|
Post by zendancer on Apr 18, 2014 15:19:05 GMT -5
Big Self and little self are one and the same, but after Self-realization, all selves are known to be products of thought. There is only what we might call "what is," or "Source," or "Self,"---a unified field of being which is aware. ATA-MT (attending the actual minus thoughts) is what little children automatically do, but as the intellect develops, they spend more and more time imagining/thinking/cognizing/etc. Their imagining creates a meta-reality in the mind that eventually obscures what is actual. If adults practice ATA-MT--shifting attention repeatedly away from thoughts to what can be seen, heard, felt, etc--it has the effect of reducing and/or eliminating the internal dialogue, which is sometimes call "the personal narrative." As the intellect becomes increasingly silent, it becomes obvious that the intellect is not necessary for acting intelligently. In total internal silence the body can fix and eat breakfast, get dressed, drive a car, and so forth. Gary Weber has suggested that there are at least two thinking circuits in the brain. One of them involves the personal narrative and the other one involves planning and problem solving. In Gary's case, after many years of meditation, his personal narrative suddenly stopped one day and never re-started, but his body continued to function at a very high level, and became even more creative than before. He describes walking into business meetings and dealing with all kinds of practical management issues in a state of not-knowing, without any self-referential thought. Many times he was surprised at solutions to problems that arose spontaneously in the absence of any I-thoughts. ATA-MT is exactly the same thing as "looking at the world with a still mind." Yes, like I said I understand ATA-MT intellectually. I don't know if this is related, but the problem I'm having is thinking, acting, talking, and relating as a separate doer, when in fact I know intellectually that is an illusion. It's like the illusion has taken on the guise of the one who knows there is no doer. So it says that really there is nothing to do or conversely there is something to do, like ATA-MT. But by definition a separate self does have choice as a doer, can't honestly make those claims. Do you know what I mean? Yes, I know what you mean. Being under the illusion of a separate doer is common to everyone who begins following this path. It can't be helped. ATA-MT is simply a methodology that helps "what is" see through the illusion of selfhood. Who/what we are is the whole shebang manifesting momentarily through a particular body/mind. Whatever the body does feels as if "I" (small self) am doing it. If the body/mind pursues ATA-MT, it means that the real doer--"what is"--is doing it because the imaginary self is imaginary and can't do anything. Thus, if you are driving a car to work, this is how "what is" manifests, and if you are doing ATA-MT, this is how "what is" manifests. When attention is repeatedly shifted away from thoughts to what can be seen, heard, felt, etc,, this activity interrupts ALL thinking, but most importantly it interrupts self-referential thinking. Instead of thinking "I" "my" "me" "mine" all day long, and repeating self-referential stories, the body looks, listens, feels, tastes, smells, etc. and interacts with the world through direct sensory perception. This is how babies and very young children interact with the world. If Weber and his brain studies are correct concerning how direct perception interrupts the circuit of self-referentiality, then two things happen. First, the personal narrative and the internal dialogue slow down because less time is being devoted to self-reflexive thinking and constant mental commentary, and second, the body responds more and more directly to whatever is happening. Eventually, the illusion of selfhood suddenly collapses or is seen through. In Weber's case, he was doing a yoga pose that he had done hundreds of times in the past, and in the midst of the pose the personal narrative simply ceased, and he realized that he was not who he had thought he was. In his case, the narrative did not re-start. In another case, a psychiatrist had practiced meditation for many years, but had never lost the sense of selfhood. He had gone as far as he could go and simply accepted that life was okay as it was. He ceased his active seeking, and did not think anything was happening (no more obvious psychological "progress" was occurring), but fourteen years later, while waiting for a client, selfhood suddenly disappeared, and he realized that his idea of who he had thought he was was only an idea/story that had now disappeared. In each of these cases the individuals felt like separate doers up to a certain specific point in time, and then the illusion vanished. They then realized in a direct embodied way that "what is"--the entire cosmos--is a unified whole, and the separate doer is an illusion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2014 15:37:20 GMT -5
