Guest guest Posted September 16, 2002 Report Share Posted September 16, 2002 Thank You All...there's probably nothing I can do to stop thinking altogether...hmmm? jewel Realization wrote: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 16, 2002 Report Share Posted September 16, 2002 Hi jewel, Yes !..... There is something you can do ! ........ Do nothing .... That really is the key !........ Be still.... And know that I am...... No thinking ......... Just listen, and you will know intuitively . The Masters that have walked this planet in the past have shared with us techniques that help one to quiet the senses, that are always tuned to the exterior world, and turn the attention or awareness inward toward our inner or spiritual universe.... thereby quieting the vital organs and resting the heart from all the work of pumping tons of blood daily through the heart in order to cleanse and decarbonate the system ..... in time you go deeper in and the thoughts and thinking are less and less and the knowing is more and more, until No more thinking while you are in that state of consciousness...... of course you return to thinking because you are still incarnate ...... But while you are there or should I say, really here ! you are exalted in a state of Bliss that is ineffable ! ----- Why re-invent the wheel , sometimes you need help to get there, some cannot just decide and have it. I for one had to patiently go through scientific actions before achieving by grace a level of truth. Peace and no thinking to you ! -------------------- Jerrio ----------------------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 17, 2002 Report Share Posted September 17, 2002 jewel----- seek and ye shall find !------ answers come when you are connected to the divine spirit and his messengers. Now you have a technique. Rob ..... thanks for the scientific spiritual input.... we all need to know how to begin to find the silence!. Peace--------------------------- Jerrio --------------------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 17, 2002 Report Share Posted September 17, 2002 Dear Jewel, > Thank You All...there's probably nothing > I can do to stop thinking altogether...hmmm? Sure there is... there are several methods that work. How hard this state is to attain, depends on what you mean by " altogether. " Here are some methods that often give a degree of relief pretty quickly. Play around with them. -- Notice that there is a gap between thoughts in normal thinking. Then keep looking for that gap and paying attention to it. -- Watch your thoughts (be aware of what you are thinking instead of being lost in it). -- Concentrate on a single thought (this is the main technique used in Raja Yoga). -- Listen to the silence. -- Focus your attention on the subject (on the feeling or sense of " I " ) instead of the thoughts that appear to you (this is part of Ramana Maharshi's method of self-inquiry). -- Try to see the place in your mind where the thoughts appear that typically succeed in distracting you from meditation. -- Watch your breathing take place. -- Breathe slower than normal, or hold your breath for brief intervals. -- Pray and have faith that God (or your Guru, etc.) will fill you with something better than thoughts. -- Chant mantras (prayers, rhymes, anything) to yourself silently in your head. With all these techniques, it may require 20 or 30 minutes of continuous practice before you start to notice an effect, so don't give up too fast. It takes a while sometimes for the mind to settle down. Also, on some days, the mind just won't settle down, so don't give up if nothing seems to work on any particular day. You can also practice in little bursts throughout the day as you happen to think of it. The more you practice, the more likely it is that your mind will be quiet on its own, without noticeable effort, from time to time. Best regards, Rob P.S. When you post in the future, could you please try not to attach the list digest to your post? When that happens, everybody has to download unwanted copies of many old messages. Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 17, 2002 Report Share Posted September 17, 2002 Rob Your advice to jewel is God sent ---- I appreciate it!------- Your vibes coming through cyberspace is of one who has gotten IT ! Thanks for being HERE !---------------- Jerrio -------------------------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 17, 2002 Report Share Posted September 17, 2002 Realization, jill lindner <jeweljill9> wrote: > > Thank You All...there's probably nothing I can do to stop thinking altogether...hmmm? > jewel Right! The attempt to stop thinking, itself involves thinking! -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 17, 2002 Report Share Posted September 17, 2002 Rob -- This is a nice list, thanks for compiling it. I agree that these can be useful methods, and each has their place. .... yet none of them can lead to more than a placement of thought into the background ... Because all these methods are constructed by thought, and their results are evaluated by thought ... -- Dan Realization, " Rob Sacks " <editor@r...