What is magic? How does magic work?

[Todd]

Gold,

 

If you want to influence me, you might do better if you managed to stop mischaracterizing what I say. I would be much more receptive to considering your suggestions if I had a sense that you actually understood what I am trying to convey. I still do consider what you say, since I enjoy considering things and I enjoy learning, even from those who do not understand me. I am just making a suggestion, since you seem to have a strong desire to influence people. It is hard to have a cooperative relationship with someone whom you feel cannot really hear you.

 

I have never suggested stopping verbalization. It may be useful as a change of pace, but I'm pretty sure that I have never suggested this as a long term path. I do not think that I have even specifically suggested it as a short term path. The closest I have come to that is suggesting moving attention from discursive mind to something else, if one has a strong habit of fixating on discursive mind. This is not stopping thoughts, since they can continue without attention fixed on them.

 

This is not the first time that I have said this, so either you have a poor memory or you are intentionally mischaracterizing what I say.

 

Please reread my previous post with this in mind and see if you come up with a different interpretation.

 

 

To respond to your point about no verbal understandings, I would suggest that there is a strong relationship between verbal manifestations and psychic structures, and commitment to one is commitment to the other. The issue is commitment and not the presence or lack thereof of "contradictory" psychic structures. You have said yourself that psychic structures do not disappear, but return to potential, which is nowhere other than us, so really its all about commitment.

 

Of course, commitment in the sense of invigorating as a temporary manifestation appropriate to the moment is useful, but I am referring to the more fixated sort of commitment that gets riled up when it is questioned, and limits perceptions in ways that are harmful to health.

 

 

 

Kate,

 

turning your discursive mind off?

Edited June 6, 2011 by Todd

[goldisheavy]

Gold,

 

If you want to influence me, you might do better if you managed to stop mischaracterizing what I say.

 

OK, so what is it that's mischaracterized?

 

I would be much more receptive to considering your suggestions if I had a sense that you actually understood what I am trying to convey. I still do consider what you say, since I enjoy considering things and I enjoy learning, even from those who do not understand me. I am just making a suggestion, since you seem to have a strong desire to influence people. It is hard to have a cooperative relationship with someone whom you feel cannot really hear you.

 

I have never suggested stopping verbalization. It may be useful as a change of pace, but I'm pretty sure that I have never suggested this as a long term path.

 

Well, how about some quotes then:

 

Personally, I feel that the thinking aspect of your description can be misleading, since one of the most important aspects of contemplation is silence and receptivity, often in combination with a question, but this question does not necessarily need to be voiced.

...

...

I agree here. When the discursive mind is silent, there still can be thought. This is the type of thought that is particularly useful in contemplation.

 

The discursive mind doesn't need to be quiet for this thought to go on, but it sure does make it more obvious.

...

...

If so, then I'll have to define interpretation as conceptual addition to bare experience, where concepts are defined as mental chatter that one can communicate to another person using words.

...

...

Discursive thoughts reflect beliefs in some sense, and can distract us from beliefs, so I can see how that might seem to hide true nature as well (even though it doesn't), now that you bring it up.

...

...

How exactly does suggesting that someone move their attention from the discursive mind, which previously was the place that they constantly looked to tell them what they and everything else is, to what they actually are (or even to anything else at all, for that matter!) is introducing some new limitation?

...

...

If it is interpreted as ignore the discursive mind in all situations, then yes, this is a new limitation, even though it might be freeing on some level, but if it is, "Hey, there is something other than your discursive mind going on. You might want to check it out, really!", then please, tell me how this is introducing a new limitation.

 

These quotes make it obvious what your attitude and view is. You separate what you label as "discursive mind" from the rest of your psyche. You kind of denigrate it slightly and kind of suggest that it's better to demote it somewhat, etc... and all that in a mechanistic way. In other words, you're not willing to engage the contents of beliefs. Nor are you interested in the content of the discursive thought. Your attitude is to let everything sort itself out while you sit there and observe it.

 

I really don't mischaracterize you. You are frustrated with yourself and your own crazy view. Because when I mirror your view back to you, you don't like it.

 

I do not think that I have even specifically suggested it as a short term path. The closest I have come to that is suggesting moving attention from discursive mind to something else, if one has a strong habit of fixating on discursive mind. This is not stopping thoughts, since they can continue without attention fixed on them.

 

This is not the first time that I have said this, so either you have a poor memory or you are intentionally mischaracterizing what I say.

 

Please reread my previous post with this in mind and see if you come up with a different interpretation.

 

To respond to your point about no verbal understandings, I would suggest that there is a strong relationship between verbal manifestations and psychic structures, and commitment to one is commitment to the other.

 

So you are saying that simply abandoning verbalizations abandons commitment to the structures that give rise to them? That is false. I've rejected this idea in every way possible. I've argued against using logic. I told you my personal experience that runs against this. What more do you want?

 

The issue is commitment and not the presence or lack thereof of "contradictory" psychic structures. You have said yourself that psychic structures do not disappear, but return to potential, which is nowhere other than us, so really its all about commitment.

 

Wrong. It's not all about. That's crazy. Everything matters. Content of beliefs matters. Simply reflect! Observe what you're saying now. You believe that commitment is the only thing that matters. That's your belief! So beliefs do matter, don't they? I'm talking about the content and the meaning and the implications of your beliefs here and not just the mechanic presence of one. See how you stick to that belief very consistently in this discussion? So do beliefs matter or not?

 

Of course, commitment in the sense of invigorating as a temporary manifestation appropriate to the moment is useful, but I am referring to the more fixated sort of commitment that gets riled up when it is questioned, and limits perceptions in ways that are harmful to health.

 

Perception limitations are not harmful. In fact perception has to be limited in some way. Even Buddha has limited perception. Why? Because Buddha cannot perceive in an ignorant manner. That's a limitation.

 

So obviously meanings matter. Content of beliefs matter. You cannot solve your problems by treating all beliefs in a mechanical fashion as if what beliefs say is unimportant.

Edited June 6, 2011 by goldisheavy

[goldisheavy]

Todd,

 

I'll make it really simple for you:

 

1. Beliefs are psychic structures that are much deeper than what we profess.

 

2. Beliefs have meanings.

 

3. Those meanings are important because they structure our experience.

 

4. Beliefs can be closer to the superficial level or closer to the core level, depending on how strongly we invigorate those beliefs.

 

5. Beliefs can easily contradict each other in meaning.

 

6. If the person is vested relatively deeply into two contradicting beliefs, inner turmoil and suffering ensues.

 

So, without bringing something third into the discussion, go ahead and pick one of the points to disagree with. Please stop talking about the discursive mind or the source. It's not important. Instead, consider 1 through 6 and if you have a problem with them, pick just one point, and then go after it.

 

Now, I've been talking to you for a while now. And honestly I don't think you have any disagreements with any of my 6 points. But you keep trying to talk about something. I don't even understand what is the point. What are you trying to say? Are you just replying for the sake of replying? Or do you have a message?

 

You see, I actually have a message. Now, if you don't have a problem with my message, then don't act as if you do. If you do, then don't wobble all over the place, don't back pedal, don't say one thing and then another, just clearly state what your problem is in one or two small paragraphs.

 

Talk about clarity.