Yes, like I said I understand ATA-MT intellectually. I don't know if this is related, but the problem I'm having is thinking, acting, talking, and relating as a separate doer, when in fact I know intellectually that is an illusion. It's like the illusion has taken on the guise of the one who knows there is no doer. So it says that really there is nothing to do or conversely there is something to do, like ATA-MT. But by definition a separate self does have choice as a doer, can't honestly make those claims. Do you know what I mean? Yes, I know what you mean. Being under the illusion of a separate doer is common to everyone who begins following this path. It can't be helped. ATA-MT is simply a methodology that helps "what is" see through the illusion of selfhood. Who/what we are is the whole shebang manifesting momentarily through a particular body/mind. Whatever the body does feels as if "I" (small self) am doing it. If the body/mind pursues ATA-MT, it means that the real doer--"what is"--is doing it because the imaginary self is imaginary and can't do anything. Thus, if you are driving a car to work, this is how "what is" manifests, and if you are doing ATA-MT, this is how "what is" manifests. When attention is repeatedly shifted away from thoughts to what can be seen, heard, felt, etc,, this activity interrupts ALL thinking, but most importantly it interrupts self-referential thinking. Instead of thinking "I" "my" "me" "mine" all day long, and repeating self-referential stories, the body looks, listens, feels, tastes, smells, etc. and interacts with the world through direct sensory perception. This is how babies and very young children interact with the world. If Weber and his brain studies are correct concerning how direct perception interrupts the circuit of self-referentiality, then two things happen. First, the personal narrative and the internal dialogue slow down because less time is being devoted to self-reflexive thinking and constant mental commentary, and second, the body responds more and more directly to whatever is happening. Eventually, the illusion of selfhood suddenly collapses or is seen through. In Weber's case, he was doing a yoga pose that he had done hundreds of times in the past, and in the midst of the pose the personal narrative simply ceased, and he realized that he was not who he had thought he was. In his case, the narrative did not re-start. In another case, a psychiatrist had practiced meditation for many years, but had never lost the sense of selfhood. He had gone as far as he could go and simply accepted that life was okay as it was. He ceased his active seeking, and did not think anything was happening (no more obvious psychological "progress" was occurring), but fourteen years later, while waiting for a client, selfhood suddenly disappeared, and he realized that his idea of who he had thought he was was only an idea/story that had now disappeared. In each of these cases the individuals felt like separate doers up to a certain specific point in time, and then the illusion vanished. They then realized in a direct embodied way that "what is"--the entire cosmos--is a unified whole, and the separate doer is an illusion. Yes, I understand all that. I guess what I'm getting at is that the one who tells someone who believes they are a separate doer to do ATA or to look with a clear/still mind must also believe they are a separate doer. What they are doing is perpetuating the belief of separate doers. Because those 2 practices cannot actually be initiated by an illusion. It can only be done by awareness itself. If we know ourselves not to be separate doers then why tell people there is something they can do? It's a contradiction, but perhaps a necessary one. Maybe Max is right I am engaging in TMT.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 18, 2014 16:27:04 GMT -5
Yes, I know what you mean. Being under the illusion of a separate doer is common to everyone who begins following this path. It can't be helped. ATA-MT is simply a methodology that helps "what is" see through the illusion of selfhood. Who/what we are is the whole shebang manifesting momentarily through a particular body/mind. Whatever the body does feels as if "I" (small self) am doing it. If the body/mind pursues ATA-MT, it means that the real doer--"what is"--is doing it because the imaginary self is imaginary and can't do anything. Thus, if you are driving a car to work, this is how "what is" manifests, and if you are doing ATA-MT, this is how "what is" manifests. When attention is repeatedly shifted away from thoughts to what can be seen, heard, felt, etc,, this activity