According to my experience with Qigong and zazen - the hara (or dantien) is an imaginary part of the body (situated just below the navel) which we may pay attention to in order to facilitate deep breathing.
All that changes is our ability/habit of being able to be aware of, and thus free from our selfishness.
What do you mean by the above? And why is it significant?
Do you mean that the meta-you (the part of you that observes itself) can review its thoughts, (or the thoughts of lesser you) - and for what purpose? Why is it interesting to review my thoughts?
Korrekt.
Watching the thingies that arise in the mind: thoughts, ideas, images, feelings, sensations, perceptions, moods, pop songs, snippets of dialogue, whatever.
It helps you learn about your self, others, the world, everything. Who knows whatâs in there? Right next to the flotsam and jetsam of the everyday flow might be The Answer youâve been looking for all these years. Or The Question. Or The True Self. Or its negation. Or just moâ flotsam and jetsam.
You think that there is an actual thought, sentence, idea, image, feeling, pop song, etc that is like a magic potion for the self?
And this miracle is already stored in your mind? How will you recognise it?
How do ideas, thoughts, images, feelings, sentences help you learn about yourself?
Is this like meditation?
Well I wouldnât use the terms âmagic potionâ and âmiracleâ ⌠but a definitive Answer, yeah, sure, it might be there, might not, worth finding out.
As I see it, these are the building blocks of the ego-self.
Depends on the type of meditation. Itâs not calming meditation (watching the breath), and itâs not choiceless awareness. I guess itâs a kind of analytical meditation, pure looking alternates with analysis of what is seen.
What makes you think that this is the case? As in does anything indicate that you have the solution to our problems stored somewhere in your mind (memory?)
And how will you realise, grok that it is the perfect solution when you see it?
As in : I like batman, hate spinach, know about Italy, believe in Thor, suscribe to the philosophy of X (as far as I can gather) etc etc etc makes up the Me?
What is pure looking? and who is analysing (can we trust his ability - is he competant, neutral?)?
Maybe the Answer is not stored in memory, rather âinhabitsâ the mind in another way? As for why I would entertain the possibility that such an Answer exists in mind, I guess the interactions with meta-me make it seem not so far-fetched.
Intuition? Or maybe Iâll miss it, sometimes I think this has happened a bunch of times already.
Pure looking is looking with attention but without thought. As for analyzing, to minimize bias errors, you need to use an analytical method as close to objective/unbiased as possible.
If there is no thought, is there any data collected ? If there is no data collected, what is there to analyse?
Yes, good point. So for the looking/analysing alternation to work, data needs to be stored in memory while looking and then served up to thought for analysis.
The brain revelling in its own droppings - Sounds like a great time for potheads or philosophers
No, it is far from being correct or incorrect. I am incomplete, limited, partial, incapable of total clarity. This is a fact. It is your fact as much as mine. It is not something correct or incorrect. It is a fact about which thought can do or say absolutely nothing. I am incapable of total perception, whatever I may try to do about it, however cleverly and assiduously I explain and analyse it, regardless of how much time and effort I spend upon it. My efforts perpetuate confusion and fear. So what shall I do? Where is the truth? Where does total perception come from? Whatâs the real source of insight into this? I could meditate for the next thousand years and never know for sure.
Is it possible, to have a total perception? I feel that we are limited.
Are you asking and looking and discovering or reading from an internal script and wanting me to follow along? If the former, I think you need to be more skeptical and less convinced your âfactsâ are actually facts. If the latter, then please cut to the chase and tell me your answer to all of this!
There is no answer. We have already said this many times over. So either one gives up the question and turns away from any concern for the truth, or there is only the question itself, unfiltered, uncontaminated by the very mind which is asking it. Then the mind itself is the question. A mind concerned with finding answers must inevitably reject those questions which cannot be answered. But it is only those questions which matter, which for thought are all those really painful questions that we know we should be able to answer but yet we canât ever seem to answer, however hard we try. The truth isnât outside of the mind; nor is the truth contained in all the many memories and experiences which have been stored away inside the brain. The truth about fear is the truth about the self; they are not two separate truths. Our answers never touch this truth, but our questions do. It is like a surgeonâs knife finding the right nerve.
But that is an answer! And a definitive one at that, since it shuts down a whole avenue of possible exploration.
Data stores observation in memory and submits it to thought for processing. But thoughtâs process is the problem it purports to solve.
You are still concerned with an answer. Why?
We can debate whether no answer is an answer - but the only avenue that is shut down is one of knowledge/answers/conclusions.
Are conclusions (answers, knowledge) my goal? Why? Maybe we are not clear as to what knowledge is?
2.What other avenues of exploration are open?
I could give you a snazzy reply, glib and clever(ish) ⌠but the truth is Iâm driven by the notion that for my life to have been worth while, not wasted, I need to have gotten IT before I travel westward ho. And though I feel I have glimpsed IT several times, I donât feel I have ever gotten IT.