|
Post by topology on Jul 2, 2013 19:07:19 GMT -5
That's what Q says when he reads what Top says but has had no personal experience and so can't relate to it. Top didn't say anything except that he is right and I am wrong. I'm right and you're wrong about what specifically?
|
|
|
Post by james on Jul 2, 2013 19:42:02 GMT -5
You are the cosmos's window upon itself. You are the totality believing it is a teeeeensy weeeensy body. You are unimaginable intelligence believing that its tiny biologically limited intellect is King. You're freaking perfect, dude. Rock on. You can do no wrong. There's no such thing. I love you, man. I woke up and got up out of bed at 3.41AM to tell you that, LOL. Hell knows why.
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Jul 3, 2013 3:39:50 GMT -5
Top didn't say anything except that he is right and I am wrong. I'm right and you're wrong about what specifically? I neither remember nor care.
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Jul 3, 2013 3:57:25 GMT -5
Intellectually I think you're probably a superman. Which probably translates to being 'special needs' in this game. But I'm probably talking bollocks, who knows - certainly not me. I would hazard that the universe will crack onto itself via you - you seem so intense I think something will have give eventually. That's my 2c. Just keep pushing on, dude. Intensity probably counts for a lot. Not even close to a superman. Your standards are too low. Two cents is about right, but thanks, I don't need it. If he wants to have a solid theory then he needs to put more work into it. Didn't you say that you've never had a spiritual experience? Creepy. Please don't fantasize about me when you jérk off.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jul 3, 2013 4:38:50 GMT -5
I woke up and got up out of bed at 3.41AM to tell you that, LOL. Hell knows why. Maybe you were channeling an important message for Q from his mental superiors?
|
|
|
Post by james on Jul 3, 2013 5:39:23 GMT -5
Didn't you say that you've never had a spiritual experience? Yes, not one that I can remember, anyway. What's what I said got to do with a spiritual experience? It's obvious.
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Jul 3, 2013 6:03:02 GMT -5
Didn't you say that you've never had a spiritual experience? Yes, not one that I can remember, anyway. What's what I said got to do with a spiritual experience? It's obvious. It's not obvious at all.
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jul 3, 2013 7:16:42 GMT -5
I'm right and you're wrong about what specifically? I neither remember nor care. Sounds like a defense mechanism.
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Jul 3, 2013 8:48:29 GMT -5
I neither remember nor care. Sounds like a defense mechanism. Sorry to disappoint you, buddy, but it doesn't work on me. I guess my defenses must be too strong.
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jul 3, 2013 9:17:03 GMT -5
Sounds like a defense mechanism. Sorry to disappoint you, buddy, but it doesn't work on me. I guess my defenses must be too strong. What doesn't work on you?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2013 9:19:47 GMT -5
I don't think it's really important whether it's called a practice or not. The thing that bugs me about the concept of practice is that it implies someone applying some methodology for improvement in some way. I don't really see it that way so I don't really think of ATA as a practice. I think it's important to be honest about the intentions. Yes. I agree. As for my own intentions or aspirations, I've contemplated this quite a bit. So far what I've come up with is not at all clear. I like the idea of clear seeing. Just living without all the obfuscation. All this talk of Oneness and Realization and Truth and Enlightenment and Awakening just creates more obfuscation. I imagine clear seeing is what's it's like to be a 'man of action' (sorry ladies, 'person of action' or is too generical when applied to my particular gender). I'm not an ATA zealot, but to me attending the actual, effortlessly, is what I'm intending. All that capitalized jargon and spiritual stuff be-damned. It's just setting something out of reach so you have to stretch. The goal is imagined but the stretching is not.
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Jul 3, 2013 9:32:07 GMT -5
It's just setting something out of reach so you have to stretch. The goal is imagined but the stretching is not. From my own experience I can say that success is more motivating than impossible goals. Why not structure ATA around the reaching of particular goals, instead of frustration over not attaining a particular ideal? Humans like games, so why not strcuture it like in a computer game, improve from level 1 to 2, etc. All the ideology/mysticism is garbage anyhow, so why not just discard it altogether? And if people like the ATA game then they can just improve on and on, and ask people who achieved the higher level for advice. And if they don't like the game then they can just leave it be, no hard feelings over them rejecting some ideologies and no need to attack anyone's personality.