Edited June 7, 2011 by goldisheavy

[Birch]

"Kate,

 

turning your discursive mind off? "

 

 

Yes. Turning it off - or maybe the noise down - either way, the net result is you don't chatter away to yourself quite as much. Except when "something" happens that really gets you. Then the volume goes waaaay back up again.

[Birch]

GIH. I liked the last post to with the easy to read bullet points. Thank you!

 

Now for:

 

"Beliefs are physic structures that are much deeper than what we profess."

 

Just how deep? I'd say flesh deep. But I could be wrong

 

You say "4. Beliefs can be closer to the superficial level or closer to the core level, depending on how strongly we invigorate those beliefs."

 

How do you 'invigorate' a belief?

[Todd]

 

These quotes make it obvious what your attitude and view is. You separate what you label as "discursive mind" from the rest of your psyche. You kind of denigrate it slightly and kind of suggest that it's better to demote it somewhat, etc... and all that in a mechanistic way. In other words, you're not willing to engage the contents of beliefs. Nor are you interested in the content of the discursive thought. Your attitude is to let everything sort itself out while you sit there and observe it.

 

I really don't mischaracterize you. You are frustrated with yourself and your own crazy view. Because when I mirror your view back to you, you don't like it.

 

So you are saying that simply abandoning verbalizations abandons commitment to the structures that give rise to them? That is false. I've rejected this idea in every way possible. I've argued against using logic. I told you my personal experience that runs against this. What more do you want?

 

No, I have never said that simply abandoning verbalizations abandons commitment to the structures that give rise to them. Your argument has been with an assumption of your own making.

 

I do not make the distinction between phenomena and the observation of them that you assume that I make. My argument is for including the whole, which includes the observer and not merely the observed. When I mention the observer as distinct from the observed, this is only to bring attention to it, and is in no way meant to cut out the observed.

 

If I were to mischaracterize what you are saying as you have mischaracterized what I have been saying, then I would say that you are advocating for focusing all attention on surface verbalizations, because you diminish what arises when they are forcefully stopped. I would also say that this is not a productive path, or else all the people in the world who are focusing on surface verbalizations would be developing profound wisdom with every thought that they committed to and believed to be true. In the rather long view, this might be true, but then what use would talking about methods be in such a view?

 

When I advocate for turning attention from discursive mind this is only for cases where the discursive mind is being engaged in unhelpfully, and the turning away is intended to include more of the whole and not to cut off any one part of the whole. To make this more concrete, imagine you have been staring at only one word in this message and repeating it over and over. Would it be advocating ignoring of this word and cutting it out of the message if I were to suggest that you turn your attention from this word in order to take in the rest of the message? When you, Gold, advocate for not just relaxing, not just directing attention to things other than surface thoughts, then you are also advocating for this only in cases where relaxing and stopping thoughts is being engaged in unhelpfully. This is clear, since you mention that you also use relaxing and directing attention to things other than surface thoughts (such as core beliefs) in your method.

 

When I mentioned turning attention from discursive mind, I tried to give the context that this is only for some situations, which can be seen even in the quotes that you took out of the broader context. I have bolded such context in the quotes below:

 

Personally, I feel that the thinking aspect of your description can be misleading, since one of the most important aspects of contemplation is silence and receptivity, often in combination with a question, but this question does not necessarily need to be voiced.

...

...

I agree here. When the discursive mind is silent, there still can be thought. This is the type of thought that is particularly useful in contemplation.

 

The discursive mind doesn't need to be quiet for this thought to go on, but it sure does make it more obvious.

...

...

If so, then I'll have to define interpretation as conceptual addition to bare experience, where concepts are defined as mental chatter that one can communicate to another person using words.

...

...

Discursive thoughts reflect beliefs in some sense, and can distract us from beliefs, so I can see how that might seem to hide true nature as well (even though it doesn't), now that you bring it up.

...

...

How exactly does suggesting that someone move their attention from the discursive mind, which previously was the place that they constantly looked to tell them what they and everything else is, to what they actually are (or even to anything else at all, for that matter!) is introducing some new limitation?

...

...

If it is interpreted as ignore the discursive mind in all situations, then yes, this is a new limitation, even though it might be freeing on some level, but if it is, "Hey, there is something other than your discursive mind going on. You might want to check it out, really!", then please, tell me how this is introducing a new limitation.

 

I hope by now that you recognize that I am not advocating for stopping thoughts or wholesale ignoring of discursive mind as you might have imagined. The discursive mind is very useful in the right situations.

 

Wrong. It's not all about. That's crazy. Everything matters. Content of beliefs matters. Simply reflect! Observe what you're saying now. You believe that commitment is the only thing that matters. That's your belief! So beliefs do matter, don't they? I'm talking about the content and the meaning and the implications of your beliefs here and not just the mechanic presence of one. See how you stick to that belief very consistently in this discussion? So do beliefs matter or not?

 

Well, look at it this way. You say that beliefs do not disappear, but continue to exist in potential. Since potential is infinite, then all possible beliefs exist within this potential. Since this potential is not separate from us, then we all have all possible beliefs. If there are such things as contradictory beliefs, then we all have contradictory beliefs. So the primary determiner of whether or not we suffer is not the presence of lack thereof of contradictory beliefs, but our commitment to some of those beliefs.

 

So, reflecting on your example using this discussion, it is not my belief that commitment is the most vital thing which matters, but rather my commitment to that belief. You have the same belief, but you are less committed to it.

 

 

Perception limitations are not harmful. In fact perception has to be limited in some way. Even Buddha has limited perception. Why? Because Buddha cannot perceive in an ignorant manner. That's a limitation.

 

I did not say that perceptual limitations are harmful. This is another mischaracterization of what I have said. I said "limits perception in ways that are harmful to health." I could have also said "limits perception in ways that are healthful". It is not the limit to perception which is harmful or healthful, but the way that perception is limited that harms health. In this case, the way that perception is limited is by fixated commitment to beliefs, which is harmful to health to the extent that the fixation overrides sensitivity to the changing needs of the moment.

 

I am sorry that I have expressed myself in ways that inspire frequent mischaracterizations.

 

So obviously meanings matter. Content of beliefs matter. You cannot solve your problems by treating all beliefs in a mechanical fashion as if what beliefs say is unimportant.

 

I agree. But the key point, which I haven't yet made clearly, is that the main obstacle to our beliefs approaching healthful coherence and harmonization, is a fixation of commitment that causes seemingly contradictory beliefs to be committed to at the same time. It is important to have contradictory beliefs, since it can't be avoided, as we discussed above, and they also give us more options. Different beliefs are appropriate for different situations, and there is a natural rising and falling of commitment to particular beliefs as the situation varies. If we are fiercely committed to a particular belief, then we do not allow the natural waning that would normally occur when the situation calls for a contradictory belief to be committed to. This is the source of the inner turmoil and suffering that you mention.

 

There is no mechanical way to deal with this fixation. Paying attention to conflicts between beliefs that we commit to is one good option. Finding the beliefs that we are committed to that generate fixation, and then diminishing that commitment through questioning and awareness is another good option. Engaging in practices that encourage a general relaxation of fixation is another good option. Simply recognizing and letting go of fixation is another good option, to the extent that it can be done.

