|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 11, 2014 15:25:05 GMT -5
But noticing is effortless. You don't notice by expending effort, and noticing doesn't require thought. Apparently, noticing means something different to you. I guess that's today's theme. There is noticing. And there is recognizing one has not been noticing. Strictly speaking, one can't notice not noticing in the moment. It's only after the fact that not noticing is recognized. So maybe noticing requires no effort, is effortless. But what of this transitory phase between noticing and not noticing, or of not noticing itself? To me, the recognition and transition happens something like this: 'ah well I've been a little absorbed, what's happening?' (commence mindfulness or ATA). Perhaps, as I understand ZD, this shift is labeled an effort but isn't actually. I'm okay with that idea. It seems like conditioning to me, as I don't feel like I have any say in it at all. Some conditioned reminder pulls me out of the river. I'll be in the river again due to some sort of conditioning as well, unconscious hangups. Yeah. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Aug 11, 2014 15:50:57 GMT -5
But noticing is effortless. You don't notice by expending effort, and noticing doesn't require thought. Apparently, noticing means something different to you. I guess that's today's theme. There is noticing. And there is recognizing one has not been noticing. Strictly speaking, one can't notice not noticing in the moment. It's only after the fact that not noticing is recognized. So maybe noticing requires no effort, is effortless. But what of this transitory phase between noticing and not noticing, or of not noticing itself? To me, the recognition and transition happens something like this: 'ah well I've been a little absorbed, what's happening?' (commence mindfulness or ATA). Perhaps, as I understand ZD, this shift is labeled an effort but isn't actually. I'm okay with that idea. It seems like conditioning to me, as I don't feel like I have any say in it at all. Some conditioned reminder pulls me out of the river. I'll be in the river again due to some sort of conditioning as well, unconscious hangups. Correct. When we first start meditating or doing ATA, we think, "I've got to remember to do this. I can see that I've been conditioned to live like a robot that gets constantly jerked around by thoughts, and if I want to get free, I've got to change this habit and pay attention to what is." After having such a thought, we shift attention to whatever can be seen or heard. Shortly thereafter, we notice that we've gotten lost in thoughts again, and we feel as if we are a person who is making an effort to constantly shift attention back to "what is." This kind of split-mind internal conversation is based upon the illusion that we're a person "in here" making an effort to break a bad habit--habitual self-referential thought or habitual thought that is utterly unnecessary (fantasy, judgment, second-guessing, tape loops, etc). In fact, what we ARE is the cosmos intelligently responding to various stimuli, including thoughts. Somewhere Adyashanti has said that "true meditation" begins AFTER the illusion of selfhood collapses. What he means is that from that point onward, there is no illusion that there is a someone behind the activity of what's happening, so it becomes obvious that the cosmos is the real meditator, whenever meditation occurs, rather than a person. This eliminates all "gaining" ideas. It is then seen that there is no one who is going to achieve anything, or become anything, or get anything as a result of meditation; meditation/ATA is simply something that the cosmos may or may not do, when manifesting as a human being, and the cosmos is also what watches whatever is happening. As noted elsewhere, there seem to be three main types of thinking--1) problem solving, 2) Planning, and 3) self-referencing. If self-referential thinking ceases, then the body/mind continues to respond intelligently to whatever is happening, but without referencing everything back to a personal self. Whatever is happening is "empty." Thinking may occur, or not, but it doesn't matter either way. A sage might go through the day with virtually no thoughts, or with lots of thoughts, but generally speaking, a sage will spend more time being alertly aware of "what is" as it is than someone who has never investigated the nature of mind or broken the habit of engaging in "unnecessary and superfluous" thoughts (comparing thoughts, desiring thoughts, judging thoughts, second-guessing thoughts, fantasies, reflections, tape loops, etc). The sage generally lives in the present moment rather than in memories about the past or fantasies about the future. The sage responds to reality as it IS rather than to ideas about how it "should be" or "ought to be." A sage is not attached to expectations of any kind because she never knows what will happen next. She might make plans, but she (wisely) does not get attached to them. |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Aug 11, 2014 16:00:12 GMT -5
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. But noticing is effortless. You don't notice by expending effort, and noticing doesn't require thought. Apparently, noticing means something different to you. I guess that's today's theme. From almost total unconsciousness (beginning meditation), noticing takes effort. That seems really obvious to me. |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Aug 11, 2014 16:11:36 GMT -5
