|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Oct 14, 2016 10:56:10 GMT -5
Interesting that you say take the handbrake off? I'd think that you'd put it on? In any case, Sailor Bob likes to call it Full Stop. But to me, it's so much easier said than done. I've never felt much control over whether thinking happens or not. It's mostly just reactive and conditional (subject to conditions of the moment). One of the tricky aspects in all of this is effort. Efforting to stop efforting is a no win game. Effortless meditation seems like an oxymoron. I've found that being mindful and ATA-MT, just happens or doesn't. I can set a routine in place, like do it on waking, or during commute. In those cases, there is initial effort to create a habit which is largely devoid of effort. But the cases I'm thinking of are when being present just happens (outside of any set up routines). It's a wonder and easy to be grateful for. Haha yeah putting the handbrake on the stream of thoughts is another way of looking at it, but it implies a bit too much resistance for my taste. What I meant with taking the handbrake off is that there is a kind of natural flow to how things unfold in the present moment - and even to the actions of the mind/body - and living inside ones head feels to me kind of like driving through life with the handbrake on. Compulsive thinking and analysing has a tedious, sluggish quality and it turns things into problems and overcomplicates everything. So the way I thought it is that you take the handbrake off and allow the natural flow unfold in its simplicity. Many aspects of this whole thing can seem a bit tricky, but that feeling of trickiness itself is drenched in thinking and beliefs. Some of the things you said could work as self-fulfilling beliefs or "self-built" traps that prevent escaping the domain of thought. I do of feel that I have some amount of control on my thinking, but somehow neither saying that I do have control or that I don't have control seem to really properly describe what's happening. But thinking is regularly noticed and when that happens, it stops for at least for a moment. My routine for ATA-MT is very simple and flexible: I try to do it whenever I'm not doing something else and moments of doing it happen quite naturally during my daily activities. Recently my awareness of my compulsive thinking habit increased fairly suddenly, and after this, I quite often naturally notice that a commentary is running, and when it's noticed, it stops for a second. I've also noticed that there's an actual subtle muscular tension connected with thinking, and when I notice (and stop) the stream of thoughts, my body also relaxes a bit. In the recent couple of months I've been a bit more stressed and a bit more involved with intellectualisation (e.g. via the PhD), and so I notice I have a pretty busy stream of thoughts now and the breaks to that stream tend to be pretty short before another thought appears. However, ATA-MT/noticing still causes short breaks in it, which still make it worth it. Also, sometimes it happens that when the new stream of thoughts start, I remain fairly aware/observant of the thoughts while they're happening, rather than getting completely hypnotised by it. This is a pretty new experience for me and it's quite educational. Keep on keepin on! |
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Oct 14, 2016 11:08:13 GMT -5
As a seeker and wrt the OP, I find Adyashanti's Way of Liberation to be good. It's a free download for those interested. And he has a nice free audio you can download covering the 'Five Foundations' in the beginning. Go to his website and the library and search for Way of Liberation in the audio downloads. The first foundation, for example, is what is your Aspiration? And this is meant not as time-bound Goal, though that might be a small part of it. As he elaborates in the audio, it's more like what do you value, now? It's meant as something to contemplate in the moment. And by doing that you might see a contrast by what you think you value and what you are actually valuing in the moment. For myself, I value resting in being present. However this is in contrast to actually being restless and wanting to pursue interesting thoughts. And the point with the contemplation is not to freak out and judge oneself on the discrepancy between the spiritual aspiration and what is actually happening, but to actually just notice the discrepancy (without judgement). The hope is that this sort of observation will create the space for that conflict to dissipate. |
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Oct 14, 2016 11:20:58 GMT -5
With respect to ATA-MT, mindfulness, the practice of meditation-- being present -- and, especially, not compulsively thinking or being lost in thought... in other words, just being awareness, noticing sense perceptions like breathing or sitting or walking or what is happening in the immediate surroundings -- aka nonconceptual awareness -- not trying to make sense of anything, not labeling this and that, just letting what is happening wash over you ... don't fret if you then notice yourself 'coming out of thinking.' That's the whole dealy anyway.
The instruction, for example, in anapasati (breath meditation), is to GENTLY return to the sensations of breathing. Don't berate yourself for having been lost in thought (YET AGAIN). You actually have a choice at that moment to judge/berate/self-flagellate OR be appreciative/grateful for the return. You can notice with wonder the transition between lost and not-lost/awake...thank the Lord for the refreshing splash that re-awakened you. Etc.
