|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Nov 14, 2014 10:37:45 GMT -5
Earnest: This may be a semantic issue, or a misunderstanding of your intent, but I would say that what's happening is always primary, and that knowing, or ideas about what's happening, are always secondary. The second half of your post seems to point to the primacy of "what is," and the total acceptance of it irrespective of any intellection. I think Tzu is making the same point. I think I just got myself caught up in some word salad... I was wondering if the open knowing of what was happening was more important than whatever events were happening. ie, that knowing I'm frustrated by a particular situation at work is "more valuable" from some kind of spiritual perspective than the events at work themselves - that doesn't make any sense now that I revisit it. From what you and Tzu are saying I can see that what is actually happening is the primary thing (and of course that the thing and the knowing of it can't be separated as you can't have one without the other) and that ideas about what's happening are secondary (because the ideas about what's happening are just mental creations - and not actually happening) All good, thanks all Following on from my two previous posts......the ideas about what's happening are secondary, because any idea about what's happening comes from ego. Ego is the problem. Intelligence from seeing any problem can solve any problem, but ego usually jumps in and says ~What about ME!!!~? So now we have three things, first see that ego is the primary problem, ego is the distorting "monkey-wrench". Second, only then can you ATA-situation no matter what it happens to be. Third, and then see that ego is always going to jump up and try to paint the situation in a way that always makes it come out best. And then some day all this will be done in the flash of a second, first, second, third, you just see the right thing to do, even if it's not in ~your~ best interest, and you just do it and move on. .........I consider all this necessary (stuff in these three posts), because if ego is not actually seen, it can find a way to hide behind ATA if ATA is always exterior and never interior, (the interior being self-observation). IOW, you are on the right track, seeing that one has to actually know what is happening, inside....oneself. sdp
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Nov 14, 2014 12:25:38 GMT -5
I think I just got myself caught up in some word salad... I was wondering if the open knowing of what was happening was more important than whatever events were happening. ie, that knowing I'm frustrated by a particular situation at work is "more valuable" from some kind of spiritual perspective than the events at work themselves - that doesn't make any sense now that I revisit it. From what you and Tzu are saying I can see that what is actually happening is the primary thing (and of course that the thing and the knowing of it can't be separated as you can't have one without the other) and that ideas about what's happening are secondary (because the ideas about what's happening are just mental creations - and not actually happening) All good, thanks all Following on from my two previous posts......the ideas about what's happening are secondary, because any idea about what's happening comes from ego. Ego is the problem. Intelligence from seeing any problem can solve any problem, but ego usually jumps in and says ~What about ME!!!~? So now we have three things, first see that ego is the primary problem, ego is the distorting "monkey-wrench". Second, only then can you ATA-situation no matter what it happens to be. Third, and then see that ego is always going to jump up and try to paint the situation in a way that always makes it come out best. And then some day all this will be done in the flash of a second, first, second, third, you just see the right thing to do, even if it's not in ~your~ best interest, and you just do it and move on. .........I consider all this necessary (stuff in these three posts), because if ego is not actually seen, it can find a way to hide behind ATA if ATA is always exterior and never interior, (the interior being self-observation). IOW, you are on the right track, seeing that one has to actually know what is happening, inside....oneself. sdp Based on my experience and that of Weber, I'm not at all sure that interior observation is necessary. Our experience was that silence, ATA, and attentiveness in general was sufficient to bring about realizations. Weber says that brain studies show three main circuits of operation--self-referentiality, planning, and problem solving. Our thesis is that ATA (which is direct sensory perception and not a form of thinking), planning, and problem solving all bypass the circuit of self-referentiality, and it ultimately ceases to function as a primary circuit. Gangaji calls such a cessation "a collapsing of the structures of (self-referential) thought." Most people constantly think about themselves in relation to everything they do and everything that happens to them. They are constantly judging themselves, thinking about people's judgments about them, fantasizing about their future, hoping, wishing, regretting, thinking about their acomplishments or lack of them, their