|
Post by Portto on Apr 7, 2011 17:16:33 GMT -5
I've got a question that's off topic. How do you know when the seeking has ended? Any time you check to see would be a continuation of the seeking, so I'm confused. The whole idea is to stop checking, but when does it become clear that you have stopped? I guess when you don't ask silly questions like this. The question has ended when it's followed by laughter.
|
|
|
Post by souley on Apr 7, 2011 17:59:23 GMT -5
I've got a question that's off topic. How do you know when the seeking has ended? Any time you check to see would be a continuation of the seeking, so I'm confused. The whole idea is to stop checking, but when does it become clear that you have stopped? I guess when you don't ask silly questions like this. The question has ended when it's followed by laughter. I ask that every morning. "HAS IT HAPPENED YET !!?!". Followed by "NO IT HASNT HAPPENNED IM STILL ASKING THE QUESTION!! ". Its hilarious more then sad hehehe.
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Apr 7, 2011 18:51:48 GMT -5
The question has ended when it's followed by laughter. I ask that every morning. "HAS IT HAPPENED YET !!?!". Followed by "NO IT HASNT HAPPENNED IM STILL ASKING THE QUESTION!! ". Its hilarious more then sad hehehe. IT is the happening. Dream characters are comprised of answer created in the dream and the quest(-ion) to find it. Perfectly dual and in movement, all this carrying on keeps the dream alive, and the realization of what You Is hidden in the perfect cloak of what has happened. A little to the leftright! rightleft!, no no left,,,nononoo right (ever increasing to the speed of light,,hehe)...look there, mate. See it? Not with the mind. It's in the way.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 7, 2011 19:38:22 GMT -5
That which is noticed by the awareness, in fact changes and is transitory... So, saying that which changes and is transitory, is about the awareness, is simply wrong. One can say that the awareness and that which is observed are part of a process, but one does not define the other... What other? This is non-duality. I think you are getting caught up in the term 'awareness'. Awareness is only a pointer. It is not something that is aware of something else, it is the totality. That might be it. I wondered that too after hearing "the awareness" a few times.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2011 8:15:46 GMT -5
I've been doing ATA for a while now. I approach it like mindfulness but with more focus on a single sensory system. Just zero in on sounds for example. A particular set of sounds. Just absorbed in that.
But i've also been trying this practice that has one shift attention from phenomena arising to awareness itself. Observing the observer. Focusing on the I am or whatever.
When I have some sustained time to not do anything I might do ATA. When I'm just going about my day, working or parenting, I might do that observing observing practice.
I'm wondering what the relation is between the two and if they can be combined in some way.
Typically, for example, I'll realize I've been deluded for a while -- absorbed in conceptual awareness -- and will jump on the opportunity to just be aware of what is happening. What is happening is a bunch of sensory stuff and some lingering thoughts around why i was deluded.
So at that point, if I have time, I'll do one of the above two practices. If I don't have time, I'll just try to be mindful of whatever I'm doing.
But I've been wondering if it makes sense at that point to try to 'stand as awareness' -- shift the attention onto whatever is observing -- and then let the phenomenon rise and pass away. It's attending the actual from a base of awareness.
Am I just mixed up?
|
|
|
Post by therealfake on Sept 1, 2011 9:27:56 GMT -5
I've been doing ATA for a while now. I approach it like mindfulness but with more focus on a single sensory system. Just zero in on sounds for example. A particular set of sounds. Just absorbed in that. But i've also been trying this practice that has one shift attention from phenomena arising to awareness itself. Observing the observer. Focusing on the I am or whatever. When I have some sustained time to not do anything I might do ATA. When I'm just going about my day, working or parenting, I might do that observing observing practice. I'm wondering what the relation is between the two and if they can be combined in some way. Typically, for example, I'll realize I've been deluded for a while -- absorbed in conceptual awareness -- and will jump on the opportunity to just be aware of what is happening. What is happening is a bunch of sensory stuff and some lingering thoughts around why i was deluded. So at that point, if I have time, I'll do one of the above two practices. If I don't have time, I'll just try to be mindful of whatever I'm doing. But I've been wondering if it makes sense at that point to try to 'stand as awareness' -- shift the attention onto whatever is observing -- and then let the phenomenon rise and pass away. It's attending the actual from a base of awareness. Am I just mixed up? No Bro, You are not mixed up... That which you are becoming aware of is the energetic reality of the body, or more accurately, the awareness of your presence. It's not seen but it's felt as a kind of feeling, intuitive knowing... And it's well worth exercising by using intent to want to have the attention focus there as often as possible... Peace
|
|
|
Post by klaus on Sept 1, 2011 14:28:48 GMT -5
Croak, a swift flip of the tongue; a tasty morsel. Croak, sitting in silence, without movement, perfect stillness. Croak.