This is all part of being honest and willing. The self-flagellation is is an expression of dishonesty. Whom is berating whom? Chalk it up to conditioning and move on with wonder.
On conditioning: the incessant self-flagellation and berating actually serves to condition yourself NOT to be present. Who wants to come out of the dream if it just results in the belt?? It's self-reinforcing (hint, hint).
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Oct 14, 2016 12:45:18 GMT -5
With respect to ATA-MT, mindfulness, the practice of meditation-- being present -- and, especially, not compulsively thinking or being lost in thought... in other words, just being awareness, noticing sense perceptions like breathing or sitting or walking or what is happening in the immediate surroundings -- aka nonconceptual awareness -- not trying to make sense of anything, not labeling this and that, just letting what is happening wash over you ... don't fret if you then notice yourself 'coming out of thinking.' That's the whole dealy anyway. The instruction, for example, in anapasati (breath meditation), is to GENTLY return to the sensations of breathing. Don't berate yourself for having been lost in thought (YET AGAIN). You actually have a choice at that moment to judge/berate/self-flagellate OR be appreciative/grateful for the return. You can notice with wonder the transition between lost and not-lost/awake...thank the Lord for the refreshing splash that re-awakened you. Etc. This is all part of being honest and willing. The self-flagellation is is an expression of dishonesty. Whom is berating whom? Chalk it up to conditioning and move on with wonder. On conditioning: the incessant self-flagellation and berating actually serves to condition yourself NOT to be present. Who wants to come out of the dream if it just results in the belt?? It's self-reinforcing (hint, hint). Yes. Any recrimination is going to come from small s self. So if there is any ~beating up~, you know it's coming from the wrong place. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Oct 14, 2016 14:07:32 GMT -5
SDP: That's rather hard to believe because that would mean a total cessation of all thought. I've never heard that interpretation of his teachings, and I doubt that it is accurate. I posted here for years without giving my background. Then some time ago (maybe 1 & 1/2 yrs ago +) you made a comment about self-remembering, something an acquaintance said. So then I posted, that's incorrect, that's not the meaning of self-remembering. And then I posted a couple of quotes from Life Is Real Only Then When I Am, and said, these reference self-remembering, and not what your acquaintance said. After being hit by a stray bullet and the injury resulting, I think it was in Tibet, Gurdjieff said he was unable to remember himself, even to such a small degree as to be unable to stop associative thinking. That quote is still on record somewhere here. The minimal state of being a Conscious Man (the term used In the earlier post) is self-remembering. This state is not specifically defined or described anywhere in the many books, including Gurdjieff's own writings. He does describe in Meetings With Remarkable Men the first time he experienced this state. He was a youth (guessing from description of the events about 12 or 13) and made a challenge with a rival, who would stay on an artillary practice range during live practice. Events there (being very close to death being very close to live rounds hitting) brought this state. But you are correct, self-remembering does not require absence of thinking, IOW, thinking is not necessarily an obstruction to the state, one can think and be in the state (again, which encompasses ATA), but, as shown from the quote, a normal aspect of self-remembering is the ceasation of mental chatter, uncontrollable associative thinking. So, it would be more correct to say, ATA-T, ATA+T, by choice. Thanks. Okay. I'll buy that, and it sounds very much like what some people have called "the natural state," and what other people call "sahaja samadhi." It's a kind of impersonal flow of life in which there is no sense of being separate from whatever is happening, and it is centered on present-moment awareness. I would be curious to know if G. ever mentioned any event, such as SR, which functioned as a precipitating factor of that kind of flow. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 14, 2016 15:35:33 GMT -5
I really mean that meditation is fundamentally "observation with pure awareness", and it's an end in itself because it is already the case at hand or it is the actual truth of the situation, but people are distracted by the act of seeking itself. I can remember J, Krishnamurti once saying that a person has to stop seeking in order to meditate, because seeking is finding something in the future whereas looking regards what is observable here and now. I don't what one does to do ATA-T so can't comment on that specific practice, but basically, if it involves awareness of what's presently the case, then desire is most certainly an obstacle. It's futile in terms of SR because of the accidental, unplanned, unexpected nature of that moment. The art of pure observation is more like the way of bringing pure awareness to the mind/body as the healing or purification, but it doesn't involve trying to fix anything or change anything (that only indicates aversion/desire). It is based on the fact that equanimity is the still conscious mind in which change can occur freely, and merely becoming conscious of things 'brings them to light' as the saying goes, where the hard issues that have actually passed already are finally revealed and dissolved. The pure observation is this