|
Post by serpentqueen on Jul 8, 2013 12:00:12 GMT -5
That's what I'm doing lately, but it is apparent that this mind enjoys playing around with theories. And that is a part of my current "what is." I no longer like to think in terms of addiction. Example: is it more helpful to consider an alcoholic (or drug addict or smoker) is addicted (miring oneself in a perpetual victim story), or is it more helpful to consider that sometimes a person drinks/smokes too much, and sometimes they do not. I would say the latter is far more helpful. If you were to cease all theorizing by interrupting the thoughts when they occur, challenging it, and letting it go, would you experience any kind of withdrawal symptoms? Grief? Loss? Frustration? Irritation? No, but I don't see why I would want to do that. Yes, if my thoughts are obsessive and vexing to me, or unproductive to.. whatever it is I think I need to produce. But if they're entirely pleasurable? And not unproductive? It seems to me that one can very easily create an entire story about "addiction" and being an "addict" ... that itself can then become obsessive, vexing and unproductive. I like to think. I've always enjoyed thinking. I like asking why. I like imagining and contemplating. I enjoy being lost in thought. Heck, i even admit I often enjoy torturing myself with thoughts I can't answer. The whole drama of the thought process. I would say I would have a much, much more difficult time if you told me, like an alcoholic that can never have so much as a sip of wine, I need to quit thinking forever. I would hate that. THAT would be torture to me. And pointless. I'd rather view such "addictions" as one views food: I need to eat to live. Instead of telling myself I'm a "food addict" I will just keep it in proportion. I also like to feel and experience sensations too... it's not one or the other. Just because I like to think a lot does not mean I don't also feel a lot, or just "be." And yes, I know you didn't say that.. it's just my personal bug up my butt lately. :-)
|
|
|
Post by silver on Jul 8, 2013 12:04:54 GMT -5
If you were to cease all theorizing by interrupting the thoughts when they occur, challenging it, and letting it go, would you experience any kind of withdrawal symptoms? Grief? Loss? Frustration? Irritation? No, but I don't see why I would want to do that. Yes, if my thoughts are obsessive and vexing to me, or unproductive to.. whatever it is I think I need to produce. But if they're entirely pleasurable? And not unproductive? It seems to me that one can very easily create an entire story about "addiction" and being an "addict" ... that itself can then become obsessive, vexing and unproductive. I like to think. I've always enjoyed thinking. I like asking why. I like imagining and contemplating. I enjoy being lost in thought. Heck, i even admit I often enjoy torturing myself with thoughts I can't answer. The whole drama of the thought process. I would say I would have a much, much more difficult time if you told me, like an alcoholic that can never have so much as a sip of wine, I need to quit thinking forever. I would hate that. THAT would be torture to me. And pointless. I'd rather view such "addictions" as one views food: I need to eat to live. Instead of telling myself I'm a "food addict" I will just keep it in proportion. I also like to feel and experience sensations too... it's not one or the other. Just because I like to think a lot does not mean I don't also feel a lot, or just "be." And yes, I know you didn't say that.. it's just my personal bug up my butt lately. :-) Pardon me, I'm going to borrow this. That was really good:
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jul 8, 2013 12:25:59 GMT -5
If you were to cease all theorizing by interrupting the thoughts when they occur, challenging it, and letting it go, would you experience any kind of withdrawal symptoms? Grief? Loss? Frustration? Irritation? No, but I don't see why I would want to do that. Yes, if my thoughts are obsessive and vexing to me, or unproductive to.. whatever it is I think I need to produce. But if they're entirely pleasurable? And not unproductive? It seems to me that one can very easily create an entire story about "addiction" and being an "addict" ... that itself can then become obsessive, vexing and unproductive. I like to think. I've always enjoyed thinking. I like asking why. I like imagining and contemplating. I enjoy being lost in thought. Heck, i even admit I often enjoy torturing myself with thoughts I can't answer. The whole drama of the thought process. I would say I would have a much, much more difficult time if you told me, like an alcoholic that can never have so much as a sip of wine, I need to quit thinking forever. I would hate that. THAT would be torture to me. And pointless. I'd rather view such "addictions" as one views food: I need to eat to live. Instead of telling myself I'm a "food addict" I will just keep it in proportion. I also like to feel and experience sensations too... it's not one or the other. Just because I like to think a lot does not mean I don't also feel a lot, or just "be." And yes, I know you didn't say that.. it's just my personal bug up my butt lately. :-)Noted. How do I get invited to one of those dinner parties? Note the other definition of addiction which doesn't have a negative connotation. Sounds like it qualifies as the second kind of addiction. I think we got onto this tangent from Tzu's current working theory. Tzu, for the last month or so, has been telling everyone to drop their beliefs and editing their posts to eliminate what he views as extraneous additions. It was rich then when he would characterize other people's assertions as beliefs, but his own assertions as understandings. Now he's put forward his current working theory, a totally extraneous description, so he's going to get more ribbing.
