|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 10, 2015 12:06:24 GMT -5
The key to being present is to understand why we are not, and see if that reason is justified. If it can be seen that it is not, presence is the effortless, spontaneous result. What folks invariably believe is that vigilance and caution are needed in order to be safe, and this requires mind in it's capacity to project scenarios and devise strategies and mount defenses, all of which involve past/future thinking and run counter to the focus on the present moment. Consequently, we may reserve a period of time each day when we know we are safe enough to be present, and when it's over we go back to our regularly scheduled lives. I suggest that a vigilant mind is far less effective at protecting you than remaining present, which is to say remaining empty, open, alert and without engaging a thinking process. The reason for this is that thinking is a contraction of awareness while presence is an expansion of awareness. Shifting that tunnel-vision-like attention around rapidly is an attempt to analyze our experience sequentially rather than expand awareness to include all our senses and knowledge of our environment at once. The belief that this constricted mental focus is necessary is the consequence of identifying mind as the source of awareness rather than a tool for awareness, and that false belief results in the experience that the belief is true. Mind notices that when it is not sufficiently attentive, that mistakes are made, and so it naturally concludes that it must be more attentive, and also concludes that being present is counter to that attention. What's actually happening is that mind becomes distracted from it's own distraction; lost in thought about something other than it's self designated task as vigilant protector of the body/mind. And so, if you're going to test to see if presence can do a better job of protecting you than your mind, you must actually be present. In that empty, open alertness, all of your senses and knowledge, plus your insight and intuition, is fully available to you. Pay attention and you will see that you are being taken care of. The painter of the pictures will catch you if you fall. Is one disqualified from being in The Now by thinking, including thinking about the past or future, even though there seems to be nowhere else for that thinking to take place other than in The Now! amit amit, that's the whole point. You have to answer the why, of that (why one is disqualified from being in the NOW by thinking [FAPP, but not necessarily absolutely], including thinking about the past or future). |
|
|
|
Post by amit on Feb 10, 2015 12:19:05 GMT -5
Is one disqualified from being in The Now by thinking, including thinking about the past or future, even though there seems to be nowhere else for that thinking to take place other than in The Now! amit amit, that's the whole point. You have to answer the why, of that (why one is disqualified from being in the NOW by thinking [FAPP, but not necessarily absolutely], including thinking about the past or future). Are you saying that thinking is a disqualification from being in The Now? Is there anything but The Now in your view? amit |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 10, 2015 12:47:46 GMT -5
The advice is to be open and alert. Relaxing and broadening the scope of awareness, allowing the vigilance to trail off can sound to someone involved in a mindfulness practice like a suggestion to backslide, to surrender to getting lost in thought. Oh, okay. I'd say the state of vigilance referred to in meditation is the same state of open, alert attention I'm talking about, but I don't call it vigilance. Instead, I used the term to describe a state of contracted thought focused on self protection. Based on my personal experience with meditation and reading about and becoming familiar with others who've practiced, what happens is that the vigilant self-protector seems to get confused and conflated with what we sometimes refer to as the witness. While this might seem to be just an after-the-fact description, as you've suggested, our ideas and beliefs about our ongoing experience can and do have a profound effect on shaping it. Silver's "fly" video is a very excellent wordless depiction of that process of mistaking the sentinel for the witness, and the open alertness one returns to when they notice the nature of the watchdog is reflected in the depiction by a change in the state of the external environment of the meditator. The samurai blade is of course a metaphor in the video for the tool of the mind. The tool that forms distinctions. What the depiction suggests is that any attempt to force silence of the mind by mind always fails. This "failure" is never something that implicates any sort of character of the mediator and instead is always just an opportunity to inquire as to the nature of what is vigilant, on one hand, and what observes effortless movement on the other. Yes, why not notice this opportunity, always? I see a difference between a state of flow, (the example we like to use is rock climbing) and a state of empty, alert attention in that in the former there is a contracted focus