Observation

[Gem]

The main thing is that we have the tools of awareness and attention already. These aren't things anyone can teach anyone else because they are endemic to 'a conscious being'.

How this is actually applied to the living experience brings up the issue of what it is to meditate. Not 'how to meditate', but 'what it is to observe'. This is has to do with noticing - as opposed to being distracted.

This isn't anything to do with knowledge, but it is everything to do with wisdom. The difference between knowledge and wisdom is not easy to articulate, but we know people who learn everything but are yet quite shallow in wisdom. An analogy is, you can read and learn all there is to know about swimming, but that doesn't get you wet.

One should understand that this topic, because it is not a knowledge base, has no rights and no wrongs. Right and wrong only apply to abstractions, and do not apply to awareness, attention and that which is noticed.

Knowledge, right and wrong, is only used to establish positions, and it is plain to see the personal accusation and assertions that arise from the dynamic between right and wrong, as people assert respective positions. All that is pure distraction, as attention falls into imaginary others and loses touch with 'what is going on with oneself'.

I in no way suggest what's going on with you need be fixed or corrected - on the contrary, I only suggest being aware as opposed to being distracted. We easily notice that the results of distraction breeds disharmony, which is all too evident in this world, and more importantly, in creating one's own suffering.

[Bohdiyana]

Originally Posted by Gem

Not 'how to meditate', but 'what it is to observe'.

That's an interesting point to me. Someone could debate whether or not one should meditate in the context of the term "meditate" not being clearly defined and I would assume the true context is the word or term is defined as actuality by everyone differently according to their self awareness and experience. Even if two people had been conditioned to use the same words or terms to define what it is they are referring to by the word "meditation" this does not mean their actual understanding of what the word or term refers to as far as experience or realization/actualization is the same.

It reminds me of people debating if God exists or not while never really defining what that term, God, means or represents. Even if they exchange one word or phrase for another, for example stating "God" is defined as a supreme being, the words supreme being have not been defined as well. What exactly is a supreme being as form and presence experience etc? It will be understood or conceptualized differently by everyone regardless if they seem to agree in substance because they are conditioned to use the same words or phrases or perhaps been conditioned to never question what it is they are asserting as to what exactly it is as objective experience.

The word meditate infers one who meditates. What if the consciousness lives in a non-dualistic person-less state of in the moment non-directional awareness so that there is no-one there to "do" something or impose something over whatever is passively present? Perhaps you could claim this observer-less observation/awareness is in itself "meditation" but then this is wholly different from a concept of "one who meditates. "

[Ground]

Originally Posted by Gem

The main thing is that we have the tools of awareness and attention already. These aren't things anyone can teach anyone else because they are endemic to 'a conscious being'.

Well if someone has a capacity or a talent to do something but never is taught how this 'something' is done then her/she will never notice this capacity or talent.

Originally Posted by Gem

This isn't anything to do with knowledge, but it is everything to do with wisdom. The difference between knowledge and wisdom is not easy to articulate, but we know people who learn everything but are yet quite shallow in wisdom. An analogy is, you can read and learn all there is to know about swimming, but that doesn't get you wet.

First thing is definition. Just saying 'this is not that' and 'that differs from this' is mere arbitrariness. So either you provide your own definitions or you refer to a source.

Originally Posted by Gem

The difference between knowledge and wisdom is not easy to articulate, but we know people who learn everything but are yet quite shallow in wisdom.

'we know people who'
This appears to be an appeal to people's preoccupation about other people using the seductive 'we'.

Originally Posted by Gem

One should understand that this topic, because it is not a knowledge base, has no rights and no wrongs.

And this appears like a prophylactic suggestion against counter-argumentation.

Originally Posted by Gem

Right and wrong only apply to abstractions, and do not apply to awareness, attention and that which is noticed.

See as soon as you express verbally what your awareness notices you are necessarily in the province of 'right or wrong' because you may say that you notice a tree whereas another might say that what you call 'tree' is rightly called 'horse'. So who is right and who is wrong?

