|
|
Post by james on Jan 24, 2013 15:04:15 GMT -8
Enigma and others who are clear on it: please could you describe/clarify my understanding of what you mean when you say "walking off the battlefield"?
My understanding (rightly or wrongly):
"Remaining on the battlefield" is when one I am trying to avoid or cling to one end of a stick - always/never striving (e.g. always be happy, or 'in the right', or never have negative thoughts, and so on) and so rejecting any current conditions that don't conform.
So walking off the battlefield can happen when there is recognition that the battle for the one-ended stick can never be won, and I just stop desiring or rejecting particular types of sensations.
For instance if I meditate by sitting on a hard floor in a lotus type position and I get bad ankle pain - the mind starts squirming around and trying to make the body shift around or get up and have a cup of tea or whatever. But after watching the squirming for a while it eventually subsides the pain takes on a quite ethereal quality, and one that can't be categorized as good or bad, it 'just is'.
And today I was the recipient of a combative phone call from a colleague. I noticed my body reacting in an 'I'm being attacked' kind of way, but I didn't make a move to escape via counter-aggression or submission. I observed the elevated heart rate and body's high alert status and the intellect navigated me through as professionally as could be managed.
But then I get a bit confused. Does walking off the battlefield mean that all sensations are equal? That they are all merely sensations with no desirability or otherwise to the organism? It doesn't quite sit right because I also see that intelligently moving towards or away from certain sensations need not involve suffering (e.g. it seems pretty reasonably to want to move away from cold towards the warm, but I can go about this and endure the cold in the meantime without angst). But if transcending the stick renders all sensation equal, why would I move from the cold? (minding a bit here, I suspect)
Is when I stop rating sensation as somewhere on a stick when I start to be 'inspired' rather than 'motivated' by fear/desire (nice post Reefs, can't remember where)?
Another angle I have on walking off the battlefield is noticing that I will never be permanently satisfied by any sensation (one gets acclimatized or it turns into aversion via overdose), and therefore stop seeking them in the first place. This can go on to the extent that I question chasing this 'unscratched itch' sensation of needing to seek wholeness.
Please comment, if you would be so kind. I am un-clear and I always find you very clear. Pity that an un-clear person reading a clear post's words has problems 'getting through' or 'sticking' as much as it should. After all, I think peeps have described walking off the battlefield quite a few times, and yet I am still probably quite off the mark.
Edit: To make question non-exclusive to enigma.
|
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 24, 2013 17:59:53 GMT -8
Enigma and others who are clear on it: please could you describe/clarify my understanding of what you mean when you say "walking off the battlefield"? My understanding (rightly or wrongly): "Remaining on the battlefield" is when one I am trying to avoid or cling to one end of a stick - always/never striving (e.g. always be happy, or 'in the right', or never have negative thoughts, and so on) and so rejecting any current conditions that don't conform. So walking off the battlefield can happen when there is recognition that the battle for the one-ended stick can never be won, and I just stop desiring or rejecting particular types of sensations. For instance if I meditate by sitting on a hard floor in a lotus type position and I get bad ankle pain - the mind starts squirming around and trying to make the body shift around or get up and have a cup of tea or whatever. But after watching the squirming for a while it eventually subsides the pain takes on a quite ethereal quality, and one that can't be categorized as good or bad, it 'just is'. And today I was the recipient of a combative phone call from a colleague. I noticed my body reacting in an 'I'm being attacked' kind of way, but I didn't make a move to escape via counter-aggression or submission. I observed the elevated heart rate and body's high alert status and the intellect navigated me through as professionally as could be managed. But then I get a bit confused. Does walking off the battlefield mean that all sensations are equal? That they are all merely sensations with no desirability or otherwise to the organism? It doesn't quite sit right because I also see that intelligently moving towards or away from certain sensations need not involve suffering (e.g. it seems pretty reasonably to want to move away from cold towards the warm, but I can go about this and endure the cold in the meantime without angst). But if transcending the stick renders all sensation equal, why would I move from the cold? (minding a bit here, I suspect) Is when I stop rating sensation as somewhere on a stick when I start to be 'inspired' rather than 'motivated' by fear/desire (nice post Reefs, can't remember where)? Another angle I have on walking off the battlefield is noticing that I will never be permanently satisfied by any sensation (one gets acclimatized or it turns into aversion via overdose), and therefore stop seeking them in the first place. This can go on to the extent that I question chasing this 'unscratched itch' sensation of needing to seek wholeness. Please comment, if you would be so kind. I am un-clear and I always find you very clear. Pity that an un-clear person reading a clear post's words has problems 'getting through' or 'sticking' as much as it should. After all, I think peeps have described walking off the battlefield quite a few times, and yet I am still probably quite off the mark. Edit: To make question non-exclusive to enigma. This part is very close to what I mean: What I really mean is, 'losing interest'. Obviously, this is different from 'struggling with', but it's also different from 'embracing'. I've said that, as long as one is on the battlefield, one can either fight or wave the white flag, but the point here is that one is still engaged on the battlefield. This engagement is problematic regardless. I should mention we're talking about illusions and not bodily discomforts or preferences. Let the body do what it wants. I'll use the love discussion on ST as an example. Acting hateful toward another is obviously not love, but neither is acting lovingly. One is simply waving the white flag on the love/hate battlefield. One is actually pushing against that which is perceived to be not love, in order to try to create love, and regardless of what