of attention. The rock climber is not in an expanded state of awareness, though we could say he is present and we could even say he is not thinking. The reason the rock climber enjoys that state is because he is not there. The absence of the personal self in the present is one desirable outcome, but I was addressing the need for self protection that ultimately justifies leaving that state of presence so that mind can get back to the job of running one's life properly. The point being that it's not mind's job to do that, and it's not qualified for it's position. Yes, flow is referred to as "positive samadhi" (conventionally associated with an absence of thought) and involves a narrowing of focus and a falling away of time. The temporary absence of the separate person in the movement is the absence of the clock. The old 'mericun saying "lost track of time" always applies in that situation.  What you referenced in the OP as time spent to be safely in the now is referred to as a different type of samadhi with attention generally directed in a way that is thought of and sensed as "inward", and what can happen during that time is an experiential loss of that sense of inner or outer. It is of course not possible to enter the flow of movement in that state. In either case the pattern of thought and feeling that constitutes the protector is absent, and yes, if it can be absent those times, then why not always? |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 10, 2015 13:15:29 GMT -5
amit, that's the whole point. You have to answer the why, of that (why one is disqualified from being in the NOW by thinking [FAPP, but not necessarily absolutely], including thinking about the past or future). Are you saying that thinking is a disqualification from being in The Now? Is there anything but The Now in your view? amit Are you saying that it is your experience that amit always exists in the present moment? (edit) amit, I didn't want to go into this question at the time of writing this post. I just looked at the video of Scott Kiloby on the Spiritual Teachers section. I explored this question, there. (For a fuller explanation you can go there). Briefly, "Is there anything but The Now in your view"? Yes, the brain. (I already answered the first question). |
|
|
|
Post by zin on Feb 10, 2015 16:18:37 GMT -5
It may not be totally relevant here but I'll ask about presence. My experience with presence is like I am merged with the scenery and then it feels unlikely that one part of the picture snaps at an another part of it (would you call this as 'presence'?) and it does feel safe. However, always anxieties take over during the day. I mean it's not a belief (like "a vigilant mind is more effective about this or that") but most of the time a feeling of being overwhelmed which shuts the presence. It first starts as emotional constriction, then come the mental strategies... Overwhelmed in this sense: For example, someone whines to me too much.. Or during a late time walk I notice that someone walks too close to me, like a following... Will "understanding why I am not present" bring effortless, spontaneous presence? I try to understand but I don't understand the why. In my experience, generally speaking, there's nothing more likely than a social interaction -- even with a random stranger -- to stoke-up the defense mechanisms of mind.  Any thought past the noticing of the inception of the strategy formation is an opportunity for a sort of on-the-spot dynamic self-inquiry. What is it that's coping? Noticing of the inception... is a bit late point for me but I understand the value of not perpetuating the thing with thoughts. I just wish that that kind of worry does not happen at all! Yes, an overall attitude of seeing ourselves in people helps to begin (the day) in a more relaxed way. But for me it more feels like an energy event. Maybe the amount of energy or a change in the type of energy, I don't know the exact 'problem'. But again, I don't wish to mix things here, don't wish go further away from the OP. "The more they see of themselves in me": Actually this can be a reminder for me -- if I happen to remember Because when I look back now, I can see that that kind of thing happens more frequently than I notice at the time. Like, people who were more experienced than me behaved in a kind of protective way, for example in work environments.. Thanks. |
|
|
|
Post by zin on Feb 10, 2015 17:10:17 GMT -5
I mean it's not a belief (like "a vigilant mind is more effective about this or that") but most of the time a feeling of being overwhelmed which shuts the presence. It first starts as emotional constriction, then come the mental strategies... Overwhelmed in this sense: For example, someone whines to me too much.. Or during a late time walk I notice that someone walks too close to me, like a following... Will "understanding why I am not present" bring effortless, spontaneous presence? I try to understand but I don't understand the why. I say there is an illusion at the core of it that can be seen through, and once seen through, there will be a spontaneous presence. (To 'practice' presence is to miss the point of why one is absent) The illusion is that a contracted focus of mind is more effective at preventing and resolving issues than an open, expanded, alert attention. It's a very practical thing. Is the 'seeing through' you mention, a one time thing? Curious. I mean, one can try (the 'being present' for some time) and see it but do you think habits of mind fall away immediately by seeing? You may be writing these for a long time but I don't know, really. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2015 17:37:49 GMT -5
