Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2023 22:45:05 GMT -5
I don't disagree with any of that. I was being a bit intentionally mischievous. 😃 But I was interested to drill down forensically into what it means to: Attend to the actual without or minus thoughts. Firstly we would have to explain what it means to attend to the actual and secondly what exactly the actual is. We don't have to define what minus thoughts or without thoughts means. I think that's obvious. It would also be important to explain whether attending to the actual results in no thoughts or whether no thoughts is a precondition before we even attend to the actual. "What is the actual?" is self-inquiry, and so, beyond definition. "Attending the actual" is eyes open, walking/talking meditation. Analytic thoughts about cheggs can be fun and interesting, but are completely antithetical to the practice. How can the actual be self inquiry unless there is self inquiry of the actual taking place? That is no different to what you call attending to the actual. Inquiring and attending are synonymous. If you notice a tree while you are walking that is not self inquiry. If you notice a tree while you are walking you are not attending to it. It is simply being noticed. And at the same time other thoughts are arising. So inquiry of the tree or attending to the tree must mean more than the mere noticing of it. You see I'm already giving you a definition and description which you say is beyond definition. Clearly it is not because if it was beyond definition then no one would ever know what it was and you wouldn't even be discussing it. If what is actually happening is that you notice there is a tree then for self-inquiry to take place you would have to do something a little more than just notice a tree. You would have to consciously attend to that perception to make it an inquiry or be aware of a conscious attending to it. Now while you are you doing all of that where does the minus thoughts fit into this as opposed to the same practice but with thoughts. Why do you think I'm being so forensic about this?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2023 22:52:29 GMT -5
"What is the actual?" is self-inquiry, and so, beyond definition. "Attending the actual" is eyes open, walking/talking meditation. Analytic thoughts about cheggs can be fun and interesting, but are completely antithetical to the practice. So true. Just to be clear I'm not trying to undermine, question or delegitimize your practice. For you it produced obvious results and there's no need for you to defend it in any way or even explain it. My forensic analysis/questioning isn't really intended for you but for others who are thinking what the heck is this self inquiry business. And it could be a lot of fun.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 2, 2023 3:53:59 GMT -5
"What is the actual?" is self-inquiry, and so, beyond definition. "Attending the actual" is eyes open, walking/talking meditation. Analytic thoughts about cheggs can be fun and interesting, but are completely antithetical to the practice. How can the actual be self inquiry unless there is self inquiry of the actual taking place? That is no different to what you call attending to the actual. Inquiring and attending are synonymous. If you notice a tree while you are walking that is not self inquiry. If you notice a tree while you are walking you are not attending to it. It is simply being noticed. And at the same time other thoughts are arising. So inquiry of the tree or attending to the tree must mean more than the mere noticing of it. You see I'm already giving you a definition and description which you say is beyond definition. Clearly it is not because if it was beyond definition then no one would ever know what it was and you wouldn't even be discussing it. If what is actually happening is that you notice there is a tree then for self-inquiry to take place you would have to do something a little more than just notice a tree. You would have to consciously attend to that perception to make it an inquiry or be aware of a conscious attending to it. Now while you are you doing all of that where does the minus thoughts fit into this as opposed to the same practice but with thoughts. Why do you think I'm being so forensic about this?The definition is a straw man, as it doesn't directly address the question as originally stated, but instead goes off on a tangent. As far as this goes .. thinkers gonna' think. ( .. not that there's anything wrong with that ...)
