|
Post by serpentqueen on Sept 4, 2013 16:47:41 GMT -5
Patterning are all qualia that aren't colours, sounds, etc. I don't know and I don't care what's what exactly and how it works. We all know what the aim of ATA is, the point is that its "official" purpose is to make one "accident prone" for whatever accident it is that is responsible for realization or whatever. I'm saying let's ask the stupid obvious question, namely why not just figure out what the accident is and how to trigger it without wasting time on this obviously idiotic ATA. Yea! It'll be the EXTRA SUPER EXPRESS PATH. Accident NOW. Express path: I kid, a little...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2013 16:49:00 GMT -5
Yea! It'll be the EXTRA SUPER EXPRESS PATH. Accident NOW. Um ... but then like ... how would it still be an accident? It's the Accidentless Accident! Or maybe we'll just go with the Collision with the Infinite. Ramming speed. Crash helmet required.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 4, 2013 16:52:08 GMT -5
Um ... but then like ... how would it still be an accident? It's the Accidentless Accident!
|
|
|
Post by silver on Sept 4, 2013 16:57:45 GMT -5
A busy man needs his lunch. Ah, okay...still mind problem, got it. The way you described it sounded a lot like you were re-discussing his signature 'claim', sorry 'bout that. I was referring to his sig line. What he says (referring to his sig line) is that there's something called 'still mind.' He also says that Time is something that is naturally observable in that still mind -- a 'self-evident actuality.' Also in his sig line he is saying that he is not really interested in people reading what he writes and taking it for the truth, he's more interested in people getting in touch with their own experience to verify if what he is saying is true (commendable, BTW). Folks have been saying that, from their experience, they haven't been seeing what he is saying about time and still mind. It is not true to them. So, according to the sig line, this is fine because what is more important is that folks are trusting their own experience. Yet what Tzu is then saying is that because peeps are not experiencing a validation of what he says, it implies that peeps are blinded by beliefs and ideologies -- unlike him. Do you see a contradiction? Again, this doesn't mean his experience is wrong. It doesn't mean that how he describes it is wrong for him. It just means that we seem to be having different experiences and/or communicating it differently. Yes, that's much better - I mean, I understand what you're saying now a lot better than before. I think it's high time for everyone to just back off of each other because both parties (esp. Enigma and Tzu) aren't willing to concede any 'ground', which is funny, btw.
|
|
|
Post by silence on Sept 4, 2013 19:19:55 GMT -5
Greetings.. When I read what you write I hear a lot of frustration. Here are the words of your invitation: "Nothing i say is true because i say it, it becomes true when you experience it as such." Yet when some people do not experience what you say, you chalk it up to them being blinded by beliefs. Why not give the benefit of the doubt to those who do not experience what you say and just put it aside as a misunderstanding or a completely different experience? Note, I am not suggesting your experience is wrong, or that your articulation of what you experience could be better. I am just saying that what you say you experience may not be shared. It's okay. It doesn't necessarily mean that those who are not sharing it are ignorant or blinded either. What i say i experience is the clarity of a still mind.. i can only help others to their own clarity, allowing them to realize their own actuality.. attachments to beliefs are contradictions to the claim of clarity or still mind.. if i am to help others to their own clarity, is it not worthy to point to obstacles? i don't tell others what to see/experience, Advaita, Buddha, Tao, Zen, beliefs, etc.. clarity dissipates those beliefs.. Be well.. It's the same scenario that repeatedly played out with Andrew. He couldn't stop trying to help people because if he did he would be left to examine himself.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 4, 2013 20:15:10 GMT -5
In this discussion I'm constantly referring to the qualia model in my own head. Where is time in the qualia model? Right there in patterning right? 'Still mind' would suggest minimal patterning going on. Patterning is also stuff like depth perception for which no time is necessarily required. Patterning is also a lot of God knows what other stuff, some of which so ingrained that we don't even know it's a patterning. My point is that you can't just switch off patterning, it's automatic, it's not controlled by thoughts, it's just normal body/mind functioning. Instead, and this is what I've been saying for ages but the idiots don't want to listen, I'm saying that there obviously must be a precise mechanism and a precise way to trigger it if you want your shítty enlightenment. It's nothing more than crazy stupid brainfart ideology when they talk about doing nonstop ATA, making still mind, releasing attachments, blah blah blah. From my perspective, the reason no method is possible is that methods presuppose integrity within the mind. That is, the assumption is that there is no counter force in the mind working against the application of the method. In fact, in the absence of that counter force there is no need for a method, which is why I focus on that counter force, which we could call insincerity, or more to the point, self deception. I know mind is insulted by such notions, but it seems unavoidable if we're to stop beating around the spiritual bush and get to the point.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 4, 2013 20:35:04 GMT -5
