|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 11, 2014 12:14:06 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. -- daydreaming, revery, creative, opining, blathering -- and then there's thinking that seems to add energy, be revitalizing in some way -- inspiration and such. Doing work, expending energy, seems like effort to me. Thinking that inspires or otherwise makes one feel good still seems like effort. Apparently, we define effort differently, which is fine. "No thought" sounds like not thinking. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 11, 2014 12:20:23 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. The appearance of effort is the same as effort happening. Effort is a subjective experience. It's like saying suffering isn't really happening but is just an appearance. If the subjective experience is happening, it really is happening even if the experiencer itself is an appearance. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2014 12:32:58 GMT -5
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. Doing work, expending energy, seems like effort to me. Thinking that inspires or otherwise makes one feel good still seems like effort. Apparently, we define effort differently, which is fine. "No thought" sounds like not thinking. Ya well but my point was that ATA encompasses not thinking and also the process of hoisting one's attention back onto 'the actual (minus thoughts). Kinda like how we say 'sleeping' when what is happening is sleep plus going back to sleep. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2014 12:34:15 GMT -5
In this case 'effort' is part of the illusion, another appearance coming and going. I can see that too. The appearance of effort is the same as effort happening. Effort is a subjective experience. It's like saying suffering isn't really happening but is just an appearance. If the subjective experience is happening, it really is happening even if the experiencer itself is an appearance. roger on that |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 11, 2014 12:45:38 GMT -5
Doing work, expending energy, seems like effort to me. Thinking that inspires or otherwise makes one feel good still seems like effort. Apparently, we define effort differently, which is fine. "No thought" sounds like not thinking. Ya well but my point was that ATA encompasses not thinking and also the process of hoisting one's attention back onto 'the actual (minus thoughts). Kinda like how we say 'sleeping' when what is happening is sleep plus going back to sleep. Where else could attention be when not thinking if not on the senses? The whole porpoise of attending the senses is to point attention away from thought. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 11, 2014 12:48:45 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. It seems to me that if there is the appearance of separation, which is the common case for most people, then there is the appearance of effort ... IOW: tell a peep to do somethin' and they'll understand you just fine.  From my personal experience, what was interesting was that inflection point where it was noticed that if it involves effort, then it's not meditation. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2014 12:51:56 GMT -5
Ya well but my point was that ATA encompasses not thinking and also the process of hoisting one's attention back onto 'the actual (minus thoughts). Kinda like how we say 'sleeping' when what is happening is sleep plus going back to sleep. Where else could attention be when not thinking if not on the senses? The whole porpoise of attending the senses is to point attention away from thought. No disagreement there either. Do you disagree that ATA also encompasses the practices/process of shifting attention back to senses (away from thought)? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2014 12:57:10 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. It seems to me that if there is the appearance of separation, which is the common case for most people, then there is the appearance of effort ... IOW: tell a peep to do somethin' and they'll understand you just fine. From my personal experience, what was interesting was that inflection point where it was noticed that if it involves effort, then it's not meditation. Adyashanti talks about how he was an awful meditator, complete failure. Yet he advises it now and it is primarily a prescription for 'effortless' meditation. Disgard ideas about what meditation should or should not be. Just sit. The prescription of 'effortless' meditation is itself a koan. What's the difference between effortless meditation and no meditation? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 11, 2014 12:57:45 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. It seems to me that if there is the appearance of separation, which is the common case for most people, then there is the appearance of effort ... IOW: tell a peep to do somethin' and they'll understand you just fine. From my personal experience, what was interesting was that inflection point where it was noticed that if it involves effort, then it's not meditation.Same thing was noticed here. Effort always involves a split mind in which one is struggling against oneself, and so resolving that struggle becomes the actual issue. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 11, 2014 13:05:09 GMT -5
It seems to me that if there is the appearance of separation, which is the common case for most people, then there is the appearance of effort ... IOW: tell a peep to do somethin' and they'll understand you just fine. From my personal experience, what was interesting was that inflection point where it was noticed that if it involves effort, then it's not meditation. Adyashanti talks about how he was an awful meditator, complete failure. Yet he advises it now and it is primarily a prescription for 'effortless' meditation. Disgard ideas about what meditation should or should not be. Just sit. The prescription of 'effortless' meditation is itself a koan. What's the difference between effortless meditation and no meditation? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 11, 2014 13:07:33 GMT -5
Where else could attention be when not thinking if not on the senses? The whole porpoise of attending the senses is to point attention away from thought. No disagreement there either. Do you disagree that ATA also encompasses the practices/process of shifting attention back to senses (away from thought)? Yeah, but I don't see two parts to the process. Mind is structured as a doing thingy and can't function as a 'not doing' thingy, because mind is a process. (a verb) Hencely, to direct mind to not think is to ask it to think about not thinking. So, instead attention is directed away from mind. It's the same reason mind cannot be directed to not resist, and instead is directed to invite resistance. To direct mind to 'not do' is to throw it into existential crisis since it is a movement only, which ceases when not in motion. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 11, 2014 13:26:09 GMT -5
It seems to me that if there is the appearance of separation, which is the common case for most people, then there is the appearance of effort ... IOW: tell a peep to do somethin' and they'll understand you just fine. From my personal experience, what was interesting was that inflection point where it was noticed that if it involves effort, then it's not meditation.Same thing was noticed here. Effort always involves a split mind in which one is struggling against oneself, and so resolving that struggle becomes the actual issue. ha! ha! lucky me! By the time I fell into practice the internet was in full swing and there were all these dudes writing about split-mind and how there was nothing to find or achieve and advising not to dwell in mind. I guess I kinda' cheated.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2014 13:40:23 GMT -5
No disagreement there either. Do you disagree that ATA also encompasses the practices/process of shifting attention back to senses (away from thought)? Yeah, but I don't see two parts to the process. Mind is structured as a doing thingy and can't function as a 'not doing' thingy, because mind is a process. (a verb) Hencely, to direct mind to not think is to ask it to think about not thinking. So, instead attention is directed away from mind. It's the same reason mind cannot be directed to not resist, and instead is directed to invite resistance. To direct mind to 'not do' is to throw it into existential crisis since it is a movement only, which ceases when not in motion. I don't see minding as synonymous with thinking. Minding can be alert activity or attention, maybe curiosity, observing, listening. Perhaps inarticulable or ineffable. There's something else too. These concepts of silence, stillness, I AM (at least what I think 'I AM' refers to). Those seem to be where ATA plays. ATA itself is observed, fleetingly. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 11, 2014 13:48:24 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. 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. A+ ....you have passed the first test (coming to realize there is a distinction). I don't have much evidence on ST's that many people get there (there are noted exceptions, and I can only go by what's posted, meaning lack of evidence is not evidence of lack). Not asking for a public answer, but something to consider, which is the more natural state? Meaning, by % how much time is spend in 1. versus 2.? What does it '~ take~' to move from 1. to 2. or from 2. to 1.? sdp |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Aug 11, 2014 13:53:26 GMT -5
It seems to me that if there is the appearance of separation, which is the common case for most people, then there is the appearance of effort ... IOW: tell a peep to do somethin' and they'll understand you just fine. From my personal experience, what was interesting was that inflection point where it was noticed that if it involves effort, then it's not meditation.Same thing was noticed here. Effort always involves a split mind in which one is struggling against oneself, and so resolving that struggle becomes the actual issue. Not my experience, but I probably have a broader definition of meditation than you two do. The effort (and thought) involved in returning to the breath or 'noticing' is, imo, part of meditation. Over time, it becomes less and less of a factor. |
|