 

Every single one of those methods depends on the ability to distinguish fixation from non-fixation. This ability is what I sometimes call honesty and integrity, and I think you sometimes call it the fruit of contemplation. The funny thing is that this fruit is present before any contemplation has taken place, but it is accessed through contemplation, and makes contemplation more effective. Without this fruit, no contemplation can succeed. What I have suggested at times here, which is to direct attention in a way that reveals a perspective beyond the vast majority of beliefs (or perhaps all beliefs, if it goes deep enough), also depends on honesty and integrity, while at the same time it affords access to honesty and integrity, since this perspective is not defined by the beliefs that seem to compromise honesty and integrity.

 

Any method that increases access to honesty and integrity will be of benefit, and any method that is engaged in without honesty and integrity will be harmful. It is not actually the method which does this though. It exists before the methods and it utilizes the methods. For different people it will utilize different methods. If a person engages in a method that is appropriate for them, then honest and integrity will seem to increase. If not, then they will seem to decrease. Do you see this? Not being able to see this is the source of a lot of dogma.

Edited June 7, 2011 by Todd

[Todd]

Todd,

 

I'll make it really simple for you:

 

 

If you want to limit the discussion to those six points, fine. I do no disagree with any of those six points, though the first one should read "psychic" instead of "physic", and the sixth one is incomplete as I explained above.

 

Another point that you have been making, which I have surmised that you do not intend to discuss, since you never respond when I bring it up, is that your method is 100% guaranteed to work. I suggest that this is only true if it is engaged in with honesty and integrity, and that it can be harmful if it is not engaged in with honesty and integrity. I respect your right not to discuss this.

 

There is no need to respond to my post above if you do not enjoy responding nor find it helpful to consider what I suggest.

 

I find considering what you suggest to be helpful. For instance, when I explored my experience to come up with a response to something you suggested (don't remember what), I realized that one of my favorite methods of the moment was actually helping me to become aware of and reduce commitment to a core belief that I access through the verbal phrase "Something can obscure reality". My method is to ask myself the question, "Is it true that something can obscure reality"?

 

Thank you for that.

Edited June 7, 2011 by Todd

[Todd]

"Kate,

 

turning your discursive mind off? "

 

 

Yes. Turning it off - or maybe the noise down - either way, the net result is you don't chatter away to yourself quite as much. Except when "something" happens that really gets you. Then the volume goes waaaay back up again.

 

I don't suggest turning the discursive mind off. The volume might go down. This can be healthy, or it can be the outcome of more control and not healthy, except in a very limited sense.

 

For emotions, something that I have found helpful is to ask myself the question "Is it true that anything can obscure reality?" It isn't really abstract, since I usually ask it when some state that I interpret as negative or unsatisfactory is arising, and it is a real question (not an assumption that nothing can obscure reality).

 

It has a wonderfully transformative effect, since it gets at the core belief that something will be better, when. That something needs to change. That something needs to transform. That states are somehow what this is all about.

Edited June 7, 2011 by Todd

[Birch]

I don't suggest turning the discursive mind off. The volume might go down. This can be healthy, or it can be the outcome of more control and not healthy, except in a very limited sense.

 

For emotions, something that I have found helpful is to ask myself the question "Is it true that anything can obscure reality?" It isn't really abstract, since I usually ask it when some state that I interpret as negative or unsatisfactory is arising, and it is a real question (not an assumption that nothing can obscure reality).

 

It has a wonderfully transformative effect, since it gets at the core belief that something will be better, when. That something needs to change. That something needs to transform. That states are somehow what this is all about.

 

Well, the 'something' is the issue yes :-) And IMO/IME it's not always where you think it is. I keep hearing in various forms that it's up to oneself to make changes 'if' one wants to see change 'out there' but also IME, this can be delicate to understand (because nothing will change what's 'out there right now') as well as being a potential source of immobility in people. I don't see myself as the be and end all creator of all experiences. It's also why I try (where possible) not to be a jerk.

[goldisheavy]

GIH. I liked the last post to with the easy to read bullet points. Thank you!

 

Now for:

 

"Beliefs are physic structures that are much deeper than what we profess."

 

Just how deep? I'd say flesh deep. But I could be wrong

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "flesh". As for how deep, well, see if you can stop believing in gravity. I think if you examine one of your beliefs from time to time, eventually you'll get a sense to how committed you are to it. Try to imagine how your life would be different if you didn't believe it, or believed something different.

 

You say "4. Beliefs can be closer to the superficial level or closer to the core level, depending on how strongly we invigorate those beliefs."

 

How do you 'invigorate' a belief?

 

Well, I was using Todd's word. It's a cool word, but I normally don't talk like that. Normally I would use the word "commit" or "vest". So we vest into our beliefs, or commit to them.

 

As for how exactly, this is best answered in practice. You can try to pick some kind of relatively insignificant and non-contradictory belief, something that you think should be easy to get yourself to believe. It may be a good idea, while you are at it, to pick a belief that is relatively positive and helpful.

 

Then affirm this belief as if you already believe it. At first you'll feel like you're lying to yourself. As you do this, visualize yourself as if you already believe it in your mind's eye. Then each time you affirm your new belief, you might feel like it's less of a lie. This will be true if you're accepting it. If you're not accepting it, then there is no point in forcing yourself. There may be a good reason for non-acceptance.

 

But either way you'll get your answer. You'll see if beliefs are easy to change or not. Whatever you do, the most important thing is to always be honest to yourself. If your beliefs are changing, you'll feel it very clearly. So there is no need to pretend. If your beliefs don't change in this type of exercise, that's valid.

 

So I just described how to acquire a new belief. It's also useful to disempower certain beliefs, such as those beliefs that are holding you back in an way that you consider reasonably unhealthy. To disempower a belief, you'd have to bring it up for examination in your mind's eye. Examine the effects this belief is having on your life. The imagine what your life would be like if you believe something different. Then you may ask yourself is this belief is absolutely necessary? If it has some positive function, can that same function be served by a healthier belief? So when you start to question a thorny belief in this way, eventually it will at least weaken.

 

The key in this process is to always be sincere before yourself. Pretending is a dangerous game when we pretend to ourselves. All beliefs can be changed in a sincere way. So there is no point in pretending.

 

Beliefs can change authentically as a result of an honest change of heart during an honest conversation with yourself, or silent introspection, or during a dream or during an even stranger or more mundane occurrence.

 

It's not a good idea to make anything I say here into some kind of rote practice. If your life is good, don't mess around with your beliefs. If there is a pain point somewhere, then it may be worthwhile to investigate beliefs around the pain point.

 

Sometimes you may also find that some types of pain are not something you will want to eliminate, because you'll realize that to eliminate certain types of pain you'd have to change your beliefs in such a way as to shock your conscience. In cases like these you may choose to purposefully let pain be painful.

[goldisheavy]

For emotions, something that I have found helpful is to ask myself the question "Is it true that anything can obscure reality?" It isn't really abstract, since I usually ask it when some state that I interpret as negative or unsatisfactory is arising, and it is a real question (not an assumption that nothing can obscure reality).

 

It has a wonderfully transformative effect, since it gets at the core belief that something will be better, when. That something needs to change. That something needs to transform. That states are somehow what this is all about.