I say there is an illusion at the core of it that can be seen through, and once seen through, there will be a spontaneous presence. (To 'practice' presence is to miss the point of why one is absent) The illusion is that a contracted focus of mind is more effective at preventing and resolving issues than an open, expanded, alert attention. It's a very practical thing. ? Curious. I mean, one can try (the 'being present' for some time) and see it but do you think habits of mind fall away immediately by seeing? You may be writing these for a long time but I don't know, really. Hi zindarud, good question. I think an illusion is only an illusion after it has been transcended or seen through. If I am experiencing it, then why would I call it an illusion? To me it has a relative reality. It's not ultimately real, but it is relatively real. I see it as having a workable reality, or tentative reality. To me the real binder is my feelings that something is real and not just the thoughts that it is, or isn't. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 10, 2015 19:13:10 GMT -5
The key to being present is to understand why we are not, and see if that reason is justified. If it can be seen that it is not, presence is the effortless, spontaneous result. What folks invariably believe is that vigilance and caution are needed in order to be safe, and this requires mind in it's capacity to project scenarios and devise strategies and mount defenses, all of which involve past/future thinking and run counter to the focus on the present moment. Consequently, we may reserve a period of time each day when we know we are safe enough to be present, and when it's over we go back to our regularly scheduled lives. I suggest that a vigilant mind is far less effective at protecting you than remaining present, which is to say remaining empty, open, alert and without engaging a thinking process. The reason for this is that thinking is a contraction of awareness while presence is an expansion of awareness. Shifting that tunnel-vision-like attention around rapidly is an attempt to analyze our experience sequentially rather than expand awareness to include all our senses and knowledge of our environment at once. The belief that this constricted mental focus is necessary is the consequence of identifying mind as the source of awareness rather than a tool for awareness, and that false belief results in the experience that the belief is true. Mind notices that when it is not sufficiently attentive, that mistakes are made, and so it naturally concludes that it must be more attentive, and also concludes that being present is counter to that attention. What's actually happening is that mind becomes distracted from it's own distraction; lost in thought about something other than it's self designated task as vigilant protector of the body/mind. And so, if you're going to test to see if presence can do a better job of protecting you than your mind, you must actually be present. In that empty, open alertness, all of your senses and knowledge, plus your insight and intuition, is fully available to you. Pay attention and you will see that you are being taken care of. The painter of the pictures will catch you if you fall. Thanks for the clarification (I wanted to look at the OP again so didn't reply directly to the clarification). I understand the view of effortlessness (and non-volition), and the view of the world they arise out of. Saying that to note I don't entirely agree with the OP (of course), but also in the sense that there is one { key} point missing (which might be implicit but, if so, should be made explicit). What are you saying?  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 10, 2015 19:20:11 GMT -5
It may not be totally relevant here but I'll ask about presence. My experience with presence is like I am merged with the scenery and then it feels unlikely that one part of the picture snaps at an another part of it (would you call this as 'presence'?) and it does feel safe. However, always anxieties take over during the day. I mean it's not a belief (like "a vigilant mind is more effective about this or that") but most of the time a feeling of being overwhelmed which shuts the presence. It first starts as emotional constriction, then come the mental strategies... Overwhelmed in this sense: For example, someone whines to me too much.. Or during a late time walk I notice that someone walks too close to me, like a following... Will "understanding why I am not present" bring effortless, spontaneous presence? I try to understand but I don't understand the why. In my experience, generally speaking, there's nothing more likely than a social interaction -- even with a random stranger -- to stoke-up the defense mechanisms of mind. Any thought past the noticing of the inception of the strategy formation is an opportunity for a sort of on-the-spot dynamic self-inquiry. What is it that's coping? The coping itself isn't some sort of problem, but the less we see other people as problems or as means to an end, then the more of ourselves we see in them. What I've also noticed is that this tends to work in reverse as well -- the more they see of themselves in me. Most of that effect can be accounted for by the simplicity of the golden rule, but what's really going on isn't subject to apprehension by any such concept. That seeing ourselves in others is another way to state what the now is, so, why not always? Oh, you mean 'Do harm to others as they do harm to you'? