|
Post by zendancer on May 6, 2020 8:57:28 GMT -5
In a sense yes, but it really pertains to what 'just happens' as observed and what happens as a result of volition. Hence the diad is pertains to the distinction between volitional and non-volitional more than it does the things that happen. By contextualising it thus, we are brought self-awareness with regard to our intent, but let me make a finer distinction in that regard. One can set the intent to observe the breath without doing anything to change the way it 'already is', or one can exert the volition control the breath. This means that intent may direct attention to 'see it as it is' without the volitional attempt to 'make it as you want it to be'. Mindfulness is the former approach be it Buddha's breath, Ramana's I or JK's truth of your mind' In JK's case he would say see what your mind is doing as a fact. Without accepting, rejecting, judging. The pure fact of it as it is. The truth as it stands. Buddha be like watch the breath and 'know...'. Ramama be like attend to the self. All three use the self-determined intent to site the object of focus, but no of these three say 'do something'. That all use the mindful aproach of 'see it as it is'. Of course all three of these teachers suggest 'the way' to go beyond mind....
So what is the meaning of: "One can set the intent to observe"? It means that various characters believe that they are separate entities with volition who can "set an intent."
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 6, 2020 15:03:18 GMT -5
But it should not be a matter of luck. But sometimes luck plays a part. The other day Warren Buffet told an interesting story. A lady came to him and told him that she had inherited some money and wanted his advice in investing it. Buffet asked her if she had any credit card debt. She said that she did. He advised her to first pay off all credit card debt and then whatever other debt she had before looking for things to buy. She said that she only wanted investing advice. Buffet told her that he knew of no investment that would return 18%, guaranteed, (which is what eliminating her credit card carrying charges would instantly yield). Buffet concluded his story by saying, "She wasn't interested in my advice." Some soil is fertile and other soil is not. Yes. I heard the same advice over 25 years ago. There was a guy on the radio, Larry Burkett. He said regularly that if you were paying 12% interest on a credit card (or 15% or 20% or whatever), and you paid that off, it's like earning that same percent.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 6, 2020 15:04:37 GMT -5
So what is the meaning of: "One can set the intent to observe"? It means that various characters believe that they are separate entities with volition who can "set an intent." To each his own.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 6, 2020 15:06:31 GMT -5
But it should not be a matter of luck. But sometimes luck plays a part. I use the word "luck" because some characters get a "good" role in the script, and some don't. There is no separate entity who can make an effort or generate an interest in anything. It simply appears that way from a personal perspective. There is only THIS doing whatever it does. The deeper meaning of the parable of the sower and seeds relates to the unknowability and mysteriousness of what will happen. This is the case with everything. To each his own. (Even in irony).
|
|
|
Post by lolly on May 6, 2020 22:42:45 GMT -5
'The way' is universal and is not different for every individual. For example if I talk about experience, of course, each has their own, but everyone experiences change no matter who they are.
If we talking in terms each to their own, we neglect the universal. If I talk about awareness, attention, reactivity, distraction, wandering mind etc, well, there is no your wandering and my wandering, your awareness and my awareness etc. because the principle is true for all human beings regardless of who they are.
Each to their own comes back to talking about all the techniques and saying there are many different ways, but I think I covered that by talking about how three prominent teachers suggest different techniques, but they all end up with same essence of non-volitional observation, or what JK calls choiceless observation. So, the cessation of volition is the way. you have to 'see it as it is' and when you do that you stop 'making it as you want it to be'. This is because it regards the truth, which is universal, and by seeing what is true of yourself you're free. Problem is, you might intend to 'just watch' but you find that you can't. The mind is reacting to discomforts and desiring special experiences and every reaction is inciting the volition, and before too long you're going wild, becoming overwhelmed, and begin to suffer. This is not the way suffering operates for one person and operates in another way for another person so 'each to their own'. It does not operate in one way for me and in another way for you. It operates in a particular way which is the same for all human beings. How does one come to this non-volition? How does one come to this choiceless awareness? There are 7 billion people on the planet, how many come to this choicelessness? How did you come to choiceless observation? ST's is a small tight community compared to the rest of people on the internet, and people come and go. Go back 6 months (because the world is in a weird space right now). There are chefs, carpenters, attorneys, doctors, plumbers, the homeless, writers, engineers, grocery store stock people, policemen...thousands of categories of people. How did each arrive at their occupation? Now, within all these categories there are some who seek truth. What gives some the impetus to seek truth? So can it be called choiceless? If it is choiceless then how do a few out of 7 billion come to choicelessness? So is it really choiceless? So then, where is the dividing line between choice and choicelessness? So is choiceless awareness really choiceless? What you are calling volition here, is actually non-volition (mechanicalness). And choicelessness is really....? Is ATA-T choiceless observation? Yes, choiceless observation is to see things 'as it is'.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on May 6, 2020 23:10:07 GMT -5
So what is the meaning of: "One can set the intent to observe"? It means that various characters believe that they are separate entities with volition who can "set an intent." Regardless of an intent like, 'I will observe breath,' the mind will go wandering unintentionally. At some point you'll notice, without intending to, that you've unintentionally gone a-wanderin'. However, because you have determined to watch breath, these unintended occurrences will keep coming back to that.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on May 6, 2020 23:40:08 GMT -5
