|
|
Post by enigma on May 15, 2015 18:40:34 GMT -5
When you are concentrating on outer world where is the mind? This is the question might come from zendancer, but it's extremely clever to manipulate you to bring back to the fantasy world of thoughts. This is just a new creation which is what I have been telling him but he is thinking that I am making mistake here. Any attempt to do anything would ultimately surely fail because anything you do is the creation of mind. Let's not talk about zendancer. You disapprove of practice but that is what you are doing by putting attention on outer world. That's what he's saying, that the practice doesn't work. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 15, 2015 18:42:02 GMT -5
self-observation is just a name. It's observation of sensations (five senses); bodily movements (walking, running, etc.) including facial expression, tone of voice, gestures, tension, postures; feelings/emotions; lastly, thoughts. In 1976 I was given preparatory practices, not even yet self-observation. One was called the sixty point sensing exercise. After some weeks, I noticed something. I described it and asked what it was, and asked if I could say where I noticed this (the sixty point sensing exercise). The answer was, it's energy. Saying that to say my experience has been otherwise. Okay, but when you write "it's observation of sensations," that sounds like someone is observing sensations--that there is a relationship of some sort between the looker and that which is being looked at. When ATA-T occurs, the observer disappears in the act of direct sensory perception because attention has shifted away from thoughts (including the thought of someone looking or listening) to what is seen or heard. IOW ATA-T bypasses the self-referential neural network that Weber has written about. The body sees like the lens of a camera rather than there being a someone who looks. This may be a semantic issue, or it may be a subtle difference in what one is doing. You wrote that after some weeks of doing the practice you mention, you noticed something, and was told that it's energy. A ZM would have responded to you quite differently, and told you to ignore anything other than what you were focusing upon. All kinds of strange stuff can arise from the subconscious during the first few years of meditation, but it all goes away if you continue. I experienced many kinds of unusual energy phenomena initially, but it all subsided after about three years. You can ask Laughter and other meditators about this, but I suspect you'll hear them say something similar. Hey ZD, I can't write again everything I have previously written (but briefly, self-remembering is done with awareness, self-observation of done with attention, self-observation is the observation of the personality (self), defined as the contents of the centers, the contents of the centers being, basically, learned muscle movements, feelings/emotions and thoughts, but that aside, I don't know why you would assume more than I have said. In any case, neither self-remembering nor self-observation are ever described specifically in writing. self-observation does not involve any self-referential thinking, if one drops into this, then it is no longer is self-observation. Seven requirements for correct self-observation: 1) excluding any element of criticism; 2) excluding any element of tutorialness; 3) excluding any element of analysis or other mental process; 4) involving a complete non-identification from the organism; 5) being directed only toward the prescribed area of objectivity; 6) involving the mediation of all sensations appropriate to its objects; 7) not being limited in its exercise to any special times or places. Partially described in more detail: The third characteristic is the absence from active awareness of any element of mental or logical analysis. This prohibition must follow from the sharp and final distinction between consciousness and thought process. To be aware is not to be thinking; thinking has its place in life, but not in awareness. Analysis is a mental process and as such it must be excluded from pure awareness. The absence of analytical accompaniment from active awareness means that one must not be thinking about the object of awareness but, instead, must be observing it solely. from The States of Human Consciousness by C Daly King, 1963 (pages 36, 40) King studied under AR Orage, a principle student, and the only student Gurdjieff mentioned in any of his published writings. ........................ Now, all this was not unloaded on us at once, but over a period of time, but basically, a brief description includes all this and one quickly learns that the act is not the verbal description. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2015 18:42:50 GMT -5
No no, I am not talking about meditation as the present movement focus, ofcourse that too present movement focus, but I was not talking about that attending the actual, What I said by the word 'present movement focus' is attending the actual, focusing on the outer world by eliminating thoughts which pop up in our mind. I started this practise after reading Tolle's book of power of now, You can't carry this present movement focus for a long time, sooner mind would suggest you to drag back, and I am pretty sure it ultimately succeed. It's exactly know how to break that state and bring back to the normal thinking mode. The time you start to attend the actual decides the time which you ends the focus as well. Just to expand on that, mind is always in control during the practice, and is careful to not see anything it doesn't want to see. Mind has some sort of agenda for wanting to do the practice, and it has nothing to do with anything that might compromise mind/body identity or leave mind in a position of less apparent control. Usually, it's about attaining a more relaxed state from which mind can launch it's future plans. To be fully present is to be without ego, as ego is in the thoughts only, and so mind rarely allows that to happen, and is prepared to end the meditation if things get too risky. Generally, this whole process is unconscious, and the meditator (mind) is convinced he did his best to be present and see through the illusion. It is, of course, a split mind process. There is the hope, however, that mind may miscalculate or relax it's guard too much. These are very auspicious moments. Mind or thought actually, because mind is not an entity, needs your attention, else it eventually withers and dies. The relaxing of the attention makes thoughts and their ego identification quiescent. It's really just that simple. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 15, 2015 18:42:49 GMT -5
