the still mind.

[earnest]

I've been thinking about this still mind bizniz...

What I've taken from a lot of talk about it is that it's a goal to obtain (but I could be wrong).

Is a non-still mind seen as a problem? Do you need to move from having a non-still mind to a still mind? Do you have a still mind, or does still mind have a you?

I can see how the persuit of a still mind could create a whole lot of gear grinding and frustration... (I know because I've poured years of effort into it!!! heh heh heh )

Once you've got a still mind can you lose it?

[Reefs]

A still mind is a hyper-minder goal. Only an overworked monkey mind would find a still mind interesting. You are not the mind. That's all you have to know. Once you own that knowing, you're done with the spiritual circus and the 'still mind good/ active mind bad' strawman. Get involved and let it rip!

[tzujanli]

Feb 22, 2015 1:28:34 GMT -5 earnest said:

I've been thinking about this still mind bizniz...

What I've taken from a lot of talk about it is that it's a goal to obtain (but I could be wrong).

Is a non-still mind seen as a problem? Do you need to move from having a non-still mind to a still mind? Do you have a still mind, or does still mind have a you?

I can see how the persuit of a still mind could create a whole lot of gear grinding and frustration... (I know because I've poured years of effort into it!!! heh heh heh )

Once you've got a still mind can you lose it?

'Still mind' is an attribute of the experiencer's localized existence, utilized for the utilitarian function of clarity.. still and active compliment each other in the opportunity for understanding mind's/Life's actuality and potential..

It can't be lost, but experiencers can forget it's there and/or how to utilize it..

[zendancer]

Feb 22, 2015 1:28:34 GMT -5 earnest said:

I've been thinking about this still mind bizniz...

What I've taken from a lot of talk about it is that it's a goal to obtain (but I could be wrong).

Is a non-still mind seen as a problem? Do you need to move from having a non-still mind to a still mind? Do you have a still mind, or does still mind have a you?

I can see how the persuit of a still mind could create a whole lot of gear grinding and frustration... (I know because I've poured years of effort into it!!! heh heh heh )

Once you've got a still mind can you lose it?

Earnest: Those are good questions, but as Reefs noted, the effort to attain a still mind is a split-mind activity. Forty years ago, when I initially read the Carlos Castenada books, the Yaqui sorcerer discussed the importance of stopping the internal dialogue, and I wondered if that sort of thing was possible. The idea of attaining a silent mind had great appeal because this body/mind's internal dialogue had run amok--sort of a monkey-mind on steroids. Ha ha.

A few years later, I started meditation specifically to try to get some peace of mind--to get some freedom from what Tolle has called "the compulsion of incessant thought." After doing several forms of breath awareness exercises, I had an insight one day after noticing a building that I passed all the time on the road but had never noticed before. I realized that meditation (non-conceptual awareness) was a different way of interacting with the world than through thoughts and it seemed to increase my awareness of the world around me. At that time I saw thoughts as "bad" and the absence of thoughts as "good." This led to increasing amounts of formal meditation and the informal pursuit of ATA-MT during the day. After five months, I began falling into states of absolute samadhi while meditating. I had no idea what was happening, of course, or even that such a state of mind was possible, but there was no denying the strangeness of it, the somatic phenomena associated with entry into it, the feeling of becoming internally unified, the disappearance of selfhood, the absence of selfhood while in that state, and the pure awareness that continued without any content.

Following three successive nights of deep samadhi, I had a CC experience which resulted in numerous realizations and answered several important existential questions that had been a quandary for many years. Afterwards, I theorized that the answers to all existential questions exist "within" at some level of mind (using the word "mind" in the broadest possible sense). I therefore concluded that a silent mind would yield more insights and realizations than a busy talkative mind, and my goal was to attain an increasingly silent mind through the pursuit of formal sitting meditation and informal ATA-MT during the day. I even put notes in my truck and office containing phrases like, "Don't think!" and "What is the mind doing now?" to remind myself to shift attention away from thoughts to what could be seen, heard, or felt.