> wrote: > Dear Jewel, > > > Thank You All...there's probably nothing > > I can do to stop thinking altogether...hmmm? > > Sure there is... there are several methods > that work. > > How hard this state is to attain, depends on > what you mean by " altogether. " > > Here are some methods that often give a degree > of relief pretty quickly. Play around with > them. > > -- Notice that there is a gap between thoughts > in normal thinking. Then keep looking for > that gap and paying attention to it. > > -- Watch your thoughts (be aware of what > you are thinking instead of being lost in it). > > -- Concentrate on a single thought (this is the > main technique used in Raja Yoga). > > -- Listen to the silence. > > -- Focus your attention on the subject (on the > feeling or sense of " I " ) instead of the thoughts > that appear to you (this is part of Ramana > Maharshi's method of self-inquiry). > > -- Try to see the place in your mind where > the thoughts appear that typically succeed in > distracting you from meditation. > > -- Watch your breathing take place. > > -- Breathe slower than normal, or hold your > breath for brief intervals. > > -- Pray and have faith that God (or your > Guru, etc.) will fill you with something > better than thoughts. > > -- Chant mantras (prayers, rhymes, anything) > to yourself silently in your head. > > With all these techniques, it may require 20 > or 30 minutes of continuous practice before > you start to notice an effect, so don't give > up too fast. It takes a while sometimes for > the mind to settle down. Also, on some days, > the mind just won't settle down, so don't give > up if nothing seems to work on any > particular day. > > You can also practice in little bursts > throughout the day as you happen to think > of it. > > The more you practice, the more likely it is > that your mind will be quiet on its own, > without noticeable effort, from time to time. > > Best regards, > > Rob > > P.S. When you post in the future, could you > please try not to attach the list digest to > your post? When that happens, everybody has to > download unwanted copies of many old messages. > Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 17, 2002 Report Share Posted September 17, 2002 Hi Dan, > Because all these methods are > constructed by thought, and > their results are evaluated by thought ... If you do them for a while they become habitual and you stop wondering whether you are doing them right and you stop evaluating the results. The exercises let you get a bit of a taste of a positive experience of a state, and once you have that, you go directly for that positive sense of a state when you meditate, in much the same way as you fall asleep. Whether or not all thoughts disappear -- that's another question. I don't think it matters in this context. The questioner asked for something and my guess is, these exercises will give her what she's looking for. If not, she can decide based on her experience. Best regards, Rob - " dan330033 " <dan330033 <Realization > Tuesday, September 17, 2002 6:57 PM Re: Digest Number 425 > Rob -- > > > This is a nice list, thanks for compiling it. > > I agree that these can be useful methods, > and each has their place. > > ... yet none of them can lead to > more than a placement of thought into > the background ... > > Because all these methods are > constructed by thought, and > their results are evaluated by thought ... > > -- Dan > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 17, 2002 Report Share Posted September 17, 2002 Hi Dan, > Right! > > The attempt to stop thinking, > itself involves thinking! Even so the techniques I mentioned do work. This is an empirical question and can only be settled by trying them. Ask yourself, is it really likely that these techniques would have been handed down for at least one thousand years in India if they didn't work in some fairly obvious way? People aren't that stupid. Best regards, Rob - " dan330033 " <dan330033 <Realization > Tuesday, September 17, 2002 6:53 PM Re: Digest Number 425 > Realization, jill lindner <jeweljill9> wrote: > > > > Thank You All...there's probably nothing I can do to stop thinking > altogether...hmmm? > > jewel > > Right! > > The attempt to stop thinking, > itself involves thinking! > > -- Dan > > > > ..........INFORMATION ABOUT THIS LIST.......... > > Email addresses: > Post message: Realization > Un: Realization- > Our web address: http://www.realization.org > > By sending a message to this list, you are giving > permission to have it reproduced as a letter on > http://www.realization.org > ................................................ > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 18, 2002 Report Share Posted September 18, 2002 Hi Jerrio, Bah, i don't know anything. But thanks. Cheers, Rob - <QJproductions <Realization > Tuesday, September 17, 2002 9:30 PM Re: Re: Digest Number 425 > Rob > Your advice to jewel is God sent ---- I appreciate it!------- Your vibes > coming through cyberspace is of one who has gotten IT ! > Thanks for being HERE !---------------- Jerrio -------------------------- > > > ..........INFORMATION ABOUT THIS LIST.......... > > Email addresses: > Post message: Realization > Un: Realization- > Our web address: http://www.realization.org > > By sending a message to this list, you are giving > permission to have it reproduced as a letter on > http://www.realization.org > ................................................ > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 19, 2002 Report Share Posted September 19, 2002 Hi Rob -- > Hi Dan, > > > Right! > > > > The attempt to stop thinking, > > itself involves thinking! > > Even so the techniques I mentioned do work. This > is an empirical question and can only be settled by > trying them. > > Ask yourself, is it really likely that these techniques > would have been handed down for at least one > thousand years in India if they didn't work in > some fairly obvious way? People aren't that stupid. > > Best regards, > > Rob Rob -- Thanks for the two posts you made on this subject. For an unhappy child, a rattle will do well. No one would say, don't offer a rattle. For an overweight adult who wants to decrease, an exercise program does the trick. No one would say, ban exercise programs. And likewise, for someone who wants to experience a state that can be developed over