Practice

[zazeniac]

Some folks say you can practice while thinking. I have my suspicions about those folks, unpleasant ones. Though thinking definitely plays a role. A prompt to get back to now. In SI it's "who's thinking?" In what I read of Dzogchen, it's acknowledging the distraction.

Why I'm doubtful about thinking and practice is the expression "lost in thought." What is lost? Reality? Unadulterated reality is what I say. 

[justlikeyou]

Jul 8, 2024 8:43:25 GMT -5 zazeniac said:

Why I'm doubtful about thinking and practice is the expression "lost in thought." What is lost? Reality?

Here, for fun, I asked AI answer your question:

ChatGPT: In non-dual terms, when it is said that one can get lost in thoughts, it means that the sense of self or the awareness that is usually present becomes absorbed or identified with the stream of thoughts. This identification creates the illusion of a separate, individual self that is entangled in the mental activity. Essentially, the awareness that is inherently free and unbound seems to lose itself in the content of thoughts, forgetting its true nature as the observer or witness of these thoughts.

In non-dual terms, when it is said that one can get lost in thoughts, it means that the sense of self or awareness that is usually present becomes absorbed or identified with the stream of mental activity. Normally, this sense of self or awareness exists as a quiet, observing presence, a kind of background consciousness that is always there, silently witnessing all experiences without getting involved in them.

However, when we get lost in thoughts, this observing awareness becomes so absorbed in the thoughts that it starts to identify with them. Instead of remaining detached and free, it takes on the role of the thinker, becoming wrapped up in the narrative and emotional content of the thoughts. This identification creates the illusion of a separate, individual self, a self that is defined and limited by the thoughts it is experiencing.

As a result, the inherently free and unbound awareness seems to forget its true nature. It appears to be confined and entangled by the mental activity, losing sight of its role as the observer or witness. In this state, the mind creates a sense of individuality and separation, making it seem as though there is a distinct person experiencing the thoughts, rather than recognizing that the thoughts are simply arising within the broader field of consciousness.

Thus, getting lost in thoughts is essentially a process where the infinite, boundless awareness narrows down to a limited, conceptual identity, driven by the content of the thoughts. This creates a sense of separation and fragmentation from the whole, obscuring the true nature of the self as undivided, ever-present awareness.

Question: And how might awareness become "unlost" in thought

ChatGPT: Awareness can become unlost in thought through a process of disidentification and returning to its true nature as the observer. Here are some ways this can happen:

Mindfulness and Presence: By practicing mindfulness, one can cultivate a habit of bringing attention back to the present moment. This involves noticing when the mind has wandered into thoughts and gently redirecting awareness back to the present experience, whether it is the breath, bodily sensations, or external surroundings.

Meditation: Regular meditation practice can help train the mind to stay focused and calm. Techniques such as mindfulness meditation, where one observes thoughts without getting involved in them, or focused attention meditation, where one concentrates on a single object (like the breath), can help in recognizing and letting go of thought patterns.

Self-Inquiry: This method, often associated with the teachings of Ramana Maharshi, involves questioning the nature of the self. By asking questions like "Who am I?" and investigating the origin of thoughts, one can begin to see that thoughts arise within awareness and do not define it. This practice can help dissolve the identification with the thinker.

Witness Consciousness: Developing the ability to adopt a witness perspective involves observing thoughts as they come and go without attaching to them. This practice helps in realizing that thoughts are transient and that the true self is the stable, observing awareness behind them.

Non-Dual Teachings: Engaging with non-dual teachings and literature can provide insights and reminders of one's true nature. Teachers like Nisargadatta Maharaj, Ramana Maharshi, and contemporary figures like Eckhart Tolle offer guidance on recognizing and abiding in one's true essence beyond thoughts.

Living in the Moment: Engaging fully with activities in the present moment, without letting the mind drift into past or future, helps in maintaining a state of presence. Whether it's through simple tasks, creative endeavors, or being in nature, fully immersing oneself in the now can dissolve the grip of thoughts.

By employing these methods, awareness can gradually disentangle itself from the stream of thoughts and return to its natural state of pure, observing presence. This shift allows one to experience a sense of peace and freedom, recognizing that thoughts are just phenomena passing through awareness, rather than the essence of who one is.

[justlikeyou]

Jul 9, 2024 7:59:15 GMT -5 justlikeyou said:

Jul 8, 2024 8:43:25 GMT -5 zazeniac said:

Why I'm doubtful about thinking and practice is the expression "lost in thought." What is lost? Reality?

Here, for fun, I asked AI answer your question:

ChatGPT: In non-dual terms, when it is said that one can get lost in thoughts, it means that the sense of self or the awareness that is usually present becomes absorbed or identified with the stream of thoughts. This identification creates the illusion of a separate, individual self that is entangled in the mental activity. Essentially, the awareness that is inherently free and unbound seems to lose itself in the content of thoughts, forgetting its true nature as the observer or witness of these thoughts.

In non-dual terms, when it is said that one can get lost in thoughts, it means that the sense of self or awareness that is usually present becomes absorbed or identified with the stream of mental activity. Normally, this sense of self or awareness exists as a quiet, observing presence, a kind of background consciousness that is always there, silently witnessing all experiences without getting involved in them.

However, when we get lost in thoughts, this observing awareness becomes so absorbed in the thoughts that it starts to identify with them. Instead of remaining detached and free, it takes on the role of the thinker, becoming wrapped up in the narrative and emotional content of the thoughts. This identification creates the illusion of a separate, individual self, a self that is defined and limited by the thoughts it is experiencing.

As a result, the inherently free and unbound awareness seems to forget its true nature. It appears to be confined and entangled by the mental activity, losing sight of its role as the observer or witness. In this state, the mind creates a sense of individuality and separation, making it seem as though there is a distinct person experiencing the thoughts, rather than recognizing that the thoughts are simply arising within the broader field of consciousness.

Thus, getting lost in thoughts is essentially a process where the infinite, boundless awareness narrows down to a limited, conceptual identity, driven by the content of the thoughts. This creates a sense of separation and fragmentation from the whole, obscuring the true nature of the self as undivided, ever-present awareness.

Question: And how might awareness become "unlost" in thought

ChatGPT: Awareness can become unlost in thought through a process of disidentification and returning to its true nature as the observer. Here are some ways this can happen:

Mindfulness and Presence: By practicing mindfulness, one can cultivate a habit of bringing attention back to the present moment. This involves noticing when the mind has wandered into thoughts and gently redirecting awareness back to the present experience, whether it is the breath, bodily sensations, or external surroundings.