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 10, 2015 19:22:45 GMT -5
The key to being present is to understand why we are not, and see if that reason is justified. If it can be seen that it is not, presence is the effortless, spontaneous result. What folks invariably believe is that vigilance and caution are needed in order to be safe, and this requires mind in it's capacity to project scenarios and devise strategies and mount defenses, all of which involve past/future thinking and run counter to the focus on the present moment. Consequently, we may reserve a period of time each day when we know we are safe enough to be present, and when it's over we go back to our regularly scheduled lives. I suggest that a vigilant mind is far less effective at protecting you than remaining present, which is to say remaining empty, open, alert and without engaging a thinking process. The reason for this is that thinking is a contraction of awareness while presence is an expansion of awareness. Shifting that tunnel-vision-like attention around rapidly is an attempt to analyze our experience sequentially rather than expand awareness to include all our senses and knowledge of our environment at once. The belief that this constricted mental focus is necessary is the consequence of identifying mind as the source of awareness rather than a tool for awareness, and that false belief results in the experience that the belief is true. Mind notices that when it is not sufficiently attentive, that mistakes are made, and so it naturally concludes that it must be more attentive, and also concludes that being present is counter to that attention. What's actually happening is that mind becomes distracted from it's own distraction; lost in thought about something other than it's self designated task as vigilant protector of the body/mind. And so, if you're going to test to see if presence can do a better job of protecting you than your mind, you must actually be present. In that empty, open alertness, all of your senses and knowledge, plus your insight and intuition, is fully available to you. Pay attention and you will see that you are being taken care of. The painter of the pictures will catch you if you fall. Is one disqualified from being in The Now by thinking, including thinking about the past or future, even though there seems to be nowhere else for that thinking to take place other than in The Now! amit Yes. Not thinking of past and future is what it means to be present. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 10, 2015 19:28:09 GMT -5
Thanks for the clarification (I wanted to look at the OP again so didn't reply directly to the clarification). I understand the view of effortlessness (and non-volition), and the view of the world they arise out of. Saying that to note I don't entirely agree with the OP (of course), but also in the sense that there is one { key} point missing (which might be implicit but, if so, should be made explicit). What are you saying? I'm saying there is a key you haven't mentioned.  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 10, 2015 19:46:26 GMT -5
Oh, okay. I'd say the state of vigilance referred to in meditation is the same state of open, alert attention I'm talking about, but I don't call it vigilance. Instead, I used the term to describe a state of contracted thought focused on self protection. Based on my personal experience with meditation and reading about and becoming familiar with others who've practiced, what happens is that the vigilant self-protector seems to get confused and conflated with what we sometimes refer to as the witness. While this might seem to be just an after-the-fact description, as you've suggested, our ideas and beliefs about our ongoing experience can and do have a profound effect on shaping it. Silver's "fly" video is a very excellent wordless depiction of that process of mistaking the sentinel for the witness, and the open alertness one returns to when they notice the nature of the watchdog is reflected in the depiction by a change in the state of the external environment of the meditator. The samurai blade is of course a metaphor in the video for the tool of the mind. The tool that forms distinctions. What the depiction suggests is that any attempt to force silence of the mind by mind always fails. This "failure" is never something that implicates any sort of character of the mediator and instead is always just an opportunity