A busy man needs his lunch. Ah, okay...still mind problem, got it. The way you described it sounded a lot like you were re-discussing his signature 'claim', sorry 'bout that. I was referring to his sig line. What he says (referring to his sig line) is that there's something called 'still mind.' He also says that Time is something that is naturally observable in that still mind -- a 'self-evident actuality.' Also in his sig line he is saying that he is not really interested in people reading what he writes and taking it for the truth, he's more interested in people getting in touch with their own experience to verify if what he is saying is true (commendable, BTW). Folks have been saying that, from their experience, they haven't been seeing what he is saying about time and still mind. It is not true to them. So, according to the sig line, this is fine because what is more important is that folks are trusting their own experience. Yet what Tzu is then saying is that because peeps are not experiencing a validation of what he says, it implies that peeps are blinded by beliefs and ideologies -- unlike him. Do you see a contradiction? Again, this doesn't mean his experience is wrong. It doesn't mean that how he describes it is wrong for him. It just means that we seem to be having different experiences and/or communicating it differently. Well, but his sig doesn't imply that you WILL experience it as true, or that beliefs and ideologies won't blind you to the necessary experience, so I'm not sure I see the contradiction.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 4, 2013 20:46:40 GMT -5
I was referring to his sig line. What he says (referring to his sig line) is that there's something called 'still mind.' He also says that Time is something that is naturally observable in that still mind -- a 'self-evident actuality.' Also in his sig line he is saying that he is not really interested in people reading what he writes and taking it for the truth, he's more interested in people getting in touch with their own experience to verify if what he is saying is true (commendable, BTW). Folks have been saying that, from their experience, they haven't been seeing what he is saying about time and still mind. It is not true to them. So, according to the sig line, this is fine because what is more important is that folks are trusting their own experience. Yet what Tzu is then saying is that because peeps are not experiencing a validation of what he says, it implies that peeps are blinded by beliefs and ideologies -- unlike him. Do you see a contradiction? Again, this doesn't mean his experience is wrong. It doesn't mean that how he describes it is wrong for him. It just means that we seem to be having different experiences and/or communicating it differently. Yes, that's much better - I mean, I understand what you're saying now a lot better than before. I think it's high time for everyone to just back off of each other because both parties (esp. Enigma and Tzu) aren't willing to concede any 'ground', which is funny, btw. Enigma seldom converses with Tzu, or haven't you noticed?
|
|
|
Post by silver on Sept 4, 2013 21:21:28 GMT -5
Yes, that's much better - I mean, I understand what you're saying now a lot better than before. I think it's high time for everyone to just back off of each other because both parties (esp. Enigma and Tzu) aren't willing to concede any 'ground', which is funny, btw. Enigma seldom converses with Tzu, or haven't you noticed? Perhaps not recently - but be some sorta opticamellillusion.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 4, 2013 21:23:39 GMT -5
Enigma seldom converses with Tzu, or haven't you noticed? Perhaps not recently - but be some sorta opticamellillusion. ......What?
|
|
|
Post by silver on Sept 4, 2013 21:38:54 GMT -5
Perhaps not recently - but be some sorta opticamellillusion. ......What? Oops I meant must be some sort of ......
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Sept 5, 2013 5:41:30 GMT -5
From my perspective, the reason no method is possible is that methods presuppose integrity within the mind. That is, the assumption is that there is no counter force in the mind working against the application of the method. In fact, in the absence of that counter force there is no need for a method, which is why I focus on that counter force, which we could call insincerity, or more to the point, self deception. I know mind is insulted by such notions, but it seems unavoidable if we're to stop beating around the spiritual bush and get to the point. Then make a method to remove the counter force. It doesn't matter how you spin it. There is a goal (realization or whatever) and whatever we do to achieve that goal is a method. If you think that more sincerity is required then make a method to increase sincerity. I'm fully in support of stopping beating around the spiritual bush. That's what I always do. I drag the discussion down to the most basic level where even stupid children can please understand. You're mistaken that mind is insulted. We're all adults and cynics here, nothing that is written on the interwebs can insult us. The only thing that is being insulted here is our intelligence if you really think that we don't see through the bs that's being sold here by the so-called spiritual teachers like ZD, you, and everyone else. Your strateges obviously don't work, so why do you guys keep parroting Niz, Ramana and all the other idiots? You're selling yourselves too cheap. Do you honestly think that in ~100 years people will still be talking about realization/enlightenment like they do today?
|
|
|
Post by lokuthatta on Sept 5, 2013 8:40:24 GMT -5
Hello, I am newbie to this forum. However I find the posts exciting. Since a few years I have been reading and following various sources of spiritual development activities. From the conversation I hear if I bring in my opinion, may I say there is a super-self, always "attached" to us. We can tap into this power anytime we need. Just need some practice :-) When some say you are not a person, I picture that as we are not physical -- we're a bunch of energy flows. Sometime we radiate small, and sometimes exceptionally big. Recently I came across this article deborahfairfull.com/discover-peace-beyond-the-reactive-mindIt resinates well with its image!!
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 5, 2013 9:52:33 GMT -5
Do you honestly think that in ~100 years people will still be talking about realization/enlightenment like they do today? Certainly.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2013 10:33:01 GMT -5
Do you honestly think that in ~100 years people will still be talking about realization/enlightenment like they do today? Certainly. I agree. My guess is 100 years from now folks will still be floundering on Direct Paths: stubbing toes, getting lost, pulling out hair, pretending to be happy. Q do you really think we're on the cusp of the ANSWER? Some sort of technological solution perhaps?
|
|