Meditation: Regular meditation practice can help train the mind to stay focused and calm. Techniques such as mindfulness meditation, where one observes thoughts without getting involved in them, or focused attention meditation, where one concentrates on a single object (like the breath), can help in recognizing and letting go of thought patterns.

Self-Inquiry: This method, often associated with the teachings of Ramana Maharshi, involves questioning the nature of the self. By asking questions like "Who am I?" and investigating the origin of thoughts, one can begin to see that thoughts arise within awareness and do not define it. This practice can help dissolve the identification with the thinker.

Witness Consciousness: Developing the ability to adopt a witness perspective involves observing thoughts as they come and go without attaching to them. This practice helps in realizing that thoughts are transient and that the true self is the stable, observing awareness behind them.

Non-Dual Teachings: Engaging with non-dual teachings and literature can provide insights and reminders of one's true nature. Teachers like Nisargadatta Maharaj, Ramana Maharshi, and contemporary figures like Eckhart Tolle offer guidance on recognizing and abiding in one's true essence beyond thoughts.

Living in the Moment: Engaging fully with activities in the present moment, without letting the mind drift into past or future, helps in maintaining a state of presence. Whether it's through simple tasks, creative endeavors, or being in nature, fully immersing oneself in the now can dissolve the grip of thoughts.

By employing these methods, awareness can gradually disentangle itself from the stream of thoughts and return to its natural state of pure, observing presence. This shift allows one to experience a sense of peace and freedom, recognizing that thoughts are just phenomena passing through awareness, rather than the essence of who one is.

Task: Examples please.

Here are some concrete examples of how observing awareness becoming absorbed in thoughts and identifying with them might look:

Example 1: Worrying About the Future

Scenario: You have an important presentation next week.
Observation: Initially, you are aware of the presentation and the necessary preparations.

Getting Lost in Thought:

You start thinking about all the possible things that could go wrong.
You imagine yourself stumbling over your words or the audience being unresponsive.
Your mind creates a narrative of failure and embarrassment.
You begin to feel anxious and stressed, as if these imagined scenarios are already happening.

Identification:

Instead of observing these thoughts as mere possibilities, you start believing them.
You identify with the anxious thinker, feeling as though you are the one who will fail.
Your body reacts with tension, increased heart rate, and other stress responses.


Example 2: Ruminating on Past Mistakes


Scenario: You recall a mistake you made at work a few months ago.
Observation: Initially, you just remember the event factually.
Getting Lost in Thought:

You start replaying the event in your mind, focusing on every detail of the mistake.
You think about what you could have done differently and how others might have perceived you.
The narrative of self-blame and regret grows stronger.
Emotions of guilt and shame arise, feeling fresh and intense.
Identification:

Instead of seeing these thoughts as memories, you start identifying with the person who made the mistake.
You begin to feel that you are fundamentally flawed or incompetent.
This identification affects your self-esteem and current mood, even though the event is long past.

Example 3: Imagining a Conflict

Scenario: You have a disagreement with a friend.
Observation: Initially, you notice the disagreement and your feelings about it.
Getting Lost in Thought:

You start imagining future arguments with this friend.
You create scenarios where you defend yourself and they misunderstand you further.
Your mind adds emotional content, like anger, hurt, and frustration.

Identification:
Instead of recognizing these as just thoughts, you identify with the aggrieved party.
You feel the emotions as if the imagined conflicts are real and happening now.
This identification might lead you to react defensively or aggressively the next time you see your friend, based on imagined rather than real events.

Example 4: Daydreaming About Success

Scenario: You imagine achieving a significant life goal.
Observation: Initially, you are aware of your aspiration and the steps needed to achieve it.
Getting Lost in Thought:

You start daydreaming about the success in great detail.
You imagine the accolades, the praise from others, and the sense of accomplishment.
Emotional content like pride, excitement, and joy fills your mind.
Identification:

Instead of seeing this as a motivational thought, you identify with the successful version of yourself.
You may feel a sense of dissatisfaction with your current state, as it pales in comparison to the imagined success.
This identification might lead to impatience or frustration with your current efforts, as they don't match the imagined end result.

In all these examples, the key point is that the awareness, which initially observes these thoughts and feelings, becomes so absorbed and identified with them that it forgets its role as the detached observer. This absorption leads to the creation of a separate self that feels bound by the narratives and emotions generated by these thoughts, losing sight of the true nature of awareness as free and unbounded.

[zazeniac]

Jul 9, 2024 8:12:57 GMT -5 justlikeyou said:

Jul 9, 2024 7:59:15 GMT -5 justlikeyou said:

Here, for fun, I asked AI answer your question:

ChatGPT: In non-dual terms, when it is said that one can get lost in thoughts, it means that the sense of self or the awareness that is usually present becomes absorbed or identified with the stream of thoughts. This identification creates the illusion of a separate, individual self that is entangled in the mental activity. Essentially, the awareness that is inherently free and unbound seems to lose itself in the content of thoughts, forgetting its true nature as the observer or witness of these thoughts.

In non-dual terms, when it is said that one can get lost in thoughts, it means that the sense of self or awareness that is usually present becomes absorbed or identified with the stream of mental activity. Normally, this sense of self or awareness exists as a quiet, observing presence, a kind of background consciousness that is always there, silently witnessing all experiences without getting involved in them.

However, when we get lost in thoughts, this observing awareness becomes so absorbed in the thoughts that it starts to identify with them. Instead of remaining detached and free, it takes on the role of the thinker, becoming wrapped up in the narrative and emotional content of the thoughts. This identification creates the illusion of a separate, individual self, a self that is defined and limited by the thoughts it is experiencing.

As a result, the inherently free and unbound awareness seems to forget its true nature. It appears to be confined and entangled by the mental activity, losing sight of its role as the observer or witness. In this state, the mind creates a sense of individuality and separation, making it seem as though there is a distinct person experiencing the thoughts, rather than recognizing that the thoughts are simply arising within the broader field of consciousness.

Thus, getting lost in thoughts is essentially a process where the infinite, boundless awareness narrows down to a limited, conceptual identity, driven by the content of the thoughts. This creates a sense of separation and fragmentation from the whole, obscuring the true nature of the self as undivided, ever-present awareness.