|
|
|
Post by silver on Jul 8, 2013 12:33:52 GMT -5
No, but I don't see why I would want to do that. Yes, if my thoughts are obsessive and vexing to me, or unproductive to.. whatever it is I think I need to produce. But if they're entirely pleasurable? And not unproductive? It seems to me that one can very easily create an entire story about "addiction" and being an "addict" ... that itself can then become obsessive, vexing and unproductive. I like to think. I've always enjoyed thinking. I like asking why. I like imagining and contemplating. I enjoy being lost in thought. Heck, i even admit I often enjoy torturing myself with thoughts I can't answer. The whole drama of the thought process. I would say I would have a much, much more difficult time if you told me, like an alcoholic that can never have so much as a sip of wine, I need to quit thinking forever. I would hate that. THAT would be torture to me. And pointless. I'd rather view such "addictions" as one views food: I need to eat to live. Instead of telling myself I'm a "food addict" I will just keep it in proportion. I also like to feel and experience sensations too... it's not one or the other. Just because I like to think a lot does not mean I don't also feel a lot, or just "be." And yes, I know you didn't say that.. it's just my personal bug up my butt lately. :-)Noted. How do I get invited to one of those dinner parties? Note the other definition of addiction which doesn't have a negative connotation. Sounds like it qualifies as the second kind of addiction. I think we got onto this tangent from Tzu's current working theory. Tzu, for the last month or so, has been telling everyone to drop their beliefs and editing their posts to eliminate what he views as extraneous additions. It was rich then when he would characterize other people's assertions as beliefs, but his own assertions as understandings. Now he's put forward his current working theory, a totally extraneous description, so he's going to get more ribbing. Gee, we didn't see that coming - pardon the expression.....
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 8, 2013 16:35:42 GMT -5
yer welcome! I get the impression without ever having met you that green looks good on you ...
|
|
|
Post by serpentqueen on Jul 8, 2013 17:15:54 GMT -5
yer welcome! I get the impression without ever having met you that green looks good on you ... It is my most flattering color, now please stop massaging my ego, it's already big enough.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 8, 2013 17:17:46 GMT -5
just tryin' to get ya' comfy in yer new home!
|
|
|
Post by silence on Jul 8, 2013 18:37:41 GMT -5
"The word "awareness" is misleading. Awareness is not a divided state; there are not two states -- awareness and something else. There are not two things. It is not that you are aware of something. Awareness is simply the action of the brain. The idea that you can USE awareness to bring about some happier state of affairs, some sort of transformation, or God knows what, is, for me, absurd. Awareness cannot be used to bring about a change in yourself or the world around you." -UG Yea, so what could possibly prior to something else? I have nothing to say about anything prior to anything. Just be clear about what you are not and a conviction will naturally arise that doesn't need any of these questions answered.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jul 8, 2013 19:33:49 GMT -5
Greetings.. Stop theorizing, turn attention away from the thinking mind, and simply be. I wonder if he's realized that this is an admission of not taking his own advice... He wants to keep a working theory around. If he is unwilling to examine and challenge the underpinning assumptions then that indicates he is attached to the theory and cannot let it go. You only hear what you want to hear.. the other part of my 'advice' is 'balance', a time for thinking, a time for stillness.. theory is interesting, as long as one doesn't become attached to it and make it their 'truth'.. it beyond my wildest imagination that so many self-proclaimed analysts, willing to analyze others based on the attachments they hold as 'true' themselves, find 'Tzu' to be so worthy of their attention.. but, carry on.. Be well..