interrupts ALL thinking, but most importantly it interrupts self-referential thinking. Instead of thinking "I" "my" "me" "mine" all day long, and repeating self-referential stories, the body looks, listens, feels, tastes, smells, etc. and interacts with the world through direct sensory perception. This is how babies and very young children interact with the world. If Weber and his brain studies are correct concerning how direct perception interrupts the circuit of self-referentiality, then two things happen. First, the personal narrative and the internal dialogue slow down because less time is being devoted to self-reflexive thinking and constant mental commentary, and second, the body responds more and more directly to whatever is happening. Eventually, the illusion of selfhood suddenly collapses or is seen through. In Weber's case, he was doing a yoga pose that he had done hundreds of times in the past, and in the midst of the pose the personal narrative simply ceased, and he realized that he was not who he had thought he was. In his case, the narrative did not re-start. In another case, a psychiatrist had practiced meditation for many years, but had never lost the sense of selfhood. He had gone as far as he could go and simply accepted that life was okay as it was. He ceased his active seeking, and did not think anything was happening (no more obvious psychological "progress" was occurring), but fourteen years later, while waiting for a client, selfhood suddenly disappeared, and he realized that his idea of who he had thought he was was only an idea/story that had now disappeared. In each of these cases the individuals felt like separate doers up to a certain specific point in time, and then the illusion vanished. They then realized in a direct embodied way that "what is"--the entire cosmos--is a unified whole, and the separate doer is an illusion. Yes, I understand all that. I guess what I'm getting at is that the one who tells someone who believes they are a separate doer to do ATA or to look with a clear/still mind must also believe they are a separate doer. What they are doing is perpetuating the belief of separate doers. Because those 2 practices cannot actually be initiated by an illusion. It can only be done by awareness itself. If we know ourselves not to be separate doers then why tell people there is something they can do? It's a contradiction, but perhaps a necessary one. Maybe Max is right I am engaging in TMT. Yes you are engaging in TMT but know that not only is there is absolutely nothing wrong with that, it's actually completely natural. This contradiction you are encountering is where the thinker lands every time. Every. Single. Time. It takes various forms and if you read along here on this board or any one like it you'll encounter all sorts of them and there's probably no end. Noticing of this happens. The question of what or who notices is where insight ends and the potential for devotion begins. It's at those instances, either in the questioning or the noticing, where perspective can open up to that spacious, still awareness, and in one deep breath, there is simple and sublime being.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Apr 18, 2014 18:24:57 GMT -5
Just sit with that. Is it possible that you are participating in a mutual reflection? That is, the very behavior that you feel necessary to reflect back, was actually a reflection in the first place? I'm not placing blame anywhere, by the way. I'm just pointing to an endless and pointless back and forth. If the aim is open and honest discussion, do it. Just do it. The reflection of aggressive tactics distracts from that aim. In my opinion, it obviously doesn't work either. Try ignoring what you see as aggression and respond open and honestly. Set aside the need to reflect aggression back and see what happens. How can that be possible if he has the monopoly on clarity here? i, as a singular proponent of clarity Are you that desperate, to try to build your illusion on the misrepresentation you are conjuring? here's the context from which you took the quoted line to misrepresent its message: The message is that there is a concerted effort by many to discredit the individual 'Tzu', who is acting a the 'singular proponent of clarity' in contrast to those with overwhelming time and resources that attack Tzu's message: "look, with a still mind's awareness", because Tzu's message doesn't use the club's approved/preferred words/descriptions.. there is absolutely no claim by me that i have exclusively acquired clarity or a monopoly on it, that is the illusion you want others to believe.. i am revealing the actuality of the futility when dealing with those with overwhelming resources that insist on specialized linguistics and beliefs, rather than let that go in favor of a more expansive openness..