Question: And how might awareness become "unlost" in thought

ChatGPT: Awareness can become unlost in thought through a process of disidentification and returning to its true nature as the observer. Here are some ways this can happen:

Mindfulness and Presence: By practicing mindfulness, one can cultivate a habit of bringing attention back to the present moment. This involves noticing when the mind has wandered into thoughts and gently redirecting awareness back to the present experience, whether it is the breath, bodily sensations, or external surroundings.

Meditation: Regular meditation practice can help train the mind to stay focused and calm. Techniques such as mindfulness meditation, where one observes thoughts without getting involved in them, or focused attention meditation, where one concentrates on a single object (like the breath), can help in recognizing and letting go of thought patterns.

Self-Inquiry: This method, often associated with the teachings of Ramana Maharshi, involves questioning the nature of the self. By asking questions like "Who am I?" and investigating the origin of thoughts, one can begin to see that thoughts arise within awareness and do not define it. This practice can help dissolve the identification with the thinker.

Witness Consciousness: Developing the ability to adopt a witness perspective involves observing thoughts as they come and go without attaching to them. This practice helps in realizing that thoughts are transient and that the true self is the stable, observing awareness behind them.

Non-Dual Teachings: Engaging with non-dual teachings and literature can provide insights and reminders of one's true nature. Teachers like Nisargadatta Maharaj, Ramana Maharshi, and contemporary figures like Eckhart Tolle offer guidance on recognizing and abiding in one's true essence beyond thoughts.

Living in the Moment: Engaging fully with activities in the present moment, without letting the mind drift into past or future, helps in maintaining a state of presence. Whether it's through simple tasks, creative endeavors, or being in nature, fully immersing oneself in the now can dissolve the grip of thoughts.

By employing these methods, awareness can gradually disentangle itself from the stream of thoughts and return to its natural state of pure, observing presence. This shift allows one to experience a sense of peace and freedom, recognizing that thoughts are just phenomena passing through awareness, rather than the essence of who one is.

Task: Examples please.

Here are some concrete examples of how observing awareness becoming absorbed in thoughts and identifying with them might look:

Example 1: Worrying About the Future

Scenario: You have an important presentation next week.
Observation: Initially, you are aware of the presentation and the necessary preparations.

Getting Lost in Thought:

You start thinking about all the possible things that could go wrong.
You imagine yourself stumbling over your words or the audience being unresponsive.
Your mind creates a narrative of failure and embarrassment.
You begin to feel anxious and stressed, as if these imagined scenarios are already happening.

Identification:

Instead of observing these thoughts as mere possibilities, you start believing them.
You identify with the anxious thinker, feeling as though you are the one who will fail.
Your body reacts with tension, increased heart rate, and other stress responses.


Example 2: Ruminating on Past Mistakes


Scenario: You recall a mistake you made at work a few months ago.
Observation: Initially, you just remember the event factually.
Getting Lost in Thought:

You start replaying the event in your mind, focusing on every detail of the mistake.
You think about what you could have done differently and how others might have perceived you.
The narrative of self-blame and regret grows stronger.
Emotions of guilt and shame arise, feeling fresh and intense.
Identification:

Instead of seeing these thoughts as memories, you start identifying with the person who made the mistake.
You begin to feel that you are fundamentally flawed or incompetent.
This identification affects your self-esteem and current mood, even though the event is long past.

Example 3: Imagining a Conflict

Scenario: You have a disagreement with a friend.
Observation: Initially, you notice the disagreement and your feelings about it.
Getting Lost in Thought:

You start imagining future arguments with this friend.
You create scenarios where you defend yourself and they misunderstand you further.
Your mind adds emotional content, like anger, hurt, and frustration.

Identification:
Instead of recognizing these as just thoughts, you identify with the aggrieved party.
You feel the emotions as if the imagined conflicts are real and happening now.
This identification might lead you to react defensively or aggressively the next time you see your friend, based on imagined rather than real events.

Example 4: Daydreaming About Success

Scenario: You imagine achieving a significant life goal.
Observation: Initially, you are aware of your aspiration and the steps needed to achieve it.
Getting Lost in Thought:

You start daydreaming about the success in great detail.
You imagine the accolades, the praise from others, and the sense of accomplishment.
Emotional content like pride, excitement, and joy fills your mind.
Identification:

Instead of seeing this as a motivational thought, you identify with the successful version of yourself.
You may feel a sense of dissatisfaction with your current state, as it pales in comparison to the imagined success.
This identification might lead to impatience or frustration with your current efforts, as they don't match the imagined end result.

In all these examples, the key point is that the awareness, which initially observes these thoughts and feelings, becomes so absorbed and identified with them that it forgets its role as the detached observer. This absorption leads to the creation of a separate self that feels bound by the narratives and emotions generated by these thoughts, losing sight of the true nature of awareness as free and unbounded.

The most interesting observation is the implication that thoughts might not be believed". Is that possible? I'm open to that possibility. I've noticed with age that thoughts about dire circumstances appear remote. But I attribute that to age. The funny thing is for most folks thinking is so common they don't even notice it. I suspect that folks who say they rarely think, just don't notice that it's all they do.  You don't realize just how prevalent thoughts are until you engage in meditation or some other practice. Of course the worse thing you can do is try to stop thinking. It's like poking a bear. 

Trying the crow pose in yoga stops it without trying to stop it. It's that or a face plant.

[stardustpilgrim]

Jul 9, 2024 9:06:37 GMT -5 zazeniac said:

Jul 9, 2024 8:12:57 GMT -5 justlikeyou said:

Task: Examples please.

Here are some concrete examples of how observing awareness becoming absorbed in thoughts and identifying with them might look:

Example 1: Worrying About the Future

Scenario: You have an important presentation next week.
Observation: Initially, you are aware of the presentation and the necessary preparations.

Getting Lost in Thought:

You start thinking about all the possible things that could go wrong.
You imagine yourself stumbling over your words or the audience being unresponsive.
Your mind creates a narrative of failure and embarrassment.
You begin to feel anxious and stressed, as if these imagined scenarios are already happening.

Identification:

Instead of observing these thoughts as mere possibilities, you start believing them.
You identify with the anxious thinker, feeling as though you are the one who will fail.
Your body reacts with tension, increased heart rate, and other stress responses.