If a frog can AtA, so can you.
|
|
|
Post by therealfake on Sept 1, 2011 16:18:22 GMT -5
Croak, a swift flip of the tongue; a tasty morsel. Croak, sitting in silence, without movement, perfect stillness. Croak. If a frog can AtA, so can you. Bro, The frog has buddha nature. It has that, because it doesn't have a mind to deal with. Can you imagine the frog fretting about not catching a juicy dragon fly? Or stressing himself out wondering if his croaking is good enough to catch a mate? I can't...lol Peace
|
|
|
Post by klaus on Sept 1, 2011 18:11:17 GMT -5
trf-roger that.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 1, 2011 18:39:49 GMT -5
Don't you mean 'Ribbet!'?
|
|
|
Post by klaus on Sept 1, 2011 19:47:06 GMT -5
enigma,
;D
|
|
|
Post by tathagata on Sept 2, 2011 17:52:05 GMT -5
I've been doing ATA for a while now. I approach it like mindfulness but with more focus on a single sensory system. Just zero in on sounds for example. A particular set of sounds. Just absorbed in that. But i've also been trying this practice that has one shift attention from phenomena arising to awareness itself. Observing the observer. Focusing on the I am or whatever. When I have some sustained time to not do anything I might do ATA. When I'm just going about my day, working or parenting, I might do that observing observing practice. I'm wondering what the relation is between the two and if they can be combined in some way. Typically, for example, I'll realize I've been deluded for a while -- absorbed in conceptual awareness -- and will jump on the opportunity to just be aware of what is happening. What is happening is a bunch of sensory stuff and some lingering thoughts around why i was deluded. So at that point, if I have time, I'll do one of the above two practices. If I don't have time, I'll just try to be mindful of whatever I'm doing. But I've been wondering if it makes sense at that point to try to 'stand as awareness' -- shift the attention onto whatever is observing -- and then let the phenomenon rise and pass away. It's attending the actual from a base of awareness. Am I just mixed up? Attending the actual from the base of awareness is the way to go max...you are unto something there...ata stops the mind and is important...if you can stand in that awareness...that silent nonwitnessing witness...then you are enlightened...when you surrender to staying there all the time you are a Buddha walking the earth in uninterupted nonbeing being.
|
|
|
Post by tathagata on Sept 2, 2011 17:55:14 GMT -5
I've got a question that's off topic. How do you know when the seeking has ended? Any time you check to see would be a continuation of the seeking, so I'm confused. The whole idea is to stop checking, but when does it become clear that you have stopped? I guess when you don't ask silly questions like this. The question has ended when it's followed by laughter. The only way you can know for certain that the seeking is ended is when you cannot continue...there is a differance between want and can't....when you can't continue is the only time to stop and surrender...only when you have exhausted all means and yourself...and then you will luagh.
|
|
|
Post by onehandclapping on Sept 5, 2011 9:33:27 GMT -5
The question has ended when it's followed by laughter. The only way you can know for certain that the seeking is ended is when you cannot continue...there is a differance between want and can't....when you can't continue is the only time to stop and surrender...only when you have exhausted all means and yourself...and then you will luagh. A quote from one of my favorite teachers.... "who is this you that you speak of? Who? Who?" Who is this you that can or can't continue tathagata? Difference between want and can't? I dont know if I follow ya there. Pour some enlightenment juice out for me to drink. Or is it koolaid..... maybe you can tell me about the difference in that too.
|
|
|
Post by onehandclapping on Sept 5, 2011 9:43:24 GMT -5
I've got a question that's off topic. How do you know when the seeking has ended? Any time you check to see would be a continuation of the seeking, so I'm confused. The whole idea is to stop checking, but when does it become clear that you have stopped? I guess when you don't ask silly questions like this. That's right. When the checker/seeker is discovered to be non-existent, not as a form of knowledge, but as a direct realization, the seeking comes to an end because there is no longer a seeker seeking anything. There will be no doubt when this happens. "What is," manifesting as a particular body/mind, realizes that "what is" is the whole shooting match, and that there is nothing separate from Itself. This realization is generally accompanied by non-abidance in the mind because there is no longer anyone who closely identifies with the mind's activities. After this realization, one continues much as before, but without the sense that one is separate from anything else. One knows that one is the totality of all being, and whatever one sees is known to be one's True Self. I'm interested in knowing if you have qualifications of what is and isn't abidance of the mind? Also if recognition of totality is present, does that totality not also include the mind and any abidance that occurs? Thus making abidance and non-abidance the same thing once the true self is recognized?
|
|