Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Meditation Society of America] Re: yielding, pallavi's question and pranayama

Expand Messages
  • melodyande
    ... I understand the familiarity aspect of it a little differently. Getting familiar is about balancing between mind and no-mind, not between 2 minds. It seems
    Message 1 of 8 , Feb 3, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
       

      >> And the question arises,
      >>
      >> what place does "discerning the motives of
      >> others" have
      in 'Yielding'?

      >It is 'getting familiar', it is understanding
      >the
      underlying questions, so that it may actually
      >be yielding. A meeting of
      minds entails that minds
      >be revealed.
       
       
      I understand the familiarity aspect of it a
      little differently.
       
      Getting familiar is about balancing between
      mind and no-mind,
       
      not between 2 minds.
       
      It seems your lucid dream was a good example
      of how 2 minds (within the very same person!)
      can not really ever 'know' each other....
       
      no matter how long and astutely it has observed
      the 'other' - no matter how much history it has
      gathered.
       
       
      I have 'known' many people and things....if only for
      seconds at a time....but only when my mind
      wasn't interferring with the experience.
       
      But that 'knowing', was completely independent of previous
      experience or knowledge.
       
       
      As an example of what I'm talking about, I
       
      remember years past standing at the stove stirring
      a pot of boiling soup.   For some moments
      there was no thinking ABOUT the soup...no
      naming of the ingredients, or wondering how
      they will taste together, or worrying if
      people will like it, or so on.
       
      Attention was completely inte-rested in
      the soup itself.  Totally absorbed, like
      it seems your teacher was talking about in
      your class.  No concerns about yesterday
      or tomorrow, no thought for reward or
      consequence.   Just absorption.
       
      In this example, instead of my mind filling
      the body completely, as in the other example,
       
      in my case, it filled the soup!
       
      It WAS the soup.  It WAS the bubbling!
      No distinction between mind and 'body'
      whatsoever.
       
      (That's what I was hearing the lady
      pointing to, in your example, as well.)
       
      And that's the other half of the
      'yielding' equation I hear the other
      speaker pointing to.
       
       
       
      >> More specificially,
      >
      >> is suspicion, in and
      of itself, an
      >> indicator that the balance between
      >> 'mind'
      and 'flow' has been lost?
      >
      >> It seems, from here, that
      suspicion,
      >> reveals  desire to 'manage' the flow,
      >>
      [or outcome] rather than dissolve into it.
       
      >Or, think of it this way:
      >Suspicion, and its foil, intent, are two
      >forces, that meet
      in the middle.
      >Suspicion is part of that flow,
      >even as it informs
      it.
      >Intent is part of that flow,
      >even as it informs
      it.
       
       
      Yes.  But you're still talking about the realm
      of the mind only, here.
       
      To these eyes,  that's still only half of the equation.
       
       
       
      >By the way, Melody, it is all how you
      >look at it. What is
      Suspicion, other than
      >Intuition valued differently?
       
       
      In this context, they are both used as tools used
      by the mind to gather information 'about' an other.
       
      They both are only 'informational'.
       
       
       
    • Nina
      ... Getting familiar is an action, a verb, if you will, and it applies to many pairs of objects/subjects, or nouns. ... That is the paradox, isn t it. Can
      Message 2 of 8 , Feb 3, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "melodyande"
        <melodyande@c...> wrote:
        >
        >
        > >> And the question arises,
        > >>
        > >> what place does "discerning the motives of
        > >> others" have in 'Yielding'?
        >
        >
        > >It is 'getting familiar', it is understanding
        > >the underlying questions, so that it may actually
        > >be yielding. A meeting of minds entails that minds
        > >be revealed.
        >
        >
        > I understand the familiarity aspect of it a
        > little differently.
        >
        > Getting familiar is about balancing between
        > mind and no-mind,
        >
        > not between 2 minds.

        'Getting familiar' is an action, a verb, if you will,
        and it applies to many pairs of objects/subjects, or
        nouns.

        > It seems your lucid dream was a good example
        > of how 2 minds (within the very same person!)
        > can not really ever 'know' each other....

        That is the paradox, isn't it. Can mind and no-mind
        ever 'know' each other?