 

This is powerful, powerful stuff right there! No wonder you didn't want me to tell people about it. I guess I was giving people access to a powerful method you wanted to keep to yourself? Could this be true?

 

/half-joking

Edited June 7, 2011 by goldisheavy

[Aaron]

When I was much younger, as I've stated elsewhere, I dabbled in magic. At the time, without knowing it, I used it as others have described it, a way to make sense of the world, or at the very least, give the appearance of control. Over the course of time I ended up studying Magic scholastically a bit, in particular a few books and authors seemed to make sense of it all, at least to me. Frazer made incredible inroads into the understanding of the magic mindset with his examination of myth in the Golden Bough, but also Campbell's examination of the same topic in various volumes also helped me to understand this general need to explain and control what appears uncontrollable.

 

In the early days of man, before we stumbled on Tao and Buddha and even Shiva, we only had nature to examine. Nature didn't always make sense, so we tried to make sense of it. We saw gods and spirits everywhere, the sun, the moon, even in the seasons, the virgin spring and old withered winter. How strange it must have been not to understand that the Earth rotated, that the sun wasn't rising and falling, but rather standing very still. How stranger still it must have been to wonder why it grew cold in the winter and warm in the summer, what force caused such things? I'm sure if you told men at one time that the Earth revolved around the Sun they would've thought you mad (and in fact they did.)

 

The fact is Magic works because we believe it works. Magic is our way of making sense of the nonsensical. It was a means by which we could figure out how nature worked and also, if we were blessed by the spirits, control nature. It was this very basic desire that led us to modern religion, because well before Thoth, Shiva, and Zeus roamed the minds of men, there were cults devoted to Mother Earth, Aphrodite, etc.

 

I've come to understand that magic doesn't work, all it does is change our perception of how things work. It allows us to believe, that if we do things in a certain way, that we can alter the course of nature. It's understandable that we, especially when we are young, seek out something like this, but it's also important to remember that Magic is no substitute for hard work and common sense.

 

Aaron

[goldisheavy]

No, I have never said that simply abandoning verbalizations abandons commitment to the structures that give rise to them. Your argument has been with an assumption of your own making.

 

What is this then:

 

To respond to your point about no verbal understandings, I would suggest that there is a strong relationship between verbal manifestations and psychic structures, and commitment to one is commitment to the other.

 

I do not make the distinction between phenomena and the observation of them that you assume that I make. My argument is for including the whole, which includes the observer and not merely the observed. When I mention the observer as distinct from the observed, this is only to bring attention to it, and is in no way meant to cut out the observed.

 

I don't know how you manage to observe the observer as if it were an object of some kind. Do you mean the body?

 

If I were to mischaracterize what you are saying as you have mischaracterized what I have been saying, then I would say that you are advocating for focusing all attention on surface verbalizations, because you diminish what arises when they are forcefully stopped.

 

First of all, if you simply stop surface verbalization, I maintain that there will be no significant change. I know this because I've done just this and nothing changed. So this is indeed what I claim! By failing to attribute this claim to me you're actually mischaracterizing what I am saying.

 

I would also say that this is not a productive path, or else all the people in the world who are focusing on surface verbalizations would be developing profound wisdom with every thought that they committed to and believed to be true.

 

That's because focusing on specific beliefs is very distinct from focusing on miscellaneous surface verbalizations. The difference is one of content. If your surface verbalizations are those that arise during belief inspection, then focusing on the meaning of those verbalizations is correct. If your surface verbalizations are "I need to go grab something to eat, blah blah blah, I need to run to the ATM, blah blah... tank of gas, blah blah blah blah" then focusing on the meanings of those verbalizations is a waste of time. So meanings matter. The content of surface verbalizations matters. Hugely.

 

In the rather long view, this might be true, but then what use would talking about methods be in such a view?

 

When I advocate for turning attention from discursive mind this is only for cases where the discursive mind is being engaged in unhelpfully,

 

Your discursive mind is volitional. You have an insane degree of influence over it. In fact, it's probably the one single thing we have the best control over in the entire bodymind. If this aspect of you is not volitional, nothing is, and you're a helpless zombie.

 

Because the discursive mind is volitional, you can vary its topic, tempo, and tone, just to name a few things. Of those the topic is the most important!

 

Turning your discursive mind to the topic of wisdom is infinitely more productive than the same time spent in silence.

 

Silence can also be useful, but for the most part, silence is non-transformative and it tends to status-quo. Being silent in your mind is the same thing as being silent with your mouth. It's the same, except the mind silence is a tiny bit more silent than the mouth kind. The meaning of both is the same and so is the effect.

 

When you raise your voice, do you become more attached to your beliefs? No. Of course not. When you lower your voice you don't become less attached either. Beliefs must be consciously and purposefully examined for change to occur.

 

Like I said before, there is a special kind of silence that is transformative, but to experience it you need special preparation, which most people don't have.

 

and the turning away is intended to include more of the whole and not to cut off any one part of the whole.

 

It only does that if that's your intention! The problem is, when you tell people to get silent in their minds, they do... just that. They just get silent. They don't shift their attention to the whole.

 

At the same time, when you say, "Shift your attention to the whole" it will work fine without telling people to shut up.

 

Silence has minimal value. Instead of going with naive formulas that every Zen forum is brimming with, look at your life and see how it works there. That's what I do. That's why I can see how useless silence is. I am very good at staying silent. So I know what the heck I am talking about.

 

The value of silence is rest and relaxation. That is it.

 

To make this more concrete, imagine you have been staring at only one word in this message and repeating it over and over. Would it be advocating ignoring of this word and cutting it out of the message if I were to suggest that you turn your attention from this word in order to take in the rest of the message?

 

Gosh.... Sometimes I get so tired talking to you. You can't see the difference between saying, "ignore the word" and "shift your attention to the entirety of the post"? If you really can't, we need to stop talking. I don't want to talk to you anymore if you think the two suggestions are equivalent or if you think that suggesting to ignore that one word is automagically going to result in noticing the rest of the post! The mind just doesn't work like that.

 

In case I am not crystal clear yet, you precisely do not suggest to turn attention to the whole. Instead you precisely do suggest to ignore that one word in the post, assuming that attention will turn to the whole automatically as a result and I tell you over and over again this automatism is just not there in the mind. It's only when I strongly push you that you start to talk about turning attention to the whole. If I didn't push you, we'd never hear you talk like that under your own steam and you'd just keep telling people to be silent, as if it's some high Zen practice or something. (it is not!)

 

You get exactly what you intend every time. That's how intent works. If you want to be silent, you get silence. You don't get broader attention. If you want broader attention you need to intend to broaden your attention. That's a totally different intent from intending to be silent and while the two intents can be combined, they are completely orthogonal.

 

You seem to have no appreciation for meanings. You think only in terms of mechanics. You don't get how different words have different meanings, how beliefs are meaningful, how various descriptions are meaningful in different ways. For example, you treat discursive mind as one whole thing without differentiating its contents. This shows you don't think much of any meanings that occur therein.

Edited June 7, 2011 by goldisheavy

[goldisheavy]

When you, Gold, advocate for not just relaxing, not just directing attention to things other than surface thoughts, then you are also advocating for this only in cases where relaxing and stopping thoughts is being engaged in unhelpfully. This is clear, since you mention that you also use relaxing and directing attention to things other than surface thoughts (such as core beliefs) in your method.

