|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Oct 15, 2016 13:37:55 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. I further considered your question about SR precipitating the "flow" of self-remembering. I've stated many times here I do not think in terms of SR. SR and what Gurdjieff taught begin on more or less equal terms. From the beginning of the teaching (first principles so to speak) it is taught that we do not have our own individual I. But it is also taught this is not just a concept we stick in the back corner of our mind. We have to see the actual truth of the matter. A beginning purpose of the interior practices (which are of an ATA-T type) is to see for one's self that there is not a single indivisible I. So I've said many times here, the Gurdjieff teaching picks up where the "nondual teaching" leaves off. But for this reason "nonduality" and the Work are "Incompatible". So in a very real sense, SR should-could give the very reason the Gurdjieff teaching is necessary. But nobody here has sensed/felt that need. Every "nondualist" here has taken the truth of their SR to be the final and absolute truth. How many times have I said to you alone?, I accept what you say, but there is more. But saying that, everything hinges on the person, each individual body-mind. If you doubt any of this I could give numerous quotes. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 15, 2016 21:24:04 GMT -5
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. Self realization results in a radical alteration in how self-referential thought and emotion is experienced thereafter, but trying to describe this in any certain terms is inherently self-defeating and has as much potential to confuse as it does to inform. The purification you describe is one that I'm conditioned to find virtuous, and SR didn't touch that conditioning but it does reveal that the virtue of this brand of purity is related only tangentially to the potential of the realization. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 15, 2016 21:26:51 GMT -5
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. Describing "peace" in terms of the absence of attachment also speaks from the perspective of a person, whereas no person ever becomes self-realized. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 15, 2016 21:32:47 GMT -5
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. Describing "peace" in terms of the absence of attachment also speaks from the perspective of a person, whereas no person ever becomes self-realized. That's why many who have realized prefer to remain silent because talking about it can never be what it is. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 15, 2016 21:35:30 GMT -5
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. I further considered your question about SR precipitating the "flow" of self-remembering. I've stated many times here I do not think in terms of SR. SR and what Gurdjieff taught begin on more or less equal terms. From the beginning of the teaching (first principles so to speak) it is taught that we do not have our own individual I. But it is also taught this is not just a concept we stick in the back corner of our mind. We have to see the actual truth of the matter. A beginning purpose of the interior practices (which are of an ATA-T type) is to see for one's self that there is not a single indivisible I. So I've said many times here, the Gurdjieff teaching picks up where the "nondual teaching" leaves off. But for this reason "nonduality" and the Work are "Incompatible". So in a very real sense, SR should-could give the very reason the Gurdjieff teaching is necessary. But nobody here has sensed/felt that need. Every "nondualist" here has taken the truth of their SR to be the final and absolute truth. How many times have I said to you alone?, I accept what you say, but there is more. But saying that, everything hinges on the person, each individual body-mind. If you doubt any of this I could give numerous quotes. Don't be deceived into thinking that the non duality discussed here is the only flavour. www.advaitayoga.org/advaitayogaarticles/vedantaschools.htmlen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondualism |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Oct 16, 2016 0:19:34 GMT -5
I further considered your question about SR precipitating the "flow" of self-remembering. I've stated many times here I do not think in terms of SR. SR and what Gurdjieff taught begin on more or less equal terms. From the beginning of the teaching (first principles so to speak) it is taught that we do not have our own individual I. But it is also taught this is not just a concept we stick in the back corner of our mind. We have to see the actual truth of the matter. A beginning purpose of the interior practices (which are of an ATA-T type) is to see for one's self that there is not a single indivisible I. So I've said many times here, the Gurdjieff teaching picks up where the "nondual teaching" leaves off. But for this reason "nonduality" and the Work are "Incompatible". So in a very real sense, SR should-could give the very reason the Gurdjieff teaching is necessary. But nobody here has sensed/felt that need. Every "nondualist" here has taken the truth of their SR to be the final and absolute truth. How many times have I said to you alone?, I accept what you say, but there is more. But saying that, everything hinges on the person, each individual body-mind. If you doubt any of this I could give numerous quotes. Don't be deceived into thinking that the non duality discussed here is the only flavour. www.advaitayoga.org/advaitayogaarticles/vedantaschools.htmlen.wikipedia.org/wiki/NondualismOh I quite understand. Gurdjieff didn't originate the teaching, it has been around for thousands of years, under many different names. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Oct 16, 2016 2:58:02 GMT -5
