|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 22, 2015 16:04:44 GMT -5
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? We may be talking about two different things. In the same way that a speed reader does not lose the ability to speed-read once it is attained, one who attains the ability to stop thinking retains that ability. The speed reader does not usually return to the mental verbalization of words because it is understood to be unnecessary as well as a hindrance, and the person who becomes able to stop reflecting may cease to reflect because it is also understood to be unnecessary. However, in my case, the idea of not thinking, as a way to attain a permanent state of unity consciousness, ceased to be an influence as soon as it was realized that the one seeking such an attainment did not exist. From a private communication with Weber it appears that his usual self-referential internal dialogue suddenly ceased on a particular day. It was more a case of that dialogue becoming an unnecessary usage of mind than a loss of interest in it (although one could certainly see those statements as similar). Tolle also comes to mind in this regard. He claims that after his CC experience 80% of his thinking simply ceased, and he attributed that cessation of thought to the reason for his consequent state of happiness and contentment. My main point was that the internal dialogue can stop. In my case I had wondered if it was possible for that to happen, and I later discovered that it was. It's a minor point, but I mentioned it only because it is generally assumed that thinking cannot stop. Yes, I see them as more than similar. If one no longer sees a need for thinking, the thinking will quite naturally stop, especially if there is also a perception that it is a 'hindrance'. The latter was no doubt the case for Tolle. In fact, the thoughts had become quite oppressive, so when he realized he was somehow apart from the mind, he was quite content to remain wherever he thought he was as there was no interest in engaging thought if he didn't have to, which he previously believed he did. Somewhat different forms of the same failure of interest. I agree that the internal dialog can stop, but how it stops, and for how long, seems to be the issue in the OP. If one uses a practice to 'habitually' bring attention back to the present, no matter how well it is perfected, if there is still a desire/need for thinking, it will begin again as soon as one is no longer focusing. You may be saying that with enough practice, thinking does not return, and attribute this to success in breaking a habit, (which you have mentioned before) but I say it's not habit but rather desire/need, and something must happen to address that need. As you suggest, what happens is that there is the realization that thinking is unnecessary and a hindrance, and interest is lost. I'm saying, ultimately, this is the reason thinking stops, because it is the interest which results in thinking to begin with. Maybe the distinction seems unimportant, but there is a difference between practicing with the goal of breaking an apparent habit, and looking to see if thinking is really needed. (Perhaps even experimenting a bit to see if it's true.) |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 22, 2015 16:12:13 GMT -5
It's mostly appearance, though. In one sense it's a matter of degree, because for some peeps, even if the nature of the appearance is of an individual separate from what appears to them, then they can experience something like a deferred payday of the mind. In another sense it's not, because once the true nature of that separation is known, attention and interest no longer come with a price. What if there is no particular will to focus attention anywhere? What happens then? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 22, 2015 16:14:17 GMT -5
That's where keeping the subjects ignorant can backfire on the king.  Well yeah, that's 'cause everyone really actually knows what's goin' on ... all the time! .. and it's only just a game they play with themselves that it's ever otherwise.  IOW, the villagers have been looking for a reason to light the torches all along?? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 22, 2015 16:15:12 GMT -5
In one sense it's a matter of degree, because for some peeps, even if the nature of the appearance is of an individual separate from what appears to them, then they can experience something like a deferred payday of the mind. In another sense it's not, because once the true nature of that separation is known, attention and interest no longer come with a price. What if there is no particular will to focus attention anywhere? What happens then? Obviously there is will, as appearances are quite ordered, even when they seem otherwise. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 22, 2015 16:16:12 GMT -5
Well yeah, that's 'cause everyone really actually knows what's goin' on ... all the time! .. and it's only just a game they play with themselves that it's ever otherwise. IOW, the villagers have been looking for a reason to light the torches all along?? Same as it ever was ... but have ya' ever thought about all the jobs that got created building those fine manor houses? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 22, 2015 16:21:12 GMT -5
What if there is no particular will to focus attention anywhere? What happens then? Obviously there is will, as appearances are quite ordered, even when they seem otherwise. So you're saying there is always a focus of attention on something? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 22, 2015 16:39:00 GMT -5