one is trying to do, one is still engaged with both polarities. The love/hate polarity is illusion. There is not something that is not love, and there is no person who somehow becomes the source of love. Genuine Love has no opposing polarity. Everything that we seek transcends all dualistic polarities and is not found on the battlefield at all. When this is seen clearly, one ceases to DO either hate or love, loses interest in both, turns, and walks off the battlefield. (Not this, not that) What this amounts to is true surrender. In this case, one simply steps out of the way and allows the Love that IS to BE. Love flows effortlessly in the absence of the one who would love or be loved. The illusion is absent and that which actually exists is seen to be fully present. Another quick example: When you realize an oasis is a mirage, you don't have to hike out to the mirage every day to collect water, but if instead, you sit in your tent and curse the mirage because you are thirsty, or say to yourself 'It is what it is' over and over, you have not walked off the battlefield. There is a subtle but powerful turning. You will likely feel it. It is done and you know it is done. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jan 24, 2013 21:34:19 GMT -8
This story Ramakrishna told comes to mind: Don't be like the snake next time you get a 'combative' phone call!  |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jan 24, 2013 22:01:34 GMT -8
"Remaining on the battlefield" is when one I am trying to avoid or cling to one end of a stick - always/never striving (e.g. always be happy, or 'in the right', or never have negative thoughts, and so on) and so rejecting any current conditions that don't conform.
So walking off the battlefield can happen when there is recognition that the battle for the one-ended stick can never be won, and I just stop desiring or rejecting particular types of sensations. The way I understand it, walking off the battlefield would be going with your natural rhythm of well-being instead of following a strategy for well-being. The battlefield is self-improvement. Which doesn't mean that it negates expansion. If you would have walked off the battlefield already, you would have just moved and relaxed your foot.  It doesn't mean to become a mere reactionary to situations. It's interesting to watch and analyze what's going on with the body and feelings and thoughts, but if that becomes a habit then it's a split mind endeavor and you are still only watching and commenting on life but not living life. The general preferences stay. So if you've always liked your steak then you won't necessarily become vegan after walking off the battlefield. Sure you can endure the cold and heat, but that's just mind games. It's not natural. What would be the point in walking with your bare feet thru snow when you have nice warm shoes? Since these preferences are always there, it will always look as if you will cling towards one end of some imaginary stick. When you are inspired it is a 'hell, yes!' and off you go, wild horses couldn't keep you from doing it. When it is motivated, there's a lot some pondering going on first. The impulse is not straight and direct. |
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Jan 24, 2013 23:08:07 GMT -8
enigma
Even after happiness/unhappiness roller coaster is clearly seen, still both polarities is seeking it's own expression. What would you say for that?
Raj
|
|
|
|
Post by james on Jan 24, 2013 23:52:43 GMT -8
I know it is done with regard to certain things, specifically chasing sense pleasures. I lost interest, and these patterns withered (mechanical performance of the pursuits/activities continued for a while, with decreasing frequency and interest/investment/enjoyment). Seeing the cyclical and futile nature of my behavior, how it always and will always end up in suffering, and how it is therefore pretty much insane.
With chasing material objects too, although I seem to have a weird hangup about retaining money that hasn't died yet.
So anyway, thanks to your clarification I am now understanding (rightly or wrongly, please correct me!) that "walking off the battlefield" can't be done directly: I can't walk off the battlefield without having seen through the illusion, and I can't really help but walk off the battlefield when seeing through an illusion happens (both sides of this are confirmed in my own experience anyway). So it's an effect of investigation/noticing, not a course of action.
|
|
|
|
Post by james on Jan 25, 2013 0:07:19 GMT -8
Don't be like the snake next time you get a 'combative' phone call! As it happens I did defend myself adequately, both tactically (during the phone call) and strategically (by doing some things that would discourage the same behavior in the future). I just noticed that during the phone call I wasn't reacting the same as before (i.e. I was defensive intellectually, in that I put forward my reasoning for a position, but I was not as egoically defensive as I have been in the past). |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 25, 2013 0:18:03 GMT -8
enigma Even after happiness/unhappiness roller coaster is clearly seen, still both polarities is seeking it's own expression. What would you say for that? Raj The expression is not a problem. Happy/sad is not suffering. Suffering is in the need to escape one or remain with the other. If there is no need, where is your suffering? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 25, 2013 0:21:23 GMT -8
I know it is done with regard to certain things, specifically chasing sense pleasures. I lost interest, and these patterns withered (mechanical performance of the pursuits/activities continued for a while, with decreasing frequency and interest/investment/enjoyment). Seeing the cyclical and futile nature of my behavior, how it always and will always end up in suffering, and how it is therefore pretty much insane. With chasing material objects too, although I seem to have a weird hangup about retaining money that hasn't died yet. So anyway, thanks to your clarification I am now understanding (rightly or wrongly, please correct me!) that "walking off the battlefield" can't be done directly: I can't walk off the battlefield without having seen through the illusion, and I can't really help but walk off the battlefield when seeing through an illusion happens (both sides of this are confirmed in my own experience anyway). So it's an effect of investigation/noticing, not a course of action. Sounds right. |
|
|
|
Post by james on Jan 25, 2013 0:30:40 GMT -8
Yes... this split mind message is sinking in. Slowly. I rezzed with that post you or enigma made about the imaginary controller doing a smoke and mirrors act by splitting off the uncontrollable part (thought) in order to remain in control.
