|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 5, 2024 12:09:49 GMT -5
#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. Walking yesterday I was considering your question, the following came to mind, I forgot to add, but now suitably edited. 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). |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 5, 2024 12:46:42 GMT -5
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. Walking yesterday I was considering your question, the following came to mind, I forgot to add, but now suitably edited. 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. (Of course your tongue also has the sense of touch). Fortunately, all of that focused attention ceases to have importance after one realizes THIS and discovers what's going on. One can relax and return to ordinary everyday life without all the reflective thoughts that used to be so dominant. This eliminates all sense of efforting or doing anything to get anything. This will not make sense to anyone who is still seeking; it will only be understandable after THIS, in the form of a particular human, discovers what one IS. I spent fifteen years shifting attention away from thoughts to direct sensory perception (non-conceptual awareness), but today it no longer matters whether the body/mind organism does that or not because I/THIS found out what I/THIS always wanted to know, and that changed everything. Today the mind is quite silent simply because the habit of direct perception was pursued so intently for so many years. There are almost never any thoughts about the past or future, so there are no worries, no regrets, no fear, no desires, etc. The only thing I think about regularly is how to more effectively point people to THIS--what they already are. After one discovers that there's no SVP at the center of what's happening or controlling anything, life becomes simple, direct, and obvious. I suspect that spending time being non-conceptually aware may make it more likely that one will discover THIS, so self-remembering and other meditative activities are probably the most helpful things that one can do to make oneself "accident prone" in the words of Richard Rose. The main thing seems to be pursuing those kinds of activities "with no gaining idea" and no checking on one's progress. Checking on one's progress probably reinforces the sense of a "me" doing something to attain something. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 5, 2024 13:02:55 GMT -5
Walking yesterday I was considering your question, the following came to mind, I forgot to add, but now suitably edited. 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. (Of course your tongue also has the sense of touch). Fortunately, all of that focused attention ceases to have importance after one realizes THIS and discovers what's going on. One can relax and return to ordinary everyday life without all the reflective thoughts that used to be so dominant. This eliminates all sense of efforting or doing anything to get anything. This will not make sense to anyone who is still seeking; it will only be understandable after THIS, in the form of a particular human, discovers what one IS. I spent fifteen years shifting attention away from thoughts to direct sensory perception (non-conceptual awareness), but today it no longer matters whether the body/mind organism does that or not because I/THIS found out what I/THIS always wanted to know, and that changed everything. Today the mind is quite silent simply because the habit of direct perception was pursued so intently for so many years. There are almost never any thoughts about the past or future, so there are no worries, no regrets, no fear, no desires, etc. The only thing I think about regularly is how to more effectively point people to THIS--what they already are. After one discovers that there's no SVP at the center of what's happening or controlling anything, life becomes simple, direct, and obvious. I suspect that spending time being non-conceptually aware may make it more likely that one will discover THIS, so self-remembering and other meditative activities are probably the most helpful things that one can do to make oneself "accident prone" in the words of Richard Rose. The main thing seems to be pursuing those kinds of activities "with no gaining idea" and no checking on one's progress. Checking on one's progress probably reinforces the sense of a "me" doing something to attain something. It's amazing how much you have come to on your own. One of our primary principles is, work, but don't look for results. We are never to look for results. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 5, 2024 14:06:25 GMT -5