peering of pure conscious awareness (without judgment/desire/aversion) into the subtle layers, not the self image which is characterised by reactivity, but the self as it spontaneously occurs as the mind/body dymanic - which unites as the sensations. This dissolves the hard and solid, and as it opens up, brings motion to the form. Then one really needs the equanimity of awareness as their balance of mind. Okay. That's what I thought you meant, and I have no issue with any of that as far as it goes. ATA-T is simply looking at "what is" in the present moment sans thought. If thoughts arise, they are seen and then ignored in favor of direct perception. When a person does sitting breath awareness practice, that is a formal type of ATA-T. When it is pursued informally, such as walking in the woods or going about one's daily activities, it is the practice of looking, listening, feeling, etc. whatever is happening without thinking about it. If pursued diligently, the practice can lead to a very silent mind as well as insights into one's conditioning and in many cases freedom from such conditioning. That kind of practice, like all meditation practices, shifts attention away from thoughts ABOUT "what is" to "what is," itself, and leads to a life that is significantly lived in the present moment with great attentiveness. My point is that all such practices, alone, may or may not result in Self-realization and permanent peace, equanimity, etc, but without Self-realization all states of peace and equanimity during meditation remain transient. Even deep Samadhi is a transient state, and sooner or later one must leave that state and function in ordinary everyday life. Yes, there is a beneficial carryover effect from a regular meditation practice, but unless one sees through the illusion of personal selfhood and the meditator as a separate volitional entity, there cannot be permanent freedom, peace, and equanimity. As Satch noted, desires still arise after SR, but they are not attached to nor understood in the same way as before. After SR, everything that happens is seen and understood as a unified unfolding of "what is," and all activity related to the body/mind is actually seen as IMpersonal. Yes, conscious desire for attainment can be an obstacle, and that is why many sages tell people not to conceptually check on their "spiritual progress." In essence, they are saying, "Do whatever practice you resonate with without any gaining idea." Or, as one Zen Master used to tell his students, "Just do it!" However, a spiritual seeker always knows whether or not the mind has been permanently put to rest and whether or not SR has occurred. In his book, "The Rainman's Third Cure," Peter Coyote reported that even after meditating for decades, he was still not satisfied with his understanding of "what's going on" and felt unsettled about that issue. For people who see through the illusion of personal selfhood, this is not the case. The Buddha advised people to meditate, but he likened it to using a boat for the purpose of crossing a lake. He told his disciples that when you have crossed the lake and reached the far shore, there is no need to carry the boat with you any longer. The people I've met and read about who've crossed the lake and reached the shore have used all kinds of boats to get there. Some have crossed using an ATA-T boat, some have crossed using a mantra boat, some have crossed using a self-inquiry boat, some have crossed using an "I am focus" boat, some have used a koan boat, some have crossed using a shikan taza boat, and some have used other kinds of boats. The goal in crossing the lake is the far shore; it is not to remain forever in the boat. Does this make sense? Rather than directing attention away from thoughts, attention on attention, awareness of awareness, can be be combined with allowing thoughts to arise and to fall away without recursive engagement. For me, anyway, this was a natural progression from the initial meditation invitation of "watching the mousehole". In this practice, an alertness is maintained as to the initial formation of interest. Normally, interest in a thought energizes the process of thinking, leading to a series of related thoughts, which is what one can notice happening if they maintain the intention to attend the body or the breath -- often they might suddenly realize that they are lost in thought and hadn't noticed the entry into the stream. In this way, one can become familiar with a state in which the horizon where attention meets interest becomes clear. From this perspective, no interest is hidden. The difference between turning attention away from the initial interest as it arises and sitting with it without losing oneself in it is the orientation toward what arises. If one is present, and attentive to the thought with detachment from any relation of ones self to the meaning of what is thought, then it will disperse, fade and dissolve as one remains alert. The difference between the experience of this and ignoring the thought is the insight gained as to the content of one's emotional landscape. The end result in terms of body/mind state is the same, as it is an absence of mental activity which eventually fills the the field of awareness, and stabilizes the attention on the emptiness of attention itself. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 14, 2016 15:45:41 GMT -5