time, a technique makes sense. Yet, the stateless state, the primordial non-conceptual, will not be garnered through techniques, developed over time. That stillness is not the stillness of a mind using a technique to experience a state. It is primordial no-mind. It is not experiential, not something that begins in time, not something that a being approaches. It is the dissolution of the being as an experiential unit, a center for knowing and experiencing -- and that silence is different from a time-bound silence that arises after doing an exercise. Using a means to achieve an end, will never equate to nonconceptual knowing -- which is beyond means and ends. This is apples and waterfalls -- not saying get rid of apples -- but don't take an apple for a waterfall. A technique can result in a state, but the truth of all states, which is prior to any state -- cannot be an ends brought about my a means. It's not that people are stupid -- it's that people do what people do -- they conceptualize and invest energy in getting conceptual results through application of concept. Formulae and techniques can't give results that aren't the results of formulae and techniques. It is not that there is anything wrong with concepts and techniques. It is that the nonconceptual primordial is not produced, is not something with a beginning and end ... Any state produced by a means begins. Anything that begins has and end. Conceptuality doesn't lead to the non-conceptual. The nonconceptual already is always the case, merely unrecognized. The silence which is primordial nonconceptual reality, is not the same as the silence produced temporarily by a technique. It doesn't begin or end. Space, Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 19, 2002 Report Share Posted September 19, 2002 Dan, >The nonconceptual already is always the case, merely unrecognized. And under what circumstances would you say that recognition of the nonconceptual comes about? Mark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 19, 2002 Report Share Posted September 19, 2002 Dear Dan, > It is the dissolution of the being as an > experiential unit, a center for > knowing and experiencing -- and that silence > is different from a time-bound silence > that arises after doing an exercise. > Shankara believed that the dissolution of this being takes place in time, and that it can be brought about by practices. Do you have some reason for disagreeing with him? > Yet, the stateless state, the primordial non-conceptual, > will not be garnered through techniques, > developed over time. You assert this over and over again in different words in your message. Can you tell us some reason why we should believe it? Cheers, Rob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 19, 2002 Report Share Posted September 19, 2002 Realization, " Mark Hovila " <hovila@a...> wrote: > Dan, > > >The nonconceptual already is always the case, > merely unrecognized. > > And under what circumstances would you say that recognition of the nonconceptual comes about? > > Mark Hi Mark, Excellent, incisive question. A truly incisive question is its own answer ... nonetheless: The nonconceptual is not restricted to, nor cognized within, space-time. You can't recognize what isn't there as something to recognize. Yet sense and circumstance don't interfere with this knowing, whatsoever. Memory and thought don't interfere with what never is not the case, yet what they never recognize. There is no circumstance in which this nonconceptual is not the case -- to " recognize " this requires nothing -- not even apperception, not even letting go of everything, not even nondoing, not even nothing. How do you recognize what you are the recognition of? -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 20, 2002 Report Share Posted September 20, 2002 Hi Rob -- > > It is the dissolution of the being as an > > experiential unit, a center for > > knowing and experiencing -- and that silence > > is different from a time-bound silence > > that arises after doing an exercise. > > > > Shankara believed that the dissolution of this > being takes place in time, and that it can be > brought about by practices. Do you have some > reason for disagreeing with him? The term dissolution implies time, because dissolving is a process. But what is being suggested is not of time -- hence, won't be in the word-meanings being assimilated by the mind here -- the dissolution of the mind that understands meaning is a pointer to " transcendence " which doesn't annhilate the mind -- but which is not within the province of the body-mind's knowing ... The dissolution of the center in/as a being or experiential unit, is not a temporal event. If it were a temporal event, then that event also would have to dissolve, ad infinitum. So, it is not the dissolution of my center, whereas you still have a center -- although such may seemingly appear to be the case, when discussing appearances in time of body-minds. It is the timeless dissolution of any center anywhere. This primordial stillness without center or appearance, includes all sounds and experiences simultaneously, yet without interfering with what we call " the apparent unfolding of an individual's life and perceptions " > > Yet, the stateless state, the primordial non-conceptual, > > will not be garnered through techniques, > > developed over time. > > You assert this over and over again in different > words in your message. > > Can you tell us some reason why we should > believe it? What I'm sharing here has nothing to do with maintaining a belief. It is the dissolution of any maintained or durational sense of existence and nonexistence, including the beliefs that pertain to that structure (of an experiential being going through