|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 4, 2024 9:37:54 GMT -5
Bingo. ZD has always refused to consider this, as for ZD, there is no inside and no outside. However, energy flows where attention goes. Listed are the seven requirements for correct self-observation. ATA inwardly is self-observation (called active awareness in the quote). emerge is the key word. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Chapter 2 The Activation of Consciousness The problem of the activation of human consciousness is one whose difficulty and sublety cannot be overemphasized. Especially is this so in the case of the naturally predisposed intellectualist or 'thinker,' for he is that type of man in whom the cortical activity of the correlation neurons is very complex and frequently intense also. This intensity, registered in his actually passive experience, makes it most difficult for him to recognize that the activity is not his own (this is ZD's recognition of the illusory nature of self, note sdp) but, instead, is that of his nervous system (the self-circuits, note sdp). To be sure, the purpose implied here is to make the activity his own eventually; but obviously, if he mistakenly assumes that it is now already his own (which is the case with most people, note sdp), nothing can be accomplished toward reversing the his really passive consciousness (the meaning of non-volition) until his mistaken opinion about its present nature has been reversed. A great many persons entertain the false belief that their consciousness is active when in fact all of the involved activity is simply neurological. One way in which to destroy the delusion (that we have volition, note sdp) is through careful and sincere reflection upon the true nature of the case (this doesn't work so well, note sdp); the other way is by means of the technique shortly to be described (the seven), through the practice of which anyone ( emphasis sdp) may become convinced that his behavior is mechanical and automatic, including his mental behavior. (that is, he has no volition, note sdp). Thus the first great difficulty is the false assumption that, because the thoughts are active, therefore the consciousness or conscious-relationship-to-them is active. If this does not arise from the mistaken identification of consciousness with thought process, it will often lead to it. But consciousness is no more to be identified with thought process (despite the latter's complexity) than with the knee jerk, or any other purely physiological, reflex. Thought process, too, is neurological activity (we could note here that Tenka calls all neurological activity, thought, sdp), but consciousness is the relationship to neurological activity which creates experience for the subject. (He's saying there consciousness is different and separate from thought-as-function, note sdp. And, basically, we can share thoughts with another, but as Federico Fa ggin found out, we can only know consciousness in ourselves, it can't be shared with another. This is also where Gopal is correct, technically, we can't know if others are *~real~* or not, we can only know we our self, is conscious, real). He gets deep into the weeds for two paragraphs about the functions, physical movement, sensory response, conceptual thinking and feelings/emotions, but emerges: The novel, and indeed the sole, activity in which the subject himself can engage purely upon his own initiative is an active awareness of all the aforementioned processes. (That is, what is it that a man (or woman, of course) can actually do?, note sdp) This may sound easy but it is indeed an extremely formidable undertaking even to understand the exact meaning of such a type of awareness. Our usual awareness is an automatic response to predetermined stimulation and it is precisely this type of awareness that is passive in character and that defines our passive type of consciousness. (Again, the meaning here is that we have no volition, passive means it merely happens). What is indicated now is an active type of awareness; and the reversed distinction is highly difficult to apprehend. Of what is one to be aware in this fashion? There is only a single entity of which one can be aware directly, and that is one's own body (this is what lolly has discovered, so he is more on the right track than others here). pages 29, 30, 31, The Human States of Consciousness by C. Daly King, 1963. King was a student of AR Orage, a student of Gurdjieff. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Here are the seven requirements for correct self-observation, mentioned in the quote above. King uses the term active awareness. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ We may summarize the characteristics of active awareness as: 1. excluding any element of criticism; 2. excluding any element of tutorialness (not having any idea of self-teaching or learning-from, note sdp, inavalan can look up the word for us); 3. excluding any element of analysis or other mental process (for Tenka, that means no conceptualization of any kind); 4. involving a complete non-identification from the organism; 5. being directed only toward the prescribed area of objectivity (this was someNOTHING's question, note sdp); 6. involving the mediation of all sensations appropriate to its objects; 7. not being limited in its exercise to any special times or places. The core of this technique and by far its most important feature lies in its fourth definitory characteristic, the attitude of non-identification from which it is exercised. This objectivizing the 'I'-entity (what we call the self, or person, the small s self, note sdp) by setting it to one side while the organic body is set to the other side, involves in the first place a distinct division of our energies of attention. ...It implies also the possibility of a state of consciousness beyond our ordinary present experience, of greater clarity and extent than the waking state to which we are accustomed. ...all seven defining characteristic, as rigorously described above, must be present without fail if active awareness is to be exercised. If a single characteristic be lacking, then, whatever may be taking place, it cannot, by definition, be active awareness. pages 40, 41 ( emphasis sdp) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ And all this is why Zen answers come from the body, and not the thing above the shoulders (the intellectual center, which is actually the weakest center in most people). This is also why Albert Low mentions Gurdjieff at least once in all his books, he had an interesting link to Gurdjieff. It is also why Charlotte Joko Beck said she learned more from The Supreme Doctrine, by Hubert Benoit, than from any teacher. Welp, you'd have to ask ZD whether or not he agrees with your conclusion about his refusing to consider the 'inward' aspect. It is a dualistic term, obviously, so I'd understand the refusal in certain contexts, and he did practice zazen meditation for 20-30 years or so. We know what the Zennies don't really subscribe to with respect to thought in general, and what satori, kensho, etc refer to (at least theoretically). All systems for 'achieving' realization (like Gurdji's, or Zen) are considered as potential paths through the river of thought... are intended/assumed to be of use. So, is the self-remembering the same as 'first you gotta row a little boat'? Because the YOU/SELF the greatererer literature has been talking about and pointing to is not you/self. And using thought to traverse the thought river can be a dubious endeavor, however well-intended. Is it within the realm of infinite potential? Sure, but stumble one must. ATA is tantric. There is no inner, there is no outer. When there is no tension in attention, there is awareness. The direction of the vector doesn't matter.  |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 4, 2024 10:52:05 GMT -5
