The Yoga of the Philosophers

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

duszek
Posts: 2280
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2009 5:27 pm
Location: Thin Air

Re: The Yoga of the Philosophers

Post by duszek »

Nikolai wrote:Hi Duszek,

Although I have arrived from a different approach, this is exactly the view that Jesus taught. Jesus tried to get us to renounce our concern with morality in two ways:
1) He told us not to remain neutral in our actions. If someone strikes us we should accept it and 'turn the other cheek'. This is to renounce concern with morality through our behaviour.
2) He told us not to remain neutral in thought. We should not judge other people's conduct, should not 'point out the speck in another person's eye'. This is to renounce concern with morality in our thoughts.

These two teachings, one addressed to our actions and one to our thoughts are aimed to remove our thinking and acting concern with right and wrong . There is no blaming, and no responsibility - just,as you say it, a leaning back and seeing what happens.

But, and this is a big but. This is not some kind of argument for licentiousness. This teaching does not endorse any one behaviour - it is the negation of morality. If people think they are therefore permitted to do as they wish, even 'bad' things - it means that they are still attached to their old ideas about right and wrong.

Most people still equate spirituality with a moral code. This was the case in Jesus's and Buddha's time and is still the case - even among the followers of Jesus and Buddha. Both these teachers were quite clear however: those who are preoccupied with right and wrong are failing to understand the spiritual life.

Best wishes, Nikolai
I beg to differ, Nikolai.

Jesus suggested that we should not retaliate and not condemn other people.
But he said clearly what was moral and good and what was not, all the time.
On the mountain he said clearly who was blessed: the meek, the peace-makers etc.

Best wishes.
Typist
Posts: 500
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 11:12 am

Re: The Yoga of the Philosophers

Post by Typist »

Hi again Sanjay, thanks for your insightful post. It's great having you join us here.
There are three entirely different phenomena; understanding, thinking and expression.
Or, it could be that all of reality is just one big thing, and thought divides it up conceptually in to a bunch of little things, because thought is inherently divisive in nature, that's it's job. If one takes this view, then it follows that thought will never be able to fully grasp reality.
Understanding represents knowledge or feeling while expression represents all ways of communication like words, language, pictures, symbols, physical postures, different types of looks and gazes, etc. Thinking happens between the feeling and expression.
Ok, I hear you.
So the whole process happens in three steps; feeling, thinking and expressing. Sometimes, the time interval between the steps is so narrow that we are just unable to differentiate between the first two or even three. Furthermore, all these three requires different skills.


Ok, got it.
Actually, the cumulative quantity of understanding is totally dependent on experience; both mental and physical. As the experiences increase, thus the understanding, feeling and knowledge increase by default. But, the same is not in the cases of thinking and expression, even though, these two are also directly proportional to the understanding, but, the rate of increase differs person to person.
Understanding is a function of experience.

