Guest guest Posted April 12, 1999 Report Share Posted April 12, 1999 I realized something on a walk today. Escape from samsara lies in realizing that there is none. mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 12, 1999 Report Share Posted April 12, 1999 Mike D [mikdavis] Monday, April 12, 1999 3:14 PM Re: thoughts Mike D <mikdavis I realized something on a walk today. Escape from samsara lies in realizing that there is none. Mike Harsha: Interesting insight. No where to escape or No one to escape? ------ Looking for the perfect gift for a friend? http://www.ONElist.com Tell them about ONElist's 115,000 free e-mail communities! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 12, 1999 Report Share Posted April 12, 1999 On Mon, 12 Apr 1999 15:24:08 -0400 "Harsha (Dr. Harsh K. Luthar)" <hluthar writes: >"Harsha (Dr. Harsh K. Luthar)" <hluthar > > >Mike D [mikdavis] >Monday, April 12, 1999 3:14 PM > > Re: thoughts > >Mike D <mikdavis > > I realized something on a walk today. Escape from samsara >lies >in realizing that there is none. > Mike > > >Harsha: Interesting insight. No where to escape or No one to escape? > Yes! :-) http://www.users.uniserve.com/~samuel/brucemrg.htm http://www.users.uniserve.com/~samuel/brucsong.htm m(_ _)m _ _________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 12, 1999 Report Share Posted May 12, 1999 Opposite thoughts. How difficult it often is to realize that they both are you and that there can not be a thinker replying to his thought and how easily you can get caught up in this never ending process of questioning and replying. Should the realization on a deep level, that the thinker is not different from his thoughts, put an end to the person's attachment to thought ? Is this the moment that the witness is born ? bi Hans Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 12, 1999 Report Share Posted May 12, 1999 > "Hans Deunhouwer" <ja.deunhouwer > > Opposite thoughts. How difficult it often is to realize that they both are > you and that there can not be a thinker replying to his thought and how > easily you can get caught up in this never ending process of > questioning and > replying. Should the realization on a deep level, that the thinker is not > different from his thoughts, put an end to the person's attachment to > thought ? Is this the moment that the witness is born ? > > bi > Hans The thinking process isn't different from what is happening in lucid dreaming. Automatic thinking produces the objects in the dream and the course of events can only be steered. When awake, thinking keeps going on continuously and the steering is done by providing an issue. Onepointedness means one can stick to the same issue for a long time (before off-topic thoughts start to mix in). To be the witness of thoughts, one doesn't engage in any of them; one remains passive. A lot of processing is done "under the surface" and the classic example it the mental alarm clock. If one is able to respond only to thoughts that are required for proper functioning, one can become aware of thoughts or impressions entering the mind and the result of processing, coming to the surface as a thought (much) later. So the matter isn't non-attachment, but not to partake in arising thoughts and emotions, except those "on topic", dependent on the situation. Jan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 12, 1999 Report Share Posted May 12, 1999 At 3:00 PM -0700 5/12/1999, jb wrote: >"jb" <kvy9 > If one is able >to respond only to thoughts that are required for proper functioning, one >can become aware of thoughts or impressions entering the mind and the result >of processing, coming to the surface as a thought (much) later. So the >matter isn't non-attachment, but not to partake in arising thoughts and >emotions, except those "on topic", dependent on the situation. > >Jan I don't understand the distinction you make between "non-attachment" and "not to partake". I think every one who meditates learns that you can't stop thoughts except briefly, and that the real issue when thoughts/emotions arise is whether you identify with them or whether you let them just pass on through without getting hooked. I would think "not attaching" and "not partaking" would describe the same process. Please clarify for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 12, 1999 Report Share Posted May 12, 1999 > John Thomas <treebeard > I don't understand the distinction you make between "non-attachment" and > "not to partake". I think every one who meditates learns that you can't > stop thoughts except briefly, Thoughts cannot be stopped except briefly, pre-Realization. Post-Realization, thought can be stopped entirely, sometimes permanently. "Thought" as normally conceived of isn't necessary to live life at all. Actions arising out of a state of pure being that don't involve thought at all are quite possible. I know this