Bingo. ZD has always refused to consider this, as for ZD, there is no inside and no outside. However, energy flows where attention goes. Listed are the seven requirements for correct self-observation. ATA inwardly is self-observation (called active awareness in the quote). emerge is the key word. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Chapter 2 The Activation of Consciousness The problem of the activation of human consciousness is one whose difficulty and sublety cannot be overemphasized. Especially is this so in the case of the naturally predisposed intellectualist or 'thinker,' for he is that type of man in whom the cortical activity of the correlation neurons is very complex and frequently intense also. This intensity, registered in his actually passive experience, makes it most difficult for him to recognize that the activity is not his own (this is ZD's recognition of the illusory nature of self, note sdp) but, instead, is that of his nervous system (the self-circuits, note sdp). To be sure, the purpose implied here is to make the activity his own eventually; but obviously, if he mistakenly assumes that it is now already his own (which is the case with most people, note sdp), nothing can be accomplished toward reversing the his really passive consciousness (the meaning of non-volition) until his mistaken opinion about its present nature has been reversed. A great many persons entertain the false belief that their consciousness is active when in fact all of the involved activity is simply neurological. One way in which to destroy the delusion (that we have volition, note sdp) is through careful and sincere reflection upon the true nature of the case (this doesn't work so well, note sdp); the other way is by means of the technique shortly to be described (the seven), through the practice of which anyone ( emphasis sdp) may become convinced that his behavior is mechanical and automatic, including his mental behavior. (that is, he has no volition, note sdp). Thus the first great difficulty is the false assumption that, because the thoughts are active, therefore the consciousness or conscious-relationship-to-them is active. If this does not arise from the mistaken identification of consciousness with thought process, it will often lead to it. But consciousness is no more to be identified with thought process (despite the latter's complexity) than with the knee jerk, or any other purely physiological, reflex. Thought process, too, is neurological activity (we could note here that Tenka calls all neurological activity, thought, sdp), but consciousness is the relationship to neurological activity which creates experience for the subject. (He's saying there consciousness is different and separate from thought-as-function, note sdp. And, basically, we can share thoughts with another, but as Federico Fa ggin found out, we can only know consciousness in ourselves, it can't be shared with another. This is also where Gopal is correct, technically, we can't know if others are *~real~* or not, we can only know we our self, is conscious, real). He gets deep into the weeds for two paragraphs about the functions, physical movement, sensory response, conceptual thinking and feelings/emotions, but emerges: The novel, and indeed the sole, activity in which the subject himself can engage purely upon his own initiative is an active awareness of all the aforementioned processes. (That is, what is it that a man (or woman, of course) can actually do?, note sdp) This may sound easy but it is indeed an extremely formidable undertaking even to understand the exact meaning of such a type of awareness. Our usual awareness is an automatic response to predetermined stimulation and it is precisely this type of awareness that is passive in character and that defines our passive type of consciousness. (Again, the meaning here is that we have no volition, passive means it merely happens). What is indicated now is an active type of awareness; and the reversed distinction is highly difficult to apprehend. Of what is one to be aware in this fashion? There is only a single entity of which one can be aware directly, and that is one's own body (this is what lolly has discovered, so he is more on the right track than others here). pages 29, 30, 31, The Human States of Consciousness by C. Daly King, 1963. King was a student of AR Orage, a student of Gurdjieff. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Here are the seven requirements for correct self-observation, mentioned in the quote above. King uses the term active awareness. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ We may summarize the characteristics of active awareness as: 1. excluding any element of criticism; 2. excluding any element of tutorialness (not having any idea of self-teaching or learning-from, note sdp, inavalan can look up the word for us); 3. excluding any element of analysis or other mental process (for Tenka, that means no conceptualization of any kind); 4. involving a complete non-identification from the organism; 5. being directed only toward the prescribed area of objectivity (this was someNOTHING's question, note sdp); 6. involving the mediation of all sensations appropriate to its objects; 7. not being limited in its exercise to any special times or places. The core of this technique and by far its most important feature lies in its fourth definitory characteristic, the attitude of non-identification from which it is exercised. This objectivizing the 'I'-entity (what we call the self, or person, the small s self, note sdp) by setting it to one side while the organic body is set to the other side, involves in the first place a distinct division of our energies of attention. ...It implies also the possibility of a state of consciousness beyond our ordinary present experience, of greater clarity and extent than the waking state to which we are accustomed. ...all seven defining characteristic, as rigorously described above, must be present without fail if active awareness is to be exercised. If a single characteristic be lacking, then, whatever may be taking place, it cannot, by definition, be active awareness. pages 40, 41 ( emphasis sdp) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ And all this is why Zen answers come from the body, and not the thing above the shoulders (the intellectual center, which is actually the weakest center in most people). This is also why Albert Low mentions Gurdjieff at least once in all his books, he had an interesting link to Gurdjieff. It is also why Charlotte Joko Beck said she learned more from The Supreme Doctrine, by Hubert