The ability to analyze and express what we understand is a function of individual differences such as natural ability, personality, education and other circumstances unique to the individual.
Mind behaves just like the body. When we exercise, our body strengthens, and in the same way, our mind tends to strengthen when we use to think over and over. So, the thinking ability depends both on understanding and then, practice.
Thinking ability is a function of experience of the world, and experience of thinking about the world.
We may found cases where, in spite of high state of understanding, one does not apparently look wise enough, because he does not put enough stress on the mind, thus, his mind is not able to manifest enough thoughts at the given moment, inasmuch his knowledge or understanding.
Yes, agreed. Some people are wise, without being very analytical or articulate. My wife is like that. She is definitely wiser than me, but it wouldn't interest her to analyze why, nor could she articulate why if she wanted to, which she doesn't.
In expression, first we must have the understanding, then we must have enough thoughts about the understanding; and that requires both time and practice. After these two steps, we must have a good set of information about a particular language; only then, the job could be done perfectly.
Yes, this all makes sense. Wisdom and the ability to articulate are not necessarily related, which is why we'd all be wise to not worship authorities.
So, more often than not, instead of using a long and highly intellectual text, they go by simple parables; as they are easier to conceive.
Sounds good, saying things simply is wise, and good articulation as well.
So, we have two entirely different kinds of personalities. We have a person who can discuss, give speeches and even write books about the game but he is not even able to kick the ball properly; while the second one does not know anything else but how to play with the ball on the ground.
Right, got it. In the real world it's a bit more complicated, but I understand the function of a parable is to reach for clarity with simplicity.
Now, I want to ask a very simple question and that is; who has the knowledge of football. The question will answer all by itself if put slight differently and that is; who is able to play football.
Well, the question was, who has the knowledge of football. A person playing football may have knowledge, or not.
So, when try to analyze any person, we must not only look at the words, but also for what he has written between the lines. And, that is his intention and, perhaps, that is more important than written text, because, more often than not, words fail to convey subtle thoughts.
I agree, all writing is loaded with unspoken subtext.
Philosophers, in general, are masters in the thinking and expression; simply because they use their mind more than a normal person.
Ok, yes.
But, the same cannot be said for their understanding and knowledge; simply because none of these can be enhanced by thinking.
Hmm.... I dunno. If the thinking leads one to explore additional experience, then the thinking can be said to lead to knowledge.
Understanding has only one source in the universe and that is experience. Without experience, what we are able to get, is only information not knowledge. In my opinion, there is huge difference between these two; as the above parable says.
Yes, there is a big difference between knowledge about apples, and experience eating apples. Books about sex are not sex. The word is not the thing it points to, etc.
This is exactly what happens, when philosophy searches for the truth. Philosophy wants to attain it by thinking and fails.
If philosophy succeeded, it would as Nikolai suggests, then end. But as we can easily see, philosophy goes on and on and on forever, ending only when the participants become exhausted.
This very point is the limit of both, thoughts and thus, philosophy; and also the threshold of spirituality. Reaching here, one can feel for sure that there is something beyond. This stage is the maximum, up to where our mind able to lead us.
At the moment we label or describe whatever may be beyond thought, we are no longer beyond thought. Some religions refuse to give god a name for this reason.
The first and foremost aim of philosophy and philosophers is to have a serious look at the mind, because this is only tool they have. It they choose to take it for granted, then they will never able to use it in proper sense.
I couldn't agree more, and have made this point repeatedly myself.
Typist, I have read a quite from you in this thread and aphilosophy, so I can say that I understand what you said, and even a good portion of that what you have not said. And, I hope that you understand me as well.
I hope I understand you as well. I've tried to restate what I understand about your post in my own words, so you can determine how well I may understand you, or not.
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12314
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: The Yoga of the Philosophers

Post by Arising_uk »

Hi zinnat13,
zinnat13 wrote:TO THE AUK-
Hi Auk,
I feel that I have myself clear enough there but, I am trying once again though I was addressing Nikolai not you in the post which you mistaken as addressed to you. I asked him to go through my posts there.
But, nevertheless…
I think it the words "To the AUK..." that misled me in your previous post.
Let me quote once again from my post.

