Developing the "REAL" doing nothing technique

[robdl]

2 hours ago, Privet said:

A technique is a way of doing something. Doing nothing is a way of meditation. Is doing nothing a technique?

 

This can become a semantics argument in terms of what's implied/connoted by "technique."  Technique, in the standard sense of the word, is employing a method (i.e. knowledge/skills) to achieve a particular result.    But if Do Nothing meditation is coloured by this --- coloured by striving/achieving, knowledge, a goal, effort --- then the meditation has been corrupted by thought.    So that's the key thing here -- putting semantics aside.  Is the meditation corrupted by effort, goals, striving, employing knowledge (i.e. all different forms of thought being invoked)?

Quote

Is that a free will? Do you choose to get lost in monkey chatter or does that happen to you? If that happens to you then is that a doing?

To be more precise and refine the wording we're using,  monkey mind isn't where  "I"/"you" is lost in thought, because this implies a "thinker" who's getting lost in "their" thoughts.  "Monkey mind" is "I". They are one and the same thing.  There is no "I"/"you" that stands apart from monkey mind and is the subject/possessor of it.   Where monkey mind is in operation, "I" is in operation --- and vice-versa.  They are inseparable.   It is only thought that creates the false division between "I" and monkey mind.  One fragment of thought, as "I", labels another fragment of thought as "monkey mind" -- but these two fragments are all within the same movement of thought.

It's not:

I have monkey mind;

It is:

"I" is monkey mind.  They are one and the same movement of thought-self.

Monkey mind is thought acting/reacting to itself through memory, desire, fear, imagination, etc.   This self-feeding action of thought also invokes an "I".

 

So monkey mind in operation = "I"/ego in operation = Doing.  

Thought, ego mind, monkey mind, I, and self are seemingly distinct and separate terms, but they're all one and the same thing.

 

 

Edited August 15, 2018 by robdl

[Jack River]

2 hours ago, robdl said:

This can become a semantics argument in terms of what's implied/connoted by "technique."  Technique, in the standard sense of the word, is employing a method (i.e. knowledge/skills) to achieve a particular result.    But if Do Nothing meditation is coloured by this --- coloured by striving/achieving, knowledge, a goal, effort --- then the meditation has been corrupted by thought.    So that's the key thing here -- putting semantics aside.  Is the meditation corrupted by effort, goals, striving, employing knowledge (i.e. all different forms of thought being invoked)?

To be more precise and refine the wording we're using,  monkey mind isn't where  "I"/"you" is lost in thought, because this implies a "thinker" who's getting lost in "their" thoughts.  "Monkey mind" is "I". They are one and the same thing.  There is no "I"/"you" that stands apart from monkey mind and is the subject/possessor of it.   Where monkey mind is in operation, "I" is in operation --- and vice-versa.  They are inseparable.   It is only thought that creates the false division between "I" and monkey mind.  One fragment of thought, as "I", labels another fragment of thought as "monkey mind" -- but these two fragments are all within the same movement of thought.

It's not:

I have monkey mind;

It is:

"I" is monkey mind.  They are one and the same movement of thought-self.

Monkey mind is thought acting/reacting to itself through memory, desire, fear, imagination, etc.   This self-feeding action of thought also invokes an "I".

 

So monkey mind in operation = "I"/ego in operation = Doing.  

Thought, ego mind, monkey mind, I, and self are seemingly distinct and separate terms, but they're all one and the same thing.

 

 

There he is again. Nice dude

[Privet]

@robdl

It is already quite a debate. The problem is that you guys put the cart before the horse. You try to describe enlightenment which is an absence of I and absence of any technique or method. But before you get there you have to follow a technique, you have to meditate before the habit of meditation starts to meditate by itself.

And you seem to not get what is the point of do nothing technique described by Shinzen. I would consider it a technique since a technique is a way of doing something. Do-nothing is a way of doing meditation, meditation not in a sense of enlightenment (it's actually the original meaning of the word meditation = zen (Japanese) = chan/chan-na (Chinese) = dhyana (Sanskrit)), but in a sense of exercise. The point of that way of meditating is that when you let go of control/attempts to observe it just spontaneously happens with time. Mind naturally calms down. And monkey mind is not a problem. Getting lost in thoughts is not a problem. Since the expectation is that you will spontaneously/naturally awaken from it more and more, just because you give up your free will.

