Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2016 20:23:03 GMT -5
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.
It is volitional because you choose to notice the sensation and choose to stay with it. Why do you find this so difficult to accept? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2016 20:24:50 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.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? I'm not talking about purification of the mind. I don't even know what that means. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Oct 8, 2016 20:36:02 GMT -5
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.
It is volitional because you choose to notice the sensation and choose to stay with it. Why do you find this so difficult to accept? It's not difficult. It's merely your compulsion to insinuate something about me. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2016 20:55:47 GMT -5
It is volitional because you choose to notice the sensation and choose to stay with it. Why do you find this so difficult to accept? It's not difficult. It's merely your compulsion to insinuate something about me. Will you stop subjugating me and stick with content. This isn't about you. Put up a valid argument for what is said. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Oct 8, 2016 21:02:12 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.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? The thing with 'the object' of sensation is it has no objectivity or substance as it transforms momentarily. This is where the concept of 'letting go' can become misconstrued as 'becoming unaware of'. 'Letting go' is better expressed as 'letting be', but even then, 'letting' still implies a permissive subject who decides to allow. The best way, I think, to express it is to say 'it is' and remove the subject who allows, lets, resists, clings and what have you, then we can say you are 'aware of what is'. This is important in terms of the purification project because to to bring the conscious awareness to 'what is' without allowing and disallowing and accepting or resisting is describable as 'pure awareness' or to 'see'. The purity of seeing is the 'purifying agent'. In common terms this means to be present with what's going on without the judgment of like/dislike and so forth. Then impurity, defilement, blocks, obstacles or whatever word, can be simply recognised, and because there is no longer some adverse reaction to them, they can just be. Since the fundamental nature of everything is change, this ability of 'it is', is, in fact, the ability of transformation. Because the reaction defenses have ceased, the production of impurity has ended, and by that same cessation of reactivity, the old stuck impurities are enabled fluid transformation. |
|
|
|
Post by runstill on Oct 8, 2016 23:51:16 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). The bolded is an important idea to talk about, if one starts with the easy realization that reality can only be an appearance to awareness could be the first step, but Sdp may not agree ?  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2016 0:15:26 GMT -5
"Awareness is primordial; it is the original state, beginning-less, endless, uncaused, unsupported, without parts, without change. Consciousness is on contact, a reflection against a surface, a state of duality. There can be no consciousness without awareness, but there can be awareness without consciousness…"
Nisargadatta Maharaj
|
|
|
|
Post by runstill on Oct 9, 2016 0:25:55 GMT -5
"Awareness is primordial; it is the original state, beginning-less, endless, uncaused, unsupported, without parts, without change. Consciousness is on contact, a reflection against a surface, a state of duality. There can be no consciousness without awareness, but there can be awareness without consciousness…" Nisargadatta Maharaj I accept that Awareness is primary but I'm curious to see how others will spin this. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2016 0:38:47 GMT -5
"Awareness is primordial; it is the original state, beginning-less, endless, uncaused, unsupported, without parts, without change. Consciousness is on contact, a reflection against a surface, a state of duality. There can be no consciousness without awareness, but there can be awareness without consciousness…" Nisargadatta Maharaj I accept that Awareness is primary but I'm curious to see how others will spin this. Spin it? It's hardly a new subject that hasn't been discussed before. From your posts I know where you stand on it. Well maybe it is a good point given the conceptual stuff that goes on here. Difficult to know isn't it? |
|
|
|
Post by wei sa on Oct 9, 2016 0:45:54 GMT -5
Yep, but don't those garrulous ways of avoiding addressing weak points etc work by revving up the thought-machine and engaging in intellectual speculation/analysis or other thinking? So one thing that maybe confused me about the discussion then is that if the weak point in question is over-reliance on intellect/thinking, then I don't see how one can engage in those avoidance-mechanisms while maintaining any degree of clarity/self-honesty. That is, if I have noticed that I have the habit of thinking/analysing/speculating too much, and I notice that I am trying to think/analyse/speculate the issue away, then unless I'm completely unconscious, a massive dharma-bell surely rings and is not easily ignored. Yeah, but I think vulnerability/openness is not something one can bring about simply by willing it, and so probably not worth worrying about too much (like you more or less said in your first post here). I think vulnerability/openness is the "natural state", and it comes about when obstacles that are blocking it - defence mechanisms, compensation patterns etc - have dissipated, and a sufficient natural feeling of "safety" has been established. This dissipation can probably be facilitated by noticing/observing (thoughts, beliefs, feelings, behaviours etc), meditation, ATA, relaxation, Katie-esque methods etc - and possibly also by putting oneself in "exposing" situations that somehow externally probe vulnerability even if it doesn't go too deep. But the present state of vulnerability/openness (or effortlessness/honesty/sincerity) is what it is, and thinking about it too much is more likely to just become another obstacle to it (i.e. thinking about it can create more anxiety and hence reduce the feeling of safety that facilitates vulnerability/openness). There's no reason to ignore the bell. Just listen to it until you can't hear it anymore. And then, silence. In other words, a text based discussion forum is probably the exact opposite of what is needed. Yeah I meant that the bell is actually a valuable reminder and shouldn't be ignored (like dharma bells in general). In the example I gave, the dharma-bell is the act of 'noticing' a pull towards an (unwanted) autopilot-reaction of burying oneself back into the domain of thought. Indeed I think a place like this definitely has its dangers for an over-thinker like myself. But I think noticing or being clear and aware is the key. On one hand I feel like going to live in a secluded monastery far from civilisation for a year or something would be just the ticket for me!  But on the other I also see that there's an element of escapism in why the idea appeals to me. In any case in practice I couldn't do it now and I also need to finish a PhD, so I cannot really avoid succumbing to the domain of analysis, speculation, intellectualisation etc. Perhaps I can try to engage in these kind of activities with ever-increasing clarity, and see if I can reach / maintain some kind of stillness/peace behind them - the ever-present unmoving/unchanging awareness that's witnessing the moving surface. 👍 |