My suggestion to sincere seekers with regard to comparing states of body and mind and unusual experiences is to bear in mind the inherently subjective nature of them. What is pointed to by the notion of an inner peace that comes with self-realization is beyond imagination, and any description of it can be twisted by very reasonable arguments into a hopeless tangled heap of contradicting notions. Ultimately, for as long as you're alive, your experience will manifest by and through your conditioned body and mind, and self-realization offers no escape from that, but does reveal this situation to be quite other than a hopeless trap.  |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Oct 14, 2016 15:54:14 GMT -5
I posted here for years without giving my background. Then some time ago (maybe 1 & 1/2 yrs ago +) you made a comment about self-remembering, something an acquaintance said. So then I posted, that's incorrect, that's not the meaning of self-remembering. And then I posted a couple of quotes from Life Is Real Only Then When I Am, and said, these reference self-remembering, and not what your acquaintance said. After being hit by a stray bullet and the injury resulting, I think it was in Tibet, Gurdjieff said he was unable to remember himself, even to such a small degree as to be unable to stop associative thinking. That quote is still on record somewhere here. The minimal state of being a Conscious Man (the term used In the earlier post) is self-remembering. This state is not specifically defined or described anywhere in the many books, including Gurdjieff's own writings. He does describe in Meetings With Remarkable Men the first time he experienced this state. He was a youth (guessing from description of the events about 12 or 13) and made a challenge with a rival, who would stay on an artillary practice range during live practice. Events there (being very close to death being very close to live rounds hitting) brought this state. But you are correct, self-remembering does not require absence of thinking, IOW, thinking is not necessarily an obstruction to the state, one can think and be in the state (again, which encompasses ATA), but, as shown from the quote, a normal aspect of self-remembering is the ceasation of mental chatter, uncontrollable associative thinking. So, it would be more correct to say, ATA-T, ATA+T, by choice. Thanks. Okay. I'll buy that, and it sounds very much like what some people have called "the natural state," and what other people call "sahaja samadhi." It's a kind of impersonal flow of life in which there is no sense of being separate from whatever is happening, and it is centered on present-moment awareness. I would be curious to know if G. ever mentioned any event, such as SR, which functioned as a precipitating factor of that kind of flow. Gurdjieff said that it is the natural state of man, the state we should live in. But he says young children live with and are raised among sleeping people, and so they also go to sleep at a very young age. He says this shift from essence to personality(ego/cultural self) is usually completed about the age of six for most people. Some people live longer through essence, 9, 10, 11. He also said people in rural areas, close to nature, are more in essence than personality. He says a balance of personality and essence is the best for future possibilities, that people who become entrenched in personality have a difficult time getting free of personality, as adults. A crucial aspect of self-remembering is always being present, ~anchored~ in now (it is the nature of thinking to ~put one into~ either the past or the future, the nature of thinking is past-thinking or future-thinking). Being ~present to now~, thinking is not required, in fact is usually an obstruction. Gurdjieff said (virtually) everybody has had moments of self-remembering, but some people remembering maybe only one or two in a lifetime (and in many cases these are memories from a very young age), but they are usually significant. What can ~naturally~ precipitate self-remembering? As far as I know he didn't think or talk in terms of SR, as talked in nondual ~circles~ anyway. But basically, personality is but a series of learned roles, when we are in a certain situation, the situation pulls up the needed role. So when the person is put into a situation where it does not have a learned role, then the person is almost necessarily put into essence. Examples would be an emergency situation, something happening one is totally unprepared for, a new and highly extraordinary situation. Gurdjieff called such, shocks. A shock to the person can put one in essence. But then as soon as the unnatural situation is over, one usually reverts back to personality(ego/cultural self), a learned role. But then also, one usually remembers the state they had been in, it is usually remembered as having been significant. But yes, there can be precipitating factors, but Gurdjieff taught how to bring the state, how not to have to depend upon external situations/events. Edit: In a separate post (below) I added further response to your final sentence. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Oct 14, 2016 19:29:40 GMT -5
