|
Sleep
May 16, 2011 1:12:07 GMT -5
Post by enigma on May 16, 2011 1:12:07 GMT -5
Again, the boundaries on infinite potential appear in the constriction of form. That one form constriction can't know or do something is determined by the boundaries that make up that form, which are actually cognitive boundaries. You CAN actually align with the consciousness of a cat and know what it's like to be a cat. It's also possible to tune into the mental/emotional structures of another and see what's going on. Marie and I will sometimes do this together (looking at a third person) and what we come up with is often surprising and always similar and often identical. (BTW, we look for that 'inside' rather than 'outside'.) reminds me of a few years ago when my wife, who btw has no interest whatever in all this "oneness" teachings, but one day she suddenly felt a severe pain in her finger, we both examined it but could find no bruising so the only relief was to bandage it and take painkillers, the next day it was no better, but the problem was solved when her brother, who lives in another county,phoned to say he was in hospital having badly injured his finger the previous day, in both cases it was the third finger of the left hand, i was amazed at this but she thought it of little importance... That's a pretty cool one. We placed a large order with one of our suppliers today and I was joking with Marie that now they won't have to prostitute their kids anymore. It was the oddest thing for me to say, and not really funny so much, but instead of looking at me weird, she said "You wanna know why you said that?" Then she told me about some drama unfolding today about her sister's new boyfriend being involved with a child prostitute. I said sumthin like 'Oh, okay, that explains it.' Hehe. It's not really very "sensible" when you think about, which is why we don't think about it much. ;D
|
|
|
Sleep
May 16, 2011 15:35:18 GMT -5
Post by question on May 16, 2011 15:35:18 GMT -5
Again, the boundaries on infinite potential appear in the constriction of form. That one form constriction can't know or do something is determined by the boundaries that make up that form, which are actually cognitive boundaries. You CAN actually align with the consciousness of a cat and know what it's like to be a cat. It's also possible to tune into the mental/emotional structures of another and see what's going on. Marie and I will sometimes do this together (looking at a third person) and what we come up with is often surprising and always similar and often identical. (BTW, we look for that 'inside' rather than 'outside'.) I think TRF's question was clearly stated. You're saying that you can actually allign with a cat's consciousness and know what it's like to be a cat (meow meow). But how can you do that without simultaneously leaving human consciousness behind? Human and cat consciousness are mutually exclusive. Your example looks to me like there was integration of some information from cat consciousness, but the information is seen from within your point of view, you haven't actually experienced cat consciousness, or have you (and if so, in what sense?)? TRF, my take on Oneness is that That by virtue of which any given form exists is fully present and unhidden within/throughout the form regardless of the form's boundaries (which are seen from within the form and Oneness sees the boundaries in their totality by virtue of being That by virtue of which the form exists in the first place). Which means that Oneness doesn't necessitate and isn't an experience of a view where all possible and actual experiences are seen at once, but rather the being of That which IS the form (seeing That by virtue of which form exists). Or, in other words, the form's boundaries define the form and not Oneness. Oneness manifests as form which implies that it also manifests as a form defined by boundaries. Or, let's imagine that Oneness manifests as one total view of all perspectives, if this happens then what this total perspective necessarily misses is the seeing from within the form which is a seeing from within boundaries, which means that the total perspective would miss the nature of what it's like to be a form defined by boundaries. I think I'm saying the same that Enigma was pointing to, except that I don't see in what sense the boundaries are of a cognitive nature. I can't think a boundary into existence and I can't think a boundary into non-existence.