Example 2: Ruminating on Past Mistakes


Scenario: You recall a mistake you made at work a few months ago.
Observation: Initially, you just remember the event factually.
Getting Lost in Thought:

You start replaying the event in your mind, focusing on every detail of the mistake.
You think about what you could have done differently and how others might have perceived you.
The narrative of self-blame and regret grows stronger.
Emotions of guilt and shame arise, feeling fresh and intense.
Identification:

Instead of seeing these thoughts as memories, you start identifying with the person who made the mistake.
You begin to feel that you are fundamentally flawed or incompetent.
This identification affects your self-esteem and current mood, even though the event is long past.

Example 3: Imagining a Conflict

Scenario: You have a disagreement with a friend.
Observation: Initially, you notice the disagreement and your feelings about it.
Getting Lost in Thought:

You start imagining future arguments with this friend.
You create scenarios where you defend yourself and they misunderstand you further.
Your mind adds emotional content, like anger, hurt, and frustration.

Identification:
Instead of recognizing these as just thoughts, you identify with the aggrieved party.
You feel the emotions as if the imagined conflicts are real and happening now.
This identification might lead you to react defensively or aggressively the next time you see your friend, based on imagined rather than real events.

Example 4: Daydreaming About Success

Scenario: You imagine achieving a significant life goal.
Observation: Initially, you are aware of your aspiration and the steps needed to achieve it.
Getting Lost in Thought:

You start daydreaming about the success in great detail.
You imagine the accolades, the praise from others, and the sense of accomplishment.
Emotional content like pride, excitement, and joy fills your mind.
Identification:

Instead of seeing this as a motivational thought, you identify with the successful version of yourself.
You may feel a sense of dissatisfaction with your current state, as it pales in comparison to the imagined success.
This identification might lead to impatience or frustration with your current efforts, as they don't match the imagined end result.

In all these examples, the key point is that the awareness, which initially observes these thoughts and feelings, becomes so absorbed and identified with them that it forgets its role as the detached observer. This absorption leads to the creation of a separate self that feels bound by the narratives and emotions generated by these thoughts, losing sight of the true nature of awareness as free and unbounded.

The most interesting observation is the implication that thoughts might not be believed". Is that possible? I'm open to that possibility. I've noticed with age that thoughts about dire circumstances appear remote. But I attribute that to age. The funny thing is for most folks thinking is so common they don't even notice it. I suspect that folks who say they rarely think, just don't notice that it's all they do.  You don't realize just how prevalent thoughts are until you engage in meditation or some other practice. Of course the worse thing you can do is try to stop thinking. It's like poking a bear. 

Trying the crow pose in yoga stops it without trying to stop it. It's that or a face plant.

This is a pretty good analysis by ChatGPT. It's actually its own example also. The only difference with ChatGPT is that there is no underlying awareness, just the manipulation of words and meaning. The person is like an onion, layers and layers of thoughts, and at the center is awareness. With ChatGPT there is no center of awareness. So we have to be careful, when we come upon the next layer of the onion, it may not be pure awareness, there may continue to be a tangle of awareness/thought. One of our early tasks, which lasted from meeting to meeting, usually a week, was try not to say "I". Now, I took this quite literally, I tried not to say I. But over time, 'I' realized the task (remembering back) wasn't about saying the word I, it was about this identification ChatGPT is talking about. And later I came upon the phrase, be careful what you say "I" to. It gets really complicated here. Eventually, you learn that almost every thought is a false sense of I. (There are some thoughts which are not I-thoughts, how to change a flat tire). But, generally, we can think of the self, which we consider we are, as a sophisticated ChatGPT. That's pretty harsh, just stick it in the back of your mind. But we uncover one layer of the onion, and we consider, OK, here is the line between self and not-self. But eventually you see, OK, that layer is still part of the entanglement of the false sense of self. And eventually you can come to peel off another layer of the onion, I have arrived. Let's get to your question. You can almost assume, that the thought that wonders, is it possible to not-believe in thoughts, is still part of the entangled structure of another layer. That's difficult to hear. Now, I was taught from day one, anything you think, anything that thinks, is not the True Self (essence). I was also taught, from day one, you have to find your essence. Almost nothing else was said about this. But even knowing this, I still had to go through the process described above. But basically, once you see a layer, it's gone. But we're not dealing with just-an-onion, that might have 12-15 layers. Ego-small s self-so-called SVP-cultural self-self-avatar, has innumerable layers. So FAIAP, the self we consider we are, is just a sophisticated ChatGPT. And, you can see, a man is unable to describe what he himself is. So, right now, it's best to begin, considering, NO thoughts can be believed. This is the beginner's mind. I should stop there. But I've posted this many times, the centers themselves (thinking, feeling/emotions, instinctive and muscle-doing) belong to essence, the CONTENTS of the centers (thoughts, for example) belong to the so-called SVP. And, the practices are about emptying the centers of their contents. We were also taught, you have to realize your nothingness. This, is seeing that the so-called SVP, is nothing (nothing of any significance). Now, to realize your nothingness, means to empty the centers of their contents, in actuality. And this means, to sacrifice your suffering, because all suffering comes from the entanglement of thoughts and feelings. You can learn you don't want to say "I" to any thought, any feeling/emotion, and any learned-bodily-action. Yes, you come to distrust who you think you are. And this can come to be a very, very bad place, or a very, very good place.

There are years and years packed into all that. And all that is just a bunch of words, it may as well have been written by ChatGPT. So you have to come to experience, and make it true for you. So, I'd say to begin distrusting all thoughts, all thinking. I have started-over hundreds of times, you almost have to start-from-scratch every day. But, eventually, some solid ground begins to form. All you can really ~trust~, is awareness and attention. But it has to be pure awareness, not entangled with any thinking. Attention, not entangled with anything, else. Look up the story of Ikkyu: Attention. Attention. Attention. Attention means attention. From that story alone I knew Ikkyu had the goods. KOAN:

A student said to Master Ikkyu, “Please write for me something of great wisdom.” Ikkyu picked up his brush and wrote one word: “Attention.”
The student said, “Is that all?” The master wrote, “Attention. Attention.”
The student became irritable. “That doesn’t seem profound or subtle to me.”
In response, Master Ikkyu wrote simply, “Attention. Attention. Attention.”
In frustration, the student demanded, “What does this word ‘attention’ mean?”
Ikkyu replied, “Attention means attention.”