I said there are noted exceptions. There are the noted exceptions and then there seems to be many who have never experienced the silent mind, or seldom. I'm looking for the pleasure of movement from one to the other. Seems nobody can tell anybody how to get from one to the other. Seems it just sort of happens, or not. I'd just like for anybody to feel free to post their experience. sdp My hunch is that conditioning determines the movement either way. When I say it just sort of happens it is pointing to the fact that I don't really know what specific element of conditioning was the factor. Further, going from unconscious daydreaming, for example, to conscious noticing may be because of some sort of conditioned flag that is part of a daydream or rote experience. For example the discomfort of anger may remind one to be mindful, to attend to the actual. Whereas the pleasurable feelings may more easily keep one unconscious. I've noticed that feeling embarrassed by some memory (regret) is a good trigger to shift back into alertness. Of course it's interesting how I use the bad feelings as triggers more often than the good feelings. Actually the good feeling triggers are probably the ones that send me into unconsciousness more often. Where did the idea to be mindful come from? When you first thought up or came across that idea, was there effort involved in being mindful? Is there effort now in ATA? I agree with your hunch about either movement being conditioned. To the question of effort, though, seems to me it's required as long as there's any zombie-hood going on. |
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Aug 11, 2014 16:24:56 GMT -5
But noticing is effortless. You don't notice by expending effort, and noticing doesn't require thought. Apparently, noticing means something different to you. I guess that's today's theme. From almost total unconsciousness (beginning meditation), noticing takes effort. That seems really obvious to me. The word commitment comes to mind. I don't think it is a coincidence that those who have committed themselves to long periods of internal vigilance/exploration over long periods of time usually end up with a kind of indefinable authority and clarity that other so called teachers seem to lack. Niz, Ramana, Tolle, ZD, Adyashanti, Klein, Mooji to name a few who have that in common. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2014 16:25:35 GMT -5
My hunch is that conditioning determines the movement either way. When I say it just sort of happens it is pointing to the fact that I don't really know what specific element of conditioning was the factor. Further, going from unconscious daydreaming, for example, to conscious noticing may be because of some sort of conditioned flag that is part of a daydream or rote experience. For example the discomfort of anger may remind one to be mindful, to attend to the actual. Whereas the pleasurable feelings may more easily keep one unconscious. I've noticed that feeling embarrassed by some memory (regret) is a good trigger to shift back into alertness. Of course it's interesting how I use the bad feelings as triggers more often than the good feelings. Actually the good feeling triggers are probably the ones that send me into unconsciousness more often. Where did the idea to be mindful come from? When you first thought up or came across that idea, was there effort involved in being mindful? Is there effort now in ATA? I agree with your hunch about either movement being conditioned. To the question of effort, though, seems to me it's required as long as there's any zombie-hood going on. For some reason conditioning led me to a point where krishnamurti, alan watts, thich nhat hanh seemed to make a glimmer of sense. Eventually this led to sitting on a cushion. Reading and listening to dharma talks and essays eventually conditioned this teeny brain so that one day it was clearly noticed that the incessant negative thought loops were just a repeating pattern. Behold, what a relief. And on... I don't have a problem labelling all sorts of stuff in that particular story of conditioning as effort. And I don't have a problem with the notion that labeling those experiences effort is also just another exercise in arbitrary labeling. What's interesting to me is how conditioning leads to conditioning. This particular line of conditioning seems to be leading away from labels like 'effort' and 'volition' and such, despite Tzu's valiant attempts to the contrary. |
|
|
|
Post by relinquish on Aug 11, 2014 17:01:45 GMT -5
I think it may be 'helpful' to understand that the human mind, like all our other traits, began as a random mutation in the brains (which were also mutations) of some of our remote ancestors. At the time, the presence and behavior of the mutation was obviously NOT a hindrance to the survival of the individuals who possesed it, because if it was, it never could have caught on as a trait of the species. In fact, the individuals who DIDN'T have the mutation must have been at a disadvantage to the ones who did, because in the long run, their evolutionary path came to an end. That's the way all evolution works.
In hindsight, however, it has become clear that the mind has been just as much a burden as it has been a blessing, because it is the ultimate cause of all suffering.
That said, its presence is just as natural as that of anything else in nature.