|
|
|
Sleep
May 16, 2011 16:54:06 GMT -5
Post by therealfake on May 16, 2011 16:54:06 GMT -5
reminds me of a few years ago when my wife, who btw has no interest whatever in all this "oneness" teachings, but one day she suddenly felt a severe pain in her finger, we both examined it but could find no bruising so the only relief was to bandage it and take painkillers, the next day it was no better, but the problem was solved when her brother, who lives in another county,phoned to say he was in hospital having badly injured his finger the previous day, in both cases it was the third finger of the left hand, i was amazed at this but she thought it of little importance... That's a pretty cool one. We placed a large order with one of our suppliers today and I was joking with Marie that now they won't have to prostitute their kids anymore. It was the oddest thing for me to say, and not really funny so much, but instead of looking at me weird, she said "You wanna know why you said that?" Then she told me about some drama unfolding today about her sister's new boyfriend being involved with a child prostitute. I said sumthin like 'Oh, okay, that explains it.' Hehe. It's not really very "sensible" when you think about, which is why we don't think about it much. ;D I think lot's of folks have those experiences, just about everybody I know, anyway... And they are very mysterious and weird for sure. But some folks might get the idea that the anecdotal reason for that strange occurrence is God, or the Eternal, or oneness related... ...rather than the 'sensible' explanation of 'randomness', you know something 'provable'..hehe
|
|
|
Sleep
May 16, 2011 17:20:34 GMT -5
Post by therealfake on May 16, 2011 17:20:34 GMT -5
Again, the boundaries on infinite potential appear in the constriction of form. That one form constriction can't know or do something is determined by the boundaries that make up that form, which are actually cognitive boundaries. You CAN actually align with the consciousness of a cat and know what it's like to be a cat. It's also possible to tune into the mental/emotional structures of another and see what's going on. Marie and I will sometimes do this together (looking at a third person) and what we come up with is often surprising and always similar and often identical. (BTW, we look for that 'inside' rather than 'outside'.) I think TRF's question was clearly stated. You're saying that you can actually allign with a cat's consciousness and know what it's like to be a cat (meow meow). But how can you do that without simultaneously leaving human consciousness behind? Human and cat consciousness are mutually exclusive. Your example looks to me like there was integration of some information from cat consciousness, but the information is seen from within your point of view, you haven't actually experienced cat consciousness, or have you (and if so, in what sense?)? TRF, my take on Oneness is that That by virtue of which any given form exists is fully present and unhidden within/throughout the form regardless of the form's boundaries (which are seen from within the form and Oneness sees the boundaries in their totality by virtue of being That by virtue of which the form exists in the first place). Which means that Oneness doesn't necessitate and isn't an experience of a view where all possible and actual experiences are seen at once, but rather the being of That which IS the form (seeing That by virtue of which form exists). Or, in other words, the form's boundaries define the form and not Oneness. Oneness manifests as form which implies that it also manifests as a form defined by boundaries. Or, let's imagine that Oneness manifests as one total view of all perspectives, if this happens then what this total perspective necessarily misses is the seeing from within the form which is a seeing from within boundaries, which means that the total perspective would miss the nature of what it's like to be a form defined by boundaries. I think I'm saying the same that Enigma was pointing to, except that I don't see in what sense the boundaries are of a cognitive nature. I can't think a boundary into existence and I can't think a boundary into non-existence. I am in complete agreement... The idea that the universe is somehow limited in the same manner as our own thinking is downright laughable... ;D
|
|
|
Sleep
May 16, 2011 18:03:11 GMT -5
Post by vacant on May 16, 2011 18:03:11 GMT -5
Again, the boundaries on infinite potential appear in the constriction of form. That one form constriction can't know or do something is determined by the boundaries that make up that form, which are actually cognitive boundaries. You CAN actually align with the consciousness of a cat and know what it's like to be a cat. It's also possible to tune into the mental/emotional structures of another and see what's going on. Marie and I will sometimes do this together (looking at a third person) and what we come up with is often surprising and always similar and often identical. (BTW, we look for that 'inside' rather than 'outside'.) I think TRF's question was clearly stated. You're saying that you can actually allign with a cat's consciousness and know what it's like to be a cat (meow meow). But how can you do that without simultaneously leaving human consciousness behind? Human and cat consciousness are mutually exclusive. Your example looks to me like there was integration of some information from cat consciousness, but the information is seen from within your point of view, you haven't actually experienced cat consciousness, or have you (and if so, in what sense?)? TRF, my take on Oneness is that That by virtue of which any given form exists is fully present and unhidden within/throughout the form regardless of the form's boundaries (which are seen from within the form and Oneness sees the boundaries in their totality by virtue of being That by virtue of which the form exists in the first place). Which means that Oneness doesn't necessitate and isn't an experience of a view where all possible and actual experiences are seen at once, but rather the being of That which IS the form (seeing That by virtue of which form exists). Or, in other words, the form's boundaries define the form and not Oneness. Oneness manifests as form which implies that it also manifests as a form defined by boundaries. Or, let's imagine that Oneness manifests as one total view of all perspectives, if this happens then what this total perspective necessarily misses is the seeing from within the form which is a seeing from within boundaries, which means that the total perspective would miss the nature of what it's like to be a form defined by boundaries. I think I'm saying the same that Enigma was pointing to, except that I don't see in what sense the boundaries are of a cognitive nature. I can't think a boundary into existence and I can't think a boundary into non-existence. Hi Question, With you I am never sure if you’re playing devil’s advocate or if you really mean what you say. Six of one and half a dozen of the other I reckon. You are a clever rationalizer and my guess is that you enjoy both pleasing yourself in the exercise of it, and the beguiling effect of seduction it has on your readers. You have been around these pages long enough to know that this rhetoric is pointing to an imagined picture. What do you make of ZD’s exhortation to turn away from thought? What do you think is the worth of persisting down the road of reasoning, just this one more time of course, before letting it go? Is it not another endeavor to prepare the mind for no-mind? Is it worth beating the dead horse?
