|
Post by lolly on Sept 25, 2022 23:02:20 GMT -5
I guess it's a matter of cause. What causes dissonance? I'd posit dissonance is caused by reactivity or what is called 'craving' in Buddhism. They have been discussing 'what craving is' for thousands of years, and many pose as if they have the true answer, but it doesn't work like that. It works when you define 'craving' as the cause of suffering, and especially during meditation, you notice 'this is suffering', and ideally, the way in which you are generating it.
Along the way you start to notice, it's caused because I react to everything. A bit of discomfort and the mind goes wild, while at the same time I'm craving 'something else'. The aversion will resist and avoid whilst the desire will chase an cling (I'm assuming that is antithetical to resonance, alighnment aka flow). I can't see how SR as reefs defines it could occur in that condition of mind, which is the essence of our disagreement, because the reactive tendency I describe is the same thing the ego needs to both perpetuate itself and keep you distracted. That's where meditation becomes a specific thing and not 'anything' as ZD seems to think. Not that I admonish mantras and all that rubbish - I agree it's all beneficial - just that to meditate you have have to stop doing the things. Then you will notice that you do a great many things unintentionally and are utterly compelled by craving into volition - as ego is doing everything in its power to keep you from noticing itself because it can't retain the status of Me if you become aware of it. Meditation then is reverse engineering that. If meditation isn't understood in that way, then it's fair to say it can't bring about SR, but if you apply analysis to what I just said, you can join the dots rationally and understand at an intellectual level how my method exposes the ego. That's an event that occurs, and I think it's a significant marker, but the work isn't done.
This last bit in this last paragraph is not something that you get by continuing the work as far as I know. The one I already mentioned is like 'hey, that's not me', but there is another one which is more like "I am that". The latter is a more obscure and might happen anytime, but it's always behind you, so you can't look for it, but, you notice it spontaneously and suddenly much like Tolle describes his void inTPoN. I'm not sure if there is anything one can do or not-do to bring about noticing it, but the SR reefs defines as seeing that self which is false does occur via the method I describe... I just have to say, I'm only addressing the self related aspects here and not trying to make an impression that meditation is for the purpose. There is much more involved with the purification and equanimity and all that stuff... but I'd nutshell it by saying equanimity is the middle way.
Just curious what this sentence is referring to. What's the difference between shifting attention away from thoughts to the breath, or shifting attention away from thoughts to direct sensory perception (looking, listening, feeling, etc. in mental silence), or shifting attention away from thoughts to the sense of 'I am,' or shifting attention away from thoughts to the body via tai chi, yoga, etc? Isn't the basic function in all of these meditative activities the shifting of attention away from thoughts? Yes. My 'specific thing' is 'see it as is'; not 'make it as you want it to be', so it includes any 'just observe' approach and excludes all volitional approaches. Not that I'm against the latter as they all have some benefit and are effective to purpose, but you still have to 'stop doing that' to meditate. You typically find meditators trained in those ways have developed strong attachments to their self-genertated means and are extremely reluctant to cease doing it.
The idea of shifting away from thought is correct in a practical sense, but in practice you also start to recognise all the unintended, habitual activity/reactivity that's going on in the mind, so although we say a simple thing in idealistic terms, the reality is a bit complex. Hence the Buddhist mindful approach includes the 'dhammas' or mental contents as objects of meditation, but not as the intended focus of perception per-se... It's just that (mental) reactivity arises from sensations while also generating them, and we can become aware of that complex. For example, you can notice that agitation in the mind correlates with tensions in the body, and how such tensions can be revealing of the mental agitations causing them.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Sept 25, 2022 23:33:43 GMT -5
Consistency is the only viable assessment of reason in the step 2 category, and contradiction is it breakdown (it's basically an if-then thing), but since that pertains only to intellectual analysis, the step 3 of see for yourself is necessary for a complete ontology. I think you're preaching to the choir there. Say you hear someone like Ramana, Nis or Tolle tell you about something, and they same the same sorts of things, so you figure, Meh, I'll give it the benefit of the doubt. Then you actually undertake a practice of self-inquiry. They wouldn't start the inquiry unless they first heard (1), and thought it through (2), and based on their intellectual understanding of it, did the inquiry to find out for themselves. Not that there's a necessary chronology per se. Just that categorising it this way provides a complete ontological model. It means you can't just read 'I am That' and presto. You can't debate, discuss and understand and hey-presto. You can do that to form a 'roadmap', buy unless to go have a look... you're kinda like Mary's Room. I have had experiences no one has written down or talked about, so then it goes in reverse. I'm like, Whoa, what's that (3) then rationalise a format (2) in which I say it (1). I can't seem to illustrate it better than that ^
Yes constant or at least consistent meditation makes life a little bit better, and has a process I just call 'purification'. SR='that's not me' and SR='I am that' are not processes as such. Of course you can see more and more clearly the futility and fallacy of ego-manic tendencies as progressive, but insight is sudden by nature. It's just the former one will be revealed by the means I suggest, The latter one, I don't think so. The main thing is the balance point which is perceived as becoming increasingly refined. I like that it comes with a paradox as well, the more refined and delicate it is, the stronger it is as well.