        > no matter how long and astutely it has observed
        > the 'other' - no matter how much history it has
        > gathered.
        >
        >
        > I have 'known' many people and things....if only for
        > seconds at a time....but only when my mind
        > wasn't interferring with the experience.
        >
        > But that 'knowing', was completely independent of previous
        > experience or knowledge.
        >
        >
        > As an example of what I'm talking about, I
        >
        > remember years past standing at the stove stirring
        > a pot of boiling soup. For some moments
        > there was no thinking ABOUT the soup...no
        > naming of the ingredients, or wondering how
        > they will taste together, or worrying if
        > people will like it, or so on.
        >
        > Attention was completely inte-rested in
        > the soup itself. Totally absorbed, like
        > it seems your teacher was talking about in
        > your class. No concerns about yesterday
        > or tomorrow, no thought for reward or
        > consequence. Just absorption.
        >
        > In this example, instead of my mind filling
        > the body completely, as in the other example,
        >
        > in my case, it filled the soup!
        >
        > It WAS the soup. It WAS the bubbling!
        > No distinction between mind and 'body'
        > whatsoever.
        >
        > (That's what I was hearing the lady
        > pointing to, in your example, as well.)

        No, she wasn't talking about absorption,
        but yielding. The two 'yielders' maintain
        their respective integrities and identities.
        The yield can only happen... in relationship.

        > And that's the other half of the
        > 'yielding' equation I hear the other
        > speaker pointing to.
        >
        >
        >
        > >> More specificially,
        > >
        > >> is suspicion, in and of itself, an
        > >> indicator that the balance between
        > >> 'mind' and 'flow' has been lost?
        > >
        > >> It seems, from here, that suspicion,
        > >> reveals desire to 'manage' the flow,
        > >> [or outcome] rather than dissolve into it.
        >
        >
        > >Or, think of it this way:
        >
        > >Suspicion, and its foil, intent, are two
        > >forces, that meet in the middle.
        >
        > >Suspicion is part of that flow,
        > >even as it informs it.
        >
        > >Intent is part of that flow,
        > >even as it informs it.
        >
        >
        >
        > Yes. But you're still talking about the realm
        > of the mind only, here.
        >
        > To these eyes, that's still only half of the equation.

        What is the equation? Does this imply that you
        have a conclusion, such as a+a= something?

        > >By the way, Melody, it is all how you
        > >look at it. What is Suspicion, other than
        > >Intuition valued differently?
        >
        >
        >
        > In this context, they are both used as tools used
        > by the mind to gather information 'about' an other.
        >
        > They both are only 'informational'.

        The entire universe is... informational... and we
        are inextricable from those enormous processes
        of 'informing'.

        That is the paradox, and the reason our two
        minds may never 'meet' except when they are
        seen as part and parcel of that informational
        processing.

        Nina
      • melodyande
        ... They do meet . Yes, indeed they do. But they bring such different gifts to the table. Mind can know all about swimming and water, but it will never
        Message 3 of 8 , Feb 3, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          >>M:  It seems your lucid dream was a good example
          >>
          of how 2 minds (within the very same person!)
          >> can not really ever
          'know' each other....
          >N: That is the paradox, isn't it. Can >mind and no-mind
          >ever
          'know' each other?
           
           
          They do 'meet'.  Yes, indeed they do. 
           
          But they bring such different 'gifts'
          to the table.
           
           
          Mind can know all about swimming
          and water,
           
          but it will never know Swimming and Water.
           
          Just like my mind could tell you all about
          the soup that was boiling on the stove that
          day,
           
          but it will never know Boiling Soup.
           
          What I take from my observations
          today is that mind is of no more or
          less value than 'no-mind'.   They are
          two sides of the one coin named
          Experience.
           
          And yet,  the moments that both sides
          of the coin are 'expressed' equally,
          are moments when one is "In the world,
          but not Of it...."
           
          and are moments of 'self-less' creatitivity
          and expression.
           
          I believe Osho used to refer to this as
          becoming "like a hollow bamboo".
           