This part is objective, correct, true. The rest is subjective. Everybody is not the same. We are all a mixture of truth and falsehood. The truth-part will seek the truth. The falsehood part will seek whatever validates its own self. So we are all different mixtures of truth and falsehood, some 1%-99%, some 5%-95%, some 20-80 some 80-20. So some people can never come to the truth (it's just too tall/steep a mountain to climb), some people try and fail, some people try and succeed. That's the meaning of to each his own. Sometimes subjectivity wins, sometimes objectivity wins. It cannot be otherwise. What often comes up in these dialogs that I've noticed is the opposite of lolz' point here: someone will insist that a given technique is necessary. Or they might get dogmatic about a particular conceptual notion. Whenever the topic is human awareness, the topic is existential, and there is no conceptual structure that can ever capture that. So, situationally, one might point out how everyone is different, there's no set path to the existential truth, and what "worked" for one person might not "work" for the next. That's generally about refraining from projecting our own experiences onto what other people write or say. But, then again, in a different situation, one might point out how the topic of human awareness touches on a commonality of humanity: and not in any abstract, philosophical sense, but, instead, in terms of the visceral immediateness of our being, ever in the here and now. And taking still yet another step backward, we can note that there are certain traditions, like, say, for example, Zen or other Buddhist practices, that aren't really subject to this kind of fluidity. They're essentially institutions that have stood the test of time. The breadth and width of human culture and experience, is quite vast. My bible knowledge is rather thin .. was it Jesus who said: "my father's mansion, has many rooms", or something like that? Gotta keep in mind that dialogues here are not normal conversations. We have competitions.
Your statement, "the visceral immediateness of our being, ever in the here and now." is right on topic. I wouldn't be too concerned with the spiritual institutions though (except ATA which is clearly the best ).
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on May 7, 2020 0:30:45 GMT -5
It means that various characters believe that they are separate entities with volition who can "set an intent." Regardless of an intent like, 'I will observe breath,' the mind will go wandering unintentionally. At some point you'll notice, without intending to, that you've unintentionally gone a-wanderin'. However, because you have determined to watch breath, these unintended occurrences will keep coming back to that.
What's being pointed to is that there's no one who has an intent, no one who goes wandering, and no one who comes back. All of those ideas are related to the illusion of personal doership. There's only the Infinite manifesting however it manifests. The reason for pursuing activities, such as ATA-T, or shikan taza, or anything else that interrupts or suspends mind-talk is to create a sufficient degree of internal silence to trigger realizations that penetrate illusions created by mind-talk. Seeing through the illusion of the SVP changes the way everything is understood and also how life is lived. Effortlessness is then the case at all times, and there is no one who does anything. Another way of pointing to this is the statement, "Nothing ever happens." If we drive to the grocery store, it is the Infinite driving to the grocery store because that's all there is. Bankei called it "The Unborn." I like to call it "THIS." It is what sees, hears, feels, thinks, walks, talks, and acts, and in that field of being there is no separation. All separation is imaginary. I suggest shifting attention away from thoughts to direct sensory perception because it's a fast easy way to attain internal silence which seems highly correlated with the occurrence of realizations. Being able to stop thinking at will does not mean that there is an entity who is doing anything. In the form of a human being who pursues direct sensory perception THIS can totally stop thinking. Eckhart Tolle mentioned this recently in a talk. He was introduced to a fellow who could hold his breath under water for 7 minutes. He asked Tolle if he could do that. Tolle responded, "No, but I can stop thinking for 7 minutes."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2020 4:11:33 GMT -5
Regardless of an intent like, 'I will observe breath,' the mind will go wandering unintentionally. At some point you'll notice, without intending to, that you've unintentionally gone a-wanderin'. However, because you have determined to watch breath, these unintended occurrences will keep coming back to that.
What's being pointed to is that there's no one who has an intent, no one who goes wandering, and no one who comes back. All of those ideas are related to the illusion of personal doership. There's only the Infinite manifesting however it manifests. The reason for pursuing activities, such as ATA-T, or shikan taza, or anything else that interrupts or suspends mind-talk is to create a sufficient degree of internal silence to trigger realizations that penetrate illusions created by mind-talk. Seeing through the illusion of the SVP changes the way everything is understood and also how life is lived. Effortlessness is then the case at all times, and there is no one who does anything. Another way of pointing to this is the statement, "Nothing ever happens." If we drive to the grocery store, it is the Infinite driving to the grocery store because that's all there is. Bankei called it "The Unborn." I like to call it "THIS." It is what sees, hears, feels, thinks, walks, talks, and acts, and in that field of being there is no separation. All separation is imaginary. I suggest shifting attention away from thoughts to direct sensory perception because it's a fast easy way to attain internal silence which seems highly correlated with the occurrence of realizations. Being able to stop thinking at will does not mean that there is an entity who is doing anything. In the form of a human being who pursues direct sensory perception THIS can totally stop thinking. Eckhart Tolle mentioned this recently in a talk. He was introduced to a fellow who could hold his breath under water for 7 minutes. He asked Tolle if he could do that. Tolle responded, "No, but I can stop thinking for 7 minutes." You always come up with such an interesting event!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2020 4:33:34 GMT -5
It means that various characters believe that they are separate entities with volition who can "set an intent." Regardless of an intent like, 'I will observe breath,' the mind will go wandering unintentionally. At some point you'll notice, without intending to, that you've unintentionally gone a-wanderin'. However, because you have determined to watch breath, these unintended occurrences will keep coming back to that.
