|
|
Post by lolly on Oct 10, 2016 23:52:36 GMT -5
Seems to me a common experience to "notice what is" intermittently while mind is still dominant. It is true that something like a bodily sensation can be noticed spontaneously without volition. It's more likely it will be noticed if it becomes dominant. If you are walking and sprain your ankle you will certainly notice the excruciating pain. You don't require volition. But if you turn noticing into a practice then in order to sustain the noticing there will certainly have to be an intention to do so. I call that volition. Surely there's an obvious difference between just noticing and observing your normal breathing and controlled breathing exercises. Point is, you can't have your cake and eat it too. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2016 0:47:11 GMT -5
It is true that something like a bodily sensation can be noticed spontaneously without volition. It's more likely it will be noticed if it becomes dominant. If you are walking and sprain your ankle you will certainly notice the excruciating pain. You don't require volition. But if you turn noticing into a practice then in order to sustain the noticing there will certainly have to be an intention to do so. I call that volition. Surely there's an obvious difference between just noticing and observing your normal breathing and controlled breathing exercises. Point is, you can't have your cake and eat it too. I wasn't thinking of controlled breathing exercises. I was referring to noticing as you were. The subject being discussed is meditation practice or mindfulness or whatever you prefer to call it. Zendancer calls it attention to the actual. So in that context, if I'm walking down the road I am noticing objects all the time without any volition being involved. But if I want to notice as a practice I have to have an intention in order to sustain it. After doing that for ten minutes I might suddenly remember I have to make an important phone call and as an intentional or volitional act I decide to stop noticing and make the phone call. That isn't to say that noticing won't arise spontaneously even as a practice. In fact I would say that the more you practice this kind of mindfulness the more it does become just a spontaneous part of what you are. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Oct 11, 2016 2:54:10 GMT -5
Surely there's an obvious difference between just noticing and observing your normal breathing and controlled breathing exercises. Point is, you can't have your cake and eat it too. I wasn't thinking of controlled breathing exercises. I was referring to noticing as you were. The subject being discussed is meditation practice or mindfulness or whatever you prefer to call it. Zendancer calls it attention to the actual. So in that context, if I'm walking down the road I am noticing objects all the time without any volition being involved. But if I want to notice as a practice I have to have an intention in order to sustain it. After doing that for ten minutes I might suddenly remember I have to make an important phone call and as an intentional or volitional act I decide to stop noticing and make the phone call. That isn't to say that noticing won't arise spontaneously even as a practice. In fact I would say that the more you practice this kind of mindfulness the more it does become just a spontaneous part of what you are. Sure, I just use breathing to illustrate the point. The basic point this illustrates is, there is a primary difference which places meditation into two distinct categories: 'attention to the actual; and attention to stuff you make up. The former is to see 'what is' as it is already happening and the latter requires the meditator to perform some sort of activity which wasn't already happening. That's all it is. The volitional in observation is bit of a trick... but it's kinda like watching a great movie. You don't have to 'try to keep attention' on it because it's very interesting and the mind doesn't want to go somewhere else. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2016 3:57:51 GMT -5
Is this volition that is 'making something happen', ever actually 'making something happen'? If we're talking about the intrinsic joy of happenings aligning and coming together beautifully.. flowing into one another spontaneously and seamlessly.. then it will be proven time and time again.. that volition never does as good a job as the lightest of knowing that is non-volition at its' most integral. "Volition" : You notice what is and then you start doing. Eg, you notice your mindstream (which has no mantra in it) and then you imagine a mantra, visualisation, counting whatever. Example, you notice your breath, and then, you start to control it. There are clear similiarities between volition and reaction. Yea, yea. ok. I hear ya. The noticing is primary, volition an overlay. As you say a reaction, or a re-direction. A reaction or re-direction based in a memory, or a reminder. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2016 4:11:16 GMT -5