We may be talking about two different things. In the same way that a speed reader does not lose the ability to speed-read once it is attained, one who attains the ability to stop thinking retains that ability. The speed reader does not usually return to the mental verbalization of words because it is understood to be unnecessary as well as a hindrance, and the person who becomes able to stop reflecting may cease to reflect because it is also understood to be unnecessary. However, in my case, the idea of not thinking, as a way to attain a permanent state of unity consciousness, ceased to be an influence as soon as it was realized that the one seeking such an attainment did not exist. From a private communication with Weber it appears that his usual self-referential internal dialogue suddenly ceased on a particular day. It was more a case of that dialogue becoming an unnecessary usage of mind than a loss of interest in it (although one could certainly see those statements as similar). Tolle also comes to mind in this regard. He claims that after his CC experience 80% of his thinking simply ceased, and he attributed that cessation of thought to the reason for his consequent state of happiness and contentment. My main point was that the internal dialogue can stop. In my case I had wondered if it was possible for that to happen, and I later discovered that it was. It's a minor point, but I mentioned it only because it is generally assumed that thinking cannot stop. Yes, I see them as more than similar. If one no longer sees a need for thinking, the thinking will quite naturally stop, especially if there is also a perception that it is a 'hindrance'. The latter was no doubt the case for Tolle. In fact, the thoughts had become quite oppressive, so when he realized he was somehow apart from the mind, he was quite content to remain wherever he thought he was as there was no interest in engaging thought if he didn't have to, which he previously believed he did. Somewhat different forms of the same failure of interest. I agree that the internal dialog can stop, but how it stops, and for how long, seems to be the issue in the OP. If one uses a practice to 'habitually' bring attention back to the present, no matter how well it is perfected, if there is still a desire/need for thinking, it will begin again as soon as one is no longer focusing. You may be saying that with enough practice, thinking does not return, and attribute this to success in breaking a habit, (which you have mentioned before) but I say it's not habit but rather desire/need, and something must happen to address that need. As you suggest, what happens is that there is the realization that thinking is unnecessary and a hindrance, and interest is lost. I'm saying, ultimately, this is the reason thinking stops, because it is the interest which results in thinking to begin with. Maybe the distinction seems unimportant, but there is a difference between practicing with the goal of breaking an apparent habit, and looking to see if thinking is really needed. (Perhaps even experimenting a bit to see if it's true.)
"The Power of Now", chap 1 para 31 Witnessing thought in the context of this idea, to find out whether it's relatively true or not, canand does -- under the right conditions -- result in a cessation of this 80 or 90 percent of thought. Obviously, not everyone's thoughts are necessarily this polluted, and not everyone who is in that situation will be honest with themselves on the point, and even if they are, well, they might have a self-destructive streak which facilitates the continued interest despite the witnessing. The question as to whether or not the cessation is permanent or not implicates quite a bit more than just the confluence of interest and attention, but, is also no more complicated than that simple point. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 22, 2015 16:41:37 GMT -5
Obviously there is will, as appearances are quite ordered, even when they seem otherwise. So you're saying there is always a focus of attention on something? No, but, if there's movement, there's always will. The question as to particularization of that will is one that doesn't have a direct and definitive answer. |
|
|
|
Post by zin on Feb 22, 2015 16:51:09 GMT -5
So you're saying there is always a focus of attention on something? No, but, if there's movement, there's always will. The question as to particularization of that will is one that doesn't have a direct and definitive answer.Do you know people who examined this? (I keep saying everything is new to me). It is one of my biggest interests! |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 22, 2015 17:09:56 GMT -5
No, but, if there's movement, there's always will. The question as to particularization of that will is one that doesn't have a direct and definitive answer.Do you know people who examined this? (I keep saying everything is new to me). It is one of my biggest interests! Well, I've never met any of them in real life except my wife, but I'd take the nearly continual debate about free will on the two spiritual forums I've participated on as a version of that kind of examination. |
|
|
|
Post by zin on Feb 22, 2015 17:17:53 GMT -5
Do you know people who examined this? (I keep saying everything is new to me). It is one of my biggest interests! Well, I've never met any of them in real life except my wife, but I'd take the nearly continual debate about free will on the two spiritual forums I've participated on as a version of that kind of examination. You say "if there's movement, there's always will", and you said on the other thread "there is what might be described as the will to focus"; what I am interested in is not exactly whether man has free will or not. My opinion is it is a limited will, but there is something anyway. So what I am interested in is how it gets particularized. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 22, 2015 19:16:15 GMT -5
Yes, I see them as more than similar. If one no longer sees a need for thinking, the thinking will quite naturally stop, especially if there is also a perception that it is a 'hindrance'. The latter was no doubt the case for Tolle. In fact, the thoughts had become quite oppressive, so when he realized he was somehow apart from the mind, he was quite content to remain wherever he thought he was as there was no interest in engaging thought if he didn't have to, which he previously believed he did. Somewhat different forms of the same failure of interest. I agree that the internal dialog can stop, but how it stops, and for how long, seems to be the issue in the OP. If one uses a practice to 'habitually' bring attention back to the present, no matter how well it is perfected, if there is still a desire/need for thinking, it will begin again as soon as one is no longer focusing. You may be saying that with enough practice, thinking does not return, and attribute this to success in breaking a habit, (which you have mentioned before) but I say it's not habit but rather desire/need, and something must happen to address that need. As you suggest, what happens is that there is the realization that thinking is unnecessary and a hindrance, and interest is lost. I'm saying, ultimately, this is the reason thinking stops, because it is the interest which results in thinking to begin with. Maybe the distinction seems unimportant, but there is a difference between practicing with the goal of breaking an apparent habit, and looking to see if thinking is really needed. (Perhaps even experimenting a bit to see if it's true.)