—Koan Story

[zazeniac]

Jul 9, 2024 10:08:05 GMT -5 stardustpilgrim said:

Jul 9, 2024 9:06:37 GMT -5 zazeniac said:

The most interesting observation is the implication that thoughts might not be believed". Is that possible? I'm open to that possibility. I've noticed with age that thoughts about dire circumstances appear remote. But I attribute that to age. The funny thing is for most folks thinking is so common they don't even notice it. I suspect that folks who say they rarely think, just don't notice that it's all they do.  You don't realize just how prevalent thoughts are until you engage in meditation or some other practice. Of course the worse thing you can do is try to stop thinking. It's like poking a bear. 

Trying the crow pose in yoga stops it without trying to stop it. It's that or a face plant.

This is a pretty good analysis by ChatGPT. It's actually its own example also. The only difference with ChatGPT is that there is no underlying awareness, just the manipulation of words and meaning. The person is like an onion, layers and layers of thoughts, and at the center is awareness. With ChatGPT there is no center of awareness. So we have to be careful, when we come upon the next layer of the onion, it may not be pure awareness, there may continue to be a tangle of awareness/thought. One of our early tasks, which lasted from meeting to meeting, usually a week, was try not to say "I". Now, I took this quite literally, I tried not to say I. But over time, 'I' realized the task (remembering back) wasn't about saying the word I, it was about this identification ChatGPT is talking about. And later I came upon the phrase, be careful what you say "I" to. It gets really complicated here. Eventually, you learn that almost every thought is a false sense of I. (There are some thoughts which are not I-thoughts, how to change a flat tire). But, generally, we can think of the self, which we consider we are, as a sophisticated ChatGPT. That's pretty harsh, just stick it in the back of your mind. But we uncover one layer of the onion, and we consider, OK, here is the line between self and not-self. But eventually you see, OK, that layer is still part of the entanglement of the false sense of self. And eventually you can come to peel off another layer of the onion, I have arrived. Let's get to your question. You can almost assume, that the thought that wonders, is it possible to not-believe in thoughts, is still part of the entangled structure of another layer. That's difficult to hear. Now, I was taught from day one, anything you think, anything that thinks, is not the True Self (essence). I was also taught, from day one, you have to find your essence. Almost nothing else was said about this. But even knowing this, I still had to go through the process described above. But basically, once you see a layer, it's gone. But we're not dealing with just-an-onion, that might have 12-15 layers. Ego-small s self-so-called SVP-cultural self-self-avatar, has innumerable layers. So FAIAP, the self we consider we are, is just a sophisticated ChatGPT. And, you can see, a man is unable to describe what he himself is. So, right now, it's best to begin, considering, NO thoughts can be believed. This is the beginner's mind. I should stop there. But I've posted this many times, the centers themselves (thinking, feeling/emotions, instinctive and muscle-doing) belong to essence, the CONTENTS of the centers (thoughts, for example) belong to the so-called SVP. And, the practices are about emptying the centers of their contents. We were also taught, you have to realize your nothingness. This, is seeing that the so-called SVP, is nothing (nothing of any significance). Now, to realize your nothingness, means to empty the centers of their contents, in actuality. And this means, to sacrifice your suffering, because all suffering comes from the entanglement of thoughts and feelings. You can learn you don't want to say "I" to any thought, any feeling/emotion, and any learned-bodily-action. Yes, you come to distrust who you think you are. And this can come to be a very, very bad place, or a very, very good place.

There are years and years packed into all that. And all that is just a bunch of words, it may as well have been written by ChatGPT. So you have to come to experience, and make it true for you. So, I'd say to begin distrusting all thoughts, all thinking. I have started-over hundreds of times, you almost have to start-from-scratch every day. But, eventually, some solid ground begins to form. All you can really ~trust~, is awareness and attention. But it has to be pure awareness, not entangled with any thinking. Attention, not entangled with anything, else. Look up the story of Ikkyu: Attention. Attention. Attention. Attention means attention. From that story alone I knew Ikkyu had the goods. KOAN:

A student said to Master Ikkyu, “Please write for me something of great wisdom.” Ikkyu picked up his brush and wrote one word: “Attention.”
The student said, “Is that all?” The master wrote, “Attention. Attention.”
The student became irritable. “That doesn’t seem profound or subtle to me.”
In response, Master Ikkyu wrote simply, “Attention. Attention. Attention.”
In frustration, the student demanded, “What does this word ‘attention’ mean?”
Ikkyu replied, “Attention means attention.”

—Koan Story

I can say I don't believe my thoughts, I don't, honestly, but then I'm "lost" in thought. Catch my drift? 

[laughter]

Jul 9, 2024 10:45:56 GMT -5 zazeniac said:

Jul 9, 2024 10:08:05 GMT -5 stardustpilgrim said:

This is a pretty good analysis by ChatGPT. It's actually its own example also. The only difference with ChatGPT is that there is no underlying awareness, just the manipulation of words and meaning. The person is like an onion, layers and layers of thoughts, and at the center is awareness. With ChatGPT there is no center of awareness. So we have to be careful, when we come upon the next layer of the onion, it may not be pure awareness, there may continue to be a tangle of awareness/thought. One of our early tasks, which lasted from meeting to meeting, usually a week, was try not to say "I". Now, I took this quite literally, I tried not to say I. But over time, 'I' realized the task (remembering back) wasn't about saying the word I, it was about this identification ChatGPT is talking about. And later I came upon the phrase, be careful what you say "I" to. It gets really complicated here. Eventually, you learn that almost every thought is a false sense of I. (There are some thoughts which are not I-thoughts, how to change a flat tire). But, generally, we can think of the self, which we consider we are, as a sophisticated ChatGPT. That's pretty harsh, just stick it in the back of your mind. But we uncover one layer of the onion, and we consider, OK, here is the line between self and not-self. But eventually you see, OK, that layer is still part of the entanglement of the false sense of self. And eventually you can come to peel off another layer of the onion, I have arrived. Let's get to your question. You can almost assume, that the thought that wonders, is it possible to not-believe in thoughts, is still part of the entangled structure of another layer. That's difficult to hear. Now, I was taught from day one, anything you think, anything that thinks, is not the True Self (essence). I was also taught, from day one, you have to find your essence. Almost nothing else was said about this. But even knowing this, I still had to go through the process described above. But basically, once you see a layer, it's gone. But we're not dealing with just-an-onion, that might have 12-15 layers. Ego-small s self-so-called SVP-cultural self-self-avatar, has innumerable layers. So FAIAP, the self we consider we are, is just a sophisticated ChatGPT. And, you can see, a man is unable to describe what he himself is. So, right now, it's best to begin, considering, NO thoughts can be believed. This is the beginner's mind. I should stop there. But I've posted this many times, the centers themselves (thinking, feeling/emotions, instinctive and muscle-doing) belong to essence, the CONTENTS of the centers (thoughts, for example) belong to the so-called SVP. And, the practices are about emptying the centers of their contents. We were also taught, you have to realize your nothingness. This, is seeing that the so-called SVP, is nothing (nothing of any significance). Now, to realize your nothingness, means to empty the centers of their contents, in actuality. And this means, to sacrifice your suffering, because all suffering comes from the entanglement of thoughts and feelings. You can learn you don't want to say "I" to any thought, any feeling/emotion, and any learned-bodily-action. Yes, you come to distrust who you think you are. And this can come to be a very, very bad place, or a very, very good place.

