Being still

[PeteC-UK]

Hi Folks...

Physical stillness promotes inner stillness promotes a full on out of body experience - and at that point body aches and pain become totally irrelevant and we may even enter that deep bliss state many have mentioned.. As we get used to that inner experience of Self, so we can allow the body to function and still maintain the inner "stilness of mind" - and when we notice this, it is really quite remarkable...Perhaps though - "stillness" seems to be the wrong word - doesnt quite grasp it - more like " a constantness" - a "sameness" - no change....Not necassarily "same thought" but same level of intense FOCUS......

That I think is a kind of "stillness" as it were , as the mind no longer careens around from notion to idea to next notion and idea, bounces off walls so too speak, swaps and changes intensity - but now remains instead, calm, vigilant and fully Present even of the circimstances change severely...

Physical stillness is pretty hard to achieve - perhaps ten minutes or so, but its not important, not my objective...That INNER stillness though - well its easy to attain and to hold to actually - but it sure doesnt seem so at first - it seems really difficult to still the mind itself and we may make many hundreds of attempts to attain it and fail every time - but then just like a switch gets flicked in the mind, you realise one time you have it, and thereafter it remains Present ever more, becomes ever more stronger and easy to grasp...Just like a gateway opened in the mind and now stands ajar - with little effort at all we push it further open and hold it so with ease, it becomes natural effortless.......

 

[ADigitalArtist]

At that same level, is that "you?"

Yes and no. 'You' is a pretty vague and arbitrary term in reference to mind/body/consciousness.

To simplify, a computer, even when off, still has molecular movement too, but what's moving isn't the data or the platform the data runs across. That is also vibration but a different and specific kind, that ceases when the computer is off.

 

[Acim]

Hi Folks...

Physical stillness promotes inner stillness promotes a full on out of body experience - and at that point body aches and pain become totally irrelevant and we may even enter that deep bliss state many have mentioned.. As we get used to that inner experience of Self, so we can allow the body to function and still maintain the inner "stilness of mind" - and when we notice this, it is really quite remarkable...Perhaps though - "stillness" seems to be the wrong word - doesnt quite grasp it - more like " a constantness" - a "sameness" - no change....Not necassarily "same thought" but same level of intense FOCUS......

That I think is a kind of "stillness" as it were , as the mind no longer careens around from notion to idea to next notion and idea, bounces off walls so too speak, swaps and changes intensity - but now remains instead, calm, vigilant and fully Present even of the circimstances change severely...

Physical stillness is pretty hard to achieve - perhaps ten minutes or so, but its not important, not my objective...

For this thread, I'm going with "impossible to achieve."

That INNER stillness though - well its easy to attain and to hold to actually - but it sure doesnt seem so at first - it seems really difficult to still the mind itself and we may make many hundreds of attempts to attain it and fail every time - but then just like a switch gets flicked in the mind, you realise one time you have it, and thereafter it remains Present ever more, becomes ever more stronger and easy to grasp...Just like a gateway opened in the mind and now stands ajar - with little effort at all we push it further open and hold it so with ease, it becomes natural effortless.......

All ideas / advice that I generally concur with.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Still debatable when "ceases to function" equals stillness. Actual stillness. Even sticking with notion of "you are your (dead) body."

My body is but an avatar. I am a spirit in a material world.

 

[Acim]

Yes and no. 'You' is a pretty vague and arbitrary term in reference to mind/body/consciousness.

Is it arbitrary when anyone speaks of "my body is" thus and so?

To simplify, a computer, even when off, still has molecular movement too, but what's moving isn't the data or the platform the data runs across. That is also vibration but a different and specific kind, that ceases when the computer is off.

What do you mean by data and platform? Are they physical or abstract?

 

[McBell]

If challenged to sit still in a room, how long do you think you could be still?

FWIW, I thought for more than 3 minutes about which part of the forum to put this inquiry in.

Well...
I was going to put one full minute.
But my wife started laughing.
So I asked her how long she thought.
She said I would be lucky to make it 30 seconds.
So we had a little test.

Sometimes I hate it when she is right.