My theory about the value of attaining a silent mind seemed to be valid because as the mind became increasingly silent, answers to more and more of my existential questions appeared. I began to trust that I could find the answer to any existential question simply by contemplating it in silence.

Fast forward several years. The mind had ceased to be a problem, and I could stop thinking at will. All of my existential questions had been answered, except one. My final question, in essence, was, "How can I stay in a unity-conscious state of mind permanently?" Because this one issue remained unresolved, and because I was still seeking an answer to this question, I continued to go on long hikes while practicing ATA-MT. After one such solitary hiking trip in the mountains, I had an emotional experience of deep gratitude. Afterwards, I felt light and buoyant. A few hours later, I happened to look within and discovered that my prior sense of selfhood had vanished without a trace. I saw, without any doubt, that my past identity as a person had been a figment of imagination, and my true identity was the cosmos. The cosmos had fallen under the illusion of being a separate entity, and now the illusion had collapsed. This ended the body/mind's search for truth, and there ceased to be a sense of "inside" or "outside." Inside and outside had become one, and life became a kind of continuous flow, or unfolding.

From that point on, it no longer mattered whether the mind was silent or busy because there was no longer a person seeking anything or trying to control the mind in an effort to attain anything. Later, it became obvious that trying to control the mind, or silence the mind, had been a split-mind activity based upon the illusion that I was a person at the center of life directing various activities. In retrospect it became obvious that an imaginary person cannot do anything, and that what one IS is the only actor on the stage.

Bottom line? Freedom from thought seems to be correlated with insights about what's going on and with the penetration of cognitive illusions. Some people may need more internal silence than others for insights to occur. Each human being is unique. Gary Weber pursued a fairly intense course of meditation and yoga for several years, and suddenly one day out of the blue his internal dialogue totally ceased, and he realized what was going on. Other people have reported the same sort of thing. The key seems to be persistent ATA-MT without expectation or self-checking.

Unlike Weber, the internal dialogue of this body/mind never ceased, but the issue of internal silence ceased to matter. Sometimes the mind is talkative and sometimes it is silent, and it makes no difference one way or the other because there is no longer an idea that anything needs to be controlled in any way. I hope this long-winded explanation helps answer some of the questions you raised.

[silence]

Feb 22, 2015 1:28:34 GMT -5 earnest said:

I've been thinking about this still mind bizniz...

What I've taken from a lot of talk about it is that it's a goal to obtain (but I could be wrong).

Is a non-still mind seen as a problem? Do you need to move from having a non-still mind to a still mind? Do you have a still mind, or does still mind have a you?

I can see how the persuit of a still mind could create a whole lot of gear grinding and frustration... (I know because I've poured years of effort into it!!! heh heh heh )

Once you've got a still mind can you lose it?

A still or relatively still mind when there is no need for heightened mental activity is simply a sign of sanity. The goal isn't to become brain dead or lose your imagination. Everything you can categorize as mind is what you're looking at. If you can discern where you're looking from, that is the unshakable stillness. It's really a pretty simple matter. Nobody is achieving anything.

[tzujanli]

Feb 22, 2015 9:38:57 GMT -5 zendancer said:

Feb 22, 2015 1:28:34 GMT -5 earnest said:

I've been thinking about this still mind bizniz...

What I've taken from a lot of talk about it is that it's a goal to obtain (but I could be wrong).

Is a non-still mind seen as a problem? Do you need to move from having a non-still mind to a still mind? Do you have a still mind, or does still mind have a you?

I can see how the persuit of a still mind could create a whole lot of gear grinding and frustration... (I know because I've poured years of effort into it!!! heh heh heh )

Once you've got a still mind can you lose it?

Earnest: Those are good questions, but as Reefs noted, the effort to attain a still mind is a split-mind activity. Forty years ago, when I initially read the Carlos Castenada books, the Yaqui sorcerer discussed the importance of stopping the internal dialogue, and I wondered if that sort of thing was possible. The idea of attaining a silent mind had great appeal because this body/mind's internal dialogue had run amok--sort of a monkey-mind on steroids. Ha ha.