career, their possessions, etc. If someone leaves all of that kind of thinking behind and focuses, instead, solely upon what's happening, what needs to be planned, problem solving, and ATA, the circuit of self-referentiality ceases to be utilized. One becomes focused upon what is here and now, and one therefore lives in a high state alert attentiveness rather than a state of intellectual reflectiveness. This, alone, is probably sufficient to free one from the mind's dominance and change one's life. In Weber's case he did his meditative and yogic practices without checking on his progress. He sort of epitomized the Nike phrase, "Just do it!" Suddenly, one day after several years of such practice, his internal dialogue ceased and he become self-realized. He was amazed that the body/mind could function perfectly well without an internal dialogue and without any self-reference. As far as I know, he did not focus at all on his interior "stuff." In my case the same sort of thing happened. I did ATA relentlessly, and eventually I did it without checking on what effect it was having or what kind of progress "I" was making. Suddenly, one day I saw through the illusion of a personal identity, and my search came to an end. Like Weber, I realized that I was not who I had thought I was, and I realized that my entire search had been based upon an imaginary "me" that was trying to get something or find something. I saw, clearly, that no such thought-created "me" had ever existed, and I realized that I am "what is." All of the thinking habits associated with that imaginary person simply stopped, and life continued unencumbered by that kind of thinking. The reason that I don't recommend mindfulness meditation or spending much time watching thoughts is that thoughts are sticky, and it's hard to simply watch thought trains without getting sucked on board. If you simply look, listen, feel, etc in a state of non-conceptual awareness, and become psychologically present to what's happening, everything else seems to take care of itself automatically. There's nothing wrong with experimenting with lots of different approaches, but at least consider the possibility that whatever is happening on the interior may just be a bad habit, and one that can be broken by becoming present and attentive.
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Nov 14, 2014 15:40:35 GMT -5
Following on from my two previous posts......the ideas about what's happening are secondary, because any idea about what's happening comes from ego. Ego is the problem. Intelligence from seeing any problem can solve any problem, but ego usually jumps in and says ~What about ME!!!~? So now we have three things, first see that ego is the primary problem, ego is the distorting "monkey-wrench". Second, only then can you ATA-situation no matter what it happens to be. Third, and then see that ego is always going to jump up and try to paint the situation in a way that always makes it come out best. And then some day all this will be done in the flash of a second, first, second, third, you just see the right thing to do, even if it's not in ~your~ best interest, and you just do it and move on. .........I consider all this necessary (stuff in these three posts), because if ego is not actually seen, it can find a way to hide behind ATA if ATA is always exterior and never interior, (the interior being self-observation). IOW, you are on the right track, seeing that one has to actually know what is happening, inside....oneself. sdp Based on my experience and that of Weber, I'm not at all sure that interior observation is necessary. Our experience was that silence, ATA, and attentiveness in general was sufficient to bring about realizations. Weber says that brain studies show three main circuits of operation--self-referentiality, planning, and problem solving. Our thesis is that ATA (which is direct sensory perception and not a form of thinking), planning, and problem solving all bypass the circuit of self-referentiality, and it ultimately ceases to function as a primary circuit. Gangaji calls such a cessation "a collapsing of the structures of (self-referential) thought." Most people constantly think about themselves in relation to everything they do and everything that happens to them. They are constantly judging themselves, thinking about people's judgments about them, fantasizing about their future, hoping, wishing, regretting, thinking about their acomplishments or lack of them, their career, their possessions, etc. If someone leaves all of that kind of thinking behind and focuses, instead, solely upon what's happening, what needs to be planned, problem solving, and ATA, the circuit of self-referentiality ceases to be utilized. One becomes focused upon what is here and now, and one therefore lives in a high state alert attentiveness rather than a state of intellectual reflectiveness. This, alone, is probably sufficient to free one from the mind's dominance and change one's life. In Weber's case he did his meditative and yogic practices without checking on his progress. He sort of epitomized the Nike phrase, "Just do it!" Suddenly, one day after several years of such practice, his internal dialogue ceased and he become self-realized. He was amazed that the body/mind could function perfectly