All this happened many years back, when I start meditating. After some time it became a bit like habit for me and it is still intact. So, when I used to meditate, I found there are many such things in the mind which I do not know. While meditating, I often witnessed irrational and unconcerned thoughts.
It was bit like this- imagine that something important happened 3-4 days back like a heated argument with someone. Apparently, it is looking to me that I am done with it and it has no importance to me at this very moment. My mind is not recalling that event so that chapter is closed forever. But, when I start to meditate, and as the concentration increases, I am again seeing the thoughts regarding that incident. They are still very much alive there. I am trying to avoid them to concentrate on meditation but they are just refusing to leave.
This phenomenon unveiled to me a very important fact that, though I am not able to realize it normally but my mind is still discussing the issue in its loneliness. I am claiming that it is my mind so it should do what I want but it is not the case. It is not in total control of my will. If I do not want to recall that incident then who is that other entity which is overruling my will by dragging me back.
Standing at this very moment, I can clearly see that there are two entities fighting each other to take control of mind. One is my will and the second is who is originating those thoughts. I used to wonder that where the real “I” or “me” has gone.
I don't doubt these states of 'mind'. From an NLP perspective the issue arises with the "heated argument with someone", as this could not be happening from the NLP point of view, or if it did, then there'd be no "... again seeing the thoughts regarding that incident ..." as what would be up for review?
Is my will is real myself or those thoughts are real myself?
Or the real myself is something else that is existed independently from the other two?
I think it more a lack of decided outcome from the situation and a lack of technique in communication.
I am not talking about rocket science Auk. I think this phenomenon is easily conceivable. You are wrong in your perception that your mind follows your will.
I think Schopenhauer,et al, correct, but it is just an opinion. Then again, I'm not sure what you mean by 'mind'?
In my opinion, the philosophy is nothing more than three questions; what is happening, how is happening and why is happening. But, ultimately, it depends on an individual whether he wants to go for the answers or not. And, that is what I tried to understand about myself; what, how and why. ...
I can understand how you think this but from my opinion Philosophy has already defined its main characteristics, so the categories upon this forum give you a fair idea of what Philosophy, in the main, thinks it is, Ethics - why should I behave? Metaphysics and Ontology - whats it all about and what the hell is "It"? Epistemology - how the hell do we know anything and what the hell is "knowing"?, Politics - What the hell can we do about it? Aesthetics - Thats pretty! As you can see from the PN forum there are now more current categories.
Let me quote a very famous parable from Hindu mythology that illustrates the mechanism of our mind. ...
Understand, to my 'mind' I'm now hearing 'from my culture here is my view of its assumption of 'mind' '.
There was a father and a son. Father was a very learned and famous religious scholar so people from all over used to see him for guidance. The son thought that he should take advantage from his father and asked him the way to be immortal. Father said that there is no instant way for such things but the son insisted that you know the easy way but do not want to tell me. At last father gave up. He told some mantas (prayers) to his son and asked him to repeat those for 10 times. Father said that if you will be able to do it successfully, you will be immortal immediately but there is only one condition; the thought of a monkey should not come in your mind during repeating mantras. The son became very happy as he thought that it could not be easier than that. So, he sat down and started repeating mantas but immediately the monkey popped up in his mind. He tried for this during his whole life but did not succeed.
From my NLP point of view, a straight bit of manipulation to achieve an outcome that was thought positive by the instigator. Personally, a cheap approach."What would being immortal do for you?", "What do you mean by "immortal"?", "What would being "immortal be for you?", "How would you know when you were immortal?", would be preferred approaches to such a request.
This parable is stating a very simple but by and large unacknowledged fact that there is something in our mind that is beyond our control.
Not to me, it just shows how easy it is to use use words to create thoughts.
Let me put it more simply.
Seemed fine to me?
Imagine that you are in your home with your son. He is playing with match sticks and somehow they lit and a corner of his shirt caught fire. Now, what will you do? You just rub or squeeze that corner immediately even if it hurt your hands. ...
Bad example,what would happen if I had no children? What would happen if my child had died in a fire? Why are you letting your child 'play' with matches?I
Now, we can clearly see that our body obeys us. It follows the commands and it should do so because it is our body and we are owner of it. But, it is not the in the case of our mind as I mentioned in first two quotes. Now, the question arises; why is it so. If we are the owner of our mind then it should do exactly what we will. But, it refuses to do so. This phenomenon gives the impression that there is something there in the mind, which works independently from our will. ...
I think it because of a false understanding of how the bodymind works. What you describe above is exactly the will acting and 'mind' pretty much does not exist in the sense you wish. We are not the 'owner' of our body, we are our body, that it can control itself is the point of being a self-conscious sensing Body.
It is not that difficult to realize. I do not think it requires more than an hour. All we have to do is just lie down and close our eyes and start thinking seriously about anything. Let some time pass and we will find that our mind is not sticking to that very issue. No matter, how hard we try; it will refuse to obey and continue to roam in all directions. Leaving thinking aside, it is even difficult to lie down simply without opening the eyes without doing anything. Something in your mind will keep saying to you all the time to get up and open the eyes. It requires less time than writing a post here.
More interesting to me is how many times the body moves when uncomfortable and how often the 'mind' was involved.
To know, what is inside our mind other than us is spirituality. Philosophy ends here because it uses both mind and thinking as a tool. So, now we need something else to examine the tools. If we have a substance, which weight is more than 1kg but less than 2kg, and we have only standard weights of 1 kg to measure with, then we cannot find its exact weight. We may have millions of standard 1kg weights, but all are useless. We need to have smaller standard weights than a kg to find the precise weight.
I tend to think that once metaphors enter the conversation philosophy is on the out. For me 'spirituality' is clearly the Other that is considered once we have an Identity, so its the "What else is affecting this situation?".
The same is about thinking. Thinking cannot be known by thinking. We have to lower our yardstick and the only other mean to examine our thinking is consciousness but it comes into play only when it is provoked. This provoking demands a certain level of concentration. When this level is breached, consciousness carries the mind on its shoulders and walks on the way to eternity. There are many ways to provoke the consciousness. All prayers, devotions, meditations etc are nothing but just different ways of provoking. One has to choose or find or invent according to his belief, bias, culture and even convenience. These ways are called religions. It does not matter at all which way we choose, because it does not cause any difference. The impact and the result will be the same.
Kind of agree but think it matters much that religion also has ontological assumptions that cloud thought and thinking in many cases. So I think the different religions produce very different impacts and results, even on their believers.
So, it is all about concentration. Serious thinking also demands concentration. If one is very much concentrated in his thinking, then sometimes, his concentration becomes able to touch the periphery of the consciousness. Although, he will not be able to permeate, but can feel it for sure. This is the state of Einstein and Kant also. At this very point, one is able to see the thoughts manifesting and vanishing in his mind. So, one understands the difference between “him” and his thoughts. This state divides the existence of us between two different entities. One is mind/thoughts and other is who is seeing the thoughts. This is what I mean by seen and seer. Two more names I want to add in this list; Newton and Wittgenstein; as far as I understand, with my limited knowledge and resources. I do not like to include people like Socrates and Buddha in this list. Their state is beyond and I do want to mitigate their status. ...
Can't much disagree with this, not how I'd say or understand it but I think I get the gist.
To understand what I am trying to say, here is one more quote from thread ‘aphilosophy’.