from brief (several hour) periods of dwelling in this state. The peace of no-mind (being utterly in the present moment, timelessness) is unimaginable. It is a peace that is so deep, it makes deep sleep look like a panic attack. Tim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 12, 1999 Report Share Posted May 12, 1999 >From a response by John to comments from Jan: I think every one who meditates learns that you can't >stop thoughts except briefly, and that the real issue when >thoughts/emotions arise is whether you identify with them or whether you >let them just pass on through without getting hooked. John, I agree that learning to 'not identify' specific thoughts and other mental phenomena with the Self is a positive activity. "Mindfulness" meditation is a very effective meditation. Let me again point, however, as per a post a week or so ago, that it IS possible--without doubt-- to stop the thoughts, indeed all mental activity--for quite substantial periods of time. It is also possible to completely transform the structure of one's consciousness so that mental activity and the sense of 'separateness' is no longer the ground of one's conscious experiencing of life. It is actually possible to replace activity with stillness, with silence and pure awareness of undifferentiated I-ness. Madhya Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 12, 1999 Report Share Posted May 12, 1999 At 5:32 PM -0700 5/12/1999, Madhya Nandi wrote: >"Madhya Nandi" <madhya > >>From a response by John to comments from Jan: > > >I think every one who meditates learns that you can't >>stop thoughts except briefly, and that the real issue when >>thoughts/emotions arise is whether you identify with them or whether you >>let them just pass on through without getting hooked. > > >John, > >I agree that learning to 'not identify' specific thoughts and other mental >phenomena with the Self is a positive activity. "Mindfulness" meditation is >a very effective meditation. > >Let me again point, however, as per a post a week or so ago, that it IS >possible--without doubt-- to stop the thoughts, indeed all mental >activity--for quite substantial periods of time. It is also possible to >completely transform the structure of one's consciousness so that mental >activity and the sense of 'separateness' is no longer the ground of one's >conscious experiencing of life. It is actually possible to replace activity >with stillness, with silence and pure awareness of undifferentiated I-ness. > > >Madhya How do you know that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 12, 1999 Report Share Posted May 12, 1999 At 5:25 PM -0700 5/12/1999, Tim Gerchmez wrote: >"Tim Gerchmez" <fewtch > >> John Thomas <treebeard > >> I don't understand the distinction you make between "non-attachment" and >> "not to partake". I think every one who meditates learns that you can't >> stop thoughts except briefly, > >Thoughts cannot be stopped except briefly, pre-Realization. >Post-Realization, thought can be stopped entirely, sometimes permanently. >"Thought" as normally conceived of isn't necessary to live life at all. >Actions arising out of a state of pure being that don't involve thought at >all are quite possible. I know this from brief (several hour) periods of >dwelling in this state. The peace of no-mind (being utterly in the present >moment, timelessness) is unimaginable. It is a peace that is so deep, it >makes deep sleep look like a panic attack. > >Tim I'm familiar with that state, but back here in everyday life someone's post on this list can wound our egos to the point of anger. So how do you know that thought can be stopped permanently? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 12, 1999 Report Share Posted May 12, 1999 Madhya Nandi wrote: > "Madhya Nandi" <madhya > > >From a response by John to comments from Jan: > > I think every one who meditates learns that you can't > >stop thoughts except briefly, and that the real issue when > >thoughts/emotions arise is whether you identify with them or whether you > >let them just pass on through without getting hooked. > > John, > > I agree that learning to 'not identify' specific thoughts and other mental > phenomena with the Self is a positive activity. "Mindfulness" meditation is > a very effective meditation. > > Let me again point, however, as per a post a week or so ago, that it IS > possible--without doubt-- to stop the thoughts, indeed all mental > activity--for quite substantial periods of time. It is also possible to > completely transform the structure of one's consciousness so that mental > activity and the sense of 'separateness' is no longer the ground of one's > conscious experiencing of life. It is actually possible to replace activity > with stillness, with silence and pure awareness of undifferentiated I-ness. > > Madhya > I find it more accurate to say that one can allow thought to stop than