|
|
Post by lolly on Oct 7, 2016 16:57:01 GMT -5
Aren't you already observing? Thinking isn't observing, feeling isn't observing, bodily doing isn't observing. You never just observe, you aren't observing unless you are observing. (IOW, as sca said, it's intentional, it's voluntary, and unless it's intentional and voluntary, it's merely one thought watching another thought, which isn't meditation). You're saying thoughts can observe? |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Oct 7, 2016 17:00:14 GMT -5
Aren't you already observing? Thinking isn't observing, feeling isn't observing, bodily doing isn't observing. You never just observe, you aren't observing unless you are observing. (IOW, as sca said, it's intentional, it's voluntary, and unless it's intentional and voluntary, it's merely one thought watching another thought, which isn't meditation). Feeling is observing sensations. That is 'just observe'. 'Just observe' pertains to stuff you can simply notice; what is. As I say it, "The truth of this experience 'as it is' in the way it is experienced by you" . Make it 'as you want' pertains to stuff that you have to do, like mantra, visualisation, special breathing, breath counting and so on. That is not 'just observe'. There is a distinct difference between these which I think is obvious. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Oct 7, 2016 17:33:04 GMT -5
I'm just saying the mantra is different to sensation because you don't have to make sensation happen and you can't make it stop. Another way of saying it is if you look for a mantra it isn't there, but if you look for sensation, it is. As soon as you let go the mantra disappears. The sensation continues, but it never stays the same or repeats itself. Nis wasn't imagining anything. He looked to find out what is. You began your post with the accusation, 'you are hung up', and I have asked you to refrain from subjugating me a few times now. Will you stop acting like a child and stop being hung up by any little phrase that "subjugates" you. For heaven's sake man grow up. I said you are hung up on an idea as in preoccupied with something not relevant. It's like walking on eggshells with you. How's that for subjugation?Frankly. It's highly unreasonable and disrespectful. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Oct 7, 2016 22:19:53 GMT -5
Thinking isn't observing, feeling isn't observing, bodily doing isn't observing. You never just observe, you aren't observing unless you are observing. (IOW, as sca said, it's intentional, it's voluntary, and unless it's intentional and voluntary, it's merely one thought watching another thought, which isn't meditation). You're saying thoughts can observe? No, but thoughts can think about meditation (and consider that meditation, but it's not). |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Oct 7, 2016 22:29:15 GMT -5
Thinking isn't observing, feeling isn't observing, bodily doing isn't observing. You never just observe, you aren't observing unless you are observing. (IOW, as sca said, it's intentional, it's voluntary, and unless it's intentional and voluntary, it's merely one thought watching another thought, which isn't meditation). Feeling is observing sensations. That is 'just observe'. 'Just observe' pertains to stuff you can simply notice; what is. As I say it, "The truth of this experience 'as it is' in the way it is experienced by you" . Make it 'as you want' pertains to stuff that you have to do, like mantra, visualisation, special breathing, breath counting and so on. That is not 'just observe'. There is a distinct difference between these which I think is obvious. Can feelings observe? (That's what you said, first sentence). |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Oct 8, 2016 1:08:35 GMT -5
Feeling is observing sensations. That is 'just observe'. 'Just observe' pertains to stuff you can simply notice; what is. As I say it, "The truth of this experience 'as it is' in the way it is experienced by you" . Make it 'as you want' pertains to stuff that you have to do, like mantra, visualisation, special breathing, breath counting and so on. That is not 'just observe'. There is a distinct difference between these which I think is obvious. Can feelings observe? (That's what you said, first sentence). To clarify, I meant, to feel is to observe sensations. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Oct 8, 2016 1:18:04 GMT -5
You're saying thoughts can observe? No, but thoughts can think about meditation (and consider that meditation, but it's not). There can be thoughts about meditation , but "thoughts can think"? Meditation in this context would have to do with the awareness of the movement of thought coming, changing, going. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Oct 8, 2016 7:42:56 GMT -5
No, but thoughts can think about meditation (and consider that meditation, but it's not). There can be thoughts about meditation , but "thoughts can think"? Meditation in this context would have to do with the awareness of the movement of thought coming, changing, going. Yes, that's what thoughts do. Thoughts ~are~ thinking. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2016 8:13:35 GMT -5
