|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 21, 2024 10:18:54 GMT -5
But witnessing the ego is a tricky business. It's always trying to distract you so it can maintain itself as 'me', but you can be aware of the reactive tendencies that are that means of distraction. Many people have never stopped and ego is completely ruling the roost, so it's a good idea to set aside a time each day which is dedicated to 'just observing'. Later on you can extend it to all the things in daily life so rather than being involved in everything as if it happens to you, and therefore you equal and opposite react, it's more like you're aware of 'this happening'. When you observe the breath, you don't intentionally make it be the way it is. You have to look to find out what it actually feels like. Pay attention and know 'it feels like this'. By so doing you have stopped.
The mind will immediately try to take over, so one must persist, be determined and relentless to remain in the real world, so every time you notice you have been swept away, you are automatically returned to reality, and will notice how clear the distinction between fabrication and actuality is. By routine practice you will also notice yourself distracted throughout the day. You will realise that you are always distracted and rarely present at all. That should increase the gravity of the situation you're in and make you more serious about the whole thing.
I suspect that behind all general reactivity (among other wants) is a want for superiority....'I am better than this person', 'I am better than this situation', 'I am better than this thought or feeling'....even 'I am better than myself', which is an odd one, but I think it applies. Part of my process over the years has been rooting out (and transmuting) the energy of this 'wanting', though 'wanting' is itself, a form of reactivity, as I'm sure you have said many times. I liked your message, particularly '' pay attention and know 'it feels like this'. '' |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 21, 2024 13:29:44 GMT -5
Describe a feeling or thought that originates from the "inside" without making reference to something .. "outside". A unicorn. (But I don't know what your point is). I don't have much of an imagination, but people have 'made-up' literally hundreds of thousands of stories. One book that comes to mind, Star Maker, Olaf Stapledon. A unicorn is a horse with a horn on it's forehead, so it's not free from "outside" influence. A story is composed of thoughts, and the point of the question is to challenge the basis of the "inside/outside" dichotomy. Any thought about an object will inevitably make reference to some prior perception, that originated from "outside". Novel stories involve creativity, which is a related question, but sort of sideways to the challenge. Hat tip to Steve. He posted something similar years ago. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 21, 2024 13:52:18 GMT -5
But witnessing the ego is a tricky business. It's always trying to distract you so it can maintain itself as 'me', but you can be aware of the reactive tendencies that are that means of distraction. Many people have never stopped and ego is completely ruling the roost, so it's a good idea to set aside a time each day which is dedicated to 'just observing'. Later on you can extend it to all the things in daily life so rather than being involved in everything as if it happens to you, and therefore you equal and opposite react, it's more like you're aware of 'this happening'. When you observe the breath, you don't intentionally make it be the way it is. You have to look to find out what it actually feels like. Pay attention and know 'it feels like this'. By so doing you have stopped.
The mind will immediately try to take over, so one must persist, be determined and relentless to remain in the real world, so every time you notice you have been swept away, you are automatically returned to reality, and will notice how clear the distinction between fabrication and actuality is. By routine practice you will also notice yourself distracted throughout the day. You will realise that you are always distracted and rarely present at all. That should increase the gravity of the situation you're in and make you more serious about the whole thing.