to say that one can stop thought. I never had much success trying to stop thought by the force of will, it took far too much concentration and effort to be sustainable for long, but relaxing and allowing thought to stop of its own accord simply because I stop investing the effort in it is easy. When thought is not present there is instead total sensory awareness. When thought is needed (something needs to be done), then it starts up, when it is not needed it shuts down. Simple. andrew Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 12, 1999 Report Share Posted May 12, 1999 from Andrew-- >I find it more accurate to say that one can allow thought to stop than >to say that one can stop thought. I never had much success trying to >stop thought by the force of will, it took far too much concentration >and effort to be sustainable for long, but relaxing and allowing thought >to stop of its own accord simply because I stop investing the effort in it >is easy. When thought is not present there is instead total sensory >awareness. When thought is needed (something needs to be done), >then it starts up, when it is not needed it shuts down. Simple. > >andrew > > Andrew-- Thanks for your input. I like your approach. This has also worked for me. If one chooses, one can add the dimension of 'will'--at least for as long as is required to transform the 'mind' away from being dominated by activity and toward still, quiet awareness. In time, in my experience, the will will drop away and 'awareness' becomes effortless. (I am NOT claiming to have completely mastered this condition, mind you. ) Madhya Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 13, 1999 Report Share Posted May 13, 1999 Madhya Nandi wrote: > from Andrew-- > > >I find it more accurate to say that one can allow thought to stop than > >to say that one can stop thought. I never had much success trying to > >stop thought by the force of will, it took far too much concentration > >and effort to be sustainable for long, but relaxing and allowing thought > >to stop of its own accord simply because I stop investing the effort in it > >is easy. When thought is not present there is instead total sensory > >awareness. When thought is needed (something needs to be done), > >then it starts up, when it is not needed it shuts down. Simple. > > > > Andrew-- > > Thanks for your input. I like your approach. This has also worked for me. > If one chooses, one can add the dimension of 'will'--at least for as long as > is required to transform the 'mind' away from being dominated by activity > and toward still, quiet awareness. In time, in my experience, the will will > drop away and 'awareness' becomes effortless. (I am NOT claiming to have > completely mastered this condition, mind you. ) Marcia: This is interesting. The way I would describe it for me is that I find the place behind the thoughts. The thoughts are still there. They are like static or noise. Behind the thoughts is very quiet and still. And I am not attached to the thoughts. They just pass through. I don't know if this correlates with what you two are describing or not. Does "effortless awareness" mean no thoughts or does it mean no attachment to thoughts? Or perhaps I have created an artificial dichotomy here. :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 13, 1999 Report Share Posted May 13, 1999 ---------- > >Marcia: > >This is interesting. The way I would describe it for me is that >I find the place behind the thoughts. The thoughts are still there. >They are like static or noise. Behind the thoughts is very quiet >and still. And I am not attached to the thoughts. They just pass >through. I don't know if this correlates with what you two are >describing or not. > >Does "effortless awareness" mean no thoughts or does it mean >no attachment to thoughts? Or perhaps I have created an >artificial dichotomy here. :-) Madhya: Good questions. For myself, the 'sensation' of awareness--without thoughts dominates meditative, ( and mostly, non-meditative) experience. When I sit to meditate and close my eyes, thoughts and images are not there. They come, unless, I am practicing something more formal. Even then they wander in and I steer them back--often gently, sometimes with concentrative effort. I find the 'willful' effort of one-pointed meditation both fun and challenging. Quite often, however, I experience what you are describing, Marcia. This evening's meditation, for example. I did not feel inclined to force or will anything. Unbroken awareness gave rise to thoughts--wisps of thoughts--much like what you may be describing, Marcia. But they didn't really hold much weight. I did look at them. That seems healthy. I had kind of a challenging day. When thoughts from the day intruded the good feeling of, "that's okay" came and the thoughts were fleeting. I think that over time, as silence/awareness has filtered through my