I really mean that meditation is fundamentally "observation with pure awareness", and it's an end in itself because it is already the case at hand or it is the actual truth of the situation, but people are distracted by the act of seeking itself. I can remember J, Krishnamurti once saying that a person has to stop seeking in order to meditate, because seeking is finding something in the future whereas looking regards what is observable here and now. I don't what one does to do ATA-T so can't comment on that specific practice, but basically, if it involves awareness of what's presently the case, then desire is most certainly an obstacle. It's futile in terms of SR because of the accidental, unplanned, unexpected nature of that moment. The art of pure observation is more like the way of bringing pure awareness to the mind/body as the healing or purification, but it doesn't involve trying to fix anything or change anything (that only indicates aversion/desire). It is based on the fact that equanimity is the still conscious mind in which change can occur freely, and merely becoming conscious of things 'brings them to light' as the saying goes, where the hard issues that have actually passed already are finally revealed and dissolved. The pure observation is this peering of pure conscious awareness (without judgment/desire/aversion) into the subtle layers, not the self image which is characterised by reactivity, but the self as it spontaneously occurs as the mind/body dymanic - which unites as the sensations. This dissolves the hard and solid, and as it opens up, brings motion to the form. Then one really needs the equanimity of awareness as their balance of mind. Okay. That's what I thought you meant, and I have no issue with any of that as far as it goes. ATA-T is simply looking at "what is" in the present moment sans thought. If thoughts arise, they are seen and then ignored in favor of direct perception. When a person does sitting breath awareness practice, that is a formal type of ATA-T. When it is pursued informally, such as walking in the woods or going about one's daily activities, it is the practice of looking, listening, feeling, etc. whatever is happening without thinking about it. If pursued diligently, the practice can lead to a very silent mind as well as insights into one's conditioning and in many cases freedom from such conditioning. That kind of practice, like all meditation practices, shifts attention away from thoughts ABOUT "what is" to "what is," itself, and leads to a life that is significantly lived in the present moment with great attentiveness. My point is that all such practices, alone, may or may not result in Self-realization and permanent peace, equanimity, etc, but without Self-realization all states of peace and equanimity during meditation remain transient. Even deep Samadhi is a transient state, and sooner or later one must leave that state and function in ordinary everyday life. Yes, there is a beneficial carryover effect from a regular meditation practice, but unless one sees through the illusion of personal selfhood and the meditator as a separate volitional entity, there cannot be permanent freedom, peace, and equanimity. As Satch noted, desires still arise after SR, but they are not attached to nor understood in the same way as before. After SR, everything that happens is seen and understood as a unified unfolding of "what is," and all activity related to the body/mind is actually seen as IMpersonal. Yes, conscious desire for attainment can be an obstacle, and that is why many sages tell people not to conceptually check on their "spiritual progress." In essence, they are saying, "Do whatever practice you resonate with without any gaining idea." Or, as one Zen Master used to tell his students, "Just do it!" However, a spiritual seeker always knows whether or not the mind has been permanently put to rest and whether or not SR has occurred. In his book, "The Rainman's Third Cure," Peter Coyote reported that even after meditating for decades, he was still not satisfied with his understanding of "what's going on" and felt unsettled about that issue. For people who see through the illusion of personal selfhood, this is not the case. The Buddha advised people to meditate, but he likened it to using a boat for the purpose of crossing a lake. He told his disciples that when you have crossed the lake and reached the far shore, there is no need to carry the boat with you any longer. The people I've met and read about who've crossed the lake and reached the shore have used all kinds of boats to get there. Some have crossed using an ATA-T boat, some have crossed using a mantra boat, some have crossed using a self-inquiry boat, some have crossed using an "I am focus" boat, some have used a koan boat, some have crossed using a shikan taza boat, and some have used other kinds of boats. The goal in crossing the lake is the far shore; it is not to remain forever in the boat. Does this make sense? Right, observation like mindfulness. I just say the formality of breath meditation isn't really the ignoring of thoughts, but initially at least, a way to become aware of how distracted you are, what sorts of thoughts are distractions. The art of it isn't really keeping attention on the breath, but finding the subtlest nuance of the sensation (breath is known by sensation) one possibly can. In short, it isn't concentration on breath, but the peering into the sensation to feel the most subtle element of it. The basic aim is honing the mind acuteness of perception, but it also reveals the wild, erratic nature of the mind and the surface of egomanic reactivity. This means a person gains insight during their first sit by realising the extent and nature of their distraction, and probably their propensity to react adversely (impatience frustration whatever) while desiring something better. Personally I'm not concerned with SR because there's nothing that can be done about it, and I frame meditation as a purification process based on the principle that to become conscious, like the new meditator becomes conscious of their distraction/reaction tendencies, for example, and by realising it, resolve it. This means meditation isn't going to get any one anything, but it will get rid of a bunch of stuff. I don't advocate the attainment of states in any way whatsoever. All that is just more and more desire for something to give 'me' pleasure. In practice different stats of mind will come and go, and recogisable as change. The only good in it is the recogition of clinging