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 8, 2013 19:34:59 GMT -5
Stop theorizing, turn attention away from the thinking mind, and simply be. I wonder if he's realized that this is an admission of not taking his own advice... He wants to keep a working theory around. If he is unwilling to examine and challenge the underpinning assumptions then that indicates he is attached to the theory and cannot let it go. Unlike the projections we have fun with this seems conscious to me. If you take into account the "Who is the one?..." question to ZD and the trip it seems he'd reached a sort of turning point here and SQ's arrival was a bonus synchronistic catalyst. Occasionally during our conversation he would let the theory peek through and when he did I'd always link back or quote to his early post here ... one obviously made before he'd apprehended the nature of the resident conversation and the likely fodder it would serve for the wrecking crew operations. The last time he let the Tzu' character slip in the slightest was here, and maybe that demonstrates a willingness on his part of a sort. While he's at least expressed an openness to examining his beliefs, like a scientist his interest seems limited to a swap. In transitioning from throwing stones at Woodland Faeries to revisiting the nonduality that he claims he discarded years ago one of his core unspoken tenets seems to be that it is a fallacy that one can operate free of a model. If I'm right about that then his prescription to "look and see with a still mind" and his challenges of what he sees as the beliefs of others aren't genuine.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 8, 2013 19:36:00 GMT -5
Greetings.. I wonder if he's realized that this is an admission of not taking his own advice... He wants to keep a working theory around. If he is unwilling to examine and challenge the underpinning assumptions then that indicates he is attached to the theory and cannot let it go. You only hear what you want to hear.. the other part of my 'advice' is 'balance', a time for thinking, a time for stillness.. theory is interesting, as long as one doesn't become attached to it and make it their 'truth'.. it beyond my wildest imagination that so many self-proclaimed analysts, willing to analyze others based on the attachments they hold as 'true' themselves, find 'Tzu' to be so worthy of their attention.. but, carry on.. Be well.. It ain't Tzu' that we're interested in.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jul 8, 2013 19:49:20 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. The 'parts' don't 'need' to leave traces behind, no more than you 'need' to leave footprints.. as i understand it, no 'truth' claimed, it just happens.. Purpose? Evolution.. "Storing of the discoveries", is what happens as human knowledge advances its own self-discovery.. we don't fear sailing off the edge of the earth anymore, because we discovered there is no 'edge'.. "as below, so above", same with the non-local version of the 'part', the Whole.. it expands its awareness based on prior experiences, just like the 'parts' do.. You call it 'rationalization', i call it my current understanding that satisfies the most variables of which i am aware and which maintains consistency within the known parameters of existence.. no truth claimed, i understand this is a theoretical work in progress.. Be well.. If these parts do not need to leave traces behind, then bubbles are just as good as footprints, no? I chose bubbles deliberately - I was thinking about multiverse theory, which my daughter brought up. She proposed that we each are our own individual universe of consciousness - "just like multiverse bubbles." And intuitively, I've always figured consciousness is just like that - a bubble which reflects everything, but its own self. Yes, things do happen all the time. A planet of organisms could evolve to perfection (whatever that may be) and the sun could go supernova and wipe them all out in an instant. An entire universe could evolve only for the bubble it is in to burst, wiping it all out in a blink of an eye (some of the theories are saying this happens quite often - disturbingly often). It seems to me there is just as much chaos as there is evolution. There is also just as much de-evolution. Chaos, de-evolution are "what is" just as surely as evolution. And of course if we're going to talk about evolution, we need to come up with a creation story, as this all must've started somewhere. And what need or purpose would an eternal infinite timeless Whole whatchamacalllit possibly have for evolution? What need would it have to "become" anything, when it's already everything? Why define this "evolution" in terms of human progress? Yes we have cool technologies and we're pretty smart creatures but we're certainly dumb enough to be destroying the planet. Maybe we are not the ideal example of evolution. Maybe dolphins are. Maybe the micro-organisms in our gut or the parasites in our brain are. Maybe humans, with our complex brains, are the evolutionary dead end. The reason I suggested it may be a clever rationalization is that when I ponder all this myself, I see that it's all a story I want to believe in, because I want to remain individual, separate, and somehow permanent/immortal. I want the comfort of believing that some part of me (my DNA, my memories, my achievements) live on after death.. or at least until the sun goes supernova. Unless we get off this planet before then. Or, okay... maybe we have souls and they reincarnate. Well isn't reincarnation just another way of wanting to hold on to a sense of separate self, and of specialness, even after death? Yes, it sure seems like it to me. This is a long ramble but where I'm at these days is inclined to believe there is a purpose, but it may be very simple. Hard to put into words but it may be more like... existence has no choice but to exist. The nothing can't live without the something. The individuated part arises automatically from the whole part. It just "is" - because it can't be otherwise. I'll have to work on the expression of it, but that's what I see, and it seems to make a lot more sense, it's all pretty elegant, and also downright brilliant in its simplicity. For me.. as far as one might use the term 'purpose', i understand that 'experience' is the purpose.. Life is experience, it is 'that which is' exploring its own existence, the purpose is self-discovery, experience is the vehicle.. you seem to have a delightfully simple awareness, i wish you well with the 'local crowd', the 'Oneness' disciples are not opposed to any tactic that might confuse or distract someone from simplicity and/or clarity.. Be well..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2013 19:50:23 GMT -5