well without an internal dialogue and without any self-reference. As far as I know, he did not focus at all on his interior "stuff." In my case the same sort of thing happened. I did ATA relentlessly, and eventually I did it without checking on what effect it was having or what kind of progress "I" was making. Suddenly, one day I saw through the illusion of a personal identity, and my search came to an end. Like Weber, I realized that I was not who I had thought I was, and I realized that my entire search had been based upon an imaginary "me" that was trying to get something or find something. I saw, clearly, that no such thought-created "me" had ever existed, and I realized that I am "what is." All of the thinking habits associated with that imaginary person simply stopped, and life continued unencumbered by that kind of thinking. The reason that I don't recommend mindfulness meditation or spending much time watching thoughts is that thoughts are sticky, and it's hard to simply watch thought trains without getting sucked on board. If you simply look, listen, feel, etc in a state of non-conceptual awareness, and become psychologically present to what's happening, everything else seems to take care of itself automatically. There's nothing wrong with experimenting with lots of different approaches, but at least consider the possibility that whatever is happening on the interior may just be a bad habit, and one that can be broken by becoming present and attentive. There must be different brain structures or something. You say that thoughts are sticky and it's hard to simply watch them go by, but I don't see that as any harder than relentlessly practicing ATA without popping in and out of it and checking on progress. They're both bypassing self-referential thinking, too. After spending a lot of time on the mat looking at thoughts, it becomes seen (as opposed to believed) that a large percentage of them are overlays/bad habits/distortions/made up and they get less and less sticky. The stickiness is the self-referencing - they're one and the same. I think an important element of watching thinking is to notice if we're a leetle tooo fascinated by the inner world. That would be a good time to go for a walk in the woods. Different strokes...
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 14, 2014 19:10:18 GMT -5
Based on my experience and that of Weber, I'm not at all sure that interior observation is necessary. Our experience was that silence, ATA, and attentiveness in general was sufficient to bring about realizations. Weber says that brain studies show three main circuits of operation--self-referentiality, planning, and problem solving. Our thesis is that ATA (which is direct sensory perception and not a form of thinking), planning, and problem solving all bypass the circuit of self-referentiality, and it ultimately ceases to function as a primary circuit. Gangaji calls such a cessation "a collapsing of the structures of (self-referential) thought." Most people constantly think about themselves in relation to everything they do and everything that happens to them. They are constantly judging themselves, thinking about people's judgments about them, fantasizing about their future, hoping, wishing, regretting, thinking about their acomplishments or lack of them, their career, their possessions, etc. If someone leaves all of that kind of thinking behind and focuses, instead, solely upon what's happening, what needs to be planned, problem solving, and ATA, the circuit of self-referentiality ceases to be utilized. One becomes focused upon what is here and now, and one therefore lives in a high state alert attentiveness rather than a state of intellectual reflectiveness. This, alone, is probably sufficient to free one from the mind's dominance and change one's life. In Weber's case he did his meditative and yogic practices without checking on his progress. He sort of epitomized the Nike phrase, "Just do it!" Suddenly, one day after several years of such practice, his internal dialogue ceased and he become self-realized. He was amazed that the body/mind could function perfectly well without an internal dialogue and without any self-reference. As far as I know, he did not focus at all on his interior "stuff." In my case the same sort of thing happened. I did ATA relentlessly, and eventually I did it without checking on what effect it was having or what kind of progress "I" was making. Suddenly, one day I saw through the illusion of a personal identity, and my search came to an end. Like Weber, I realized that I was not who I had thought I was, and I realized that my entire search had been based upon an imaginary "me" that was trying to get something or find something. I saw, clearly, that no such thought-created "me" had ever existed, and I realized that I am "what is." All of the thinking habits associated with that imaginary person simply stopped, and life continued unencumbered by that kind of thinking. The reason that I don't recommend mindfulness meditation or spending much time watching thoughts is that thoughts are sticky, and it's hard to simply watch thought trains without getting sucked on board. If you simply look, listen, feel, etc in a state of non-conceptual awareness, and become psychologically present to what's