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 18, 2014 18:42:11 GMT -5
How can that be possible if he has the monopoly on clarity here? Are you that desperate, to try to build your illusion on the misrepresentation you are conjuring? here's the context from which you took the quoted line to misrepresent its message: The message is that there is a concerted effort by many to discredit the individual 'Tzu', who is acting a the 'singular proponent of clarity' in contrast to those with overwhelming time and resources that attack Tzu's message: "look, with a still mind's awareness", because Tzu's message doesn't use the club's approved/preferred words/descriptions.. there is absolutely no claim by me that i have exclusively acquired clarity or a monopoly on it, that is the illusion you want others to believe.. i am revealing the actuality of the futility when dealing with those with overwhelming resources that insist on specialized linguistics and beliefs, rather than let that go in favor of a more expansive openness.. "Look with a still mind" is something that anyone that you name a member of the club would likely be comfortable writing, and the straight-up meaning of those words is something that we accept and embrace. That's been pointed out repeatedly.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2014 18:53:52 GMT -5
Are you that desperate, to try to build your illusion on the misrepresentation you are conjuring? here's the context from which you took the quoted line to misrepresent its message: The message is that there is a concerted effort by many to discredit the individual 'Tzu', who is acting a the 'singular proponent of clarity' in contrast to those with overwhelming time and resources that attack Tzu's message: "look, with a still mind's awareness", because Tzu's message doesn't use the club's approved/preferred words/descriptions.. there is absolutely no claim by me that i have exclusively acquired clarity or a monopoly on it, that is the illusion you want others to believe.. i am revealing the actuality of the futility when dealing with those with overwhelming resources that insist on specialized linguistics and beliefs, rather than let that go in favor of a more expansive openness.. "Look with a still mind" is something that anyone that you name a member of the club would likely be comfortable writing, and the straight-up meaning of those words is something that we accept and embrace. That's been pointed out repeatedly. What is the club?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2014 19:11:27 GMT -5
"Look with a still mind" is something that anyone that you name a member of the club would likely be comfortable writing, and the straight-up meaning of those words is something that we accept and embrace. That's been pointed out repeatedly. What is the club? a fiction in Tzu's 'still mind' or, as he would call it, a core group of members who are hindering his message of something another
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2014 19:47:30 GMT -5
a fiction in Tzu's 'still mind' or, as he would call it, a core group of members who are hindering his message of something anotherDoesn't sound like it's a fiction to Tzu.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Apr 18, 2014 20:03:16 GMT -5
Yes, I know what you mean. Being under the illusion of a separate doer is common to everyone who begins following this path. It can't be helped. ATA-MT is simply a methodology that helps "what is" see through the illusion of selfhood. Who/what we are is the whole shebang manifesting momentarily through a particular body/mind. Whatever the body does feels as if "I" (small self) am doing it. If the body/mind pursues ATA-MT, it means that the real doer--"what is"--is doing it because the imaginary self is imaginary and can't do anything. Thus, if you are driving a car to work, this is how "what is" manifests, and if you are doing ATA-MT, this is how "what is" manifests. When attention is repeatedly shifted away from thoughts to what can be seen, heard, felt, etc,, this activity interrupts ALL thinking, but most importantly it interrupts self-referential thinking. Instead of thinking "I" "my" "me" "mine" all day long, and repeating self-referential stories, the body looks, listens, feels, tastes, smells, etc. and interacts with the world through direct sensory perception. This is how babies and very young children interact with the world. If Weber and his brain studies are correct concerning how direct perception interrupts the circuit of self-referentiality, then two things happen. First, the personal narrative and the internal dialogue slow down because less time is being devoted to self-reflexive thinking and constant mental commentary, and second, the body responds more and more directly to whatever is happening. Eventually, the illusion of selfhood suddenly collapses or is seen through. In Weber's case, he was doing a yoga pose that he had done hundreds of times in the past, and in the midst of the pose the personal narrative simply ceased, and he realized that he was not who he had thought he was. In his case, the narrative did not re-start. In another case, a psychiatrist had practiced meditation for many years, but had never lost the sense of selfhood. He had gone as far as he could go and simply accepted that life was okay as it was. He ceased his active seeking, and did not think anything was happening (no more obvious psychological "progress" was occurring), but fourteen years later, while waiting for a client, selfhood suddenly disappeared, and he realized that his idea of who he had thought he was was only an idea/story that had now disappeared. In each of these cases the individuals felt like separate doers up to a certain specific point