tendencies to the wonderful and the adverse tendencies to the unpleasant, and the complete futility of said tendencies. That recognition that it IS futile brings on the surrender that enhances the equanimity. SR is just a person in the way that are now. so Of course they go on desiring and so forth just as they did a moment ago, but all of that desire still indicates significant delusion, and that's still egomania creating misery for you. However, that purity of awareness one is aware of comes through the body and mind as the purification process, so at least SR completes the meaning and cosilodates what the meditation is doing. Things have to complete their process and reactivity characterised by desire only produces new things (which Buddhist call sankara). On the deeper level, awareness itself isn't characterised by desires and so forth, so that nature of equnamity enables the process to flow as it is wont to do without the interalised addition of more. No one can make it happen because it is 'stop making'. Any attempt to make it happen merely creates more to go through. This is why the ethos of the purpose of meditation leads to self realisation is bogus. I would stop telling people that. I'm really not selling a boat in any way, but rather, trying to articulate the actuality of meditation for what it is. I believe that if people understand the nature of their current observation/awareness and so on, they will know 'how to meditate'. It's not something for later on, so If anything I say enlivens something that is actually noticed in anyone's real life, that is the affect of meditation. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Oct 14, 2016 19:39:25 GMT -5
Desire, craving is not characteristic of awareness, and it inevitably entails its counterpart, aversion. Equanimity is definitively free from desire, and it is the essential quality of awareness. This quietude has no real meaning unless it is brought through as the balance of mind, which means a mind unperturbed by desire/adverse reactivity to sensation. Yes exactly. Peace of mind means you are undisturbed by desires or thoughts because your true nature is awareness which is unconditional Peace which has no characteristics or attributes. Desire, with its characteristics: craving/clinging, and its inevitable partner in crime, aversion, with its characteristics: avoidance/resistance - are disturbances to peace of mind. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 14, 2016 20:52:40 GMT -5
Yes exactly. Peace of mind means you are undisturbed by desires or thoughts because your true nature is awareness which is unconditional Peace which has no characteristics or attributes. Desire, with its characteristics: craving/clinging, and its inevitable partner in crime, aversion, with its characteristics: avoidance/resistance - are disturbances to peace of mind. As I already said, desire without attachment which also means desire without craving. As Lord Krishna said to Arjuna in the Bhagavad Gita, "perform action without being attached to the fruits of action". This implies a desire but without being bound. It is not possible to be a human being without some desires. Equanimity of mind doesn't mean we get rid of feelings. That's the whole point. The shift of identification to what you really are which is unbounded awareness frees you from attachments and cravings. For instance I just thought of the late Swami Dayananda Saraswati who had an intense desire to help the poor and opened hospitals and schools throughout India. An enlightened being not bound by desire and cravings who had undoubted peace of mind while fully engaged in life as a human being. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 14, 2016 21:23:59 GMT -5
Yes exactly. Peace of mind means you are undisturbed by desires or thoughts because your true nature is awareness which is unconditional Peace which has no characteristics or attributes. Desire, with its characteristics: craving/clinging, and its inevitable partner in crime, aversion, with its characteristics: avoidance/resistance - are disturbances to peace of mind. In terms of the literal and conventional meaning of peace of mind, yeah, this is just common sense. There's really no imagining, much less describing, a peace that is beyond understanding, and a conceptually-bound argument about it, is, of course, as ironic as it gets. Nevertheless it's sometimes fun and interesting to engage with it when the intellectualized or poetic renderings of what that state is supposedly like become obviously distorted, especially by the agenda of proving to someone in a forum dialog that they're not at peace. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Oct 14, 2016 22:03:14 GMT -5
Desire, with its characteristics: craving/clinging, and its inevitable partner in crime, aversion, with its characteristics: avoidance/resistance - are disturbances to peace of mind. As I already said, desire without attachment which also means desire without craving. As Lord Krishna said to Arjuna in the Bhagavad Gita, "perform action without being attached to the fruits of action". This implies a desire but without being bound. It is not possible to be a human being without some desires. Equanimity of mind doesn't mean we get rid of feelings. That's the whole point. The shift of identification to what you really are which is unbounded awareness frees you from attachments and cravings. For instance I just thought of the late Swami Dayananda Saraswati who had an intense desire to help the poor and opened hospitals and schools throughout India. An enlightened being not bound by desire and cravings who had undoubted peace of mind while fully engaged in life as a human being. No