happening, everything else seems to take care of itself automatically. There's nothing wrong with experimenting with lots of different approaches, but at least consider the possibility that whatever is happening on the interior may just be a bad habit, and one that can be broken by becoming present and attentive. There must be different brain structures or something. You say that thoughts are sticky and it's hard to simply watch them go by, but I don't see that as any harder than relentlessly practicing ATA without popping in and out of it and checking on progress. They're both bypassing self-referential thinking, too. After spending a lot of time on the mat looking at thoughts, it becomes seen (as opposed to believed) that a large percentage of them are overlays/bad habits/distortions/made up and they get less and less sticky. The stickiness is the self-referencing - they're one and the same. I think an important element of watching thinking is to notice if we're a leetle tooo fascinated by the inner world. That would be a good time to go for a walk in the woods. Different strokes... With eyes closed, where attention meets interest, there is a shimmering darkness, dancing with life.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2014 19:38:24 GMT -5
Based on my experience and that of Weber, I'm not at all sure that interior observation is necessary. Our experience was that silence, ATA, and attentiveness in general was sufficient to bring about realizations. Weber says that brain studies show three main circuits of operation--self-referentiality, planning, and problem solving. Our thesis is that ATA (which is direct sensory perception and not a form of thinking), planning, and problem solving all bypass the circuit of self-referentiality, and it ultimately ceases to function as a primary circuit. Gangaji calls such a cessation "a collapsing of the structures of (self-referential) thought." Most people constantly think about themselves in relation to everything they do and everything that happens to them. They are constantly judging themselves, thinking about people's judgments about them, fantasizing about their future, hoping, wishing, regretting, thinking about their acomplishments or lack of them, their career, their possessions, etc. If someone leaves all of that kind of thinking behind and focuses, instead, solely upon what's happening, what needs to be planned, problem solving, and ATA, the circuit of self-referentiality ceases to be utilized. One becomes focused upon what is here and now, and one therefore lives in a high state alert attentiveness rather than a state of intellectual reflectiveness. This, alone, is probably sufficient to free one from the mind's dominance and change one's life. In Weber's case he did his meditative and yogic practices without checking on his progress. He sort of epitomized the Nike phrase, "Just do it!" Suddenly, one day after several years of such practice, his internal dialogue ceased and he become self-realized. He was amazed that the body/mind could function perfectly well without an internal dialogue and without any self-reference. As far as I know, he did not focus at all on his interior "stuff." In my case the same sort of thing happened. I did ATA relentlessly, and eventually I did it without checking on what effect it was having or what kind of progress "I" was making. Suddenly, one day I saw through the illusion of a personal identity, and my search came to an end. Like Weber, I realized that I was not who I had thought I was, and I realized that my entire search had been based upon an imaginary "me" that was trying to get something or find something. I saw, clearly, that no such thought-created "me" had ever existed, and I realized that I am "what is." All of the thinking habits associated with that imaginary person simply stopped, and life continued unencumbered by that kind of thinking. The reason that I don't recommend mindfulness meditation or spending much time watching thoughts is that thoughts are sticky, and it's hard to simply watch thought trains without getting sucked on board. If you simply look, listen, feel, etc in a state of non-conceptual awareness, and become psychologically present to what's happening, everything else seems to take care of itself automatically. There's nothing wrong with experimenting with lots of different approaches, but at least consider the possibility that whatever is happening on the interior may just be a bad habit, and one that can be broken by becoming present and attentive. There must be different brain structures or something. You say that thoughts are sticky and it's hard to simply watch them go by, but I don't see that as any harder than relentlessly practicing ATA without popping in and out of it and checking on progress. They're both bypassing self-referential thinking, too. After spending a lot of time on the mat looking at thoughts, it becomes seen (as opposed to believed) that a large percentage of them are overlays/bad habits/distortions/made up and they get less and less sticky. The stickiness is the self-referencing - they're one and the same. I think an important element of watching thinking is to notice if we're a leetle tooo fascinated by the inner world. That would be a good time to go for a walk in the woods.
