|
Post by Peter on Jul 10, 2013 10:37:57 GMT -5
Peter, I will scale back my posting of images in responses on this thread to 1 a day from here on out, today's quota is more than filled. See you tomorrow Troll-Sayer. Troll, nobody cares about your mindless drivel. We intelligent people will simply ignore your nonsense and point out to you again and again that you are a troll, a creature so miserable that it requires other people's attention to get through the day. If you wish to remain on this forum then you have to change your ways and start contributing, otherwise please leave this forum. Thank you. So happy that I don't have to try and bring a ray of sunshine into this quagmire anymore. On the question of high volume posting of pictures - especially ones that are not relevant to the current discussion or spiritual discussion in general - I'm undecided if I want to try to control that or not. Currently I'm erring on the side of "letting it be" as far as the unmoderated board is concerned, and getting used to not interfering. Which is an interesting experience - feels healthily challenging. Have you ever allowed yourself to emotionally feel how a mother feels about their newborn child? The raw awe and wonder of having given birth to an amazing life form. The openness to its being. The feeling of its heartbeat on your breastbone as you hold it close. The life it breaths into you and the feeling of sacredness of the life in your hands? Don't know that I'm sufficiently great at empathy that I'd know how a mother feels at that point (my wife looked pretty wiped out actually) but I got first dibs on heartbeat on breastbone while the mother was occupied with some pla-center thing implementation detail that I didn't need to worry about, so I got the awe/wonder/sacredness thing first hand. Our 2nd was born in the water and also had that grey-purple hue (see pic above) for a good 10 minutes before the oxygen really got going. That water looks decidedly un-bloody. I call Photoshop. What the heck, that chirpy looking chick is wearing a full swimsuit. HEY, that's not the mother at all! They've grabbed some purple looking doll and put it in the arms of someone who hasn't just endured a 12 hour physical/emotional pain marathon and is chilling out in some clean water. That look of happy relief on her face is "thank fúck I didn't have to go through that".
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jul 10, 2013 11:03:12 GMT -5
Troll, nobody cares about your mindless drivel. We intelligent people will simply ignore your nonsense and point out to you again and again that you are a troll, a creature so miserable that it requires other people's attention to get through the day. If you wish to remain on this forum then you have to change your ways and start contributing, otherwise please leave this forum. Thank you. So happy that I don't have to try and bring a ray of sunshine into this quagmire anymore. On the question of high volume posting of pictures - especially ones that are not relevant to the current discussion or spiritual discussion in general - I'm undecided if I want to try to control that or not. Currently I'm erring on the side of "letting it be" as far as the unmoderated board is concerned, and getting used to not interfering. Which is an interesting experience - feels healthily challenging. Have you ever allowed yourself to emotionally feel how a mother feels about their newborn child? The raw awe and wonder of having given birth to an amazing life form. The openness to its being. The feeling of its heartbeat on your breastbone as you hold it close. The life it breaths into you and the feeling of sacredness of the life in your hands? Don't know that I'm sufficiently great at empathy that I'd know how a mother feels at that point (my wife looked pretty wiped out actually) but I got first dibs on heartbeat on breastbone while the mother was occupied with some pla-center thing implementation detail that I didn't need to worry about, so I got the awe/wonder/sacredness thing first hand. Our 2nd was born in the water and also had that grey-purple hue (see pic above) for a good 10 minutes before the oxygen really got going. That water looks decidedly un-bloody. I call Photoshop. What the heck, that chirpy looking chick is wearing a full swimsuit. HEY, that's not the mother at all! They've grabbed some purple looking doll and put it in the arms of someone who hasn't just endured a 12 hour physical/emotional pain marathon and is chilling out in some clean water. That look of happy relief on her face is "thank fúck I didn't have to go through that". I said earlier that I would throttle it to once a day. I'm looking forward to a regularly sit down with Q, a daily ritual of being greeted with venom and being called a Troll. I don't think Q understands the point of the unmoderated section because he keeps threatening me with banishment from the forum... go figure. Glad this issue is off your plate, Peter.
