neti neti

Perhaps this subtle reality of "being in the moment" hints at the deep mystery of what Being really is. The mystery which unfolds in and through us as we abide in that "profound meditation on the Self."

Perhaps thought, intent, and action are unified, merely appearing to be linear in their manifestation due to the phenomena of time. My drunk uncle Alan Watts once rambled on about how decisions and their execution are one and instantaneous, regardless of having seemingly originated in thought. He offered a few skill-based examples, like firing a rifle or the shooting of an arrow. One may have thought about it, even imagined going through the motions of that perfect shot in their mind's eye. But in the moment of action, there is no thought involved. In fact, if one thinks about doing it in that moment... instead of just squeezing the trigger, or just lifting up and drawing back, aiming and releasing in one fluid thoughtless doing... then one usually just yanks the trigger or bow and easily misses the mark. Who would've thought that too much thought could be an impediment to success? A noteworthy mention of his, is that this is why some people seem to effortlessly be able to perform impeccably on their very first undertaking, while those who've been perfecting the art their entire lives stand by in disbelief with not much more to say than... "Must be beginner's luck." I believe many athletes and musicians alike can attest to such experiences of watching themselves perform the incredible, immersed in the moment, making any sort of testimony of premeditation, and do please forgive the pun... an afterthought.

Maybe. I'm reminded of the fervor with which that movement promoted the "externalization of the hierarchy." The rabbit holes run quite deep. Deep enough to pop up in China, bewildered at how far out a daydream that began with a single thought can go!

It seems 3bob senses that of Gurdieff's "4th way" teachings.

Lol, oh but he does know all, he just pretends not to. We're onto him though so no worries. This predicament of enormous proportions Shiva's gotten himself into is one we're intimately familiar with! So enormous in fact, he's even managed to stumble into this forum to prove himself wrong!

How can I? One cannot be without the other, making the differentiation itself one and the same. Again, your entire proposed dilemma cannot arise apart from the thinker/daydreamer, making them indivisible, and therefore indistinguishable. Which means only one thing. How easily we unquestioningly identify with the thinker to the exclusion of all else. Talk about daydreaming!

The thinker, thinking itself to self-improvement by thought, is a scandalous ruse put on in the incessant quest of that identity's survival. Having known the thinker to be a contrived proxy for the experience of which it is identical with, it loses its hold as that which thinks "other" thoughts. Then the mind and its contents, and the experiences which it reflects, are revealed as universal in nature.

And yet the thinker is taken at face value as if it were anything but another thought. There appears to be thinkers of different types, but the thinker is one, just as each thought and the mind to which they seem to appear in, are inseparable. Is the idea here not clear and conclusive enough once having identified that the reality with which one experiments... Is oneself? Or must one continually need to be learning how to learn, refining the process of how concepts are constructed? Is not the arising of a thinker itself a concept? Can not the engineer both have thoughts seemingly happening to him, and simultaneously be engrossed in applying concepts derived from thoughts to apply his craft? And what is to say that his process of designing could not be considered as... daydreaming? Can both not be simultaneously true as Alan suggests? Could one ever be able to distinguish that which is productive thought by a learned mind, without the perceived laziness in haphazard chaos as the mind is left to wander aimlessly? This is the essence of what's shared here, knowledge beyond objectification of what "mind" can feebly gauge on any presumed scale of intelligence, for in reality, pure self-shining genius is what "mind" arises in. This topic isn't about the nature of thoughts and their thinker. Its about realizing that the nature of meditation is non-different from the meditator, thereby exposing the ghost who's learned as a habit that which runs contrary to the obvious. I believe great thinkers, like Alan or Sankara, have indeed considered these things quite carefully as is evidenced by their learned expositions. This is not to stand on the shoulders of giants to make oneself seem taller. Rather it is recognition of a singular truth while highlighting the nuances discovered by great minds before them, having navigated and mapped out their particular frontiers of consciousness.

What is the sound of one hand wafting?