Yes we can act as if there we have freewill, but ultimately we are not having freewill, but this freewill illusion needs to be directly seen or mind might convince you onetime that you have freewill and another time it would convince you that you do not have. If you just hear from me, then it's just info for you as any other info. I've definitely seen there is no free will (on another forum I wrote hundreds, perhaps thousands, of messages arguing that there is no free will lol) but eventually it became unimportant to me whether we do, or don't, what became important was that we can act as if we do. IOW, it's important to you that you can pretend. Why? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 15, 2015 18:44:14 GMT -5
I've definitely seen there is no free will (on another forum I wrote hundreds, perhaps thousands, of messages arguing that there is no free will lol) but eventually it became unimportant to me whether we do, or don't, what became important was that we can act as if we do. Realizing the freewill is illusion and predestination gives you the power, because it gives you the feeling that nothing could happen unless it's ordain from above. And that gives you power? |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 15, 2015 18:50:36 GMT -5
Clarity changes the function of mind, realizing happy and unhappy would lead us not to jump out of either of that state, but this too has been predetermined. Predetermination doesn't changes anything from your level. The only problem is nothing is predetermined. It makes a difference whether one envisions a spontaneous unfolding, which is infinitely malleable, or a plan laid out fully at the beginning, which is how I interpret predetermined. Exactly, I think gopal is connecting some dots that shouldn't be connected. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 15, 2015 18:52:59 GMT -5
Realizing the freewill is illusion and predestination gives you the power, because it gives you the feeling that nothing could happen unless it's ordain from above. I think I know the feeling you mean, it's just not very relevant to my experience. There's something else that sort of 'gets me through the day' these days.Do you usually find it at the pub?  |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 15, 2015 18:54:51 GMT -5
No no, I am not talking about meditation as the present movement focus, ofcourse that too present movement focus, but I was not talking about that attending the actual, What I said by the word 'present movement focus' is attending the actual, focusing on the outer world by eliminating thoughts which pop up in our mind. I started this practise after reading Tolle's book of power of now, You can't carry this present movement focus for a long time, sooner mind would suggest you to drag back, and I am pretty sure it ultimately succeed. It's exactly know how to break that state and bring back to the normal thinking mode. The time you start to attend the actual decides the time which you ends the focus as well. Just to expand on that, mind is always in control during the practice, and is careful to not see anything it doesn't want to see. Mind has some sort of agenda for wanting to do the practice, and it has nothing to do with anything that might compromise mind/body identity or leave mind in a position of less apparent control. Usually, it's about attaining a more relaxed state from which mind can launch it's future plans. To be fully present is to be without ego, as ego is in the thoughts only, and so mind rarely allows that to happen, and is prepared to end the meditation if things get too risky. Generally, this whole process is unconscious, and the meditator (mind) is convinced he did his best to be present and see through the illusion. It is, of course, a split mind process. There is the hope, however, that mind may miscalculate or relax it's guard too much. These are very auspicious moments. I agree with the underlined (but ego is also in the emotions, particularly negative emotions, and the learned bodily movements). |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 15, 2015 18:58:45 GMT -5
It comes and goes like everything in the phenomenological universe. No, irritation this is the label to suffering, this doesn't arises if you know you can't do anything, but unhappiness happens for sure. Why does unhappiness arise if you know you can't do anything about it? (BTW, you can do something about both irritation and unhappiness.) |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 15, 2015 19:06:19 GMT -5
Okay, so when unhappiness arises, what do you do to address it? Listen to music? Go for a walk? Or perhaps notice that it's all ordained? Or something else? There is no such thing as unhappiness. There is only a disconnection from happiness which is your natural state. Your natural state is Peace. Happiness comes and goes like everything in the phenomenological universe. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 15, 2015 19:09:40 GMT -5