A few years later, I started meditation specifically to try to get some peace of mind--to get some freedom from what Tolle has called "the compulsion of incessant thought." After doing several forms of breath awareness exercises, I had an insight one day after noticing a building that I passed all the time on the road but had never noticed before. I realized that meditation (non-conceptual awareness) was a different way of interacting with the world than through thoughts and it seemed to increase my awareness of the world around me. At that time I saw thoughts as "bad" and the absence of thoughts as "good." This led to increasing amounts of formal meditation and the informal pursuit of ATA-MT during the day. After five months, I began falling into states of absolute samadhi while meditating. I had no idea what was happening, of course, or even that such a state of mind was possible, but there was no denying the strangeness of it, the somatic phenomena associated with entry into it, the feeling of becoming internally unified, the disappearance of selfhood, the absence of selfhood while in that state, and the pure awareness that continued without any content.

Following three successive nights of deep samadhi, I had a CC experience which resulted in numerous realizations and answered several important existential questions that had been a quandary for many years. Afterwards, I theorized that the answers to all existential questions exist "within" at some level of mind (using the word "mind" in the broadest possible sense). I therefore concluded that a silent mind would yield more insights and realizations than a busy talkative mind, and my goal was to attain an increasingly silent mind through the pursuit of formal sitting meditation and informal ATA-MT during the day. I even put notes in my truck and office containing phrases like, "Don't think!" and "What is the mind doing now?" to remind myself to shift attention away from thoughts to what could be seen, heard, or felt.

My theory about the value of attaining a silent mind seemed to be valid because as the mind became increasingly silent, answers to more and more of my existential questions appeared. I began to trust that I could find the answer to any existential question simply by contemplating it in silence.

Fast forward several years. The mind had ceased to be a problem, and I could stop thinking at will. All of my existential questions had been answered, except one. My final question, in essence, was, "How can I stay in a unity-conscious state of mind permanently?" Because this one issue remained unresolved, and because I was still seeking an answer to this question, I continued to go on long hikes while practicing ATA-MT. After one such solitary hiking trip in the mountains, I had an emotional experience of deep gratitude. Afterwards, I felt light and buoyant. A few hours later, I happened to look within and discovered that my prior sense of selfhood had vanished without a trace. I saw, without any doubt, that my past identity as a person had been a figment of imagination, and my true identity was the cosmos. The cosmos had fallen under the illusion of being a separate entity, and now the illusion had collapsed. This ended the body/mind's search for truth, and there ceased to be a sense of "inside" or "outside." Inside and outside had become one, and life became a kind of continuous flow, or unfolding.

From that point on, it no longer mattered whether the mind was silent or busy because there was no longer a person seeking anything or trying to control the mind in an effort to attain anything. Later, it became obvious that trying to control the mind, or silence the mind, had been a split-mind activity based upon the illusion that I was a person at the center of life directing various activities. In retrospect it became obvious that an imaginary person cannot do anything, and that what one IS is the only actor on the stage.

Bottom line? Freedom from thought seems to be correlated with insights about what's going on and with the penetration of cognitive illusions. Some people may need more internal silence than others for insights to occur. Each human being is unique. Gary Weber pursued a fairly intense course of meditation and yoga for several years, and suddenly one day out of the blue his internal dialogue totally ceased, and he realized what was going on. Other people have reported the same sort of thing. The key seems to be persistent ATA-MT without expectation or self-checking.

Unlike Weber, the internal dialogue of this body/mind never ceased, but the issue of internal silence ceased to matter. Sometimes the mind is talkative and sometimes it is silent, and it makes no difference one way or the other because there is no longer an idea that anything needs to be controlled in any way. I hope this long-winded explanation helps answer some of the questions you raised.

