Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2016 9:40:00 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? There's only one correct destination. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Oct 11, 2016 9:57:30 GMT -5
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. Gopal: You're right, but I also agree with SDP about neural structures and the plasticity of the brain. Meditation has major effects upon the brain, and those effects are well documented. ATST I see both mind and matter as part of a unified whole, so what we call "the physical world" and awareness are inextricably one and the same. For this reason the "laws of science" are only applicable within a limited and highly intellectual context. The truth is that the cosmos/source/God/THAT is incomprehensible, and anything is possible. The deepest state of mind that I know about is pure awareness without content, but clearly awareness and what we call "the physical world" are ultimately unified. In a crude mythological sense, it's as if God wanted to have an infinite variety of experiences (including hide and seek), so she generated a cosmos out of herself in order to do that. From my POV there is nothing other than THAT, and whatever happens is an unfoldment of THAT. When the neural thought structure supporting a sense of personal selfhood collapses, inside and outside become one, and life continues without the kind of thoughts that previously caused one to imagine that there was a separate entity directing anything. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Oct 11, 2016 9:58:51 GMT -5
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? There's only one correct destination. True, but Bakk was referring to pathways to that destination, and the idea that there is only one correct pathway. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2016 10:03:35 GMT -5
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. Gopal: You're right, but I also agree with SDP about neural structures and the plasticity of the brain. Meditation has major effects upon the brain, and those effects are well documented. ATST I see both mind and matter as part of a unified whole, so what we call "the physical world" and awareness are inextricably one and the same. For this reason the "laws of science" are only applicable within a limited and highly intellectual context. The truth is that the cosmos/source/God/THAT is incomprehensible, and anything is possible. The deepest state of mind that I know about is pure awareness without content, but clearly awareness and what we call "the physical world" are ultimately unified. In a crude mythological sense, it's as if God wanted to have an infinite variety of experiences (including hide and seek), so she generated a cosmos out of herself in order to do that. From my POV there is nothing other than THAT, and whatever happens is an unfoldment of THAT. When the neural thought structure supporting a sense of personal selfhood collapses, inside and outside become one, and life continues without the kind of thoughts that previously caused one to imagine that there was a separate entity directing anything. Wow! I don't know that you believe in objective reality. If you believe this way, then you still believe the little guy inside your head. When you asked a question of 'What you think you are not what you are', I thought you are pointing to the consciousness and everything is appearing to that but in your case, other way around is true. You still believe the little guy inside your head though you say that you do not. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2016 10:04:44 GMT -5
There's only one correct destination. True, but Bakk was referring to pathways to that destination, and the idea that there is only one correct pathway. Yes I understood that. But although there are many paths as you rightly say, you have to eventually come to a point where it leads to the final destination which is awareness and knowing this is what you truly are. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Oct 11, 2016 10:07:43 GMT -5
Gopal: You're right, but I also agree with SDP about neural structures and the plasticity of the brain. Meditation has major effects upon the brain, and those effects are well documented. ATST I see both mind and matter as part of a unified whole, so what we call "the physical world" and awareness are inextricably one and the same. For this reason the "laws of science" are only applicable within a limited and highly intellectual context. The truth is that the cosmos/source/God/THAT is incomprehensible, and anything is possible. The deepest state of mind that I know about is pure awareness without content, but clearly awareness and what we call "the physical world" are ultimately unified. In a crude mythological sense, it's as if God wanted to have an infinite variety of experiences (including hide and seek), so she generated a cosmos out of herself in order to do that. From my POV there is nothing other than THAT, and whatever happens is an unfoldment of THAT. When the neural thought structure supporting a sense of personal selfhood collapses, inside and outside become one, and life continues without the kind of thoughts that previously caused one to imagine that there was a separate entity directing anything. Wow! I don't know that you believe in objective reality. If you believe this way, then you still believe the little guy inside your head. When you asked a question of 'What you think you are not what you are', I thought you are pointing to the consciousness and everything is appearing to that but in your case, other way around is true. You still believe the little guy inside your head though you say that you do not. You do not understand my perspective. The little