Different strokes... Where the raw is safe
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Nov 14, 2014 20:19:56 GMT -5
Based on my experience and that of Weber, I'm not at all sure that interior observation is necessary. Our experience was that silence, ATA, and attentiveness in general was sufficient to bring about realizations. Weber says that brain studies show three main circuits of operation--self-referentiality, planning, and problem solving. Our thesis is that ATA (which is direct sensory perception and not a form of thinking), planning, and problem solving all bypass the circuit of self-referentiality, and it ultimately ceases to function as a primary circuit. Gangaji calls such a cessation "a collapsing of the structures of (self-referential) thought." Most people constantly think about themselves in relation to everything they do and everything that happens to them. They are constantly judging themselves, thinking about people's judgments about them, fantasizing about their future, hoping, wishing, regretting, thinking about their acomplishments or lack of them, their career, their possessions, etc. If someone leaves all of that kind of thinking behind and focuses, instead, solely upon what's happening, what needs to be planned, problem solving, and ATA, the circuit of self-referentiality ceases to be utilized. One becomes focused upon what is here and now, and one therefore lives in a high state alert attentiveness rather than a state of intellectual reflectiveness. This, alone, is probably sufficient to free one from the mind's dominance and change one's life. In Weber's case he did his meditative and yogic practices without checking on his progress. He sort of epitomized the Nike phrase, "Just do it!" Suddenly, one day after several years of such practice, his internal dialogue ceased and he become self-realized. He was amazed that the body/mind could function perfectly well without an internal dialogue and without any self-reference. As far as I know, he did not focus at all on his interior "stuff." In my case the same sort of thing happened. I did ATA relentlessly, and eventually I did it without checking on what effect it was having or what kind of progress "I" was making. Suddenly, one day I saw through the illusion of a personal identity, and my search came to an end. Like Weber, I realized that I was not who I had thought I was, and I realized that my entire search had been based upon an imaginary "me" that was trying to get something or find something. I saw, clearly, that no such thought-created "me" had ever existed, and I realized that I am "what is." All of the thinking habits associated with that imaginary person simply stopped, and life continued unencumbered by that kind of thinking. The reason that I don't recommend mindfulness meditation or spending much time watching thoughts is that thoughts are sticky, and it's hard to simply watch thought trains without getting sucked on board. If you simply look, listen, feel, etc in a state of non-conceptual awareness, and become psychologically present to what's happening, everything else seems to take care of itself automatically. There's nothing wrong with experimenting with lots of different approaches, but at least consider the possibility that whatever is happening on the interior may just be a bad habit, and one that can be broken by becoming present and attentive. There must be different brain structures or something. You say that thoughts are sticky and it's hard to simply watch them go by, but I don't see that as any harder than relentlessly practicing ATA without popping in and out of it and checking on progress. They're both bypassing self-referential thinking, too. After spending a lot of time on the mat looking at thoughts, it becomes seen (as opposed to believed) that a large percentage of them are overlays/bad habits/distortions/made up and they get less and less sticky. The stickiness is the self-referencing - they're one and the same. I think an important element of watching thinking is to notice if we're a leetle tooo fascinated by the inner world. That would be a good time to go for a walk in the woods. Different strokes... Quinn: I wasn't saying that mindfulness practice and watching thoughts is NEVER effective; that wasn't my point. I was questioning SDP's statement that watching thoughts is a NECESSITY. If someone finds watching thoughts relatively easy, doesn't get sucked into the thoughts, and enjoys that practice, then they should certainly do what works for them. I was simply saying that, for some of us, turning away from thoughts entirely led us to the conclusion that watching thoughts is NOT a necessity. There are dozens of different pathways, and I always suggest that people stick with whatever resonates with them. IOW, trust yourself above all others as far as how to proceed. As I've pointed out before, I got interested in ATA because that's what little children do; they interact with the world directly through sensory perception rather than reflectively through thoughts. This insight made me suspect that ATA, alone, would lead to a child-like state of mind free of intellectual reflection, and, in fact, it will. But, as you say, "different strokes." It's all good.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 14, 2014 20:33:09 GMT -5