I didn't read what ZD wrote as "all of these methods lead to truth". I read it as these methods can lead to freedom from the dominance of mind. And people will tend to gravitate to the ones that resonate with them. I'd add here that that may not be the one that leads to truth, per se, but will tend to lead where the person's intention wants to go. Which can be an entirely different matter. 'Noticing what is' is what happens after mind is no longer dominant. Perhaps I should have written that all of these methods "can" lead to the truth. However, I stated it without inserting the word "can" because I know of specific individuals who were successful in their search for truth following all of the different paths I mentioned. This doesn't mean that a particular path that "worked" for one person will work for another person, or that a particular path will inexorably lead to the truth because that is clearly not the case. I was simply pointing out that there are lots of different practices and approaches, and it doesn't make sense to get hung up on any particular approach as being the only "correct" approach. Many Zen Masters have awakened using the practice of shikan taza. Many Tibetan Buddhist masters have awakened using mantra recitation. Ramana woke up using self inquiry. Niz woke up by remaining in the sense of "I am." ATA-T (noticing "what is") led to freedom for this body/mind. Byron Katie questioned the validity of her thoughts and found freedom. Furthermore, some people wake up spontaneously "right out of the blue" as though struck by lightning even though they never consciously pursued any kind of path. Gary Weber's advice to seekers can be summed up as, "Try a lot of different practices and find out which ones you resonate with," and that advice makes sense to me. Volition usually continues to be imagined until after SR occurs. A person thinks, "I am doing thus and so because I think it will lead me to enlightenment or Self-realization." Upon SR, however, the imagined seeker who was imagined to have been exerting volition is realized to have been an illusion, so the body/mind no longer imagines itself as a personal entity who had ever done anything or ever chose to do anything. Something bigger is then seen as the only real actor on the stage. This is why sages (who may have practiced some form of meditation for many years) often say upon awakening, "I never did anything." What they mean is that who they previously THOUGHT they were never did anything. The "little self" simply disappears as an actor. This allows the body/mind to relax and be at peace with "what is." Would it be fair to say that anyone stating that there is only one 'correct' approach is most likely to still be immersed in their own uncompleted approach. Seemingly unbeknowst? |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Oct 11, 2016 5:38:57 GMT -5
I didn't read what ZD wrote as "all of these methods lead to truth". I read it as these methods can lead to freedom from the dominance of mind. And people will tend to gravitate to the ones that resonate with them. I'd add here that that may not be the one that leads to truth, per se, but will tend to lead where the person's intention wants to go. Which can be an entirely different matter.
'Noticing what is' is what happens after mind is no longer dominant. Seems to me a common experience to "notice what is" intermittently while mind is still dominant. Agreed. When one first attempts to see the world free of thoughts, mind chatter is constantly interruptive because thinking is virtually incessant. By shifting attention away from thoughts, again and again, "what is" sporadically comes into view. As one becomes progressively free of the distorting filter of thoughts, "what is" gradually becomes the primary field of focus rather than thoughts. In a sense, the body sort of operates on autopilot when one "lives in his/her head," and becoming able to distinguish between "what is" and the imaginary meta-reality created by cognition is certainly an intermittent process. We often use the phrase "waking up to reality" as if it were a sudden event, but it is much more a process involving gradual realizations that eventually leads to freedom. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Oct 11, 2016 5:41:18 GMT -5
Seems to me a common experience to "notice what is" intermittently while mind is still dominant. I mean by 'what is', noticing the 'dominance' of mind, if that's indeed the case. It might be realised like "wow, I never noticed my thoughts dominate me so much". That's what I refer to as an 'insight', becoming conscious of what previously went by unknown. Yes, and in many cases that's one of the first major realizations that people have on the pathless path. Becoming free of those dominating thoughts usually involves a lot of other subsequent realizations. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Oct 11, 2016 6:01:35 GMT -5
Surely there's an obvious difference between just noticing and observing your normal breathing and controlled breathing exercises. Point is, you can't have your cake and eat it too. I wasn't thinking of controlled breathing exercises. I was referring to noticing as you were. The subject being discussed is meditation practice or mindfulness or whatever you prefer to call it. Zendancer calls it attention to the actual. So in that context, if I'm walking down the road I am noticing objects all the time without any volition being involved. But if I want to notice as a practice I have to have an intention in order to sustain it. After doing that for ten minutes I might suddenly remember I have to make an important phone call and as an intentional or volitional act I decide to stop noticing and make the phone call. That isn't to say that noticing won't arise spontaneously even as a practice. In fact I would say that the more you practice this kind of mindfulness the more it does become just a spontaneous part of what you are. Yes. I first realized that the body/mind was dominated by incessant thinking in 1984, and I attempted to see "what is" free of thoughts. At first, it was incredibly difficult to do so. I began going on long walks after work during which I attempted to look at the world free of thought. One of my first realizations was that birds and squirrels were still in existence! LOL. I