There are years and years packed into all that. And all that is just a bunch of words, it may as well have been written by ChatGPT. So you have to come to experience, and make it true for you. So, I'd say to begin distrusting all thoughts, all thinking. I have started-over hundreds of times, you almost have to start-from-scratch every day. But, eventually, some solid ground begins to form. All you can really ~trust~, is awareness and attention. But it has to be pure awareness, not entangled with any thinking. Attention, not entangled with anything, else. Look up the story of Ikkyu: Attention. Attention. Attention. Attention means attention. From that story alone I knew Ikkyu had the goods. KOAN:

A student said to Master Ikkyu, “Please write for me something of great wisdom.” Ikkyu picked up his brush and wrote one word: “Attention.”
The student said, “Is that all?” The master wrote, “Attention. Attention.”
The student became irritable. “That doesn’t seem profound or subtle to me.”
In response, Master Ikkyu wrote simply, “Attention. Attention. Attention.”
In frustration, the student demanded, “What does this word ‘attention’ mean?”
Ikkyu replied, “Attention means attention.”

—Koan Story

I can say I don't believe my thoughts, I don't, honestly, but then I'm "lost" in thought. Catch my drift? 

Tolle like a few pages in (paraphrase from memory) "as it is, 90% of human thought is negative, repetitive and ineffectual". It's amazing how quiet the mind can get once this point is considered while "watching the thinker", and how quickly that can happen. And it's a practice that's better done with eyes open walking/talking. That's how this body/mind got to the point you express there, about not believing your thoughts.

E' had varying definitions of his notion of "split mind", and what I describe above would definitely be a "split-mind" practice by his most general use of the term. It was fun and interesting running a dialog with him on the topic over a few years. Bottom line of that talk was what you suggest about about self-inquiry, in that combining "watching the thinker" with self-inquiry is an opportunity to fall into the question "gee, how many of me are there in here, anyway? ".

And it's all just a gateway drug to something like ATA or sitting meditation with no focus. In Tolle-speak what you point out about the people who have noisy minds just below the surface, they are not conscious of either the content or dynamic of their own minds. From reading along with the likes of you and ZD and others, it seems to me that a conscious interest in these topics is completely optional on the way to a genuinely quiescent mind. But, in any event, practice of some sort is a conscious interest in the quiescence, and there are methods of practice that seem to work quite well for many people to get to that quiescence.

E' would stir controversy by pointing out that these states are only temporary, having a beginning, middle and end. Reefs stirs controversy by stating that practice has nothing to do with SR. But they are not wrong. And the flip side to that humorous split-mind question above is a self-reinforcing trap centered on practice for the sake of practice, with a false conviction of eventually "getting there". The relative world is always a two-sided coin like that. And not all practice for the sake of practice is a trap, either. Likely plenty of Joes and Janes who spend their life going to church each week that never have to question the nature of God. Can't say for sure as I've never taken a survey, but I got a hunch about it.

[stardustpilgrim]

Jul 9, 2024 10:45:56 GMT -5 zazeniac said:

Jul 9, 2024 10:08:05 GMT -5 stardustpilgrim said:

This is a pretty good analysis by ChatGPT. It's actually its own example also. The only difference with ChatGPT is that there is no underlying awareness, just the manipulation of words and meaning. The person is like an onion, layers and layers of thoughts, and at the center is awareness. With ChatGPT there is no center of awareness. So we have to be careful, when we come upon the next layer of the onion, it may not be pure awareness, there may continue to be a tangle of awareness/thought. One of our early tasks, which lasted from meeting to meeting, usually a week, was try not to say "I". Now, I took this quite literally, I tried not to say I. But over time, 'I' realized the task (remembering back) wasn't about saying the word I, it was about this identification ChatGPT is talking about. And later I came upon the phrase, be careful what you say "I" to. It gets really complicated here. Eventually, you learn that almost every thought is a false sense of I. (There are some thoughts which are not I-thoughts, how to change a flat tire). But, generally, we can think of the self, which we consider we are, as a sophisticated ChatGPT. That's pretty harsh, just stick it in the back of your mind. But we uncover one layer of the onion, and we consider, OK, here is the line between self and not-self. But eventually you see, OK, that layer is still part of the entanglement of the false sense of self. And eventually you can come to peel off another layer of the onion, I have arrived. Let's get to your question. You can almost assume, that the thought that wonders, is it possible to not-believe in thoughts, is still part of the entangled structure of another layer. That's difficult to hear. Now, I was taught from day one, anything you think, anything that thinks, is not the True Self (essence). I was also taught, from day one, you have to find your essence. Almost nothing else was said about this. But even knowing this, I still had to go through the process described above. But basically, once you see a layer, it's gone. But we're not dealing with just-an-onion, that might have 12-15 layers. Ego-small s self-so-called SVP-cultural self-self-avatar, has innumerable layers. So FAIAP, the self we consider we are, is just a sophisticated ChatGPT. And, you can see, a man is unable to describe what he himself is. So, right now, it's best to begin, considering, NO thoughts can be believed. This is the beginner's mind. I should stop there. But I've posted this many times, the centers themselves (thinking, feeling/emotions, instinctive and muscle-doing) belong to essence, the CONTENTS of the centers (thoughts, for example) belong to the so-called SVP. And, the practices are about emptying the centers of their contents. We were also taught, you have to realize your nothingness. This, is seeing that the so-called SVP, is nothing (nothing of any significance). Now, to realize your nothingness, means to empty the centers of their contents, in actuality. And this means, to sacrifice your suffering, because all suffering comes from the entanglement of thoughts and feelings. You can learn you don't want to say "I" to any thought, any feeling/emotion, and any learned-bodily-action. Yes, you come to distrust who you think you are. And this can come to be a very, very bad place, or a very, very good place.

