Developing the "REAL" doing nothing technique

[Faceless]

6 hours ago, Privet said:

Perpetuation of doing is doing, effort.

Again, that's doing. You are describing the technique called 'noting': monitoring your state of mind. Noting requires control and effort, even though the form that you described requires minimal effort and control, yet it's not do-nothing.

Watch this video. Be really clear about what he says about the technique. The instruction for this type of meditation is two very precise sentences.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ6cdIaUZCA

If you are talking about a specific technique, I am not. As technique implies a doing. 

I am referring to non-action or passive awareness. 

Edited August 10, 2018 by Faceless

[Privet]

14 minutes ago, Faceless said:

I am referring to non-action or passive awareness.

If you call it the "passive awareness" then how can it be active?

[Faceless]

3 minutes ago, Privet said:

If you call it the "passive awareness" then how can it be active?

Thanks for response

what do you mean active?

as in dynamic?

Edited August 10, 2018 by Faceless

[Faceless]

Does this do-nothing imply no reaction-action of thought? Or positive-negative movement of the thinker? 

Edited August 10, 2018 by Faceless

[Privet]

2 minutes ago, Faceless said:

what do you mean active?

If you call it "passive" then there should be the opposite - "active". But awareness can't be passive or active in its nature. Awareness just is. Everything there is is awareness.

We were talking about the technique and you tried to refer to enlightenment/your true nature - awareness.

1 minute ago, Faceless said:

Does this do-nothing imply no reaction-action of thought? Or positive-negative movement of the thinker?

The video that I sent previously describes what is this technique about.

[Faceless]

10 minutes ago, Privet said:

 

If you call it "passive" then there should be the opposite - "active". But awareness can't be passive or active in its nature. 

 

I would say it leaves the field of opposites all together. 

10 minutes ago, Privet said:

Awareness just is. Everything there is is awareness.

I don’t conclude on that. As that is a movement of accumulation-thought.

Actualized passive awareness-cessation or opposition(reaction-action) or cessation of positive-negative movement of the self to me implies awareness. 

The actual dynamic movement as in experiencing without the veil of (experience, knowledge, memory) in movement 

Edited August 10, 2018 by Faceless

[Faceless]

We can say that any applied technique implies a doing (thought-thinker) right? 

[Faceless]

Accumulation and application of thought-thinker?

[robdl]

54 minutes ago, Privet said:

If you call it "passive" then there should be the opposite - "active". But awareness can't be passive or active in its nature. Awareness just is. Everything there is is awareness.

 

Passive awareness in the sense of awareness that is free of "choosing", or the "chooser" --- therefore awareness that is not through the conditioned lens of memory/experience/desire (which compulsively exerts choice, corrupts the observation, and perpetuates thought-self/the "chooser").

Edited August 10, 2018 by robdl

[robdl]

Quote

  11 hours ago, Privet said:

If long thought sequence happens and you are unaware of it - let it happen. Otherwise you're trying to notice it, which is control, because you direct your attention on thoughts.

Quote

Well to just be unaware is kind of a perpetuation of doing. 

Right, being lost in thought/oblivious to thinking, i.e. the action-reaction movement of desire-fear-will-volition, etc., is still a "doing"/movement of "self".  The fact awareness is oblivious to the doing doesn't make it any less of a doing.

So a "do-nothing" meditation where one is completely lost in thought would actually epitomize "doing."

[Shanmugam]

On 8/9/2018 at 2:34 AM, non_nothing said:

Hey all,

I want to master "do nothing" technique but I'm really struggling on that.

I've mastered a lot other techniques such as "breathing, counting, scanning body, scanning environment.. etc' but these all like actually mean for me to doing something. I recently started to think and threat all these as 'cheating' somehow because I can just easily stick to one of methods above and it's really easy for me to complete an hour meditation with that.

 

I tried doing meditation without any technique "the real nothing that I call" but It's really hard to do. What're your insights or guidance would be here? Thanks helping.
(Background: I have 1+ years of meditation steak for everyday min 40 minutes)

The ability to do 'nothing' develops as your focus and mental stillness improves.. In order to improve these, you can try Buddhist Shamatha meditation, kriya yoga etc...