personality and mind, I have found so many thoughts, attitudes, etc., very repetitve and, well--not worth occurring. I feel, I suppose, that by clearing away the unnecessary, the inessential, more room and fertility will exist for a better quality of thoughts. I like the idea that thoughts/words/behavior can arise from pure awareness, in tune with whatever context is transpiring. It seems reasonable to me to experience no thoughts/mental activity to such a degree that all learned habits and patterns are interrupted and in time replaced by a 'ground' of awareness, (as psychologist/philosopher Michael Washburn suggests in The Ego and the Dynamic Ground). But I also feel that your practice, Marcia, is an effective one, too. It seems sound to me that as one develops perfect equanimity of mind, as one can view all mental activities, indeed--all activities everywhere--with both unfiltered awareness and nonattachment, that the serenity of 'clear-mindedness' will infiltrate all activity--without having to 'stop the thoughts' for extended periods. (Or at all, necessarily) Madhya >------ >ONElist: where the world talks! > >Join a new list today. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 13, 1999 Report Share Posted May 13, 1999 > I'm familiar with that state, but back here in everyday life someone's post > on this list can wound our egos to the point of anger. This wounding is entirely in the mind. Don't be a victim. If someone else's post wounds your ego, you allowed the wounding. Besides, the ego is unreal, a false construct. >So how do you know >that thought can be stopped permanently? If it can be stopped temporarily, why not permanently? I don't know that it can... through experience. But through faith and hearing the accounts of others, I believe it can. That's all I can offer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 13, 1999 Report Share Posted May 13, 1999 > Marcia Paul <jacpa > Does "effortless awareness" mean no thoughts or does it mean > no attachment to thoughts? Or perhaps I have created an > artificial dichotomy here. :-) I believe you have. Without attachment to thoughts, they should eventually go away and cease entirely. If there is any degree of attachment, they will continue "in the background." Attachment is energy, and without the energy of attachment, thought should cease entirely, just as if one ceases to attach to material things, craving for such eventually ceases entirely. There are degrees of attachment and non-attachment. Hari OM, Tim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 13, 1999 Report Share Posted May 13, 1999 > John Thomas <treebeard [...] > I don't understand the distinction you make between "non-attachment" and > "not to partake". I think every one who meditates learns that you can't > stop thoughts except briefly, and that the real issue when > thoughts/emotions arise is whether you identify with them or whether you > let them just pass on through without getting hooked. I would think "not > attaching" and "not partaking" would describe the same process. Please > clarify for me. By attachment I mean one's like or preference for some thoughts; when there is like for some thoughts there has to be dislike for others. Not partaking in thoughts simply means "leave thoughts for what they are, irrespective of preference. As a rule, it is more difficult to leave thoughts charged with emotion for what they are, as thoughts that are neutral. The link between thoughts arising and one's actions is undeniable; equanimity is important. Instead of trying to stop thought, it is more helpful to train the mind to defuse emotional issues like anger before they arise. This will result in equanimity which in turn will greatly improve the quality of meditation. Because the mind automatically processes everything perceived, it is useful and easy to clean the mind with the proper mantra. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 13, 1999 Report Share Posted May 13, 1999 At 11:25 PM -0700 5/12/1999, Tim Gerchmez wrote: >"Tim Gerchmez" <fewtch >I don't know that it can... through experience. But through faith and >hearing the accounts of others, I believe it can. That's all I can offer. Thanks for your thoughtful response. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 13, 1999 Report Share Posted May 13, 1999 Tim Gerchmez wrote: > >So how do you know > >that thought can be stopped permanently? > > If it can be stopped temporarily, why not permanently? > > I don't know that it can... through experience. But through faith and > hearing the accounts of others, I believe it can. That's all I can offer. > If thought is not present, then time is not present, or time is irrelevant. Temporary or permanent is meaningless in an absolute sense. Temporal life is the life of the body/mind, fussing fighting eating sleeping etc. It's not permanent but stops when we die. It's food for true life, where thought, and hence time, is not. It's not possible to function in the world without participating in temporal life (thought, time). It is possible to allow thought to stop when thought is not needed. When this happens, time is not relevant. Clocks keep ticking in the temporal world, but One is not in that world. andrew Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 13, 1999 Report Share Posted May 13, 1999 At 4:35 AM -0700 5/13/1999, jb wrote: >"jb" <kvy9 >By attachment I mean one's like or preference for some thoughts; when there >is like for some thoughts there has to be dislike for others. Not partaking >in thoughts simply means "leave thoughts for what they are, irrespective of >preference. As a rule, it is more difficult to leave thoughts charged with >emotion for what they are, as thoughts that are neutral. The link between >thoughts arising and one's actions is undeniable; equanimity is important. >Instead of trying to stop thought, it is more helpful to train the mind to >defuse emotional issues like anger before they arise. This will result in >equanimity which in turn will greatly improve the quality of meditation. >Because the mind automatically processes everything perceived, it is useful >and easy to clean the mind with the proper mantra. Thanks for the clarification. You say: >Because the mind automatically processes everything perceived, it is useful and easy to clean the mind with the proper mantra.< It seems to me that the purpose of "proper" meditation is to break down habitual mental structures that substitute for direct perception of reality. Would not use of the mantra simply establish a new habit structure through automatic processes that would substitute for, but not eliminate, our old patterns? Would we "clean the mind" of anger, for instance, or would the anger remain below consciousness ready to resurface even more intensely later? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 13, 1999 Report Share Posted May 13, 1999 > John Thomas <treebeard [...] > Thanks for the clarification. You say: >Because the mind automatically > processes everything perceived, it is useful and easy to clean the mind > with the proper mantra.< > It seems to me that the purpose of "proper" meditation is to break down > habitual mental structures that substitute for direct perception of > reality. Would not use of the mantra simply establish a new habit > structure through automatic processes that would substitute for, but not > eliminate, our old patterns? Would we "clean the mind" of anger, for > instance, or would the anger remain below consciousness ready to resurface > even more intensely later? Whether or not one's mind is clean enough not to obstruct meditation, is something one has to decide for him/herself. For instance, if one had a serious, unsolved disagreement with someone at the job and during meditation many thoughts are arising on that subject, the use of mantra would be beneficial. A proper mantra is a kind of mental virus that will attach to mental loops (like anger) with the instruction to nullify the issue. This nullification doesn't come as a direct "hit", but would make one aware of anger etc. arising. At that moment of arising, it is possible to let the combination intelligence/sensivity win over blind anger. When this has become a habit, thoughts on anger will no longer arise. Repetition of mantra will only become a habit when the result is pleasant; in this case, a mantra is only utilitarian. So it is a different use of mantra; apart from the classical effect, by proper use it will eradicate the cause for many thoughts, by turning on awareness at the proper moment Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 13, 1999 Report Share Posted May 13, 1999 At 3:51 PM -0700 5/13/1999, jb wrote: >Whether or not one's mind is clean enough not to obstruct meditation, is >something one has to decide for him/herself. For instance, if one had a >serious, unsolved disagreement with someone at the job and during meditation >many thoughts are arising on that subject, the use of mantra would be >beneficial. A proper mantra is a kind of mental virus that will attach to >mental loops (like anger) with the instruction to nullify the issue. This >nullification doesn't come as a direct "hit", but would make one aware of >anger etc. arising. At that moment of arising, it is possible to let the >combination intelligence/sensivity win over blind anger. When this has >become a habit, thoughts on anger will no longer arise. Repetition of mantra >will only become a habit when the result is pleasant; in this case, a mantra >is only utilitarian. So it is a different use of mantra; apart from the >classical effect, by proper use it will eradicate the cause for many >thoughts, by turning on awareness at the proper moment Thanks for your helpful response. 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.