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. Self realization results in a radical alteration in how self-referential thought and emotion is experienced thereafter, but trying to describe this in any certain terms is inherently self-defeating and has as much potential to confuse as it does to inform. The purification you describe is one that I'm conditioned to find virtuous, and SR didn't touch that conditioning but it does reveal that the virtue of this brand of purity is related only tangentially to the potential of the realization. I can only talk about noticeable things, and usually I remain in context with people say to me, but meditation has to refer to a basic essence which is universal to all people, and remain universal as a practice - as the practice of living, so to speak. The relationship between awareness, attention, the mind, body and the lived experience as it is (or as it appears) is looked into in order to find out directly what is the case. The 'tools' for this, awareness and attention, are already there. The discussion on honesty is often one that doesn't take place, but it really has to start from that. People don't want to go into the basic and mundane because they really meditate to get 'spiritual experiences'. This is a continuation of what they've been doing anyway, doing one thing as a means to something else, forever chasing contentment through the experience - they merely spiritualised the context. But experience is gone in the moment it arises, so that strategy doesn't work. This means, by process of elimination, that the attention has to be 'here with this' (whatever that happens to be for the person), and they might not like it, but since when does the truth have anything to do with what anyone likes or dislikes? If we use the example of mantra, does anyone do that to have unpleasant experiences, or do they do that to have only wonderful experiences? The meditation looks into it and finds out. For example, meditation isn't the imagined mantra, but observation and realisation of how desire impels it. I previously gave thought experiments to show that one can't be aware of their spontaneous mind/body (what is) and recite a mantra at the same time. If that experiment is done, you look into it and you find out for yourself. People don't actually look because they are somewhat uncertain and vulnerable and are coerced into obedience to some sort of authority figure. I merely posit it as I imagine it, not as 'truth', but it serves to illustrate looking with honesty, that instant of 'first noticing', and finding out directly what is true, is what characterises meditation. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2016 3:15:37 GMT -5
Self realization results in a radical alteration in how self-referential thought and emotion is experienced thereafter, but trying to describe this in any certain terms is inherently self-defeating and has as much potential to confuse as it does to inform. The purification you describe is one that I'm conditioned to find virtuous, and SR didn't touch that conditioning but it does reveal that the virtue of this brand of purity is related only tangentially to the potential of the realization. I can only talk about noticeable things, and usually I remain in context with people say to me, but meditation has to refer to a basic essence which is universal to all people, and remain universal as a practice - as the practice of living, so to speak. The relationship between awareness, attention, the mind, body and the lived experience as it is (or as it appears) is looked into in order to find out directly what is the case. The 'tools' for this, awareness and attention, are already there. The discussion on honesty is often one that doesn't take place, but it really has to start from that. People don't want to go into the basic and mundane because they really meditate to get 'spiritual experiences'. This is a continuation of what they've been doing anyway, doing one thing as a means to something else, forever chasing contentment through the experience - they merely spiritualised the context. But experience is gone in the moment it arises, so that strategy doesn't work. This means, by process of elimination, that the attention has to be 'here with this' (whatever that happens to be for the person), and they might not like it, but since when does the truth have anything to do with what anyone likes or dislikes? If we use the example of mantra, does anyone do that to have unpleasant experiences, or do they do that to have only wonderful experiences? The meditation looks into it and finds out. For example, meditation isn't the imagined mantra, but observation and realisation of how desire impels it. I previously gave thought experiments to show that one can't be aware of their spontaneous mind/body (what is) and recite a mantra at the same time. If that experiment is done, you look into it and you find out for yourself. People don't actually look because they are somewhat uncertain and vulnerable and are coerced into obedience to some sort of authority figure. I merely posit it as I imagine it, not as 'truth', but it serves to illustrate looking with honesty, that instant of 'first noticing', and finding out directly what is true, is what characterises meditation. More likely it's gone once it's noticed to have arisen. And it's the intention in that noticer that must be honestly addressed. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2016 11:58:39 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 16, 2016 13:45:39 GMT -5