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jul 3, 2013 10:17:35 GMT -5
It's just setting something out of reach so you have to stretch. The goal is imagined but the stretching is not. From my own experience I can say that success is more motivating than impossible goals. Why not structure ATA around the reaching of particular goals, instead of frustration over not attaining a particular ideal? Humans like games, so why not strcuture it like in a computer game, improve from level 1 to 2, etc. All the ideology/mysticism is garbage anyhow, so why not just discard it altogether? And if people like the ATA game then they can just improve on and on, and ask people who achieved the higher level for advice. And if they don't like the game then they can just leave it be, no hard feelings over them rejecting some ideologies and no need to attack anyone's personality. You could bring that framework into the scenario, part of your "level" is inversely proportional to the degree to which you get frustrated, another aspect of level is inversely proportional to how personally you take things, another aspect of level is inversely proportional to how much mentation happens, another aspect of level is inversely proportional to how much self-identity you have, etc. etc. It just sounds like you want the game to be other than it is. What is enlightenment to you? What image do you have of it in mind? If you truly applied the framework you are proposing, the way the less skilled become skilled is through perseverance and humility. The player is always his own impediment to advancement, especially in games. Yes, there needs to be some raw ability, but the rest is perseverance and getting out of the way of the game playing itself.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2013 11:27:05 GMT -5
It's just setting something out of reach so you have to stretch. The goal is imagined but the stretching is not. From my own experience I can say that success is more motivating than impossible goals. Why not structure ATA around the reaching of particular goals, instead of frustration over not attaining a particular ideal? Humans like games, so why not strcuture it like in a computer game, improve from level 1 to 2, etc. All the ideology/mysticism is garbage anyhow, so why not just discard it altogether? And if people like the ATA game then they can just improve on and on, and ask people who achieved the higher level for advice. And if they don't like the game then they can just leave it be, no hard feelings over them rejecting some ideologies and no need to attack anyone's personality. That's sort of what Ruthless Truthers were doing. Advance from level to level. Keep a count/rank system. Those dudes at dharmaunderground have the level thing going on too, as I recall. It might work for some. The competitive edge part of it doesn't sit well with me -- there's something distracting about having a goal in the picture.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 3, 2013 11:41:58 GMT -5
I think it's important to be honest about the intentions. ATA is a practise and it's done with the intention of getting enlightened. Seems reasonable. Even ZD admits to doing it with this intention. Why else would one do it. Or, let's turn it around to find the negative proof of this. ATA is a very basic phenomenon, right? It happens to people all day long one way or another. So why don't they make a habit out of it, just for its own sake, without spiritual reasons? Because then it would require effort and from it come neither pleasure nor any other quantifiable results, so it's a waste of effort. So, nobody on his own ever gets the idea of systematically doing ATA for its own sake, it's only in the spiritual context that this idea ever arises. Again, seems reasonable. No normal person would see this as valuable and would think to themselves 'this seems like a colossal risk trading known pleasure for potentially... diddly-squat'. But remember ZD had had some cosmic consciousness experiences and he was very definitely aiming to get back to 'no mind'. This is one of the reasons I would say I have a problem with ATA. I have no 'navigation beacon' because I didn't have a cosmic consciousness/kensho type experience. Wasn't it Rumi that said '15 seconds of truth and I was a slave for life'? Lucky Rumi. :-) If ZD had a proper glimpse to go on, no wonder he could muster the 'willpower' to do ATA until the cows came home. Or, let's turn it around to find the negative proof of this. ATA is a very basic phenomenon, What I really dislike is this attitude of ZD when he recommends ATA as this open-ended activity with impossible requirements such as dropping all ideas, dropping self, total wilingness, etc. No mortal creature can ever fulfill such requirements and this then simply amounts to a refusal to accept criticism or to engage in honest discussion, because the blame is always on the seeker, and the accusation always is of character flaws or that one should do it longer and more intense. Top for example goes so far that even obvious failure, such as frustration, is interpreted as a sign of the success of the practise. It's a closed narraive, perfectly defended from all criticism. I agree it is very difficult to do ATA coming from a place of not having a kensho type experience. However, I do see it as being a logical approach. If one does not pay attention to self, then self will wither away. ZD's way was ZD's way. Perhaps your way will be to rage yourself into it. Anything is possible. I'm actually going to disagree with that. The notion is based on the assumption that the self is like a conversation happening at the next table that one can simply turn attention away from. The self is a fundamental belief system. In fact it's the self that wants to make self wither away so's it can get something for itself. How long does the self have to ignore the self before the self finds that there is no self? This is why I talk about noticing what's really going on. If you knew the nature of this imaginary self, why would you have any interest in it? How much effort would be required to turn attention away from it?
|
|