|
|
Post by james on Jan 25, 2013 11:54:40 GMT -8
OK, so meditation can be beneficial, but not if it is oriented around a technique for achieving some goal, or has any expectations about achieving some goal as a starting point?
|
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 25, 2013 17:13:30 GMT -8
OK, so meditation can be beneficial, but not if it is oriented around a technique for achieving some goal, or has any expectations about achieving some goal as a starting point? I think goal oriented meditation can be useful but ultimately problematic. My biggest grump is about split mind practices and mind state goals. Controlling thoughts, being present, experiencing oneness, and the like. To me, meditation has no goal, beginning or end. You are what you are. Stay where you are. |
|
|
|
Post by beingist on Jan 25, 2013 19:29:02 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"? 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. Isn't 'getting out of the river' the same thing? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 25, 2013 21:31:00 GMT -8
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. Isn't 'getting out of the river' the same thing?[/quote] Well, not really. Standing on the river bank is really taking up an observer position such that the thoughts are observed from the 'outside' instead from within the flow of thoughts. It's more about becoming conscious. Walking off the battlefield is more about surrender, though I do see the connection between getting some distance from the thoughts, and losing interest in them. Ideally, the observer is not involved. |
|
|
|
Post by beingist on Jan 25, 2013 21:50:42 GMT -8
Well, not really. Standing on the river bank is really taking up an observer position such that the thoughts are observed from the 'outside' instead from within the flow of thoughts. It's more about becoming conscious. Walking off the battlefield is more about surrender, though I do see the connection between getting some distance from the thoughts, and losing interest in them. Ideally, the observer is not involved. K. Thanks for the clarification.  (Sorry I'm not up to speed on all your metaphors). |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 25, 2013 22:14:43 GMT -8
Well, not really. Standing on the river bank is really taking up an observer position such that the thoughts are observed from the 'outside' instead from within the flow of thoughts. It's more about becoming conscious. Walking off the battlefield is more about surrender, though I do see the connection between getting some distance from the thoughts, and losing interest in them. Ideally, the observer is not involved. K. Thanks for the clarification. (Sorry I'm not up to speed on all your metaphors). Maybe I should publish a metaphor translation. Giraffes would figure prominently. |
|
|
|
Post by beingist on Jan 25, 2013 22:52:57 GMT -8
K. Thanks for the clarification. (Sorry I'm not up to speed on all your metaphors). Maybe I should publish a metaphor translation. Giraffes would figure prominently. It might help. There's not a few, and I've seen you having to explain them numerous times. Might save you some trouble (like, "please refer to Metaphor 1b"  ) One of my job functions is writing contracts, so I just tend to think in terms of glossaries and definitions of terms. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jan 25, 2013 23:58:22 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 I'd say it's individual preferences playing itself out. Just natural unfolding without intermediary, without the commentary function. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jan 26, 2013 0:00:30 GMT -8
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). So, you gave your opponent a good non-egoic beating? ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jan 26, 2013 0:15:01 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. The natural impulse would be to relax your foot even before it gets painful. Sure, you can shift attention away from your pain but why would you do that? I'd say meditator here is just another word for intermediary. You clearly did meditation to get somewhere. That's not meditation. That's an exercise. You've probably read too much about what should happen during meditation so there's expectation. Maybe just try staying with your breath instead of watching your thoughts, let it all fall into place naturally. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jan 26, 2013 0:29:10 GMT -8
I'd say since your thinking melon is very active, you would be better advised to do meditation just to relax your body. It's not an intellectual exercise. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jan 26, 2013 0:34:20 GMT -8
OK, so meditation can be beneficial, but not if it is oriented around a technique for achieving some goal, or has any expectations about achieving some goal as a starting point? Right. I'd say meditate only when you feel like meditating. |
|
|
|
Post by james on Jan 26, 2013 1:19:25 GMT -8
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). So, you gave your opponent a good non-egoic beating? ;D It does seem ridiculous. I need to get some clarity on that whole episode (will investigate). I think I spot Giraffe tracks of some sort. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jan 26, 2013 1:23:13 GMT -8
It does seem ridiculous. I need to get some clarity on that whole episode (will investigate). I think I spot Giraffe tracks of some sort. No. My comment wasn't meant that way. No need to analyze that further. Why should you analyze that? To prevent it from happening again? That would be missing the point I was trying to make. What happened, happened. Now what? Now is real. |
|
|
|
Post by james on Jan 26, 2013 1:23:44 GMT -8
Thanks. BTW the whole intermediary thing is very clearly communicated by you and enigma. I'm pretty much always amazed at the clarity you guys bring. Funny how I as a seeker feel like I can recognize clarity but can't produce much of my own independently (some though, based on mini-realizations).
|
|