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jul 2, 2023 6:57:26 GMT -5
So true. Just to be clear I'm not trying to undermine, question or delegitimize your practice. For you it produced obvious results and there's no need for you to defend it in any way or even explain it. My forensic analysis/questioning isn't really intended for you but for others who are thinking what the heck is this self inquiry business. And it could be a lot of fun. OK, but let me be more specific. Because I had spent 20 years thinking about existential questions without finding any answers, one of the meditative activities that I began pursuing was shifting attention away from thoughts to direct sensory perception. I wasn't interested in thinking because after 20 years of thinking, I realized that thinking was unlikely to reveal anything important. Consequently, I began spending more and more time simply looking in silence at the world around me. I wondered what the world would look like if mind talk ceased. I was a contractor, so if I looked at a tree, various thoughts about the tree would arise (that's a red oak, it probably contains X number of board feet of lumber in it, it's probably worth $200, etc. etc). I wondered if it was possible to just look at a tree without even thinking the word "tree." For that reason, I kept shifting attention away from thoughts, again and again, and stayed focused on what the eyes saw. This was extended to hearing, feeling, smelling, and tasting in the same way. I knew that a dog doesn't walk into a tree, but it doesn't imagine that a tree is a separate thing being looked at by a separate volitional entity. For many years after the spiritual search ended I referred to that particular meditative activity as "ATA--attending the actual." At some point a seeker asked me, "Aren't thoughts actual?" That question made me realize that I needed to make a distinction between ATA+T, which is what we call "mindfulness," and ATA-T. IOW, mindfulness is the activity of watching everything that appears, both the physical external world and the internal world of thoughts and feelings, so mindfulness would be ATA plus thoughts and feelings. ATA-T is a slightly different meditative activity because it ignores thoughts altogether. So, from my POV I don't include self enquiry as a part of ATA-T. It could be conceived in that sense because the curiosity that drives one to pursue ATA-T is a form of self enquiry, but it's more of a driver of the activity rather than the actual activity, itself. If you think about it, a meditator sitting on a cushion watching the breath is doing exactly the same thing as someone who walks in the woods looking at whatever is in front of the eyes. In both cases the individual is shifting attention away from thoughts to what can be observed without comment, labeling, or interpretation. That's one reason that I left Zen behind more than 25 years ago. I realized that I could be doing the same thing as a Zen student stting on a cushion while driving my truck or pursuing any other daily activities. The bottom line is that ATA-T, like other meditative activities, gradually leads to internal silence and sudden insights into the nature of reality. The big advantage to that activity is that it isn't limited to a thirty-minute sitting session and can be pursued anywhere and at any time, thus increasing the amount of time spent "beyond the mind."
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 2, 2023 8:19:34 GMT -5
Just to be clear I'm not trying to undermine, question or delegitimize your practice. For you it produced obvious results and there's no need for you to defend it in any way or even explain it. My forensic analysis/questioning isn't really intended for you but for others who are thinking what the heck is this self inquiry business. And it could be a lot of fun. OK, but let me be more specific. Because I had spent 20 years thinking about existential questions without finding any answers, one of the meditative activities that I began pursuing was shifting attention away from thoughts to direct sensory perception. I wasn't interested in thinking because after 20 years of thinking, I realized that thinking was unlikely to reveal anything important. Consequently, I began spending more and more time simply looking in silence at the world around me. I wondered what the world would look like if mind talk ceased. I was a contractor, so if I looked at a tree, various thoughts about the tree would arise (that's a red oak, it probably contains X number of board feet of lumber in it, it's probably worth $200, etc. etc). I wondered if it was possible to just look at a tree without even thinking the word "tree." For that reason, I kept shifting attention away from thoughts, again and again, and stayed focused on what the eyes saw. This was extended to hearing, feeling, smelling, and tasting in the same way. I knew that a dog doesn't walk into a tree, but it doesn't imagine that a tree is a separate thing being looked at by a separate volitional entity. For many years after the spiritual search ended I referred to that particular meditative activity as "ATA--attending the actual." At some point a seeker asked me, "Aren't thoughts actual?" That