Have you read the book named 'power of now' by Tolle? he says that we could escape the suffering by concentrating on the present movement, But what I realized was, that's also another mind fantasy because it's exactly know where to end. Sounds like turning the t.v. over to another channel trying to escape the adverts but one still remains watching t.v. lols .. In what way does focusing on the present moment resemble changing channels to you,lols? |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on May 15, 2015 19:13:16 GMT -5
Okay, but when you write "it's observation of sensations," that sounds like someone is observing sensations--that there is a relationship of some sort between the looker and that which is being looked at. When ATA-T occurs, the observer disappears in the act of direct sensory perception because attention has shifted away from thoughts (including the thought of someone looking or listening) to what is seen or heard. IOW ATA-T bypasses the self-referential neural network that Weber has written about. The body sees like the lens of a camera rather than there being a someone who looks. This may be a semantic issue, or it may be a subtle difference in what one is doing. You wrote that after some weeks of doing the practice you mention, you noticed something, and was told that it's energy. A ZM would have responded to you quite differently, and told you to ignore anything other than what you were focusing upon. All kinds of strange stuff can arise from the subconscious during the first few years of meditation, but it all goes away if you continue. I experienced many kinds of unusual energy phenomena initially, but it all subsided after about three years. You can ask Laughter and other meditators about this, but I suspect you'll hear them say something similar. Hey ZD, I can't write again everything I have previously written (but briefly, self-remembering is done with awareness, self-observation of done with attention, self-observation is the observation of the personality (self), defined as the contents of the centers, the contents of the centers being, basically, learned muscle movements, feelings/emotions and thoughts, but that aside, I don't know why you would assume more than I have said. In any case, neither self-remembering nor self-observation are ever described specifically in writing. self-observation does not involve any self-referential thinking, if one drops into this, then it is no longer is self-observation. Seven requirements for correct self-observation: 1) excluding any element of criticism; 2) excluding any element of tutorialness; 3) excluding any element of analysis or other mental process; 4) involving a complete non-identification from the organism; 5) being directed only toward the prescribed area of objectivity; 6) involving the mediation of all sensations appropriate to its objects; 7) not being limited in its exercise to any special times or places. Partially described in more detail: The third characteristic is the absence from active awareness of any element of mental or logical analysis. This prohibition must follow from the sharp and final distinction between consciousness and thought process. To be aware is not to be thinking; thinking has its place in life, but not in awareness. Analysis is a mental process and as such it must be excluded from pure awareness. The absence of analytical accompaniment from active awareness means that one must not be thinking about the object of awareness but, instead, must be observing it solely. from The States of Human Consciousness by C Daly King, 1963 (pages 36, 40) King studied under AR Orage, a principle student, and the only student Gurdjieff mentioned in any of his published writings. ........................ Now, all this was not unloaded on us at once, but over a period of time, but basically, a brief description includes all this and one quickly learns that the act is not the verbal description. Okay. That's makes sense, but what's being called "self observation" sounds like ATA-T to me. I'm not sure why it's called "self" observation if there is no reflection about self involved. Why not just call it observation, looking, or noticing? Again, it may just be a semantic issue. Or, it may be what the Vipassana tradition calls "mindfulness." A rose by any other name....... |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 15, 2015 19:15:01 GMT -5
Yes it does, but in the moment it arises, I'm wondering what the organism does to address it. For example, is it observed and allowed to pass? Or do you (or gopal) squeeze a stress ball and it's gone? I'm addressing what gopal said about removing (or gaining) stuff. I'm trying to find where that begins and ends, for example, if there is an itch, scratching it removes it, and I'm sure that's fine. No, it's being created by consciousness out of wrong belief that you could resolve the problem, so resolver would come into being. But the real problem is this resolver. So, have you convinced yourself that, if you have an itch, there's nothing you can do about it? |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on May 15, 2015 19:22:33 GMT -5
There is no such thing as unhappiness. There is only a disconnection from happiness which is your natural state. Your natural state is Peace. Happiness comes and goes like everything in the phenomenological universe. Yes, that's probably a betterer way to put it. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 15, 2015 19:27:09 GMT -5
No no, unhappiness is not a problem, when you see a movie, you would get unhappy when some sad situation happens, would you take a walk inside the cinema theater to remove your unhappiness?huh? Is unhappiness the same thing as sadness to you? When sadness arises here, I tend to become a bit quiet, I notice it and allow it, and recognize what I am feeling sad about...maybe there will be tears. In the old days, if sadness arose, I would have possibly done something different. I wasn't expecting sanity from you! How bout giving me some warning next time?  |
|