had been living so totally in my head that I hadn't consciously seen a bird or squirrel for many years. Looking back, it seems incredible that thoughts could have been that dominant or that incessant. This was the beginning of what I now call ATA-T--looking at the world free of thoughts. At first, it certainly seems as if this is an intentional exercise, and it can be thought about in that way. Looked at from a deeper perspective, the idea of intentionality is an idea that is probably better expressed "as an unfolding." Watching the breath is a form of ATA-T as are many other forms of meditation. One keeps shifting attention away from thoughts, and leaving various patterns of thought behind, until "what is" becomes one's primary focus. If pursued far enough, the mind can become extraordinarily silent, and the body will function much like it did during early childhood before an internal dialogue arose. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2016 6:38:30 GMT -5
I wasn't thinking of controlled breathing exercises. I was referring to noticing as you were. The subject being discussed is meditation practice or mindfulness or whatever you prefer to call it. Zendancer calls it attention to the actual. So in that context, if I'm walking down the road I am noticing objects all the time without any volition being involved. But if I want to notice as a practice I have to have an intention in order to sustain it. After doing that for ten minutes I might suddenly remember I have to make an important phone call and as an intentional or volitional act I decide to stop noticing and make the phone call. That isn't to say that noticing won't arise spontaneously even as a practice. In fact I would say that the more you practice this kind of mindfulness the more it does become just a spontaneous part of what you are. Yes. I first realized that the body/mind was dominated by incessant thinking in 1984, and I attempted to see "what is" free of thoughts. At first, it was incredibly difficult to do so. I began going on long walks after work during which I attempted to look at the world free of thought. One of my first realizations was that birds and squirrels were still in existence! LOL. I had been living so totally in my head that I hadn't consciously seen a bird or squirrel for many years. Looking back, it seems incredible that thoughts could have been that dominant or that incessant. This was the beginning of what I now call ATA-T--looking at the world free of thoughts. At first, it certainly seems as if this is an intentional exercise, and it can be thought about in that way. Looked at from a deeper perspective, the idea of intentionality is an idea that is probably better expressed "as an unfolding." Watching the breath is a form of ATA-T as are many other forms of meditation. One keeps shifting attention away from thoughts, and leaving various patterns of thought behind, until "what is" becomes one primary focus. If pursued far enough, the mind can become extraordinarily silent, and the body functions much like it did during early childhood before an internal dialogue arose. Lol, Good One! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2016 6:41:04 GMT -5
Pilgrims please read the last paragraph. But being an obstruction does not mean little self is nothing. An obstruction is sonething. Volition is what overcomes the obstruction, but it doesn't come from little self. (Bearing in mind, speaking from my POV, not ZD's). That's not what he has been saying for years! He has been saying that little self doesn't exist. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Oct 11, 2016 6:52:34 GMT -5
Perhaps I should have written that all of these methods "can" lead to the truth. However, I stated it without inserting the word "can" because I know of specific individuals who were successful in their search for truth following all of the different paths I mentioned. This doesn't mean that a particular path that "worked" for one person will work for another person, or that a particular path will inexorably lead to the truth because that is clearly not the case. I was simply pointing out that there are lots of different practices and approaches, and it doesn't make sense to get hung up on any particular approach as being the only "correct" approach. Many Zen Masters have awakened using the practice of shikan taza. Many Tibetan Buddhist masters have awakened using mantra recitation. Ramana woke up using self inquiry. Niz woke up by remaining in the sense of "I am." ATA-T (noticing "what is") led to freedom for this body/mind. Byron Katie questioned the validity of her thoughts and found freedom. Furthermore, some people wake up spontaneously "right out of the blue" as though struck by lightning even though they never consciously pursued any kind of path. Gary Weber's advice to seekers can be summed up as, "Try a lot of different practices and find out which ones you resonate with," and that advice makes sense to me. Volition usually continues to be imagined until after SR occurs. A person thinks, "I am doing thus and so because I think it will lead me to enlightenment or Self-realization." Upon SR, however, the imagined seeker who was imagined to have been exerting volition is realized to have been an illusion, so the body/mind no longer imagines itself as a personal entity who had ever done anything or ever chose to do anything. Something bigger is then seen as the only real actor on the stage. This is why sages (who may have practiced some form of meditation for many years) often say upon awakening, "I never did anything." What they mean is that who they previously THOUGHT they were never did anything. The "little self" simply