spacetime). The " message " as you call it, might be similar to what Jesus called " the Pearl of Great Price " for which one's many pearls will be traded in ... The many pearls could be viewed as the string of ongoing memories and experiences being referred to as " me " and " my world " ... Not that it involves a literal trading in -- one needn't go through a physical death, nor become unable to experience anything in the conventional sense. In fact, all experiences are now viewed as interpenetrating -- there's no " your " experience that belongs to a " you " that exists separately from a " me " who has mine. Techniques and their results are some of the contents within the string of many pearls. The Pearl of Great Price is a kind of infinite evenness, that yet allows all the distinctions involved in the experiences taken as " my life " ... There is nothing out of place in any life, for all unfolds according to what has unfolded ... whatever techniques, teachings, beliefs, experiences arose and dissolved in their time ... were what was to arise and dissolve in that time ... -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 20, 2002 Report Share Posted September 20, 2002 Dan, Well, when you say that "the nonconceptual already is always the case, merely unrecognized," the implication is that the nonconceptual could be recognized. There appears to be a clear dividing line here between recognition and unrecognition, just as there is a dividing line between seeing what you think is a snake and realizing that it is really a rope. Do you see what I mean? Now, maybe you have no idea of the circumstances under which recognition could come about. But it seems that you are at least acknowledging that there is a difference between recognition and nonrecognition (or realization and nonrealization). Am I right? Mark Realization, "Mark Hovila" <hovila@a...> wrote:> Dan,> > >The nonconceptual already is always the case, > merely unrecognized.> > And under what circumstances would you say that recognition of the nonconceptual comes about?> > MarkHi Mark,Excellent, incisive question.A truly incisive question is its own answer ... nonetheless:The nonconceptual is not restricted to, nor cognized within, space-time.You can't recognize what isn't there as something to recognize.Yet sense and circumstance don't interfere with this knowing, whatsoever.Memory and thought don't interfere with what never is not the case, yet what they never recognize.There is no circumstance in which this nonconceptual is not the case -- to "recognize" this requires nothing -- not even apperception, not even letting go of everything, not even nondoing, not even nothing.How do you recognize what you are the recognition of?-- Dan..........INFORMATION ABOUT THIS LIST..........Email addresses: Post message: Realization Un: Realization- Our web address: http://www.realization.orgBy sending a message to this list, you are givingpermission to have it reproduced as a letter onhttp://www.realization.org................................................ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 20, 2002 Report Share Posted September 20, 2002 Hi Mark -- > Dan, > > Well, when you say that " the nonconceptual already is always the case, merely unrecognized, " the implication is that the nonconceptual could be recognized. That's not *the* implication, it's *an* implication. At the same time, there is an implication that because it is unrecognizable, we miss it. Put the implications together and you get: it is recognized by/as its unrecognizability. Sounds mysterious, but it's not. Because every and any moment, there is this unrecognizability, which is who you are. The recognizable is only the image, generated by sense-reaction which is tied in with memory and thought. What keeps one from knowing *this*, is believing that it will be recognizable as what it is, that it will generate an expectable feeling or reaction (like love, or feeling great, or knowing everything and being really secure - which are sense-reaction/thought images). >There appears to be a clear dividing line here between recognition and unrecognition, just as there is a dividing line between seeing what you think is a snake and realizing that it is really a rope. Do you see what I mean? Yes. The limitation of that metaphor is that it implies that the recognition of truth is knowing that what was taken as one thing is actually something else. Like, " Aha, so it was really this other thing all along. " Well, yes. But at the same time, " Aha -- it wasn't like anything all along. " >Now, maybe you have no idea of the circumstances under which recognition could come about. I don't need to have that idea to *know* this nonconceptuality which I am. *It* doesn't depend on certain circumstances, because the circumstances are conceptuality, aka phenomenality, aka sense perceptions and sense objects -- which is what recognition involves. >But it seems that you are at least acknowledging that there is a difference between recognition and nonrecognition (or realization and nonrealization). Am I right? You are asking great questions, Mark. I still say that a really good question is its own answer, and I'm answering because I enjoy dialogue. Yes, there is a difference between taking yourself to be the recognizable something with a past history and an ability to know in terms of memory, and knowing yourself as unrecognizable, not defined by the past, not known in terms of memory. Knowing that difference, you can still discourse in the world of recognizabilities, but it's not where you live. You see how the conceptual requires the nonconceptual, but how the nonconceptual subsumes the conceptual without depending on it. -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.