guy in the head disappeared on August 17, 1999 and never returned. No, I do not subscribe to the usual idea about an objective reality, but I also don't subscribe to the idea that everything is an appearance. Neither idea captures the truth of "what is." |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Oct 11, 2016 10:12:47 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. , and they can't start to look at 'what is' until they stop making it 'as they want it to be'. It's easy to experiment by just noticing 'what is' spontaneously arising in the mind, and then start a mantra or visualising, upon which you find you can longer be conscious of the spontaneously occurring mind , as 'it is'. not my experience. Looking, from the get-go, was distorted by my dominant mind. There was no "Oh, there's a thought" that wasn't immediately followed by a one-way ride into imagination, usually with side commentary and emotional content. Using breath awareness (and, I assume, a mantra would do this too) as a touch-stone settled that tendency. Of course, eventually that gets dropped as the mind becomes more settled. And then the looking begins. As I say, this is my experience. And it's not as linear as I'm describing. Just generally speaking, the ability to notice grew and the need to 'bring attention to breath' diminished. In actuality, my meditations have been all over the map at different times. I can see why you describe mantra as a kind of contrivance (making things as we want rather than as they are), but by that definition even sitting down to meditate is a contrivance. I guess it's all a contrivance. Contrivance definition: a thing that is created skillfully and inventively to serve a particular purpose  I wonder if the difference in approach is tied to a difference in purpose. I seem to hear from you that the purpose of meditation is equanimity. Is that right? To me, that's one of the purposes but not the main one. |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Oct 11, 2016 10:25:19 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. Oh yeah, sure. That happens too. We'd probably all be insane if that didn't happen occasionally. Funny thing about meditation is that, since there isn't much outside stimulus, mind really revs up. Especially with beginning meditators. I lose a lot of attendees that way - they can't handle it. Maybe those are the ones that would do better with a mantra. Just a side thought. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Oct 11, 2016 11:04:38 GMT -5
A person can notice what is as soon as they start looking, and they can't start to look at 'what is' until they stop making it 'as they want it to be'. It's easy to experiment by just noticing 'what is' spontaneously arising in the mind, and then start a mantra or visualising, upon which you find you can longer be conscious of the spontaneously occurring mind , as 'it is'. not my experience. Looking, from the get-go, was distorted by my dominant mind. There was no "Oh, there's a thought" that wasn't immediately followed by a one-way ride into imagination, usually with side commentary and emotional content. Using breath awareness (and, I assume, a mantra would do this too) as a touch-stone settled that tendency. Of course, eventually that gets dropped as the mind becomes more settled. And then the looking begins. As I say, this is my experience. And it's not as linear as I'm describing. Just generally speaking, the ability to notice grew and the need to 'bring attention to breath' diminished. In actuality, my meditations have been all over the map at different times. I can see why you describe mantra as a kind of contrivance (making things as we want rather than as they are), but by that definition even sitting down to meditate is a contrivance. I guess it's all a contrivance. Contrivance definition: a thing that is created skillfully and inventively to serve a particular purpose I wonder if the difference in approach is tied to a difference in purpose. I seem to hear from you that the purpose of meditation is equanimity. Is that right? To me, that's one of the purposes but not the main one. Good post. That was my experience as well. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 11, 2016 13:01:48 GMT -5
Seems to me a common experience to "notice what is" intermittently while mind is still dominant. Oh yeah, sure. That happens too. We'd probably all be insane if that didn't happen occasionally. Funny thing about meditation is that, since there isn't much outside stimulus, mind really revs up. Especially with beginning meditators. I lose a lot of attendees that way - they can't handle it. Maybe those are the ones that would do better with a mantra. Just a side thought. From my own experience and observing and listening to the descriptions of the experience of others, it seems to me that some of us have an affinity for sitting still on our own with our eyes closed or fixed on something like a sunset, while others get uncomfortable when left alone in a room with their own thoughts. In fact, it seems reasonable to conclude that there are so many different methods of and approaches to meditation in part because of how peoples temperament and outlook vary. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 11, 2016 13:17:51 GMT -5
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. For me there was a gradual process that was done unconsciously and wasn't always a one way street.  The first conscious encounter with Tolle's suggestion to self-inquiry ("You Are Not Your Mind") was an attention grabber, and the first few weeks with his primary prescription ("Watch The Thinker") was like walking off a cliff. There's still an ongoing process here even after the peep was seen for what it is, but describing that involves subtlety, pointing, and topics that are historically controversial on this forum. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Oct 11, 2016 13:35:32 GMT -5