Benoit, than from any teacher. Welp, you'd have to ask ZD whether or not he agrees with your conclusion about his refusing to consider the 'inward' aspect. It is a dualistic term, obviously, so I'd understand the refusal in certain contexts, and he did practice zazen meditation for 20-30 years or so. We know what the Zennies don't really subscribe to with respect to thought in general, and what satori, kensho, etc refer to (at least theoretically). All systems for 'achieving' realization (like Gurdji's, or Zen) are considered as potential paths through the river of thought... are intended/assumed to be of use. So, is the self-remembering the same as 'first you gotta row a little boat'? Because the YOU/SELF the greatererer literature has been talking about and pointing to is not you/self. And using thought to traverse the thought river can be a dubious endeavor, however well-intended. Is it within the realm of infinite potential? Sure, but stumble one must. I would have thought you would have at least read the 7 characteristics of active awareness (self-observation). If you had you couldn't have made the comment you did. It all has absolutely nothing to do with thought. Last line in my signature, self-remembering has two meanings. You could say the first is a kind of rowing. The second is like...the Starship Enterprise. But you never get to the second without the first. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 4, 2024 12:34:25 GMT -5
Do you think it's possible that something else could emerge from ATA-T inwardly (rather than 'outward') sensing, absent the minds conclusions clouding the view? I wonder if that was part of the 'advanced' practices.But yes, lots of futility is typically experienced in the journey/path. Joseph Campbell presented that well in his discussions on the Hero with a Thousand Faces, to reveal what's behind the mask. I haven't gotten around to listening to F aggin in full, but got the gist of his descriptions while doing dishes. He's coming to terms with it, and may be able to present it in a way that a larger part of the scientific audience can relate to. Insh'allah let's see what happens. . ZD has always refused to consider this, as for ZD, there is no inside and no outside. However, energy flows where attention goes. Listed are the seven requirements for correct self-observation. ATA inwardly is self-observation (called active awareness in the quote). emerge is the key word. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Chapter 2 The Activation of Consciousness The problem of the activation of human consciousness is one whose difficulty and sublety cannot be overemphasized. Especially is this so in the case of the naturally predisposed intellectualist or 'thinker,' for he is that type of man in whom the cortical activity of the correlation neurons is very complex and frequently intense also. This intensity, registered in his actually passive experience, makes it most difficult for him to recognize that the activity is not his own (this is ZD's recognition of the illusory nature of self, note sdp) but, instead, is that of his nervous system (the self-circuits, note sdp). To be sure, the purpose implied here is to make the activity his own eventually; but obviously, if he mistakenly assumes that it is now already his own (which is the case with most people, note sdp), nothing can be accomplished toward reversing the his really passive consciousness (the meaning of non-volition) until his mistaken opinion about its present nature has been reversed. A great many persons entertain the false belief that their consciousness is active when in fact all of the involved activity is simply neurological. One way in which to destroy the delusion (that we have volition, note sdp) is through careful and sincere reflection upon the true nature of the case (this doesn't work so well, note sdp); the other way is by means of the technique shortly to be described (the seven), through the practice of which anyone ( emphasis sdp) may become convinced that his behavior is mechanical and automatic, including his mental behavior. (that is, he has no volition, note sdp). Thus the first great difficulty is the false assumption that, because the thoughts are active, therefore the consciousness or conscious-relationship-to-them is active. If this does not arise from the mistaken identification of consciousness with thought process, it will often lead to it. But consciousness is no more to be identified with thought process (despite the latter's complexity) than with the knee jerk, or any other purely physiological, reflex. Thought process, too, is neurological activity (we could note here that Tenka calls all neurological activity, thought, sdp), but consciousness is the relationship to neurological activity which creates experience for the subject. (He's saying there consciousness is different and separate from thought-as-function, note sdp. And, basically, we can share thoughts with another, but as Federico Fa ggin found out, we can only know consciousness in ourselves, it can't be shared with another. This is also where Gopal is correct, technically, we can't know if others are *~real~* or not, we can only know we our self, is conscious, real). He gets deep into the weeds for two paragraphs about the functions, physical movement, sensory response, conceptual thinking and feelings/emotions, but emerges: The novel, and indeed the sole, activity in which the subject himself can engage purely upon his own initiative is an active awareness of all the aforementioned processes. (That is, what is it that a man (or woman, of course) can actually do?, note sdp) This may sound easy but it is indeed an extremely formidable undertaking even to understand the exact meaning of such a type of awareness. Our usual awareness is an automatic response to predetermined stimulation and it is precisely this type of awareness that is passive in character and that defines our passive type of consciousness. (Again, the meaning here is that we have no volition, passive means it merely happens). What is indicated now is an active type of awareness; and the reversed distinction is highly difficult to apprehend. Of what is one to be aware in this fashion? There is only a single entity of which one can be aware directly, and that is one's own body (this is what lolly has discovered, so he is more on the right track than others here). pages 29, 30, 31, The Human States of Consciousness by C. Daly King, 1963. King was a student of AR Orage, a student of Gurdjieff. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Here are the seven requirements for correct self-observation, mentioned in the quote above. King uses the term active awareness. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ We may summarize the characteristics of active awareness as: 1. excluding any element of criticism; 2. excluding any element of tutorialness (not having any idea of self-teaching or learning-from, note sdp, inavalan can look up the word for us); 3. excluding any element of analysis or other mental process (for Tenka, that means no conceptualization of any kind); 4. involving a complete non-identification from the organism; 5. being directed only toward the prescribed area of objectivity (this was someNOTHING's question, note sdp); 6. involving the mediation of all sensations appropriate to its objects; 7. not being limited in its exercise to any special times or places. The core of this technique and by far its most important feature lies in its fourth definitory characteristic, the attitude of non-identification from which it is exercised. This objectivizing the 'I'-entity (what we call the self, or person, the small s self, note sdp) by setting it to one side while the organic body is set to the other side, involves in the first place a distinct division of our energies of attention. ...It implies also the possibility of a state of consciousness beyond our ordinary present experience, of greater clarity and extent than the waking state to which we are accustomed. ...all seven defining characteristic, as rigorously described above, must be present without fail if active awareness is to be exercised. If a single characteristic be lacking, then, whatever may be taking place, it cannot, by definition, be active awareness. pages 40, 41 ( emphasis sdp) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ And all this is why Zen answers come from the body, and not the thing above the shoulders (the intellectual center, which is actually the weakest center in most people). This is also why Albert Low mentions Gurdjieff at least once in all his books, he had an interesting link to Gurdjieff. It is also why Charlotte Joko Beck said she learned more from The Supreme Doctrine, by Hubert Benoit, than from any teacher. Going to emphasize a few things for laughter, he may or may not be interested. (Bazinga, I don't know how to otherwise single out a post, to link). I find it quite interesting that two posts so closely related came up within about 12 hours of each other. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 4, 2024 12:45:09 GMT -5
Ok, told the Tolle tale many times past, the readers digest version is: had no knowledge of meditation, nonduality and only a vague notion of Eastern metaphysical thought or even Western philosophy at the time. Tolle suggests meditation in Now, of various forms (mostly moving/eyes open) without calling it meditation. The result for me after a few weeks was a total-bliss-out, and a complete quelling of my interests in history and science. Lucky beginner's mind. Months later I was all like " wow .. what was that??  ". That's the prelude. Looking back, that's when seeking and self-inquiry went from subconscious to conscious. I landed at the forum I describe here. At the time it was #1 on the google result for "Tolle discussion". There was a moderator, Sighclone Andy, he posted something simple (to everyone) that went along the lines of: "if you think your thoughts are 'yours', this is incorrect", and I thought that a bit extreme, but was surprised that I had to sorta' agree with it. Then I started debating the evil frog about free will. The idea of free will is so embedded into the culture that I grew up in that I never considered the idea before then. I was surprised that all the arguments that I made against the frog had to dead-end on negating the notion of predetermination. I couldn't deny the direct experience of the absence of self-reference from the bliss-out. I couldn't make a sincere argument for free will, because I couldn't make a sincere argument in favor of an individuated entity that was the source of the "will". This sort of shocked me, at the time. Sighclone Andy was generally supportive of my position in the argument, but at the same time didn't directly contradict the frog. Andy recommended The Iron Cow of Zen. This mind was later informed of the glorious confusion that can be had at the top of the flag pole.  Just an interesting correspondence, linking an earlier post (just above), suitably bolded correspondence, two subjects. laughter may or may not be interested. All this also answers tenka's concern (at least speaks to) that there is a personal person, and zazeniac's walk on the tightrope. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 4, 2024 15:06:50 GMT -5
SDP: I'm not clear about the meaning of #6. All of the other numbered statements certainly apply to ATA-T.
As for the inside/outside dichotomy, that's a common way of thinking about reality, but in 1999 when the sense of "me" vanished, so did the imaginary boundary between inside and outside. Why? Because there was no longer anything "inside." If I attempt to look "within," there's nothing there to see whereas in the past I would often look "inside" to see what I thought or felt about whatever was happening. I assume that the idea of an "inside" arose because of self-referential thinking.
If we wanted to, we could imagine that thoughts and feelings are "inside," but that's no longer the way it feels here. For this character, as I've mentioned before, life is more like a state of flow, or perhaps we could call it "a flow of presence" if that makes any sense.
You often ask about "states of consciousness," and the other night just before falling asleep I thought of a phrase that might explicate this issue in an interesting way, but when I woke up the next day I couldn't remember what it was. Haha. I'll get back to this issue later.
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 4, 2024 16:40:06 GMT -5
SDP: I'm not clear about the meaning of #6. All of the other numbered statements certainly apply to ATA-T. As for the inside/outside dichotomy, that's a common way of thinking about reality, but in 1999 when the sense of "me" vanished, so did the imaginary boundary between inside and outside. Why? Because there was no longer anything "inside." If I attempt to look "within," there's nothing there to see whereas in the past I would often look "inside" to see what I thought or felt about whatever was happening. I assume that the idea of an "inside" arose because of self-referential thinking. If we wanted to, we could imagine that thoughts and feelings are "inside," but that's no longer the way it feels here. For this character, as I've mentioned before, life is more like a state of flow, or perhaps we could call it "a flow of presence" if that makes any sense. You often ask about "states of consciousness," and the other night just before falling asleep I thought of a phrase that might explicate this issue in an interesting way, but when I woke up the next day I couldn't remember what it was. Haha. I'll get back to this issue later. #6: involving the mediation of all sensations appropriate to its objects; I had planned to just list the seven, but when I pulled the book off my shelf I began to reread the appropriate chapter. I decided the quotes were a needed backdrop. The most pertinent was the following: "Of what is one to be aware in this fashion? There is only a single entity of which one can be aware directly, and that is one's own body". This connects back to #5, being directed only toward the prescribed area of objectivity; meaning, the physical body. We have 5 physical senses, eyes-seeing, nose-smelling, ears-hearing, tongue-tasting and skin-feeling/touch (which must not be confused with emotional-feeling, I don't know why English uses the same word for two different functions). All sensations are mediated through one of the five. So I'm pretty sure #6 is pretty simple, I don't recall it being discussed to any extent. It just means a sensation perceived, comes-through a specific body-sense. Tongue-tasting and skin-feeling/touching would be most apparently directly related to the body, but the other three are also, just not as apparently. It also means to observe the sense appropriate to what it senses. You wouldn't try to observe yourself tasting a peach by holding it in your hand (sense of touch), you observe taking a bite of it, and its effect in relation to your tongue, taste buds. (Of course your tongue also has the sense of touch). ATA-T would of course apply to all five. (And if inavalan reads this.....). If you arrive-at again the explication of "states of consciousness", let me know. The most pertinent part of the quote, related, is: "What is indicated now is an active type of awareness; and the reversed distinction is highly difficult to apprehend". And: "...It implies also the possibility of a state of consciousness beyond our ordinary present experience, of greater clarity and extent than the waking state to which we are accustomed". As concerning this, you have thoughts sometimes, where do they take place? (Not trying to be silly, seriously) do they happen in your wife's head?, the refrigerator?, your hammock?, the top of the mountain? |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 4, 2024 17:19:37 GMT -5
A note on language and meaning. self-remembering is just a name, I use it as we were taught to use a common language, but it doesn't really reference its meaning. But nothing will reference its meaning. Please describe to me the taste of a peach. You can't, it takes a tongue to know what a peach tastes like. There is a practice self-remembering, which can be put into ten words, and a little differently, eight words, (a "recipe"). Years later our teacher added six words, but from the very beginning the added six words, were apparent, I understood them immediately (from the eight). The state of self-remembering, cannot be described in any number of words, kind of like the taste of a peach (only remotely like). But then you understand the recipe. So any word-name is like any other word-name, you basically have to know what it means before you know what it means (dictionaries just take you to other words), the word is just a signifier. I'm sure in HS or college you had the debate, what if we called red, green, and we called, green, red. And even now, what if what you call green is actually my red, how would you ever know the difference? (For about ten years we had a colorblind electrician that worked for us, he could not distinguish between green and blue. He had to devise work-arounds, as green is the ground and blue is a hot (current carrying color), and they don't mix).
Now, I said that because C. Daly King, in the quote [post] above, uses different words to indicate self-observation, he uses the words active awareness. He says self-observation was used at the Institute (for the Harmonious Development of Man), but it's not the self that is observed. He uses the word I-entity (self, small s self, person). In the earlier quote he says the I-entity is illusory, so it can't be the I-entity which is observed, it's impossible for the I-entity to observe the I-entity, so he said self-observation is not the best of words to be the signifier (my words, not his). However, thoughts exist, feelings/emotions exist, sensations exist, bodily actions/movements exist. It's these which are observed in active awareness (AKA self-observation). (I was going to quote him directly, but my synopsis was quicker, as I have to walk before it gets darker).
In the book he also discusses self-remembering, he uses different words to signify it also. (OK, while I'm here. JG Bennett devised a whole different language for the Gurdjieff teaching, his own, which is pretty...nonsensical, as one shouldn't have to learn a new language to read Bennett. He basically misunderstood one idea, that you have to recreate the teaching).
|
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 4, 2024 18:21:25 GMT -5
SDP: I'm not clear about the meaning of #6. All of the other numbered statements certainly apply to ATA-T. As for the inside/outside dichotomy, that's a common way of thinking about reality, but in 1999 when the sense of "me" vanished, so did the imaginary boundary between inside and outside. Why? Because there was no longer anything "inside." If I attempt to look "within," there's nothing there to see whereas in the past I would often look "inside" to see what I thought or felt about whatever was happening. I assume that the idea of an "inside" arose because of self-referential thinking. If we wanted to, we could imagine that thoughts and feelings are "inside," but that's no longer the way it feels here. For this character, as I've mentioned before, life is more like a state of flow, or perhaps we could call it "a flow of presence" if that makes any sense. You often ask about "states of consciousness," and the other night just before falling asleep I thought of a phrase that might explicate this issue in an interesting way, but when I woke up the next day I couldn't remember what it was. Haha. I'll get back to this issue later. #6: involving the mediation of all sensations appropriate to its objects; I had planned to just list the seven, but when I pulled the book off my shelf I began to reread the appropriate chapter. I decided the quotes were a needed backdrop. The most pertinent was the following: "Of what is one to be aware in this fashion? There is only a single entity of which one can be aware directly, and that is one's own body". This connects back to #5, being directed only toward the prescribed area of objectivity; meaning, the physical body. We have 5 physical senses, eyes-seeing, nose-smelling, ears-hearing, tongue-tasting and skin-feeling/touch (which must not be confused with emotional-feeling, I don't know why English uses the same word for two different functions). All sensations are mediated through one of the five. So I'm pretty sure #6 is pretty simple, I don't recall it being discussed to any extent. It just means a sensation perceived, comes-through a specific body-sense. Tongue-tasting and skin-feeling/touching would be most apparently directly related to the body, but the other three are also, just not as apparently. ATA-T would of course apply to all five. (And if inavalan reads this.....). If you arrive-at again the explication of "states of consciousness", let me know. The most pertinent part of the quote, related, is: "What is indicated now is an active type of awareness; and the reversed distinction is highly difficult to apprehend". And: "...It implies also the possibility of a state of consciousness beyond our ordinary present experience, of greater clarity and extent than the waking state to which we are accustomed". As concerning this, you have thoughts sometimes, where do they take place? (Not trying to be silly, seriously) do they happen in your wife's head?, the refrigerator?, your hammock?, the top of the mountain? Thoughts take place here, in THIS (THIS being the field of all being and all apparent happening). We could also say that thoughts appear within consciousness like everything else, but are not personal in the same way as before or locatable in anything other than consciousness. I doubt that what I'm pointing to can be communicated in words, but perhaps a few people will understand or know how to explain it better. There is awareness of what people call "the physical world" and there is awareness of thoughts and feelings, but there's no feeling of anything being inside or outside as in the past. |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Jan 4, 2024 20:33:38 GMT -5