Bobby, it doesn't work. I imagine that you will reply, as you usually do, by pointing out that it's the mind and the flawed character that sabotages the efforts or prevents one from doing ATA for a long enough time - but this is simply a strategy of finding something to blame for the fact that ATA doesn't work. Or, that people can't ATA successfully is not a problem of the people, instead it's suggestive of the fact that ATA is a flawed strategy. staying in the present .. doesn't work? where the hell else are you going to go? nevermind .. Hehehe, it's true, staying in the present doesn't work... What works is looking for peace and happiness where you know it can't be found...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2013 19:53:41 GMT -5
Greetings.. If these parts do not need to leave traces behind, then bubbles are just as good as footprints, no? I chose bubbles deliberately - I was thinking about multiverse theory, which my daughter brought up. She proposed that we each are our own individual universe of consciousness - "just like multiverse bubbles." And intuitively, I've always figured consciousness is just like that - a bubble which reflects everything, but its own self. Yes, things do happen all the time. A planet of organisms could evolve to perfection (whatever that may be) and the sun could go supernova and wipe them all out in an instant. An entire universe could evolve only for the bubble it is in to burst, wiping it all out in a blink of an eye (some of the theories are saying this happens quite often - disturbingly often). It seems to me there is just as much chaos as there is evolution. There is also just as much de-evolution. Chaos, de-evolution are "what is" just as surely as evolution. And of course if we're going to talk about evolution, we need to come up with a creation story, as this all must've started somewhere. And what need or purpose would an eternal infinite timeless Whole whatchamacalllit possibly have for evolution? What need would it have to "become" anything, when it's already everything? Why define this "evolution" in terms of human progress? Yes we have cool technologies and we're pretty smart creatures but we're certainly dumb enough to be destroying the planet. Maybe we are not the ideal example of evolution. Maybe dolphins are. Maybe the micro-organisms in our gut or the parasites in our brain are. Maybe humans, with our complex brains, are the evolutionary dead end. The reason I suggested it may be a clever rationalization is that when I ponder all this myself, I see that it's all a story I want to believe in, because I want to remain individual, separate, and somehow permanent/immortal. I want the comfort of believing that some part of me (my DNA, my memories, my achievements) live on after death.. or at least until the sun goes supernova. Unless we get off this planet before then. Or, okay... maybe we have souls and they reincarnate. Well isn't reincarnation just another way of wanting to hold on to a sense of separate self, and of specialness, even after death? Yes, it sure seems like it to me. This is a long ramble but where I'm at these days is inclined to believe there is a purpose, but it may be very simple. Hard to put into words but it may be more like... existence has no choice but to exist. The nothing can't live without the something. The individuated part arises automatically from the whole part. It just "is" - because it can't be otherwise. I'll have to work on the expression of it, but that's what I see, and it seems to make a lot more sense, it's all pretty elegant, and also downright brilliant in its simplicity. For me.. as far as one might use the term 'purpose', i understand that 'experience' is the purpose.. Life is experience, it is 'that which is' exploring its own existence, the purpose is self-discovery, experience is the vehicle.. you seem to have a delightfully simple awareness, i wish you well with the 'local crowd', the 'Oneness' disciples are not opposed to any tactic that might confuse or distract someone from simplicity and/or clarity.. Be well.. Speaking for myself tzu, I totally believe that you are indeed very simple (I mean who you think you are is simple)(I mean what you really are is simple)... Ahh never mind...
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jul 8, 2013 21:09:26 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. For me.. as far as one might use the term 'purpose', i understand that 'experience' is the purpose.. Life is experience, it is 'that which is' exploring its own existence, the purpose is self-discovery, experience is the vehicle.. you seem to have a delightfully simple awareness, i wish you well with the 'local crowd', the 'Oneness' disciples are not opposed to any tactic that might confuse or distract someone from simplicity and/or clarity.. Be well.. Speaking for myself tzu, I totally believe that you are indeed very simple (I mean who you think you are is simple)(I mean what you really are is simple)... Ahh never mind... I am more simple than most realize... Be well..
|
|