Great description of a type of practice, as always lolz. Ego can hide behind any movement of body/mind. Including the movement to witness ego. It's possible to let that relentlessness happen naturally. It can take the form of an intense interest that draws the attention back to the existential question. The Tao has stanzas that are related to this, poetic turns of phrase about water and the positive/negative dichotomies, always recommending the passive. The reason for that recommendation is similar to your descriptions of non-reactivity: dynamics can camouflage ego, and in stillness is the potential for clarity. Conversely, it's also possible to deliberately use breath as a means to an end, and there's nothing wrong with that, it can be quite beneficial. But stating this is to use the duality of language as a convenience. The choice to breath deeply for a time seems to be made by a "me". But that's not really what is going on, not in the biggest of pictures.  The natural counterweight to the ego is a feeling of interconnection and gratitude for ... "what is always there". |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 21, 2024 14:04:48 GMT -5
The other view: Bingo. It really can't be said better. What's otherwise presented here, is it's OK to be "distracted throughout the day", as long as you are SR. To each his own. But it really is an ~us~ vs ~them~. The 'otherwise presented here', are saying it's OK to function through the so-called SVP, yes, that's what they are saying, because there is only ~This~, because the SVP is imaginary. I don't know how to break-through, so 'the otherwise', can-actually-see. For sdp, it's better to be present. The so-called SVP, is yes, imaginary, but it's not nothing. It's a fierce thief, a parasite, Colin Wilson called it the Robot. And, it, is, crafty. Much appreciated lolly. Practice Jul 3, 2024 at 9:22am laughter likes this laughter wrote: Any description of the natural state that excludes thought is incorrect. ZD wrote: So true. After the illusion of the "me" (the separate thinker, doer, etc) is penetrated, one realizes that whether there is silent awareness or awareness of thoughts there is no "me" doing any of it. This is why one famous ZM said (paraphrasing), "For years I controlled thoughts and kept attention away from thoughts until the mind became exceedlingly silent. Subsequently, I realized who the actual controller of attention is, and who the thinker of all thoughts is, and afterwards it no longer mattered whether there was thinking or silence."When one realizes what the ZM realized, true freedom is attained. The mind and body are then one with THIS. The sense of separation has ended. Tra la la la la la.  Thought doesn't necessarily distract. In fact, many of us make our livings by focused, directed thought. Anyone who has engaged in a serious meditation practice, using any one of many possible various methods, understands the distinction between a resting, distracted, discursive state of mind, as opposed to a quiescent state free of thought and emotion. Alert attention in that 2nd state, though, is optional, which doesn't mean the mind will wander, because that clarity, walking those empty train-tracks, can be effortless, requiring no balancing act. "OK to be distracted throughout the day as long as one is SR" is a thought that is quite laden with heavy-duty concepts. It's a strawman that should be lit on fire. Put the match at "SR". Some people might be interested in "SR" without stuffing a scarecrow, but I don't perceive that that is you, Mr. 'Pilgrim .. no disrespect intended. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 21, 2024 14:17:26 GMT -5
It's always trying to distract you so it can maintain itself as 'me', but you can be aware of the reactive tendencies that are that means of distraction. Many people have never stopped and ego is completely ruling the roost, so it's a good idea to set aside a time each day which is dedicated to 'just observing'. Later on you can extend it to all the things in daily life so rather than being involved in everything as if it happens to you, and therefore you equal and opposite react, it's more like you're aware of 'this happening'. When you observe the breath, you don't intentionally make it be the way it is. You have to look to find out what it actually feels like. Pay attention and know 'it feels like this'. By so doing you have stopped.
The mind will immediately try to take over, so one must persist, be determined and relentless to remain in the real world, so every time you notice you have been swept away, you are automatically returned to reality, and will notice how clear the distinction between fabrication and actuality is. By routine practice you will also notice yourself distracted throughout the day. You will realise that you are always distracted and rarely present at all. That should increase the gravity of the situation you're in and make you more serious about the whole thing.
I suspect that behind all general reactivity (among other wants) is a want for superiority....'I am better than this person', 'I am better than this situation', 'I am better than this thought or feeling'....even 'I am better than myself', which is an odd one, but I think it applies. Part of my process over the years has been rooting out (and transmuting) the energy of this 'wanting', though 'wanting' is itself, a form of reactivity, as I'm sure you have said many times. I liked your message, particularly '' pay attention and know 'it feels like this'. '' Nothing wrong with wanting to feel better or wanting to improve the situation of your loved ones, or, of all humanity, for that matter. And, even contention can happen, just .. as it happens, in nature, with no good nor bad about a wolf devouring a rabbit, but that thinking makes it so. Take war, in general, for example. Most of us are indoctrinated into believing that various actors in past wars were the cause and should bear the blame. But this is just a narrative. And the evil isn't in the underlying contention between the parties, and it's never (or, at least very rarely) entirely attributable to one side or another, as it always takes two to tango. The evil, is in the madness of the method. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 21, 2024 15:43:46 GMT -5
I suspect that behind all general reactivity (among other wants) is a want for superiority....'I am better than this person', 'I am better than this situation', 'I am better than this thought or feeling'....even 'I am better than myself', which is an odd one, but I think it applies. Part of my process over the years has been rooting out (and transmuting) the energy of this 'wanting', though 'wanting' is itself, a form of reactivity, as I'm sure you have said many times. I liked your message, particularly '' pay attention and know 'it feels like this'. ''
And, even contention can happen, just .. as it happens, in nature, with no good nor bad about a wolf devouring a rabbit, but that thinking makes it so. Take war, in general, for example. Most of us are indoctrinated into believing that various actors in past wars were the cause and should bear the blame. But this is just a narrative. And the evil isn't in the underlying contention between the parties, and it's never (or, at least very rarely) entirely attributable to one side or another, as it always takes two to tango. The evil, is in the madness of the method. yep fair point. I'd describe that as the balance between 'being' and 'becoming'. A time and a context for both, and perhaps wisdom is, in part, discerning that. Or perhaps that could also be described as the difference between 'reacting' and 'responding'. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Jul 21, 2024 20:49:01 GMT -5
It's always trying to distract you so it can maintain itself as 'me', but you can be aware of the reactive tendencies that are that means of distraction. Many people have never stopped and ego is completely ruling the roost, so it's a good idea to set aside a time each day which is dedicated to 'just observing'. Later on you can extend it to all the things in daily life so rather than being involved in everything as if it happens to you, and therefore you equal and opposite react, it's more like you're aware of 'this happening'. When you observe the breath, you don't intentionally make it be the way it is. You have to look to find out what it actually feels like. Pay attention and know 'it feels like this'. By so doing you have stopped.