 

[Acim]

Well...
I was going to put one full minute.
But my wife started laughing.
So I asked her how long she thought.
She said I would be lucky to make it 30 seconds.
So we had a little test.

Sometimes I hate it when she is right.

Physically speaking, 1 second would be extremely lucky as in - never has been done before.

 

[McBell]

Physically speaking, 1 second would be extremely lucky as in - never has been done before.

You apparently have a much stricter definition of "be still" than do me and me wife.

 

[Acim]

You apparently have a much stricter definition of "be still" than do me and me wife.

I'd say more realistic, if sticking with 'physical self exists.'

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

IMO, it depends on what is meant by "you." For physically, stillness I would contend doesn't exist. And if it does, I would see that as matter of debate. General debate.

If you are not your body and are instead a Thought or collection of thoughts, then I do think (have experienced) stillness exists. But this is metaphysical or, IMO, spiritual debate taken to this level. Arguably the only level that actually exists (as reality).

At same time, I don't think (though don't know) that anyone that appears 'alive in a body' considers the atoms making up that body (particles / sub-atomic particles) to be 'who they are' (or who I am). Nor frames such things as 'my particles are....' (i.e. my particles are moving/vibrating especially fast/slow today).

All this (and a little more) is what I was considering when asking OP, but felt this information is widely known/understood among anyone that might respond to such an inquiry. I honestly do aim at "you are not your body" when asking such a question as I did in OP. And that body position and/or movement whether that be at macroscopic or microscopic level, is irrelevant to the inquiry. Which leads back to stillness of thought, for I understand (know) that this is who/what you/we are, or I am.

And yet, I recognize this makes for a wonderful debate, discussion. Tempted to tag all those that responded so far to 'catch them up to what OP thinks of own question' but do think it is plausibly up to each individual what they think is meant by 'being still.' Or is another aspect of the debate.

Thank you! a very enlightening explanation.

Yes, in that sort of sense, I am often still, can be for anywhere between minutes and hours, even while doing things.

Given where this is posted, I was thinking more along the lines of the study that was published in the last year or two, where people would choose to give themselves a painful electric shock, rather than sit alone in an empty room without their normal array of media and distractions.

I have long recognized that many people simply can't stop talking, can't stop being hooked up to social media, can't stand to be without passive media blaring in their ears and eyes...while I would much prefer the relative silence and stillness of going about the daily chores on our property

But, going another direction, I do not see "me" as separate from my body...the 'mind' and 'body' are not-two; nor are they 'one.' A multitude I am, and stillness is a relative state amongst us...we are not just a thought or collection of thoughts...we experience and we related to others...thought and its stillness for me does little but allow awareness of things I might not otherwise notice that I am experiencing or I am relating to, because not not everything we are is consciousness.

 

[Acim]

But, going another direction, I do not see "me" as separate from my body...the 'mind' and 'body' are not-two; nor are they 'one.' A multitude I am, and stillness is a relative state amongst us...we are not just a thought or collection of thoughts...we experience and we related to others...thought and its stillness for me does little but allow awareness of things I might not otherwise notice that I am experiencing or I am relating to, because not not everything we are is consciousness.

The "other direction" is the reason I put this in debate section. Otherwise, for me, it would be discussion. Because it is, in my understanding, literally impossible for a physical body to be still, then asking someone (includes my own self) how long can 'you' be still, where 'you' is understood as 'your body' would amount to, 'I cannot.'

I do honestly think we are a thought and/or a collection of thoughts, in reality. Within illusion of being, I do relate to ideas of how we are not only that.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Is it arbitrary when anyone speaks of "my body is" thus and so?

Yes, in that your body has colloquial common use which differs from purely biologic or physics. Is it not really all your body you're indicating because it contains foreign substances, microbes and constantly trading atoms with the world around you?
Colloquially though when someone asks you to sit still they're not saying 'halt every atom in your body' and to suggest so in normal conversation would be seen as pedantic.

What do you mean by data and platform? Are they physical or abstract?

Data contains abstraction, the platform is the medium by which data is contained, moved, processed, etc. The data is non-physical (though doesn't have actively independent agency from the platform) but exists, and is communicated, through physical means.