Everything you say about self-consistency with respect to the Buddhist process you've described is valid, but it's valid in the context of the person in the world. Realization of nonduality has no reasonable self-consistency. Now, both the person and the world can benefit from your process, but the flip side of the coin is that the resulting self-consistent set of beliefs can form the center of a sense of identity. The realization reveals any and all sense of objectified, limited identity to be false. Some of the Zen koans seem to me to have come down to us through that culture precisely because they expose the one contemplating to the absence of any and all reason, much less consistency. I understand that one of the steps in the eightfold path is to seek refuge in the sangha. heh heh, I don't think those Zen guys are offering much existential shelter. To anyone. I don't get the argument because realisation pertains to step 3 in the model whereas consistency pertains to step 2. Of course what you are saying is true because step 2 alone can't possibly glean insight.
I personally haven't gelled with the Zens or any other Buddhist school for that matter, because I look up their meditation stuff and it's all about counting breaths and so forth. One zen guy named Young comes fairly close but there's always an 'addition' to the real-lived-experience. He claims you should say 'feel' to yourself, thus generating volition, where I say stop doing that and just observe. You wouldn't believe how hard it is to get people to just stop and look (because when you stop the ego is 'starved out').
Meh, koans make no sense.
Refuge is a Zen thing and across the Buddhist spectrum (everything's a spectrum now), but refuge pertains to trust. Trust implies morality and so and so forth... so I guess if you make sure you are trustworthy you at least play your part.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Sept 26, 2022 7:08:31 GMT -5
Just curious what this sentence is referring to. What's the difference between shifting attention away from thoughts to the breath, or shifting attention away from thoughts to direct sensory perception (looking, listening, feeling, etc. in mental silence), or shifting attention away from thoughts to the sense of 'I am,' or shifting attention away from thoughts to the body via tai chi, yoga, etc? Isn't the basic function in all of these meditative activities the shifting of attention away from thoughts? Yes. My 'specific thing' is 'see it as is'; not 'make it as you want it to be', so it includes any 'just observe' approach and excludes all volitional approaches. Not that I'm against the latter as they all have some benefit and are effective to purpose, but you still have to 'stop doing that' to meditate. You typically find meditators trained in those ways have developed strong attachments to their self-genertated means and are extremely reluctant to cease doing it.
The idea of shifting away from thought is correct in a practical sense, but in practice you also start to recognise all the unintended, habitual activity/reactivity that's going on in the mind, so although we say a simple thing in idealistic terms, the reality is a bit complex. Hence the Buddhist mindful approach includes the 'dhammas' or mental contents as objects of meditation, but not as the intended focus of perception per-se... It's just that (mental) reactivity arises from sensations while also generating them, and we can become aware of that complex. For example, you can notice that agitation in the mind correlates with tensions in the body, and how such tensions can be revealing of the mental agitations causing them.
Wouldn't "just seeing it as it is" also be volitional? Is it not making a choice to "just see it as it is?" That certainly sounds like something one is doing differently than a non-meditator who thinks that s/he is seeing the world just as it is. What's the difference between an average Joe and a meditator who's "just seeing it as it is?"