|
|
|
Post by mamza on Jul 10, 2013 12:23:05 GMT -5
You mentioned that a sense of self can be felt only when we are attentive. I disagree. The sense of self is felt when you TRY to be attentive, not when you ARE attentive. I know this sounds silly, but effort requires a doer, and so forcing attention (i.e. - trying) generates that sensation. If, however, you were to practice that and ignore that feeling until the attention became easier to come by and happened on its own, a shift in attention would be noticed, and the subject would be subsequently dropped. My point is limited and precise. A sense of self/existence/knowing is available only when attention is active. That doesn't mean that when attentive we necessarily have a dominant sense of self/existence/knowing. However, absent attention there never is a sense of self/existence/knowing comparable to one in the attentive state. And this profound absence of all knowing and sense of self/existence is NOT something to be achieved by lots of practise and effort, but rather exactly the opposite, it is the natural state of all people. In this point of mine I'm not complaining about anything and I don't care what can be achieved with enough effort. I'm just pointing out how things are. Okay, well forget the other junk. The bold is your point in its simplest form, yes? I'll agree that we're not aware of the sense of self when before attention in the same way we are during attention, but it still exists. I constantly worry about how this or that is going to affect me (I'm a fairly anxious person). When there is attention, and depending on what my focus is, most of that melts away. There are certainly times where I'm more aware of myself than others, but in my personal experience the sense of self is present even before attention.
|
|
|
Post by mamza on Jul 10, 2013 12:26:39 GMT -5
I'm not sure how to word this, but I'll do my best. For me, ATA wasn't about focusing on myself, or on a sense of self, or really anything in particular (over anything else--referring to what's important to attend). To me, ATA was simply a matter of focusing on anything as hard as humanly possible until nothing else existed or mattered. That wasn't what I intended, but that's what happened. The fan behind me is gone. Unimportant. All there is right now is the sweetness of soda, the acidic bubbling of carbonation. Who is experiencing this doesn't matter. Where it's happening doesn't matter. What happens next doesn't matter. There is just the taste and feel of the soda. When I first came around this board and ZD suggested ATA, I did it all the time. ALL. THE. TIME. Any chance I got I was slapping myself to attention. A level of focus such that I can remain intent on anything I want at any time I want--to the exclusion of all else--for extended periods of time became possible. Now I don't do it. I'm fairly lost in everyday life anymore. Sometimes it happens by itself and I enjoy the calmness, but sooner or later that passes and I move on. You mentioned that a sense of self can be felt only when we are attentive. I disagree. The sense of self is felt when you TRY to be attentive, not when you ARE attentive. I know this sounds silly, but effort requires a doer, and so forcing attention (i.e. - trying) generates that sensation. If, however, you were to practice that and ignore that feeling until the attention became easier to come by and happened on its own, a shift in attention would be noticed, and the subject would be subsequently dropped. I see holes in this, but I'm not interested in writing any more of a book at the moment. If something seems off, let me know and I'll see if I can clarify. This is interesting. So far in this thread I've seen three interpretations of ATA. One seems to involve a 'traffic director', maybe with a big club or maybe a whistle, that's mind forcefully telling mind what to attend to, which of course would involve effort and be very unnatural. It seems to include the 'director' in the mix. Your's, Mamza, seems to be more about focus than attention. I can see how that would be restful, in the sense that it's a break from constant thinking - a vacation of sorts. But I think it would be impossible to maintain. The third is using ATA as a reminder to place attention on what's here and now. No director other than the 'here and now' focus moving into the forefront of attention. If you consider that our lives are made up of now moments, it becomes more of a return to naturalness than anything forced. There is an element of effort in the 'returning', but, as Max said, it can be gentle. And there needn't be any additional mind element monitoring the whole thing. I find ATA to be much more effortless (and require less energy) than mind activity. Absolutely it's impossible to maintain. That's why I stopped intentionally doing it, haha. Anymore there's just a random moment of focus (or unfocus, as it seems I have tunnel vision until it happens) that eliminates all thinking and places attention on what's left--the actual.