Self realization results in a radical alteration in how self-referential thought and emotion is experienced thereafter, but trying to describe this in any certain terms is inherently self-defeating and has as much potential to confuse as it does to inform. The purification you describe is one that I'm conditioned to find virtuous, and SR didn't touch that conditioning but it does reveal that the virtue of this brand of purity is related only tangentially to the potential of the realization. I can only talk about noticeable things, and usually I remain in context with people say to me, but meditation has to refer to a basic essence which is universal to all people, and remain universal as a practice - as the practice of living, so to speak. The relationship between awareness, attention, the mind, body and the lived experience as it is (or as it appears) is looked into in order to find out directly what is the case. The 'tools' for this, awareness and attention, are already there. The discussion on honesty is often one that doesn't take place, but it really has to start from that. People don't want to go into the basic and mundane because they really meditate to get 'spiritual experiences'. This is a continuation of what they've been doing anyway, doing one thing as a means to something else, forever chasing contentment through the experience - they merely spiritualised the context. But experience is gone in the moment it arises, so that strategy doesn't work. This means, by process of elimination, that the attention has to be 'here with this' (whatever that happens to be for the person), and they might not like it, but since when does the truth have anything to do with what anyone likes or dislikes? If we use the example of mantra, does anyone do that to have unpleasant experiences, or do they do that to have only wonderful experiences? The meditation looks into it and finds out. For example, meditation isn't the imagined mantra, but observation and realisation of how desire impels it. I previously gave thought experiments to show that one can't be aware of their spontaneous mind/body (what is) and recite a mantra at the same time. If that experiment is done, you look into it and you find out for yourself. People don't actually look because they are somewhat uncertain and vulnerable and are coerced into obedience to some sort of authority figure. I merely posit it as I imagine it, not as 'truth', but it serves to illustrate looking with honesty, that instant of 'first noticing', and finding out directly what is true, is what characterises meditation. Underlying "Why do I meditate?" or "Why do people meditate?" is the existential question. "To see, honestly" is, in my opinion, a virtuous answer, as it seems to me really the best the mind and the heart will ever do. It strikes me as similar to the answer of "so that the Universe may know itself" to the question "why are we here?". But one can become conscious of the conditioned values that lead to an opinion like this one. My suggestion to the sincere seeker is not to settle for any answer of this nature. And specifically, to those of you with an intellectual bent, you can turn the intellect to your service by recognizing the different forms of the existential question like this one. Every time it arises is an opportunity for a quiet and subtle noticing that is a return, a recognition, and an embrace. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Oct 17, 2016 0:10:13 GMT -5
I can only talk about noticeable things, and usually I remain in context with people say to me, but meditation has to refer to a basic essence which is universal to all people, and remain universal as a practice - as the practice of living, so to speak. The relationship between awareness, attention, the mind, body and the lived experience as it is (or as it appears) is looked into in order to find out directly what is the case. The 'tools' for this, awareness and attention, are already there. The discussion on honesty is often one that doesn't take place, but it really has to start from that. People don't want to go into the basic and mundane because they really meditate to get 'spiritual experiences'. This is a continuation of what they've been doing anyway, doing one thing as a means to something else, forever chasing contentment through the experience - they merely spiritualised the context. But experience is gone in the moment it arises, so that strategy doesn't work. This means, by process of elimination, that the attention has to be 'here with this' (whatever that happens to be for the person), and they might not like it, but since when does the truth have anything to do with what anyone likes or dislikes? If we use the example of mantra, does anyone do that to have unpleasant experiences, or do they do that to have only wonderful experiences? The meditation looks into it and finds out. For example, meditation isn't the imagined mantra, but observation and realisation of how desire impels it. I previously gave thought experiments to show that one can't be aware of their spontaneous mind/body (what is) and recite a mantra at the same time. If that experiment is done, you look into it and you find out for yourself. People don't actually look because they are somewhat uncertain and vulnerable and are coerced into obedience to some sort of authority figure. I merely posit it as I imagine it, not as 'truth', but it serves to illustrate looking with honesty, that instant of 'first noticing', and finding out directly what is true, is what characterises meditation. Underlying "Why do I meditate?" or "Why do people meditate?" is the existential question. "To see, honestly" is, in my opinion, a virtuous answer, as