Fortunately, all of that focused attention ceases to have importance after one realizes THIS and discovers what's going on. One can relax and return to ordinary everyday life without all the reflective thoughts that used to be so dominant. This eliminates all sense of efforting or doing anything to get anything. This will not make sense to anyone who is still seeking; it will only be understandable after THIS, in the form of a particular human, discovers what one IS. I spent fifteen years shifting attention away from thoughts to direct sensory perception (non-conceptual awareness), but today it no longer matters whether the body/mind organism does that or not because I/THIS found out what I/THIS always wanted to know, and that changed everything. Today the mind is quite silent simply because the habit of direct perception was pursued so intently for so many years. There are almost never any thoughts about the past or future, so there are no worries, no regrets, no fear, no desires, etc. The only thing I think about regularly is how to more effectively point people to THIS--what they already are. After one discovers that there's no SVP at the center of what's happening or controlling anything, life becomes simple, direct, and obvious. I suspect that spending time being non-conceptually aware may make it more likely that one will discover THIS, so self-remembering and other meditative activities are probably the most helpful things that one can do to make oneself "accident prone" in the words of Richard Rose. The main thing seems to be pursuing those kinds of activities "with no gaining idea" and no checking on one's progress. Checking on one's progress probably reinforces the sense of a "me" doing something to attain something. It's amazing how much you have come to on your own. One of our primary principles is, work, but don't look for results. We are never to look for results. That's good advice. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 5, 2024 15:26:58 GMT -5
All I am asking is how can you be aware of the suffering of another for example and not have a thought of it . I haven't had a straight answer . It's impossible to be mindful of something mindful and say there is the transcendence of mind . Who/m or what is aware of the suffering of the mind when the mind has been transcended . It makes no sense at all . I am happy to leave it this time as I did the last time not having a clear explanation of how it is possible .. Your theory about not thinking and thought isn't correct, but as we both know, your idea of what constitutes a thought doesn't seem to make sense to me either and I have given examples to explain why . The fact that I haven't had a clear answer gives me the impression that you can't answer it based upon your model . That's okay, tho, I am still waiting for answers from a few peeps here on the forums to key questions made . I was just poking around the past, not likely I'll find what I was looking for. But just to clarify the clarification, tenka, would you say by thought, you mean any brain-wave activity? Well the mind is the environment for all of one's self experiences. If one is of the physical plane of experience and one has a brain then there will be brain wave activity I dare say. To what extent I haven't a clue, but from the spirit plane experience there is no association to the brain and yet thought remains and mind is still present. I reread my first few posts on this thread and I stand by them still. I thought I explained myself pretty well to be honest. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 5, 2024 15:42:20 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. There are so many N.D. guidelines that one can't say this or that. From the person that only exists as an illusory SVP leaves no room for there being a person that isn't a SVP, to one that has a spirit and soul etc etc. One has to follow the rule book. Free will emanates from the same rule book. You never really get straight answers, even if individual consciousness gets thrown in the mix, no-one knows what that is. As a foundation there isn't much to be certain of. I know lets have another poem or analogy |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Jan 5, 2024 17:58:01 GMT -5
... One of our primary principles is, work, but don't look for results. We are never to look for results. In my experience, it is better to put aside all your beliefs and expectations (to minimize distorting), then interpret your perceptions (of whatever results that attract your attention) using your intuition and your inner guidance. Once you learn to learn, learning becomes much more easy, effective, predictable, confidence giving. Ignoring results, not thinking, and such, hold you back. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 5, 2024 18:07:10 GMT -5
... One of our primary principles is, work, but don't look for results. We are never to look for results. In my experience, it is better to put aside all your beliefs and expectations (to minimize distorting), then interpret your perceptions (of whatever results that attract your attention) using your intuition and your inner guidance. Once you learn to learn, learning becomes much more easy, effective, predictable, confidence giving. Ignoring results, not thinking, and such, hold you back. I didn't say ignore results. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Jan 6, 2024 1:57:56 GMT -5
In my experience, it is better to put aside all your beliefs and expectations (to minimize distorting), then interpret your perceptions (of whatever results that attract your attention) using your intuition and your inner guidance. Once you learn to learn, learning becomes much more easy, effective, predictable, confidence giving. Ignoring results, not thinking, and such, hold you back. I didn't say ignore results. 's what it seemed you meant. What did you mean? You wrote: - stardustpilgrim said:
... One of our primary principles is, work, but don't look for results. We are never to look for results.
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 6, 2024 8:42:42 GMT -5
I didn't say ignore results. 's what it seemed you meant. What did you mean? You wrote: - stardustpilgrim said:
... One of our primary principles is, work, but don't look for results. We are never to look for results.