Hi ZD: My current understanding is that the willingness to 'let it all go', frees the mind from attachment and creates the opportunity for clarity.. which brought to me the understanding that the person AND the cosmos are separate AND inseparable.. there is no longer any conflict or interest in that relationship, it has reconciled into an intimate relationship with isness happening..

[enigma]

Feb 22, 2015 6:05:25 GMT -5 Reefs said:

A still mind is a hyper-minder goal. Only an overworked monkey mind would find a still mind interesting. You are not the mind. That's all you have to know. Once you own that knowing, you're done with the spiritual circus and the 'still mind good/ active mind bad' strawman. Get involved and let it rip!

Yuppers, mind isn't a problem to begin with, though maybe we could say the unceasing interest in the thoughts is. As such, we're dealing with interest rather than trying to do something directly with thoughts.

'Still the mind' as a prescription is a craps, as anyone who has tried to still the mind knows. Thoughts arise spontaneously, and one is only aware of them after the fact of their appearance. Trying to stop them is an exercise in futility, which is useful if one needs to learn something about futility, but it's not going to still the mind.

'Still the mind' as a pointer is useful, but as you suggest, what it's pointing to is the realization that you are not the mind, or any of the other things that mind tells you that you are. As the interest wanes, the monkey mind calms spontaneously, since it's the interest in the thoughts that creates all the activity in the first place.

Calming the mind is useful so that some clarity of seeing may emerge, but once it does, it doesn't matter if thinking is happening or not.

[tzujanli]

Feb 22, 2015 12:16:48 GMT -5 enigma said:

Feb 22, 2015 6:05:25 GMT -5 Reefs said:

A still mind is a hyper-minder goal. Only an overworked monkey mind would find a still mind interesting. You are not the mind. That's all you have to know. Once you own that knowing, you're done with the spiritual circus and the 'still mind good/ active mind bad' strawman. Get involved and let it rip!

Yuppers, mind isn't a problem to begin with, though maybe we could say the unceasing interest in the thoughts is. As such, we're dealing with interest rather than trying to do something directly with thoughts.

'Still the mind' as a prescription is a craps, as anyone who has tried to still the mind knows. Thoughts arise spontaneously, and one is only aware of them after the fact of their appearance. Trying to stop them is an exercise in futility, which is useful if one needs to learn something about futility, but it's not going to still the mind.

'Still the mind' as a pointer is useful, but as you suggest, what it's pointing to is the realization that you are not the mind, or any of the other things that mind tells you that you are. As the interest wanes, the monkey mind calms spontaneously, since it's the interest in the thoughts that creates all the activity in the first place.

Calming the mind is useful so that some clarity of seeing may emerge, but once it does, it doesn't matter if thinking is happening or not.

You speak as if you had experience with a still mind's awareness, but the speaking you do reveals you don't..

[zendancer]

Hi Tzu: We may be talking about the same thing, but what I was describing was a direct seeing that the sense of selfhood had vanished. The understanding of what was going on occurred after the direct seeing.

There remained a body, but there was no longer a "me" inhabiting the body as I had previously imagined. As I've noted before, prior to that day I had had what might be called a "hard-core" sense of selfhood, as if I were a little person inside the head directing the body to do certain things. On that particular day the "little inside guy" disappeared, and it became obvious that the cosmos was the only actor behind all appearances. For all I know, someone with a "soft-core" sense of selfhood might have a different kind of realization.

I certainly agree that the "willingness to let it all go" frees the mind from attachment and creates a greater opportunity for clarity.

Today, I use language like everybody else, and I talk about things and events in casual conversation as if they were separate, but having directly seen the unity behind all apparent separateness, I never forget that separateness is a kind of cognitive illusion, and that no real boundaries exist except in imagination. As noted before, some boundaries are obviously imaginary, such as lines of longitude and latitude, but some boundaries are not so obvious, such as the boundary separating two rocks from each other.