So please watch the video once again and stop trying to describe the result of meditation instead of how to meditate. Many subjects of our disagreement are addressed there in very precise terms.

[tsuki]

@Privet @robdl Would it be a stretch to call the do-nothing 'technique' simply making space for the realization to occur?
Getting used to the idle workings of the mind so that we do not mistake it for reality.

In this sense, meditation is a trap for the meaning-seeking mind.
When you 'get it', there is no point to it, but when you 'don't get it' you want to meditate to solve your problem with the mind.
The absurdity of this situation comes from the question: who is the one that sees the problem?
The mind sees itself as a problem, and yet - proceeds to select a method, or a teacher, to solve itself.
Why would the problematic mind trust itself with the important task of solving itself? lol

Isn't that the whole point of it? To stop the mind from solving problems it invents itself?

Edited August 16, 2018 by tsuki

[Privet]

10 minutes ago, tsuki said:

Would it be a stretch to call the do-nothing 'technique' simply making space for the realization to occur?

I think that sounds appropriate.

 

[Privet]

3 hours ago, tsuki said:

The absurdity of this situation comes from the question: who is the one that sees the problem?

Can we go deeper and ask: what is the problem made of? What is the substance of thought about the problem?

[tsuki]

Just now, Privet said:

Can we go deeper and ask: what is the problem made of? What is the substance of thought about the problem?

If I understand your question correctly: a problem is when expectations are not met by the given circumstances.
The mind is, of course, responsible for both setting up expectations and interpreting circumstances.

All problems can be permanently solved by working with the mind alone.
That doesn't mean that we will then be a constant sloppy mess of a person. On the contrary.
Calm mind is much better at observation and adaptation.

[Privet]

Just now, tsuki said:

If I understand your question correctly: a problem is when expectations are not met by the given circumstances.
The mind is, of course, responsible for both setting up expectations and interpreting circumstances.

All problems can be permanently solved by working with the mind alone.
That doesn't mean that we will then be a constant sloppy mess of a person. On the contrary.
Calm mind is much better at observation and adaptation.

I mean more literally. Thought about the problem is an object "in" awareness. But what is it made of? What are thoughts made of? Are they made of the same thing any other senses' experiences are made of? What is that substance everything is made of?

And finally, since the self is just a thought: what the hell are you?

[tsuki]

@Privet Too many profound questions in one post that I can answer in a short reply. I will get into that later on today.
For now - everything is a thought. Thoughts are not somewhere behind your eyes in the colorless space. There is no such place.
Thoughts are 'out there', intertwined with everyday objects. I usually call them obviousness.

As you look at the screen, it is obvious that the screen is a screen. The Narrator does not have to say in the inner voice 'screen'.
The screen is, what it is. Same for your fingers and the effortless movement of your eyeballs as you read this text.

What are thoughts made of? Meaningful duality that is mindlessly resolved by choosing either A or B.

[Jack River]

5 hours ago, Privet said:

The problem is that you guys put the cart before the horse. You try to describe enlightenment which is an absence of I and absence of any technique or method. But before you get there you have to follow a technique, you have to meditate before the habit of meditation starts to meditate by itself.

 

That’s not true brah. That is just what traditional authority says to do. Thought likes to conform to ways or strategies to end itself. It is not actually needed at all. 

[Privet]

@tsuki 

 

[Jack River]

5 hours ago, Privet said:

But before you get there

Also the way I see it if your are trying to get somewhere like your idea of enlightenment, you are escaping what is and trying to attain a goal that you made. The motive to reach enlightenment is what prevents it. If we pursue we strengthen the illusion. Thregthen a doing. 

Edited August 16, 2018 by Jack River

[Privet]

@Jack River

It's obvious that trying to reach enlightenment is like trying to poop when you clench your anus.

Does that understanding make you enlightened? You still gotta meditate even if you understand that.

"You're not enlightened till you're fucking enlightened." - Leo Gura

Edited August 16, 2018 by Privet

[Jack River]

Your not seeing the big picture dude. Until all you are psychologically secure you will keep searching. This will prevent because you are looking in time for your arriving. Thought is pursing a reward in the future. That is the problem. 

[Jack River]

Having a reward in mind like enlightenment and using a technique called do noting to get there seems pretty crazy to me. And I am a kinda crazy and a dummy. I have friends who meditate before a surf comp. but they meditate to concentrate or focus. Visualize and conquer a goal. 