 

When I mentioned turning attention from discursive mind, I tried to give the context that this is only for some situations, which can be seen even in the quotes that you took out of the broader context. I have bolded such context in the quotes below:

 

Personally, I feel that the thinking aspect of your description can be misleading, since one of the most important aspects of contemplation is silence and receptivity, often in combination with a question, but this question does not necessarily need to be voiced.

...

...

I agree here. When the discursive mind is silent, there still can be thought. This is the type of thought that is particularly useful in contemplation.

 

The discursive mind doesn't need to be quiet for this thought to go on, but it sure does make it more obvious.

...

...

If so, then I'll have to define interpretation as conceptual addition to bare experience, where concepts are defined as mental chatter that one can communicate to another person using words.

...

...

Discursive thoughts reflect beliefs in some sense, and can distract us from beliefs, so I can see how that might seem to hide true nature as well (even though it doesn't), now that you bring it up.

...

...

How exactly does suggesting that someone move their attention from the discursive mind, which previously was the place that they constantly looked to tell them what they and everything else is, to what they actually are (or even to anything else at all, for that matter!) is introducing some new limitation?

...

...

If it is interpreted as ignore the discursive mind in all situations, then yes, this is a new limitation, even though it might be freeing on some level, but if it is, "Hey, there is something other than your discursive mind going on. You might want to check it out, really!", then please, tell me how this is introducing a new limitation.

 

I hope by now that you recognize that I am not advocating for stopping thoughts or wholesale ignoring of discursive mind as you might have imagined. The discursive mind is very useful in the right situations.

 

Well, look at it this way. You say that beliefs do not disappear, but continue to exist in potential. Since potential is infinite, then all possible beliefs exist within this potential. Since this potential is not separate from us, then we all have all possible beliefs. If there are such things as contradictory beliefs, then we all have contradictory beliefs. So the primary determiner of whether or not we suffer is not the presence of lack thereof of contradictory beliefs, but our commitment to some of those beliefs.

 

So, reflecting on your example using this discussion, it is not my belief that commitment is the most vital thing which matters, but rather my commitment to that belief. You have the same belief, but you are less committed to it.

 

I did not say that perceptual limitations are harmful. This is another mischaracterization of what I have said. I said "limits perception in ways that are harmful to health."

 

I could have also said "limits perception in ways that are healthful". It is not the limit to perception which is harmful or healthful, but the way that perception is limited that harms health. In this case, the way that perception is limited is by fixated commitment to beliefs, which is harmful to health to the extent that the fixation overrides sensitivity to the changing needs of the moment.

 

I am sorry that I have expressed myself in ways that inspire frequent mischaracterizations.

 

I agree. But the key point, which I haven't yet made clearly, is that the main obstacle to our beliefs approaching healthful coherence and harmonization, is a fixation of commitment that causes seemingly contradictory beliefs to be committed to at the same time. It is important to have contradictory beliefs, since it can't be avoided,

 

Yes it can.

 

as we discussed above, and they also give us more options.

 

No they do not. Remember the difference between being committed to a belief, and being aware of a belief as a possibility? Being aware of possibilities is what gives you options. Commitments tend to close options (depending on the content of belief you commit to they sometimes open options instead of closing) more often than not, and contradictory commitments leave us paralyzed, helpless, angry and full of inner turmoil (and eventually lead to depression and suicide).

 

Different beliefs are appropriate for different situations, and there is a natural rising and falling of commitment to particular beliefs as the situation varies.

 

If we are fiercely committed to a particular belief, then we do not allow the natural waning that would normally occur when the situation calls for a contradictory belief to be committed to. This is the source of the inner turmoil and suffering that you mention.

 

There is no mechanical way to deal with this fixation. Paying attention to conflicts between beliefs that we commit to is one good option.

 

It's a superb option. It's often the only option that actually works and has transformative power.

 

I am noticing a pattern Todd. I notice that I often find myself having to repeat things to you. At the same time, you repeat the same thing to me worded differently each time, while occasionally also back pedaling on some things you've said (lack of awareness on your part). But I continue to not be receptive because I find many things you say to be in error. We are not making headway because you're not willing to allow my experience into discussion. You think when I am telling you that simply being silent prolongs status-quo is just me talking out of my arse, when in fact I've done it and seen it first hand. For a relatively long time too! So if you think you can contradict my personal experience, it's a nonstarter. Not to mention I see a logical reason for why it is that way and why it should be that way. So it's a double nonstarter.

 

This kind of fuzzy wishy washy conversation is exactly why I asked you to try to focus and narrow down your complaint. Pick one of the six points and try to express your complaint clearly in no more than two brief paragraphs. This will allow us to focus our disagreement and make it obvious what it is we disagree about.

 

So at least we'll know what we disagree about.

 

Currently I feel like I am the only one who knows what I disagree with you about and why. I feel like you don't know if you disagree with me or not, and you also don't know why. It's really crazy, if you think about it.

Edited June 7, 2011 by goldisheavy

[goldisheavy]

If you want to limit the discussion to those six points, fine. I do no disagree with any of those six points, though the first one should read "psychic" instead of "physic", and the sixth one is incomplete as I explained above.

 

Thank you. I fixed my post.

 

Another point that you have been making, which I have surmised that you do not intend to discuss, since you never respond when I bring it up, is that your method is 100% guaranteed to work. I suggest that this is only true if it is engaged in with honesty and integrity, and that it can be harmful if it is not engaged in with honesty and integrity. I respect your right not to discuss this.

 

If this is what you want to discuss, then let's do it. But then let's forget everything else. We have way too many things under discussion now. It makes it hard to have a quality conversation because we're always talking about 2-3 different things each time from 10 different angles. Let's just pick one thing. If this is the thing, that's fine. Let's stick with this thing.

 

There is no need to respond to my post above if you do not enjoy responding nor find it helpful to consider what I suggest.

 

I don't enjoy it as much as in the beginning because I often repeat myself. I find repeating certain things to you over and over and I don't like that. Instead of challenging things I say you tend to try to go around them in very squishy ways. I observe what you're doing and I find consistently disagreeing in roughly the same ways again and again.

 

I did reply, but I would prefer it if we could focus on one point. Like, if you can pick the most disagreeable or the most wrong point, and talk about it briefly but strongly, so that I can see in an obvious way what you think is wrong with it.

 

I find considering what you suggest to be helpful. For instance, when I explored my experience to come up with a response to something you suggested (don't remember what), I realized that one of my favorite methods of the moment was actually helping me to become aware of and reduce commitment to a core belief that I access through the verbal phrase "Something can obscure reality". My method is to ask myself the question, "Is it true that something can obscure reality"?

 

Thank you for that.

 

I noticed that too! You're quite a trickster.

[Todd]

 

I am noticing a pattern Todd. I notice that I often find myself having to repeat things to you. At the same time, you repeat the same thing to me worded differently each time, while occasionally also back pedaling on some things you've said (lack of awareness on your part). But I continue to not be receptive because I find many things you say to be in error. We are not making headway because you're not willing to allow my experience into discussion. You think when I am telling you that simply being silent prolongs status-quo is just me talking out of my arse, when in fact I've done it and seen it first hand. For a relatively long time too! So if you think you can contradict my personal experience, it's a nonstarter. Not to mention I see a logical reason for why it is that way and why it should be that way. So it's a double nonstarter.

