|
|
Post by enigma on May 16, 2015 9:06:32 GMT -5
So experiencing this would be suffering?  Indeed, because you won't want it to end which alas it must. Then you suffer. So, either you still suffer, or you avoid sundaes. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 16, 2015 9:15:10 GMT -5
IOW, it's important to you that you can pretend. Why? I realized that every time action is undertaken, every time a choice is made, there is the underlying unspoken perception that we are free to make that choice or act in that way. So I realized that at a bare minimum, the illusion of free will is present in our experience, that we are not just programmed machines, and that the body operates under the assumption of being free (unless limitation is consciously perceived). At which point it seemed more of a pretence to DENY free will, even though I could clearly see the truth of 'no free will'. So there's no pretence, it's more of an acceptance to what is natural. Okay, thanks. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2015 9:17:40 GMT -5
Indeed, because you won't want it to end which alas it must. Then you suffer. So, either you still suffer, or you avoid sundaes. The desire to eat sundae will be felt as joy. When the sundae is being eaten, there may arise the thought, this is not as good as the last sundae I had. This is suffering. When the sundae is finished, there is regret that the joyful experience is over. This is suffering. Some time later there will be the desire to eat a better sundae than the last one. This is suffering. This is the endless cycle of desire, fulfillment of desire and the planting of a seed for a subsequent desire. This suffering can only be eliminated with the knowledge that you are not the mind/body. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 16, 2015 9:18:32 GMT -5
I wasn't expecting sanity from you! How bout giving me some warning next time?  I omitted saying that that is only what happens when the pub is shut  Oh, well, yeah, of course. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 16, 2015 9:26:12 GMT -5
I realized that every time action is undertaken, every time a choice is made, there is the underlying unspoken perception that we are free to make that choice or act in that way. So I realized that at a bare minimum, the illusion of free will is present in our experience, that we are not just programmed machines, and that the body operates under the assumption of being free (unless limitation is consciously perceived). At which point it seemed more of a pretence to DENY free will, even though I could clearly see the truth of 'no free will'. So there's no pretence, it's more of an acceptance to what is natural. while we talk about free will in relation to separate "I", 'free will' and 'no free will' are wrong concepts both  Yes, same thought occurred here. The conundrum of 'realizing' no free will, and yet still feeling like a free willy, is resolved by pretending, but really the whole question of free will is misconceived, based on a false belief in separation. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2015 9:35:07 GMT -5
while we talk about free will in relation to separate "I", 'free will' and 'no free will' are wrong concepts both Yes, same thought occurred here. The conundrum of 'realizing' no free will, and yet still feeling like a free willy, is resolved by pretending, but really the whole question of free will is misconceived, based on a false belief in separation. The whole question of separation is misconceived based on a false belief in other individual is real, he he |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2015 9:38:12 GMT -5
someone in my world can't suffer, if they suffer then they are my own creation. Sounds like peeps need to hang around you and be really nice to you. What? So people in your universe are still suffering? I never see people are suffering here till the day I came out of suffering. If you see people suffer, then it's a reflection of your suffering. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2015 9:40:27 GMT -5
Yes yes you correctly understood. We can bend the probable line of the universe, but that is what predetermined to happened, because when I try to manifest something, manifestation towards the desired result was started even before intention to manifest comes to my mind. Which tells me that the "probable line of the universe" (which I interpret as, 'What's already in motion') is what you're manifesting, so nothing is being bent. Correct, this bending the probable line is just illusion and in the larger context there is no bending, ONLY PREEXISTING FLOW. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2015 9:41:32 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. You win Enigma, I loose. You succeed and I fail. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 16, 2015 10:06:29 GMT -5
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....... Hey ZD, my first response was from your post, yesterday 8:13 am, you said that shifting attention from thoughts to the breath and to what can be seen are heard are one and the same. I made the comment that they were not the same. I then somewhat described self-observation. #5 above says, being directed toward the prescribed area of objectivity. That means, essentially, the "prescribed" boundary of the body (previously described as observation of learned bodily movements [versus what doesn't have to be learned, the instinctive function such as the heart beating], feelings/emotions and thoughts), that which constitutes self (personality, in work language). That's why it's called self-observation. There are numerous other practices from this tradition which encompass ATA-T, such as non-identification or division of attention. But that's the distinction. Noticing is also a work practice, it was the first practice I was given (first meeting, a preparatory practice). Noticing (yes it specifically has that name) is essentially attending to sensations, what we see, hear, smell, taste and touch. (A distinction is made between noticing and self-observation because sensations are more or less the same for all people, whereas the contents of the centers, that which constitute self, is vastly different for everyone). ATA-T and noticing are essentially the same. Yes, there are numerous practices from other traditions, such as Vipassana, which are very similar to work practices. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 16, 2015 10:09:00 GMT -5
So experiencing this would be suffering? Indeed, because you won't want it to end which alas it must. Then you suffer. Or you eat too much, and are hurting, and say, I will never do that again, but of course you will......maybe in a few months or many months..... ......  .........  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2015 10:19:50 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. What I see is, searching never brings the certain answer, but finds the answer in such a way that it would continue further, not only that, it's the intentional act of consciousness not to find the answer while we are in search, If the answer was found then there is no search, So it definitely wouldn't find the answer when we are in search. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 16, 2015 10:21:18 GMT -5
Sometimes in these discussions it's easy to lose sight of the fact that when you have an itch, you just scratch it. You don't go wondering off into the forest to contemplate the existential meaning of how to react to the itch. LOL true, though I think examining some of the functions of the organism is useful. Sometimes I think that when peeps get involved with non-duality, spirituality, self-help etc, they end up trying to change the basic functioning of the organism and it ends in strange habits and beliefs. I would say the problem is not really the basic functioning of the organism, it's more just the conditioned habits and beliefs. For example, in the case of the tasty dessert, the body knows when enough is enough and won't crave more, but if we are trying to stuff an emotion, then the craving may continue. Bingo. My oldest son didn't get any sweets until his birthday cake at one. To this day he is not a big sweet-eater, he can take them or leave them, eat sweets or not. I'd say it's a learned craving and yes, many times tied to the emotions. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2015 10:31:23 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. And that gives you power? No, gives the freedom. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2015 10:33:35 GMT -5
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. No, I am not connecting any dots, I am directly seeing what's happening without trying to fit any of my idea. Enigma needs to find a way for individual madness, so he is left with no way other than believing 'God has fallen into the dream'. |
|
......... 