There must be different brain structures or something. You say that thoughts are sticky and it's hard to simply watch them go by, but I don't see that as any harder than relentlessly practicing ATA without popping in and out of it and checking on progress. They're both bypassing self-referential thinking, too. After spending a lot of time on the mat looking at thoughts, it becomes seen (as opposed to believed) that a large percentage of them are overlays/bad habits/distortions/made up and they get less and less sticky. The stickiness is the self-referencing - they're one and the same. I think an important element of watching thinking is to notice if we're a leetle tooo fascinated by the inner world. That would be a good time to go for a walk in the woods. Different strokes... Quinn: I wasn't saying that mindfulness practice and watching thoughts is NEVER effective; that wasn't my point. I was questioning SDP's statement that watching thoughts is a NECESSITY. If someone finds watching thoughts relatively easy, doesn't get sucked into the thoughts, and enjoys that practice, then they should certainly do what works for them. I was simply saying that, for some of us, turning away from thoughts entirely led us to the conclusion that watching thoughts is NOT a necessity. There are dozens of different pathways, and I always suggest that people stick with whatever resonates with them. IOW, trust yourself above all others as far as how to proceed. As I've pointed out before, I got interested in ATA because that's what little children do; they interact with the world directly through sensory perception rather than reflectively through thoughts. This insight made me suspect that ATA, alone, would lead to a child-like state of mind free of intellectual reflection, and, in fact, it will. But, as you say, "different strokes." It's all good. One practice certainly doesn't preclude the other.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Nov 14, 2014 20:47:32 GMT -5
Based on my experience and that of Weber, I'm not at all sure that interior observation is necessary. Our experience was that silence, ATA, and attentiveness in general was sufficient to bring about realizations. Weber says that brain studies show three main circuits of operation--self-referentiality, planning, and problem solving. Our thesis is that ATA (which is direct sensory perception and not a form of thinking), planning, and problem solving all bypass the circuit of self-referentiality, and it ultimately ceases to function as a primary circuit. Gangaji calls such a cessation "a collapsing of the structures of (self-referential) thought." Most people constantly think about themselves in relation to everything they do and everything that happens to them. They are constantly judging themselves, thinking about people's judgments about them, fantasizing about their future, hoping, wishing, regretting, thinking about their acomplishments or lack of them, their career, their possessions, etc. If someone leaves all of that kind of thinking behind and focuses, instead, solely upon what's happening, what needs to be planned, problem solving, and ATA, the circuit of self-referentiality ceases to be utilized. One becomes focused upon what is here and now, and one therefore lives in a high state alert attentiveness rather than a state of intellectual reflectiveness. This, alone, is probably sufficient to free one from the mind's dominance and change one's life. In Weber's case he did his meditative and yogic practices without checking on his progress. He sort of epitomized the Nike phrase, "Just do it!" Suddenly, one day after several years of such practice, his internal dialogue ceased and he become self-realized. He was amazed that the body/mind could function perfectly well without an internal dialogue and without any self-reference. As far as I know, he did not focus at all on his interior "stuff." In my case the same sort of thing happened. I did ATA relentlessly, and eventually I did it without checking on what effect it was having or what kind of progress "I" was making. Suddenly, one day I saw through the illusion of a personal identity, and my search came to an end. Like Weber, I realized that I was not who I had thought I was, and I realized that my entire search had been based upon an imaginary "me" that was trying to get something or find something. I saw, clearly, that no such thought-created "me" had ever existed, and I realized that I am "what is." All of the thinking habits associated with that imaginary person simply stopped, and life continued unencumbered by that kind of thinking. The reason that I don't recommend mindfulness meditation or spending much time watching thoughts is that thoughts are sticky, and it's hard to simply watch thought trains without getting sucked on board. If you simply look, listen, feel, etc in a state of non-conceptual awareness, and become psychologically present to what's happening, everything else seems to take care of itself automatically. There's nothing wrong with experimenting with lots of different approaches, but at least consider the possibility that whatever is happening on the interior may just be a bad habit, and one that can be broken by becoming present and attentive. There must be different brain structures or something. You say that thoughts are sticky and it's hard to simply watch them go by, but I don't see that as any harder than relentlessly practicing ATA without popping in and out of it and checking on progress. They're both bypassing self-referential thinking, too. After spending a lot of time on the mat looking at thoughts, it becomes seen (as opposed to believed) that a large percentage of them are overlays/bad habits/distortions/made up and they get less and less sticky. The stickiness is the self-referencing - they're one and the same. I think an important element of watching thinking is to notice if we're a leetle tooo fascinated by the inner world. That would be a good time to go for a walk in the woods. Different strokes... You have precisely nailed this Quinn, but at the same time zd is correct as far as "he" goes. The point is that AT-interior-A is not introspection. It's simply attending. But AT-interior-A is not only observing the mind, interior also includes emotions, sensations (for example tension) and every movement the body makes, including gestures and facial expressions for example. So there is much to AT-interiorly, besides thinking. And there is also a paradox involving ATA-thinking, as ........well.......one may notice that it can turn in-to, ATA-MT......... All this is inclusive of my earlier post, as all these constitute ego (excepting sensations), not just thinking, ( negative) emotions probably more-so constitute ego than thinking. And as much or maybe more can be said through body language (consciously or maybe more-so unconsciously) than mere words. sdp
|
|
|
Post by silence on Nov 14, 2014 20:47:57 GMT -5
I think I just got myself caught up in some word salad... That's basically my impression too. Not much else needs to be said.