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Jul 10, 2013 13:04:42 GMT -5
Dear troll, nobody cares about your mindless drivel. The only response to you is to point out that you are just a miserable troll. Change your ways or please leave this forum. Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Jul 10, 2013 13:10:01 GMT -5
Okay, well forget the other junk. The bold is your point in its simplest form, yes? I'll agree that we're not aware of the sense of self when before attention in the same way we are during attention, but it still exists. I constantly worry about how this or that is going to affect me (I'm a fairly anxious person). When there is attention, and depending on what my focus is, most of that melts away. These are two different things. One is the sense of self available only during the attentive state. The other is some kind of ego story made of thoughts and worries and anxiety etc.
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Jul 10, 2013 13:15:07 GMT -5
So happy that I don't have to try and bring a ray of sunshine into this quagmire anymore. Please tell me that the troll sent you a complaint. That would be the joke of the year!
|
|
|
Post by mamza on Jul 10, 2013 14:45:21 GMT -5
Okay, well forget the other junk. The bold is your point in its simplest form, yes? I'll agree that we're not aware of the sense of self when before attention in the same way we are during attention, but it still exists. I constantly worry about how this or that is going to affect me (I'm a fairly anxious person). When there is attention, and depending on what my focus is, most of that melts away. These are two different things. One is the sense of self available only during the attentive state. The other is some kind of ego story made of thoughts and worries and anxiety etc. What kind of person I imagine myself to be is still based on the idea of there being a me. I can't create said ego story without having a sense of myself to create the story about.
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Jul 10, 2013 14:52:28 GMT -5
These are two different things. One is the sense of self available only during the attentive state. The other is some kind of ego story made of thoughts and worries and anxiety etc. What kind of person I imagine myself to be is still based on the idea of there being a me. I can't create said ego story without having a sense of myself to create the story about. Now you're just defending your idea on philosophical grounds. I don't care about that. I'm concerned about how the different modes look like in experience, and not how they relate to each other in your philosophical model.
|
|
|
Post by mamza on Jul 10, 2013 15:08:23 GMT -5
What kind of person I imagine myself to be is still based on the idea of there being a me. I can't create said ego story without having a sense of myself to create the story about. Now you're just defending your idea on philosophical grounds. I don't care about that. I'm concerned about how the different modes look like in experience, and not how they relate to each other in your philosophical model. That's not my intention, so I'll try to rephrase. The actual experience is that I feel like me at all times. How could I not? I am me. What it feels like to be me changes, but it's all still me.
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Jul 10, 2013 16:04:29 GMT -5
Now you're just defending your idea on philosophical grounds. I don't care about that. I'm concerned about how the different modes look like in experience, and not how they relate to each other in your philosophical model. That's not my intention, so I'll try to rephrase. The actual experience is that I feel like me at all times. How could I not? I am me. What it feels like to be me changes, but it's all still me. I'm certain you're making up a story now. You don't feel like a "me that changes over time" all the time. You don't all the time feel like a Mamza who has such and such parents, went to such and such schools, had such and such girlfriends etc. In fact, there is no Mamza anywhere until you imagine one. And even if you see that, then there may still remain the feeling of "I am" that is sometimes there or not, but this feeling has nothing to do with Mamza, because it is independent of the Mamza story. The two are different things.