in time, and then the illusion vanished. They then realized in a direct embodied way that "what is"--the entire cosmos--is a unified whole, and the separate doer is an illusion. Yes, I understand all that. I guess what I'm getting at is that the one who tells someone who believes they are a separate doer to do ATA or to look with a clear/still mind must also believe they are a separate doer. What they are doing is perpetuating the belief of separate doers. Because those 2 practices cannot actually be initiated by an illusion. It can only be done by awareness itself. If we know ourselves not to be separate doers then why tell people there is something they can do? It's a contradiction, but perhaps a necessary one. Maybe Max is right I am engaging in TMT. There is no contradiction, because the two practices are not something the illusory self can do. The illusory self just thinks, thinks, thinks. You have said it yourself, "those two practices cannot actually be initiated by an illusion". IOW, if you are ATA-MT, you are (temporarily) out of the illusion. And from Weber and zd, if you live there for hours on end, thousands and thousands of hours, the illusory self eventually just falls away. (This fits nicely into my view, essence/true self = ATA-MT and illusory self = personality/ego/false self/persona. And eventually you move from persona/illusory self as default setting to essence as default, through interior practices, it's obligatory). sdp
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2014 20:22:51 GMT -5
Yes, I understand all that. I guess what I'm getting at is that the one who tells someone who believes they are a separate doer to do ATA or to look with a clear/still mind must also believe they are a separate doer. What they are doing is perpetuating the belief of separate doers. Because those 2 practices cannot actually be initiated by an illusion. It can only be done by awareness itself. If we know ourselves not to be separate doers then why tell people there is something they can do? It's a contradiction, but perhaps a necessary one. Maybe Max is right I am engaging in TMT. There is no contradiction, because the two practices are not something the illusory self can do. The illusory self just thinks, thinks, thinks. You have said it yourself, "those two practices cannot actually be initiated by an illusion". IOW, if you are ATA-MT, you are (temporarily) out of the illusion. And from Weber and zd, if you live there for hours on end, thousands and thousands of hours, the illusory self eventually just falls away. (This fits nicely into my view, essence/true self = ATA-MT and illusory self = personality/ego/false self/persona. And eventually you move from persona/illusory self as default setting to essence as default). sdp Yes, those practices aren't something an illusory self can do. So if the illusory self has fallen away in someone, why do they advise people who believe they are a separate self to do those practices? Perhaps it's just a cosmic joke. That I would get.
|
|
|
Post by topology on Apr 18, 2014 20:26:48 GMT -5
There is no contradiction, because the two practices are not something the illusory self can do. The illusory self just thinks, thinks, thinks. You have said it yourself, "those two practices cannot actually be initiated by an illusion". IOW, if you are ATA-MT, you are (temporarily) out of the illusion. And from Weber and zd, if you live there for hours on end, thousands and thousands of hours, the illusory self eventually just falls away. (This fits nicely into my view, essence/true self = ATA-MT and illusory self = personality/ego/false self/persona. And eventually you move from persona/illusory self as default setting to essence as default). sdp Yes, those practices aren't something an illusory self can do. So if the illusory self has fallen away in someone, why do they advise people who believe they are a separate self to do those practices? P erhaps it's just a cosmic joke. That I would get.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Apr 18, 2014 20:33:39 GMT -5
Are you that desperate, to try to build your illusion on the misrepresentation you are conjuring? here's the context from which you took the quoted line to misrepresent its message: The message is that there is a concerted effort by many to discredit the individual 'Tzu', who is acting a the 'singular proponent of clarity' in contrast to those with overwhelming time and resources that attack Tzu's message: "look, with a still mind's awareness", because Tzu's message doesn't use the club's approved/preferred words/descriptions.. there is absolutely no claim by me that i have exclusively acquired clarity or a monopoly on it, that is the illusion you want others to believe.. i am revealing the actuality of the futility when dealing with those with overwhelming resources that insist on specialized linguistics and beliefs, rather than let that go in favor of a more expansive openness.. "Look with a still mind" is something that anyone that you name a member of the club would likely be comfortable writing, and the straight-up meaning of those words is something that we accept and embrace. That's been pointed out repeatedly. If you accept and embrace looking with a still mind, how do you justify your choice to provoke, mock, and ridicule others, or.. how do you justify your choice to insist that mind-play like, "There is, of course, never really anyone home and never was", when it is clearly a conceptually structured model? Continually returning to the seeing/experiencing with a still mind's awareness, is the process of letting go of attachments like belief models and the self-proclaimed authority to provoke, mock and ridicule others for not accepting your self-proclaimed authority..