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Sept 26, 2022 9:05:20 GMT -5
Yes. My 'specific thing' is 'see it as is'; not 'make it as you want it to be', so it includes any 'just observe' approach and excludes all volitional approaches. Not that I'm against the latter as they all have some benefit and are effective to purpose, but you still have to 'stop doing that' to meditate. You typically find meditators trained in those ways have developed strong attachments to their self-genertated means and are extremely reluctant to cease doing it.
The idea of shifting away from thought is correct in a practical sense, but in practice you also start to recognise all the unintended, habitual activity/reactivity that's going on in the mind, so although we say a simple thing in idealistic terms, the reality is a bit complex. Hence the Buddhist mindful approach includes the 'dhammas' or mental contents as objects of meditation, but not as the intended focus of perception per-se... It's just that (mental) reactivity arises from sensations while also generating them, and we can become aware of that complex. For example, you can notice that agitation in the mind correlates with tensions in the body, and how such tensions can be revealing of the mental agitations causing them.
Wouldn't "just seeing it as it is" also be volitional? Is it not making a choice to "just see it as it is?" That certainly sounds like something one is doing differently than a non-meditator who thinks that s/he is seeing the world just as it is. What's the difference between an average Joe and a meditator who's "just seeing it as it is?" The only difference is one is 'just watching' and the other is 'making it as you want it to be'. But there is nuance. Making it as you want it to be isn't necessarily intentional. It's mostly compelled and reactive (resisting, avoiding, craving, pursuing). On the other hand, you can fully intend to 'see it as it is' without imposing any will upon it at all. Hence, there can be lots of intention without any volition, and also a lot of volition that isn't intentional. Joe is typically compelled and hardly ever 'just watches'.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 26, 2022 9:28:36 GMT -5
Yes. My 'specific thing' is 'see it as is'; not 'make it as you want it to be', so it includes any 'just observe' approach and excludes all volitional approaches. Not that I'm against the latter as they all have some benefit and are effective to purpose, but you still have to 'stop doing that' to meditate. You typically find meditators trained in those ways have developed strong attachments to their self-genertated means and are extremely reluctant to cease doing it.
The idea of shifting away from thought is correct in a practical sense, but in practice you also start to recognise all the unintended, habitual activity/reactivity that's going on in the mind, so although we say a simple thing in idealistic terms, the reality is a bit complex. Hence the Buddhist mindful approach includes the 'dhammas' or mental contents as objects of meditation, but not as the intended focus of perception per-se... It's just that (mental) reactivity arises from sensations while also generating them, and we can become aware of that complex. For example, you can notice that agitation in the mind correlates with tensions in the body, and how such tensions can be revealing of the mental agitations causing them.
Wouldn't " just seeing it as it is" also be volitional? Is it not making a choice to "just see it as it is?" That certainly sounds like something one is doing differently than a non-meditator who thinks that s/he is seeing the world just as it is. What's the difference between an average Joe and a meditator who's "just seeing it as it is?" I don't know why you don't say, Oh, yea, this is ATA-T, and I don't know why lolly doesn't say, but this is just ATA-T. The only difference is, lolly just might not be able to do it continuously. lolly describes very well that thoughts or agitations jump in and interfere. That doesn't mean there isn't ATA-T also, one can keep coming back to it. A thought or a feeling, a "center", is never going to choose to 'just observe' or just ATA-T (ATA-T by its very definition). A "self-center" can try, but a self-center gains no benefit, and lolly describes why this is so. When there is ATA-T, the self-center disappears into silence. If lolly understands what he is doing (and I'm confident he does), then he also understands it's ATA-T. So, there is another chance for agreement. lolly?
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Sept 26, 2022 9:28:57 GMT -5
Wouldn't "just seeing it as it is" also be volitional? Is it not making a choice to "just see it as it is?" That certainly sounds like something one is doing differently than a non-meditator who thinks that s/he is seeing the world just as it is. What's the difference between an average Joe and a meditator who's "just seeing it as it is?" The only difference is one is 'just watching' and the other is 'making it as you want it to be'. But there is nuance. Making it as you want it to be isn't necessarily intentional. It's mostly compelled and reactive (resisting, avoiding, craving, pursuing). On the other hand, you can fully intend to 'see it as it is' without imposing any will upon it at all. Hence, there can be lots of intention without any volition, and also a lot of volition that isn't intentional. Joe is typically compelled and hardly ever 'just watches'.