The mind will immediately try to take over, so one must persist, be determined and relentless to remain in the real world, so every time you notice you have been swept away, you are automatically returned to reality, and will notice how clear the distinction between fabrication and actuality is. By routine practice you will also notice yourself distracted throughout the day. You will realise that you are always distracted and rarely present at all. That should increase the gravity of the situation you're in and make you more serious about the whole thing.
I suspect that behind all general reactivity (among other wants) is a want for superiority....'I am better than this person', 'I am better than this situation', 'I am better than this thought or feeling'....even 'I am better than myself', which is an odd one, but I think it applies. Part of my process over the years has been rooting out (and transmuting) the energy of this 'wanting', though 'wanting' is itself, a form of reactivity, as I'm sure you have said many times. I liked your message, particularly '' pay attention and know 'it feels like this'. '' I guess there's a need for control, so it's not easy to let everything be as it is. I'm not sure if all of want is a reactive tendency, but want is the precursor to will, and separate person can only be sustained by volition. If you stop and know 'this is how it is', it is specifically the volition that stops. You cannot stop the volition volitionally, but can intend to just observe and know 'this is what it's like'. Typically discomfort arises soon enough, and the aversion to it, which incites the will. This couples with a desire for a pleasurable feeling, and that dynamic from not this but that is the lifeblood of ego.
People might want to 'be someone' who is better than 'this', but it always comes back to being a means of getting a pleasurable sensation. When people think they desire one thing or another, those things are but means to a sensational end. E.g. craving ice cream isn't really the food, but the means of getting a feeling. Ego needs to be moving away from one feeling and toward another, so it can never actually be there knowing 'feels like this'. If you intentionally pay attention to know this, just because it's true, ego can't survive it, so it does everything it can, which essentially means the manifestation of discomfort for you to be adverse to.
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 31, 2024 22:38:17 GMT -5
This describes practice, not the how, but the why. She's reading right out of Patanjali. Not acting is not so easy. We can't just assume we're not acting just because we have read about it. She's wrong about the reasons she gives about nonduality teachers saying practice isn't necessary, but she is correct about it's necessity, in general.
|
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Aug 1, 2024 9:42:38 GMT -5
It's always trying to distract you so it can maintain itself as 'me', but you can be aware of the reactive tendencies that are that means of distraction. Many people have never stopped and ego is completely ruling the roost, so it's a good idea to set aside a time each day which is dedicated to 'just observing'. Later on you can extend it to all the things in daily life so rather than being involved in everything as if it happens to you, and therefore you equal and opposite react, it's more like you're aware of 'this happening'. When you observe the breath, you don't intentionally make it be the way it is. You have to look to find out what it actually feels like. Pay attention and know 'it feels like this'. By so doing you have stopped.
The mind will immediately try to take over, so one must persist, be determined and relentless to remain in the real world, so every time you notice you have been swept away, you are automatically returned to reality, and will notice how clear the distinction between fabrication and actuality is. By routine practice you will also notice yourself distracted throughout the day. You will realise that you are always distracted and rarely present at all. That should increase the gravity of the situation you're in and make you more serious about the whole thing.