There are years and years packed into all that. And all that is just a bunch of words, it may as well have been written by ChatGPT. So you have to come to experience, and make it true for you. So, I'd say to begin distrusting all thoughts, all thinking. I have started-over hundreds of times, you almost have to start-from-scratch every day. But, eventually, some solid ground begins to form. All you can really ~trust~, is awareness and attention. But it has to be pure awareness, not entangled with any thinking. Attention, not entangled with anything, else. Look up the story of Ikkyu: Attention. Attention. Attention. Attention means attention. From that story alone I knew Ikkyu had the goods. KOAN:

A student said to Master Ikkyu, “Please write for me something of great wisdom.” Ikkyu picked up his brush and wrote one word: “Attention.”
The student said, “Is that all?” The master wrote, “Attention. Attention.”
The student became irritable. “That doesn’t seem profound or subtle to me.”
In response, Master Ikkyu wrote simply, “Attention. Attention. Attention.”
In frustration, the student demanded, “What does this word ‘attention’ mean?”
Ikkyu replied, “Attention means attention.”

—Koan Story

I can say I don't believe my thoughts, I don't, honestly, but then I'm "lost" in thought. Catch my drift? 

Yes, gotch ya. It's difficult. ...Have you ever seen the film A Beautiful Mind? Nash finally came to know ~his~ people he saw were not real. But they kept appearing to him. Even when he won the Nobel Prize, they were there, he could still see them. But he knew they weren't real. It's kind of like that. But when you can not-identify-with-thoughts, they eventually get filed in a different way in the mind. That's what happened to Nash, the imaginary people got filed in a place where he knew they weren't real, and he could no longer get lost in them. A conscious effort never just happens, that's why it's difficult. Anything that just-happens, is not an actual true spiritual practice. And an actual true spiritual practice takes the energy out of the structure that holds the thoughts together, that makes-an-I-out-of-them. Attention is a two-way-street. When we get lost in thought, thought is taking our attention. Giving your attention, is an altogether different process. Expect it to be a never-ending process. How can you tell you are making progress? When something that used to trigger you, no longer triggers you. Why is that so? Eventually, you can break the chain of cause and effect, by taking the energy out of the structure. This, is real freedom. It's not enough to just realize the so-called SVP isn't real. You have to dismantle it. You basically just have to love the practice, that's not so easy to come to. From the Thich Nhat Hanh quotes, it's obvious he knew how it all works. You can eventually be practicing half the time. And then...more...

[zendancer]

Jul 9, 2024 12:02:13 GMT -5 laughter said:

Jul 9, 2024 10:45:56 GMT -5 zazeniac said:

I can say I don't believe my thoughts, I don't, honestly, but then I'm "lost" in thought. Catch my drift? 

Tolle like a few pages in (paraphrase from memory) "as it is, 90% of human thought is negative, repetitive and ineffectual". It's amazing how quiet the mind can get once this point is considered while "watching the thinker", and how quickly that can happen. And it's a practice that's better done with eyes open walking/talking. That's how this body/mind got to the point you express there, about not believing your thoughts.

E' had varying definitions of his notion of "split mind", and what I describe above would definitely be a "split-mind" practice by his most general use of the term. It was fun and interesting running a dialog with him on the topic over a few years. Bottom line of that talk was what you suggest about about self-inquiry, in that combining "watching the thinker" with self-inquiry is an opportunity to fall into the question "gee, how many of me are there in here, anyway? ".

And it's all just a gateway drug to something like ATA or sitting meditation with no focus. In Tolle-speak what you point out about the people who have noisy minds just below the surface, they are not conscious of either the content or dynamic of their own minds. From reading along with the likes of you and ZD and others, it seems to me that a conscious interest in these topics is completely optional on the way to a genuinely quiescent mind. But, in any event, practice of some sort is a conscious interest in the quiescence, and there are methods of practice that seem to work quite well for many people to get to that quiescence.

E' would stir controversy by pointing out that these states are only temporary, having a beginning, middle and end. Reefs stirs controversy by stating that practice has nothing to do with SR. But they are not wrong. And the flip side to that humorous split-mind question above is a self-reinforcing trap centered on practice for the sake of practice, with a false conviction of eventually "getting there". The relative world is always a two-sided coin like that. And not all practice for the sake of practice is a trap, either. Likely plenty of Joes and Janes who spend their life going to church each week that never have to question the nature of God. Can't say for sure as I've never taken a survey, but I got a hunch about it.

E was correct up to a point. Yes, as long as there is a sense of a "me" who needs to shift attention away from thoughts to either self enquiry or direct sensory perception, the state of focused attention will be temporary. However, once it is realized that there's no "me" shifting attention away from thoughts or doing anything else, then the natural state ensues without the illusion of a "me" being dominant, and the natural state is not temporary. It is ordinary everyday life lived free from attachment to ideation--what Zen people call "non-abidance in mind" and what RM called "sahaja samadhi." People who live in the natural state do not care whether there is thinking or silence because the illusion of separateness has been penetrated. After penetration, one realizes/discovers that what one IS has always lived in the natural state, and that there is no other state than the natural state. Sages call it "the natural state" only to point to it because they also know that there are no separate states in THIS. All there is is THIS--the entire cosmos, undivided, but looking at ITSELF from a trillion trillion different perspectives. There simply is no "other."

[stardustpilgrim]

Jul 9, 2024 14:49:26 GMT -5 zendancer said:

Jul 9, 2024 12:02:13 GMT -5 laughter said:

Tolle like a few pages in (paraphrase from memory) "as it is, 90% of human thought is negative, repetitive and ineffectual". It's amazing how quiet the mind can get once this point is considered while "watching the thinker", and how quickly that can happen. And it's a practice that's better done with eyes open walking/talking. That's how this body/mind got to the point you express there, about not believing your thoughts.

E' had varying definitions of his notion of "split mind", and what I describe above would definitely be a "split-mind" practice by his most general use of the term. It was fun and interesting running a dialog with him on the topic over a few years. Bottom line of that talk was what you suggest about about self-inquiry, in that combining "watching the thinker" with self-inquiry is an opportunity to fall into the question "gee, how many of me are there in here, anyway? ".