such thing as desire without craving or without its inverse proportion, aversion. It's true enough to say that the 'person' can only exist within the reactive aversion/desire paradigm. Equanimity of mind means feelings are free to to be felt, not sought after or avoided or otherwise reacted to. The desire to help is no more virtuous that the desire for anything else. It is egomania which can be recognised quite easily. People don't change by wilful endeavours to be different. Transformation occurs by becomig conscious of what previously wwent unoticed. Gaining insight into these unnoticed things is what transforms them, ad the person begind to behave in accordance with what they realised. This is what wisdom is I just recalled something Alan Watts said, something like, when you realise you are breathing the breath you also realise you are shining the sun. You already are breathing and the sun is already shining, so you don't have to do breath like you don't have to do the sunshine. You leave it alone and it happens all by itself. This implies the difference volition (wilful action drive by desire) and non-volition (willingess to action straight from insight). |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Oct 14, 2016 22:16:45 GMT -5
Desire, with its characteristics: craving/clinging, and its inevitable partner in crime, aversion, with its characteristics: avoidance/resistance - are disturbances to peace of mind. In terms of the literal and conventional meaning of peace of mind, yeah, this is just common sense. There's really no imagining, much less describing, a peace that is beyond understanding, and a conceptually-bound argument about it, is, of course, as ironic as it gets. :) Nevertheless it's sometimes fun and interesting to engage with it when the intellectualized or poetic renderings of what that state is supposedly like become obviously distorted, especially by the agenda of proving to someone in a forum dialog that they're not at peace. I'm reall not the one going there, as it's not me who makes SR a goal and phrases things such as 'unbounded awareness'. I say awareness as though everyone already knows it by being aware, and talk about meditation as the purification project, which is not some means to an end imagined as 'enlightenment'. Claims of being at peace mingled with justifications of desire just don't add up, but I don't care about it because I can see quite easily in myself that the desire/aversion dynamic is what disrupts peace of mind. Furthermore the very crux of that reactivity IS the self reference, and that sort of activity is only egoic self affirmation. Maybe some are of the persuation that the seeing through of this thing is like the end of the game, but to me it's like understanding that intervening in what happens is like making more chaos to live with - so the meditation project is really to with purification of the organism, which happens by itself if really left to it - the only issue then is, how much can a koala bear? And that depends on the degree to which equanimity is stablised as balance of mind. Thus, all experience is the practice of equanimity. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 14, 2016 23:49:19 GMT -5
As I already said, desire without attachment which also means desire without craving. As Lord Krishna said to Arjuna in the Bhagavad Gita, "perform action without being attached to the fruits of action". This implies a desire but without being bound. It is not possible to be a human being without some desires. Equanimity of mind doesn't mean we get rid of feelings. That's the whole point. The shift of identification to what you really are which is unbounded awareness frees you from attachments and cravings. For instance I just thought of the late Swami Dayananda Saraswati who had an intense desire to help the poor and opened hospitals and schools throughout India. An enlightened being not bound by desire and cravings who had undoubted peace of mind while fully engaged in life as a human being. No such thing as desire without craving or without its inverse proportion, aversion. It's true enough to say that the 'person' can only exist within the reactive aversion/desire paradigm. Equanimity of mind means feelings are free to to be felt, not sought after or avoided or otherwise reacted to. The desire to help is no more virtuous that the desire for anything else. It is egomania which can be recognised quite easily. People don't change by wilful endeavours to be different. Transformation occurs by becomig conscious of what previously wwent unoticed. Gaining insight into these unnoticed things is what transforms them, ad the person begind to behave in accordance with what they realised. This is what wisdom is I just recalled something Alan Watts said, something like, when you realise you are breathing the breath you also realise you are shining the sun. You already are breathing and the sun is already shining, so you don't have to do breath like you don't have to do the sunshine. You leave it alone and it happens all by itself. This implies the difference volition (wilful action drive by desire) and non-volition (willingess to action straight from insight). We will have to agree to disagree then and leave it at that. I don't think there's anything else I can usefully add. The difficulty is that when you speak of not being able to reconcile peace of mind with intention or desire, you are speaking from the point of view of a person and describing a state. Realization is disidentification with the "I". There is no person to desire anything. Yet intentions arise but without ownership by a personal self. From the point of view of the unbounded there is nothing to desire. |
|
