Yogi Anurada wrote: Ego or 'I' or 'self' is a thought or cognition, basically connected to all the other thoughts. If itself be a thought, then it will be perceived as something like; "I am here". But it mostly functions at cognitive level constantly, giving the constant feeling that one exists.

Yogi Anurada,

You have explained before that outside stimuli initiate a sequence that goes up to cognition level and beyond. Do you mind discussing /connecting thought 'I exist' or 'I am', the thought of Ego, acting as inner stimulus and going through contact, feeling , cognition and beyond?

Yogi Anurada wrote: Since, the entire process of mind is defined, it should be obvious or it itself should reveal the necessary steps needed to overcome or remove the suffering.

Yogi Anurada,

here are a few questions you may kindly reply to-

Can every function or attribute of the mind act as inner stimuli or there are some exceptions?

Is it the natural tendency of the mind to either move towards cognition or thought formation from wherever it is or whatever it is aware of?

In the presence of a stimulus (inner or outer), if any thought related to it arises, then is it mandatory that the mind has passed through the stages of contact, feeling and cognition or is there a possibility of short cuts?

Paul Davidson wrote: Well, Sudhir, if there is a short circuit, probably it would blow a fuse. But I think you mean 'short-cut,' is it not so?

'short-cut' it is, Paul. Thanks. I have made the correction and shall reply to your post later.

Paul Davidson wrote: We get delight from playing with words.

Paul, words can generate both positive and negative kind of emotional reactions. There is one serious drawback of indulging in even pleasure giving words (knowledge). The more one is living in the turmoil filled world existing inside our skulls, the more is one cut off from the challenges that every moment is bringing in our lives. The pure joy of living is replaced by pleasure of knowledge. How is one to manage/resolve this very subtle imbalance in life?

Raj Kumar wrote: There is a general agreement that there is something i am going to get from K's teaching if i were to continue to read. And there is no trap.

Dear Raj,

there may not be any student having the exact height which is the average height of the students of that class. This general agreement is going to be of no use to you if 'I am going to get something from K's teachings' doesn't materialize in your life.

Raj Kumar wrote: But still i am missing, what i am looking for. Is there a real meaning in K's teaching i am missing? Or is it just a trap i am getting into?

'Reading' is a very dangerous and subtle trap without 'seeing' which is endlessly 'journeying' (and not 'looking for anything') in active present.

Dhanan Rao wrote: So learning to observe( and stop reacting) is the first step.

Dear Dhanan Rao,

No doubt that learning to observe is of great significance.What is not understood is 'and stop reacting'. Is it in one's hand to stop reacting? Can you explain this a bit more, please?

Dhanan Rao wrote: When one is observing one has already stopped reacting, have you noticed that? In that observation various thoughts/stimuli/sensations etc.may arise, depending on our conditioning, and they eventually die down, but there is no conscious reaction on our part as there is no 'OBSERVER'. Thats what I meant.

Your explanation is good, Dhanan Rao. While the mind is observing, the 'reacting' is not possible and vice-versa. Is it possible to pin point when the mind changes gear and why it does so?

Paul Davidson wrote: Is the question too general? Make it specific

Can ego eradicate itself by becoming more knowledgeable about its activities? OR

Does ego thrive on 'self knowledge'?

Yogi Anurada wrote: If there are improvements, then instead of being becoming more tense, when one focuses his awareness and attention to the mind, gradually tensions getting increased will cease.

Yogi Anurad,

Aren't awareness and attention moving with the active present? If this is so, then how is one to focus them on anything? Would it not be right if they are allowed to move freely with whatever is arising in the mind?

Yogi Anurada wrote: If tensions does not arise, one can practice meditation, starting from 5 minutes in the morning and in the evening, week by week gradually increasing in steps of 5 minutes each.

You will find lots of resistance here if you use 'practice' with 'awarenes'. Why is it necessary to make special preparation for meditation or fix a time period? Attentively observing the activities of the mind is possible all the time and any time, isn't this so?

Kapila Kulasinghe wrote: When you watch the inhalation & exhalation what happens? Are you practicing awareness then? What is happening is you are constantly reminding yourself,or sustaining the thought 'look at the breath'. When you say look at the breath then there is looking at the breath which is to be aware of it.When you say again 'look at the breath' then you look at the breath again. So what is happening? What is happening is you are cultivating the thought 'look at the breath' or sustaining that thought but its not practicing awareness.There is no such thing.

Dear Kapila,

Do you mind re-writing the above paragraph from the point of view of a person who understands the meaning and significance K's teachings give to meditation? What is going on/flowering in the mind of such a person if he decides to start watching his breath? I feel such description will bring out the difference between focussed meditation and the other.

Paul Davidson wrote: To understand a thing is to see its relation to all and everything.

Paul Davidson wrote: That is why thought always creates friction with actuality.

Paul, won't the right understanding of the first quote make the use of 'always' incorrect in the second quote?

Mina Martini wrote: This timeless flow never stops to know what it is, to form any identity.