It means when you plant a seed you don't part the dirt in a few days to see if it has germinated. But when it has, and it has sprouted, you don't ignore it (why else would you have planted it)? And when the seed produces seed, of course you harvest it, you don't ignore it. It's a process. You just plow when it's time, you plant when it's time, you water when it needs it. Sometimes there are setbacks, you just start over. It's just, when the fruit appears, the fruit appears. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 6, 2024 12:42:27 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. #3 says excluding any thought process, so I was a little exasperated that you immediately answered with 'using thought to traverse the thought river'.... This is about as close as I can get to describing what's most significant to me. And then you ____ all over it. What's quoted is active awareness equated to self-observation, 7 necessary factors, King considers the term self-observation misleading. self-remembering is even beyond this. self-remembering is awareness previous-to-any-conceptualization, whatsoever. But Gurdjieff said one should not practice self-observation apart from self-remembering. The practice of sensing would be rowing a little boat. sdp is over the exasperation. Not looking for results, applies everywhere. (But all that is why I asked if you had not read the 7). In self-remembering impressions are ~intercepted~ before they can activate a chain of conditioned mental processes. Thus, it is outside all ordinary mental processing. Madame de Salzman called this 'getting in front of yourself', which is a pretty good description. (The first time I mentioned self-remembering, years ago, is when ZD very mistakenly described it, from a report from another person. I quoted Gurdjieff from Life Is Real Only Then, When I Am, to correct him. Up until that time, probably 4 years after joining here, I had not mentioned my Gurdjieff connection). |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Jan 6, 2024 12:59:14 GMT -5
That's what it seemed you meant. What did you mean? You wrote: - stardustpilgrim said:
... One of our primary principles is, work, but don't look for results. We are never to look for results.
It means when you plant a seed you don't part the dirt in a few days to see if it has germinated. But when it has, and it has sprouted, you don't ignore it (why else would you have planted it)? And when the seed produces seed, of course you harvest it, you don't ignore it. It's a process. You just plow when it's time, you plant when it's time, you water when it needs it. Sometimes there are setbacks, you just start over. It's just, when the fruit appears, the fruit appears. So, you got carried away when you wrote " never to look for". You see, it isn't important for me what you say, mean, believe, but it is important for you, because you hear yourself, and you suggestion yourself, hence you alter your perceptions, and further. We often forget that we are here for our own learning and growing, and we act as if we're here mainly to convince others of our beliefs. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 6, 2024 13:06:57 GMT -5
It means when you plant a seed you don't part the dirt in a few days to see if it has germinated. But when it has, and it has sprouted, you don't ignore it (why else would you have planted it)? And when the seed produces seed, of course you harvest it, you don't ignore it. It's a process. You just plow when it's time, you plant when it's time, you water when it needs it. Sometimes there are setbacks, you just start over. It's just, when the fruit appears, the fruit appears. So, you got carried away when you wrote " never to look for". You see, it isn't important for me what you say, mean, believe, but it is important for you, because you hear yourself, and you suggestion yourself, hence you alter your perceptions, and further. We often forget that we are here for our own learning and growing, and we act as if we're here mainly to convince others of our beliefs. Read my post above, it says most everything that can be said, that I can say (that I wish to say). Basically, it's about making the subconscious, conscious. So then everything is no longer filtered through your own subconscious, and so thought-processing is an obstruction, until it isn't. Not to look for results is different from not expecting results, or not desiring results or not working for results. Then, when results show up, it's like a bonus. When you work, do you expect your paycheck every minute of the day? No, you *look* for it only at the same time every week, or every 2 weeks. You work having ~faith~ your boss will pay you at the appropriate time. It's kind-of like that. So, eventually you face every 'demon' you have ever had. You are the dragon that guards the treasure, and the treasure. And, "Sometimes you eat the bar, sometimes the bar eats you". SE, TBL |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Jan 6, 2024 13:37:33 GMT -5
So, you got carried away when you wrote " never to look for". You see, it isn't important for me what you say, mean, believe, but it is important for you, because you hear yourself, and you suggestion yourself, hence you alter your perceptions, and further. We often forget that we are here for our own learning and growing, and we act as if we're here mainly to convince others of our beliefs. Read my post above, it says most everything that can be said, that I can say (that I wish to say). Basically, it's about making the subconscious, conscious. So then everything is no longer filtered through your own subconscious, and so thought-processing is an obstruction, until it isn't. Not to look for results is different from not expecting results, or not desiring results. I'll assume you really don't understand what I wrote, and how that relates to you too. It's okay. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 6, 2024 13:44:17 GMT -5
Read my post above, it says most everything that can be said, that I can say (that I wish to say). Basically, it's about making the subconscious, conscious. So then everything is no longer filtered through your own subconscious, and so thought-processing is an obstruction, until it isn't. Not to look for results is different from not expecting results, or not desiring results. I'll assume you really don't understand what I wrote, and how that relates to you too. It's okay. I understand perfectly. The question is, how do you get past your own subjectivity? |
|