Vipassana is supposed to be a do-nothing meditation. But most of the people stop with watching the breath. In the Buddhist canon, it is always recommended to take it to the next level, where you just watch and be a passive observer of your thoughts, emotions etc. That is why Buddha placed Vipassana and Shamatha as the last two in the eightfold path. Because both are complimentary. 

Read this post for more details: https://nellaishanmugam.wordpress.com/2018/03/01/spiritual-enlightenment-the-groundwork-needed-for-seekers/

[Faceless]

@Shanmugam interesting....Buddha teaching is of interest to me....

It is a natural response to concentrate attention(thought-thinker) application of (experience, knowledge, memory)

So it is a kind of gradual process to passivity(total attention). 

Trial and error type of process? 

For me, after the perpetuation of psychological time ended, attention was instantaneous. No more reaction-action of positive-negative movement of fear-time. 

Edited August 10, 2018 by Faceless

[Faceless]

@Shanmugam

To me cultivation of concentration is not necessary, but I see how some would have to see that themselves. 

I understand your intention ??

Edited August 10, 2018 by Faceless

[robdl]

19 minutes ago, Shanmugam said:

In the Buddhist canon, it is always recommended to take it to the next level, where you just watch and be a passive observer of your thoughts, emotions etc.

The sneaky/self-deceptive aspect of this watching/observation is the "your" thoughts.   This can lead one to observe/watch thoughts through the subtle conditioned lens of memory/experience/knowledge (i.e. the accumulated thought that constitutes the "observer"/"watcher"/"thinker"), which corrupts/influences the observation.

So to realize that even the observer is the observed (memory, experience, knowledge) is essential.

Edited August 10, 2018 by robdl

[Faceless]

My approach is different indeed. 

My approcah is to understand the whole of time, which implies concentration, control, volition, fear, desire, and so on. Then we can see holistically the futility in all movement of time, that prevents passive attention-awareness. 

You see what I mean ?

[Faceless]

3 minutes ago, robdl said:

The sneaky/self-deceptive aspect of this watching/observation is the "your" thoughts.   This can lead one to observe/watch thoughts through the subtle conditioned lens of memory/experience/knowledge (i.e. the accumulated thought that constitutes the "observer"/"watcher"/"thinker"), which corrupts/influences the observation.

I think you are already aware of this, right @Shanmugam? 

You are attempting to implement a way. Am I correct?

[Shanmugam]

2 minutes ago, Faceless said:

I think you are already aware of this, right @Shanmugam? 

You are attempting to implement a way. Am I correct?

Yes..

@robdl Realizing that the observer and the observed is the same should happen automatically and shouldn't be taken as a mere belief. I am not suggesting anything new when I am talking about this 'witnessing' meditation. Almost every enlightened person has talked about it but the terminology may be different...

[robdl]

11 minutes ago, Shanmugam said:

Yes..

@robdl Almost every enlightened person has talked about it but the terminology may be different...

I believe Krishnamurti and some others (Osho maybe?) have used something along the lines of "observation without the 'observer'" - which I kind of like.  Has a negation quality that doesn't reinforce duality by implying a "thinker"/"witness" watching/witnessing his/her thoughts.

Edited August 10, 2018 by robdl

[Shanmugam]

12 minutes ago, Faceless said:

@Shanmugam

To me cultivation of concentration is not necessary, but I see how some would have to see that themselves. 

I understand your intention ??

That is probably because you already cultivated the focus and stillness by some other means.. It could be anything..

I fell in a crazy crush on a girl when I was 15 and I used to visualize myself merging with her.  I did this quite often whenever I found time..my story here: https://t.co/NyIuUIMuiV . This is not the same as the one I have on my blog because this post has some additional content that elaborates my early childhood. You will see how neurotic and crazy I was..  

[who chit]

For passive attention observation, there is a necessity for space/freedom from identification with thought/memory/conditioned mind,in order to see the whole of movement. Without complete separation from the conditioned, there will be involvement with the conditioned,which will inherently distort/veil clear seeing.

Correct?