The basic problem is that we want instant answers written somewhere or told by anyone, but it is a matter of experience, not just being informed about it. If mere information was enough then, just by reading the phrase “just be there” was quite enough to enable all of us to be Buddha. We spend hours, days, weeks, months and even years to know what the minds of others say; but not ready to know what our mind have to say as we consider it the wastage of time.
Let me put it in this way.
A father has two sons. When they become 10 years old, the father brings them a football and a book about the football. One chooses the book while the other goes for the boll. Another 10 years passed. In the meantime, former has read all the literature about the game. He knows each and everything; like history, great players, strategies, etc. but the second one is only interested in playing with his friends in the backyard. So, we have two entirely different kinds of personalities. We have a person who can discuss, give speeches and even write books about the game but he is not even able to kick the ball properly; while the second one do not know anything else but how to play with the ball on the ground.
Now, I want to ask a very simple question and that is; who has the knowledge of football.
The question will answer all by itself if put slight differently and that is; who is able to play football.
It is neither spirituality nor theism. I am in total agreement with the atheism that there is absolutely no need to have faith in God or any likewise entity but, at least, we should have faith in our mind because we all know that it is for real. What is the harm in giving it a chance? I think it deserves one.
Depends what you mean by "faith" in this matter? In philosophy Descartes already stated this position, roughly, 'I am a thinking thing'.
THERE IS NO BODYMIND BUT THERE IS BODY AND MIND. WE DO NOT OWN OUR MIND BUT, ON THE CONTRARY, OUR MIND OWNS US.
What 'us' is there that can be 'owned' by this 'mind'? No body, no mind.
It looks a bit oversaid but it is not. If we examine ourselves objectively, then we will find exactly the same. A smoker, drinker or drug addict knows for sure that all these things will harm him, but still he cannot refrain himself from the temptation. Why? We all have emotions; both good and bad ones. Every one of knows that anger, hate, jealously etc are bad for us, then why we are not able to through them out of our mind. Why they haunt us again and again? I am very much sure that no human on the earth would agree that he wants to be angry of frustrated but it still happens. Why? It is not the case that we do not want get rid of all this but we are just unable to do it. I challenge you to show me a single human on the earth who owns his mind. This is the very reason that I say that we cannot stop our mind from thinking even for a moment. It is beyond our control.
I never said we can stop thought as its pretty much perception but 'thinking' can be experienced in a variety of modes I think. I don't think there are 'good' or 'bad' emotions, just situations where they can be appropriate or not. I think some of the New Code NLP people I have met have come the closest to 'owning' their 'mind', although a few religious types I've met have seemed pretty sound.
So, my dear friend, if you can still able to see your owner in the mirror, then it is OK. I have nothing more to say.
I am the 'owner' seeing itself in the mirror.
Your comment about Mohammad is not a philosophical one. You have made a much generalized statement viewing the fanatic version of Islam. If you want to understand the Islam and Mohammad, then you should look for Sufism as it represents the true essence of Islam.
This is an opinion that many Muslims would disagree with.
There is a very renowned scholar in the name of IBN AL ARABI. There is too much about him on the net. You can find it easily. Other than this, you may have a look at this link.

http://bewley.virtualave.net/index.html

It is quite difficult to sum up Mohammad in a post but I just want to put a saying of him.
One of his followers asked him that how should a Muslim live his life.