Edited August 16, 2018 by Jack River

[tsuki]

@Privet ?

What's up with the video?

[Privet]

@tsuki

Those questions were kind of a joke.  It's impossible to answer them conceptually. So are zen koans.

In Rinzai zen if you try to conceptually answer a koan or ridicule the question the teacher sends you to meditate further and you are considered to not solve the koan. Koan is kind of meaningless question, something like "what is the sound of one hand clapping?", "show me your original face before you were born". If you try to answer the question the normal way it means that you still cling to ideas instead of direct experience. You try to understand and answer what you actually have to experience and become.

When I asked the questions I intended to make you investigate them in your direct experience.

So.. The question "what is problem made out of?" entails following:

• What you call a problem is an experience, more precisely an image of the future that "you" want to get to
• This experience represents a thought (image of enlightenment) and a feeling (craving for it)
• If there's an experience there's awareness. But is that really the case? Is experience different from awareness? Or is that the same thing? Non-duality means non-duality, not two.
• The whole point is that the desire to "get somewhere" is not a problem at all, because what is that desire made of? Non-duality. You are the desire and everything else simultaneously. Everything is one.
• By "can we go deeper" I meant that what if we not just try to let go of the desire, what if we try to investigate/observe it in the direct experience and try to understand what it is?

P.S. All that relates to that "problem" that people keep mentioning in this topic. The real problem is that most of the people are lost in conceptual understanding and don't practice nearly enough to even understand and distinguish common meditation techniques, but they rigorously keep projecting, arguing and thinking they "get it".

P.S. 2. No, you don't try to observe the desire in do-nothing, otherwise it becomes noting technique.

[tsuki]

54 minutes ago, Privet said:

When I asked the questions I intended to make you investigate them in your direct experience.

@Privet Oh, thank you for your concern.
The funniest thing is that I intended the same thing for you with my response.
My answer was not conceptual.

I guess that the key 'problem' with any discussion is the unwarranted feeling that we all are Rinzai zen masters, trying to send each other out to meditate more. Monks in the monastery however understand their position as a student and anticipate a koan from a master. Perhaps I should listen to your questions as a student then, so that we can understand each other.

54 minutes ago, Privet said:

By "can we go deeper" I meant that what if we not just try to let go of the desire, what if we try to investigate/observe it in the direct experience and try to understand what it is?

Desire is just the other face of suffering. Nothing else for me to see.

Edited August 16, 2018 by tsuki

[robdl]

9 hours ago, Privet said:

@robdl

It is already quite a debate. The problem is that you guys put the cart before the horse. You try to describe enlightenment which is an absence of I and absence of any technique or method. But before you get there you have to follow a technique, you have to meditate before the habit of meditation starts to meditate by itself.

 

I try to describe the nature of thought-self and its various traps.  To set off on pursuing a technique or meditation, without understanding of thought and its traps (which includes any effort, motive, volition, etc.), may only nourish, strengthen thought-self and its traps.  

Thought-self will use anything and everything to self-perpetuate, including non-dual concepts, knowledge, and spiritual techniques, including "meditation."  

So I'm not talking about enlightenment or meditation results necessarily, only about the perils of "meditation" and any "techniques" it involves.

I'd argue that to seek enlightenment/pursue do-nothing meditation, without understanding all of this (i.e. the very nature of the seeking/effort/striving quality of thought itself) is putting the cart before the horse.    Meditation then becomes thought ("I") using thought (i.e. effort, knowledge, technique) to try to end thought --- which is inherently self-contradicting.  A self-feeding loop.

 

 

Edited August 16, 2018 by robdl

[robdl]

10 hours ago, Privet said:

@robdl

 Getting lost in thoughts is not a problem.

It's a question of inattention vs. attention. 

There is essentially no difference between getting lost in thought while standing in line at a grocery store and getting lost in thought while in "meditation."  Calling it "meditation" doesn't give it any special significance.   Getting lost in thought in half-lotus posture or with one's eyes closed doesn't give it any special significance.

Ego mind is happy to self-perpetuate standing in line, and ego mind is happy to self-perpetuate sitting with eyes closed.

In both cases, thought-self is simply in operation, reacting to/within itself --- invoking a false sense of an "I" being lost in thought. 

 

Edited August 16, 2018 by robdl