|
Post by enigma on Apr 18, 2014 22:19:33 GMT -5
You mean if you felt like you were involuntarily forced to pass it, you likely would rebel? Yes, you likely wouldn't have a choice in the matter. Yes, so either way your chances of getting the salt is 50/50. I'll remember to bring my own salt.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 18, 2014 22:31:42 GMT -5
A figment of imagination that is used to justify the nastiness and belligerence of an angry old man who doesn't understand what's been talked about here. So that's one fiction of the mind and one figment of imagination. We just need one more fiction or figment of the mind and we got ourselves a club. It doesn't work without repetition (broken record) though.
|
|
|
Post by silence on Apr 18, 2014 23:38:32 GMT -5
I'm curious. What does "nobody here" actually mean to you? I feel another interrogation coming on. It has no meaning for me. It's jargon that I've picked up along the way.I can appreciate that honesty. It has consistently been my impression that this forum and spiritual circles at large seem to be hardly anything more than people simply regurgitating the same catch phrases and models into infinity.
|
|
|
Post by whiteshaman on Apr 18, 2014 23:44:50 GMT -5
I feel another interrogation coming on. It has no meaning for me. It's jargon that I've picked up along the way.I can appreciate that honesty. It has consistently been my impression that this forum and spiritual circles at large seem to be hardly anything more than people simply regurgitating the same catch phrases and models into infinity. My thought on forums is that it's a way of placing our attention somewhere away from nothing when ironically placing it on nothing is where it's at. I come and go. I get lazy
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 19, 2014 0:07:48 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? There's an online history stretching back several years between various members here that predates their joining and based on that, Tzu' sees several of the membership as aligned and adversarial toward him.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 19, 2014 0:23:54 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. If you accept and embrace looking with a still mind, how do you justify your choice to provoke, mock, and ridicule others, Humor happens. Aggression happens. These aren't still minded observations, but in reading this sentence, is the mind still? 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? If that description of my direct experience seems like mind play to you then that is what it is. No worries, no offense taken. ... but, there is the observation of what seems like a repetitive attempt by Tzu' to either evangelize, discredit or otherwise foster conflict over the expression of a perspective, IOW: aggression happens. Often that's followed by humor. Continually returning to the seeing/experiencing with a still mind's awareness, is the process of letting go of attachments There is a genuine point of ideological difference here between us. The process of letting go of attachments is one that would have no end, while seeing clearly for once and for all what's at the center of them is available to anyone in every single instant and is only ever just one deep breath away. Examining beliefs is always worthwhile, and the prescription to still the mind and just look is applicable to such an inquiry. and the self-proclaimed authority to provoke, mock and ridicule others for not accepting your self-proclaimed authority.. This strikes me as setting up a straw man, iow: aggression happens.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 19, 2014 0:30:33 GMT -5
Ok, I'm back on page 31 and it seems to me that the thread has obviously devolved into a food fight.
Given the subject line, this seems to me to implicate a pattern of disruption on that part of those that reject the idea of nonduality, but this is obviously a rather complex story no matter how well I might be able to justify it.
Regardless, the fact is that the question is quite central to many of the teachers reviewed on Shaun's rating site, so I'm going to respectfully request that everyone please get back on topic and take any personal issues over to the UM side.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Apr 19, 2014 6:23:28 GMT -5
Rupa: You wrote, "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." This is not true; no such belief is necessary.
You wrote: "What they are doing is perpetuating the belief of separate doers." This is also not true.
You wrote: "Because those 2 practices cannot actually be initiated by an illusion." This is true. The illusory self/doer never does anything. It never drives a car, never goes to the bathroom, never writes on the internet, nor anything else, but these things happen. This means that they are done by the real doer, the cosmos itself, which is a unified field of being.
You wrote: "It can only be done by awareness itself." Awareness is not a disembodied doer, so it may not be helpful to think about awareness in that way. The cosmos is aware, but it manifests as the universe we see. You are the cosmos writing on the internet as "Rupa." One day thoughts about Rupa will be seen by the cosmos to be thoughts, only, and the cosmos will get a laugh at how it got attached to the idea that Rupa was a separate doer.