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Apr 18, 2014 20:45:14 GMT -5
"Look with a still mind" is something that anyone that you name a member of the club would likely be comfortable writing, and the straight-up meaning of those words is something that we accept and embrace. That's been pointed out repeatedly. What is the club? It's a reference to Enigma, Laughter, and Reefs, and their consistent and well-practiced alignment in the manipulation and misrepresentation of actuality in an effort to create the illusion that their beliefs are superior to any challenge or question of them.. I think it was Silver that first coined the phrase 'The too cool for school Club', it stuck for a while.. now, it's just a convenient reference for their 'secret club' model, with its special initiation and words, and leader (E), complete with a club enforcer (Laffy)..
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 18, 2014 20:52:52 GMT -5
Perhaps you've created a false dichotomy? The mind operates on multiple levels, none of which need to be "fixed". On the surface practical level, reasoning about individuated bodies with needs to be met and taking action to meet those needs is a necessary part of living life and problem solving. I have to go to work, put food on the table to feed my kids, these are all the practical concerns in my life. These are my current frustrations, problems I'm facing etc. All of that is part and parcel of the human experience, and there is nothing wrong with having that. On a deeper level, however, the realization that things are not separate, that its all just a fiction, that there is nothing really wrong (even with the perception of seeing problems to address), that puts more of the core emotions and tensions at ease. The deeper mind can allow the surface mind do its frenetic thing and value the surface mind for its problem solving and getting nuts done. The relaxation of the deeper mind, the release of those existential worries and tensions, allows that calmness to slowly seep into the surface mind until at some point in the future, that calmness is reflected in the movements of the surface mind as well. I don't see your "problem" as a real problem. The real problem is found in requiring the surface mind to conform to the letter of the definition of the intellectual realization. Mind is stilling thinking about how the world ought to be, instead of accepting how it is. Just relax. It's examples like this that sends me running for the hills, this talk of "multiple levels" of mind with contradictory understandings. But I would agree that I am emulating a fallacy within the advaita teachings. Being that I the separate self knows there's nothing for me to do, there's nobody here, there's no where to go. I still think and feel like a separate self, but I also know that there's nothing for me to do. It's a total contradiction. I'm curious. What does "nobody here" actually mean to you?
|
|
|
Post by silver on Apr 18, 2014 20:58:13 GMT -5
It's a reference to Enigma, Laughter, and Reefs, and their consistent and well-practiced alignment in the manipulation and misrepresentation of actuality in an effort to create the illusion that their beliefs are superior to any challenge or question of them.. I think it was Silver that first coined the phrase 'The too cool for school Club', it stuck for a while.. now, it's just a convenient reference for their 'secret club' model, with its special initiation and words, and leader (E), complete with a club enforcer (Laffy).. Wow, I did? I think anybody's memory is bound to be better than mine...so I'll take your word for it. I decided to work around their shenanigans and see what I can glean, in any event.
|
|