|
Post by zendancer on Feb 24, 2011 20:43:28 GMT -5
I can't because it is not not so. The dream that there is someone somewhere that is not I ~ from the non-dual perspective is completely false. And zendancer ought to know better ... Your clarity is immense bro and I admire your questioning of him. Ha ha. I make so many mistakes that I don't know which one you're referring to. I certainly know that there is no one here but what I am, but maybe I accidentally implied something other than that. I sometimes respond to so many posts and emails within a one hour timespan that after a while its all a big blur. LOL. And after two glasses of wine with dinner (which is my current condition), its an even bigger blur than usual.
|
|
|
Post by mamza on Feb 24, 2011 21:04:39 GMT -5
Glad you started a new thread for this Mamza. I think it helps to start a new thread when a topic starts going off in 10 different directions. What thread did I start for what? It's all well and good that whatever you're saying happened for whatever reason it is, but I'm not sure I have any idea what you're talking about. Any thread I might've made was made entirely for what I originally posted in it--I'm not clever enough to start a thread to drag the peons away from some other thread. But hey, if it happens it happens. I'm not big on using absolutes, but here's my two cents: everything is real. "I" is a random point signifying nothing in particular that allows one to communicate through contextual words. How does nothing explain to nothing what nothing is without drawing comparisons between it and something else? Everything is real in the sense that it exists as it is (i.e. - a thought about a hamburger is real even if the imagined hamburger is not in the physical realm. The hamburger is real, but only as a thought). Even "I" is real as a reference point, but often times it's imagined that "I" is something that it isn't. Who's doing the imagining? I am. Who am I? Nothing in particular.
|
|
|
Post by ivory on Feb 24, 2011 21:46:12 GMT -5
Hhaha. Oh shit, my bad. I meant mansuit not mamza!
|
|
|
Post by Portto on Feb 24, 2011 22:24:05 GMT -5
Wow, you've been working really hard on the board lately, Zendancer! (Just wanted to say that I enjoy your posts.)
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 24, 2011 22:35:10 GMT -5
So wrecking cars is the most direct path to enlightenment? Yes, in practice it involves driving unconsciously for long periods on the interstate. Hehe.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 24, 2011 22:48:41 GMT -5
So wrecking cars is the most direct path to enlightenment? Yes. Wonderful! That may be a more direct path than anyone has ever thought of! Sri Evel Knievel??
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Feb 24, 2011 23:25:26 GMT -5
Heh heh. One more post and you'll be Meister E!
|
|
|
Post by ivory on Feb 24, 2011 23:44:38 GMT -5
I just wrecked my car. It didn't work
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 24, 2011 23:52:10 GMT -5
Heh heh. One more post and you'll be Meister E! Whoa! I didn't notice that! WooHoo!!.....................Dang, maybe I need to shut up and go sit in the corner for a while.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 24, 2011 23:54:59 GMT -5
I just wrecked my car. It didn't work If Thomas Edison had your attitude we'd all be reading our monitors by candle light! Try it again!
|
|
|
Post by ivory on Feb 25, 2011 0:02:08 GMT -5
Dude, I've been derbying my car in the streets all day. I've gotten to the point where the engine gave out, so now I'm pushing the damn thing and manually forcing collisions. Still not enlightened, I'll report back tomorrow.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 25, 2011 1:09:49 GMT -5
That's the spirit!
|
|
jenpa
Junior Member
Posts: 79
|
Post by jenpa on Feb 26, 2011 10:55:11 GMT -5
Not one and not two, but the center.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Mar 7, 2011 11:29:55 GMT -5
Yesterday Max asked a great question. He asked if mindfulness, a term which both Vipassana and Zen frequently use, is the same as attending the actual. This is what I answered in response:
I had never thought about this specific issue before. People define mindfulness in different ways. I suppose it can be the same as attending the actual, but I think of mindfulness as somewhat more passive than what I mean by attending the actual.
What I am pointing to with the term "attending the actual" is making an effort to see "what is" in a very active, directed, and energetic way. It is an effort to get out of the mind and interact with reality solely through the body.
Most people use the term "mindfulness" as a synonymn for a general awareness of everything that is going on, which includes watching thoughts. Attending the actual is the activity of becoming so focused on what can be seen or heard that thoughts are totally left behind. Of course, when people first begin trying to see and hear "what is," thoughts are still dominant, and one has to keep shifting away from thoughts in favor of what can be seen or heard.
Someone who is interested in attending the actual, in the way that I mean, is not interested in thoughts at all. Thoughts are seen as a distraction, so there is no interest in being aware of them other than as an impetus for shifting back to body-knowing.
I would be interested to know if other people see this in a similar way.
|
|
ichc
New Member
Posts: 39
|
Post by ichc on Mar 7, 2011 12:08:40 GMT -5
ZD: I'd guess the main departure form the actual is when thoughts excessively analyze the 'separate self.'
|
|