And it's all just a gateway drug to something like ATA or sitting meditation with no focus. In Tolle-speak what you point out about the people who have noisy minds just below the surface, they are not conscious of either the content or dynamic of their own minds. From reading along with the likes of you and ZD and others, it seems to me that a conscious interest in these topics is completely optional on the way to a genuinely quiescent mind. But, in any event, practice of some sort is a conscious interest in the quiescence, and there are methods of practice that seem to work quite well for many people to get to that quiescence.

E' would stir controversy by pointing out that these states are only temporary, having a beginning, middle and end. Reefs stirs controversy by stating that practice has nothing to do with SR. But they are not wrong. And the flip side to that humorous split-mind question above is a self-reinforcing trap centered on practice for the sake of practice, with a false conviction of eventually "getting there". The relative world is always a two-sided coin like that. And not all practice for the sake of practice is a trap, either. Likely plenty of Joes and Janes who spend their life going to church each week that never have to question the nature of God. Can't say for sure as I've never taken a survey, but I got a hunch about it.

E was correct up to a point. Yes, as long as there is a sense of a "me" who needs to shift attention away from thoughts to either self enquiry or direct sensory perception, the state of focused attention will be temporary. However, once it is realized that there's no "me" shifting attention away from thoughts or doing anything else, then the natural state ensues without the illusion of a "me" being dominant, and the natural state is not temporary. It is ordinary everyday life lived free from attachment to ideation--what Zen people call "non-abidance in mind" and what RM called "sahaja samadhi." People who live in the natural state do not care whether there is thinking or silence because the illusion of separateness has been penetrated. After penetration, one realizes/discovers that what one IS has always lived in the natural state, and that there is no other state than the natural state. Sages call it "the natural state" only to point to it because they also know that there are no separate states in THIS. All there is is THIS--the entire cosmos, undivided, but looking at ITSELF from a trillion trillion different perspectives. There simply is no "other."

OK, gotch ya.

[someNOTHING!]

Jul 9, 2024 14:49:26 GMT -5 zendancer said:

Jul 9, 2024 12:02:13 GMT -5 laughter said:

Tolle like a few pages in (paraphrase from memory) "as it is, 90% of human thought is negative, repetitive and ineffectual". It's amazing how quiet the mind can get once this point is considered while "watching the thinker", and how quickly that can happen. And it's a practice that's better done with eyes open walking/talking. That's how this body/mind got to the point you express there, about not believing your thoughts.

E' had varying definitions of his notion of "split mind", and what I describe above would definitely be a "split-mind" practice by his most general use of the term. It was fun and interesting running a dialog with him on the topic over a few years. Bottom line of that talk was what you suggest about about self-inquiry, in that combining "watching the thinker" with self-inquiry is an opportunity to fall into the question "gee, how many of me are there in here, anyway? ".

And it's all just a gateway drug to something like ATA or sitting meditation with no focus. In Tolle-speak what you point out about the people who have noisy minds just below the surface, they are not conscious of either the content or dynamic of their own minds. From reading along with the likes of you and ZD and others, it seems to me that a conscious interest in these topics is completely optional on the way to a genuinely quiescent mind. But, in any event, practice of some sort is a conscious interest in the quiescence, and there are methods of practice that seem to work quite well for many people to get to that quiescence.

E' would stir controversy by pointing out that these states are only temporary, having a beginning, middle and end. Reefs stirs controversy by stating that practice has nothing to do with SR. But they are not wrong. And the flip side to that humorous split-mind question above is a self-reinforcing trap centered on practice for the sake of practice, with a false conviction of eventually "getting there". The relative world is always a two-sided coin like that. And not all practice for the sake of practice is a trap, either. Likely plenty of Joes and Janes who spend their life going to church each week that never have to question the nature of God. Can't say for sure as I've never taken a survey, but I got a hunch about it.

E was correct up to a point. Yes, as long as there is a sense of a "me" who needs to shift attention away from thoughts to either self enquiry or direct sensory perception, the state of focused attention will be temporary. However, once it is realized that there's no "me" shifting attention away from thoughts or doing anything else, then the natural state ensues without the illusion of a "me" being dominant, and the natural state is not temporary. It is ordinary everyday life lived free from attachment to ideation--what Zen people call "non-abidance in mind" and what RM called "sahaja samadhi." People who live in the natural state do not care whether there is thinking or silence because the illusion of separateness has been penetrated. After penetration, one realizes/discovers that what one IS has always lived in the natural state, and that there is no other state than the natural state. Sages call it "the natural state" only to point to it because they also know that there are no separate states in THIS. All there is is THIS--the entire cosmos, undivided, but looking at ITSELF from a trillion trillion different perspectives. There simply is no "other."

Mostly agree, but E was often juxtaposing states and SR in real time, especially if poster was claiming something of the latter. Happened as the board was often something of an extension of one's more private self-enquiry. Some informed minds involved saw the paradox in the open-board enquiry, while some uninformed minds did not and would get tripped up, giving rise to skirmishes, word lawyering, and the like. Happens a lot within/as THIS, but typically more often when mind has the upper hand.

As such, I suspect he was aware of the 'up to a point'. The discussions took various routes, from simple banter to penetrating concision to testing a mental boundaries.

[someNOTHING!]

Jul 8, 2024 8:43:25 GMT -5 zazeniac said:

Some folks say you can practice while thinking. I have my suspicions about those folks, unpleasant ones. Though thinking definitely plays a role. A prompt to get back to now. In SI it's "who's thinking?" In what I read of Dzogchen, it's acknowledging the distraction.

Why I'm doubtful about thinking and practice is the expression "lost in thought." What is lost? Reality? Unadulterated reality is what I say. 

Enquiry involves thinking, while other practices like zazen may/may not. Would you say that filtering through all the causes and effects, looking for what is missing, or trying to find a conclusive answer is practice or a method for exhausting the mind, possibly making it prone?

[zazeniac]

I prefer silence. Peace.

[zendancer]

Jul 10, 2024 6:11:38 GMT -5 zazeniac said:

I prefer silence. Peace.

That means that THIS, in the form of Z, enjoys/prefers silence. There is no Z separate from all that IS.

[zazeniac]

Jul 10, 2024 7:49:00 GMT -5 zendancer said:

Jul 10, 2024 6:11:38 GMT -5 zazeniac said:

I prefer silence. Peace.

That means that THIS, in the form of Z, enjoys/prefers silence. There is no Z separate from all that IS.

Not that I agree or disagree, but in light of what you wrote, do you think saying so makes any difference? It seems so anti-acausal as if you think it would make a difference.