Intention without volition? To intend is "to stretch out for, aim at, to have in mind a purpose." What you're describing sounds like an intention to "just see it as it is," which would be "a conscious or deliberate decision regarding what to do," which is the definition of volition. How is that different from ATA where one intends to simply looks at "what is" as it is?" When pursuing ATA, with or without thought, no one is "making anything the way s/he wants it to be;" one is simply looking.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 26, 2022 9:41:41 GMT -5
I guess it's a matter of cause. What causes dissonance? I'd posit dissonance is caused by reactivity or what is called 'craving' in Buddhism. They have been discussing 'what craving is' for thousands of years, and many pose as if they have the true answer, but it doesn't work like that. It works when you define 'craving' as the cause of suffering, and especially during meditation, you notice 'this is suffering', and ideally, the way in which you are generating it.
Along the way you start to notice, it's caused because I react to everything. A bit of discomfort and the mind goes wild, while at the same time I'm craving 'something else'. The aversion will resist and avoid whilst the desire will chase an cling (I'm assuming that is antithetical to resonance, alighnment aka flow). I can't see how SR as reefs defines it could occur in that condition of mind, which is the essence of our disagreement, because the reactive tendency I describe is the same thing the ego needs to both perpetuate itself and keep you distracted. That's where meditation becomes a specific thing and not 'anything' as ZD seems to think. Not that I admonish mantras and all that rubbish - I agree it's all beneficial - just that to meditate you have have to stop doing the things. Then you will notice that you do a great many things unintentionally and are utterly compelled by craving into volition - as ego is doing everything in its power to keep you from noticing itself because it can't retain the status of Me if you become aware of it. Meditation then is reverse engineering that. If meditation isn't understood in that way, then it's fair to say it can't bring about SR, but if you apply analysis to what I just said, you can join the dots rationally and understand at an intellectual level how my method exposes the ego. That's an event that occurs, and I think it's a significant marker, but the work isn't done.
This last bit in this last paragraph is not something that you get by continuing the work as far as I know. The one I already mentioned is like 'hey, that's not me', but there is another one which is more like "I am that". The latter is a more obscure and might happen anytime, but it's always behind you, so you can't look for it, but, you notice it spontaneously and suddenly much like Tolle describes his void inTPoN. I'm not sure if there is anything one can do or not-do to bring about noticing it, but the SR reefs defines as seeing that self which is false does occur via the method I describe... I just have to say, I'm only addressing the self related aspects here and not trying to make an impression that meditation is for the purpose. There is much more involved with the purification and equanimity and all that stuff... but I'd nutshell it by saying equanimity is the middle way.
Just curious what this sentence is referring to. What's the difference between shifting attention away from thoughts to the breath, or shifting attention away from thoughts to direct sensory perception (looking, listening, feeling, etc. in mental silence), or shifting attention away from thoughts to the sense of 'I am,' or shifting attention away from thoughts to the body via tai chi, yoga, etc? Isn't the basic function in all of these meditative activities the shifting of attention away from thoughts? lolly, here was your chance to say: Correct.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 26, 2022 9:45:06 GMT -5
The only difference is one is 'just watching' and the other is 'making it as you want it to be'. But there is nuance. Making it as you want it to be isn't necessarily intentional. It's mostly compelled and reactive (resisting, avoiding, craving, pursuing). On the other hand, you can fully intend to 'see it as it is' without imposing any will upon it at all. Hence, there can be lots of intention without any volition, and also a lot of volition that isn't intentional. Joe is typically compelled and hardly ever 'just watches'.
