|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 13, 2014 20:01:32 GMT -5
justlikeyou, I guess you have heard of Xanthippe, the wife of Socrates? Socrates would have been proud. sdp And what book was she in? In Zenophon's Symposium, Socrates says she's the hardest to get along with of all the women there are. Plato mentions her only once, nothing bad. (Wikipedia) sdp |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 13, 2014 20:03:23 GMT -5
Here is part of the story of how and why I first picked up meditation: "When I began meditating in 2006 I did so because I was locked into living in a house with a witch of a woman, who could control my emotions, and make me angry and upset with her incessant nonsensical bit*hing and badgering. She could make me want to knock her out and I found that disturbing. Her regular "fits" of rage were so bad that I had to put a lock on the inside of my bedroom door to keep her out. At first I could not resist arguing angrily with her, even through a closed door. Later I resorted to wearing headphones while watching TV in my bedroom to tune out her haranguing until she wore herself out and went to sleep in her room. But it was the painful awareness of not being able to deal with this situation properly that eventually made me realize that until I got control of myself, these angry thoughts and emotions, I could never hope to find peace. So one day I began to meditate with the idea that I must learn the art of separating from my thoughts and emotions, and find the means to gain control over my reactions. Though I did not like the lack of emotional control, the awareness of that lack would eventually morph into a longing for the ability to remain unmoved in the face of torment. So I resolved to sit every morning for 20 or 30 minutes observing my mind stuff. After a while noticed a growth in increasing objectivity to things inside and out. In some ways it seemed like putting on a kind of armour in preparation to deal with whatever awaited me "out there" in the world beyond my waking meditation and bedroom door. I persisted in my meditation and one day began to notice a clearly increasing immunity to this womans angry, jealous, possessive and hateful words and antics.. Gradually but inexorably she disturbed me less and less as I learned to stop resenting her and began to use, almost look forward to, her antics as daily practice in remaining quietly detached. My progress did not escape her notice. I continued to get better at enduring her outlandishness calmly and soon that `calm' had unexpected results. First, in spite of herself, I saw that she found it increasingly difficult to react badly for long...her bouts of rage became less intense, and less long lasting. She would retreat to her room faster, more often and for longer periods of time, leaving me with more and more peace. I could see that she was discovering the feedback of "pain and fear" that emotional non-reaction can wreak, and it wasn't long before she was compelled, by her own behest, to move out of my home and thus resolving the issue for me without effort on my part." Nice. We can begin meditation for a huge variety of reasons. I mostly just wanted to relax! It certainly turned in to more than I bargained for. Detachment is an interesting conversation. People get worked up about that word because it connotes a disorder, but I've come to see it as a detachment from the story as opposed to any person or feelings. Gotta be able to see the story to realize it's a story.  There aren't many jobs in the modern workplace that don't involve thoughts that reference images of ourselves, the people we work with and for, the skills we have and the goals that we have to meet (.. or else!) Detachment captures nicely the difference between what these thoughts can be and the self-referential swamp that they are if we're identified with our story, body and mind. Detachment doesn't mean a lack of passion or drive or interest, it just means being in touch with the nature of the images that these movements revolve around. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 13, 2014 20:05:39 GMT -5
Here is part of the story of how and why I first picked up meditation: "When I began meditating in 2006 I did so because I was locked into living in a house with a witch of a woman, who could control my emotions, and make me angry and upset with her incessant nonsensical bit*hing and badgering. She could make me want to knock her out and I found that disturbing. Her regular "fits" of rage were so bad that I had to put a lock on the inside of my bedroom door to keep her out. At first I could not resist arguing angrily with her, even through a closed door. Later I resorted to wearing headphones while watching TV in my bedroom to tune out her haranguing until she wore herself out and went to sleep in her room. But it was the painful awareness of not being able to deal with this situation properly that eventually made me realize that until I got control of myself, these angry thoughts and emotions, I could never hope to find peace. So one day I began to meditate with the idea that I must learn the art of separating from my thoughts and emotions, and find the means to gain control over my reactions. Though I did not like the lack of emotional control, the awareness of that lack