|
Post by zendancer on Jan 30, 2017 20:18:45 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 ). Correct.
|
|
|
Post by alertpeaceeternal on Jan 30, 2017 20:20:39 GMT -5
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?) The answer is: 1.) I don't play Zendancer's mind-games. I don't care about it, like totally....not. 2.) The right question would be, according to Ramana: "Where am I?" And not "Where are you"!!! 3.) I consider Zendancer's approach/teaching/method as not ripe enough for me to even bother about it. (Yes, I'm arrogant). 4.) I don't care about my "ranking" in Zendancer's deludarium, like totally...not. (And yes, I have rigid tendencys. As this list shows.)
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 30, 2017 21:16:15 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. "it was smacking me in the face the whole time". Indubitably.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 30, 2017 21:21:49 GMT -5
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?) The answer is: 1.) I don't play Zendancer's mind-games. I don't care about it, like totally....not. 2.) The right question would be, according to Ramana: "Where am I?" And not "Where are you"!!! 3.) I consider Zendancer's approach/teaching/method as not ripe enough for me to even bother about it. (Yes, I'm arrogant). 4.) I don't care about my "ranking" in Zendancer's deludarium, like totally...not. (And yes, I have rigid tendencys. As this list shows.) (2): Where am I? Fine, no problem. (Where are you?) (3): ripe enough?
|
|
|
Post by penny on Feb 1, 2017 19:27:42 GMT -5
I'm wondering if how I am with music is ATA-MT. I've had favorite songs and never because of the lyrics. I couldn't actually say what the names of most songs I like are. The combination of the music and voice and how they meld together is what attracts me and the more dramatic the better. I will sing along so apparently know the words but the meaning of the words isn't present in my mind, just the sound. It's like being one with sound. Bishop Briggs Like a River is my latest favorite and I have no idea what she's singing about, don't care I just love her voice.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 1, 2017 19:35:51 GMT -5
I'm wondering if how I am with music is ATA-MT. I've had favorite songs and never because of the lyrics. I couldn't actually say what the names of most songs I like are. The combination of the music and voice and how they meld together is what attracts me and the more dramatic the better. I will sing along so apparently know the words but the meaning of the words isn't present in my mind, just the sound. It's like being one with sound. Bishop Briggs Like a River is my latest favorite and I have no idea what she's singing about, don't care I just love her voice. Yes, I would say that is ATA-T (ATA-MT). You're hearing the music (and even lyrics), so you are (just) sensing, the actual is music. If there is no thinking on the music, no reflecting on the music, just the hearing, that's ATA-T. You can use any of the senses in ATA-T, taste, touch, smell, hearing and seeing.
|
|
|
Post by penny on Feb 1, 2017 19:47:55 GMT -5
Cool, now I understand this.
|
|
|
Post by alertpeaceeternal on Feb 2, 2017 15:32:52 GMT -5
Cool, now I understand this.
|
|
|
Post by alertpeaceeternal on Feb 2, 2017 17:30:46 GMT -5
The answer is: 1.) I don't play Zendancer's mind-games. I don't care about it, like totally....not. 2.) The right question would be, according to Ramana: "Where am I?" And not "Where are you"!!! 3.) I consider Zendancer's approach/teaching/method as not ripe enough for me to even bother about it. (Yes, I'm arrogant). 4.) I don't care about my "ranking" in Zendancer's deludarium, like totally...not. (And yes, I have rigid tendencys. As this list shows.) (2): Where am I? Fine, no problem. (Where are you?)(3): ripe enough? 1.) What do you mean by "where"? 2.) What is the difference between "am" are "are" regarding the two different questions. 3.) What do you mean by "you" in this particular context? Also: When you ask me "where are you" there might be many answers to that. But to the question "who am I?", asked by ME, asking myself this question, that is a koan. The other one isn't. Edit: I already gave an answer to the question "where are you?". What did I answer, Stardustpilgrim?
