|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 23, 2015 0:38:00 GMT -5
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  ).... I understand what happened. Your 5th unpaid day was the first day paid on your next paycheck. Imagining they witheld your pay for that day until you retired is an odd perspective, and odd perspectives interest me.  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 23, 2015 0:41:43 GMT -5
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. It is particularized by the experiencer's private mindscape, that portion of mind sovereign for the localized version of itself's unique cultivation.. Ask your favorite teacher if that's true...Oh wait, he doesn't speak English. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 23, 2015 0:44:08 GMT -5
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. ............................. .............................. ............ How about just for the next 10 seconds? Is that a risk you might be willing to take? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2015 1:18:46 GMT -5
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. I don't think it's something to be attainable, it's something automatically happens, UG says that no thought arises to him and he always attending the sense perception, thought arises for him when there is a need. Trying to be present is another creation to the mind, mind exactly know how to break this state. |
|
|
|
Post by zin on Feb 23, 2015 5:13:33 GMT -5
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.. Yes I don't wish to think about absence or presence of free will. Perhaps one should but I have enough problems . How will is particularized, I wrote about my questions it in the Identity and Reality thread. There I said I see mind only as one part in the matter.. but mine is just an ongoing thinking on the issue.. |
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Feb 23, 2015 5:59:57 GMT -5
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.. Ask your favorite teacher if that's true...Oh wait, he doesn't speak English. Typical.. you assume more than you know.. the teacher that doesn't speak English, is not my 'favorite' teacher, that would be Life, of which he is but a small part.. so, in asking 'Life' it is confirmed.. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 23, 2015 10:32:18 GMT -5
Ask your favorite teacher if that's true...Oh wait, he doesn't speak English. Typical.. you assume more than you know.. the teacher that doesn't speak English, is not my 'favorite' teacher, that would be Life, of which he is but a small part.. so, in asking 'Life' it is confirmed.. So your teacher was a woman? And you saw that as another opportunity to spit at me? Seriously? |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 23, 2015 12:03:30 GMT -5
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. ............................. .............................. ............ How about just for the next 10 seconds? Is that a risk you might be willing to take? Why do you bring in the word risk? The answer is very simple.........it follows the path of least resistance, like water, there is no control....it meanders....... (Oh....I get it.........am I willing to risk being homeless........  ........  )............ ha,.....ha.......... |
|
|
|
Post by Portto on Feb 23, 2015 12:15:30 GMT -5
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 very recent scientific article in a famous journal shows that conscious thought (= non-still mind) is not needed even for complex (math) tasks. Someone with a still mind (no self-referential conscious thought) can accomplish most tasks currently believed to require conscious thinking. The article brings additional "experimental proof" that free will is a concept. www.pnas.org/content/109/48/19614.abstract |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2015 12:24:09 GMT -5
Seems like the folks who profess not to be addled with self-referential, spontaneous thinking, -- Tzu, ZD, GWeber, LJacobsen -- are all old men. HAHA. Maybe it's testosterone production that has stilled? It's menoPAUSE. Are there any whippersnappers or women that report this phenomenon? Okay I'm thinking Ramana Maharshi was young when he went silent. But fer all I know he was thinking a mile a minute even though no words.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2015 12:26:29 GMT -5
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! I like that: Get involved and let it rip!! |
|
|
|
Post by Portto on Feb 23, 2015 12:30:58 GMT -5
Seems like the folks who profess not to be addled with self-referential, spontaneous thinking, -- Tzu, ZD, GWeber, LJacobsen -- are all old men. HAHA. Maybe it's testosterone production that has stilled? It's menoPAUSE. .... There is no testosterone and there is no Tzu and there is no ZD  |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 23, 2015 12:56:52 GMT -5
Typical.. you assume more than you know.. the teacher that doesn't speak English, is not my 'favorite' teacher, that would be Life, of which he is but a small part.. so, in asking 'Life' it is confirmed.. So your teacher was a woman? And you saw that as another opportunity to spit at me? Seriously? I think you have reached a wrong conclusion........I don't know how you think you got there.......... |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 23, 2015 13:28:11 GMT -5
As it is I would say that 80 to 90 percent of most people's thinking is not only repetitive and useless, but because of it's dysfunctional and often negative nature, much of it is also harmful.
"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.  But they have to be willing to sit down in the electric chair first.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2015 14:29:04 GMT -5
Seems like the folks who profess not to be addled with self-referential, spontaneous thinking, -- Tzu, ZD, GWeber, LJacobsen -- are all old men. HAHA. Maybe it's testosterone production that has stilled? It's menoPAUSE. .... There is no testosterone and there is no Tzu and there is no ZD Hi Portto, yeah, if there is no individual I, and therefore there is no another, all desire to think about another is absent. |
|
........... 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.......... 
........
)....
........ 
)............ ha,.....ha..........
) 