|
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 11, 2014 17:02:13 GMT -5
We talk rather continuously about that distinction here. (being conscious, witnessing, falling into the river, etc) Is this something new to you? I said there are noted exceptions. There are the noted exceptions and then there seems to be many who have never experienced the silent mind, or seldom. I'm looking for the pleasure of movement from one to the other. Seems nobody can tell anybody how to get from one to the other. Seems it just sort of happens, or not. I'd just like for anybody to feel free to post their experience. sdp As I see it, "Absorbed in it and lacking any sort of conscious witnessing of it" is a kind of unconscious functioning, and this presents a problem both for the one who is unconscious and for anyone wishing to show them a more conscious way. It cannot be a logical process of learning or understanding but rather an expansion of awareness that mind is not directly involved in. So, from that perspective, yes, it seems to just happen or not. There are, however, various factors and catalysts involved, which is to say it's not random or arbitrary. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 11, 2014 17:05:52 GMT -5
I said there are noted exceptions. There are the noted exceptions and then there seems to be many who have never experienced the silent mind, or seldom. I'm looking for the pleasure of movement from one to the other. Seems nobody can tell anybody how to get from one to the other. Seems it just sort of happens, or not. I'd just like for anybody to feel free to post their experience. sdp My hunch is that conditioning determines the movement either way. When I say it just sort of happens it is pointing to the fact that I don't really know what specific element of conditioning was the factor. Further, going from unconscious daydreaming, for example, to conscious noticing may be because of some sort of conditioned flag that is part of a daydream or rote experience. For example the discomfort of anger may remind one to be mindful, to attend to the actual. Whereas the pleasurable feelings may more easily keep one unconscious. I've noticed that feeling embarrassed by some memory (regret) is a good trigger to shift back into alertness. Of course it's interesting how I use the bad feelings as triggers more often than the good feelings. Actually the good feeling triggers are probably the ones that send me into unconsciousness more often. Agreed. Unconsciousness actually has a function for the self identification. It's done rather purposely to avoid discomfort, so there's an ongoing tendency to fall back into unconsciousness. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 11, 2014 17:15:02 GMT -5
But noticing is effortless. You don't notice by expending effort, and noticing doesn't require thought. Apparently, noticing means something different to you. I guess that's today's theme. From almost total unconsciousness (beginning meditation), noticing takes effort. That seems really obvious to me. Slowing or stilling the mind takes effort, and even that is only because mind is struggling with itself; wanting to think and wanting to stop. The noticing happens effortlessly in that empty space that remains. Noticing (realization) cannot require effort because it is not a function of mind. The efforting mind is absent when noticing occurs. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 11, 2014 17:49:12 GMT -5
I think it may be 'helpful' to understand that the human mind, like all our other traits, began as a random mutation in the brains (which were also mutations) of some of our remote ancestors. At the time, the presence and behavior of the mutation was obviously NOT a hindrance to the survival of the individuals who possesed it, because if it was, it never could have caught on as a trait of the species. In fact, the individuals who DIDN'T have the mutation must have been at a disadvantage to the ones who did, because in the long run, their evolutionary path came to an end. That's the way all evolution works. In hindsight, however, it has become clear that the mind has been just as much a burden as it has been a blessing, because it is the ultimate cause of all suffering. That said, its presence is just as natural as that of anything else in nature. I assume the "random mutation" you're referring to is ego, or self identification. I don't see it as a mutation but rather as a natural consequence of increased sophistication of the mind. This greater potential, which we could say is the result of mutation (in this context) improves survivability, and also allows for biological self awareness, but that doesn't imply that self identification is a survival advantage. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 11, 2014 17:57:21 GMT -5
It's not clear what you're saying yes to. sdp The part I underlined. Oh yea....sorry....OK.....I don't get any indication that that's true for the majority of people here on ST's. sdp |
|
|
|
Post by relinquish on Aug 11, 2014 18:14:43 GMT -5
I think it may be 'helpful' to understand that the human mind, like all our other traits, began as a random mutation in the brains (which were also mutations) of some of our remote ancestors. At the time, the presence and behavior of the mutation was obviously NOT a hindrance to the survival of the individuals who possesed it, because if it was, it never could have caught on as a trait of the species. In fact, the individuals who DIDN'T have the mutation must have been at a disadvantage to the ones who did, because in the long run, their evolutionary path came to an end. That's the way all evolution works. In hindsight, however, it has become clear that the mind has been just as much a burden as it has been a blessing, because it is the ultimate cause of all suffering. That said, its presence is just as natural as that of anything else in nature. I assume the "random mutation" you're referring to is ego, or self identification. I don't see it as a mutation but rather as a natural consequence of increased sophistication of the mind. This greater potential, which we could say is the result of mutation (in this context) improves survivability, and also allows for biological self awareness, but that doesn't imply that self identification is a survival advantage. The mutation I'm talking about is the extremely complex process of the brain that functions as the capacity for self reflection, labeling and problem solving. It's not that it is a survival advantage in itself, but rather that its absence (back in the day) must have been a fairly serious disadvantage, otherwise its presence could never have become dominant in the species. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 11, 2014 18:16:11 GMT -5
But noticing is effortless. You don't notice by expending effort, and noticing doesn't require thought. Apparently, noticing means something different to you. I guess that's today's theme. (beginning meditation), noticing takes effort. That seems really obvious to me.Thank you. sdp |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 11, 2014 18:17:48 GMT -5
My hunch is that conditioning determines the movement either way. When I say it just sort of happens it is pointing to the fact that I don't really know what specific element of conditioning was the factor. Further, going from unconscious daydreaming, for example, to conscious noticing may be because of some sort of conditioned flag that is part of a daydream or rote experience. For example the discomfort of anger may remind one to be mindful, to attend to the actual. Whereas the pleasurable feelings may more easily keep one unconscious. I've noticed that feeling embarrassed by some memory (regret) is a good trigger to shift back into alertness. Of course it's interesting how I use the bad feelings as triggers more often than the good feelings. Actually the good feeling triggers are probably the ones that send me into unconsciousness more often. Where did the idea to be mindful come from? When you first thought up or came across that idea, was there effort involved in being mindful? Is there effort now in ATA? I agree with your hunch about either movement being conditioned. To the question of effort, though, seems to me it's required as long as there's any zombie-hood going on.ditto. sdp |
|