Great description of a type of practice, as always lolz. Ego can hide behind any movement of body/mind. Including the movement to witness ego. It's possible to let that relentlessness happen naturally. It can take the form of an intense interest that draws the attention back to the existential question. The Tao has stanzas that are related to this, poetic turns of phrase about water and the positive/negative dichotomies, always recommending the passive. The reason for that recommendation is similar to your descriptions of non-reactivity: dynamics can camouflage ego, and in stillness is the potential for clarity. Conversely, it's also possible to deliberately use breath as a means to an end, and there's nothing wrong with that, it can be quite beneficial. But stating this is to use the duality of language as a convenience. The choice to breath deeply for a time seems to be made by a "me". But that's not really what is going on, not in the biggest of pictures. The natural counterweight to the ego is a feeling of interconnection and gratitude for ... "what is always there". You can't see the ego as such, but you can be aware of aversion and craving, more precisely regarding sensations, and the refusal to engage in any of that ends up revealing ego as a whole, though unintionally, so if you take the Buddha definition for meditation: ardent awareness with understanding of impermanence, having removed craving and aversion toward the world, something's gotta give. Then resume letting the dissolution continue at deeper and deeper levels. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 1, 2024 11:11:22 GMT -5
Great description of a type of practice, as always lolz. Ego can hide behind any movement of body/mind. Including the movement to witness ego. It's possible to let that relentlessness happen naturally. It can take the form of an intense interest that draws the attention back to the existential question. The Tao has stanzas that are related to this, poetic turns of phrase about water and the positive/negative dichotomies, always recommending the passive. The reason for that recommendation is similar to your descriptions of non-reactivity: dynamics can camouflage ego, and in stillness is the potential for clarity. Conversely, it's also possible to deliberately use breath as a means to an end, and there's nothing wrong with that, it can be quite beneficial. But stating this is to use the duality of language as a convenience. The choice to breath deeply for a time seems to be made by a "me". But that's not really what is going on, not in the biggest of pictures. The natural counterweight to the ego is a feeling of interconnection and gratitude for ... "what is always there". You can't see the ego as such, but you can be aware of aversion and craving, more precisely regarding sensations, and the refusal to engage in any of that ends up revealing ego as a whole, though unintionally, so if you take the Buddha definition for meditation: ardent awareness with understanding of impermanence, having removed craving and aversion toward the world, something's gotta give. Then resume letting the dissolution continue at deeper and deeper levels. Precisely. You can say the so-called SVP is illusory 'til the cows come home', you can have all the realization you want, but until the self-circuits are actually dissolved, eliminated, the journey isn't over. |
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Aug 1, 2024 11:20:23 GMT -5
You can't see the ego as such, but you can be aware of aversion and craving, more precisely regarding sensations, and the refusal to engage in any of that ends up revealing ego as a whole, though unintionally, so if you take the Buddha definition for meditation: ardent awareness with understanding of impermanence, having removed craving and aversion toward the world, something's gotta give. Then resume letting the dissolution continue at deeper and deeper levels. Precisely. You can say the so-called SVP is illusory 'til the cows come home', you can have all the realization you want, but until the self-circuits are actually dissolved, eliminated, the journey isn't over. RM makes that point also. Until the vasanas are gone, no freedom. You'll get push-back from the vasanas. Haha. Maybe not your vasanas will push back. Haha. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 1, 2024 13:49:12 GMT -5
You can't see the ego as such, but you can be aware of aversion and craving, more precisely regarding sensations, and the refusal to engage in any of that ends up revealing ego as a whole, though unintionally, so if you take the Buddha definition for meditation: ardent awareness with understanding of impermanence, having removed craving and aversion toward the world, something's gotta give. Then resume letting the dissolution continue at deeper and deeper levels. Precisely. You can say the so-called SVP is illusory 'til the cows come home', you can have all the realization you want, but until the self-circuits are actually dissolved, eliminated, the journey isn't over. The "journey" isn't "over" until you've drawn your last breath. It can proceed either with or without the illusion of the SVP, and the common state of mind is "with". |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Aug 3, 2024 5:40:11 GMT -5
Precisely. You can say the so-called SVP is illusory 'til the cows come home', you can have all the realization you want, but until the self-circuits are actually dissolved, eliminated, the journey isn't over. The "journey" isn't "over" until you've drawn your last breath. It can proceed either with or without the illusion of the SVP, and the common state of mind is "with". I look at as as two distinct things, and as you are now comes with vasanas. It is worth addressing the vasanas deliberately with intentional meditation. It's better to consider the other thing separately because it's conditional on what is true now, and not conditional on what could be in the future, and if your reality comes with a ton of baggage right now, then that's how it is. The basic trick is not to offload the baggage as such, but don't add any more to the load. The current pile will reduce in its own time, but it's not really your concern. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 3, 2024 8:06:48 GMT -5