Welp, you'd have to ask ZD whether or not he agrees with your conclusion about his refusing to consider the 'inward' aspect. It is a dualistic term, obviously, so I'd understand the refusal in certain contexts, and he did practice zazen meditation for 20-30 years or so. We know what the Zennies don't really subscribe to with respect to thought in general, and what satori, kensho, etc refer to (at least theoretically). All systems for 'achieving' realization (like Gurdji's, or Zen) are considered as potential paths through the river of thought... are intended/assumed to be of use. So, is the self-remembering the same as 'first you gotta row a little boat'? Because the YOU/SELF the greatererer literature has been talking about and pointing to is not you/self. And using thought to traverse the thought river can be a dubious endeavor, however well-intended. Is it within the realm of infinite potential? Sure, but stumble one must. ATA is tantric. There is no inner, there is no outer. When there is no tension in attention, there is awareness. The direction of the vector doesn't matter. Tantra is an interesting approach, and yeah, I can see how the merging of polarities could take place if followed through via ATA, taking one from the mat to real life. I once read about Tantric Kundalini as a meditational approach and it seemed to check off on the flag pole scale. |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Jan 4, 2024 20:39:57 GMT -5
Welp, you'd have to ask ZD whether or not he agrees with your conclusion about his refusing to consider the 'inward' aspect. It is a dualistic term, obviously, so I'd understand the refusal in certain contexts, and he did practice zazen meditation for 20-30 years or so. We know what the Zennies don't really subscribe to with respect to thought in general, and what satori, kensho, etc refer to (at least theoretically). All systems for 'achieving' realization (like Gurdji's, or Zen) are considered as potential paths through the river of thought... are intended/assumed to be of use. So, is the self-remembering the same as 'first you gotta row a little boat'? Because the YOU/SELF the greatererer literature has been talking about and pointing to is not you/self. And using thought to traverse the thought river can be a dubious endeavor, however well-intended. Is it within the realm of infinite potential? Sure, but stumble one must. I would have thought you would have at least read the 7 characteristics of active awareness (self-observation). If you had you couldn't have made the comment you did. It all has absolutely nothing to do with thought. Last line in my signature, self-remembering has two meanings. You could say the first is a kind of rowing. The second is like...the Starship Enterprise. But you never get to the second without the first. I did read the 7 characteristics of active awareness (self-observation), and was wondering if this is what you meant by ‘self-remembering’ and/or ‘rowing a little boat’. I think it relates to both ATA-T and/or meditation. It’s a technique that can serve an intent or purpose related to what folks call a spiritual search, many of which refer to some penultimate realization, yes? Could the technique bear some fruit, destroy some delusion, or make one more prone to the flush? Sure. I made the comment I did, so maybe this clarifies what it was about. Dunno. So, if I am hearing your thoughts correctly, are you now using the framework to inform your understanding of where each poster here may be coming from and/or share what you think they are potentially missing as a prerequisite to realization? If the latter, I’m not entirely sure how it will serve you with respect to the original intent(s) of the technique. A lot of it seems to align very much withe general via negativa / neti neti theme that we often hit on here, no? I’m very focused on a project right now, so the attention is being directed elsewhere. At this moment, I do not have the bandwidth to unpack each concept and go into detail. Perhaps we’ll circle back around to it later. I'll catch up with any follow up with others in the meantime. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 4, 2024 20:55:13 GMT -5
I would have thought you would have at least read the 7 characteristics of active awareness (self-observation). If you had you couldn't have made the comment you did. It all has absolutely nothing to do with thought. Last line in my signature, self-remembering has two meanings. You could say the first is a kind of rowing. The second is like...the Starship Enterprise. But you never get to the second without the first. I did read the 7 characteristics of active awareness (self-observation), and was wondering if this is what you meant by ‘self-remembering’ and/or ‘rowing a little boat’. I think it relates to both ATA-T and/or meditation. It’s a technique that can serve an intent or purpose related to what folks call a spiritual search, many of which refer to some penultimate realization, yes? Could the technique bear some fruit, destroy some delusion, or make one more prone to the flush? Sure. I made the comment I did, so maybe this clarifies what it was about. Dunno. So, if I am hearing your thoughts correctly, are you now using the framework to inform your understanding of where each poster here may be coming from and/or share what you think they are potentially missing as a prerequisite to realization? If the latter, I’m not entirely sure how it will serve you with respect to the original intent(s) of the technique. A lot of it seems to align very much withe general via negativa / neti neti theme that we often hit on here, no? I’m very focused on a project right now, so the attention is being directed elsewhere. At this moment, I do not have the bandwidth to unpack each concept and go into detail. Perhaps we’ll circle back around to it later. I'll catch up with any follow up with others in the meantime. . |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 5, 2024 5:20:12 GMT -5