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 2, 2017 19:23:41 GMT -5
(2): Where am I? Fine, no problem. (Where are you?)(3): ripe enough? 1.) What do you mean by "where"? 2.) What is the difference between "am" are "are" regarding the two different questions. 3.) What do you mean by "you" in this particular context? Also: When you ask me "where are you" there might be many answers to that. But to the question "who am I?", asked by ME, asking myself this question, that is a koan. The other one isn't. Edit: I already gave an answer to the question "where are you?". What did I answer, Stardustpilgrim? These are very most excellent questions. Start with edit. I just now read through all your posts here again, I didn't find a significant answer. (1): is a most excellent question, because the answer gives the OP away. One person got the answer about the middle of the thread, but I had to "spoon-feed" him, meaning, practically handed him the answer. But then nobody else was interested a that point. The second post essentially had the answer, and I thought this was going to be a very quick thread, but upon asking further questions, he didn't recognize that his answer was a real answer, IOW, a case of a broken clock answer (even a broken clock has the correct time twice a day). Where? Think GPS coordinates. (For example, for at least about eleven years now surveyors (can) use GPS to survey land, so that's down to a stake margin of error (say about 1/2 inch). [OK, now, I hope it's "Duh" time, IOW, I hope you got it by now, or will shortly. But this whole question is related to the story of the tenth man. It might seem trivial, but it's not. The fact that you are the only person who has ever gotten it (without being spoon-fed) should show it is not trivial. And it also tells why I NEVER got the Douglas Harding *Headless thing*, except as a metaphor (IOW, I couldn't 'be headless' when I tried)]. (2): I think just a matter of grammar (but I will look again). (3): I had difficulty in posing this part of the question, that's why I put the little ~swirly marks~ around ~you~, trying to show I didn't mean exactly you. Because in ATA-T there isn't a you. If there is a you involved, then it isn't ATA-T. But then the whole question revolves around (essentially) ZD's view of the world and *my* view (my tradition's) view of the universe, and *man's* relation to the universe. So, therefore, I will leave that question for further investigation (for anyone who wishes to), that is, putting the ~you~ and where together. That is, my answer will differ from ZD's answer (and I've tried to point this out in many posts over the years). But with where and you more defined, now the question should be able to be answered (even if I have a different answer). And then this is also directly related to identification (and the defining identification thread, which I am not inclined to directly answer [yet anyway], as the last poster asked). And the "also", yes correct. (But, again, my answer will be different because of the precise definition of identification). Edit: The Presence thread is also directly related (hopefully obviously now).
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 5, 2017 14:48:47 GMT -5
1.) What do you mean by "where"? 2.) What is the difference between "am" are "are" regarding the two different questions. 3.) What do you mean by "you" in this particular context? Also: When you ask me "where are you" there might be many answers to that. But to the question "who am I?", asked by ME, asking myself this question, that is a koan. The other one isn't. Edit: I already gave an answer to the question "where are you?". What did I answer, Stardustpilgrim? These are very most excellent questions. Start with edit. I just now read through all your posts here again, I didn't find a significant answer. (1): is a most excellent question, because the answer gives the OP away. One person got the answer about the middle of the thread, but I had to "spoon-feed" him, meaning, practically handed him the answer. But then nobody else was interested a that point. The second post essentially had the answer, and I thought this was going to be a very quick thread, but upon asking further questions, he didn't recognize that his answer was a real answer, IOW, a case of a broken clock answer (even a broken clock has the correct time twice a day). Where? Think GPS coordinates. (For example, for at least about eleven years now surveyors (can) use GPS to survey land, so that's down to a stake margin of error (say about 1/2 inch). [ OK, now, I hope it's "Duh" time, IOW, I hope you got it by now, or will shortly. But this whole question is related to the story of the tenth man. It might seem trivial, but it's not. The fact that you are the only person who has ever gotten it (without being spoon-fed) should show it is not trivial. And it also tells why I NEVER got the Douglas Harding *Headless thing*, except as a metaphor (IOW, I couldn't 'be headless' when I tried)]. (2): I think just a matter of grammar (but I will look again). (3): I had difficulty in posing this part of the question, that's why I put the little ~swirly marks~ around ~you~, trying to show I didn't mean exactly you. Because in ATA-T there isn't a you. If there is a you involved, then it isn't ATA-T. But then the whole question revolves around (essentially) ZD's view of the world and *my* view (my tradition's) view of the universe, and *man's* relation to the universe. So, therefore, I will leave that question for further investigation (for anyone who wishes to), that is, putting the ~you~ and where together. That is, my answer will differ from ZD's answer (and I've tried to point this out in many posts over the years). But with where and you more defined, now the question should be able to be answered (even if I have a different answer). And then this is also directly related to identification (and the defining identification thread, which I am not inclined to directly answer [yet anyway], as the last poster asked). And the "also", yes correct. (But, again, my answer will be different because of the precise definition of identification). Edit: The Presence thread is also directly related (hopefully obviously now). Or not........
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 12, 2019 15:46:21 GMT -5
..........thread bump..........
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 14, 2020 21:40:28 GMT -5
………..bumped...……… 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 stardustpilgrim on Dec 14, 2020 10:28:22 GMT -5
.........bumped............ 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 stardustpilgrim on Jun 30, 2023 19:22:37 GMT -5
.......bumping for Now.......a current post..... 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
|
|