The "journey" isn't "over" until you've drawn your last breath. It can proceed either with or without the illusion of the SVP, and the common state of mind is "with". I look at as as two distinct things, and as you are now comes with vasanas. It is worth addressing the vasanas deliberately with intentional meditation. It's better to consider the other thing separately because it's conditional on what is true now, and not conditional on what could be in the future, and if your reality comes with a ton of baggage right now, then that's how it is. The basic trick is not to offload the baggage as such, but don't add any more to the load. The current pile will reduce in its own time, but it's not really your concern.You're going to have to explain this. Nothing (negentropic) happens just from the passage of time. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 3, 2024 15:07:23 GMT -5
The "journey" isn't "over" until you've drawn your last breath. It can proceed either with or without the illusion of the SVP, and the common state of mind is "with". I look at as as two distinct things, and as you are now comes with vasanas. It is worth addressing the vasanas deliberately with intentional meditation. It's better to consider the other thing separately because it's conditional on what is true now, and not conditional on what could be in the future, and if your reality comes with a ton of baggage right now, then that's how it is. The basic trick is not to offload the baggage as such, but don't add any more to the load. The current pile will reduce in its own time, but it's not really your concern. What you say about vasanas is true, but, contextual as to individuated state. Also, the question of witnessing the ego is not so simple as to summarily and entirely preclude. It intertwines the existential question, as in, "what witnesses?". There is the possibility of sudden grace, which can be quite dramatic, depending on the individual. For example. "watching the thinker" after internalizing the suggestion "90% of human thinking is negative, repetitive and ineffectual", led to a sudden collapse of an internal voice that I had always subconsciously identified as "me". Witnessing vasanas happens very differently after that. And this is an unusual experience, so some can't relate, and that's fine. There is no existential scoreboard. For me, there was a process of the informing of mind as to what happened, and one bullet dodged was forming up a new self-identity centered on the aggrandizement of the sudden realization, or on the insights or the methods of meditation correlated with the realization, or the subsequent process of informing. What's realized is an absence. Until that informing of mind there can be confusion, but the gravity in that absence, is always toward clarity. The self-referential patterns spun back up, but never returned exactly the same way. In any event, the conditioned body/mind, the various patterns, remained -- the stimulus-response, but without the false center. While the absence of that center led to a natural falling away of an entire set of the vasana's, it wasn't some sort of miraculous and instantaneous total-body/mind transformation. Is that possible? Perhaps. But I had a different realization, even long prior to the end of the existential questioning: change happens, and, in terms of any sort of goal or working toward perfection, there is no potential optimal endpoint. There is no such animal as relative perfection. Things can "always be better", and, conversely, unexpected perturbations of one's relative state of being and/or affairs are always possible. There is no such animal as relative perfection. This is the nature of the relative, the nature of time, the nature of duality. The nondual realization, the end of the existential question, adds a new facet, a new dimension to this earlier realization as to the relative. Understanding the nature of change doesn't negate duality, but it does put it into perspective, and answering the existential question adds depth to that perspective.
About the only safe generalization that can be made on these issues in general, taken together, is that there is no generalization that applies other than: the potential for vassana's will always be with you. That said, the process happens one way for folks who've encountered the sudden grace of realization, and, another way for those who haven't. This isn't to offer a value judgement. There's no reason to form up an ego about either scenario, either positive ego centered on the realization, or a negative ego based on a constant critique and skepticism about the notion of or claims about realization. (** fake .. 'dusty! .. sneeze **). And then, also, while it might be hard for some folks to imagine, there are those that are lucky enough to be naturally free from some of the worst vasana's, and also, those who are lucky enough to be gifted with the low propensity to fall into them to begin with, regardless of what they may or may not ever realize. Neither is certainly me! The world is a big 'ole strange place, with all sorts of places, sights, sounds and people that have the potential to absolutely amaze anyone curious enough to pay open, unfiltered attention to it. |
|
The natural counterweight to the ego is a feeling of interconnection and gratitude for ... "what is always there".