There can be thoughts about meditation , but "thoughts can think"? Meditation in this context would have to do with the awareness of the movement of thought coming, changing, going. Yes, that's what thoughts do. Thoughts ~are~ thinking. Lolly talks about observing, noticing, being aware of breath, bodily sensations, just what is etc, but never goes beyond that to mention just knowing awareness itself after letting go of the object that is being noticed. Hence the confusion about mantra. Many meditators get good results from the innocent noticing but as long as there is an object to be noticed we have a duality. The goal is non dual awareness (samadhi) which happens when the attention on the object becomes finer and more subtle until eventually we just let go and what remains is one pointedness of mind, pure awareness. It doesn't matter how long this is maintained for until the inevitable arrival of a thought. It's the constant immersion into silence and the subsequent plunging back into activity that brings the value of this awareness into the field of action that gradually purifies the nervous system so as to experience both values together. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Oct 8, 2016 8:14:58 GMT -5
Can feelings observe? (That's what you said, first sentence). To clarify, I meant, to feel is to observe sensations. OK, first, in English we have this two-fold-meaning word feel. It's responsible for lack of specificity sometimes, but usually the context makes it clear. For example, one can say I feel sad, that's emotional use of feel. But then one could say, I feel cold, it's cold in here, please turn up the temperature. That means I am sensing coldness. Two entirely different uses of the word feel, one emotional, one bodily sensation. And then the word observe must be clarified. We breathe all day long. There is a sensation of air on the nose throughout the day, but most people never notice it. Why? If you don't know, you can explore this and find out right now. Observing this sensation is/can be a form of meditation, your use of the word feel here (but in such an example I'd say the word sense is more appropriate than feel, just for clarity). But the question is, what distinguishes ordinary sensing from meditation? (But/And, although I disagree with you for the reasons, I agree sensing is better meditation-on-training wheels than mantra meditation). |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Oct 8, 2016 8:31:12 GMT -5
Yes, that's what thoughts do. Thoughts ~are~ thinking. Lolly talks about observing, noticing, being aware of breath, bodily sensations, just what is etc, but never goes beyond that to mention just knowing awareness itself after letting go of the object that is being noticed. Hence the confusion about mantra. Many meditators get good results from the innocent noticing but as long as there is an object to be noticed we have a duality. The goal is non dual awareness (samadhi) which happens when the attention on the object becomes finer and more subtle until eventually we just let go and what remains is one pointedness of mind, pure awareness. It doesn't matter how long this is maintained for until the inevitable arrival of a thought. It's the constant immersion into silence and the subsequent plunging back into activity that brings the value of this awareness into the field of action that gradually purifies the nervous system so as to experience both values together. Well, others here also don't seem to be able to make this distinction. Franklin Merrill-Wolfe had an experience and wrote a book about "consciousness without an object". I think this is not easy to come to. We know (small s) self as what we think, feel/emote, do. But there is a ~something~ separate and apart from thinking, feeling, doing (and sensing). This can be called "consciousness without an object". (But Franklin Merrill-Wolfe does not really specifically tell/explain how to get there, IOW, not specifically recommending). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2016 8:40:15 GMT -5
Lolly talks about observing, noticing, being aware of breath, bodily sensations, just what is etc, but never goes beyond that to mention just knowing awareness itself after letting go of the object that is being noticed. Hence the confusion about mantra. Many meditators get good results from the innocent noticing but as long as there is an object to be noticed we have a duality. The goal is non dual awareness (samadhi) which happens when the attention on the object becomes finer and more subtle until eventually we just let go and what remains is one pointedness of mind, pure awareness. It doesn't matter how long this is maintained for until the inevitable arrival of a thought. It's the constant immersion into silence and the subsequent plunging back into activity that brings the value of this awareness into the field of action that gradually purifies the nervous system so as to experience both values together. Well, others here also don't seem to be able to make this distinction. Franklin Merrill-Wolfe had an experience and wrote a book about "consciousness without an object". I think this is not easy to come to. We know (small s) self as what we think, feel/emote, do. But there is a ~something~ separate and apart from thinking, feeling, doing (and sensing). This can be called "consciousness without an object". (But Franklin Merrill-Wolfe does not really specifically tell/explain how to get there, IOW, not specifically recommending). If it's true that others here don't make that distinction it can only mean that those who come to this forum are not representative of the many meditators who do know awareness without an object. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2016 13:20:00 GMT -5