He answered him that just like a traveler.

Let us see how a philosopher in you interprets this.
I'll take a look but from my point of view it'll be something like, "Be open, honest and enjoy the journey with anticipation but not expectation that you will make it". Although on the whole I find responses like Mohammad's and the other religious vague and allusive.
Last edited by Arising_uk on Tue Nov 22, 2011 11:36 pm, edited 2 times in total.
duszek
Posts: 2280
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2009 5:27 pm
Location: Thin Air

Re: The Yoga of the Philosophers

Post by duszek »

I did the exercise, Mr Arising, but since I am an auditive type I switched to peripheral sounds.
I need to look at the path in the woods because of the stones hidden under the leaves and I do not wish to slip and break my ankle. :mrgreen:

One interesting thing: when I walk rhythmically a tune soon comes into one´s head and will not go away. It was a tune I tried to sing in the morning, from a Mozart´s opera, to give myself energy.

Ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaaaaaa
ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaaaaaa
ha ha ha
ha
ha ha ha ha etc.

The last staccatto of the aria of the queen of night in the Magic Flute (or Figaro´s Wedding ?).
Typist
Posts: 500
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 11:12 am

Re: The Yoga of the Philosophers

Post by Typist »

If Mozart operas spontaneously pop up in your head every time you try to meditate, you're probably already enlightened, and it's nirvana you're experiencing. Take one dramatic solo, and call us in the morning.
duszek
Posts: 2280
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2009 5:27 pm
Location: Thin Air

Re: The Yoga of the Philosophers

Post by duszek »

The queen of the night is very UNenlighted: in a state of rage, full of devouring passions, revenge desires and the like.
I heard during a lecture delivered by a sound therapist that low tones calm and high tones make alive (laden auf).
So I try high tones in the morning in order to wake up properly.
And: almost any melody can fit into brisk walking (apart from the unharmonious ones).
I see no difference between the Beatles and Mozart in this respect.

Why don´t you try some aria in the shower, Typist ?
In the tenor voice, in order to get out of the shower full of energy.
Typist
Posts: 500
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 11:12 am

Re: The Yoga of the Philosophers

Post by Typist »

duszek wrote:Why don´t you try some aria in the shower, Typist ?
Sadly, I am not enlightened enough to even know what an aria is.... :-(
duszek
Posts: 2280
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2009 5:27 pm
Location: Thin Air

Re: The Yoga of the Philosophers

Post by duszek »

Really ?
This is easily changed: an aria is a song or a vocal solo part.
Anything that you remember Pavarotti or Carreras or Domingo singing would do.
Andrea Bocelli sang: "Aaaaaaaave Mariiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiia", I sing it often too, even though I am not a tenor.
Typist
Posts: 500
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 11:12 am

Re: The Yoga of the Philosophers

Post by Typist »

duszek wrote:Anything that you remember Pavarotti or Carreras or Domingo singing would do.
I will examine my exhaustive list of memories of Pavarotti, Carreras and Domingo, and try to pick a suitable selection. Until then, I'll probably be humming Whipping Post by the Allman Brothers. :-)
duszek
Posts: 2280
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2009 5:27 pm
Location: Thin Air

Re: The Yoga of the Philosophers

Post by duszek »

One can sing anything that comes to mind, even if one does not know from what opera it is.
It might be "Carmen" or "Tosca" or something from Verdi.
The feeling behind it speaks for itself, no background information is necessary.
If we are emotionally on the same wave length as the tune then the tune comes and enraptures our mind like a spider.

I often "sing" some English or American pop song and I have no idea of the name of the group or what the song is about.
One example: for some time I sang "all we can do .... is sit and wait" and then came some kind of transition and I liked to sing this transition in a high soprano voice.
duszek
Posts: 2280
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2009 5:27 pm
Location: Thin Air

Re: The Yoga of the Philosophers

Post by duszek »

I do not know if it was "Tosca" or something else but Tom Hanks in the film "Philadelphia" immerses himself in some highly dramatic solo part by Maria Callas.
And I remember an old film, possibly a film version of "Tosca", in which at the end two men (probably rivals) are dead and the woman, in a sorrow too big to bear, sinks on her knees and the whole world turns around her and her solo part is the only thing left at the moment.
And the music of the film "The Piano" was highly dramatic too.