          Painters and dancers will speak
          of this 'zero point'......when all
          they have learned and practiced
          gets 'danced', but in such a way
          as the mind cannot dare to 'conduct'....
           
          a real 'flowing', without any regard
          to consequence or reward.
           
          To me, that is Yoga.
           
          But,  the moment that doubt or
          suspicion creeps into the experience,
           
          the system that was operating
          in time, but as if from beyond time....
           
          falters.
           
           
          Suspicion, fear, doubt and such tend to
          work as barriers to 'no-mind'.
           
          And that'ss what I hear Jesus to have been
          referring to when he said that one
          must become again like little children
          to enter the Kingdom:  a mind of
          an 'innocent' knows no such fear
          or suspicion.
           
          But what I see so many people trying
          to do is trying to become 'innocent'
          (free of suspicion and fear) by somehow
          neutralizing everything that makes them
          afraid (such as US forces attempts to
          destroy all terrorists, or make them
          too afraid to terrorize, or sorry they
          ever had),
           
          or by somehow making ourselves
          'bullet proof' (such as the Star Wars
          defense system),
           
          or by becoming sufficiently
          convinced that no harm will
          come our way.
           
           
          To these eyes,
           
          we can't become innocent by destroying
          everything that threatens us, or by
          refusing to "play the game".
           
          Heck.  The very refusal IS the loss of innocence!
           
          So when I read what was posted here the
          other day, in reference to Dona Holleman,
           
          that's what I heard her pointing to (on another
          level) when she said,
           
          >To be totally attentive to the body >means that you
          are
          >interested in the body and in the >movement. 'Interest'
          in
          >Latin, as we said before, means 'to be >inside'. It is
          the
          >moment of being inter-ested, being >'inside' the
          movement
          >or the posture as the posture unfolds >that makes it
          complete.
          >There is no future reward and no >retreating involved, but
          it
          >is only the moment as it is there.
           
           
          Fear, suspicion, or concerns of  "what if ______",
           
          prevent one  from "entering the Kingdom."
           
          They are not something to be validated,
          or allayed,
           
          but to be 'seen thru'.
          .
           
        • Nina
          ... To this I would say: expand your context, and what you are pointing to as a faltering will not longer be a falter. Nina
          Message 4 of 8 , Feb 3, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "melodyande"
            <melodyande@c...> wrote:
            > >>M: It seems your lucid dream was a good example
            > >> of how 2 minds (within the very same person!)
            > >> can not really ever 'know' each other....
            >
            > >N: That is the paradox, isn't it. Can >mind and no-mind
            > >ever 'know' each other?
            >
            >
            >
            > They do 'meet'. Yes, indeed they do.
            >
            > But they bring such different 'gifts'
            > to the table.
            >
            >
            > Mind can know all about swimming
            > and water,
            >
            > but it will never know Swimming and Water.
            >
            > Just like my mind could tell you all about
            > the soup that was boiling on the stove that
            > day,
            >
            > but it will never know Boiling Soup.
            >
            > What I take from my observations
            > today is that mind is of no more or
            > less value than 'no-mind'. They are
            > two sides of the one coin named
            > Experience.
            >
            > And yet, the moments that both sides
            > of the coin are 'expressed' equally,
            > are moments when one is "In the world,
            > but not Of it...."
            >
            > and are moments of 'self-less' creatitivity
            > and expression.
            >
            > I believe Osho used to refer to this as
            > becoming "like a hollow bamboo".
            >
            > Painters and dancers will speak
            > of this 'zero point'......when all
            > they have learned and practiced
            > gets 'danced', but in such a way
            > as the mind cannot dare to 'conduct'....
            >
            > a real 'flowing', without any regard
            > to consequence or reward.
            >
            > To me, that is Yoga.
            >
            > But, the moment that doubt or
            > suspicion creeps into the experience,
            >
            > the system that was operating
            > in time, but as if from beyond time....
            >
            > falters.
            >
            >
            > Suspicion, fear, doubt and such tend to
            > work as barriers to 'no-mind'.
            >
            > And that'ss what I hear Jesus to have been
            > referring to when he said that one
            > must become again like little children
            > to enter the Kingdom: a mind of
            > an 'innocent' knows no such fear
            > or suspicion.
            >
            > But what I see so many people trying
            > to do is trying to become 'innocent'
            > (free of suspicion and fear) by somehow
            > neutralizing everything that makes them
            > afraid (such as US forces attempts to
            > destroy all terrorists, or make them
            > too afraid to terrorize, or sorry they
            > ever had),
            >
            > or by somehow making ourselves
            > 'bullet proof' (such as the Star Wars
            > defense system),
            >
            > or by becoming sufficiently
            > convinced that no harm will
            > come our way.
            >
            >
            > To these eyes,
            >
            > we can't become innocent by destroying
            > everything that threatens us, or by
            > refusing to "play the game".
            >
            > Heck. The very refusal IS the loss of innocence!
            >
            > So when I read what was posted here the
            > other day, in reference to Dona Holleman,
            >
            > that's what I heard her pointing to (on another
            > level) when she said,
            >
            > >To be totally attentive to the body >means that you are
            > >interested in the body and in the >movement. 'Interest' in
            > >Latin, as we said before, means 'to be >inside'. It is the
            > >moment of being inter-ested, being >'inside' the movement
            > >or the posture as the posture unfolds >that makes it complete.
            > >There is no future reward and no >retreating involved, but it
            > >is only the moment as it is there.
            >
            >
            > Fear, suspicion, or concerns of "what if ______",
            >
            > prevent one from "entering the Kingdom."
            >
            > They are not something to be validated,
            > or allayed,
            >
            > but to be 'seen thru'.
            > .