As a humorous aside (I think I read this in an Alan Watts book), the English calendar at one time was seriously flawed (maybe about 1500AD?), and the king's advisors recommended rectifying the flaw by changing an upcoming date by 10 days or so. IOW, the king announced that May 1 would become May 11, or something like that. Farmers concluded that the king was thereby shortening their lives by ten days, and there was a riot. Such is the power of mistaking a cognitive grid for reality. ha ha.

[zendancer]

Feb 22, 2015 12:16:48 GMT -5 enigma said:

Feb 22, 2015 6:05:25 GMT -5 Reefs said:

A still mind is a hyper-minder goal. Only an overworked monkey mind would find a still mind interesting. You are not the mind. That's all you have to know. Once you own that knowing, you're done with the spiritual circus and the 'still mind good/ active mind bad' strawman. Get involved and let it rip!

Yuppers, mind isn't a problem to begin with, though maybe we could say the unceasing interest in the thoughts is. As such, we're dealing with interest rather than trying to do something directly with thoughts.

'Still the mind' as a prescription is a craps, as anyone who has tried to still the mind knows. Thoughts arise spontaneously, and one is only aware of them after the fact of their appearance. Trying to stop them is an exercise in futility, which is useful if one needs to learn something about futility, but it's not going to still the mind.

'Still the mind' as a pointer is useful, but as you suggest, what it's pointing to is the realization that you are not the mind, or any of the other things that mind tells you that you are. As the interest wanes, the monkey mind calms spontaneously, since it's the interest in the thoughts that creates all the activity in the first place.

Calming the mind is useful so that some clarity of seeing may emerge, but once it does, it doesn't matter if thinking is happening or not.

My experience, like that of Leonard Jacobsen, Gary Weber, and others, has been somewhat different regarding this issue. With persistent shifting of attention away from thoughts, it eventually becomes possible to stop thinking at will. I consider this similar to how people learn to speed read. With practice a speed reader learns to look, see, and understand words without any verbal mental repetition of the words. A person who constantly shifts attention away from thoughts to direct sensory perception eventually becomes able to look, see, and understand the world in total mental silence. Thoughts once again arise when attention upon direct seeing is relaxed. In Weber's case, and I don't have any reason to doubt his claim, said that his internal dialogue never returned after it ceased. I don't consider the ability to remain mentally silent, at will, for extended periods of time particularly important, but it is certainly attainable for some people.

[enigma]

Feb 22, 2015 12:21:37 GMT -5 tzujanli said:

Feb 22, 2015 12:16:48 GMT -5 enigma said:

Yuppers, mind isn't a problem to begin with, though maybe we could say the unceasing interest in the thoughts is. As such, we're dealing with interest rather than trying to do something directly with thoughts.

'Still the mind' as a prescription is a craps, as anyone who has tried to still the mind knows. Thoughts arise spontaneously, and one is only aware of them after the fact of their appearance. Trying to stop them is an exercise in futility, which is useful if one needs to learn something about futility, but it's not going to still the mind.

'Still the mind' as a pointer is useful, but as you suggest, what it's pointing to is the realization that you are not the mind, or any of the other things that mind tells you that you are. As the interest wanes, the monkey mind calms spontaneously, since it's the interest in the thoughts that creates all the activity in the first place.

Calming the mind is useful so that some clarity of seeing may emerge, but once it does, it doesn't matter if thinking is happening or not.

You speak as if you had experience with a still mind's awareness, but the speaking you do reveals you don't..

I do. The problem is that you don't, and you can't reconcile what I say with what you think you know.

[laughter]

Feb 22, 2015 6:05:25 GMT -5 Reefs said:

A still mind is a hyper-minder goal. Only an overworked monkey mind would find a still mind interesting. You are not the mind. That's all you have to know. Once you own that knowing, you're done with the spiritual circus and the 'still mind good/ active mind bad' strawman. Get involved and let it rip!

(** muttley snicker **)

[enigma]

Feb 22, 2015 12:38:51 GMT -5 zendancer said:

Hi Tzu: We may be talking about the same thing, but what I was describing was a direct seeing that the sense of selfhood had vanished. The understanding of what was going on occurred after the direct seeing.