Lots of musical emotionality to choose from if one wants some medium of expression.
Izzywizzy
Posts: 155
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2011 3:52 pm

Re: The Yoga of the Philosophers

Post by Izzywizzy »

typist [quote][We have a packaging problem. Imagine a really great book, with a graphic detailed photo of a dog turd on the cover. By using the word "divine" you've placed such a photo on the cover of your thread, within the context of this community.

But, it will be interesting to see how you proceed to address this obstacle, so please continue.

/quote]

lol and what a pretentious post well spotted typist!
Izzywizzy
Posts: 155
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2011 3:52 pm

Re: The Yoga of the Philosophers

Post by Izzywizzy »

do you know philosophy is so much better than this crack of bull..some guy mentions yoga and we should all be expected to bow lol lets mention tai chi and tao lol lets mention the kabalah lol wow such crap i am running out of paper roll here lol these same guys think nothing of dissing a jesus or christ all day long kettle and pots here
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12314
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: The Yoga of the Philosophers

Post by Arising_uk »

zinnat13 wrote:...
I want to draw the attention of all the members towards NLP.
I gone through it with the help of link provided by AUk. It is not a bad thing to start with but, it is still a Hathyoga; though it is not done by complete body but with the eyes only. ...
Not sure this is the case nor that its trying to do what Hatha Yoga does. Nor that its the 'eyes only' as the Walk of Power and Grace is as important in the exercise, so the complete body is involved. The point of the eye-gaze is to still internal dialogue and remind oneself how vision works, but the whole exercise is intended to solve a desired outcome, not reach some 'spiritual' state of being.
I want to tell a very simple thing about meditation which is not acknowledged. In Sanskrit and Hindi, meditation is referred as DHYAN; and its nearest meaning in English is to do anything vigilantly and involving the whole mind. So, the emphasis is on concentration. There are many ways described for it both in Hindu religions and Sufism. What NLP is proposing, is being done by BRAHM KUMARIS school of thought in India since a very long time. It is not a new thing. ...
What do you think it is that NLP and especially New Code NLP is proposing? If its what I goggled of this BRAHM KUMARIS school of thought then I think it not much like it as NLP is not about 'positive' thinking, more 'reality' thinking if I was to be pushed for a catch-phrase, but even then it'd be wrong.

Don't get me wrong, not knocking the 'eastern' practices and think the 'west' should pay attention but I think we need to lose much of the cultural baggage that comes with it and find our own descriptions that make more sense, as it'd then be easier to teach.
Last edited by Arising_uk on Tue Nov 22, 2011 3:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12314
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: The Yoga of the Philosophers

Post by Arising_uk »

duszek wrote:I did the exercise, Mr Arising, but since I am an auditive type I switched to peripheral sounds.
I need to look at the path in the woods because of the stones hidden under the leaves and I do not wish to slip and break my ankle. :mrgreen:
Do it in a street then, but did you 'get' the Walk of Power and Grace(WoPaG) first?

Did you set yourself an outcome beforehand? The point of the exercise is to resolve or help one 'think' about an issue or outcome that one desires.

When you say you switched to peripheral sounds what do you mean? The point of the using peripheral attention in ones gaze is to still any internal voice one may have, if you haven't got it then you're most of the way there.

I also think that if you use your can use your peripheral attention then you should be able to 'see' the obstacles in your way, as its not not 'concentrating' on whats ahead but 'seeing' all of it at once. If you were being chased do you think you'd pay much focused attention upon the path or take the whole lot in at a gulp and go hell for leather.

Have you ever managed to 'see' one of those 3-d pictures that were popular a while back? If so, the 'gaze' that the exercise wants is much like this in feel but applied as tho' the 'eyes' are the frame that you 'look' 'into'.
One interesting thing: when I walk rhythmically a tune soon comes into one´s head and will not go away. It was a tune I tried to sing in the morning, from a Mozart´s opera, to give myself energy.

Ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaaaaaa
ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaaaaaa
ha ha ha
ha
ha ha ha ha etc.

The last staccatto of the aria of the queen of night in the Magic Flute (or Figaro´s Wedding ?).
Did you hear this as you've written or do you hear the music?

I understand how such a representation can be used to help achieve the WoPaG.
Post Reply