            To this I would say:

            expand your context,
            and what you are pointing to as a faltering
            will not longer be a falter.

            Nina
          • Melody
            ... Yes. The words as if could appropriately be added to those, or any, observations.
            Message 5 of 8 , Feb 3, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "Nina"
              <murrkis@y...> wrote:
              > --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "melodyande"
              > <melodyande@c...> wrote:
              > > >>M: It seems your lucid dream was a good example
              > > >> of how 2 minds (within the very same person!)
              > > >> can not really ever 'know' each other....
              > >
              > > >N: That is the paradox, isn't it. Can >mind and no-mind
              > > >ever 'know' each other?
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > They do 'meet'. Yes, indeed they do.
              > >
              > > But they bring such different 'gifts'
              > > to the table.
              > >
              > >
              > > Mind can know all about swimming
              > > and water,
              > >
              > > but it will never know Swimming and Water.
              > >
              > > Just like my mind could tell you all about
              > > the soup that was boiling on the stove that
              > > day,
              > >
              > > but it will never know Boiling Soup.
              > >
              > > What I take from my observations
              > > today is that mind is of no more or
              > > less value than 'no-mind'. They are
              > > two sides of the one coin named
              > > Experience.
              > >
              > > And yet, the moments that both sides
              > > of the coin are 'expressed' equally,
              > > are moments when one is "In the world,
              > > but not Of it...."
              > >
              > > and are moments of 'self-less' creatitivity
              > > and expression.
              > >
              > > I believe Osho used to refer to this as
              > > becoming "like a hollow bamboo".
              > >
              > > Painters and dancers will speak
              > > of this 'zero point'......when all
              > > they have learned and practiced
              > > gets 'danced', but in such a way
              > > as the mind cannot dare to 'conduct'....
              > >
              > > a real 'flowing', without any regard
              > > to consequence or reward.
              > >
              > > To me, that is Yoga.
              > >
              > > But, the moment that doubt or
              > > suspicion creeps into the experience,
              > >
              > > the system that was operating
              > > in time, but as if from beyond time....
              > >
              > > falters.
              > >
              > >
              > > Suspicion, fear, doubt and such tend to
              > > work as barriers to 'no-mind'.
              > >
              > > And that'ss what I hear Jesus to have been
              > > referring to when he said that one
              > > must become again like little children
              > > to enter the Kingdom: a mind of
              > > an 'innocent' knows no such fear
              > > or suspicion.
              > >
              > > But what I see so many people trying
              > > to do is trying to become 'innocent'
              > > (free of suspicion and fear) by somehow
              > > neutralizing everything that makes them
              > > afraid (such as US forces attempts to
              > > destroy all terrorists, or make them
              > > too afraid to terrorize, or sorry they
              > > ever had),
              > >
              > > or by somehow making ourselves
              > > 'bullet proof' (such as the Star Wars
              > > defense system),
              > >
              > > or by becoming sufficiently
              > > convinced that no harm will
              > > come our way.
              > >
              > >
              > > To these eyes,
              > >
              > > we can't become innocent by destroying
              > > everything that threatens us, or by
              > > refusing to "play the game".
              > >
              > > Heck. The very refusal IS the loss of innocence!
              > >
              > > So when I read what was posted here the
              > > other day, in reference to Dona Holleman,
              > >
              > > that's what I heard her pointing to (on another
              > > level) when she said,
              > >
              > > >To be totally attentive to the body >means that you are
              > > >interested in the body and in the >movement. 'Interest' in
              > > >Latin, as we said before, means 'to be >inside'. It is the
              > > >moment of being inter-ested, being >'inside' the movement
              > > >or the posture as the posture unfolds >that makes it complete.
              > > >There is no future reward and no >retreating involved, but it
              > > >is only the moment as it is there.
              > >
              > >
              > > Fear, suspicion, or concerns of "what if ______",
              > >
              > > prevent one from "entering the Kingdom."
              > >
              > > They are not something to be validated,
              > > or allayed,
              > >
              > > but to be 'seen thru'.
              > > .
              >
              > To this I would say:
              >
              > expand your context,
              > and what you are pointing to as a faltering
              > will not longer be a falter.
              >
              > Nina