|
|
|
Sleep
May 16, 2011 19:03:52 GMT -5
Post by therealfake on May 16, 2011 19:03:52 GMT -5
I think TRF's question was clearly stated. You're saying that you can actually allign with a cat's consciousness and know what it's like to be a cat (meow meow). But how can you do that without simultaneously leaving human consciousness behind? Human and cat consciousness are mutually exclusive. Your example looks to me like there was integration of some information from cat consciousness, but the information is seen from within your point of view, you haven't actually experienced cat consciousness, or have you (and if so, in what sense?)? TRF, my take on Oneness is that That by virtue of which any given form exists is fully present and unhidden within/throughout the form regardless of the form's boundaries (which are seen from within the form and Oneness sees the boundaries in their totality by virtue of being That by virtue of which the form exists in the first place). Which means that Oneness doesn't necessitate and isn't an experience of a view where all possible and actual experiences are seen at once, but rather the being of That which IS the form (seeing That by virtue of which form exists). Or, in other words, the form's boundaries define the form and not Oneness. Oneness manifests as form which implies that it also manifests as a form defined by boundaries. Or, let's imagine that Oneness manifests as one total view of all perspectives, if this happens then what this total perspective necessarily misses is the seeing from within the form which is a seeing from within boundaries, which means that the total perspective would miss the nature of what it's like to be a form defined by boundaries. I think I'm saying the same that Enigma was pointing to, except that I don't see in what sense the boundaries are of a cognitive nature. I can't think a boundary into existence and I can't think a boundary into non-existence. Hi Question, With you I am never sure if you’re playing devil’s advocate or if you really mean what you say. Six of one and half a dozen of the other I reckon. You are a clever rationalizer and my guess is that you enjoy both pleasing yourself in the exercise of it, and the beguiling effect of seduction it has on your readers. You have been around these pages long enough to know that this rhetoric is pointing to an imagined picture. What do you make of ZD’s exhortation to turn away from thought? What do you think is the worth of persisting down the road of reasoning, just this one more time of course, before letting it go? Is it not another endeavor to prepare the mind for no-mind? Is it worth beating the dead horse? You couldn't be more wrong in your characterization... Question reminds me of a very rooted in reality hot dog vendor, who caters to his customers that always ask for "ONE" with "EVERYTHING". ;D
|
|
|
Sleep
May 17, 2011 13:15:10 GMT -5
Post by question on May 17, 2011 13:15:10 GMT -5
You couldn't be more wrong in your characterization... Vacant is correct, except that I don't enjoy beguiling people, the coolest moments is when I learn something new or get proven wrong. What do you make of ZD’s exhortation to turn away from thought? What do you think is the worth of persisting down the road of reasoning, just this one more time of course, before letting it go? Is it not another endeavor to prepare the mind for no-mind? Is it worth beating the dead horse? I know that my thinking isn't going to get me anywhere, but I'm not going to let it go, "letting go" is a bit of a useless phrase imo because it's not really in my power to let go and I have no desire whatsoever to let it go. Why don't I try ZD's approach? When I do ATA after 10 minutes I get bored and because nothing is happening I feel like an idiot for having wasted that time. It's not like I'm a buzy man, I have plenty of spare time, but when I kill it with useless stuff at least it doesn't make me feel like an idiot and live through failure again and again. But why are we talking about Question? Much more interesting to talk about in what sense human consciousness has the capacity to allign with cat consciousness and in what sense boundaries of form are cognitive in nature.
|
|
|
Sleep
May 17, 2011 13:22:28 GMT -5
Post by mamza on May 17, 2011 13:22:28 GMT -5
If you want a more interesting way to ATA, go outside and sit in the middle of the road with your eyes closed. Listen for cars. Try and wait as long as you can before you get scared into moving out of the way.
Definitely move out of the way, though. I don't suggest doing otherwise.
|
|
|
Sleep
May 17, 2011 13:27:31 GMT -5
Post by question on May 17, 2011 13:27:31 GMT -5
It's more about failure than boredom. Failure hurts, and if for me ATA is associated with subjecting myself to failure then why would I want to do it? ATA gives me the exact opposite from what I expect.
|
|
|
Sleep
May 17, 2011 13:35:40 GMT -5
Post by mamza on May 17, 2011 13:35:40 GMT -5
Well I wouldn't see ATA as failure. ATA removes ideas like failure or success altogether--it clears your head of everything. You're probably having such a hard time because you expect something to happen.
