Home Forums The Direction Are you in your right mind?

Are you in your right mind?

Viewing 11 reply threads
  • Author
    • #59570

      John Lash

      Currently I am attempting to write a manual of applied noetics. The purpose of this thread is to solicit your suggestions of what needs to be included in that book. For instance, the teaching of the three attentions. I request that you be precise and terse in citing the concepts and topics what would be essential to thsis manual. Do not flood your post with a long list of themes and concepts Select what you consider to be the elementary factors for instruction in applied noetics. Tell what is essential to your comprehension and practice of applied noetics.

      It opens like this:


      The Manual of Applied Noetics


      The Three Strokes of Attention

      “Are you in your right mind?”

      Have you ever been asked that question? You might respond, Yes, or No, or I don’t know, or How can I tell? This manual explains how you can tell. The title of the manual uses a trope from Buddhism. The Eightfold Noble Path is a formula of eight practices all beginning with sampa, “right, correct.” Here is a standard definition of the seventh item:

      Right Mindfulness (sati; Satipatthana; Sampajañña): a quality that guards or watches over the mind; the stronger it becomes, the weaker unwholesome states of mind become, weakening their power “to take over and dominate thought, word and deed.” In the vipassana movement, sati is interpreted as “bare attention”: never be absent minded, being conscious of what one is doing; this encourages the awareness of the impermanence of body, feeling and mind, as well as to experience the five aggregates (skandhas), the five hindrances, the four True Realities and seven factors of awakening.

      The foundation of applied noetics is a simple three-part formulation of how attention works. (The distinctions between mind, attention,  observation, consciousness, awareness, and knowledge can be found in the manual.) The practice begins with the most immediate and obvious factor of consciousness, the power of attention. You are using it right now to read these words. You cannot function without being able to use it. Attention (rigpa) is empirical and directly verifiable. It is like the beam of a flashlight. Where attention goes, everything else arising in the mind follows. But from where does attention arise?

      “Direct pointing to the nature of mind” is the classical definition of Zen, stated by D. T. Suzuki. One can get lost in pondering about mind, what is mind, what is mind doing, but going first to attention — direct pointing to the pointing or directive function of attention, you can say — is a clear and steady place to begin. Applied noetics asserts that the operations of rigpa are obvious, self-evident. This is also what Ch’an and Zen teachings assert about the mind.

      Direct observation of how attention works reveals that it is a mechanism with three strokes: It perceives external events, it reflects on internal events, and it returns on itself so that we can consider its operations as such, distinguished from what it presents to us. The third stroke happens when you do not merely attend to the content provided by your attention, but attend to the inherent operations of attention. You consider how it works.

      The primary premise of DOG ZEN is also the operating rule of applied noetics:

      What directs your attention to the productions of your mind is not a product of your mind.


    • #59600


      1. use of Dragonfly Sutra

      2. I frequently remind myself Her mind is my mind, she gives me my mind


    • #59603

      Raymond Barron

      PSS ….

      Question  # 1 …  REVISED …  If, as you say, everything is material, consciousness and matter are co-evol and there is no gradient between awareness and consciousness, then I imagine, that “I am” what “I am” aware of, especially difficult, when I’m upset about it !!??

      • #59613


        close; the instruction in Mayavada Vendanta (or maybe it was Kala Tantra) as formulated by JLL:

        there is no gradient of awareness

    • #59611

      John Lash

      The two posts so far raise questions I will cover in the manual. Keep it short and clear. You can state a question as above or name a concept to be explained.

      • #59615

        Raymond Barron

        PS  …

        Question # 2. … REVISED … Regarding the statement, “All good Psycho Naughts stay behind the medicine”, perhaps “this is a (the) question” that relates to telestic shaminism ? ….

        Question # 3. Regarding “the importance of vigilance”, specific to attention span and focus ? ……

        • #59631


          the wind picked up when i read your questions; so excellent.

          Edit: they were slightly better before the edit. Gotta love the use of the word REVISED, though. Thanks still.

        • #59644

          John Lash

          This manual will not treat telestic shamanism. There is another document in preparation on that topic.

    • #59632


      Aim. Telos and the Teleste—those who are aimed.

      Im wondering about the syntax of the appellation Teleste as “those who ‘are aimed’” and it’s passive or past-participle voice. It hasn’t been described as “those who aim”… How does one arrive at the past participle of “those who “are aimed” from the word Teleste? Because I keep going back to that line over and over in awe of its unique formulation, as though the whole elucidation of right mind is contained in this phraseology.

      or maybe I’m reading into it too much.

      • #60653

        John Lash

        Yes, reading a bit much into it. Thelete has been translated “the intended” which is different from “the one who intends.” Probably that twist influenced me in proposing the phrase, “those who are aimed” rather than those who aim. Anyway, let’s not overdetermine it.

        • #60676


          I maintain that one must aim themselves; you can still consider yourself “those who are aimed,” even if you do it yourself. Of course, in this practice, you don’t do it alone. You aim yourself with and towards Her.

    • #59642

      Diana Anthony

      I would like to see concrete, functional examples of “right mind” as well as “wrong mind.”

      • #59645

        John Lash

        I suspect such examples will come up in the course of the text.

        In a general sense, wrong mind is any use of the mind that premises itself on unexamined ideas about mind. Like using a tool for a task, a router, and knowing nothing about how the tool works.

    • #60539


      I don’t know this is useful for this thread.

      I was pondering over the word ‘Rigpa” as the dynamic between the 3 attentions. from there Siddhi (the psychic powers of the Wisdom Goddess) is emanated in the interplay between subconscious & the (super)conscious realms.

      is Rigpa the in-between state where consciousness & energy (Shiva-Shakti) meet?

      has Rigpa a bodily location?

      is Rigpa ‘activated’ through sexual tantra?