|
|
|
Post by wei sa on Oct 9, 2016 1:11:59 GMT -5
This might be true, but I think one common trap in the spiritual domain is that when one starts to enter an area of contemplation that gives little food for thought - e.g. that of the unchanging awareness, which, as Reefs put it, has "nothing to conceptualize" - one starts to get fidgety and automatically gravitates towards an area that gives more food for thought - e.g. that of conditioning, which is an endless resource for indulgent speculation. Some Zen-folks advice that "don't check", i.e. get rid of the habit of constantly checking your thoughts about something - how you're doing, your likes and dislikes, what you think of something etc. I think conditioning is a classic thing that one can be in a habit of constantly "checking" when on a spiritual path - what kind of conditioning one perceives that one has, is it desirable or not, is it changing (or "improving") or not, how is it likely to change in the future if this or that happens etc. I think I'm a bit caught in this too. But ultimately it might be better to take the handbrake off and stop this. 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. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2016 4:20:41 GMT -5
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? I'm not talking about purification of the mind. I don't even know what that means. Yes, I know you haven't talked about purification of the mind in that post, you've written of a purification of an already pristine and ancient nervous system as I said. The admittance that you don't know what purification of the mind means is quite curious, as you had a lot to say against it at one point. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2016 4:52:22 GMT -5
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? The thing with 'the object' of sensation is it has no objectivity or substance as it transforms momentarily. This is where the concept of 'letting go' can become misconstrued as 'becoming unaware of'. 'Letting go' is better expressed as 'letting be', but even then, 'letting' still implies a permissive subject who decides to allow. The best way, I think, to express it is to say 'it is' and remove the subject who allows, lets, resists, clings and what have you, then we can say you are 'aware of what is'. This is important in terms of the purification project because to to bring the conscious awareness to 'what is' without allowing and disallowing and accepting or resisting is describable as 'pure awareness' or to 'see'. The purity of seeing is the 'purifying agent'. In common terms this means to be present with what's going on without the judgment of like/dislike and so forth. Then impurity, defilement, blocks, obstacles or whatever word, can be simply recognised, and because there is no longer some adverse reaction to them, they can just be. Since the fundamental nature of everything is change, this ability of 'it is', is, in fact, the ability of transformation. Because the reaction defenses have ceased, the production of impurity has ended, and by that same cessation of reactivity, the old stuck impurities are enabled fluid transformation. Even though is may be described as change, is can also be seen to be indivisible. |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Oct 9, 2016 7:16:47 GMT -5
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? The thing with 'the object' of sensation is it has no objectivity or substance as it transforms momentarily. This is where the concept of 'letting go' can become misconstrued as 'becoming unaware of'. 'Letting go' is better expressed as 'letting be', but even then, 'letting' still implies a permissive subject who decides to allow. The best way, I think, to express it is to say 'it is' and remove the subject who allows, lets, resists, clings and what have you, then we can say you are 'aware of what is'. This is important in terms of the purification project because to to bring the conscious awareness to 'what is' without allowing and disallowing and accepting or resisting is describable as 'pure awareness' or to 'see'. The purity of seeing is the 'purifying agent'. In common terms this means to be present with what's going on without the judgment of like/dislike and so forth. Then impurity, defilement, blocks, obstacles or whatever word, can be simply recognised, and because there is no longer some adverse reaction to them, they can just be. Since the fundamental nature of everything is change, this ability of 'it is', is, in fact, the ability of transformation. Because the reaction defenses have ceased, the production of impurity has ended, and by that same cessation of reactivity, the old stuck impurities are enabled fluid transformation. I agree with all this and it's pretty much a description of meditation, my type anyway. What's left out, though, is the key part of how the cessation of reactivity comes about. I have my own thoughts on this, but I'm curious what yours are in the context of what you wrote. What it seems to me you're saying (and you can correct me if needed) is that reactivity is the impurity. So to be aware without reactivity is the process but then also the final outcome/transformation. Almost like a 'fake it till you make it' thing. Yes, no? |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Oct 9, 2016 7:24:57 GMT -5
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). The bolded is an important idea to talk about, if one starts with the easy realization that reality can only be an appearance to awareness could be the first step, but Sdp may not agree ? Well, before that "easy realization", you'd have to decide if awareness is the only actual reality. I believe that's what a lot of back-and-forth is here. If awareness is all that's truly real, then anything that appears to it is not real. And that goes counter to the experience of living life. Conversely, if life/existence is real, then awareness is not related in any way to real/not real. It's just...aware. And then it WOULD be an easy realization, and further - the true question of what's-real-what's-not relates to experience only. Which is where, imo, it belongs. |
|
But on the other I also see that there's an element of escapism in why the idea appeals to me. In any case in practice I couldn't do it now and I also need to finish a PhD, so I cannot really avoid succumbing to the domain of analysis, speculation, intellectualisation etc. Perhaps I can try to engage in these kind of activities with ever-increasing clarity, and see if I can reach / maintain some kind of stillness/peace behind them - the ever-present unmoving/unchanging awareness that's witnessing the moving surface. 