Intention without volition? To intend is "to stretch out for, aim at, to have in mind a purpose." What you're describing sounds like an intention to "just see it as it is," which would be "a conscious or deliberate decision regarding what to do," which is the definition of volition. How is that different from ATA where one intends to simply looks at "what is" as it is?" When pursuing ATA, with or without thought, no one is "making anything the way s/he wants it to be;" one is simply looking. I was looking back, you make the pertinent point again. See lolly? [The purpose of words is to convey meaning. So it's not the word that is important. ZD is correct, the word meditation has numerous definitions. ZD was saying, what you are saying by defining meditation, is what I am saying by ATA-T. At that point, lolly, ATA-T has more specificity. It's precisely the specificity you're looking for. Going into the why doesn't add to clarity. In fact, not-going into the why, might show more clarity].
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 26, 2022 9:57:11 GMT -5
I guess it's a matter of cause. What causes dissonance? I'd posit dissonance is caused by reactivity or what is called 'craving' in Buddhism. They have been discussing 'what craving is' for thousands of years, and many pose as if they have the true answer, but it doesn't work like that. It works when you define 'craving' as the cause of suffering, and especially during meditation, you notice 'this is suffering', and ideally, the way in which you are generating it.
Along the way you start to notice, it's caused because I react to everything. A bit of discomfort and the mind goes wild, while at the same time I'm craving 'something else'. The aversion will resist and avoid whilst the desire will chase an cling (I'm assuming that is antithetical to resonance, alighnment aka flow). I can't see how SR as reefs defines it could occur in that condition of mind, which is the essence of our disagreement, because the reactive tendency I describe is the same thing the ego needs to both perpetuate itself and keep you distracted. That's where meditation becomes a specific thing and not 'anything' as ZD seems to think. Not that I admonish mantras and all that rubbish - I agree it's all beneficial - just that to meditate you have have to stop doing the things. Then you will notice that you do a great many things unintentionally and are utterly compelled by craving into volition - as ego is doing everything in its power to keep you from noticing itself because it can't retain the status of Me if you become aware of it. Meditation then is reverse engineering that. If meditation isn't understood in that way, then it's fair to say it can't bring about SR, but if you apply analysis to what I just said, you can join the dots rationally and understand at an intellectual level how my method exposes the ego. That's an event that occurs, and I think it's a significant marker, but the work isn't done.
This last bit in this last paragraph is not something that you get by continuing the work as far as I know. The one I already mentioned is like 'hey, that's not me', but there is another one which is more like "I am that". The latter is a more obscure and might happen anytime, but it's always behind you, so you can't look for it, but, you notice it spontaneously and suddenly much like Tolle describes his void inTPoN. I'm not sure if there is anything one can do or not-do to bring about noticing it, but the SR reefs defines as seeing that self which is false does occur via the method I describe... I just have to say, I'm only addressing the self related aspects here and not trying to make an impression that meditation is for the purpose. There is much more involved with the purification and equanimity and all that stuff... but I'd nutshell it by saying equanimity is the middle way.
Just curious what this sentence is referring to. What's the difference between shifting attention away from thoughts to the breath, or shifting attention away from thoughts to direct sensory perception (looking, listening, feeling, etc. in mental silence), or shifting attention away from thoughts to the sense of 'I am,' or shifting attention away from thoughts to the body via tai chi, yoga, etc? Isn't the basic function in all of these meditative activities the shifting of attention away from thoughts? I wanted to reply to this yesterday, but I wanted to see lolly's reply more. ( ) ....replied to his replies.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 26, 2022 10:24:09 GMT -5
Intention without volition? To intend is "to stretch out for, aim at, to have in mind a purpose." What you're describing sounds like an intention to "just see it as it is," which would be "a conscious or deliberate decision regarding what to do," which is the definition of volition. How is that different from ATA where one intends to simply looks at "what is" as it is?" When pursuing ATA, with or without thought, no one is "making anything the way s/he wants it to be;" one is simply looking. I was looking back, you make the pertinent point again. See lolly? [The purpose of words is to convey meaning. So it's not the word that is important. ZD is correct, the word meditation has numerous definitions. ZD was saying, what you are saying by defining meditation, is what I am saying by ATA-T. At that point, lolly, ATA-T has more specificity. It's precisely the specificity you're looking for. Going into the why doesn't add to clarity. In fact, not-going into the why, might show more clarity]. seems to me that both meditations have an intention, though the intention is very slightly different in each case.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 26, 2022 10:39:53 GMT -5
