impossible to not do so. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 10, 2014 21:09:36 GMT -5
Yeah, all risky pointers. One has to make another distinction between alertness, or alert attention, or empty awareness... and thinking. The movement of thought in a state of alert attention is so habitual that it may not be obvious that one can be in a state of alert attention without thought. Me want.
Of course, what we're talking about is attending the actual.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 10, 2014 21:13:49 GMT -5
IOW, one might look back on a given state as without thought mistakenly because they weren't conscious of the habituated thoughts at the time? I mean that it seems so natural to fill alertness with thought that it may seem impossible to not do so. Oh, ok, thx. I've known folks like that. I never considered whether thought was uncontrollable or not (other than insomnia) until I started messin' with the practices. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 10, 2014 22:35:49 GMT -5
Me want.
Of course, what we're talking about is attending the actual. Ba-da Bing....go. But I don't agree that it's effortless. What's effortless is to continually let thoughts go on and on and on and on and on and on........... .................and on and on................. ...............................................................and on and on and on......................... ...............and on and on................ ............... .............................. and on and on................ .............. ..................and on and on...................... that's easy and effortless...................................... ATA is not effortless..........until you get a taste of the state....and come to love it vs thought that drones on and on........... Probably at least a good 20% of anybody's life is free time. During free time we can ATA instead of letting thoughts just carry us away......... But it might take hundreds of mini moments of ATA........and even thousands of moments............ But we say "I" to any ole thought that appears in our mind, and then we chase it. That's what Paul Brunton is calling ego. We don't have to live through what Colin Wilson calls the Robot, essentially on autopilot. But you have to see the difference......... sdp |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 11, 2014 0:07:54 GMT -5
Of course, what we're talking about is attending the actual. Ba-da Bing....go. But I don't agree that it's effortless. What's effortless is to continually let thoughts go on and on and on and on and on and on........... .................and on and on................. ...............................................................and on and on and on......................... ...............and on and on................ ............... .............................. and on and on................ .............. ..................and on and on...................... that's easy and effortless...................................... ATA is not effortless..........until you get a taste of the state....and come to love it vs thought that drones on and on........... Probably at least a good 20% of anybody's life is free time. During free time we can ATA instead of letting thoughts just carry us away......... But it might take hundreds of mini moments of ATA........and even thousands of moments............ But we say "I" to any ole thought that appears in our mind, and then we chase it. That's what Paul Brunton is calling ego. We don't have to live through what Colin Wilson calls the Robot, essentially on autopilot. But you have to see the difference......... sdp If the amount of physical energy that was sapped by the constant internal narrative is translated into effort then, oh yeah, bein' a zombie takes some work man. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 11, 2014 9:06:10 GMT -5
Of course, what we're talking about is attending the actual. Ba-da Bing....go. But I don't agree that it's effortless. What's effortless is to continually let thoughts go on and on and on and on and on and on........... that's easy and effortless...................................... ATA is not effortless..........until you get a taste of the state....and come to love it vs thought that drones on and on........... Thinking requires effort. Not thinking does not. What you're referring to as effortful is playing the split mind game of wanting to think and also wanting to not think. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Aug 11, 2014 11:51:35 GMT -5
Ba-da Bing....go. But I don't agree that it's effortless. What's effortless is to continually let thoughts go on and on and on and on and on and on........... that's easy and effortless...................................... ATA is not effortless..........until you get a taste of the state....and come to love it vs thought that drones on and on........... Thinking requires effort. Not thinking does not. What you're referring to as effortful is playing the split mind game of wanting to think and also wanting to not think. Axchooly, neither thinking nor not thinking requires effort, but there is the appearance of effort as long as one is identified with being a doer. The use of words regarding this issue is somewhat deceptive. Niz often talked about the huge effort that was initially necessary for him to overcome ordinary thinking habits and remain in the I am. Other teachers, after realization, have claimed that no effort was ever made by anyone. Both statements are pointing at the truth from different directions. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2014 12:01:11 GMT -5
Ba-da Bing....go. But I don't agree that it's effortless. What's effortless is to continually let thoughts go on and on and on and on and on and on........... that's easy and effortless...................................... ATA is not effortless..........until you get a taste of the state....and come to love it vs thought that drones on and on........... Thinking requires effort. Not thinking does not. What you're referring to as effortful is playing the split mind game of wanting to think and also wanting to not think. Seems to me there's thinking that requires effort -- like planning or strategic thinking, problem-solving (though not always), studying... -- and there's thinking that doesn't seem to require effort but may require work/energy -- daydreaming, revery, creative, opining, blathering -- and then there's thinking that seems to add energy, be revitalizing in some way -- inspiration and such. In my experience, ATA is not 'not thinking.' The intention of ATA is to continually shift attention back onto 'the actual minus thought,' in other words, bodily sensations. In practice, in my experience, ATA is a succession of no thought (attending the actual) and being submersed in thinking with automatic reminders to attend the actual. ATA is ATA and also the process of shifting attention back to TA. I've noticed that there are roughly two types of thinking experience. 1. Absorbed in it and lacking any sort of conscious witnessing of it; 2. a witnessing of thinking/thought. An example of the latter is what is happening right now, as I write this. An example of the former just happened and I am now reporting on it -- a colleague interrupted me with some work-related questions. I returned to this screen and had to re-read what I had written. It wasn't until just before I started writing again that I realized I had been in the type of thinking outlined in 1. And now, ATA. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2014 12:03:27 GMT -5
Thinking requires effort. Not thinking does not. What you're referring to as effortful is playing the split mind game of wanting to think and also wanting to not think. Axchooly, neither thinking nor not thinking requires effort, but there is the appearance of effort as long as one is identified with being a doer. The use of words regarding this issue is somewhat deceptive. Niz often talked about the huge effort that was initially necessary for him to overcome ordinary thinking habits and remain in the I am. Other teachers, after realization, have claimed that no effort was ever made by anyone. Both statements are pointing at the truth from different directions. In this case 'effort' is part of the illusion, another appearance coming and going. I can see that too. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 11, 2014 12:05:49 GMT -5
Thinking requires effort. Not thinking does not. What you're referring to as effortful is playing the split mind game of wanting to think and also wanting to not think. Axchooly, neither thinking nor not thinking requires effort, but there is the appearance of effort as long as one is identified with being a doer. The use of words regarding this issue is somewhat deceptive. Niz often talked about the huge effort that was initially necessary for him to overcome ordinary thinking habits and remain in the I am. Other teachers, after realization, have claimed that no effort was ever made by anyone. Both statements are pointing at the truth from different directions. Yes. Different contexts, akshuly. |
|
from following the prescription I've found it to lead to the exact same place -- in a manner of speaking that is of course -- as Tolle's "watch the thinker", Niz's "refuse all thoughts but 'I AM'", and ZD's "attend the actual". 