to inquire as to the nature of what is vigilant, on one hand, and what observes effortless movement on the other. Yes, why not notice this opportunity, always? I see a difference between a state of flow, (the example we like to use is rock climbing) and a state of empty, alert attention in that in the former there is a contracted focus of attention. The rock climber is not in an expanded state of awareness, though we could say he is present and we could even say he is not thinking. The reason the rock climber enjoys that state is because he is not there. The absence of the personal self in the present is one desirable outcome, but I was addressing the need for self protection that ultimately justifies leaving that state of presence so that mind can get back to the job of running one's life properly. The point being that it's not mind's job to do that, and it's not qualified for it's position. Yes, flow is referred to as "positive samadhi" (conventionally associated with an absence of thought) and involves a narrowing of focus and a falling away of time. The temporary absence of the separate person in the movement is the absence of the clock. The old 'mericun saying "lost track of time" always applies in that situation. What you referenced in the OP as time spent to be safely in the now is referred to as a different type of samadhi with attention generally directed in a way that is thought of and sensed as "inward", and what can happen during that time is an experiential loss of that sense of inner or outer. It is of course not possible to enter the flow of movement in that state. In either case the pattern of thought and feeling that constitutes the protector is absent, and yes, if it can be absent those times, then why not always? Great analysis of that video. The difficulty is that peeps still believe the protector is necessary, even though they've done all the right meditations, perhaps for years. The practice of being present never turns into the established mode of 'being present' because this belief has not been seen through. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 10, 2015 19:55:55 GMT -5
In my experience, generally speaking, there's nothing more likely than a social interaction -- even with a random stranger -- to stoke-up the defense mechanisms of mind. Any thought past the noticing of the inception of the strategy formation is an opportunity for a sort of on-the-spot dynamic self-inquiry. What is it that's coping? Noticing of the inception... is a bit late point for me but I understand the value of not perpetuating the thing with thoughts. I just wish that that kind of worry does not happen at all! Yes, an overall attitude of seeing ourselves in people helps to begin (the day) in a more relaxed way. But for me it more feels like an energy event. Maybe the amount of energy or a change in the type of energy, I don't know the exact 'problem'. But again, I don't wish to mix things here, don't wish go further away from the OP. "The more they see of themselves in me": Actually this can be a reminder for me -- if I happen to remember Because when I look back now, I can see that that kind of thing happens more frequently than I notice at the time. Like, people who were more experienced than me behaved in a kind of protective way, for example in work environments.. Thanks. I wonder if you could just accept that the worry has a legitimate basis for now, and consider if the solution (worry, thinking, analysis, projection of scenarios) is really the most effective way to deal with problems. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 10, 2015 20:10:01 GMT -5
I say there is an illusion at the core of it that can be seen through, and once seen through, there will be a spontaneous presence. (To 'practice' presence is to miss the point of why one is absent) The illusion is that a contracted focus of mind is more effective at preventing and resolving issues than an open, expanded, alert attention. It's a very practical thing. Is the 'seeing through' you mention, a one time thing? Curious. I mean, one can try (the 'being present' for some time) and see it but do you think habits of mind fall away immediately by seeing? You may be writing these for a long time but I don't know, really. Yes. My thing is that clarity brings about changes in the conditioning, and this is the only way anything ever changes. Experimenting with remaining present and noticing that the correct thoughts arise when they are needed is useful, but ultimately there needs to be a realization that mind is not what takes care of the body-mind. This body-mind is so intricately interwoven into the fabric of creation that nothing could possibly go wrong. Nothing is random. There are no accidents. Every hair is counted, and every fallen sparrow acknowledged as creation itself unfolding. There is an arrogance of mind that imagines control and autonomy, and this pulls man from the ground of his being; from the lap of God. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 10, 2015 20:14:18 GMT -5
What are you saying? I'm saying there is a key you haven't mentioned. Why bother telling me there's something I haven't mentioned unless you intend to mention it? |
|