You wrote: "If we know ourselves not to be separate doers then why tell people there is something they can do?" The cosmos, manifesting as a particular human being, tells the cosmos, manifesting as another human being, to shift attention away from self-referential thoughts because self-referential thoughts perpetuate the illusion of a separate self. There is only one actor here, the cosmos, and it interacts only with itself.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2014 11:18:44 GMT -5
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.That's a healthy attitude, but that would still be missing the point. What point are you referring to?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2014 11:20:58 GMT -5
So that's one fiction of the mind and one figment of imagination. We just need one more fiction or figment of the mind and we got ourselves a club. It doesn't work without repetition (broken record) though. What doesn't work without repetition?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2014 11:52:21 GMT -5
Rupa: You wrote, "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." This is not true; no such belief is necessary. The concept of a separate doer is not a problem. It is the belief that a separate doer is real which is the problem. I hear you saying that whether that false belief is held or has collapsed makes no difference.You wrote: "What they are doing is perpetuating the belief of separate doers." This is also not true. If the belief in a separate doer has collapsed then the honest thing to say to someone is there is nothing they can do, not there is something they can do.You wrote: "Because those 2 practices cannot actually be initiated by an illusion." This is true. The illusory self/doer never does anything. It never drives a car, never goes to the bathroom, never writes on the internet, nor anything else, but these things happen. This means that they are done by the real doer, the cosmos itself, which is a unified field of being. You wrote: "It can only be done by awareness itself." Awareness is not a disembodied doer, so it may not be helpful to think about awareness in that way. The cosmos is aware, but it manifests as the universe we see. You are the cosmos writing on the internet as "Rupa." One day thoughts about Rupa will be seen by the cosmos to be thoughts, only, and the cosmos will get a laugh at how it got attached to the idea that Rupa was a separate doer. Yes, I meant that there is only one substance, that being awareness. I agree with you that awareness(pure knowing) doesn't do anything.You wrote: "If we know ourselves not to be separate doers then why tell people there is something they can do?" The cosmos, manifesting as a particular human being, tells the cosmos, manifesting as another human being, to shift attention away from self-referential thoughts because self-referential thoughts perpetuate the illusion of a separate self. There is only one actor here, the cosmos, and it interacts only with itself. Yes, the cosmic joke is Knowing pretending that it is something that has to discover something so that it can know itself.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 19, 2014 11:56:06 GMT -5
That's a healthy attitude, but that would still be missing the point. What point are you referring to? The impact of the illusory self falling away.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2014 12:00:40 GMT -5
What point are you referring to? The impact of the illusory self falling away. Can you tell me more about this impact? I mean who is it that is impacted?
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Apr 19, 2014 12:55:35 GMT -5
Rupa: You wrote, "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." This is not true; no such belief is necessary. The concept of a separate doer is not a problem. It is the belief that a separate doer is real which is the problem. I hear you saying that whether that false belief is held or has collapsed makes no difference.You wrote: "What they are doing is perpetuating the belief of separate doers." This is also not true. If the belief in a separate doer has collapsed then the honest thing to say to someone is there is nothing they can do, not there is something they can do.You wrote: "Because those 2 practices cannot actually be initiated by an illusion." This is true. The illusory self/doer never does anything. It never drives a car, never goes to the bathroom, never writes on the internet, nor anything else, but these things happen. This means that they are done by the real doer, the cosmos itself, which is a unified field of being. You wrote: "It can only be done by awareness itself." Awareness is not a disembodied doer, so it may not be helpful to think about awareness in that way. The cosmos is aware, but it manifests as the universe we see. You are the cosmos writing on the internet as "Rupa." One day thoughts about Rupa will be seen by the cosmos to be thoughts, only, and the cosmos will get a laugh at how it got attached to the idea that Rupa was a separate doer. Yes, I meant that there is only one substance, that being awareness. I agree with you that awareness(pure knowing) doesn't do anything.You wrote: "If we know ourselves not to be separate doers then why tell people there is something they can do?" The cosmos, manifesting as a particular human being, tells the cosmos, manifesting as another human being, to shift attention away from self-referential thoughts because self-referential thoughts perpetuate the illusion of a separate self. There is only one actor here, the cosmos, and it interacts only with itself. Yes, the cosmic joke is Knowing pretending that it is something that has to discover something so that it can know itself.Yes, there are two ways of pointing. The first way is to say, "Because you imagine that you are a separate doer, shift attention away from thoughts to what can be seen, heard, felt, etc." The second way of pointing is to say, "There is nothing "you" can do because who you THINK you are is NOT who you are." Both pointers are pointing to exactly the same thing, and both pointers seem to be successful for certain people. I prefer the first pointer because it usually results in numerous other realizations (besides seeing through the illusion of the personal doer) which make life a lot simpler and easier. Freedom from the mind leads to an acceptance of "what is" and a detachment from the kinds of thoughts that typically create psychological problems. Ultimately it won't matter whether the mind is busy or still, but "getting out of one's head" on a regular basis makes it a lot easier to see what's going on and to penetrate cognitive illusions.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Apr 19, 2014 13:01:56 GMT -5
The impact of the illusory self falling away. Can you tell me more about this impact? I mean who is it that is impacted? Who is it that is impacted? The same one who is reading these words. What is the impact? For most people it ends their spiritual search, and makes them realize that wherever they look they are looking at themselves.
|
|