 

 

I am noticing the same pattern. The issue is that you are not taking my experience and self-report into account. You somehow have it hooked up in your head that me stating that I am not advocating for stopping thought is somehow a denial of your experience that stopping thought was not helpful for you! I wonder how this is possible, since I have stated that I do not advocate stopping thoughts on several occasions, and yet you still are convinced that this is what I am advocating. I do not see any reason to try to restate this in a way that will be clearer to you, since I have already done my best. Everything that I say you just reframe in a way that suits the conclusion that you have already made.

 

This is the aspect of our conversation that I find the most troublesome, and if you cannot see that I do not advocate ignoring thought, except as a temporary measure while one considers other aspects of one's existence, just as you ignore surface thought to consider core beliefs (which is not actually ignoring, but including the deeper level), then I see no point in continuing the conversation. Please re-read my last couple posts and see if you can let go of the assumption that I am advocating for things that I specifically state that I am not advocating for. If you still cannot, then I will thank you for the conversation that we have had and wish you well, but I will not continue the conversation.

[Todd]

Well, the 'something' is the issue yes :-) And IMO/IME it's not always where you think it is. I keep hearing in various forms that it's up to oneself to make changes 'if' one wants to see change 'out there' but also IME, this can be delicate to understand (because nothing will change what's 'out there right now') as well as being a potential source of immobility in people. I don't see myself as the be and end all creator of all experiences. It's also why I try (where possible) not to be a jerk.

 

How do you see it as a source of immobility?

[goldisheavy]

I am noticing the same pattern. The issue is that you are not taking my experience and self-report into account. You somehow have it hooked up in your head that me stating that I am not[sic] advocating for stopping thought is somehow a denial of your experience that stopping thought was not helpful for you!

 

You probably didn't mean to put that "not" where I put the [sic] mark.

 

Actually stopping the thought was helpful. I used to think that if I would stop my thoughts, I would magically become sagely and all kinds of wisdom and experiences would pour on me. When nothing whatsoever was happening for a long time I started to question the method and started examining the meaning of what was happening to me. I realized that whatever I intended to happen is exactly what happened. Since I only intended to get silent, I only got silence. Since I never intended anything else, I never got anything else. It is then I realized that my beliefs have everything to do with my meditation practice because beliefs affect the manner in which I exercise my intent.

 

Remember that I used to think the mind was the brain. So stopping the thought left me in exactly the same state as before, minus the thoughts. I still had the same brain. Same body. In short, same everything.

 

When I considered that I am not the body and the mind is not the brain, right that same day I had an experience in meditation. (I considered that possibility very seriously and when I meditated I no longer acted as a body or as a brain, but as a spirit, if you will, or as an infinite mind).

 

So for something to happen I had to change my worldview first.

 

So stopping thoughts ended up being very beneficial because it taught me that thoughts are insignificant. They are not important. Having them on or off makes no difference (or the difference is basically ornamental).

 

If I didn't learn that inner verbalizations were not that important, I would be stuck in the Zen count to 5 nonsense till this day, for sure. Thank heavens this didn't happen to me. I realized the method was broken after only a few months of that silence nonsense at the most.

 

I still enjoy silence. And now that I know what intent is like and how significant beliefs are, I can use silence to make whatever else I am doing more pleasant sometimes.

 

Silence is not a game changer. It's not a big deal.

 

If you make silence your meditation object for the purpose of absorption, that can also yield interesting results. But the intent here is not silence, but absorption into silence, which is very different.

 

The rule is this: whatever you intend is what you get. You intend silence, you get silence. You intend absorption, you get that. You intend to broaden your attention, you get broadening of your attention. Intending X and getting Y instead doesn't happen unless you're confused and you actually don't fully appreciate the true nature of what you are intending (or trying to).

 

I wonder how this is possible, since I have stated that I do not advocate stopping thoughts on several occasions, and yet you still are convinced that this is what I am advocating. I do not see any reason to try to restate this in a way that will be clearer to you, since I have already done my best. Everything that I say you just reframe in a way that suits the conclusion that you have already made.

 

I gave you a list of quotes where you do advocate it. You don't advocate it in a flat out manner, that's true. But you still slide it in there in a subtle way.

 

This is the aspect of our conversation that I find the most troublesome, and if you cannot see that I do not advocate ignoring thought, except as a temporary measure while one considers other aspects of one's existence,

 

Ooops..... Why except? Why? Why? Why???? You were doing so well but then you threw that except in there. This is why we cannot move forward. No exceptions, Todd. If you enjoy silence, that's fine. It doesn't make anything easier to see, except of course silence itself. I suppose if it makes your seeing more enjoyable, it makes it easier in that sense. (Just eat some chocolate during contemplation for the same effect!) You probably read about this on some Zen forum or in a Zen book, and it gives you a sense of accomplishment and pride in your practice, so it may be positive in this specific way.

 

When Zennies start talking about counting breaths without thinking, you can join in and tell them your impressive count. That will knock their socks off, for sure. But what about you?

 

Verbalizing a belief that you hold under contemplative examination makes those beliefs easier to see than just being silent. Why so? Because it takes a bit of energy to silence yourself. Silence is not natural. It has to be practiced bit by bit. When you want to examine your beliefs you shouldn't split(*) your attention into two separate tasks: 1) examine the belief and 2) keep silent. Those are two different goals for all those people who cannot remain silent effortlessly. (*)For those who can be silent effortlessly indefinitely the two goals become orthogonal, but for all others (99.9%) they are contradictory and they do split the attention.

 

How do I know all this? Hmm... Well, I tell you what, I didn't read this bit from a book or on a Zen forum anywhere.

 

just as you ignore surface thought to consider core beliefs (which is not actually ignoring, but including the deeper level),

 

OK, so why do you say ignore???? Where is the smiley face for me crying big tears??? You correct yourself perfectly well in the parens... so why not just erase what's outside the parens and make what's in the parens the main content???? The stuff you say in the parens is perfect. Ignoring and including are two hugely, hugely different things. I can't understand how anyone can get confused about this or mix the two. The stuff you wrote in parens is great, outside the parens is junk that has to be erased.

 

Maybe if you wrote what you actually thought, these conversation would go differently? It appears that if I am lucky, your real actual opinions accidentally slip through in parens and generally around the corners. And the main content of your post is not what you actually think.

 

then I see no point in continuing the conversation. Please re-read my last couple posts

 

I won't do that because just look at this post!! We are having huge issues in this very post. Why bother re-reading other posts if this posts is insane already in its own right?

 

Man... you make me want to slap myself in the head. With a hard object.

Edited June 7, 2011 by goldisheavy

[Todd]

I'm going to try one last time, because I do not believe that someone can actually be as dense as you seem to be. I have an unreasonable faith that you will actually consider what you and I have been saying and see the error that you are making. I will only address the issue of whether or not I advocate for ignoring/stopping thoughts. The rest is actually interesting, but it seems to confuse you when I discuss more than one thing at once, so I'll try to be as clear as possible about this one thing. If this still fails, hopefully I will be disabused of my erroneous belief and stop responding to you.