|
|
|
Post by mamza on Jul 10, 2013 16:52:50 GMT -5
That's not my intention, so I'll try to rephrase. The actual experience is that I feel like me at all times. How could I not? I am me. What it feels like to be me changes, but it's all still me. I'm certain you're making up a story now. You don't feel like a "me that changes over time" all the time. You don't all the time feel like a Mamza who has such and such parents, went to such and such schools, had such and such girlfriends etc. In fact, there is no Mamza anywhere until you imagine one. And even if you see that, then there may still remain the feeling of "I am" that is sometimes there or not, but this feeling has nothing to do with Mamza, because it is independent of the Mamza story. The two are different things. I wasn't referring to me as being Mamza, I was referring to me as an unchangeable...'thing' (not sure what to call it since the only observable fact about it is that it seems to be there every time I check for it). Maybe that's what you're calling the I am, and I would agree that it has nothing to do with Mamza. But a sense of self is what I consider to be the feeling of existing, and that 'I am' (assuming we're agreed on what that is) seems to have that quality--and I'm gonna stop right there. So I was just thinking this through and when I thought about it what went through my head was that the I am is always present--I just sometimes don't pay attention to it/notice it. Rearrange that equation and you get "with attention the sense of self is present." So I suppose I can't refute your original point anymore. I always felt of it as a 'just because I don't see it doesn't mean it's not there' deal. But that assumes it's always there and that I'm just a dolt (which I am). But I suppose I really haven't ever noticed a sense of self unless I looked for it. There's nothing other than the present moment that I can attend, whether that includes thoughts about the past/future/self/whatever makes no difference, it's still a thought (or whatever else) in the present. And in the present, sometimes I notice it and sometimes I don't. So I guess that's that. My b.
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Jul 10, 2013 17:07:53 GMT -5
I'm certain you're making up a story now. You don't feel like a "me that changes over time" all the time. You don't all the time feel like a Mamza who has such and such parents, went to such and such schools, had such and such girlfriends etc. In fact, there is no Mamza anywhere until you imagine one. And even if you see that, then there may still remain the feeling of "I am" that is sometimes there or not, but this feeling has nothing to do with Mamza, because it is independent of the Mamza story. The two are different things. I wasn't referring to me as being Mamza, I was referring to me as an unchangeable...'thing' (not sure what to call it since the only observable fact about it is that it seems to be there every time I check for it). Maybe that's what you're calling the I am, and I would agree that it has nothing to do with Mamza. But a sense of self is what I consider to be the feeling of existing, and that 'I am' (assuming we're agreed on what that is) seems to have that quality--and I'm gonna stop right there. So I was just thinking this through and when I thought about it what went through my head was that the I am is always present--I just sometimes don't pay attention to it/notice it. Rearrange that equation and you get "with attention the sense of self is present." So I suppose I can't refute your original point anymore. I always felt of it as a 'just because I don't see it doesn't mean it's not there' deal. But that assumes it's always there and that I'm just a dolt (which I am). But I suppose I really haven't ever noticed a sense of self unless I looked for it. There's nothing other than the present moment that I can attend, whether that includes thoughts about the past/future/self/whatever makes no difference, it's still a thought (or whatever else) in the present. And in the present, sometimes I notice it and sometimes I don't. So I guess that's that. My b. I dunno, Mamza, but after reading this, I'd say we're about in the same place. Roll with it, that's what I do. Nuthin' 'wrong' with nuthin'.
|
|
|
Post by Peter on Jul 11, 2013 6:32:46 GMT -5
So happy that I don't have to try and bring a ray of sunshine into this quagmire anymore. Please tell me that the troll sent you a complaint. That would be the joke of the year! No no, just saw his post in passing. You're in the unmoderated area anyway, and Top knows I don't do my thing here.
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jul 11, 2013 15:06:20 GMT -5
Dear troll, nobody cares about your mindless drivel. The only response to you is to point out that you are just a miserable troll. Change your ways or please leave this forum. Thank you. Good Afternoon, Troll Sayer. You've already hung your self and now you're asking for mercy by trying to get me to go away. You know exactly what you need to do to get me to stop, which is actually ignore me, the way someone intelligent would. So my only conclusion is that deep down you really want me to keep responding. *smooches* My two boys have stopped enjoying being tossed in the air. I try to carry them on my shoulders and they're clinging to my face and poking me in the eyes, saying, let me down. They like being held upside down, though. There's something about that toddler state. An absence of the idea of mortality, no anticipation of getting hurt. You toss them in the air and the sensation of being weightless brings a cry of delight.
|
|