Well said, Mina! A bubble has no actual separate identity in the timeless flow although it can boast of an individual "I" for a limited period of time.

Yogi Anurada wrote: Then, while being in the Highest Samadi, he suggests to the mind to have that highest level of Awareness to flow in to the normal life. The suggestions made while being in 'Samadi' are more powerful and takes immediate effect.

Yogi Anurada,

How will the 'suggestion' be made? by words?

In what manner this procedure is different from suggestion made in (Auto)hypnosis?

Yogi Anurada wrote: If one comes to the Fifth Step of transformation, from the Third Step of Transformation, then he can practice a method of 'Mindfulness practice', which uses a 'Labeling' technique to increase awareness.

Yogi Anurada wrote: It is useless to discuses and disclose one's experience with regard to this, as everyone has to find it from their own meditation or the practice of awareness.

Will there be more posts, Yogi Anurada?

Paul Davidson wrote: Is not fear of the unconscious really fear of the discord that lies at the heart of thought and memory? Is it that in fear of that discord mind has differentiated itself, created a void into which only that is allowed which can be to some degree integrated?

Paul,

Direct percption by the conscious mind of the actual events happening in life are verbalised and stored in memory as thoughts and emotions. Some of this data forms self, isn't this right?

What is very painful and disturbing for the self is pushed in to cellar which, after a time gap, becomes our unconscious store house. There are a few questions that need to be answered for further understanding of 'unconscious'.

Do you think that the unconscious ever communicates/shares stored data with self or conscious mind directly in original form?

Or the self and conscious mind have the ability to peep in to unconscious?

If the above two method of communication are a possibility, then why call it 'unconscious'?

How does this 'unconscious' come to light, to the conscious level?

Paul Davidson wrote: It is the movement from correction to attention which is the first and last step and requires no method.

Paul,

'correction' involves a thought which has a pre-determined purpose and direction, isn't it?

This 'movement' that you are referring to above, does it involve paying attention to this thought process or the relationship between the two is 'from' this thought process 'towards' attention?

Could the 'movement' be in the opposite direction? First attention and then that attention lighting up correction?

Paul Davidson wrote: For mind to be still, either a tremendous outside force of attraction need be present or else mind will have become integrated and the self, which is the dividing force, absent.

What will this 'integration' of the mind involve, Paul? Does it come after the ending/absence of self or it is there with the awareness (choiceless) of the activities of the self?

Paul Davidson wrote: More can be seen through direct observation via self-enquiry (meditation)

Kindly make one thing clear, Paul. Does direct observation 'see' the content of unconscious as they bubble up one after the other (working like a torch) or it can wipe out the whole of it as light of a bulb ends darkness in one go?

Yogi Anurada wrote: To what type of Eel wrigglers does K belong?

Yogi Anurada,

Eel wrigglers believe questions and answers are of importance and this is why they would never understand K as he said 'seeing is the doing and nothing else needs to be done' and 'word is never the thing'.

Can you see now why your question is basically wrong?

Moreover, why did you bring K in your post? Are you/we discussing K or your/our understandings about the functioning of your/our mind here?

Dhanan Rao wrote: This is the problem with coming to K with a past baggage instead of having an open mind.

Keeping the mind open for right listening should be there not only in relation to K, but for everyone including oneself, Dhanan Rao. But this is easier said than done, specially in case of 'fools'. Don't our reactions have stronger roots than our ability for right listening?

Kapila Kulasinghe wrote: ...misunderstanding among new readers,if we have any,...

:)

Paul Davidson wrote: But walls can break down, can't they?

They sure break down, Paul, in the sense that there is no colliding with them any more. They are no more an obstruction in the smooth movement- the movement that is life.

Paul Davidson wrote: And although it may not be the running at them which breaks them down, unless one runs at them they will always be there, in our minds, whether they exist in reality or not.

This is so right!

Paul Davidson wrote: Maybe one turns one day and finds oneself utterly alone, not needing anyone's say-so or approval to pass through. Is it so simple?

Not alone, but all-one! The question of taking approval does not arise because you are describing a state where passing through is already taking place moment to moment. The man is standing on the solid, conflict free ground for the first time in his life!

It is neither simple nor difficult, but living in a different dimension, Paul!

Katy 9 wrote: can there be any question for which these 3 centres would have the same answer/view apart from mathematical ones?

"Centres, have you got all that your abilities deserved in life?"

"Centres, are you incapable of understanding anything in spiritual matters?

"Centres, do you know what quiteness of the mind is?"

Honest answers to these questions by all centres will be same and factually wrong, dear Katy. I am sure you can think of many more.:)

Katy 9 wrote: Where there is the capacity to be with 'what is' does the necessity to have thought things through go out of the window, leaving 'being spontaneous' as something a person is just free to be?

