Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2017 19:21:57 GMT -5
Mind can only do one thing perfectly at one time. Mind needs to be directed by a Director that being outside the mind.Yes. But you don't ~ need~ the mind. You only need the "Director". BUT I find interesting. You are true because the mind vaporises in moment that get ppl into their body to feel the heat arising. EMBARRASEMENT is an expression of the Source Minds are trying to capture.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 9, 2017 19:23:21 GMT -5
"Where are you when you ata-mt? The body." I'm just asking you what you mean by that. It's silly to worry about using words on a discussion forum. Why not live dangerously? Take a ride on the wild side. Well, what I mean is that when you ATA, eventually there is a point where it seems as though what you are is this thing looking out through the body. If the question is where am I during ATA, the answer in words would make sense as "the body." Everything seems very centered in the body at that time. Seems. I couldn't remember who finally ~got it~, so I was backtracking to the moment. And my recollect is that mamza and I were also PMing some also. If I look back further my recollection is I practically ~pointed to~ the answer, but he is the only one who stuck in there. And this thread is directly related to the current thread, If you want to know what ZD knows, and (the book) The Awakening Body thread. (Thus the bumps).
|
|
|
Post by krsnaraja on Jan 9, 2017 19:24:09 GMT -5
When ~you~ ATA-MT, where are ~ you~? (For any new people, ATA-MT is zd's attending the actual, minus thoughts). And, some, probably most here find the MT part not so easy. I've tried to consider an aid to this. When you are reading a book you are replacing the words for your own thoughts. So in a sense when you read you are ATA-MT, they're just somebody else's thoughts, not your own. This shows you can ATA-MT. Next try looking at a work of art, a painting or a sculpture. You can look at it, attend to it, without an internal verbal commentary. And then when you can begin to see that, you can ATA(anything)-MT. So there is ~you~ as self (thoughts being a major part thereof, desire, probably a greater part) and then there is ~ you~ as attending, in some sense. To cut to the chase, this thread is a continuation of the Presence or Absence thread, a sort of Part B. So, the question remains, in ATA-MT, where are you? And in what sense are you? sdp As I read the musings. it was for the very first time I understood what ATA-MT meant. Because I find it in some posts mentioning ATA-T or TMT. Being new ( reg last December 11, 2016 ) I thought TMT meant Thead Mill Test. Am I correct? So, there are words after words from you I have to decipher. English being a second language. From where I came our language of communication is Visayan, Tagalog or Filipino. Culturally, there might be commentaries/reactions that come from posts I misinterpret. Okay, these are just mt thoughts for this thread ( ATA-T ). If ATA-MT ( blank ).
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 9, 2017 19:24:55 GMT -5
Yes. But you don't ~ need~ the mind. You only need the "Director". BUT I find interesting. You are true because the mind vaporises in moment that get ppl into their body to feel the heat arising. EMBARRASEMENT is an expression of the Source Minds are trying to capture. I (think) I like, even though don't fully understand.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 9, 2017 19:28:10 GMT -5
"The body" didn't come to my mind because the body is an object within my field of perception. My response to "where are you?" Would be 'perceiving' as my "location" is more about what state exists than in what subregion of the perceptive field do I locate myself? Yeah. I only guessed it because halfway through he started dropping no so subtle hints about body parts, not because I was able to follow the line of thinking. I still don't see how the answer (the body) fits into the original question "where are you." Yes.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 9, 2017 19:31:34 GMT -5
In this moment, are you aware of all your body parts at once? Of course not. If you are experiencing your head(sensation) then you are not experiencing your feet(sensation). You never actually experience a 'body', just sensations. That was the whole point of sdp's koan. 'What are you not experiencing the non-absence of'? You are not experiencing a body, even though you believe you are a body. Well.......no........that's not accurate. Partially, I wrote that it's not that you (anyone) never experience (the) ____ (body), but the shift from non-experiencing ____ (the body) to experiencing ____ (the body) is illusive. When you are not-experiencing the (non)absence of ____ (the body), you don't know that you are not experiencing it. I told mamza when he was working, there is another thread about absence, it is correct that one can never experience the absence of the self. But here is this which is always present that it's possible not to experience. sdp This has a great deal to do with The Awakening Body, Rey's book.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2017 19:34:39 GMT -5
BUT I find interesting. You are true because the mind vaporises in moment that get ppl into their body to feel the heat arising. EMBARRASEMENT is an expression of the Source Minds are trying to capture. I (think) I like, even though don't fully understand. BUT is very interesting. I like Butts as they take one a little deeper into the body-mind. YESbut is the Devils word. When the mind's occupant is foiled, a wave of energy arises up the spine flushing the face with heat... Feeling comes about where the obstacles (blocks) are present. In this model, the face is wearing a mask. NOT you STP. Minds are trying to make sense of a self it cannot KNOW. Emptyness is emptyness.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2017 19:53:37 GMT -5
Well.......no........that's not accurate. Partially, I wrote that it's not that you (anyone) never experience (the) ____ (body), but the shift from non-experiencing ____ (the body) to experiencing ____ (the body) is illusive. When you are not-experiencing the (non)absence of ____ (the body), you don't know that you are not experiencing it. I told mamza when he was working, there is another thread about absence, it is correct that one can never experience the absence of the self. But here is this which is always present that it's possible not to experience. sdp This has a great deal to do with The Awakening Body, Rey's book. interesting. Self can be drained out of experience hence emptiness?