 

[Twilight Hue]

If challenged to sit still in a room, how long do you think you could be still?

FWIW, I thought for more than 3 minutes about which part of the forum to put this inquiry in.

Still in relation to what? ;0)

 

[Acim]

Yes, in that your body has colloquial common use which differs from purely biologic or physics. Is it not really all your body you're indicating because it contains foreign substances, microbes and constantly trading atoms with the world around you?

I think that's what I'm asking. Or stating that your body is not you. Suggesting you're body is you, or even yours would seem to make it not arbitrary.

Colloquially though when someone asks you to sit still they're not saying 'halt every atom in your body' and to suggest so in normal conversation would be seen as pedantic.

I'm glad we're not having an ordinary conversation here in debate area. That would be boring, even if inaccurate.

Data contains abstraction, the platform is the medium by which data is contained, moved, processed, etc. The data is non-physical (though doesn't have actively independent agency from the platform) but exists, and is communicated, through physical means.

So the platform is physical, yes? And the data is not, right? Going back to the original analogy, the computer is arbitrary in being named that which is moving data across the platform?

 

[Acim]

Still in relation to what? ;0)

That's a good, insightful question.

Off the top of my head, I'd go with in relation to either abstract notion of permanence or possibly physical notions of non-movement, non-vibrations - though obviously, that probably doesn't exist in the physical.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I think that's what I'm asking. Or stating that your body is not you. Suggesting you're body is you, or even yours would seem to make it not arbitrary.

I don't think 'you' has a definite quality which would make it comprehensible. I also don't believe 'you' can exist without 'your body' or 'your mind' can exist without 'your body' depending on the context you're asking the question. But that 'your body' can be all sorts of things (including a completely synthetic body)

I'm glad we're not having an ordinary conversation here in debate area. That would be boring, even if inaccurate.

But you didn't phrase it like 'can a body be molecular ly still' so it's not surprising that most of the posters needed context clarification. Especially since the question isn't really Amy different from 'can ANY matter be completely still'

So the platform is physical, yes? And the data is not, right? Going back to the original analogy, the computer is arbitrary in being named that which is moving data across the platform?

The computer is arbitrary in that a circuit board and monitor isn't a computer, and the wires and dust in the housing isn't a computer. It is a collection of those and other things working together to communicate and store and process data, with some accessory parts and foreign objects (like dust) which aren't necessary to preform that function.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Apologize for errors, typing on my phone. Autocorrect and missclicks abound.

 

[Spiderman]

being still and relaxing appears to be laziness to some, but I find out that when I have my most intense spiritual experiences, it is doing just that. I call it "Sacred laziness".

Only, it can be hard work sitting still and even harder work keeping the mind still

 

[Acim]

I don't think 'you' has a definite quality which would make it comprehensible. I also don't believe 'you' can exist without 'your body' or 'your mind' can exist without 'your body' depending on the context you're asking the question. But that 'your body' can be all sorts of things (including a completely synthetic body)

So 'your body' is not comprehensible, or just the you that is claiming to have a body is the part that is indefinite, not comprehensible?

But you didn't phrase it like 'can a body be molecular ly still' so it's not surprising that most of the posters needed context clarification. Especially since the question isn't really Amy different from 'can ANY matter be completely still'

How I phrased was matter of choice. How I frame the response is IMO, my understandings. I do not think they are unique to me, and do see what the thread is getting at is fundamental to understanding of mind/body division.

I don't necessarily think it resolves anything (though for someone it could open up a door where resolution of sorts is possible), but I do think how the question is responded to likely contains inaccuracies, if suggesting the body is that which can obtain stillness and that matters to 'you' or 'me.'

The computer is arbitrary in that a circuit board and monitor isn't a computer, and the wires and dust in the housing isn't a computer. It is a collection of those and other things working together to communicate and store and process data, with some accessory parts and foreign objects (like dust) which aren't necessary to preform that function.

I think I've lost why this analogy is relevant, but have some ideas. Suffice it to say, I think we agree that the computer (like the body) is arbitrary in what it allegedly has or how it allegedly functions. Colloquially, I think the arbitrariness disappears, but is arguably mistaken, inaccurate, or things that come from pure imagination.