Yes, that's what thoughts do. Thoughts ~are~ thinking. Lolly talks about observing, noticing, being aware of breath, bodily sensations, just what is etc, but never goes beyond that to mention just knowing awareness itself after letting go of the object that is being noticed. Hence the confusion about mantra. Many meditators get good results from the innocent noticing but as long as there is an object to be noticed we have a duality. The goal is non dual awareness (samadhi) which happens when the attention on the object becomes finer and more subtle until eventually we just let go and what remains is one pointedness of mind, pure awareness. It doesn't matter how long this is maintained for until the inevitable arrival of a thought. It's the constant immersion into silence and the subsequent plunging back into activity that brings the value of this awareness into the field of action that gradually purifies the nervous system so as to experience both values together.So after weeks of arguing that 'purification' was an unnecessary process for a mind to go through, it's now being introduced into your writings as a process for an already pristine and ancient nervous system to go through, to be able to experience existence in it's entirety, yeah? |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Oct 8, 2016 15:43:42 GMT -5
Lolly talks about observing, noticing, being aware of breath, bodily sensations, just what is etc, but never goes beyond that to mention just knowing awareness itself after letting go of the object that is being noticed. Hence the confusion about mantra. Many meditators get good results from the innocent noticing but as long as there is an object to be noticed we have a duality. The goal is non dual awareness (samadhi) which happens when the attention on the object becomes finer and more subtle until eventually we just let go and what remains is one pointedness of mind, pure awareness. It doesn't matter how long this is maintained for until the inevitable arrival of a thought. It's the constant immersion into silence and the subsequent plunging back into activity that brings the value of this awareness into the field of action that gradually purifies the nervous system so as to experience both values together. Well, others here also don't seem to be able to make this distinction. Franklin Merrill-Wolfe had an experience and wrote a book about "consciousness without an object". I think this is not easy to come to. We know (small s) self as what we think, feel/emote, do. But there is a ~something~ separate and apart from thinking, feeling, doing (and sensing). This can be called "consciousness without an object". (But Franklin Merrill-Wolfe does not really specifically tell/explain how to get there, IOW, not specifically recommending). From my POV awareness is non-dual, and thinking is what creates the illusion of duality. If we are looking at the world in total mental silence, ________________is what is seen. ______________________is what it is, but we refer to it as "non-dual," or as "a unified field of being in which nothing (no thing) is distinguished." We clearly see "what is," but if the intellect is not engaged and there is no thought ABOUT what is seen, the observer and the observed are one. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Oct 8, 2016 20:17:55 GMT -5
To clarify, I meant, to feel is to observe sensations. OK, first, in English we have this two-fold-meaning word feel. It's responsible for lack of specificity sometimes, but usually the context makes it clear. For example, one can say I feel sad, that's emotional use of feel. But then one could say, I feel cold, it's cold in here, please turn up the temperature. That means I am sensing coldness. Two entirely different uses of the word feel, one emotional, one bodily sensation. And then the word observe must be clarified. We breathe all day long. There is a sensation of air on the nose throughout the day, but most people never notice it. Why? If you don't know, you can explore this and find out right now. Observing this sensation is/can be a form of meditation, your use of the word feel here (but in such an example I'd say the word sense is more appropriate than feel, just for clarity). But the question is, what distinguishes ordinary sensing from meditation? (But/And, although I disagree with you for the reasons, I agree sensing is better meditation-on-training wheels than mantra meditation). All I'm saying is you can notice your breath or sensation because it is there already, but there is no mantra unless you do it. I then explained that this what I mean by 'volitional' and 'non-volitional' meditation. The argument is you have to make yourself observe, but all I'm saying is you don't have to make 'what is' happen. You notice it because 'it is'. There are no 'training wheels' to it simply because sensation is there and 'you' don't make it happen. It's not volitional, and you can't just take it off. Either your mind is perceiving on a more hard and solid level or it's keener and perceptive on more subtle levels.
|
|