question made me realize that I needed to make a distinction between ATA+T, which is what we call "mindfulness," and ATA-T. IOW, mindfulness is the activity of watching everything that appears, both the physical external world and the internal world of thoughts and feelings, so mindfulness would be ATA plus thoughts and feelings. ATA-T is a slightly different meditative activity because it ignores thoughts altogether. So, from my POV I don't include self enquiry as a part of ATA-T. It could be conceived in that sense because the curiosity that drives one to pursue ATA-T is a form of self enquiry, but it's more of a driver of the activity rather than the actual activity, itself. If you think about it, a meditator sitting on a cushion watching the breath is doing exactly the same thing as someone who walks in the woods looking at whatever is in front of the eyes. In both cases the individual is shifting attention away from thoughts to what can be observed without comment, labeling, or interpretation. That's one reason that I left Zen behind more than 25 years ago. I realized that I could be doing the same thing as a Zen student stting on a cushion while driving my truck or pursuing any other daily activities. The bottom line is that ATA-T, like other meditative activities, gradually leads to internal silence and sudden insights into the nature of reality. The big advantage to that activity is that it isn't limited to a thirty-minute sitting session and can be pursued anywhere and at any time, thus increasing the amount of time spent "beyond the mind." Yes, exactly. I asked over nine years ago, how do we get back to our primordial nature? Yes, one way is ATA-T. I just bumped this thread in reply to laughter. Primordial nature is a term used by Dzogchen, of Tibetan Buddhism. Dzogchen is considered to be the epitome of Tibetan Buddhism, and for many, Buddhism period. It's almost not-a-teaching, as it shows how to directly live from one's primordial nature, also known in Dzogchen as the natural state. So I thought I'd link it, as ATA-T takes one directly to the natural state (the clean white sheet of paper).
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 5, 2023 22:06:40 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 This is the answer to that (post).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2023 1:24:33 GMT -5
Just to be clear I'm not trying to undermine, question or delegitimize your practice. For you it produced obvious results and there's no need for you to defend it in any way or even explain it. My forensic analysis/questioning isn't really intended for you but for others who are thinking what the heck is this self inquiry business. And it could be a lot of fun. OK, but let me be more specific. Because I had spent 20 years thinking about existential questions without finding any answers, one of the meditative activities that I began pursuing was shifting attention away from thoughts to direct sensory perception. I wasn't interested in thinking because after 20 years of thinking, I realized that thinking was unlikely to reveal anything important. Consequently, I began spending more and more time simply looking in silence at the world around me. I wondered what the world would look like if mind talk ceased. I was a contractor, so if I looked at a tree, various thoughts about the tree would arise (that's a red oak, it probably contains X number of board feet of lumber in it, it's probably worth $200, etc. etc). I wondered if it was possible to just look at a tree without even thinking the word "tree." For that reason, I kept shifting attention away from thoughts, again and again, and stayed focused on what the eyes saw. This was extended to hearing, feeling, smelling, and tasting in the same way. I knew that a dog doesn't walk into a tree, but it doesn't imagine that a tree is a separate thing being looked at by a separate volitional entity. For many years after the spiritual search ended I referred to that particular meditative activity as "ATA--attending the actual." At some point a seeker asked me, "Aren't thoughts actual?" That question made me realize that I needed to make a distinction between ATA+T, which is what we call "mindfulness," and ATA-T. IOW, mindfulness is the activity of watching everything that appears, both the physical external world and the internal world of thoughts and feelings, so mindfulness would be ATA plus thoughts and feelings. ATA-T is a slightly different meditative activity because it ignores thoughts altogether. So, from my POV I don't include self enquiry as a part of ATA-T. It could be conceived in that sense because the curiosity that drives one to pursue ATA-T is a form of self enquiry, but it's more of a driver of the activity rather than the actual activity, itself. If you think about it, a meditator sitting on a cushion watching the breath is doing exactly the same thing as someone who walks in the woods looking at whatever is in front of the eyes. In both cases the individual is shifting attention away from thoughts to what can be observed without comment, labeling, or interpretation. That's one reason that I left Zen behind more than 25 years ago. I realized that I could be doing the same thing as a Zen