|
|
|
Sleep
May 17, 2011 13:45:18 GMT -5
Post by therealfake on May 17, 2011 13:45:18 GMT -5
You couldn't be more wrong in your characterization... Vacant is correct, except that I don't enjoy beguiling people, the coolest moments is when I learn something new or get proven wrong. What do you make of ZD’s exhortation to turn away from thought? What do you think is the worth of persisting down the road of reasoning, just this one more time of course, before letting it go? Is it not another endeavor to prepare the mind for no-mind? Is it worth beating the dead horse? I know that my thinking isn't going to get me anywhere, but I'm not going to let it go, "letting go" is a bit of a useless phrase imo because it's not really in my power to let go and I have no desire whatsoever to let it go. Why don't I try ZD's approach? When I do ATA after 10 minutes I get bored and because nothing is happening I feel like an idiot for having wasted that time. It's not like I'm a buzy man, I have plenty of spare time, but when I kill it with useless stuff at least it doesn't make me feel like an idiot and live through failure again and again. But why are we talking about Question? Much more interesting to talk about in what sense human consciousness has the capacity to allign with cat consciousness and in what sense boundaries of form are cognitive in nature. Ah, so your saying that you've been deceiving and a trickster?? And I thought you were being honest and straight forward... No more hot dogs from you... ;D
|
|
|
Sleep
May 17, 2011 13:57:45 GMT -5
Post by question on May 17, 2011 13:57:45 GMT -5
Ah, so your saying that you've been deceiving and a trickster?? And I thought you were being honest and straight forward... No more hot dogs from you... ;D I've said numerous times that I've never had a spiritual or nondual experience and when asked I have always said that all that I'm saying is always purely intellectual. Well I wouldn't see ATA as failure. ATA removes ideas like failure or success altogether--it clears your head of everything. You're probably having such a hard time because you expect something to happen. Sure, at the very least I expect to go beyond the expectation of failure or success, which doesn't happen and so I fail again. I can't ATA for its own sake and don't really believe novices who claim to be able to do that.
|
|
|
Sleep
May 17, 2011 14:55:48 GMT -5
Post by ivory on May 17, 2011 14:55:48 GMT -5
If you want a more interesting way to ATA, go outside and sit in the middle of the road with your eyes closed. Listen for cars. Try and wait as long as you can before you get scared into moving out of the way. LOL. This is frickin' hilarious.
|
|
|
Sleep
May 17, 2011 15:08:41 GMT -5
Post by souley on May 17, 2011 15:08:41 GMT -5
It's more about failure than boredom. Failure hurts, and if for me ATA is associated with subjecting myself to failure then why would I want to do it? ATA gives me the exact opposite from what I expect. Well just want to share how I look at it right now: Every time of attending the actual is like enlightenment. Enlightenment is constant attending the actual. It's not more special then that. Dissatisfaction with ATA is everything about you that needs to go away. When the patterns creating all dissatisfaction and crap is gone, it's freedom, and pretty nice I guess. I would say ATA is so boring and effortful that you will only commit to it when you are desperate and out of all other options Edit: That was a bit one sided.. It does heighten your sense of aliveness and stuff, so it is pretty nice. But it takes incredible effort to sustain. These last 2 days I have spent maybe 50% of the time in some kind of ATA, which is some kind of personal record for 2-3 years of sporadic practice. I may have come to a point where I have actually started to trust in that, and there aren't as many issues blocking it any more.
|
|
|
Sleep
May 17, 2011 15:13:00 GMT -5
Post by therealfake on May 17, 2011 15:13:00 GMT -5
Ah, so your saying that you've been deceiving and a trickster?? And I thought you were being honest and straight forward... No more hot dogs from you... ;D I've said numerous times that I've never had a spiritual or nondual experience and when asked I have always said that all that I'm saying is always purely intellectual. Well I wouldn't see ATA as failure. ATA removes ideas like failure or success altogether--it clears your head of everything. You're probably having such a hard time because you expect something to happen. Sure, at the very least I expect to go beyond the expectation of failure or success, which doesn't happen and so I fail again. I can't ATA for its own sake and don't really believe novices who claim to be able to do that. ATA is not an exercise for your mind, if that's what you 'think'... It's letting your body communicate naturally with whatever the eyes happen to fall on. Your not aware that not only is the mind intellectual, but so is the body, but it's not in a language your familiar with... Let that bodily intelligence reach out to feel the essence of other objects in your world. The universe is all energy, including your body. It's a physical 'oneness' and not the minds mental construction of it... Feel the world instead of 'thinking' about feeling the world... It's an important distinction, but very subtle, and it's well within your realm of experience... PS: Pick objects that are alive or were alive at one time... I've tried ATA on a toaster, and I didn't get much out of it... ;D
|
|