Originally Posted by Gem

Knowledge, right and wrong, is only used to establish positions, and it is plain to see the personal accusation and assertions that arise from the dynamic between right and wrong, as people assert respective positions. All that is pure distraction, as attention falls into imaginary others and loses touch with 'what is going on with oneself'.

But distraction from what?
If you desire a sphere of 'neither right nor wrong' you can establish that for yourself and when you get involved in positions of others that may distract you from your desired sphere. But why should your preference negate that there are valid/right and invalid/wrong positions in specific contexts?
If one takes up a position that does not necessarily involve to lose "touch with 'what is going on with oneself'".

Originally Posted by Gem

I in no way suggest what's going on with you need be fixed or corrected - on the contrary, I only suggest being aware as opposed to being distracted. We easily notice that the results of distraction breeds disharmony, which is all too evident in this world, and more importantly, in creating one's own suffering.

There is no need to fix or correct 'what's going on with' anybody. There is no need to fix or correct 'what's going on with' oneself.
However this does not negate that a car is called 'car' but not 'house' and that if someone claims a car to be a house one can state the right view that a car is called 'car' and that calling it 'house' is a wrong view.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Bohdiyana

That's an interesting point to me. Someone could debate whether or not one should meditate in the context of the term "meditate" not being clearly defined and I would assume the true context is the word or term is defined as actuality by everyone differently according to their self awareness and experience. Even if two people had been conditioned to use the same words or terms to define what it is they are referring to by the word "meditation" this does not mean their actual understanding of what the word or term refers to as far as experience or realization/actualization is the same.
It reminds me of people debating if God exists or not while never really defining what that term, God, means or represents. Even if they exchange one word or phrase for another, for example stating "God" is defined as a supreme being, the words supreme being have not been defined as well. What exactly is a supreme being as form and presence experience etc? It will be understood or conceptualized differently by everyone regardless if they seem to agree in substance because they are conditioned to use the same words or phrases or perhaps been conditioned to never question what it is they are asserting as to what exactly it is as objective experience.

The word meditate infers one who meditates. What if the consciousness lives in a non-dualistic person-less state of in the moment non-directional awareness so that there is no-one there to "do" something or impose something over whatever is passively present? Perhaps you could claim this observer-less observation/awareness is in itself "meditation" but then this is wholly different from a concept of "one who meditates. "

I think because 'meditation' is most commonly used in reference to some sort of special exercise, the primacy of conscious awareness, observation itself, and attention, are overlooked as significant importance is given to the prescribed meditation instructions. The word 'observation' is not likely to be so misconstrued, but faces the problem of already being the case when people tend to 'want something more'.

Observerless... if we claim the presence of an observer, 'me', that suggests the mentioned observer is being observed. 'Me' isn't likely to get up to mischief while being observed. Observing this 'me' is what I call 'self-awareness', which really only amounts to being conscious of ones own mind - thoughts, emotional reactions etc. The ability to watch 'me', without 'me' trying to correct it, fix it and so on, is what I refer to as 'how to observe'... I mean... that is how observation is already, as one might notice 'themselves' attempting to fix and correct - if they do that. Being aware of this sort of activity is very probably already the case anyway, and after all, I'm only talking about noticing what is already the case.

Terminology isn't really the problem people think it is. It's only a commonly understood code used to convey meaning. If we are really interested in what people mean by what they say, then we needn't be so concerned vernacular. "Meditation" is, however, is a particularly ambiguous word.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Ground

Well if someone has a capacity or a talent to do something but never is taught how this 'something' is done then her/she will never notice this capacity or talent.

Yup.

First thing is definition. Just saying 'this is not that' and 'that differs from this' is mere arbitrariness. So either you provide your own definitions or you refer to a source.

I don't recall saying that which you enclosed in quote marks.