student stting on a cushion while driving my truck or pursuing any other daily activities. The bottom line is that ATA-T, like other meditative activities, gradually leads to internal silence and sudden insights into the nature of reality. The big advantage to that activity is that it isn't limited to a thirty-minute sitting session and can be pursued anywhere and at any time, thus increasing the amount of time spent "beyond the mind." I think that both sitting practice and mindfulness during activity are beneficial together. But I think it's easier to go deep into non-dual awareness in a sitting practice when you are not attending to anything else other than yourself. It's not so easy to experience that kind of depth when you're driving or cooking dinner or writing an email because they are all distractions. I think that sitting practice is better to cultivate this awareness which then becomes more readily available for practice quite spontaneously when you are engaged in activity.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jul 6, 2023 7:16:13 GMT -5
OK, but let me be more specific. Because I had spent 20 years thinking about existential questions without finding any answers, one of the meditative activities that I began pursuing was shifting attention away from thoughts to direct sensory perception. I wasn't interested in thinking because after 20 years of thinking, I realized that thinking was unlikely to reveal anything important. Consequently, I began spending more and more time simply looking in silence at the world around me. I wondered what the world would look like if mind talk ceased. I was a contractor, so if I looked at a tree, various thoughts about the tree would arise (that's a red oak, it probably contains X number of board feet of lumber in it, it's probably worth $200, etc. etc). I wondered if it was possible to just look at a tree without even thinking the word "tree." For that reason, I kept shifting attention away from thoughts, again and again, and stayed focused on what the eyes saw. This was extended to hearing, feeling, smelling, and tasting in the same way. I knew that a dog doesn't walk into a tree, but it doesn't imagine that a tree is a separate thing being looked at by a separate volitional entity. For many years after the spiritual search ended I referred to that particular meditative activity as "ATA--attending the actual." At some point a seeker asked me, "Aren't thoughts actual?" That question made me realize that I needed to make a distinction between ATA+T, which is what we call "mindfulness," and ATA-T. IOW, mindfulness is the activity of watching everything that appears, both the physical external world and the internal world of thoughts and feelings, so mindfulness would be ATA plus thoughts and feelings. ATA-T is a slightly different meditative activity because it ignores thoughts altogether. So, from my POV I don't include self enquiry as a part of ATA-T. It could be conceived in that sense because the curiosity that drives one to pursue ATA-T is a form of self enquiry, but it's more of a driver of the activity rather than the actual activity, itself. If you think about it, a meditator sitting on a cushion watching the breath is doing exactly the same thing as someone who walks in the woods looking at whatever is in front of the eyes. In both cases the individual is shifting attention away from thoughts to what can be observed without comment, labeling, or interpretation. That's one reason that I left Zen behind more than 25 years ago. I realized that I could be doing the same thing as a Zen student stting on a cushion while driving my truck or pursuing any other daily activities. The bottom line is that ATA-T, like other meditative activities, gradually leads to internal silence and sudden insights into the nature of reality. The big advantage to that activity is that it isn't limited to a thirty-minute sitting session and can be pursued anywhere and at any time, thus increasing the amount of time spent "beyond the mind." I think that both sitting practice and mindfulness during activity are beneficial together. But I think it's easier to go deep into non-dual awareness in a sitting practice when you are not attending to anything else other than yourself. It's not so easy to experience that kind of depth when you're driving or cooking dinner or writing an email because they are all distractions. I think that sitting practice is better to cultivate this awareness which then becomes more readily available for practice quite spontaneously when you are engaged in activity. I fully agree, and that's why I tell people that they won't fall into NS doing ATA-T during everyday activities (the only exception I know about is Ramakrishna). One can go much deeper doing sitting meditation. I ended up using a wide range of both activities. When driving around I might be focused on "universal sound" (the white noise that is always present), when walking in the woods I'd be looking and listening, and in the evenings and on weekends I'd often spend several hours sitting in an easy chair pursuing breath awareness, listening, etc. FWIW, and I'm sure that you already know this, focusing on a sound while sitting can result in NS.
|
|