Bingo. ZD has always refused to consider this, as for ZD, there is no inside and no outside. However, energy flows where attention goes. Listed are the seven requirements for correct self-observation. ATA inwardly is self-observation (called active awareness in the quote). emerge is the key word. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Chapter 2 The Activation of Consciousness The problem of the activation of human consciousness is one whose difficulty and sublety cannot be overemphasized. Especially is this so in the case of the naturally predisposed intellectualist or 'thinker,' for he is that type of man in whom the cortical activity of the correlation neurons is very complex and frequently intense also. This intensity, registered in his actually passive experience, makes it most difficult for him to recognize that the activity is not his own (this is ZD's recognition of the illusory nature of self, note sdp) but, instead, is that of his nervous system (the self-circuits, note sdp). To be sure, the purpose implied here is to make the activity his own eventually; but obviously, if he mistakenly assumes that it is now already his own (which is the case with most people, note sdp), nothing can be accomplished toward reversing the his really passive consciousness (the meaning of non-volition) until his mistaken opinion about its present nature has been reversed. A great many persons entertain the false belief that their consciousness is active when in fact all of the involved activity is simply neurological. One way in which to destroy the delusion (that we have volition, note sdp) is through careful and sincere reflection upon the true nature of the case (this doesn't work so well, note sdp); the other way is by means of the technique shortly to be described (the seven), through the practice of which anyone ( emphasis sdp) may become convinced that his behavior is mechanical and automatic, including his mental behavior. (that is, he has no volition, note sdp). Thus the first great difficulty is the false assumption that, because the thoughts are active, therefore the consciousness or conscious-relationship-to-them is active. If this does not arise from the mistaken identification of consciousness with thought process, it will often lead to it. But consciousness is no more to be identified with thought process (despite the latter's complexity) than with the knee jerk, or any other purely physiological, reflex. Thought process, too, is neurological activity (we could note here that Tenka calls all neurological activity, thought, sdp), but consciousness is the relationship to neurological activity which creates experience for the subject. (He's saying there consciousness is different and separate from thought-as-function, note sdp. And, basically, we can share thoughts with another, but as Federico Fa ggin found out, we can only know consciousness in ourselves, it can't be shared with another. This is also where Gopal is correct, technically, we can't know if others are *~real~* or not, we can only know we our self, is conscious, real). He gets deep into the weeds for two paragraphs about the functions, physical movement, sensory response, conceptual thinking and feelings/emotions, but emerges: The novel, and indeed the sole, activity in which the subject himself can engage purely upon his own initiative is an active awareness of all the aforementioned processes. (That is, what is it that a man (or woman, of course) can actually do?, note sdp) This may sound easy but it is indeed an extremely formidable undertaking even to understand the exact meaning of such a type of awareness. Our usual awareness is an automatic response to predetermined stimulation and it is precisely this type of awareness that is passive in character and that defines our passive type of consciousness. (Again, the meaning here is that we have no volition, passive means it merely happens). What is indicated now is an active type of awareness; and the reversed distinction is highly difficult to apprehend. Of what is one to be aware in this fashion? There is only a single entity of which one can be aware directly, and that is one's own body (this is what lolly has discovered, so he is more on the right track than others here). pages 29, 30, 31, The Human States of Consciousness by C. Daly King, 1963. King was a student of AR Orage, a student of Gurdjieff. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Here are the seven requirements for correct self-observation, mentioned in the quote above. King uses the term active awareness. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ We may summarize the characteristics of active awareness as: 1. excluding any element of criticism; 2. excluding any element of tutorialness (not having any idea of self-teaching or learning-from, note sdp, inavalan can look up the word for us); 3. excluding any element of analysis or other mental process (for Tenka, that means no conceptualization of any kind); 4. involving a complete non-identification from the organism; 5. being directed only toward the prescribed area of objectivity (this was someNOTHING's question, note sdp); 6. involving the mediation of all sensations appropriate to its objects; 7. not being limited in its exercise to any special times or places. The core of this technique and by far its most important feature lies in its fourth definitory characteristic, the attitude of non-identification from which it is exercised. This objectivizing the 'I'-entity (what we call the self, or person, the small s self, note sdp) by setting it to one side while the organic body is set to the other side, involves in the first place a distinct division of our energies of attention. ...It implies also the possibility of a state of consciousness beyond our ordinary present experience, of greater clarity and extent than the waking state to which we are accustomed. ...all seven defining characteristic, as rigorously described above, must be present without fail if active awareness is to be exercised. If a single characteristic be lacking, then, whatever may be taking place, it cannot, by definition, be active awareness. pages 40, 41 ( emphasis sdp) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ And all this is why Zen answers come from the body, and not the thing above the shoulders (the intellectual center, which is actually the weakest center in most people). This is also why Albert Low mentions Gurdjieff at least once in all his books, he had an interesting link to Gurdjieff. It is also why Charlotte Joko Beck said she learned more from The Supreme Doctrine, by Hubert Benoit, than from any teacher. Going to emphasize a few things for laughter, he may or may not be interested. (Bazinga, I don't know how to otherwise single out a post, to link). I find it quite interesting that two posts so closely related came up within about 12 hours of each other. This is a functional definition of nonvolition. Those are the images on the side of Plato's cave. You, are not a machine. This isn't to say that the 10 gazillionidy thimgamabobbies aren't interesting. Material insights such as the one you allude to here can also be profoundly practical. But metaphysically, there's always another side of the argument. The secular humanist consensus is that consciousness is a gestalt, an emergent phenomenon. If that's the case then we can say the experiments that measure the formation of a thought of intent, and locate the event after the action, are a similar expression of gestalt, and the brain process is just an expression of some other process with a (higher-level) noetic cause. I understand your an inavalen's basis for the idea of a "free will", in the big picture. I'm sure they're are many details each of you could enlighten me about. I've traced the dialog here all the way back to E's 2020 post, and this is where I'll join it: Found this in the poking around. Dimensions or a hierarchy of levels of being doesn't negate ND in any way whatsoever. I'd be curious to read how you might flip this statement in a way that expresses a pointer to ND. Or is that against one of your rules? .. to you: noone really disagrees with what you wrote there. The dimensions and hierarchies aren't negated. They are placed into context, into perspective. There's nothing wrong with spending a lifetime exploring them, refining your understanding and experience. But the notion of free will is premised on a dichotomy, and that dichotomy is, existentially speaking, a misconception. That doesn't mean that functionally speaking, you can't have an interesting and even potentially useful model and even practical engagement with that model, that includes "free will". The gestalt is the illusion, but I still like watching movies. You seem to understand this point about the gestalt, but your understanding of "non-separation", based on the refrigerator experiment, is rooted in functionalism. This is one of those shadows. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 5, 2024 5:34:08 GMT -5