              Yes.

              The words "as if" could appropriately
              be added to those, or any, observations.
            • Nina
              ... What do you mean?
              Message 6 of 8 , Feb 3, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                > > To this I would say:
                > >
                > > expand your context,
                > > and what you are pointing to as a faltering
                > > will not longer be a falter.
                > >
                > > Nina
                >
                >
                >
                > Yes.
                >
                > The words "as if" could appropriately
                > be added to those, or any, observations.

                What do you mean?
              • Melody
                ... As if one could really falter. As if someone could manipulate an other. As if a nation needs to be defended. As if a nation even exists at all. As
                Message 7 of 8 , Feb 3, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "Nina"
                  <murrkis@y...> wrote:
                  >
                  > > > To this I would say:
                  > > >
                  > > > expand your context,
                  > > > and what you are pointing to as a faltering
                  > > > will not longer be a falter.
                  > > >
                  > > > Nina
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > Yes.
                  > >
                  > > The words "as if" could appropriately
                  > > be added to those, or any, observations.
                  >
                  > What do you mean?


                  "As if" one could really falter.

                  "As if" someone could manipulate an other.

                  "As if" a nation needs to be defended.

                  "As if" a nation even exists at all.

                  "As if" the sun sets each night in the west.

                  Stuff like that. :-)
                • Nina
                  ... Oh good! I was concerned you had adopted the tone of a petulant teenager... as if! Anyhoo, I appreciate your lines of questioning, and the discussion.
                  Message 8 of 8 , Feb 3, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "Melody"
                    <melodyande@c...> wrote:
                    > --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "Nina"
                    > <murrkis@y...> wrote:
                    > >
                    > > > > To this I would say:
                    > > > >
                    > > > > expand your context,
                    > > > > and what you are pointing to as a faltering
                    > > > > will not longer be a falter.
                    > > > >
                    > > > > Nina
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > > Yes.
                    > > >
                    > > > The words "as if" could appropriately
                    > > > be added to those, or any, observations.
                    > >
                    > > What do you mean?
                    >
                    >
                    > "As if" one could really falter.
                    >
                    > "As if" someone could manipulate an other.
                    >
                    > "As if" a nation needs to be defended.
                    >
                    > "As if" a nation even exists at all.
                    >
                    > "As if" the sun sets each night in the west.
                    >
                    > Stuff like that. :-)

                    Oh good! I was concerned you had adopted
                    the tone of a petulant teenager... "as if!"

                    Anyhoo, I appreciate your lines of questioning,
                    and the discussion.

                    Nina
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.