Developing the "REAL" doing nothing technique

[robdl]

3 minutes ago, who chit said:

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?

Yeah.  Observation through the lens of the conditioned (memory, experience, knowledge, i.e. the "me") corrupts/influences/distorts the observation. 

[Shanmugam]

1 minute ago, robdl said:

I believe Krishnamurti and some others 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" watching his/her thoughts.

It is not a 'thinker' watching the thoughts.. But this happens in the beginning and it ends up like one part of the mind with its interpretations etc watching another part of the mind. That is why I suggest shamatha or kriyayoga before trying witnessing meditation. I am aware that J.K used to say 'observer is the observed'.. But he also talked about 'choiceless awareness' which is nothing but witnessing meditation. Many people do not realize how powerful it is.. It can strip your self-concept off completely and destroy all the boundaries between you and the world. Then, in the experience of reality, you always see that observer is the observed. The witnessing meditation is nothing but being a passive witness.. You don't analyze, interpret or judge the thoughts but this could happen a lot in the beginning. As time passes, one will get the knack of it. I did this for about 12 years.... This is also what Eckhart Tolle means by 'listening to the voice in the head'. 

[Faceless]

9 minutes ago, Shanmugam said:

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

 

For me it was seeing holisitcy the futility in this pursuit of seeking security psychological time. 

But I would say to understand thought-self holistically would lead to psychological time cessation or vice versa. 

I understand your approach, i see through daily experience that most don’t like the passive approach that @robdl go about it. 

I understand your position @Shanmugam. 

Edited August 10, 2018 by Faceless

[robdl]

4 minutes ago, Shanmugam said:

It is not a 'thinker' watching the thoughts.. But this happens in the beginning and it ends up like one part of the mind with its interpretations etc watching another part of the mind. That is why I suggest shamatha or kriyayoga before trying witnessing meditation. I am aware that J.K used to say 'observer is the observed'.. But he also talked about 'choiceless awareness' which is nothing but witnessing meditation. Many people do not realize how powerful it is.. It can strip your self-concept off completely and destroy all the boundaries between you and the world. Then, in the experience of reality, you always see that observer is the observed. The witnessing meditation is nothing but being a passive witness.. You don't analyze, interpret or judge the thoughts but this could happen a lot in the beginning. As time passes, one will get the knack of it. I did this for about 12 years.... This is also what Eckhart Tolle means by 'listening to the voice in the head'. 

Osho has pointed out that Krishnamurti was using new, original phrasing to describe these already existing ways, which I get indeed.  Perhaps Krishnamurti wanted to term it in new ways, devoid of the religious/traditional baggage -- which I understand.

Edited August 10, 2018 by robdl

[Shanmugam]

1 minute ago, Faceless said:

For me it was seeing holisitcy the futility in this pursuit of seeking security psychological time. 

But I would say to understand thought-self holistically would lead to psychological time cessation or vice versa. 

I understand your approach, i see through daily experience that most don’t like the passive approach that @robdl go about it. 

I understand your position @Shanmugam. 

I am wondering if we are using different terminology.. Probably, the word 'witness' conjures up the image of some entity, like a person... But the witness is a standard term though and it doesn't imply the 'thinker' or the 'ego'...

[robdl]

1 minute ago, Shanmugam said:

I am wondering if we are using different terminology.. Probably, the word 'witness' conjures up the image of some entity, like a person... But the witness is a standard term though and it doesn't imply the 'thinker' or the 'ego'...

Yeah, I  would agree.  I think @Faceless has expressed that very concern with the "witness" term.  The potential to have the personal/"thinker" connotation.

[Shanmugam]

2 minutes ago, robdl said:

Osho has pointed out that Krishnamurti was using new, original phrasing to describe these already existing ways, which I get indeed.  Perhaps Krishnamurti wanted to term it in new ways, devoid of the religious/traditional baggage -- which I understand.

Yes.. J.K was totally antiguru and antitradition. There is a discourse of J.K which I believe is titled 'Truth is the pathless land'. It is a very beautiful one.  

[Faceless]

For me it was seeing holistically, the futility in this pursuit of seeking security psychological time. 

Then there was freedom without reaction-action. I saw that there must be a relationship with the observed, instead of perpetualualy evading it(escape). 

As to escape nourishes the division. 