Ok, told the Tolle tale many times past, the readers digest version is: had no knowledge of meditation, nonduality and only a vague notion of Eastern metaphysical thought or even Western philosophy at the time. Tolle suggests meditation in Now, of various forms (mostly moving/eyes open) without calling it meditation. The result for me after a few weeks was a total-bliss-out, and a complete quelling of my interests in history and science. Lucky beginner's mind. Months later I was all like " wow .. what was that?? ". That's the prelude. Looking back, that's when seeking and self-inquiry went from subconscious to conscious. I landed at the forum I describe here. At the time it was #1 on the google result for "Tolle discussion". There was a moderator, Sighclone Andy, he posted something simple (to everyone) that went along the lines of: "if you think your thoughts are 'yours', this is incorrect", and I thought that a bit extreme, but was surprised that I had to sorta' agree with it. Then I started debating the evil frog about free will. The idea of free will is so embedded into the culture that I grew up in that I never considered the idea before then. I was surprised that all the arguments that I made against the frog had to dead-end on negating the notion of predetermination. I couldn't deny the direct experience of the absence of self-reference from the bliss-out. I couldn't make a sincere argument for free will, because I couldn't make a sincere argument in favor of an individuated entity that was the source of the "will". This sort of shocked me, at the time. Sighclone Andy was generally supportive of my position in the argument, but at the same time didn't directly contradict the frog. Andy recommended The Iron Cow of Zen. This mind was later informed of the glorious confusion that can be had at the top of the flag pole. Just an interesting correspondence, linking an earlier post (just above), suitably bolded correspondence, two subjects. laughter may or may not be interested. All this also answers tenka's concern (at least speaks to) that there is a personal person, and zazeniac's walk on the tightrope. I was interested only in so far as to offer a few examples of "informing of mind". Your understanding of personality results in you writing about it in a way that I agree with, but we're coming at it in different ways. You express your understanding in terms of functionality. I consider that to be a shadow on the side of Plato's cave. The source of the shadow is what the Buddhists call "emptiness". People who point using emptiness are sometimes mistaken as dismissing the material and the relative as unimportant. "Spiritual bypassing". Now, bypassing is a thing, but not everyone pointing to emptiness is doing that. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 5, 2024 10:36:15 GMT -5
Going to emphasize a few things for laughter, he may or may not be interested. (Bazinga, I don't know how to otherwise single out a post, to link). I find it quite interesting that two posts so closely related came up within about 12 hours of each other. This is a functional definition of nonvolition. Those are the images on the side of Plato's cave. You, are not a machine. This isn't to say that the 10 gazillionidy thimgamabobbies aren't interesting. Material insights such as the one you allude to here can also be profoundly practical. But metaphysically, there's always another side of the argument. The secular humanist consensus is that consciousness is a gestalt, an emergent phenomenon. If that's the case then we can say the experiments that measure the formation of a thought of intent, and locate the event after the action, are a similar expression of gestalt, and the brain process is just an expression of some other process with a (higher-level) noetic cause. I understand your an inavalen's basis for the idea of a "free will", in the big picture. I'm sure they're are many details each of you could enlighten me about. I've traced the dialog here all the way back to E's 2020 post, and this is where I'll join it: I'd be curious to read how you might flip this statement in a way that expresses a pointer to ND. Or is that against one of your rules? .. to you: noone really disagrees with what you wrote there. The dimensions and hierarchies aren't negated. They are placed into context, into perspective. There's nothing wrong with spending a lifetime exploring them, refining your understanding and experience. But the notion of free will is premised on a dichotomy, and that dichotomy is, existentially speaking, a misconception. That doesn't mean that functionally speaking, you can't have an interesting and even potentially useful model and even practical engagement with that model, that includes "free will". The gestalt is the illusion, but I still like watching movies. You seem to understand this point about the gestalt, but your understanding of "non-separation", based on the refrigerator experiment, is rooted in functionalism. This is one of those shadows. Thanks for taking the time. I've been busy with something else for almost 3 hours, so my brain needs a rest. The refrigerator thought experiment was just a beginning, a theoretical toehold, a metaphor. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 5, 2024 10:37:57 GMT -5
Just an interesting correspondence, linking an earlier post (just above), suitably bolded correspondence, two subjects. laughter may or may not be interested. All this also answers tenka's concern (at least speaks to) that there is a personal person, and zazeniac's walk on the tightrope. I was interested only in so far as to offer a few examples of "informing of mind". Your understanding of personality results in you writing about it in a way that I agree with, but we're coming at it in different ways. You express your understanding in terms of functionality. I consider that to be a shadow on the side of Plato's cave. The source of the shadow is what the Buddhists call "emptiness". People who point using emptiness are sometimes mistaken as dismissing the material and the relative as unimportant. "Spiritual bypassing". Now, bypassing is a thing, but not everyone pointing to emptiness is doing that. Again, thanks for taking the time, I needed to get the other done first. |
|