    • #60542


      Rigpa in the yung  drung bon  translates as “ the intrinsic nature of innate awareness”, …through which we focus our attention…in my understanding it is awareness that has gradients, and not consciousness…or in planetary tantra speak, consciousness is the living mothers dreaming , alive and active, so it’s all conscious , all of it-no gradients…Now our awareness of this varies… innit?… sorry to go a little off topic here, but was compelled to write this, as the sun rises and the hummingbirds, and dragonflies make their presence known this fine morning .., in the mothers mind

      • #60655

        John Lash

        Excellent points. I am giving close attention to the syntax for applied noetics, in particular the difference between awareness and consciousness. This is a foundational issue. I can see you’ve delved into the Tibetan material. Likewise for me, of course. I do find however that it falters at certain key points in the exposition of rigpa and the ground awareness.

        As it happens, last night I was writing on that exact distinction between consciousness and awareness. The language only matters if it can be proven instructive in direct experience of how the mind works. I mean, it cannot be worked out philosophically or by tinkering with language. It has to be immediately obvious and demonstrable.

        I hold to the MVV proposition that there is no gradient of awareness, but there are different modalities of knowing: con-science, with knowing. The same awareness knows different things, or it knows differently. The differences arise in the complex lens assembly of parinama on which I have yet to comment in detail.

        One issue I continually face in attempting to present a clear and consistent syntax basis for noetics concerns consciousness. That is the standard translation of cit in Vedic metaphysics. It comes with the presumption that consciouness is at the root of everything, it is the ground state. I venture to question this assumption as it does not square well with my experience. I don’t want to spoil the surprize but the Manual introduces an entirely new premise about parasamvit, the primordial ground state. This new element changes everything and gives the language for describing rigpa a different spin.

        How this reconfigutation of the Tibetan/Vedic syntax will work out, or if it will be appealing and prove to be provable, I can’t say. But I am having a good time with the attempt.




        • #62278


          “There is no gradient of awareness.” From Kala Tantra, or Mayavada Vedanta, ask Lash…

          What this cues me to is that my pinky finger has the same awareness as my eyeball, or my brain (which may be overly celebrated as the seat of all intellect.)

          Or, even a waterfall- a rock. A grain of sand. How could you deny this?

          If I held a lump of coal in my hand and presented it to you, you might insist that that coal has no awareness. Why not? It is composed of carbon, and so are you! Where did you think you acquired your awareness to begin with?

          The argument that the lump or a rock has no awareness because it has no means of responding to what it is aware of is also silly. If you became paralyzed, you might lose all motor functions and lay there like a corpse, but your senses might still work.

          That I insist that a rock can feel admired when I pick up and admire it is not a belief I can teach; it’s something I experience, a subtlety of recognition. You may say it’s just my imagination, well i may be imagining it but it’s not my imagination alone.

          Everything in the universe is comprised of a form of imagination: the dreaming power. It is a gift from the gods, the Pleromic Aeons, whom themselves transceive it from the Originator, the ground awareness from which all galaxies arise. And the Originator himself does nothing, even less than a rock for it is the substantial nothing (i might get flack for saying that from John or Ohm, worth it though.) He does nothing but attend, he gives his attention, his awareness, and it becomes yours as much as it becomes mine: you transceive it from the external cosmos and it becomes the internal cosmos, when you nourish your body with food, drink and breath- Prana. For those things, be it apple or breeze of windy air, too, have awareness.

    • #60589

      George Henry

      Unbalanced self-aggrandizement / narcissism or excessive self-criticism and shame, and the chattering “monkey mind,” as examples of ignorance of noetic principles and how to apply them. Many people suffer from such maladies and some would appreciate guidance in the right direction.

      • #60626

        John Lash

        Good lead. There is a specific concept in applied noetics relative to dispelling the monkey mind. It is named duplexion. This is the mental state in which rigpa sets up an internal dialogue that causes consciousness to split (duplex) so that it sounds like you are hearing another voice in dialogue with you. This phenomenon of course verges into schizophrenia when it is not attended correctly. One way to dispel the monkey mind is to listen to what it says and compare it to what you say when you know for sure that you talking to yourself. This distinction can be easily made but it takes training to sustain it. It is equivalent to hearing an advertizing jingle in your mind and recognizing that it is an implant and not something youryourself — your rigpa — produced. Ultimately, dispelling monkey mind chatter is as easy to refusing to converse with someone infected with social justice rabies ranting at you. You simply turn away.

        PS in the protocols for telestic practice to be released soon, I advise two mantric phonemes to drive off the monkey mind and quell hallicinations and archontic special effects. I have used them and can attest that they do work.

    • #60675


      “Sailing on the right Wind” – activation and correct use of the internal guidance system

    • #62255


      How does one avoid reincarnation?

      • #62270


        Wouldn’t worry bout dat.

    • #63155


      Direct experience vs. constant need to label in words. It seems that part of the monkey mind is caught up in the dual need to find the correct word for something and the correct explanation for what one is experiencing.

      In art artists struggle with this toggling. There is an exercise that is used to help an artist to bypass the monkey mind so that direct experience is turned on. An artist takes an image and turns it up side down before drawing a replica of the image on a separate blank paper. This allows the artist to see the image in terms of line, shading, and form, bypassing the mind’s dictate to identify and define.

Viewing 11 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Generated with Passion and Intention.  Copyright John Lamb Lash. 2018 - 2020.