To summarize what he says in the above comment is,
'set an intent to do ATA-T' and soon you would know the truth that you haven't set any intent instead intent to do ATA-T happened by itself.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 7, 2020 5:24:09 GMT -5
How does one come to this non-volition? How does one come to this choiceless awareness? There are 7 billion people on the planet, how many come to this choicelessness? How did you come to choiceless observation? ST's is a small tight community compared to the rest of people on the internet, and people come and go. Go back 6 months (because the world is in a weird space right now). There are chefs, carpenters, attorneys, doctors, plumbers, the homeless, writers, engineers, grocery store stock people, policemen...thousands of categories of people. How did each arrive at their occupation? Now, within all these categories there are some who seek truth. What gives some the impetus to seek truth? So can it be called choiceless? If it is choiceless then how do a few out of 7 billion come to choicelessness? So is it really choiceless? So then, where is the dividing line between choice and choicelessness? So is choiceless awareness really choiceless? What you are calling volition here, is actually non-volition (mechanicalness). And choicelessness is really....? Is ATA-T choiceless observation? Yes, choiceless observation is to see things 'as it is'. I'm going to try to press zd a little on this question.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 7, 2020 5:31:28 GMT -5
It means that various characters believe that they are separate entities with volition who can "set an intent." Regardless of an intent like, 'I will observe breath,' the mind will go wandering unintentionally. At some point you'll notice, without intending to, that you've unintentionally gone a-wanderin'. However, because you have determined to watch breath, these unintended occurrences will keep coming back to that.
The point I'm trying to point to is that in setting an intent, this is not choicelessness. There is a choice to set an intent. Without this choice, the mind will go on wandering unintentionally, just like it does for most people. (But most people do not recognize the mind as merely wandering, they think they are intentionally thinking). [Still coming back to this with zd].
|
|
|
Post by lolly on May 7, 2020 5:44:43 GMT -5
Regardless of an intent like, 'I will observe breath,' the mind will go wandering unintentionally. At some point you'll notice, without intending to, that you've unintentionally gone a-wanderin'. However, because you have determined to watch breath, these unintended occurrences will keep coming back to that.
The point I'm trying to point to is that in setting an intent, this is not choicelessness. There is a choice to set an intent. Without this choice, the mind will go on wandering unintentionally, just like it does for most people. (But most people do not recognize the mind as merely wandering, they think they are intentionally thinking). [Still coming back to this with zd]. They realise that their thought is compulsive and it does what it wants despite their intent.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 7, 2020 5:50:56 GMT -5
Regardless of an intent like, 'I will observe breath,' the mind will go wandering unintentionally. At some point you'll notice, without intending to, that you've unintentionally gone a-wanderin'. However, because you have determined to watch breath, these unintended occurrences will keep coming back to that.
To summarize what he says in the above comment is,
'set an intent to do ATA-T' and soon you would know the truth that you haven't set any intent instead intent to do ATA-T happened by itself. (My like has disappeared twice from your post, so don't know what's going on there). Gopal, you have hit the nail on the head. Why do 99.99% of the people on the planet not come to this understanding, that there is nobody doing anything? If it's all just the universe, THIS, doing its thing, why do only a few come to this understanding? zd neglects the "two truths", the all-encompassing truth, but also the lesser truth, that in some mind-body-brains, which/(who) set an intent (to practice whatever, lolly has pointed this out pretty well with Ramana/Self-Inquiry, JK/choiceless awareness and _), find a break in the perpetual repeating cycle of self-acting which isn't self-acting but merely a "self"-perpetutating cultural flow, a meme-flow. (You, Gopal, have come very close to this knowledge. You came to the knowledge that Gopal cannot do anything. I consider it a good thing that you do not leap to the next step, that there is no Gopal. Of course, sdp has not either). A something has to enter the repeating cycle, and break the repetition. The key is how does this occur?
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on May 7, 2020 5:55:33 GMT -5
Regardless of an intent like, 'I will observe breath,' the mind will go wandering unintentionally. At some point you'll notice, without intending to, that you've unintentionally gone a-wanderin'. However, because you have determined to watch breath, these unintended occurrences will keep coming back to that.
To summarize what he says in the above comment is,
'set an intent to do ATA-T' and soon you would know the truth that you haven't set any intent instead intent to do ATA-T happened by itself. If that is what was meant, then I totally agree.
|
|