In The States of Human Consciousness C Daly King, 1963, gives seven requirements for correct self-observation. He gives the name here as Active Awareness. His teacher was AR Orage. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ He lays out the seven characteristics of Active Awareness as follows: 1. It excludes any element of criticism 2. It excludes any element of tutorialness 3. It excludes any element of analysis or other mental process 4. It involves a a complete non-identification from the organism 5. It is directed only toward the prescribed area of objectivity 6. It involves the mediation of all sensations appropriate to its objects 7. It is not limited in its exercise to any special times or places archive.org/details/thestatesofhumanconsciousness~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The following is not a direct quote from the book. The first characteristic of Active Awareness means that it there is no process of judging taking place; what is observed is neither good nor bad. If judgment is happening, that is not Active Awareness (though one could in principle be actively aware of judging happening). The second characteristic means that active awareness does not seek to alter or improve what it is observing. The third characteristic emphasizes that Active Awareness is not a mental process. Mental and logical analysis are distinct from consciousness in this formulation. The fourth characteristic represents for King one of the more challenging aspects of Active Awareness - that it requires non-identification with the organism. When we observe the manifestations of our organisms in Active Awareness, it is as though we are observing the manifestations of a stranger. The identification that "I am my body" must be released to cultivate Active Awareness. It is when we identify with the object of Active Awareness that the criticisms, agendas, mental processes, emotional reactivities, etc. flood into our field of awareness. The fifth characteristic clarifies that the field of active awareness is the organism - that is what one has to work with. Things external to the organism are only "represented indirectly through the body's own receptor mechanisms." The raw energy of experience of the organism, internal and external, is the proper scope of Active Awareness. King emphasizes that it is better to start a practice of Active Awareness with the sensations of the organism. ( emphasis sdp) King's emphasis here is grounded in the belief that it is easier for beginning practitioners to stay non-identified when the scope of their Active Awareness practice is confined to the sensations of the body. In Tayu practice we have found it productive to extend the early practice to include feelings and thoughts as well as sensations. As long as Active Awareness is practiced in the context of a Work-group with experienced guides, our experience has been that the scope can quickly include the functioning of the mental and feeling centers as well as the body center. The sixth characteristic states that Active Awareness is not necessarily atomic but may involve a variety of sensations, etc. For instance, if one is actively aware of one's posture, one will be aware of a variety of sensations extending up and down the musculature of the body. Sometimes we observe small things, sometimes we observe more complex manifestations of our organism. And finally, the seventh characteristic of Active Awareness emphasizes that this is a practice and a state of consciousness that is intended to be available at all times in all contexts. ( emphasis sdp) The cultivation of Active Awareness is not meant to be something we do 20 minutes every morning - it is intended to be something we do whenever we can remember to do it. Our practice is intended to shift the operating point of our consciousness from its habitual waking state of semi-hypnotism to the spacious freedom of Active Awareness - but this is no small task. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The seven would refer to types of "meditation" like watching the breath. They do not all refer to ZD's ATA-T (explained in the commentary, #5). Those that do refer to ATA-T, are accurate and succinct. The further words are explanatory, once you understand, they are not necessary. I first read States of Human Consciousness over 40 years ago. Of course, the teacher of Orage was Gurdjieff, and the seven requirements came from him. What's slightly amazing, ZD came to this on his own.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 26, 2022 10:50:13 GMT -5