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Nov 14, 2014 21:52:17 GMT -5
There must be different brain structures or something. You say that thoughts are sticky and it's hard to simply watch them go by, but I don't see that as any harder than relentlessly practicing ATA without popping in and out of it and checking on progress. They're both bypassing self-referential thinking, too. After spending a lot of time on the mat looking at thoughts, it becomes seen (as opposed to believed) that a large percentage of them are overlays/bad habits/distortions/made up and they get less and less sticky. The stickiness is the self-referencing - they're one and the same. I think an important element of watching thinking is to notice if we're a leetle tooo fascinated by the inner world. That would be a good time to go for a walk in the woods. Different strokes... Quinn: I wasn't saying that mindfulness practice and watching thoughts is NEVER effective; that wasn't my point. I was questioning SDP's statement that watching thoughts is a NECESSITY. If someone finds watching thoughts relatively easy, doesn't get sucked into the thoughts, and enjoys that practice, then they should certainly do what works for them. I was simply saying that, for some of us, turning away from thoughts entirely led us to the conclusion that watching thoughts is NOT a necessity. There are dozens of different pathways, and I always suggest that people stick with whatever resonates with them. IOW, trust yourself above all others as far as how to proceed. As I've pointed out before, I got interested in ATA because that's what little children do; they interact with the world directly through sensory perception rather than reflectively through thoughts. This insight made me suspect that ATA, alone, would lead to a child-like state of mind free of intellectual reflection, and, in fact, it will. But, as you say, "different strokes." It's all good. Oh, yeah - I know you know it's all good. I don't think anyone finds watching thoughts relatively easy, though. Not until most of the sticky is gone. It's actually a pretty painful process. But that's only after you go through frustration, confusion, and denial. Haha. Once it's relatively easy, there's probably no point to it anymore. Is it necessary? I don't know about that. Was it necessary for Niz to meet his guru and be told what path to follow? Was it necessary that he took that path? Maybe, maybe not. Maybe his earnestness was enough or maybe it needed a catalyst to blossom. Who knows? I think ATA is great, btw. My only caution with it is about the mind - how powerful it is and how easily we can be led around by what we don't see.