disappears as an actor. This allows the body/mind to relax and be at peace with "what is." Would it be fair to say that anyone stating that there is only one 'correct' approach is most likely to still be immersed in their own uncompleted approach. Seemingly unbeknowst? It may be more a matter of only being exposed to one approach rather than many. When one first steps on the pathless path, there is usually major confusion and massive ignorance. Some people follow only one approach because that's all they know about. A person who encounters Tibetan Buddhism, for example, may be given mantra recitation. If mantra recitation is the only approach they know, and if it leads to awakening, which it sometimes does, then the person may conclude that mantra recitation is the only worthwhile approach. Other people, by contrast, may be exposed to numerous different approaches, or they may meet many people who followed different approaches and attained freedom. Those who become familiar with numerous non-dual spiritual traditions will have a different understanding about pathways to freedom than those whose knowledge is limited to only one tradition. FWIW, some traditions only teach one limited approach whereas other traditions teach multiple approaches. Take Zen, for example. A beginning student may be given breath-counting as an initial exercise. Later, the student may be taught about breath following, feeling the breath, or being the breath, all of which are slightly different forms of meditation. The student may be told to do a listening practice or ATA-T while doing kinhin (a form a walking meditation). The student may be encouraged to do shikan taza or other forms of attentiveness. If the student eventually wakes up, who's to say which exercises contributed most significantly to that? All of the exercises increased attentiveness upon "what is" and helped the student "get out of his/her head." I primarily pursued four forms of ATA-T, and I think ATA-T has some significant advantages over other common forms of meditation, but I've met Tibetan Buddhists who woke up using mantras, and I know about other people who woke up pursuing mindfulness (ATA+T), yoga, koan contemplation, and many other approaches. Everyone's mileage will vary depending upon the broadness of their experience and their open-mindedness about alternate pathways. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Oct 11, 2016 6:57:53 GMT -5
I agree with the last paragraph. The little self is never the actor. The little self is nothing but an obstruction. But being an obstruction does not mean little self is nothing. An obstruction is sonething. Volition is what overcomes the obstruction, but it doesn't come from little self. (Bearing in mind, speaking from my POV, not ZD's). That's not what he has been saying for years! He has been saying that little self doesn't exist. Correct. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2016 6:59:52 GMT -5
That's not what he has been saying for years! He has been saying that little self doesn't exist. Correct. He continues to address you whenever he advises to people, but I believe he hasn't gotten your point yet. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Oct 11, 2016 8:54:28 GMT -5
I agree with the last paragraph. The little self is never the actor. The little self is nothing but an obstruction. But being an obstruction does not mean little self is nothing. An obstruction is sonething. Volition is what overcomes the obstruction, but it doesn't come from little self. (Bearing in mind, speaking from my POV, not ZD's). That's not what he has been saying for years! He has been saying that little self doesn't exist. Gopal, look at my last (sentence): Bearing in mind, speaking from my POV, not ZD's. What do you think that means? Did you read it? It means, speaking from my POV, not ZD's. IOW, I tried to acknowledge where I agreed with ZD, but distinguish where I didn't. There are some things I can discuss with ZD where I cannot discuss them with you or E. For example, I say little s self exists in the brain as neural structure. But you will say brains do not exist, you say there is no external world. E says there is no external world. But I think that ZD would agree that the small s self exists (or once existed) in the brain as neural structure. That's what I mean by not-nothing. Furthermore, in my tradition it is taught that practices such as ATA-T are what ~break apart~ the neural connections which constitute the small s self. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2016 9:00:24 GMT -5
That's not what he has been saying for years! He has been saying that little self doesn't exist. Gopal, look at my last (sentence): Bearing in mind, speaking from my POV, not ZD's. What do you think that means? Did you read it? It means, speaking from my POV, not ZD's. IOW, I tried to acknowledge where I agreed with ZD, but distinguish where I didn't. There are some things I can discuss with ZD where I cannot discuss them with you or E. For example, I say little s self exists in the brain as neural structure. But you will say brains do not exist, you say there is no external world. E says there is no external world. But I think that ZD would agree that the small s self exists (or once existed) in the brain as neural structure. That's what I mean by not-nothing. Furthermore, in my tradition it is taught that practices such as ATA-T are what ~break apart~ the neural connections which constitute the small s self. I can be absolutely certain ZD wouldn't agree with you here. You still haven't gotten what he is pointing at. He believes that little self is believed to exist but it never existed in the first instance. |
|