it seems to me really the best the mind and the heart will ever do. It strikes me as similar to the answer of "so that the Universe may know itself" to the question "why are we here?". But one can become conscious of the conditioned values that lead to an opinion like this one. My suggestion to the sincere seeker is not to settle for any answer of this nature. And specifically, to those of you with an intellectual bent, you can turn the intellect to your service by recognizing the different forms of the existential question like this one. Every time it arises is an opportunity for a quiet and subtle noticing that is a return, a recognition, and an embrace. I think 'answers' like "so that the Universe may know itself" are merely a clinging to reason. "So that I may know the truth" is quite a different thing than coming to conclusions. It's characteristic of the wild monkey to jump to conclusions, and hang onto 'the knowledge in the jar'. I wouldn't settle for answers, and when the conversation is going on what is already immediately obvious, your awareness, attention, perception... well, who knows what all that is? It just happens to be, and I can't explain it - but there is no need to - it's simply true. The technicalities are to do with the mind/body movement which produces what we call 'false self'. I refer to it as the centre of the narrative (memory flash: I liked Dennet's essay, The Self as a Center of Narrative Gravity). Dennet concludes quoting Hume. For my part, when I enter most intimately into what I call myself, I always stumble on some particular perception or other, of heat or cold, light or shade, love or hatred, pain or pleasure. I never can catch myself at any time without a percepton, and never can observe anything but the perception.... If anyone, upon serious and unprejudiced reflection, thinks he has a different notion of himself, I must confess I can reason no longer with him. All I can allow him is, that he may be in the right as well as I, and that we are essentially different in this particular. He may, perhaps, perceive something simple and continued, which he calls himself; though I am certain there is no such principle in me (Treatise on Human Nature, I, IV, sec. 6). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2016 1:36:08 GMT -5
Underlying "Why do I meditate?" or "Why do people meditate?" is the existential question. "To see, honestly" is, in my opinion, a virtuous answer, as it seems to me really the best the mind and the heart will ever do. It strikes me as similar to the answer of "so that the Universe may know itself" to the question "why are we here?". But one can become conscious of the conditioned values that lead to an opinion like this one. My suggestion to the sincere seeker is not to settle for any answer of this nature. And specifically, to those of you with an intellectual bent, you can turn the intellect to your service by recognizing the different forms of the existential question like this one. Every time it arises is an opportunity for a quiet and subtle noticing that is a return, a recognition, and an embrace. I think 'answers' like "so that the Universe may know itself" are merely a clinging to reason. "So that I may know the truth" is quite a different thing than coming to conclusions. It's characteristic of the wild monkey to jump to conclusions, and hang onto 'the knowledge in the jar'. I wouldn't settle for answers, and when the conversation is going on what is already immediately obvious, your awareness, attention, perception... well, who knows what all that is? It just happens to be, and I can't explain it - but there is no need to - it's simply true. The technicalities are to do with the mind/body movement which produces what we call 'false self'. I refer to it as the centre of the narrative (memory flash: I liked Dennet's essay, The Self as a Center of Narrative Gravity). Dennet concludes quoting Hume. For my part, when I enter most intimately into what I call myself, I always stumble on some particular perception or other, of heat or cold, light or shade, love or hatred, pain or pleasure. I never can catch myself at any time without a percepton, and never can observe anything but the perception.... If anyone, upon serious and unprejudiced reflection, thinks he has a different notion of himself, I must confess I can reason no longer with him. All I can allow him is, that he may be in the right as well as I, and that we are essentially different in this particular. He may, perhaps, perceive something simple and continued, which he calls himself; though I am certain there is no such principle in me (Treatise on Human Nature, I, IV, sec. 6).So we know that Hume wasn't able to experience pure awareness without an object. But you don't need to as a philosopher. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Oct 17, 2016 8:27:31 GMT -5
I think 'answers' like "so that the Universe may know itself" are merely a clinging to reason. "So that I may know the truth" is quite a different thing than coming to conclusions. It's characteristic of the wild monkey to jump to conclusions, and hang onto 'the knowledge in the jar'. I wouldn't settle for answers, and when the conversation is going on what is already immediately obvious, your awareness, attention, perception... well, who knows what all that is? It just happens to be, and I can't explain it - but there is no need to - it's simply true. The technicalities are to do with the mind/body movement which produces what we call 'false self'. I refer to it as the centre of the narrative (memory flash: I liked Dennet's essay, The Self as a Center of Narrative Gravity). Dennet concludes quoting Hume. For my part, when I enter most intimately into what I call myself, I always stumble on some particular perception or other, of heat or cold, light or shade, love or hatred, pain or pleasure. I never can catch myself at any time without a percepton, and never can observe anything but the perception.... If anyone, upon serious and unprejudiced reflection, thinks he has a different notion of himself, I must confess I can reason no longer with him. All I can allow him is, that he may be in the right as well as I, and that we are essentially different in this particular. He may, perhaps, perceive something simple and continued, which he calls himself; though I am certain there is no such principle in me (Treatise on Human Nature, I, IV, sec. 6).So we know that Hume wasn't able to experience pure awareness without an object. But you don't need to as a philosopher. You don't know squat about Hume. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Oct 17, 2016 8:37:10 GMT -5
I think 'answers' like "so that the Universe may know itself" are merely a clinging to reason. "So that I may know the truth" is quite a different thing than coming to conclusions. It's characteristic of the wild monkey to jump to conclusions, and hang onto 'the knowledge in the jar'. I wouldn't settle for answers, and when the conversation is going on what is already immediately obvious, your awareness, attention, perception... well, who knows what all that is? It just happens to be, and I can't explain it - but there is no need to - it's simply true. The technicalities are to do with the mind/body movement which produces what we call 'false self'. I refer to it as the centre of the narrative (memory flash: I liked Dennet's essay, The Self as a Center of Narrative Gravity). Dennet concludes quoting Hume. For my part, when I enter most intimately into what I call myself, I always stumble on some particular perception or other, of heat or cold, light or shade, love or hatred, pain or pleasure. I never can catch myself at any time without a percepton, and never can observe anything but the perception.... If anyone, upon serious and unprejudiced reflection, thinks he has a different notion of himself, I must confess I can reason no longer with him. All I can allow him is, that he may be in the right as well as I, and that we are essentially different in this particular. He may, perhaps, perceive something simple and continued, which he calls himself; though I am certain there is no such principle in me (Treatise on Human Nature, I, IV, sec. 6).So we know that Hume wasn't able to experience pure awareness without an object. But you don't need to as a philosopher. Yes, I was thinking the same thing. Philosophers rarely get out of their heads. It seems to me that people enter the pathless path with many different motivations. Some people are driven by curiosity about what's going on; some people are trying to escape suffering; some people are seeking some kind of long-lasting happiness; some people are seeking to find God or deepen an existing religious faith; and so on. The common factor driving almost all seekers is the internal dialogue and their ideas ABOUT reality. The curiosity driven person usually has specific existential questions that can be verbalized but not answered through reflective thought (although the intellectual unanswerability may not be immediately obvious); the suffering person is usually driven by all kinds of negative thoughts about his/her identity and relationship to other people and the world; the happiness-seeking person is usually driven by thoughts about possible long-lasting positive states of mind; the person seeking to find God or become closer to God is usually driven by conditioned ideas about God and ideas about how to find or get closer to God; and so forth. The internal dialogue is what some people call "monkey mind" because mental chatter jumps all over the place (from "limb to limb" like a monkey), and there is no internal silence. Many forms of meditation can be used to slow down or quieten the internal dialogue by shifting the focus of attention away from thoughts to some specific activity. I once heard a Zen Master give a talk about this issue, and his point was that initial meditation practices should be tailored to how frenetic a person's mind is. He said that some people are so lost in their heads and so ADD that a good practice might be some form of repetitive physical activity. Other people, who are a little less mentally frenetic, might need to use a mantra to slow things down. Moving down the scale from extreme mental freneticism to average freneticism, he thought that breath-counting would be the next best way of calming the monkey mind because he thought that a certain minimum level of mental calmness is necessary for any form of ATA-T, or directly perceiving "what is." In my case, and in the case of hundreds of people I've talked to, breath-counting was about the only thing I could initially hold onto because thinking was almost incessant. After breath-counting slowed thoughts down a bit, attention could then be shifted to "what is." Even then, thoughts continued to arise and jump around, but there was then enough calmness that "what is" could remain the focus of attention without attention constantly being carried away by extraneous thoughts composing the internal dialogue. In my case, as soon as I had a minimal grasp of how deeply and for how long (many years) I had been lost in the internal dialogue, I dropped almost all interest in focusing upon any mind-generated phenomena. I sometimes chanted the heart sutra while driving around because that activity had some other unusual and seemingly beneficial effects upon the body/mind, but I primarily focused only upon what could be