To be with 'what is' requires a very alert and agile mind, Katy. It is right thinking (originating in intelligence) when thoughts arise and end in the light of attention. When this is going on, then reactions of self as thoughts can not arise. When one is present, the other goes out of the window.:)

It would be intelligent and useful to 'think things through' in the former scenario if there is a requirement to do so.

I feel 'being spontaneous' does not depend on presence /absence of thoughts but on movement of attention lighting up 'what is' which is all inclusive.

What is your input here?

dhirendra singh wrote: I am not interested in endless topics, in K's diagnosis or in yogis' diagnosis, in reading description of beauty of other shores' etc..

This is the centre up in arms trying to mislead about its ending and, as a result, ensuring its survival!

Dr.sudhir sharma wrote: When this is going on, then reactions of self as thoughts can not arise.

Paul Davidson wrote: Watching your thoughts, feelings and urges arise does not make them not exist. Not at all. They continue to arise as you continue to watch.

Dear Paul,

please pay attention to the word 'reaction' in my reply. In what way a simple thought is different from the 'reaction' of self? The difference is of paying attention. When attention is present, then 'reaction' is a simple thought. When attention is absent, then simple thought is a 'reaction'.

When observation is going on with total attention, then emotions, desires, and urges of 'self' are like spent cartridges. They lose their ability to cause pleasure/pain, fear, sorrow etc. If these are present (arising), then 'watching' is not there.

Paul Davidson wrote: This is the difference, Sudhir. I did not just 'stay with' the thought that arose. I went right into it, through it and out the other side. I turned it inside out and finished with it. NOw when opinions arise within me I sniff them out more quickly and usually they pass without reaction. I changed. Opinions may still arise, not so striongly and not so frequently, but I do not automatically identify with them along the pattern of "I think that . . ." But the opinions continue to arise.

If I were to do all that you are saying in bold part above, I would consider them as 'interference'. Where is the 'letting go' in this, Paul?

Douglas MacRae-Smith wrote: One has to worship the key : Om mani padme hum. The other must continue his analysis of the woodwork. To abandon their task is to deny where they come from and who they are.

Will abandoning the significance/importance they give to their tasks be the first step to be taken to pass through? Is there a possibility of anyother first step to start the right journey?

Katy 9 wrote: I guess, for a person who is au fait with 'aloneness' - in the way Mina has described it - 'isolation' ceases, perhaps, to be something to be feared(?)

Your above statement is interesting, Katy. I looked up 'au fait' and found that it means 'to know a lot about a subject'. Did you use the word in this sense?

If a person is living 'aloneness', then isolation ceases for him. If the knowing is 'knowledge', then it strengthens the boundary of isolation.

Isolation ceases in first case, but then you say, '...perhaps, to be something to be feared'. What is being feared is not clear. Is it 'Isolation'? If 'yes', then why? Do you mind clarifying this some more.

Regards.

Paul Davidson wrote: Do not 'let go' of anything until you have understood it or it will inevitably return.

Dear Paul,

Is there anything to understand except the pattern of the functioning of the mind? Does understanding come from 'contents'?

Paul Davidson wrote: Grab it by the tail and squeeze it hard.

Paul Davidson wrote: Interference is something quite different. It is when you try to change, control or suppress the thought. I am not advocating that.

How does 'grabbing and sqeezing' differ from 'interference'?

Paul Davidson wrote: 'Grabbing the thought by its tail and squeezing hard' cannot be done literally, of course not.

Of course not, Paul.:)

Paul Davidson wrote: But the sense is that mere looking, mere staying with, is not enough.

previousely, one's mind was was incapable of looking at a thought when it arose. In the darkness the self was reacting. The machienery of the mind was working all the time.

Then came the ability of observing the movement of thought-the looking and staying with it. with this the thoughts lose their momentum and also their ability to produce psychological reactions.

For me, this is enough, Paul.

Paul Davidson wrote: Why should you not interfere with it? It is you. You need to know the thing through and through. You need to know yourself through and through. It is the same thing. You are it.

To me, these steps are looking totally superfluous, Paul. There is no need to invest any energy in them. Why should one unnecessarily make an effort to do something ( observing the thoughts that are absent/less now when one is looking) that is not coming naturally?

Paul Davidson wrote: Self knowledge does not come cheap. It is arduous, a steep hill.

staying with the movement of thoughts without interfering is much more arduous than indulging in more words in the name of going deeper, Paul. The later activity comes easily to the mind and the self is playing a very subtle game for its survival.

But this is my view, dear friend. Thank you for your post no. 55 and 56.

Katy 9 wrote: I also realise that describing something which is a pointer to what is (yet) unknown - or partially seen - can sometimes seem abstract and confuse the reader.

Dear Katy, I am taking this part of your post first to reply. Description can never be the thing. By its very nature of being in a different dimension, it has to be abstrct, confusing, inadequate, false. The writer is trying to do the impossible and the reader is also trying to do the impossible in two ways. If one wants to understand what is being described by description, then it is an impossible task. Those who understand what is being described have also accomplished something impossible. Both are indulging in giving openions, will you agree to this?:)