I was looking back, you make the pertinent point again. See lolly? [The purpose of words is to convey meaning. So it's not the word that is important. ZD is correct, the word meditation has numerous definitions. ZD was saying, what you are saying by defining meditation, is what I am saying by ATA-T. At that point, lolly, ATA-T has more specificity. It's precisely the specificity you're looking for. Going into the why doesn't add to clarity. In fact, not-going into the why, might show more clarity]. seems to me that both meditations have an intention, though the intention is very slightly different in each case. sdp is playing "meditation"-ATA-T Jenga here. .....What ~you~ don't want is any intention to come from the self-center (which lolly has, but ZD doesn't). I will not comment further, now. I'd rather mostly like to 'keep my hands off' for now, let lolly and ZD dialogue. But the C Daly King quote might help you, the seven requirements.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Sept 26, 2022 11:47:33 GMT -5
seems to me that both meditations have an intention, though the intention is very slightly different in each case. sdp is playing "meditation"-ATA-T Jenga here. .....What ~you~ don't want is any intention to come from the self-center (which lolly has, but ZD doesn't). I will not comment further, now. I'd rather mostly like to 'keep my hands off' for now, let lolly and ZD dialogue. But the C Daly King quote might help you, the seven requirements. I think what Lolly is referring to is ATA+T, which is synonymous with mindfulness--one watches mental reactivity, thoughts, feelings, etc. as well as direct sensory awareness of whatever the eyes see, the ears hear, the body feels, the body smells, or the body tastes with or without thoughts about those perceptions/sensations. I had spent 20 years thinking about existential questions without finding any answers. After having a CC, finding some important initial answers, and realizing that whatever I wanted to know was at a deeper level of mind than the intellect, I was only interested in looking at "what is" WITHOUT thinking, so my interest was somewhat different than someone who pursues mindfulness. People who do ATA-T are not interested in things like reactivity because it's assumed that reactivity is triggered by thoughts. In either case, it is the sense of being an SVP that initially motivates the meditator, and this motivation only falls away after the illusion of selfhood collapses. The primary Zen form of meditation is shikan taza, and mantras, breath counting, or breath following are only introductory forms of practice that will still the mind sufficiently for shikan taza to be pursued. Three entirely different approaches that, if pursued, will probably lead to the same types of realizations.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Sept 26, 2022 15:17:41 GMT -5
The only difference is one is 'just watching' and the other is 'making it as you want it to be'. But there is nuance. Making it as you want it to be isn't necessarily intentional. It's mostly compelled and reactive (resisting, avoiding, craving, pursuing). On the other hand, you can fully intend to 'see it as it is' without imposing any will upon it at all. Hence, there can be lots of intention without any volition, and also a lot of volition that isn't intentional. Joe is typically compelled and hardly ever 'just watches'.
Intention without volition? To intend is "to stretch out for, aim at, to have in mind a purpose." What you're describing sounds like an intention to "just see it as it is," which would be "a conscious or deliberate decision regarding what to do," which is the definition of volition. How is that different from ATA where one intends to simply looks at "what is" as it is?" When pursuing ATA, with or without thought, no one is "making anything the way s/he wants it to be;" one is simply looking. It's like you intend to watch the sunset without any wish to do anything about it, but English has no words to say that so I say there is 'intention', but there is no 'volition'. Same in ATA, you intend to 'just observe', but reactivity comes in and you find yourself 'making it as you you want it to be'.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Sept 26, 2022 15:40:44 GMT -5
Intention without volition? To intend is "to stretch out for, aim at, to have in mind a purpose." What you're describing sounds like an intention to "just see it as it is," which would be "a conscious or deliberate decision regarding what to do," which is the definition of volition. How is that different from ATA where one intends to simply looks at "what is" as it is?" When pursuing ATA, with or without thought, no one is "making anything the way s/he wants it to be;" one is simply looking. It's like you intend to watch the sunset without any wish to do anything about it, but English has no words to say that so I say there is 'intention', but there is no 'volition'. Same in ATA, you intend to 'just observe', but reactivity comes in and you find yourself 'making it as you you want it to be'. Initially there can be some reactivity, as in frustration that the mind keeps jabbering, but by repeatedly shifting attention away from the jabbering to simple observation, the reactivity ceases because it's accepted that (1) the mind is in the habit of jabbering, and (2) it becomes obvious that persistence will be necessary to break the habit of incessant jabbering. Eventually the jabbering ceases for longer and longer periods of time until there is pure awareness of "what is" without the naming, commenting, jabbering, or any kind of reactivity. In no case that I can think of is there any attempt to "make it as you want it to be," but maybe other people experiences are different in this regard.
|
|