The only thing I see myself as really inspired about is 'the search'. The rest of it is just circumstantial and going through the motions to keep things ticking along (for the search to continue).
Edit: Clarified what the controller splits off (thought).
|
|
|
|
Post by james on Jan 25, 2013 0:53:36 GMT -8
That seems to be a bit koan-like for me.
Some meditation techniques (e.g. zen, vipassana) instruct the practitioner to 'let everything be as it is' ('just sitting' or 'perfect equanimity'), whilst at the same mandating 'strong sitting' (correct posture, motionlessness).
So in one way just letting the foot being in pain and observing it is in line with the instruction (vipassana certainly). But in another way 'letting everything be as it is' (without control) would seem to INCLUDE moving the foot.
But then I see the value of (the person) not yielding to all body/mind demands, in the pursuit of breaking through into a different
perspective and investigation that is otherwise occluded.
--
I am coming to recognize recently (although I've heard for a long time) that true meditation should lead to a disappearance of the meditator. Another bit of paradox - 'use the apparent meditator to remove the meditator' (like thorn to remove thorn?).
Unfortunately my meditations have NEVER removed the meditator. Quite possibly because I did this split mind witness trick thing early on and ran with it. This dead end situation (if that's what it is, and I'm getting the feeling it is, dammit it must be if I've been meditating on and off with varying intensities for 3 or 4 years and never removed the meditator) may take some while to back out of. Still, if it needs to be done...
So in meditation I might've always been a meditator watching internal objects. I have no real idea how to transcend that (or to encourage its transcendance) or what it might be like if it happened. It doesn't involve splitting-off, but at the same time it seems like it must involve a watcher and the watched, and the 'watched' must include the person? Or does the person not get watched because it disappears?
Edit: Added last paragraph as follow-up thought.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Jan 25, 2013 1:16:39 GMT -8
Enigma,
Ok ,sounds right.
|
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 25, 2013 8:25:32 GMT -8
That seems to be a bit koan-like for me. Some meditation techniques (e.g. zen, vipassana) instruct the practitioner to 'let everything be as it is' ('just sitting' or 'perfect equanimity'), whilst at the same mandating 'strong sitting' (correct posture, motionlessness). So in one way just letting the foot being in pain and observing it is in line with the instruction (vipassana certainly). But in another way 'letting everything be as it is' (without control) would seem to INCLUDE moving the foot. But then I see the value of (the person) not yielding to all body/mind demands, in the pursuit of breaking through into a different perspective and investigation that is otherwise occluded. -- I am coming to recognize recently (although I've heard for a long time) that true meditation should lead to a disappearance of the meditator. Another bit of paradox - 'use the apparent meditator to remove the meditator' (like thorn to remove thorn?). Unfortunately my meditations have NEVER removed the meditator. Quite possibly because I did this split mind witness trick thing early on and ran with it. This dead end situation (if that's what it is, and I'm getting the feeling it is, dammit it must be if I've been meditating on and off with varying intensities for 3 or 4 years and never removed the meditator) may take some while to back out of. Still, if it needs to be done... So in meditation I might've always been a meditator watching internal objects. I have no real idea how to transcend that (or to encourage its transcendance) or what it might be like if it happened. It doesn't involve splitting-off, but at the same time it seems like it must involve a watcher and the watched, and the 'watched' must include the person? Or does the person not get watched because it disappears? Edit: Added last paragraph as follow-up thought. I would say it's not a matter of using the meditator to remove the meditator. (In the analogy of using a thorn to remove a thorn, it is not the same thorn.) The meditation space has become another battlefield in which the warrior must turn and walk off. That's what it means to disappear the meditator. The interest in the meditator and the one removing the meditator is the engagement that insures that the meditator and his partner remains. |
|
|
|
Post by james on Jan 25, 2013 10:40:39 GMT -8
So are you saying that meditation is never a good idea for a body/mind to do? Or is it just the way I've phrased it that makes it seem like a bad one?
|
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 25, 2013 11:05:04 GMT -8
So are you saying that meditation is never a good idea for a body/mind to do? Or is it just the way I've phrased it that makes it seem like a bad one? No, I think there are many advantages to meditation. You were talking about disappearing the meditator. I was implying that the harder you try to do that, the less likely it is to occur. Turn your attention away from the one meditating and it's done. Isn't the meditator a product of your attention? |
|