There remained a body, but there was no longer a "me" inhabiting the body as I had previously imagined. As I've noted before, prior to that day I had had what might be called a "hard-core" sense of selfhood, as if I were a little person inside the head directing the body to do certain things. On that particular day the "little inside guy" disappeared, and it became obvious that the cosmos was the only actor behind all appearances. For all I know, someone with a "soft-core" sense of selfhood might have a different kind of realization.

I certainly agree that the "willingness to let it all go" frees the mind from attachment and creates a greater opportunity for clarity.

Today, I use language like everybody else, and I talk about things and events in casual conversation as if they were separate, but having directly seen the unity behind all apparent separateness, I never forget that separateness is a kind of cognitive illusion, and that no real boundaries exist except in imagination. As noted before, some boundaries are obviously imaginary, such as lines of longitude and latitude, but some boundaries are not so obvious, such as the boundary separating two rocks from each other.

As a humorous aside (I think I read this in an Alan Watts book), the English calendar at one time was seriously flawed (maybe about 1500AD?), and the king's advisors recommended rectifying the flaw by changing an upcoming date by 10 days or so. IOW, the king announced that May 1 would become May 11, or something like that. Farmers concluded that the king was thereby shortening their lives by ten days, and there was a riot. Such is the power of mistaking a cognitive grid for reality. ha ha.

That would be funny if it weren't so frighteningly insane.

[laughter]

Feb 22, 2015 1:28:34 GMT -5 earnest said:

I've been thinking about this still mind bizniz...

What I've taken from a lot of talk about it is that it's a goal to obtain (but I could be wrong).

Is a non-still mind seen as a problem? Do you need to move from having a non-still mind to a still mind? Do you have a still mind, or does still mind have a you?

I can see how the persuit of a still mind could create a whole lot of gear grinding and frustration... (I know because I've poured years of effort into it!!! heh heh heh )

Once you've got a still mind can you lose it?

Earnie, to me, "still mind" refers very specifically to a particular condition. For me it describes a profound and important state of being.

If you're interested, I can relate this to you with no theory, no nonsense and no bullsh!t with two simple questions.

[enigma]

Feb 22, 2015 12:57:08 GMT -5 zendancer said:

Feb 22, 2015 12:16:48 GMT -5 enigma said:

Yuppers, mind isn't a problem to begin with, though maybe we could say the unceasing interest in the thoughts is. As such, we're dealing with interest rather than trying to do something directly with thoughts.

'Still the mind' as a prescription is a craps, as anyone who has tried to still the mind knows. Thoughts arise spontaneously, and one is only aware of them after the fact of their appearance. Trying to stop them is an exercise in futility, which is useful if one needs to learn something about futility, but it's not going to still the mind.

'Still the mind' as a pointer is useful, but as you suggest, what it's pointing to is the realization that you are not the mind, or any of the other things that mind tells you that you are. As the interest wanes, the monkey mind calms spontaneously, since it's the interest in the thoughts that creates all the activity in the first place.

Calming the mind is useful so that some clarity of seeing may emerge, but once it does, it doesn't matter if thinking is happening or not.

My experience, like that of Leonard Jacobsen, Gary Weber, and others, has been somewhat different regarding this issue. With persistent shifting of attention away from thoughts, it eventually becomes possible to stop thinking at will. I consider this similar to how people learn to speed read. With practice a speed reader learns to look, see, and understand words without any verbal mental repetition of the words. A person who constantly shifts attention away from thoughts to direct sensory perception eventually becomes able to look, see, and understand the world in total mental silence. Thoughts once again arise when attention upon direct seeing is relaxed. In Weber's case, and I don't have any reason to doubt his claim, the internal dialogue never returned after it ceased. I don't consider the ability to remain mentally silent, at will, for extended periods of time particularly important, but it is certainly attainable for some people.

Right, as long as one is engaging the practice, it works. Ultimately, though, didn't your thinking relax because you lost interest in most of the thoughts?