seen, heard, felt, etc. Later, silent looking and listening became my primary practice and replaced other ATA-T types of practices, such as watching the breath, following the breath, or shikan taza. It would be great if peoples' minds were sufficiently silent for attention to initially be held upon "what is," but that's rarely the case. The Bible says, "Be still, and know that I am God," (psalms 46:10), but most people don't know how to become still long enough to discover what that verse is pointing to. The reason that Gary Weber and many other people recommend that people experiment with many different meditation practices is that everyone's mileage will vary. Lolly prefers ATA-T, and so do I, but I've met lots of people who got free from the dominance of mind, found answers to existential questions, and attained equanimity using other approaches besides ATA-T. One size does not fit all. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2016 10:28:07 GMT -5
So we know that Hume wasn't able to experience pure awareness without an object. But you don't need to as a philosopher. Yes, I was thinking the same thing. Philosophers rarely get out of their heads. It seems to me that people enter the pathless path with many different motivations. Some people are driven by curiosity about what's going on; some people are trying to escape suffering; some people are seeking some kind of long-lasting happiness; some people are seeking to find God or deepen an existing religious faith; and so on. The common factor driving almost all seekers is the internal dialogue and their ideas ABOUT reality. The curiosity driven person usually has specific existential questions that can be verbalized but not answered through reflective thought (although the intellectual unanswerability may not be immediately obvious); the suffering person is usually driven by all kinds of negative thoughts about his/her identity and relationship to other people and the world; the happiness-seeking person is usually driven by thoughts about possible long-lasting positive states of mind; the person seeking to find God or become closer to God is usually driven by conditioned ideas about God and ideas about how to find or get closer to God; and so forth. The internal dialogue is what some people call "monkey mind" because mental chatter jumps all over the place (from "limb to limb" like a monkey), and there is no internal silence. Many forms of meditation can be used to slow down or quieten the internal dialogue by shifting the focus of attention away from thoughts to some specific activity. I once heard a Zen Master give a talk about this issue, and his point was that initial meditation practices should be tailored to how frenetic a person's mind is. He said that some people are so lost in their heads and so ADD that a good practice might be some form of repetitive physical activity. Other people, who are a little less mentally frenetic, might need to use a mantra to slow things down. Moving down the scale from extreme mental freneticism to average freneticism, he thought that breath-counting would be the next best way of calming the monkey mind because he thought that a certain minimum level of mental calmness is necessary for any form of ATA-T, or directly perceiving "what is." In my case, and in the case of hundreds of people I've talked to, breath-counting was about the only thing I could initially hold onto because thinking was almost incessant. After breath-counting slowed thoughts down a bit, attention could then be shifted to "what is." Even then, thoughts continued to arise and jump around, but there was then enough calmness that "what is" could remain the focus of attention without attention constantly being carried away by extraneous thoughts composing the internal dialogue. In my case, as soon as I had a minimal grasp of how deeply and for how long (many years) I had been lost in the internal dialogue, I dropped almost all interest in focusing upon any mind-generated phenomena. I sometimes chanted the heart sutra while driving around because that activity had some other unusual and seemingly beneficial effects upon the body/mind, but I primarily focused only upon what could be seen, heard, felt, etc. Later, silent looking and listening became my primary practice and replaced other ATA-T types of practices, such as watching the breath, following the breath, or shikan taza. It would be great if peoples' minds were sufficiently silent for attention to initially be held upon "what is," but that's rarely the case. The Bible says, "Be still, and know that I am God," (psalms 46:10), but most people don't know how to become still long enough to discover what that verse is pointing to. The reason that Gary Weber and many other people recommend that people experiment with many different meditation practices is that everyone's mileage will vary. Lolly prefers ATA-T, and so do I, but I've met lots of people who got free from the dominance of mind, found answers to existential questions, and attained equanimity using other approaches besides ATA-T. One size does not fit all. You make a good point about matching the right practice to the person. I know we usually talk about self inquiry here because it's the most direct path, but I'm reminded that even though Ramana advocated inquiry, he did say that it wasn't always appropriate depending on the person's development. He also had a hierarchy or scale of practices and said that if inquiry was too difficult then meditation on an object or mantra japa might be more suitable. If that was too difficult then thinking of the name of God. If that was too difficult then do puja (religious ceremony) and so on. |
|
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. 