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Nov 14, 2014 22:09:26 GMT -5
There must be different brain structures or something. You say that thoughts are sticky and it's hard to simply watch them go by, but I don't see that as any harder than relentlessly practicing ATA without popping in and out of it and checking on progress. They're both bypassing self-referential thinking, too. After spending a lot of time on the mat looking at thoughts, it becomes seen (as opposed to believed) that a large percentage of them are overlays/bad habits/distortions/made up and they get less and less sticky. The stickiness is the self-referencing - they're one and the same. I think an important element of watching thinking is to notice if we're a leetle tooo fascinated by the inner world. That would be a good time to go for a walk in the woods. Different strokes... You have precisely nailed this Quinn, but at the same time zd is correct as far as "he" goes. The point is that AT-interior-A is not introspection. It's simply attending. But AT-interior-A is not only observing the mind, interior also includes emotions, sensations (for example tension) and every movement the body makes, including gestures and facial expressions for example. So there is much to AT-interiorly, besides thinking. And there is also a paradox involving ATA-thinking, as ........well.......one may notice that it can turn in-to, ATA-MT......... All this is inclusive of my earlier post, as all these constitute ego (excepting sensations), not just thinking, ( negative) emotions probably more-so constitute ego than thinking. And as much or maybe more can be said through body language (consciously or maybe more-so unconsciously) than mere words. sdp Yes, good point. There a big difference between introspection and attending (what I'd call noticing). As far as attending to emotions, sensations, etc. - that gets into some tricky bizness. I think it's a bit over the top to notice "every movement the body makes". You're probably not suggesting a super-high level of self-monitoring (I hope!). To notice tension is probably useful for some people if they're not in touch with the thought that underlies that tension. And noticing emotions that are out of whack with what's actually happening is a pretty good clue too. But, imo, they're generated by thoughts and if you can see the thought, you don't need to bother with the rest of it.
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Nov 14, 2014 22:11:54 GMT -5
There must be different brain structures or something. You say that thoughts are sticky and it's hard to simply watch them go by, but I don't see that as any harder than relentlessly practicing ATA without popping in and out of it and checking on progress. They're both bypassing self-referential thinking, too. After spending a lot of time on the mat looking at thoughts, it becomes seen (as opposed to believed) that a large percentage of them are overlays/bad habits/distortions/made up and they get less and less sticky. The stickiness is the self-referencing - they're one and the same. I think an important element of watching thinking is to notice if we're a leetle tooo fascinated by the inner world. That would be a good time to go for a walk in the woods.
Different strokes... Where the raw is safe raw?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2014 3:01:04 GMT -5
Where the raw is safe raw? If it's not raw then it's just a stroll to get some fresh air.
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Nov 15, 2014 7:15:22 GMT -5
If it's not raw then it's just a stroll to get some fresh air. Ah... oic.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Nov 15, 2014 10:03:06 GMT -5
You have precisely nailed this Quinn, but at the same time zd is correct as far as "he" goes. The point is that AT-interior-A is not introspection. It's simply attending. But AT-interior-A is not only observing the mind, interior also includes emotions, sensations (for example tension) and every movement the body makes, including gestures and facial expressions for example. So there is much to AT-interiorly, besides thinking. And there is also a paradox involving ATA-thinking, as ........well.......one may notice that it can turn in-to, ATA-MT......... All this is inclusive of my earlier post, as all these constitute ego (excepting sensations), not just thinking, ( negative) emotions probably more-so constitute ego than thinking. And as much or maybe more can be said through body language (consciously or maybe more-so unconsciously) than mere words. sdp Yes, good point. There a big difference between introspection and attending (what I'd call noticing). As far as attending to emotions, sensations, etc. - that gets into some tricky bizness. I think it's a bit over the top to notice "every movement the body makes". You're probably not suggesting a super-high level of self-monitoring (I hope!). To notice tension is probably useful for some people if they're not in touch with the thought that underlies that tension. And noticing emotions that are out of whack with what's actually happening is a pretty good clue too. But, imo, they're generated by thoughts and if you can see the thought, you don't need to bother with the rest of it. Hey quinn....... I was just pointing out to zd there's more interior than just thinking, including any movement the body makes (thought of two more, postures and tone of voice), not that you have to observe everything. I will agree that thought and emotions reinforce and feed each other, but emotions stand alone. Their influence precedes thought and is quicker than thought (we've had this discussion here before). Desire feeds the whole mechanism. Desire is emotional. Buddha said the problem is desire. Think of a carriage. The carriage is the body, the driver is the mind, the horses are the emotions. With no horses, the carriage and driver go nowhere. I agree that tension is an aberration. It is also to a great extent a manifestation of ego. Wilhelm Reich made this connection, called it body armor. So our thinking, habitual emotions and mannerisms are all pieces of the puzzle of ego. sdp
|
|