In a forest, there lived a holy man who had many disciples. One day he taught them to see God in all beings and, knowing this, to bow low before them all. A disciple went to the forest to gather wood for the sacrificial fire. Suddenly he heard an outcry: ‘Get out of the way! A mad elephant is coming!’ All but the disciple of the holy man took to their heels. He reasoned that the elephant was also God in another form. Then why should he run away from it? He stood still, bowed before the animal, and began to sing its praises. The mahut of the elephant was shouting: ‘Run away! Run away!’ But the disciple didn’t move. The animal seized him with its trunk, cast him to one side, and went on its way. Hurt and bruised, the disciple lay unconscious on the ground. Hearing what had happened, his teacher and his brother disciples came to him and carried him to the hermitage. With the help of some medicine he soon regained consciousness. Someone asked him, ‘You knew the elephant was coming—why didn’t you leave the place?’ ‘But’, he said, ‘our teacher has told us that God Himself has taken all these forms, of animals as well as men. Therefore, thinking it was only the elephant God that was coming, I didn’t run away.’ At this the teacher said: ‘Yes, my child, it is true that the elephant God was coming; but... ~Sri Ramakrishna

"Angels can fly because they can take themselves lightly." ― G.K. Chesterton

I would say a certain purity of intention is key. The wisdom gained from "failures" allows for understanding to unfold as it must.

The way of understanding or, "The Bird's Way", is a direct approach "system of meditation" by Siddharameshwar Maharaj, Nisargadatta's guru. Its foundation is believed to have been succinctly laid out by Nisargadatta in the following Q&A.

I once met Shiva at the gas pump. He looked like a complete degenerate addict, but with a knowing look in his eye, asked how I was doing. I replied I'd be a lot better off if that gas wasn't pumping so otherworldly slow. He smiled, and told me slow is OK. otherwise a lot of the good stuff would end up wasted and lost forever. With one more pause, his eyes glinting in the sun with a devilishly wide grin, he whispered a barely audible... "Paramatman". And with that, took off to find his next fix I suppose. My how looks possess the power to deceive, and oh how appearances are never as they seem...

I suggest anyone insisting on pitting apparent opposites vs. each other take the time to look over @Bindi's topic here, without bias. Effort vs. No Effort Many posts therein reveal a great deal of insight and experience.

I can tell you what may be worse: praise. Lol, ah yes, choice and the novelty of variety. But how rare it is to entertain the possibility of choice-less awareness?

Yes, tremendous effort is needed, until of course it's discovered that no effort was ever needed at all, whatsoever. For the call to effort was a call to myself, by myself, and wonderfully... through myself.

By all means, keep riding. I have no path, because I am the effort exerted and the effortlessness on display, therefore, I am the path. Who makes the value judgement as to the efficacy of one's practice or lack thereof, and from where comes his authority? Sounds just like another opinion to me, a high-minded one at that. Would you then ignore scoff and aim insults at the testimonies of spontaneous awakenings like that of Ramana Maharshi, or those souls born into this world "realised"?

Yes, that's... understandable. But it's obviously all ephemeral. Us hard-headed Doubting Thomas's must poke our fingers in the wounds to believe, and so the guru says, come, look and touch... but blessed indeed are those who believe having not seen, for in not-seeing, they have truly seen. I too was once in need of some tangible proof, some trust-building exercises that set the stage for... the "self-empowerment" I sought. Some games to play, with toys the "guru" gifts us with to keep us busy. "Others" merely need to hear a few words of the guru for a radical and spontaneous transformation; these were already quite ripe. In either instance however, "success" is never contingent upon one's faith in or understanding of the teachings, nor the effort put forth in one's practice. Tradition can become rigid systems of control, but can be necessary for one requiring something to cling onto, such that one is gradually made able to Stop clinging to... oneself. It is in our nature to let go, and give all away. Therein lies true power, whereby all one's understanding is truly understood.

But what is comprehension ? Interesting how the mere words of gurus long gone still deeply affect so many today. What would you say to the words of such gurus who've encouraged us to understand that their physical presence is... of minor importance?

"All you can teach is understanding, the rest comes on its own." — Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj

Perhaps the beginning is the end, and the end of distinctions is just the beginning.