 

You probably didn't mean to put that "not" where I put the [sic] mark.

 

I hope you are joking. I precisely meant to put the "not" where I put it. This is an example of what I am talking about-- me saying I am not advocating something and you hearing that I am.

 

Silence is not a game changer. It's not a big deal.

 

Ok, I see one thing that I said that might have thrown you off. I said that the most powerful thing that I have encountered is silence. Immediately after that I said "This is not the silence of stopping thought." Everything that you have been describing and arguing against is the silence of stopping thought. The silence of which I was speaking is the silence of looking for a self and not finding one, or actually of looking for anything stable and real and not finding any thing there. It is the silence revealed when deeply assumed beliefs are no longer fixated upon and melt away under direct observation of the nature of experience. It exists before, during and after thought passes through mind; before, during and after the maintenance of any belief; before, during and after any stopping of thoughts or artificial silence. It is quite similar, if not identical, to the spirit or void that you mentioned.

 

The key point here, which I hope that you can acknowledge, otherwise there is no point in continuing to talk, is that I do not advocate stopping or ignoring thought in the manner that you have described.

 

I gave you a list of quotes where you do advocate it. You don't advocate it in a flat out manner, that's true. But you still slide it in there in a subtle way.

 

I have never advocated what you have interpreted me to advocate. I made subtle points that you then interpreted rather unsubtly. You then started arguing against your own interpretation, which had little or nothing to do with what I said.

 

 

OK, so why do you say ignore???? Where is the smiley face for me crying big tears??? You correct yourself perfectly well in the parens... so why not just erase what's outside the parens and make what's in the parens the main content???? The stuff you say in the parens is perfect. Ignoring and including are two hugely, hugely different things. I can't understand how anyone can get confused about this or mix the two. The stuff you wrote in parens is great, outside the parens is junk that has to be erased.

 

"Ignore" is your word! I never used this word, nor did I use "stop thinking" until you inserted them as your interpretation of what I was saying. Even then I only used them to say that they were not what I was saying! Check it out, if you don't believe me. If you find me saying this, before you said it, then I will apologize. If you cannot, then I hope that you will apologize.

 

 

A tip for future interactions with people. If you say something about what somebody else means when they say something, and they disagree with you, do not wait for them to disagree with you several times before considering that you might have misinterpreted what they were saying. You can go back to what they said and reread it in light of what they maintain they meant, or if that is too troublesome, or if you still can't help but interpret it the way you do, then share what your interpretation is and ask for clarification. Do not continue to argue against the interpretation that the other person denies. Clarify the interpretation first, then consider arguing.

 

You might find that things go more smoothly for you in the future and you might learn a thing or two, or uncover a belief or two in the process.

 

For an example of this process in action, recall the time in this conversation where I misinterpreted you as saying that the mind is nothing other than beliefs. It was nice how that was resolved, when I found the quotes that inspired my misinterpretation, realized that they could be interpreted in the manner that you suggested, and corrected my mistake. I suggest you do the same.

Edited June 7, 2011 by Todd

[Birch]

How do you see it as a source of immobility?

 

A potential source of immobility.

 

I'll explain the way it goes for me (which is why I've come up with the explanation in the first place). It might resonate or not. Anyway:

 

In practice. The suffering I encounter can be dealt with in a few ways. Depending which way I opt (and I do think I'm at the point of opting) to approach it, I figure I can 'do' one or several of a few things (and I won't include the things that spontaneously 'come' to me out of the very circumstances of a given situation (that would be 'wu-wei' the way I see it):

 

- Turn the volume down on my thoughts about it (although ALL the way down and IMO I might step over into denial)

- Displace my attention, stop "feeding" whichever wolf is presently at my door (this is assuming there is one, in certain cases, there might be no wolf at all, but a paper wolf, maybe even one I folded myself)

- Act immediately to make whatever is at the source of my suffering cease (in some cases, yes, my beliefs might be the source, but not all the time)

- Take action longer term (for example, eat better food, don't spend time with a44holes, put on some clothes when it's cold out)

 

I think if you misunderstand the needs of the situation and just keep on applying the top option (turning down the volume) then you may not do what the situation requires. That's what I'd call immobility.

 

What do you call it?

[goldisheavy]

I'm going to try one last time, because I do not believe that someone can actually be as dense as you seem to be.

 

Last one for me as well.

 

I have an unreasonable faith that you will actually consider what you and I have been saying and see the error that you are making. I will only address the issue of whether or not I advocate for ignoring/stopping thoughts. The rest is actually interesting, but it seems to confuse you when I discuss more than one thing at once, so I'll try to be as clear as possible about this one thing. If this still fails, hopefully I will be disabused of my erroneous belief and stop responding to you.

 

 

 

I hope you are joking. I precisely meant to put the "not" where I put it. This is an example of what I am talking about-- me saying I am not advocating something and you hearing that I am.

 

 

Ok, I see one thing that I said that might have thrown you off. I said that the most powerful thing that I have encountered is silence. Immediately after that I said "This is not the silence of stopping thought." Everything that you have been describing and arguing against is the silence of stopping thought. The silence of which I was speaking is the silence of looking for a self and not finding one, or actually of looking for anything stable and real and not finding any thing there. It is the silence revealed when deeply assumed beliefs are no longer fixated upon and melt away under direct observation of the nature of experience.

 

Deeply assumed beliefs do not melt away in this manner.

 

I assume you've been eating your own dog food. Are your deeply assumed beliefs melted by now? Just give your honest assessment.

 

When you go to assess your beliefs, do not look at how you altered what you profess. Instead only look at how you live your life. If the way you live has changed, then your beliefs have changed. If how you live is the same, your beliefs haven't changed. The extent to which you live differently is the extent to which your beliefs have changed.

 

It exists before, during and after thought passes through mind; before, during and after the maintenance of any belief; before, during and after any stopping of thoughts or artificial silence. It is quite similar, if not identical, to the spirit or void that you mentioned.

 

I can't see it yet. What you say is not quite similar enough to what I am saying from my point of view.

 

The key point here, which I hope that you can acknowledge, otherwise there is no point in continuing to talk, is that I do not advocate stopping or ignoring thought in the manner that you have described.

 

I have never advocated what you have interpreted me to advocate. I made subtle points that you then interpreted rather unsubtly.

 

You made subtle points? Mind tell me what the subtle points are?

 

You then started arguing against your own interpretation, which had little or nothing to do with what I said.

 

"Ignore" is your word! I never used this word,

 

Are you serious? You won't even admit to your own words now? Should I bold it for you? Does your browser have a search function? Control-F or Command-F?

 

nor did I use "stop thinking" until you inserted them as your interpretation of what I was saying. Even then I only used them to say that they were not what I was saying! Check it out, if you don't believe me. If you find me saying this, before you said it, then I will apologize. If you cannot, then I hope that you will apologize.

 

You didn't say stop. You said something like, paraphrased, "As you turn your attention away from the surface thoughts to what lies beneath them, they quiet down, blah blah blah" Something like that.

 

A tip for future interactions with people. If you say something about what somebody else means when they say something, and they disagree with you, do not wait for them to disagree with you several times before considering that you might have misinterpreted what they were saying.