'we know people who'
This appears to be an appeal to people's preoccupation about other people using the seductive 'we'.

And this appears like a prophylactic suggestion against counter-argumentation.




See as soon as you express verbally what your awareness notices you are necessarily in the province of 'right or wrong' because you may say that you notice a tree whereas another might say that what you call 'tree' is rightly called 'horse'. So who is right and who is wrong?


But distraction from what?
If you desire a sphere of 'neither right nor wrong' you can establish that for yourself and when you get involved in positions of others that may distract you from your desired sphere. But why should your preference negate that there are valid/right and invalid/wrong positions in specific contexts?
If one takes up a position that does not necessarily involve to lose "touch with 'what is going on with oneself'".


There is no need to fix or correct 'what's going on with' anybody. There is no need to fix or correct 'what's going on with' oneself.
However this does not negate that a car is called 'car' but not 'house' and that if someone claims a car to be a house one can state the right view that a car is called 'car' and that calling it 'house' is a wrong view.

I don't if you heard what I said about fixing and correcting, but it seems as though you misheard, and might reference that again.

I'm not interested in arguments and challenges and so forth, but I know you can contribute in a more expansive way, and would genuinely appreciate that.

[Ground]

People are living in a world governed by knowledge and debate.
People have to make their living on the basis of discerning right/correct and wrong/incorrect and by means of debate to find the best solutions for problems.

In this context to denigrate what is commonly called 'knowledge' and to replace it by indeterminate 'wisdom' which is subject to irrational and arbitrary interpretation appears to be a kind of escapism which is characteristic for many so called 'spiritual' or 'religious' systems of belief.

It would be better to advocate knowledge and investigation into what is called 'knowledge' and corresponding positions to get certainty about whether they are right or wrong and in what contexts these are right or wrong and thus undermine concomitant afflictive emotions in the context of 'right or wrong' through rationality.

Originally Posted by Gem

I'm not interested in arguments and challenges and so forth, ...

Never mind. Maybe others are.

[sky]

Originally Posted by Samana Johann

Its good to give certain things certain Ground, althrough even "our" Ground here tends to lose and mix it some times. How ever some Grounds have certain experiances and are so worthy to listen rather to listen to those hugging one defilements and preoccupations. Thats what one is normally used to since a long long time.

So do not go out for seeking support of your defiled ideas but for ways to challenge them or are you here in seeking company for longer existence?

Who is seeking support of their defiled ideas please ?

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Samana Johann

Its good to give certain things certain Ground, althrough even "our" Ground here tends to lose and mix it some times. How ever some Grounds have certain experiances and are so worthy to listen rather to listen to those hugging one defilements and preoccupations. Thats what one is normally used to since a long long time.

So do not go out for seeking support of your defiled ideas but for ways to challenge them or are you here in seeking company for longer existence?

I'd prefer not supporting defiled ideas, be they mine, yours not another person's. It is highly unlikely that insinuations such as 'your defilements' would be taken kindly by anyone, and would more probably generate angst among us. I suggest 'right speech' with with care, metta, loving kindness, would be a noble Buddhist practice, and therefore most appropriate in the Buddhist section

[sky]

Originally Posted by Gem

I'd prefer not supporting defiled ideas, be they mine, yours not another person's. It is highly unlikely that insinuations such as 'your defilements' would be taken kindly by anyone, and would more probably generate angst among us. I suggest 'right speech' with with care, metta, loving kindness, would be a noble Buddhist practice, and therefore most appropriate in the Buddhist section

.......

[sky]

Originally Posted by Samana Johann

From where would one with defilements know? So it's good to seek for advice from those before one, not next and not behind. And its natural that strong defilet mind takes goid for bad and bad for good. One should think always on this and prove the own state twice before, getting known one self first, before judge.

To come back to the topic at the same time, did Sky observe what has moved him to post this? Which kind of mind was responsible for this verbal kamma?

You are the one who is judging... defiled came from your mind, not from others.