Edited August 10, 2018 by Faceless

[robdl]

7 minutes ago, Shanmugam said:

Yes.. J.K was totally antiguru and antitradition. There is a discourse of J.K which I believe is titled 'Truth is the pathless land'. It is a very beautiful one.  

Yeah, anti spiritual authority, and dismissed his own authority.  He took it one step further and even was against the authority of one's own inward psychological authority (of past conditioning/memory/etc.).  Radically anti-authoritarian.

I appreciate the approach, as appealing to authority is typically a fear movement.

Edited August 10, 2018 by robdl

[Faceless]

3 minutes ago, robdl said:

He took it one step further and even was against the authority of one's own inward psychological authority (of past conditioning/memory/etc.).  Radically anti-authoritarian.

Psychological, spiritual, (collective-thought) and personal authority being; (experience, knowledge, memory) the past, “the i” 

Edited August 10, 2018 by Faceless

[Shanmugam]

3 minutes ago, robdl said:

Yeah, anti spiritual authority, and dismissed his own authority.  He took it one step further and even was against the authority of one's own inward psychological authority (of past conditioning/memory/etc.).  Radically anti-authoritarian.

I appreciate the approach, as appealing to authority is typically a fear movement.

yes...

 

[robdl]

1 minute ago, Shanmugam said:

yes...

 

always good when we can meet each other on here and not just speak past one another totally disconnected.

[Shanmugam]

1 minute ago, robdl said:

always good when we can meet each other on here and not just speak past one another totally disconnected.

yes  

[robdl]

4 minutes ago, Faceless said:

Psychological, spiritual, (collective-thought) and personal authority being; (experience, knowledge, memory) the past, “the i” 

Indeed.  Language/thought/intellect chops up "spiritual/intellectual knowledge",  "personal psychological authority", "experience/memory" and "I" into different, seemingly distinct terms, but they're all one and the same.

[Faceless]

2 minutes ago, robdl said:

Indeed.  Language/thought/intellect chops up "spiritual/intellectual knowledge",  "personal psychological authority", "experience/memory" and "I" into different, seemingly distinct terms, but they're all one and the same.

To see the whole of that is one unitary movement of time, makes for optimal (passive-choiceless awareness), indeed. 

Edited August 10, 2018 by Faceless

[robdl]

6 minutes ago, Faceless said:

To see the whole of that is one unitary movement of time, makes for optimal (passive-choiceless awareness), indeed. 

Right...time (psychological time) in its essence being a movement from what-is, and the seeking for knowledge, the recalling of memory/experience, looking to authority, and the movement of "self" all being a manifestation/expression of movement from what-is.

Edited August 10, 2018 by robdl

[Faceless]

5 minutes ago, robdl said:

Right...time (psychological time) in its essence being a movement from what-is, and the seeking for knowledge, the recalling of memory/experience, looking to authority, and the movement of "self" all being a manifestation/expression of movement from what-is.

Perfect and pristine connection. Well said!

[robdl]

Getting back to the issue of getting lost in thought during Do-Nothing Meditation. 

Is there a difference between that and getting lost in thought during a work meeting or while waiting at the doctor’s? 

Does getting lost in thought during a session which has been labelled as “Do Nothing Meditation” give it higher significance than getting lost in thought in normal daily life? Or is it just another iteration/perpetuation of that? 

[Faceless]

5 minutes ago, robdl said:

Getting back to the issue of getting lost in thought during Do-Nothing Meditation. 

Is there a difference between that and getting lost in thought during a work meeting or while waiting at the doctor’s? 

Does getting lost in thought during a session which has been labelled as “Do Nothing Meditation” give it higher significance than getting lost in thought in normal daily life? Or is it just another iteration/perpetuation of that? 

It’s an all day affair. Everyday life (all day) is for me ongoing meditation. 

[Faceless]

15 minutes ago, robdl said:

Is there a difference between that and getting lost in thought during a work meeting or while waiting at the doctor’s? 

 

16 minutes ago, robdl said:

Does getting lost in thought during a session which has been labelled as “Do Nothing Meditation” give it higher significance than getting lost in thought in normal daily life? Or is it just another iteration/perpetuation of that? 

Same movement of innatention which influences incomplete action, which further nourishes the false division between the experiencer and the experience.