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 9, 2017 20:25:17 GMT -5
The thread title (~you~) had to be ambiguous or there wouldn't have been a thread. rupa with the first post I thought was going to make for a very short thread. But upon pressing I considered it a "broken clock" answer. Same for laughter, topology, alfio and maxdp, who all danced around the answer.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 9, 2017 20:26:53 GMT -5
I (think) I like, even though don't fully understand. BUT is very interesting. I like Butts as they take one a little deeper into the body-mind. YESbut is the Devils word. When the mind's occupant is foiled, a wave of energy arises up the spine flushing the face with heat... Feeling comes about where the obstacles (blocks) are present. In this model, the face is wearing a mask. NOT you STP. Minds are trying to make sense of a self it cannot KNOW. Emptyness is emptyness. OK, alfio.....
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 10, 2017 13:49:06 GMT -5
This is no longer a clue as the cat is out of the bag, but I earlier thought of this story which points to the answer, but didn't note it and happened to remember it again only last night. It's the story of the tenth man. Wu Wei Wu actually wrote a book with the title. Now, we can't imagine, when reading the story, that such a thing could happen, we would never make the same mistake, but it points to "that which is missing, isn't missed, when it is missing". Once there were ten men making a long wilderness trip. They came to a mighty rushing river that they had to cross. They decided to count their numbers on the other side to make sure everybody made it. When they had crossed, one man counted. He came up with only nine men. They were pretty worried that somebody didn't make it across, so another man counted. He also came up with nine. A third man counted and he too came up with only nine. Each man in turn counted and each man likewise came up with only nine. Where was the tenth man? sdp ...........bumped..........
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 30, 2017 14:03:00 GMT -5
...........bumped for alertpeaceeternal......... When ~you~ ATA-MT, where are ~ you~? (For any new people, ATA-MT is zd's attending the actual, minus thoughts). And, some, probably most here find the MT part not so easy. I've tried to consider an aid to this. When you are reading a book you are replacing the words for your own thoughts. So in a sense when you read you are ATA-MT, they're just somebody else's thoughts, not your own. This shows you can ATA-MT. Next try looking at a work of art, a painting or a sculpture. You can look at it, attend to it, without an internal verbal commentary. And then when you can begin to see that, you can ATA(anything)-MT. So there is ~you~ as self (thoughts being a major part thereof, desire, probably a greater part) and then there is ~ you~ as attending, in some sense. To cut to the chase, this thread is a continuation of the Presence or Absence thread, a sort of Part B. So, the question remains, in ATA-MT, where are you? And in what sense are you? sdp
|
|
|
Post by alertpeaceeternal on Jan 30, 2017 14:34:10 GMT -5
...........bumped for alertpeaceeternal......... When ~you~ ATA-MT, where are ~ you~? (For any new people, ATA-MT is zd's attending the actual, minus thoughts). And, some, probably most here find the MT part not so easy. I've tried to consider an aid to this. When you are reading a book you are replacing the words for your own thoughts. So in a sense when you read you are ATA-MT, they're just somebody else's thoughts, not your own. This shows you can ATA-MT. Next try looking at a work of art, a painting or a sculpture. You can look at it, attend to it, without an internal verbal commentary. And then when you can begin to see that, you can ATA(anything)-MT. So there is ~you~ as self (thoughts being a major part thereof, desire, probably a greater part) and then there is ~ you~ as attending, in some sense. To cut to the chase, this thread is a continuation of the Presence or Absence thread, a sort of Part B. So, the question remains, in ATA-MT, where are you? And in what sense are you? sdp Thanks for asking. Here is my answer: I don't answer questions that are not asked properly. IOW, phrase the question more preciesly. What do you want to know from me? One sentence please. By the way, the buddhist/emptiness teachers I respect are Greg Goode and Shinzen Young. If one of them ask the question I will understand the question and can answer it.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 30, 2017 19:09:19 GMT -5
...........bumped for alertpeaceeternal......... Thanks for asking. Here is my answer: I don't answer questions that are not asked properly. IOW, phrase the question more preciesly. What do you want to know from me? One sentence please. By the way, the buddhist/emptiness teachers I respect are Greg Goode and Shinzen Young. If one of them ask the question I will understand the question and can answer it. The only way to ask it is to ask it ambiguously. A direct question is almost rhetorical, answers itself. The answer is as plan as the nose on your face, that is, unless you are a headless student of Douglas Harding. Several people guessed right, but upon testing them with further questions I could tell it was only a (broken clock) guessed answer, like the German dictionary definition of identification (anybody can read a dictionary. But of course not everybody can read a German dictionary). You said Where are you? is a good question. So, asking in another way the thread question, Where are you? (Or, further, Where are you most of the time? Where are you very little of the time? Or, asking a different way, Where are you not, most of the time? That is, the "psychological" ~you~, the ~functional~ you, the practically-speaking you. Where...are...you?)
|
|
|
Post by penny on Jan 30, 2017 20:05:37 GMT -5
Where am I was my mantra and connected to that was What am I? Anything perceptible couldn't be what was perceiving yet perceiving was happening as something seemingly independent of every perceptible thing perceived. Everything was perceived except the perceiving. This led to a void that was impossible to escape. Where am I? Not here nor there, not anywhere.
Looking back it's so obvious now, it was smacking me in the face the whole time. Perceiving perceiving perceiving. Running in circles.
|
|