"The Power of Now", chap 1 para 31 Witnessing thought in the context of this idea, to find out whether it's relatively true or not, canand does -- under the right conditions -- result in a cessation of this 80 or 90 percent of thought. Obviously, not everyone's thoughts are necessarily this polluted, and not everyone who is in that situation will be honest with themselves on the point, and even if they are, well, they might have a self-destructive streak which facilitates the continued interest despite the witnessing. The question as to whether or not the cessation is permanent or not implicates quite a bit more than just the confluence of interest and attention, but, is also no more complicated than that simple point. Yup. It really is useful to become very aware of the quality, or lack thereof, of one's thoughts. In my experience, most folks are shocked.  |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 22, 2015 20:26:37 GMT -5
I can relate....somewhat. When I went to work for my last company, we got paid the week we worked, the pay week was from Friday to the following Thursday, we turned in our time Thursday afternoon, we got paid on Fridays. But eventually the check-writer (Boss/company owner's wife) felt rushed and the pay period was changed to Thursday to the following Wednesday. So, the week of the change we lost a day's pay (being paid for four days instead of five days). .....Even though I knew I would eventually get that day back, it felt like loosing a days pay (I worked my normal five days but got paid for only four days)..... ........Yea, I know, most companies hold back the first week's pay anyway.....but it felt like loosing a day's pay, and that day's pay was missing ...for years.......... But last year I finally got that day's pay back.......  Your pay for that day was just deferred until the next payday. Same for every payday after that. It's odd to look at it like they didn't pay you for that day until years later.  ........  ........... I worked five days, got paid for four days. The next week I worked five days got paid for five days (and so on and so on like a row of dominos...).... ...........I didn't get that missing day until I retired last year..........  ........ And I found out something similar occurs with SS, payment is delayed a month. Your family gets that first month....when you die.......(basically, so they can bury you  ).... |
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Feb 22, 2015 21:05:46 GMT -5
Well, I've never met any of them in real life except my wife, but I'd take the nearly continual debate about free will on the two spiritual forums I've participated on as a version of that kind of examination. You say "if there's movement, there's always will", and you said on the other thread "there is what might be described as the will to focus"; what I am interested in is not exactly whether man has free will or not. My opinion is it is a limited will, but there is something anyway. So what I am interested in is how it gets particularized. Notice that the absence of freewill requires a sophisticated conceptual structure to maintain the illusion of validity, and freewill is self-evident.. It is particularized by the experiencer's private mindscape, that portion of mind sovereign for the localized version of itself's unique cultivation.. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 22, 2015 21:10:08 GMT -5
In one sense it's a matter of degree, because for some peeps, even if the nature of the appearance is of an individual separate from what appears to them, then they can experience something like a deferred payday of the mind. In another sense it's not, because once the true nature of that separation is known, attention and interest no longer come with a price. What if there is no particular will to focus attention anywhere? What happens then? First you lose your job. Then you become a couch potato. When you can't pay your cable bill, you lay in bed and listen to NPR. When you can't pay your electric bill, you throw another quilt on the bed. When you can't pay your rent, you become homeless. ............................. .............................. ............ |
|
........... I worked five days, got paid for four days. The next week I worked five days got paid for five days (and so on and so on like a row of dominos...).... ...........I didn't get that missing day until I retired last year.......... 
........
)....