would eventually morph into a longing for the ability to remain unmoved in the face of torment. So I resolved to sit every morning for 20 or 30 minutes observing my mind stuff. After a while noticed a growth in increasing objectivity to things inside and out. In some ways it seemed like putting on a kind of armour in preparation to deal with whatever awaited me "out there" in the world beyond my waking meditation and bedroom door. I persisted in my meditation and one day began to notice a clearly increasing immunity to this womans angry, jealous, possessive and hateful words and antics.. Gradually but inexorably she disturbed me less and less as I learned to stop resenting her and began to use, almost look forward to, her antics as daily practice in remaining quietly detached. My progress did not escape her notice. I continued to get better at enduring her outlandishness calmly and soon that `calm' had unexpected results. First, in spite of herself, I saw that she found it increasingly difficult to react badly for long...her bouts of rage became less intense, and less long lasting. She would retreat to her room faster, more often and for longer periods of time, leaving me with more and more peace. I could see that she was discovering the feedback of "pain and fear" that emotional non-reaction can wreak, and it wasn't long before she was compelled, by her own behest, to move out of my home and thus resolving the issue for me without effort on my part." I do hope that you have since thanked her.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2014 3:23:30 GMT -5
And what book was she in? In Zenophon's Symposium, Socrates says she's the hardest to get along with of all the women there are.
Plato mentions her only once, nothing bad. (Wikipedia) sdp She demanded the man in him. That's why he married her. |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Aug 14, 2014 6:32:57 GMT -5
Nice. We can begin meditation for a huge variety of reasons. I mostly just wanted to relax! It certainly turned in to more than I bargained for. Detachment is an interesting conversation. People get worked up about that word because it connotes a disorder, but I've come to see it as a detachment from the story as opposed to any person or feelings. Gotta be able to see the story to realize it's a story. There aren't many jobs in the modern workplace that don't involve thoughts that reference images of ourselves, the people we work with and for, the skills we have and the goals that we have to meet (.. or else!) Detachment captures nicely the difference between what these thoughts can be and the self-referential swamp that they are if we're identified with our story, body and mind. Detachment doesn't mean a lack of passion or drive or interest, it just means being in touch with the nature of the images that these movements revolve around. Yeah, most can relate to putting on the job suit. I've got kids who are dealing with that right now. The suit's a little tight or not the right style It generates some suffering because it does feel to them like a permanent suit, like this is now who I am. And that gets reinforced constantly by society; the workplace, media, friends and acquaintances. Detachment from the suit is not a disorder, it's seeing clearly what we are not! |
|
|
|
Post by sunshine on Aug 14, 2014 6:52:02 GMT -5
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. trying to reply coherently would require effort...i refrain . |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2014 8:41:10 GMT -5
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. A prescription fading to a description fading to .... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2014 8:50:41 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.  Right, he seems to be good with an axe. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2014 9:03:03 GMT -5
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. I was looking at that crazy diagram of self knowledge this morning (sorry can't find a link) and it shows 'I AM' as being the border between 'The Great Illusion' and 'The Natural State.' So it is the foundation of all illusion (personal self) and also the point at which form meets formlessness. |
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Aug 14, 2014 9:12:37 GMT -5
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. I was looking at that crazy diagram of self knowledge this morning (sorry can't find a link) and it shows 'I AM' as being the border between 'The Great Illusion' and 'The Natural State.' So it is the foundation of all illusion (personal self) and also the point at which form meets formlessness. Bingo. Niz calls it the door. Niz: "Tirelessly I draw your attention to the one incontrovertible factor – that of being. Being needs no proofs – it proves itself. If only you go deep into the fact of being and discover the vastness and the glory, to which the ‘I am’ is the door, and cross the door and go beyond, your life will be full of happiness and light. Believe me; the effort needed is as nothing when compared with the discoveries arrived at." Oh boy, he used the "e" word there too |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 14, 2014 9:22:37 GMT -5
In Zenophon's Symposium, Socrates says she's the hardest to get along with of all the women there are.