Oh yeah, sure. That happens too. We'd probably all be insane if that didn't happen occasionally. Funny thing about meditation is that, since there isn't much outside stimulus, mind really revs up. Especially with beginning meditators. I lose a lot of attendees that way - they can't handle it. Maybe those are the ones that would do better with a mantra. Just a side thought. From my own experience and observing and listening to the descriptions of the experience of others, it seems to me that some of us have an affinity for sitting still on our own with our eyes closed or fixed on something like a sunset, while others get uncomfortable when left alone in a room with their own thoughts. In fact, it seems reasonable to conclude that there are so many different methods of and approaches to meditation in part because of how peoples temperament and outlook vary. Yes. When I began meditating, it was more like a scientific experiment. I wondered what life would be like if it could be lived without incessant mind-chatter. I wondered if it were even possible to see the world free of thoughts. The more I did ATA-T, the more curious I became, and the more curious I became, the more time I spent doing ATA-T. It was like conducting an experiment upon consciousness, itself. After falling into deep samadhi and experiencing unity and total silence for the first time, I realized that I had stumbled into something utterly mysterious and beyond anything I had ever known about in the past. Subsequent experiences of deep samadhi over a three-day period culminated in a mind-blowing CC experience, the answers to several perplexing existential questions, and an introduction to a world that I could never have imagined. After that, I was hooked for life. haha |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 11, 2016 13:46:29 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. For me those instances of intermittent "noticing what is" while mind was still dominant were generally more often in times of pleasure rather than pain. Lakeside, slopeside, or in bed for instance, but I can understand now how the other extreme can catalyze as well. There were also simple moments of subtle quiet clarity, mostly while walking alone, but sometimes when I was with someone I was comfortable with. Moments of silence that just didn't need to be broken, but which had no center of focus. The question of what decides to consciously place attention on attention, the question of who decides to become aware of being aware, is of course, direct self-inquiry. While this question has no answer of mind, the unconscious pattern of personal identification with what comes and goes can hide itself in a cloak of uncertainty about that question. This is why you won't find someone like Tolle, Mooji, Spira, Niz or Adya telling people that what they are is the separate volitional person that makes the choice to meditate of their own free will, and while they are much more likely to either suggest or directly state that they are not that.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 11, 2016 13:54:12 GMT -5
From my own experience and observing and listening to the descriptions of the experience of others, it seems to me that some of us have an affinity for sitting still on our own with our eyes closed or fixed on something like a sunset, while others get uncomfortable when left alone in a room with their own thoughts. In fact, it seems reasonable to conclude that there are so many different methods of and approaches to meditation in part because of how peoples temperament and outlook vary. Yes. When I began meditating, it was more like a scientific experiment. I wondered what life would be like if it could be lived without incessant mind-chatter. I wondered if it were even possible to see the world free of thoughts. The more I did ATA-T, the more curious I became, and the more curious I became, the more time I spent doing ATA-T. It was like conducting an experiment upon consciousness, itself. After falling into deep samadhi and experiencing unity and total silence for the first time, I realized that I had stumbled into something utterly mysterious and beyond anything I had ever known about in the past. Subsequent experiences of deep samadhi over a three-day period culminated in a mind-blowing CC experience, the answers to several perplexing existential questions, and an introduction to a world that I could never have imagined. After that, I was hooked for life. haha |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 11, 2016 13:59:31 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. Ok, I meant it in terms of a moment of clarity with the mind quiescent, which is commonly reported by most people relative to something external that's captured their attention. Stopping by Woods on a Snowy EveningBy Robert FrostWhose woods these are I think I know. His house is in the village though; He will not see me stopping here To watch his woods fill up with snow. My little horse must think it queer To stop without a farmhouse near Between the woods and frozen lake The darkest evening of the year. He gives his harness bells a shake To ask if there is some mistake. The only other sound’s the sweep Of easy wind and downy flake. The woods are lovely, dark and deep, But I have promises to keep, And miles to go before I sleep, And miles to go before I sleep. |
|
The first conscious encounter with Tolle's suggestion to self-inquiry ("You Are Not Your Mind") was an attention grabber, and the first few weeks with his primary prescription ("Watch The Thinker") was like walking off a cliff. There's still 