 

OK, and a tip for you as well. If someone keeps disagreeing with you over the same things, do not continue to insist that you are in fact in agreement. Obviously something prevents the person from agreeing. That something may be insignificant in your own mind. Hell, it might even be invisible to you. But it's likely very significant to someone else.

 

You can go back to what they said and reread it in light of what they maintain they meant, or if that is too troublesome, or if you still can't help but interpret it the way you do, then share what your interpretation is and ask for clarification. Do not continue to argue against the interpretation that the other person denies. Clarify the interpretation first, then consider arguing.

 

You might find that things go more smoothly for you in the future and you might learn a thing or two, or uncover a belief or two in the process.

 

For an example of this process in action, recall the time in this conversation where I misinterpreted you as saying that the mind is nothing other than beliefs. It was nice how that was resolved, when I found the quotes that inspired my misinterpretation, realized that they could be interpreted in the manner that you suggested, and corrected my mistake. I suggest you do the same.

 

I may. It depends. Maybe I should just rewrite some of your posts in the manner that would cause me to agree with them to let you see what the differences would be?

Edited June 7, 2011 by goldisheavy

[goldisheavy]

This is the aspect of our conversation that I find the most troublesome, and if you cannot see that I do not advocate ignoring thought, except as a temporary measure while one considers other aspects of one's existence, just as you ignore surface thought to consider core beliefs (which is not actually ignoring, but including the deeper level), then I see no point in continuing the conversation. Please re-read my last couple posts and see if you can let go of the assumption that I am advocating for things that I specifically state that I am not advocating for. If you still cannot, then I will thank you for the conversation that we have had and wish you well, but I will not continue the conversation.

 

Who is using the word ignore? I suppose Santa Claus dropped it in there.

[Birch]

Who is using the word ignore? I suppose Santa Claus dropped it in there.

 

You know damn well that Santa Claus was a CocaCola remake

[Birch]

I'm not sure what you mean by "flesh". As for how deep, well, see if you can stop believing in gravity. I think if you examine one of your beliefs from time to time, eventually you'll get a sense to how committed you are to it. Try to imagine how your life would be different if you didn't believe it, or believed something different.

 

 

 

Well, I was using Todd's word. It's a cool word, but I normally don't talk like that. Normally I would use the word "commit" or "vest". So we vest into our beliefs, or commit to them.

 

As for how exactly, this is best answered in practice. You can try to pick some kind of relatively insignificant and non-contradictory belief, something that you think should be easy to get yourself to believe. It may be a good idea, while you are at it, to pick a belief that is relatively positive and helpful.

 

Then affirm this belief as if you already believe it. At first you'll feel like you're lying to yourself. As you do this, visualize yourself as if you already believe it in your mind's eye. Then each time you affirm your new belief, you might feel like it's less of a lie. This will be true if you're accepting it. If you're not accepting it, then there is no point in forcing yourself. There may be a good reason for non-acceptance.

 

But either way you'll get your answer. You'll see if beliefs are easy to change or not. Whatever you do, the most important thing is to always be honest to yourself. If your beliefs are changing, you'll feel it very clearly. So there is no need to pretend. If your beliefs don't change in this type of exercise, that's valid.

 

So I just described how to acquire a new belief. It's also useful to disempower certain beliefs, such as those beliefs that are holding you back in an way that you consider reasonably unhealthy. To disempower a belief, you'd have to bring it up for examination in your mind's eye. Examine the effects this belief is having on your life. The imagine what your life would be like if you believe something different. Then you may ask yourself is this belief is absolutely necessary? If it has some positive function, can that same function be served by a healthier belief? So when you start to question a thorny belief in this way, eventually it will at least weaken.

 

The key in this process is to always be sincere before yourself. Pretending is a dangerous game when we pretend to ourselves. All beliefs can be changed in a sincere way. So there is no point in pretending.

 

Beliefs can change authentically as a result of an honest change of heart during an honest conversation with yourself, or silent introspection, or during a dream or during an even stranger or more mundane occurrence.

 

It's not a good idea to make anything I say here into some kind of rote practice. If your life is good, don't mess around with your beliefs. If there is a pain point somewhere, then it may be worthwhile to investigate beliefs around the pain point.

 

Sometimes you may also find that some types of pain are not something you will want to eliminate, because you'll realize that to eliminate certain types of pain you'd have to change your beliefs in such a way as to shock your conscience. In cases like these you may choose to purposefully let pain be painful.

 

"I'm not sure what you mean by "flesh"."

 

As in 'in your body', 'part of you'. Like the way I walk and talk and what I can and can't do with my body. That sort of thing

 

 

"see if you can stop believing in gravity" Are you asking me because I asked you to attempt to stop being a materialist? Really, I'm just afraid I'd fall over if I didn't believe in gravity anymore.

 

"Try to imagine how your life would be different if you didn't believe it, or believed something different." It's sort of a thing I do.

 

"Well, I was using Todd's word. It's a cool word, but I normally don't talk like that" Well then don't. It's IMO/IME too obvious. Use your own words. Trying to use other people's arouses the BS meter. IME/IMO Unless those words are also yours, in which case, use away :-)

 

"As for how exactly, this is best answered in practice. You can try to pick some kind of relatively insignificant and non-contradictory belief, something that you think should be easy to get yourself to believe. It may be a good idea, while you are at it, to pick a belief that is relatively positive and helpful.

 

Then affirm this belief as if you already believe it. At first you'll feel like you're lying to yourself. As you do this, visualize yourself as if you already believe it in your mind's eye. Then each time you affirm your new belief, you might feel like it's less of a lie. This will be true if you're accepting it. If you're not accepting it, then there is no point in forcing yourself. There may be a good reason for non-acceptance."

 

And so we get to the basic reason. That there is a reason for non-acceptance. Doesn't mean it carries forward. But IME 'beliefs' don't just spring out of 'nowhere' and I don't "pick" them either. I might pick to extend them further than warranted, not realizing they might be relative and not absolute.

 

"Sometimes you may also find that some types of pain are not something you will want to eliminate, because you'll realize that to eliminate certain types of pain you'd have to change your beliefs in such a way as to shock your conscience. In cases like these you may choose to purposefully let pain be painful."

 

Oh, I think shocking my conscience is part of daily living. Many of my beliefs are already in tatters.

[Todd]

Kate,

 

I'm glad I asked because I had no idea what you were referring to with "it".

 

Are you speaking in general, or is there some reason that you feel that I need to hear that it isn't helpful to blindly apply the method of turning down one's thoughts in all uncomfortable situations?

 

I would like to know, because the only person from whom I have heard the suggestion that one ignore thoughts wholesale is in Gold's mistaken interpretations of what I have said.

 

I am much more of the wu-wei school, since when it is properly understood, it can manifest any method, including applying methods from the outside, investigating beliefs, taking action long term, acting immediately, etc. And it is the only method that doesn't lead to misapplication of methods (again, when properly understood). I say go for the wu-wei as soon as possible. Those who deny wu-wei are likely to feed you dogma, because they don't trust it. They trust their formulas more. Those who do not deny wu-wei can use formulas effectively.

 

Not sure that wu-wei is the best term, since its so culturally specific and not of our culture. Can you think of a better term, or way of describing it?