Plato mentions her only once, nothing bad. (Wikipedia) sdp She demanded the man in him. That's why he married her. Indubitably. "If you want to become a philosopher, marry a contentious woman". |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2014 9:24:26 GMT -5
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. But that doesn't answer the question. This isn't necessarily related to practice, though it is common within my experiences with meditation. Maybe the question is unclear. In my experience, there is a recurring feeling or experience of 'now I am more conscious than I was just a second ago.' This might be the result of a "shift" in attention from thinking to 'the actual.' However, I'm not taking it for granted. 1. This appears to be true: sleep to waking is a good example of when the feeling arises, but also daydreaming to not daydreaming, from ideas to bodily sensations; 2. The appearance of this being a correct observation is itself just another appearance no more or less valuable than any other appearance; For example, profundity is a feeling, it isn't necessarily an indicator of a particular idea being actually profound or wise or insightful. As such, its best to let the feeling of profundity go before making any proclamations about the idea's inherent value. Likewise, this impression that 'right now I'm experiencing more consciousness than just before' might also be wise to distrust, as perhaps it's just an illusion as well. 3. There can be judgement, resistance as part and parcel to this observation. 'Sh!t I've been out to lunch for the last two minutes.' So the question is if Awakening, Truth Realization, etc. leads to the cessation of this phenomena (no 1, 2, or 3) or if it continues to happen but is just witnessed or whatever or if it happens but without any judgement (no 3). ZD says it depends on the person. |
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Aug 14, 2014 9:32:37 GMT -5
In Zenophon's Symposium, Socrates says she's the hardest to get along with of all the women there are.
Plato mentions her only once, nothing bad. (Wikipedia) sdp She demanded the man in him. That's why he married her. Are you married? |
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Aug 14, 2014 9:38:18 GMT -5
Nice. We can begin meditation for a huge variety of reasons. I mostly just wanted to relax! It certainly turned in to more than I bargained for. Detachment is an interesting conversation. People get worked up about that word because it connotes a disorder, but I've come to see it as a detachment from the story as opposed to any person or feelings. Gotta be able to see the story to realize it's a story. There aren't many jobs in the modern workplace that don't involve thoughts that reference images of ourselves, the people we work with and for, the skills we have and the goals that we have to meet (.. or else!) Detachment captures nicely the difference between what these thoughts can be and the self-referential swamp that they are if we're identified with our story, body and mind. Detachment doesn't mean a lack of passion or drive or interest, it just means being in touch with the nature of the images that these movements revolve around.Agreed. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2014 9:40:15 GMT -5
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. It's clear that effort should never be directed toward the effortless, which is why the distinction is being made. IOW, a practice aimed at any sort of realization is problematic from the start. Practice is in the realm of mind, and so if there is a practice for understanding mind then I'd say this is useful. However, I'm not sure that there is. In the realm of mind, change comes about through understanding. To use Quinn's example, allowing feelings rather than trying to escape them is useful, but it's not really the result of practice but rather understanding how futile and self destructive suppressing emotions is. When mind sees that clearly, it simply doesn't try to escape them, which is not a reconditioning practice. The understanding is what alters the conditioning without any further effort involved. (We could say there is effort involved in understanding) One may gain awareness and understanding through a practice aimed at reconditioning the mind, but it's important to see that changing conditioning is a function of mental clarity and not mental retraining. Mind is functioning far better than ego imagines it does and is always a few steps ahead. It's ego that positions itself as retrainer of mind. Mind isn't being retrained. At best, it is being educated. It's good to take the appearance of effort out of such processes because mind uses the idea in the way you talked about it; as cause for more and more practice, which can become a stalling tactic very quickly. "Understanding" seems to have a bad rap. "So and so demonstrates a mere intellectual understanding yada yada." Somehow putting 'intellectual' in front of 'understanding' changes it from the real mccoy to a fake, a mimic. But as James Schwartz repeatedly emphasizes much of this whole biz is exactly about understanding. How that understanding comes about is not via rote memorization though, and it almost never is. Honestly, I don't find the concept of Oneness or the idea of no separation to be possible to be intellectually understood. The terms can be bandied about, repeated verbally in different contexts, but fundamentally they can only be grokked, or understood. |
|
